A face palm moment or two

DfpThis little factoid hit me like a slap in the face, a face palm moment. Duh. It was that the Berlin Wall “fell” on November 9, 1989. 11/9, or 9/11 turned around. I don’t know why those numbers are important to our closeted leaders, but they, along with 33 and 8 turn up in almost every hoax.

By itself, that date was just another indication that the event was a façade, that other changes were in the works. The Soviet Union, the supposed Evil Empire, dissolved. There were no deaths or struggles. We are told that mere assembly of people in Prague, the so-called Velvet Revolution, for example, brought about regime change. This is utter nonsense. Large crowds have no direction, no arms, and cannot force change. They can put out a pretty good vibration during rock concerts if enough cocaine, pot and booze circulate, but are otherwise wasted energy.

I remember a news report from my home state of Montana from many years ago. the early 90s I think. We supposedly had missiles housed in silos in the Great Falls area, pointed at Russia. After the thaw, these silos were unveiled, after having supposedly been disarmed. Inside reporters found primitive living quarters and primitive technology, floppy disks that were nine inches in diameter, the kind that could perhaps hold a few printed pages of data. This was the “guided missile” technology that was set up to attack our global menace to the north (and then south, after crossing the pole). I did not know what to make if that. It seemed an anachronism.

At the Miles Mathis conference I attended in 2016, there was a guy who seemed to have authority, who spent his time seated (I originally had a typo here, “sedated,” close in meaning) on the couch enmeshed in calculations and ignoring everything else. I’ve forgotten his name, but found him off-putting, unfriendly and seemingly exercising sway over Mathis. When I mentioned the Great Falls silos and 9-inch floppies, he got agitated, insisting the technology was real. In other words, the Cold War, which was fake, was real. He knew better, and he was pissed that I brought it up.

This is all just evidential data, left for us to assemble. I am doing my best. At this point I think this guy was the “science guy” behind Mathis. He had no business there other than to monitor the goings on. All very strange. I am not sure what to make of it.

As usual, I am rambling in circling to a point, another slap in the face having to do with timing. Global Warming/Climate Change is also fake, but when did it come about? On June 24, 1988, James Hansen of NASA did the rollout before a Senate hearing, set on a very hot day with windows open and air conditioning turned off. This was over a year in advance of the fall of the symbolic wall, but surely those in power knew what lies were to be unveiled ahead.

So in reading Michael Crichton’s State of Fear, my face is even redder for the face slapping it brings …

“Fear,” Evans said.

Exactly. For 50 years, western nations had maintained their citizens in the state of perpetual fear. Fear of the other side. Fear of nuclear war. The Communist menace. The Iron Curtain. The Evil Empire. And within the Communist countries, the same in reverse. Fear of us. Then, suddenly, in the fall of 1989, it was all finished. Gone, vanished. Over.  The fall of the Berlin Wall created the vacuum of fear. Nature abhors a vacuum. Something had to fill it.” (pp 571-572)

That something was Climate Change. This explains everything, The constant lying and fake science, the bogus news reporting of blown-up events, and why men like Michael Mann and Al Gore, professional liars and near morons in their public pronouncements, are held in high esteem by the media. They are spearchuckers, our new Cold Warriors, tasked with creating fear. Their job is simple, To lie, lie, and then lie some more.

I’ve wasted too much time exposing their lies. They don’t matter. The lies have never mattered. It’s all about fear.

By the way, when I mentioned Crichton in an earlier post, Tyrone chimed in with an interesting comment that merely presumed that his death, 11/4/2008, was fake. Only then did I notice that that date is, if you look closely, “88.” (State of Fear was one of the few of his books that was not made into a movie.)

Unrelated footnote: I recently took Thomas Pynchon’s book, only a third read, Against the Day, to our local used book store for credit. I told the clerk I thought it was unreadable, and that life was too short. If there are within that tedious tract gems of wisdom, I ask others to spare us the agony and just bring them to us.

94 thoughts on “A face palm moment or two

  1. The 1980s also began the war on terrorism. Libya was assigned responsibility for plane hijacking bombings: Pan Am Flight 73 in 1986, Flight 103 in 1988 and UTA (French) Flight 772 in 1989. Fear is manufactured from many, many prearranged sources. The signs and symbols remain with us in our unconscious.


    1. Yeah, terrorism is like climate change in that they work it really hard in the schools. Kids are shown Al Gore’s movie as part of curriculum. A British judge ruled that if schools show that movie, they have to detail all the things in it that are wrong. We have no such rule here.

      What was Columbine, after all, if not mass indoctrination of kids, teaching them to be afraid of anyone who is different? We had a scare here in Colorado where kids were told that a gal got off a plane and was heading over to shoot up Columbine again on the 20 year anniversary. The kids in our grandson’s elementary school were told that she drove by the school! She was fake, she did not exist, so they had to fake kill her. It was a farce, meant to scare the shit out of children.


  2. Fear maybe one prong of a multi-pronged agenda behind climate change propaganda… They always seem to be multi purpose.

    I seem to recall that fear motive was mentioned in the Club of Rome gameplan for CC, from the 70s, that one comes across on various conspiracy sites… Not sure why/ how it’s been leaked… If genuine.

    Anyway they outline the idea of a global threat to unite all of humanity with a common “enemy.” This enemy being… humanity itself, ha. And they speak about it as a replacement for the various Enemy Others of nation states, as you surmise. Also those propaganda theorists like Jaques Ellul discuss this use of fear of the other as a cohesive force in society, and more.

    Did Miles have any response to the silo story? I would imagine he’d agree the cold war was phony, unlike the guy on the couch.


  3. Am I off-base thinking this relates to the phenomenon JLB mentioned–TPTB putting the “truth” in our faces? Most people won’t notice the obvious holes in the mainstream reality show known as “news,” but when people do, it’s devastating.

    When I was an “nontraditional” (read: old) undergrad student a few years ago, a young guy in my department walked out of one of his classes looking dazed, traumatized, almost like he could topple over in a light breeze. A professor in one of his classes had shown (no doubt without the university’s sanction) a documentary exposing the Sandy Hook hoax. This kid couldn’t wrap his mind around it. “Where are all those kids’ bodies?” he asked me several times.

    The hoaxes traumatize and, for those few who see through it, the exposure of the hoax traumatizes. Multiple levels of fear designed to ensnare all demographics, personal types and educational levels.


    1. Someone just posted a short video on the Fetzer deal, and I let it through and was going to explain to him how this is just a booster shot, that Fetzer is an Intel agent and that there was no real hearing and there will be no payment.

      Why bother? The case was hung out there for this reason, that the hoax was so poorly done that they needed to bolster the case with this stuff. People who might have had doubts are once again under the spell.


  4. Yeah, the Fetzer thing and the bogus Alex Jones trial not only reinforce the hoax through pure emotionalism, they also have the added benefit of blackwashing free speech.


  5. Mark,
    The guy at the conference who you suspect was some sort of authority over the science aspect of MM’s work is named Jeff.
    I feel safe in naming him publicly, because Miles did so himself in the second paragraph of his paper on Pi=4.

    He was indeed only interested in the science discussion during the conference, and had little to no interest in the conspiracy talk. I don’t judge him harshly for that, seeing how others (including both me and yourself) had little to contribute to the science stuff.
    (In retrospect, it was a mistake for Miles to combine both science and conspiracy into one conference, as there just wasn’t enough of an overlap in interest/knowledge between the science folks and the conspiracy folks.)

    I don’t remember the specific conversation that you reference above with Jeff, but my recollection of him is more positive than yours. I found him reserved but friendly. He certainly had a bit of an air of intellectual superiority, and as I mentioned, he had no patience for conspiracy topics. I found nothing suspicious about his attitude or behavior, however.

    In fact, when out at lunch, in a more social setting, he was perfectly friendly and talkative, in my opinion. (in the photo of the lunch that I have sent you in the past, he is sitting to your left, smiling… looking like any typical nerdy/sciency type. I certainly never felt that he had any sway over Miles, or that Miles deferred to him at all. Of course it is possible that you noticed interactions or dynamics between them that I missed. But I never once felt anything unusual going on with Jeff.
    (for what it’s worth, Jeff wasn’t at the conference on the final day, as he left early, just as you did)

    A group of us from the conference (Jeff included) kept in touch for a while afterward, ostensibly to communicate over a video on pi=4 that one of the guys was working on (the ex-football player, if you remember him). Jeff took part in the online discussion and was working on a model of his own that he shared with us.
    This doesn’t prove that he isn’t what you speculate he is, of course, but I’d question whether or not someone who is running the entire MM science operation would bother wasting time with such exchanges. The going response to that argument seems to be that such interactions add legitimacy to the “realness” of MM, and that by me simply bringing attention to it, means that I fell for it, and am now an unwilling dupe in furthering the whole “operation”.
    I’ll leave it for others to decide how likely that is.

    I’m not sure how long you have harbored these suspicions over the role Jeff played/plays… certainly you never mentioned it during our extended group email discussions regarding Miles and the conference, back in the Straight/Josh/Annette days… but I gotta say, this seems like an observation that has been formulated based on your current perspectives/suspicions about Miles.


    1. I harbor no ill will toward the man we met, the purported MM. This may be a reference before your time, but you know of him, Johnny Carson. An odd bit of connecting, I admit, but Carson, on air, was an engaging and charming man who off air was shy and unable to express himself with convincing sincerity. You could see in his posture, erect but pulling back his chest, that he’d rather not engage anyone. MM was not a comedian, but he was aloof and reserved, and not the assertive and brash spokesman I find in his writing. He too was held back and reserved. I doubt he trusts anyone, but take it a step further, what if he is merely a pawn? Then his appearances in person are going to be staged and he is going to be called on to play a part, and the whole experience, unless he is a trained actor, will be painful.

      What do we know? Did we see him write? He offered to show us his computer, in a back room, and we all declined. Did we see him paint? We saw paintings, but no other evidence, especially no odors of oil painting, which are strong. What we have in terms of hard evidence, in the end, is you and your girlfriend. You interacted with him, discussed painting and a local artist, and thereafter appeared an MM piece on that subject. It’s good evidence, as your own personal sincerity is apparent. I take it at face value.

      This leaves me confounded, as my two interactions with Jeff were negative, the one I described in this piece, and the other wherein he attacked me personally and the blog, as at that time I was doing a lot of facial work, and he harshly condemned it. But this scientist was very aware of my work, and had discussed it with MM. It forced me to reexamine the work, but I stand by its value, but the larger point was that he knew details of what I was up to. Further, facial analysis is worth pursuing. On our recent trip to Italy, leaving Atlanta, we presented our passports, and stood before a camera. Our faces were instantly matched to a database, presto, and our names appeared and were matched to our passports. There is something powerful there, and I was being warned away from it by Jeff and Miles both. I am an amateur sleuth, but was on the right path, and Jeff was not nice about it, in fact, derisive. Miles too, to this day, insists that facial analysis is a matter of examination without attention to graphic details, something only a trained portrait artist can do, he says. I beg to differ. It’s far more complex, and detailed examination using a computer and measurements is far more useful. He’s both wrong and arrogant about that, and was brash in warning me away. It is tedious work requiring hours staring into a screen, but I need to get back into it. The discoveries we made were milestones in revelation of what lies beneath.

      What happened after? Josh attacks the blog and leaves, Straight up and leaves, Miles attacks the blog. Vexman takes the blog down an abyss. I’m a deer in the headlights, my problem naïveté and native sincerity. I am left to piece it all together, what you refer to as a current formula. I have had a chance to blend both my personal experience with Kevin, who like Straight, appears and vanishes into thin air, and the mysterious Bob Zeruncle (sp), whose identity via Josh I am certain MM knows, but whom MM insists against all reason is MI6. That is a huge tell, as MM there is telling a bold lie. he knows who Bob is, and is brash in attacking this person for benefit of his readers. That alone tells me something ain’t right with MM.

      It is all just evidence, and I do not know the answer. As Kevin said when he left, MM may be a limited hangout, but he’s the best one going on, so Kevin withdrew all his writing. But we are left to our own devices to grasp it all. If MM (those initials appear in limited hangouts frequently, as Steve K reminds us, = 13 + 13, or 8*) is for real, then I need more evidence of a real person. Right now, all I have is you. If he is a front, then I need to know if it is for real and sincere people who are releasing real secrets (which would only be done with permission). If it is a mixture of fact and fiction, then I need to know which is which, and that itself is a path fraught with deceit and misdirection.

      One final note … read his Elvis paper again sometime, and get to the part where he talks about twins, and then suggests that McCartney might be twins. That set me off on a path of discovery, but in retrospect appears to be a golden nugget, that is, hidden information meant to be discovered. I could have been anyone, but it was a setup. I see that now clearly in retrospect.

      I don’t have the answers. Only better questions than I had then.

      *Miles Mathis, Michael Moore, Michael Mann, Max Martin, all seeming public faces are large and suspicious enterprises … not to mention Mickey Mouse. And Minnie.


      1. It is most certainly a mix of fact and fiction, with the golden nuggets mixed in with extremely subtle and insidious misdirection. I don’t read Mathis anymore without trying to find out the WHY behind the article. There might be some interesting conclusions in the paper itself, but more than anything I am asking myself WHY is this paper being released right now and WHAT is it trying to get me to subtly disregard?


        1. Just one example: the repeating of “it’s all to get you to buy more stuff” is an incredibly weak and unsupported proposition that an MM paper drops in numerous places like it explains everything.

          We really shouldn’t refer to a Mathis paper or Mathis as “he”. This only reinforces the misdirection. I’m not doubting the guy you all met is real or unconnected. He is connected. I’m just not confident at all that he really was born as Miles Mathis and became this genius. I think the guy is assuming an identity, possibly of a real Miles Mathis who existed. His real name could be Jeff. We should just refer to him as Jeff. We have as much evidence his name is Jeff than that it’s Miles Mathis.

          Another thing I’m noticing is a popular cold water item in a Mathis paper? Satanism and aliens. Often ridiculed in passing and in subtle ways.


          1. I’ve noticed those “weak and unsupported propositions” too, but it could equally mean that MM is just a typical flawed human whose reasoning is not always razor sharp.


          2. It doesn’t really fit for me though that the Mathis writers are just incompetent to wrap it all up under the neat bow of “it’s all to get you to buy more stuff” since these papers have admittedly blown open some incredible doors for me. Someone THAT enlightened should not be making such a deep and fundamental oversight that glosses over 10 betrer/more sinister explanations like they don’t even exist and have no credibility. It FEELS like misdirection to just say “ah yes, this explains it all”. There is an implication of “don’t look over here or over there” to claim one easy explanation like that. A person with such unbelievable insights and legitimate intentions wouldn’t be making that kind of a mistake. It doesn’t make sense.


      2. It’s fascinating to listen in on your conversation about this. Without trying to denigrate it, I want to throw in something I’ve been thinking about lately: How worrying about who is and isn’t a limited hangout is itself rather limiting.

        I’ve been looking at my own compulsion to figure this out and questioning it. Why should I care if Miles Mathis is a limited hangout? Mightn’t it be better to sharpen my own critical thinking skills, while also learning to trust my own instincts about what’s being said, and how it’s being said, to determine its value? I wonder if my need to know that this person is or isn’t a limited hangout is rooted in a need to trust certain sources of information unthinkingly. The lazy indulgence of this need on a massive scale allows our media, schools and politicians to get away with all the shenanigans we talk about here.

        These days, I check in on Miles’s site periodically and skim through the latest paper to see if it’s at the level of his better papers or if it’s just more of the same pointless bullshit he’s been shoveling into different piles for quite some time now. Usually, it’s the latter, so I stop skimming, close the tab and move on with my life. I would do this whether I knew for certain he was a limited hangout, or knew for certain that he wasn’t. Everything about him that turns me off would turn me off either way.

        I realize the two of you are coming from a very different perspective. You’ve actually met the guy, and are both much more involved in “conspiracy culture” than I am. Still, I’d be interested to hear your thoughts on the potential primrose path that limited hangout accusations might lead to. Quite a few authors (Dave McGowan) who now seem quite obviously to have been limited hangouts accused other writers of being limited hangouts. Maybe this is a game that limited hangouts want us to play. It keeps us (or, I should say, has often kept me) in a rather primitive us/them, good guy/bad guy mentality.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. I disagree. It’s important. You shouldn’t be obsessing about it, but there is plenty enough evidence on the Mathis site to have come to a conclusion about this. Mine is near certainty that something is amiss. It’s not something I obsess about, but it allows me to read the papers in a completely different context.

          If you set aside the LH question, you allow yourself to be much more susceptible to the insidious misdirection. That’s why it is important.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. You may be right. I’m probably coming from to extreme a viewpoint. It’s obviously important to read everything with a healthy dose of skepticism and critical thinking, no matter how reliable the source seems to be. But completely disregarding the question of LH, which is the extreme I jumped to, isn’t really practical either, now that I think about it. I was bothered by how carelessly the accusation is sometimes thrown around, but those accusations can carry as much information about the accusers as the accused if they are looked at critically.


          2. The importance of the LH in the matter of Dave McGowan is easy to see … that he let go with a lot of important information, that most of the famous musicians in the LA scene in the 60s and 70s had Intelligence connections. He never got around to investigating the meaning of this. But far more important was that they faked their deaths. He stopped short of that except for a mild hint that Jim Morrison’s was suspicious. I don’t know how it came about, I think Tyrone was involved, but we kept pushing and pushing with these deaths, wondering what happens to them. I assumed they merely took on new low-profile assignments, and lived in anonymity. Then Bobby Fuller turned up as Bill O’Reilly (where I think Tyrone planted this seed), Janis Joplin as Amy Goodman, Brandon DeWilde as Thom Hartmann, my favorite, Bruce Lee as Judge Lance Ito, and others, and while mistakes were made, it was becoming apparent that prominent people, many in news, were government stooges. That is important information, revealing and enlightening. And this is why, if Mathis is a LH, he would tell me angrily to back off from facial analysis, as it was spilling too many beans. He would attempt to discredit the technique. I’ve come to trust it, but accept limitations and pitfalls, and am looking forward to more of that type of work.

            I am still looking forward to a MM piece on the great climate hoax, the biggest psyop going. Why has he not broached the subject?


      3. Mark,

        I appreciate the effort and detail that you put into your response.
        You had brought up the science guy at the conference and your guesses at his motives for being there. As far as I knew, this was a new theory, or at least one that I hadn’t seen you present, and since I knew the guy’s name, and remembered him well, I thought that you might be interested in hearing my assessment of him.
        I realize that my thoughts were unsolicited, and perhaps unwanted, but I took a chance and went ahead anyway.
        The goal wasn’t to change your mind about him or about MM… but simply to give my perspective.

        Clearly, we both had different interactions with the man, but I believe what you say about his attitude toward you.
        I will humbly suggest, however, that his attitude and actions could be interpreted more innocently than your guesses.
        Jeff had (we were told) been to previous conferences, and as I mentioned, he was only interested in the science talk.
        My impression of him, was that he was annoyed that the conference was split between science/conspiracy, and that it was a waste of his time to have to put up with it the conspiracy talk.

        I don’t doubt that he was “aware” of your work. He had most likely interacted with Miles leading up to the conference, probably asking about all the other attendees, and trying to gauge how interested he would be in interacting with us for an entire week.
        He was likely prepared to be dismissive of you… simply because he is a scientific/normy type, who is dissmissive of all conspiracy talk. Perhaps he looked at your blog ahead of time, to see what you were about? Not because you were baited into some sort of trap, but because of more innocent motives? If I had known you had a website going in to the conference, I would have checked it out myself. Ironically, I didn’t know about your website until you showed up at that Fakeologist post that I was commenting on, a couple of weeks after the conference ended. Either you or someone there mentioned your blog, so I checked it out, and the rest is history!

        Anyway, I’d suggest that if Jeff was some sort of authority figure, in as sophisticated an operation as some believe the “MM project” to be, he could have denied entry to you altogether.
        To take it further, why invite any of us silly conspiracy folks? If he’s the head of the “science department”, why place him in a position where he could potentially cause a problem by, say, pissing off Mark Tokarski?

        (as an aside, I’m keenly aware that now that you are entertaining the thought that members of the conference were “in on it”, that I may be currently under suspicion in your mind. There’s nothing I can do about that, other than to point out that if two of the members were compromised… why not 3, or all of them? It would take some amount of hubris to go down that path, though. Anyway, all I can do is honestly recount my experiences… which is all I’ve ever done with regards to Miles and the conference, and hope you take it “in face value”, as you say)

        This isn’t related to Jeff, but I will respond to a couple of things you wrote above…

        You mentioned having no ill will toward MM. If this is true, I commend you.
        Personally, I feel you have plenty of reason to be pissed at him (assuming he is who we are told he is). I think I understand his reasons for wanting to distance himself from POM, but I think his attack on you was bush league.
        You aren’t the only person I know who he has acted poorly toward, and it bothers me immensely. I don’t even bother trying to email him about things anymore. In my opinion, it’s a waste of time. (more on this below)
        Of course I know Carson! (I may be older than you remember)
        And I am aware of the stories we are told about his shyness, etc. I assume they are true, but Carson was surely juiced and we really can’t believe anything about him, in my perspective.
        I always enjoyed your facial analysis, even if I don’t agree with all of it. Some of it seems spot on to me. Like any research, there are bound to be hits and misses. So be it! I say keep at it, especially since it is a passion of yours. 🙂
        I don’t comment on the “value” of Miles’ papers. Like most people, there are some that I like more than others. I think that you and I both were quite influenced by some of his papers from a few years back. For me, the Tate/Manson paper was always the biggie.

        However, I found what I consider to be a glaringly obvious mistake in that paper, and I once reached out to Miles to point it out… thinking he would be appreciative.
        He proceeded to argue with me about it, and insisted that he was correct.
        The “mistake” was not a huge point, and it doesn’t really effect the paper at all, but I was surprised at how beligerent he was in responding to me… even though I approached him in a polite way, and offered multiple pieces of “evidence” to back my claim.
        (some may take that interaction as evidence of MM’s enormous ego… some may take it as evidence that the person I interacted with via email, wasn’t the same person that I had interacted with at the conference.)

        The point being is that (as other commenters on this thread have pointed out), yes, one must read MM with a discerning eye. One must be capable of thinking for themself, and parsing through the good and bad.

        Finally, I hope you never feel like I am arguing with you about MM or that I am stating that I “know” anything that trumps your own observations. I’ll repeat, all I ever try to do is to recount what happened and what I experienced. Sometimes your memories don’t mesh with mine, and it’s those times I feel compelled to give my account, for posterity.


        1. sorry about the formatting issues in my long response above. The final product didn’t present itself as I had typed it out, if that makes sense.


        2. I hope that you don’t imagine I have such an ego that I suspect any or all of those at the conference were there for my benefit. That would be nonsensical. I’ll take it a step further … I said that MM suggesting that McCartney was twins was a planted “golden nugget.” Indeed it was, but I do not for a second imagine it was planted for me to find. It was for anyone.

          Jeff was an asshole to me, and I do take it personally. Maybe he is just an asshole. I do not like thee, Dr. Fell ….

          Let’s step back … MM is said to be a savant, one who has unearthed mistakes made by the most well-known scientists in history, including Einstein and Newton (men who at least possessed modesty). He is an astronomical physicist, a mathematician, and a portrait artist. He is a sleuth who has uncovered the greatest hoaxes of our lives. He is a scratch golfer. He figured out who wrote Shakespeare, and is also a chess master. He lives in a small house in Taos, can’t maintain a relationship for long, drives a meter-maid buggy, has no visible means of support.

          Sleuth that. That’s all any of us are trying to do. The interesting thing is that the information released through him resonates. I sleuthed for myself that the JFK morgue photos were fake, that the photo of Jackie and LBJ was fake, and that ergo the man is right. The assassination was fake. So many other things are then seen to be fake as well, and all of life changes, I have a positive lift in my outlook, as I can be apart from it all. Nothing much is real, nothing to get up about. Nothing is real except the people we meet and know to be genuine. There are a few, and they plus us using our own brains to experience life is what makes it all worthwhile.

          So whoever he is, whatever he is, he is either a doing a service or being used to perform one for the very few of us who can cut through the crap. But I refuse to believe in him, personally. Something ain’t right … a lot ain’t right.

          From our back deck we look down on the city of Denver. There are hundreds of thousands of people living down there. I would be a fool to imagine I am smarter than all of them. I’ve met too many smart people to think I stand out. Even at a small gathering I meet more accomplished people than me. Imagine that I claimed to have outsmarted Newton and Galileo. Would you want to make friendly with such a loon?

          Liked by 1 person

          1. Mark,

            Maarten mentioned that your science guy was an “older” man.
            The science guy that I thought you were referring to was not the old guy, but the young guy (the one who I mentioned was sitting to your left in the lunch photo).

            If I was incorrect in that assumption, I apologize for bringing Jeff’s name up.
            I think it is fine in general, since miles has done so publicly.
            However, I brought his name up here in reaction to a percieved accusation of him being some sort of high level govt mole (or something), and even though my words were in defense of him, the error was in my assumption.

            So, if you were indeed talking about the old guy as being the science guru, then perhaps the comments that name the other man should be deleted?

            My suggestions of potential confirmation bias still stand, in regards to your thoughts of the older man, but I don’t have any actual interactions or defense of him, other than my personal impressions, which clearly mean nothing to any one other than myself.


      4. How come you never replied to anything exposed about you at Josh’s blog? Why is it you never even tried to answer those questions? I’ll tell ya why: ’cause you can’t answer them and keep your face at the same time, that’s why. All I can hear is crickets and baby cry.

        You’re smart enough to know that limited hangout needs to be proven. Or any such false claim makes you look even bigger jerk than you already are. If MM is LH, where’s your proof about it? Are you gonna bring it to the table or keep repeating the lie until you believe it yourself? It’s all coming back at ya like a boomerang and you can’t even notice it. That’s pretty sad. What’s more is that you can’t see for real who really made you look like a fool. You did notice it, surprisingly, but can’t do the math for yourself. Is it above your pay grade to see whose work dragged you down factually? It wasn’t Miles paper about you, my dear. You’re only shooting the messenger here for tellin ya the truth to your face. Think hard and be honest about it and the answer will present itself.


          1. Congrats for guessing it right. To make a wrong conclusion is about error in judgment. Sticking to it after ya realized how wrong ya were is about few other options. One being ignorance, which is bush league for your intellectual level in this case. Any other option brings it down to malicious attempt of spreading doubts and lies.

            Fact check: what’s Miles’ greatest contribution to this world? Charge field theory. Memorize that before you judge him for any history paper. Or art. Or his golfing skills or whatever. What he went through for it can’t be fathomed by you. It makes your attempt look pathetic in comparison.

            You’re chasin’ ya ego instead of the truth. Can’t make one single case of Miles being LH. Yet you keep pushing it and allowing others to do it. Shame on you, Mark. If ya ain’t a spook by profession, you sure fit description perfectly. Don’t shoot the messenger this time. Think hard first before doing it. You owe that to y’self.


        1. I definitely never believed Mark was saying that he had concrete proof. We wouldn’t really be capable of finding a smoking gun on MM being an LH, but I think at this point you could say there is a preponderance of evidence.


    2. Seattle, I am a comment lurker and know nothing of the dynamics at play here, but having studied the Mathis situation and being about 99% certain something is amiss, your comments strike me as highly suspicious in that they always seem to be what I imagine someone would say if they were attempting to maintain the credibility of the Mathis charade. Just an observation. I don’t know you at all but I’m very suspicious of you. Cannot reconcile what I see in the Mathis site as being an obvious LH, with your comments on it all. Your being a commenter here tells me you should be able to see past the obvious lies, but then I read your comments here about Mathis and I get very confused. Again, only an observation. I’m not infallible and neither are you, but my mole detector goes off pretty bad whenever I read your comments about the Mathis situation. I’ve come to believe the misdirection is subtle and everywhere, so if I’m wrong I hope you don’t take it personally. But if I’m right, then, well…we’ll never know.

      Liked by 1 person

  6. Mickey Mantle, Mitch McConnell, Marissa Mayer, Marilyn Monroe, M&Ms, Marilyn Manson, and so many more.

    The Crown loves its numbers, but not nearly as much as putting a stick into the anthill and watching from above. Screw the City of London and its cast of psychotic parasites.


    1. “putting a stick in the anthill”? Did you mean “putting a dick in the asshole”?

      that makes me recall a comical exchange between Will Hunting and the Gay Professor, when Will said “I don’t care if you putt from the rough!”

      Just possible guesses on what CROWN really means!
      Copy Right Own Western Nations
      CopyRight OWN (everything)

      Since Mark opened the door to “88” and there seems to be a bit of interest on the principal of (letter = number) I hope this post is not seen as offensive.
      NUMBERS is the “fourth” book of the KJV.

      To see the rest of this thought process follow this sausage link:


  7. It’s all about fear.


    Climate catastrophe, nuclear catastrophe, asteroid from ‘outer space’ catastrophe…

    Each one more hoaxy than the last.

    What I wonder is, do humans have an innate interest in or desire for fear, a yeraning for stories of catastrophe? Is the fear-based paradigm pushed on our telescreens entirely forced, or is there an element of ‘giving people what they want’?

    In 1984, the masses are given their Two Minutes of Hate, to placate the darkness in their hearts. They are also given fake boogeymen, and even fake war. Was Orwell (whoever or whatever ‘Orwell’ was) trying to convey or explore the idea that, yes, humans do indeed thirst for tales of conquest, disaster, death, destruction, and evil?

    I was born ’87, so I was a young and impressionable child when I first saw Terminator 2: Judgement Day. This is the film in which a nuclear explosion is daydreamed in vivid colour and sound, the special effects were advanced at the time and hold up pretty well, almost thirty years on.

    You all know the scene I’m talking about. For people my age, the scene is etched into our brains, into our minds.

    A lady is looking at a playground. A mother is playing with her child. The first lady tries to warn them about what is coming. She shakes the fence. It matters not. There’s a flash. An eery sound is heard. And then it hits. The shockwave spreads through the city. The innocent mothers and children spontaneously combust, flames are everywhere. The screams stop only when the combustion begins.

    I haven’t seen the film in a while, everything typed above is from memory. As I said, etched into my memory, by a blockbuster film starring and directed by Hollywood’s biggest names as the time. According to wikipedia, it was also the most expensive film ever made at the time…

    Nukes are, of course, a hoax.

    Nobody died nobody got hurt by any nukes, period.

    Why the title? ‘Judgement Day?’

    Apocalypse, according to its etymology, means ‘unveiling’.

    Sarah Connor was having a nightmare about nukes, which is all nukes are: a nightmare. On our telescreens. A horror movie right there on my TV, shocking me right our of my brain as an impressionable young lad.

    And yet so many of us pay our money to see this stuff on the big screen (and then re-watch on our home telescreens). How much does the fictional horror quench an inner thirst for dark images, dark sounds, dark dreams of the future?

    I look back through all of the most dogmatic climate change believers I’ve ever known, and I notice a pattern: many of these people want the world to end, because their lives are crap. Things didn’t work out the way school and TV promised. Same thing can be said of the ‘conspiracy’ types who enjoy reading zerohedge and other fearporn outlets constantly predicting the ‘collapse’.

    Perhaps these people are seeking out an external end to their own inner turmoil.

    Just my opinion, of course. Cheers.

    Liked by 1 person

  8. The latest Mathis paper is by “River Bottom” and is clearly a continuation of the last Mathis paper, yet it uses the pseudonym and contains “second hand” Mathis notes. This whole thing is just so dang strange that I am kind of fascinated by it. I’ve pretty much stopped picking up useful information from the papers, but I keep coming back for the sheer weirdness of it.

    PS: I have always believed the guest papers were a dodge on the impossible output. I don’t believe the man in Taos is anything more than a paid imposter. I don’t believe he painted that art, or has an actual birth name of “Miles W. Mathis”. I think he is just some guy who bears a faint resemblance to the real, original Miles W. Mathis, who was really an artist, and is probably dead. Why is the art all still so old, if that is still how he makes his living? Why are there never any changes to the available works page, if that is how he makes his living? Why are works on both the Commissioned Portraits page AND the Available Works page? If it was a commissioned portrait, doesn’t that mean the person paid to keep it? THE WHOLE THING DOESN’T PASS THE SMELL TEST. This is why I get highly suspicious of anyone defending it as legitimate…they should know better.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. As for the whole idea that “when I spoke with him at the conference, one of the topics appeared in his next paper”…this is WAY less difficult to pull off than you realize. Not to mention this occurred at the only “annual” conference anyone has ever witnessed.

      It basically goes like this:

      So what did you talk about with them?

      “MM” Imposter:
      Oh, we talked about X.

      Handlers (into tape recorder):
      Note to self, make next paper about X.

      It’s really not so wild of a thought. And if you question why they would go to the trouble, I mean this whole conference was probably to create eyewitness accounts within the “community” speaking to the veracity of MM being a real, legitimate guy. Once you assume that, the idea that some topic got incorporated into the next paper actually makes perfect sense, as it would have been really the entire idea…convince others in the community that MM is on the up-and-up.


    2. And identical art pieces being on the commissioned portrait page and the available works page simultaneously is a huge problem. The kind of thing that I’m sure “they” could lob some excuse for, but as far as I’m concerned there is no legitimate explanation for that. There is no legitimate explanation for the Mathis papers in general.

      To close the topic of the art, the last thing that got put up as “new” art was clearly a slightly modified version of a charcoal drawing that is on the Sold page (a woman from the back lying nude) and is visible behind the real Mathis in the main images. If it’s “new”, then why is it a verbatim copy of a drawing that was done in the mid 90’s? Why are even supposed “new” works simply drafts of other old works? My belief? THEY really do have the entire collection of the actual artist Mathis, and they simply uploaded a piece they hadn’t uploaded before.

      And if you think I’m stretching this too far, I suggest you wake up. Intelligence most definitely has identities that they can use for various purposes, and owning the art collection of the actual Mathis is exactly what they would do to make it a convincing cover identity.

      I have heard nothing that nullifies the idea that the guy you met in Taos was anything but an imposter. The art being all over the walls is actually TOO convenient, as no artist decorates their home with their own work from decades ago. That stuff was put there to help sell the veracity of this guy really being Mathis. And how hard is it to talk about art? “Oh, I painted this when I was in Bruges. We had just got back from backpacking and I was nailing this amazing blonde”. I’m sure he had a story for every painting. The Talented Mr. Mathis.

      Liked by 1 person

  9. @BMSeattle

    Although Mark has said it here only recently, I can vouch for the fact that in private communications he expressed the sentiment shortly after the conference in Taos that the older man there was a “handler” for the Mathis figure . This is not a new opinion on his part, just newly articulated in public.

    You have given us a name for this person: Jeff XXXXXX. To my knowledge, there are four forums online where MM fans discuss the science articles. These are:

    Josh’s site:

    The Miles Mathis Revolution Facebook page:

    And then a couple of other sites that I learned about through Uncle Bob’s piece and some comments following that:


    The name of Jeff XXXXXX appears nowhere on these sites. He is, on the one hand, so deeply interested in the MM science work that he expended the time and money to attend several of the conferences in Taos; but on the other hand, he does not comment or contribute ever, anywhere in discussion pages set up for that purpose.

    UNLESS … he comments using an alias. In which case, something untoward has happened here at POM. A man who values his privacy was doxxed by BMSeattle. That may require an explanation or a retraction. The other possibility is that the name he gave in Taos is not in fact his real name, and that Jeff XXXXXX is the alias.

    In one paper (http://milesmathis.com/pi7.pdf) MM identifies Jeff XXXXXX as “another student of mine,” like Steven Oostdijk. We learned from a contribution at POM by commenter Ryan T. that when MM says Oostdijk is his “student,” he actually means “source of ideas.” See https://pieceofmindful.com/2018/05/21/hilarity-ensues/#comment-65603

    It would be reasonable, then, to conclude that Jeff XXXXXX is precisely what Mark suspected: the mentor of the man in Taos, his leader rather than his follower.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. @maarten

      The rest of the paragraph in that miles paper goes on to say that Jeff has been to several of Miles’ conferences. I figured it was safe to name him, and mention his attendance at the conference, since Miles did so himself.
      Otherwise, I’ve just given my impression of the man.
      I don’t know what “daxxed” means, but it sounds shameful.
      By all means, if you or anyone else here feels uncomfortable with my naming him, or feel complicit in the daxxing, please remove any offending comments asap.
      I no longer have editing power at POM, but I believe that you do.

      As to Mark’s memory of the older guy, I’m beginning to wonder if there is some confusion as to who the “science guy” actually was.
      The guy I mentioned and named, was not an “older ” man. In fact, he was one of, if not the youngest persons there. He was most definitely the most science oriented person there, so I assumed that was who mark was referencing.
      There was an older man there, but it never occurred to me that mark or anyone else would have taken him as any sort of authority figure.
      He was one of the participants who was interested in both the science and conspiracy stuff, fwiw.
      Also, he was the only person that remained, other than me, the last day of the conference.

      If this is the man that mark was referring to, then I sincerely apologize for my mistake.
      The old guy was very quiet and always seemed kind to me, and he was open to all the conspiracy stuff, so if he was mean to mark about his work, that comes as a surprise to me.
      The younger guy who I named was the one who turned his nose up to conspiracy stuff.

      Anyway, thanks for mentioning your concerns. Point taken.
      I’m sincere about you deleting my posts. I meant no disrespect to the person named, and certainly don’t want to put anyone at POM in an uncomfortable position.


      1. @BMSeattle

        The word is “doxxed,” as I spelled it above, not “daxxed,” as you spelled it.

        From Urban Dictionary (https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=doxx): Expose someone’s true identity, usually a name or address. It’s one of the scummiest things someone can do on the internet
        -Bladewing10 @ Reddit

        I believe, however, that you are correct and we are not referring to the same person in Mark’s experience. Nevertheless, all the same questions about Mr. XXXXXX obtain: why is he invisible outside of that one mention of the conference by MM?


        1. If I referred to Jeff as “older” it was inadvertent. He was certainly not older than MM. I think I merely said that I felt he held sway over MM. Maarten and I did discuss this in private emails.


        2. Sorry about the misspelling.
          I’m on my phone at work, and am typing in haste.
          However, it seems that we are talking about the younger guy, if I’m reading Mark’s most recent comment correctly.
          So your prior concerns still stand.
          As does my assertion that you should delete any comment that mentions his last name.
          I’m sure you were sincere in your concern over his “exposure”, so don’t you agree it is the proper thing to do?


          1. I’ll take care of this, Brandon. I won’t delete the comment, but will delete his last name.

            (I talked out of school over at Fakeologist about the football player that was there, and had to ask AB to take that down, which he did.)


          2. And quickly, regarding your question about why he isn’t more visible on MM forums, and your implied conclusion that it confirms that he is really what/who mark guesses he is.

            Let’s say he was at these places, commenting, defending Miles, etc. Are you saying that would legitimize him in your mind?
            I think not.
            I think you would be just as, if not more suspicious of him, just as I presume you are of the folks at josh”s site.
            So when I suspect that you would be suspicious of him no matter what, I find the angle you are coming from, not particularly convincing.
            (You understand what I’m saying., right? That *any * evidence can be used to confirm a belief?)

            Also, I’m sure we could all come up with all sorts of more mundane reasons why a person wouldn’t be online at these forums, cant we?
            I’d say that it is most likely he doesn’t comment for one of these mundane reasons…or he uses an alias, as you suggested.

            But you are confirming the point I was trying to make to mark about confirmation bias, so thanks for that.


          3. @BMSeattle

            I have changed my mind on some really big issues in life, following the evidence where it led, as I was able to understand it at the time. You sell me short with the conclusions you have jumped to.

            We were getting along so well, despite seeing things differently. Why did that have to change? When you decide for me how I would appraise different evidence, you end the possibility of a productive exchange of ideas. We appreciated each other’s politeness previously. Any chance we can go back to that?

            That being said, it is not one or two questions that have me skeptical of the Miles Mathis enterprise: it is a whole list of observations made by myself and others. Dismissing this all as an exercise in confirmation bias hardly does justice to the weight of my concerns.


          4. @Maarten

            I was referring to the specific links that you produced for evidence about Jeff.
            I understand that you have a lot of evidence and reason that form your opinions of Miles.
            My point was simply that jeff being on the forums or not, is not evidence of anything.
            You stated that it was reasonable to conclude that jeff is what mark claims he is, based upon the above evidence.
            Perhaps it is for someone who already has his mind made up about the MM group.
            To a neutral observer, that evidence can be interpreted in a multitude of ways.
            I suggest that your former opinion of Miles prompts you to jump to conclusions about Jeff.
            No need.to feign being insulted by my words.
            You already feigned concern over me “outing” a person that you believe is either make believe or an agent.
            So spare me the “I’m shocked and hurt” routine.


  10. There are a few more observations one can make about the four MM forums listed in my comment above.

    First, none of them show up in the suggested Links page at mileswmathis.com: http://mileswmathis.com/link.html. Isn’t that odd? Here are the foremost places for people to get their fill of MM science, and they are hardly mentioned on his site. It is as if readers are being kept away from seeing these factories where the sausages are made. Neither do the four sites make much mention of any of the others.

    Then this: there is a pretty strong bifurcation between the names that contribute at Cutting Through the Fog (many of whom used to frequent POM and Cluesforum) and the names that show up on the Miles Mathis Revolution Facebook page, as well as the two discussion forums. This is odd: why would there not be more back and forth on all the sites between these highly committed devotees of MM science? CTTF seems to be the intended public face of MM fandom, but the other sites are the backrooms where the real exchange of ideas happens.

    Next, I would re-introduce some observations by Uncle Bob, which apply to the three sites other than CTTF (https://pieceofmindful.com/2018/05/10/down-the-coney-hole/):

    A while back on POM someone referenced this forum where Mathisites discuss ideas with one another. It is a curious place to stroll through. First, because Mathis himself never seems to weigh in at the forum to absorb the adulation and answer the questions of his fans. Truly odd, and utterly inconsistent with the huge ego that he projects otherwise. Second, when the forum members talk about MM they seem often to be alluding to an entity rather than a person. One forum member, Cr6, for example, laments that Mathis has been putting out too many papers in 2017 not concerned with physics: He asks the group, “Just wanted to see if we could at least get a new physics paper out of him before end of 2017. Any ideas?” That sounds like a low-ranking member of Team Mathis complaining that his area of interest is getting ignored, and a plea for the Team to produce/plagiarize a new physics paper soon. Because if that’s NOT what he meant, then he is apparently talking about showing up in Taos and threatening to break Mathis’ kneecaps unless he gets off the genealogy and back to science.

    And this also occurred to me: looking over all four websites and seeing all the people invested in Mathisian physics and mathematics, why don’t we find any papers being put online under any name other than “Miles Mathis”? Whereas on his Conspiracy site, there are lots of guest-authored papers, on the Science site there are hardly any. (In fact, only seven that I see, all penned by a certain “Michael Howell” whose articles seem to have been posted in 2011 and 2012 … but who since then has contributed nothing. Steven Oostdijk was active pushing Mathisian math in 2008-2010. Since then he has mostly disappeared and shows up only on the Facebook page for the MM Revolution.)

    Think about it: all those fanboys asking their questions back and forth, tossing around their ideas and suggestions, but we don’t see any substantial output of Mathisian science from them. That’s just odd.

    Unless … the fanboys are the actual sources of the papers. And Miles Mathis is just the name for the byline. You can shrug these observations off if you want, but it all adds up to an odd deception, one that works against the very idea that it seems to tout. For–if indeed Miles Mathis had sparked a “revolution” in the sciences–would it not be a feather in his cap to see a flowering of works by multiple authors persuaded by his paradigm?

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Okay, I said I was moving away from limited hangout talk but goddammit, just when I thought I was out, you pull me back in.

      A while back, I noticed that the Dave McGowan site published the first paper in a series about the Lincoln assassination hoax on January 24, 2014. The Miles Mathis site published a paper on the exact same topic (though with a narrower focus) on February 19, 2014. Back then, I didn’t think about it too much, but over the past couple of years it’s nagged at me. Why would they both write about such an unusual conspiracy subject almost simultaneously? Spielberg’s Lincoln movie came out in 2012, so I don’t think that had anything to do with it.

      It seems like they almost simultaneously covered a couple of other oddball topics that there was no reason for them to be thinking about or researching at the same time, though I can’t recall what the topics were.

      Before he “died,” McGowan’s site made a passing reference to the possibility that Mathis had once been a real person and his early papers had been written by a single man by that name, but the McGowan author speculated that Mathis had died or his identity had in some other way been appropriated by Intel and his papers since that time were LH. As far as I can recall, this was the only time McGowan’s site referenced MM.

      MM’s site posited that McGowan was LH after he “died.” If he made any references to McGowan while the McGowan site was still active, I haven’t seen them.

      McGowan’s site has been retooled and now has a comment section under each article. Might be interesting to see if any of the commenters are also active on theMathis forums. (I’m just going to sit on the edge of that little rabbit hole for now though.)

      Liked by 1 person

      1. @ScottRC

        I would love to get the link to where McGowan says Mathis died and had his name and work appropriated. Could you dig that up?


        1. I’ll see if I can find it. It’s been a few years. If I recall correctly, he was just speculating, not saying anything definitive.


        2. Well, I did a little digging but I can’t find it. Apparently, only selected articles have been preserved on McGowan’s site. Before he “died” he was posting pretty regularly to his blog (drumming up donations, among other things)…If I recall correctly the Mathis comment was made in passing around the time of his “cancer diagnosis.” Just tried the WayBack Machine and it told me Center for an Informed America is excluded from its searches. Is that unusual? I’ve never really used WayBack. Anyway, if those of you with more skill mojo have ideas how to dig up those old blog posts of his that have been taken down, that’s where it would be.


      2. I just want to point out that this is EXACTLY my theory about Mathis that I have expressed on this site, and I had never heard anything about this from McGowan before.


        1. Both Miles and McGowan publicly called each other out as controlled opposition.
          Just two paranoid egomaniacs, or part of some bigger LH operation?


          1. I’m just saying it’s meaningful that I put together a theory based on the available evidence that the only logical explanation for the Mathis site is that Mathis was a real person/artist whose identity was appropriated by intelligence, and now there is an independent anecdote that someone accused the Mathis site of being exactly that. It’s meaningful.

            From my perspective, it was the old “once you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth”. But McGowan it sounds like could have been speaking based on inside knowledge. Two independent lines of inquiry intersecting. Probably not a coincidence.


          2. It reminds me of the Fake News meme brought to us by Trump’s writers. Divide people into camps so they unthinkingly think whatever source of bullshit they believe is “real news” and the other stuff is “fake.” Works great for the mainstream–no reason to suppose it wouldn’t work in our little corner of counterculture, eh?


      1. MMG voice, eh? Back to fact checking: since when did you prove there’s a group behind Mathis? All ya got is assumptions based on strawman arguments. Volume of his output? You’d recognize a genious since he’s the same as you, right? Give me a break. Too many talents? I’m gifted in at least 4 areas, so that makes me a group of spooks behind a moniker? Give me a break, please. Load of crap mistaken for arguments, deducted to wrong conclusions by applying bad reasoning.

        Push this opening? You can only dream there’s something you can do or change here. Ya made many wrong choices previously, never revised or retracted them yet ya think you’re on to something here. What’s wrong with you? Read this very carefully: my few comments here are just a reminder of how low you’ve fallen. All the good work ya may’ve done before is washed away with this kind of crap. And bad methods of face chopping. Mind you, acknowledging your own error is progress being made. So thank the guy, swallow your pride and move on, for fecking sake. Oh, and get rid of the most obvious spooks in your company. That may help you get people to trust you again.


  11. I think the Steven Oostdijk evidence and now Jeff XXXXXX conjecture really feeds into the notion that the Mathis site is just a front for certain individuals or some kind of committee to release ideas. Also known as a limited hangout. Add to this the sheer weirdness and inconsistencies found on the Mathis site, and it tells enough of a story to be confident this is not just one genius man, which is the story we are given by the site.

    The real question is who is behind this and why is it happening. In that area, we have almost nothing to work with for making any reasonable conclusions. That is my frustration. Calling it questionable is just the tip of the iceberg, and we lack the power to see beneath the surface where 95% of the mass of this really lies.


  12. For whatever reason Ive never read an MM science or math paper might seem curious since I studied electrical and computer eng. but Im just not interested as I already know Newton and Einstein along with a host of those guys were doing more bookkeeping than anything else just put forth to dictate a given reality for us they are/were the priests of old I dont believe the cosmology told us anyway but Ive read quite a few of the conspiratorial papers and the only thing that I found strange is that there are many things considered unearthed by others but are things they were already researched, talked about, posted online etc. Claims being made in those papers that with a simple search you can find others having posted several years prior but along comes the character to take credit for it. Always trashing others thats a play Ive seen quite a bit from various “researchers” and eventually they reveal something about them thats fishy too seems the entire thing is to create confusion. Corral official narrative skeptics and splinter them.


    1. Do you remember a fairly recent paper by MM talking about electric universe theory? He was a little piqued that the guys promising ECU did so without any mention of MM, who claims to be one of the originators of the theory. it left me wondering who came first.


      1. There has never been a direct answer from the MMC about questions of intellectual priority: i.e., Who said it first? And many such questions—some very specific—have been raised by various people in several places.

        It is an interesting exercise to spend some time on the Wayback Machine, looking at the evolution of mileswmathis.com and the science site, milesmathis.com, as well as the strangely parallel site http://www.geocities.com/milesmathis. There is so much to observe here. For the moment, let an observation or two suffice.

        First, there is really nothing of the conspiracy work prior to 2012. Before that it is art criticism, some pieces on literature, and a few things on mainstream politics and religion, though nothing in the vein of Trutherism. Why is this odd? Because in his initial paper on the JFK event (http://mileswmathis.com/barindex2.pdf), he says that he first wrote it and presumably put it online in 2009 at the latest. (Long quotation appended below)

        But how anomalous is that? Of all the papers written from the start of his websites (in 2002) until about 2012, that single very long paper was the sum and substance of his Truther output, yet with a very sure-footed tone and detailed manner of exposition. Even so, he assures us that his essay predates anyone else’s work on the topic (and by implication, Tyrone McCloskey’s piece entitled JFK-TV. Proof? Can’t find it on the Wayback Machine. Isn’t that singular?

        Another observation: the science site today lists posts from as early as 2005. But one struggles to find corroboration for this on the Wayback Machine. It looks for all the world like many of the science entries were added after 2010, though with an earlier date of posting attached.

        More later, perhaps …

        From The Hidden King: Camelot ruled from the Cave of Merlin, posted on March 18, 2015.

        †I had thought this paper was first written in 2008 or 2009, since I remembered writing it at my old house. But with some further digging I found the first draft was actually written in December 2007. You can see signs of that in the paper itself, where it says that the event happened 44 years ago. Obviously, I had to have written that in 2007 or early 2008. Within a year or so I had put the paper up on the internet, but I can’t remember if that was 2008 or 2009. I will say 2009. I couldn’t find the paper at the Wayback Machine, which is curious. But regardless, the paper has been up on the internet for most of the past 6 years (not including 2013, when I took it down as a favor to the woman I was living with), but as an html, not a pdf. It was not linked into either of my websites’ index or updates pages, but existed unlinked and unadvertised, known only to those I gave the URL to. I now suspect it was found by some other people, who no doubt reached it using the right search terms. When I first wrote this in 2007, I searched on similar theories and found nothing, so it is curious to find so many now. Those who have promoted similar theories in the past 6 or 7 years may have read this paper. I suspect some or all of them of trying to pervert it on purpose, by surrounding it with noise, which is why I have now linked it into my updates page and gone public. I am sure DallasGoldBug has done this, and the others on youtube and elsewhere may be doing a similar thing. I have no connections to any other person or site promoting similar research into faked events, and do not recommend or trust any of them. I work alone, under my own name, and have a full bio up as proof of my identity. I do my own research, and do not read anyone else’s research going in. I like to look at events fresh, which is probably why I discover things other people do not.

        Liked by 1 person

  13. This interaction has run its course, imo.
    I know that many here don’t trust me, but if you can imagine for a moment, that I am simply a normal guy, perhaps naive, perhaps a dupe, but a normal guy who is being honest in my assessment of things, here’s how this whole exchange appears from my perspective…

    Mark mentions an offhand, but powerful comment, that he believes a.particular person at the conference that we both attended was not a simple, innocent attendee, but a leader of Miles and perhaps the brains behind the whole MM science operation.
    Proof of this, is that Miles seemed to defer to him, and the guy was a jerk to Mark about his facial comparison work.
    I had some info to share about that guy and my interactions with him, so decided to.share it in case Mark or.anyone else was interested.
    I also suggested that Mark might coming to conclusions about jeff, based on his already formed opinions of miles.

    Mark’s response was to reiterate that the guy was a jerk, a really big jerk, and then he proceeded to go into a lengthy repeat of the reasons he distrusts miles.
    I suggested confirmation bias.

    Ironically, a separate poster here, posted a comment where they actually admit to confirmation bias in his own comment. They claim that every word out of my mouth is exactly what they would expect someone would say who is part of.the whole MM operation!
    Well, there’s no point arguing that logic, now is there.
    We can all see the fallacy in that thinking, I assume.

    Then Maarten pops in, pretending to be concerned over me exposing jeff, only to follow it up with a list of links that are evidence that jeff is exactly what he claimed in the beginning.
    When I point out the fallacy in coming to that conclusion based on that evidence, he acts hurt and brings up all his research into miles…which had nothing to do with the issue of jeff and the links…but it did confirm that maarten’s beliefs about miles did indeed influence his interpretation of that evidence, so it once again makes my point for me.

    It’s truly amazing how much vitriol anything related to MM brings out in people.
    My initial purpose.for posting was innocent enough. Yes, it somewhat contradicted Mark’s perspective, but I didn’t intend for it to turn into a huge MM discussion.


    1. You say that I was only pretending to be concerned about your doxxing Jeff. But Mark is my witness that in a private email to him earlier, I asked him to remove Jeff’s last name from the comment thread. Is that pretense?


      1. Why were you concerned about me outing him?
        Are open to the idea that he is a real person, innocent of Mark’s accusation?


        1. Yes, I am open to the claim that he is a real person. I conceded already that I was mistaken about which participant in the conference belonged to the name you provided.

          Why I am concerned about doxxing? Bluntly, when another Mathisite did a storm-off from this blog, he and his compadres (whom we did not previously realize were in cahoots) left a whole string of comments that boiled down to a threat of doxxing me. I must tell you that this was the incident that really changed my paradigm about the Miles Mathis group.

          Yes, MM gave Jeff’s name in one of his papers. But without a face, that’s just a name and possibly only a pen-name. The real Jeff can confirm or deny that it refers to him, depending on his own choices. You attached that name to someone in a photograph that has appeared online. Suddenly it is possible for Jeff to be identified by people who might recognize the photo—people that Jeff might not want to know about his online interests in alternative science and conspiracy. That’s where the possibility of doxxing occurred.

          And you were correct above. Doxxing is a shameful thing.

          I had a lot to post this afternoon in response to other commenters besides you. You took that all as a response to you. But it is not all about you, BMSeattle. I am interested in the observations of ScottRC and FauxLex for their own merits.


          1. If that photo is posted online, it was not by me. And when I sent it to mark, I endeavored him to block out faces.
            Can you point me to where it is posted? I’d be very interested to see it.

            You did not mention the photo in any of your previous comments to me.
            To my knowledge, all I’ve done is exactly what MM did…name him and said he was there.

            If I misread a lack of charity in your accusation and subsequent responses, then I humbly admit.my error, if you claim otherwise now.
            I sensed anger directed toward me, but as we both know, words and meanings can be digeated and wrong conclusions can be formed.


          2. And to be fair, you didn’t exactly come out and say that you were open to jeff being a real person until I just asked.
            Admitting mark made a mistake is not the same thing.
            All the “evidence” in link form against jeff, is true whether jeff is the old guy or the young guy, right? So why would I assume your mind was changed?

            So when I guessed that you were feigning concern over the outing of jeff, it was under the assumption that you thought of jeff as either seriously compromised or not even a real person at all. (Meaning there is no such person by that name.)

            If your mind had been opened based on Mark’s error in memory, you’d hadn’t yet made that clear.
            You can surely see why there would be no need for concern over outing a ghost or a disinformation agent, or.LH or whatever the label is.

            Your accusation toward me felt more like an opportunity to try and put me on the defensive, rather than an honest concern for jeff.


          3. Suspicions about MM run far deeper and broader than discussed here. If we keep this up, we will match the thousands of comments at CTTF. It’s an interesting discussion too, because we all seem to agree that the product at the MM site is useful. The discussion seems to center around it being a LH, and I think you might recall from the conferences that MM suggested with a LH to take what is useful, discard the rest. I certainly do not base my opinions of MM on merely Jeff, and only mentioned that his presence and behavior was odd. I’m ready to accept that he was not prepared for what the conference turned out to be, and was bored and more than a little pissed that nothing of interest to him was going on.

            But I must say that the MM presented to us is an unlikely human, that is, he cannot possibly be that good (as he claims) at so many things. I am going to suggest something here that Maarten and I discussed privately. In public hoaxes such as school shootings and the like, no one ever speaks up. The reason is simple – nondisclosure agreements signed. Those things must be bulletproof with financial penalties, and for military participants, even time in the brig. I also assume, but cannot know, that Masonic oaths are involved.

            What I am suggesting is that MM is somehow involved in an operation that allows people to discuss their participation in events without violating their NDAs, that the MM site is approved for this purpose. It goes back to something Bob Zherunkel called the “urge to confess.” People are just dying to talk, but cannot, and that is a horrible way to live. They want us to know how much smarter than us they are. It’s an exercise in narcissism for sure, but still, useful.

            This is a tentative suggestion, as secrets are still kept going back to the time of Napoleon …, whose hand in his jacket means “I hold secrets close to my heart.” That’s Masonic too, but everyone from that era is dead and yet the secrets stand. The Mathis operation seems to have clearance to write about the past too.

            With one foible, the Jew thing. That doesn’t fit. Even if the world is run by Jews, and I don’t say that it is, it does not make them despicable in my mind. They, whoever they are, were born into their roles. Like people everywhere, there is good and evil involved.

            Liked by 1 person

          4. Fair enough mark, and well said.
            I must press the issue of the the photo I took being online, that Maarten used as a justification for his accusation toward me.

            As you know, i took that photo and i feel responsible for everyone in it, other than you and miles.
            You are the only person who I’ve given a copy to that hasn’t been edited (i gave on other edited copy to one person), so as far as I am aware, the only copy posted anywhere online ,is the blacked out faces one you posted at fakeogist.

            Maarten apparently knows of an unedited copy somewhere, and I strongly want to track it.down, and have it removed, if possible.


          5. BMSeattle, I would not know how to search for that photo. Honestly. I know only this: I have seen it myself somewhere. It is possible that I saw it in your emails to Mark, as we all used to cc: each other at an earlier time. I spoke as I did on the belief that the photo had appeared here on POM at some point, perhaps in a comment thread. Again, I have no clue as to how to search for it.

            If you look back at the comment thread today, you will see that you have been doing a lot of conflating in your own mind of things said by different people, ascribing all of them to me and to a malice that you perceive in me (while maintaining that I am merely feigning an interest in civil discourse, etc.). While I “Liked” several of the comments by Fauxlex here today, I did not do so for the one where he expresses a suspicion of you. Because I do not have that suspicion myself. Yet you have ascribed it to me anyway.

            So…, this is getting tiresome. I have tried to be polite, despite the difference in opinion. I would gladly go back to civility tomorrow. It’s up to you. But for now, I have a real life offline, and I need to attend to that for the rest of the day. Peace out.


          6. @Maarten

            So you just threw out the comment about the picture being online, because you perceived it would help your cause in the discussion we were having about you accusing me of doxxing Jeff?!

            Since that was at the crux of the issue on whether I’d done anything “wrong”, it seems like a convenient “mistake” on your part. Why won’t you admit that you didn’t know what you are talking about and apologize to me? You thought it was here at POM? Or in an email? In a comment thread?

            So… you didn’t know anything, but you still decided to use it against me?
            Oh…though perhaps it’s still “out there” somewhere, huh? Riiigghht.
            And then, rather than take some responsibility and admit that you were careless and that your accusation toward me was biased, you throw out some attacks trying to paint me as totally misunderstanding your words, all day!

            I too, have tried to be civil, but if you feel that calling you out on your bologna, and defending myself against your passive aggressive behavior, and silly accusations is uncivil… then I guess we can agree to disagree about yet another definition of a word.

            I’ll leave it up to others to come to their own conclusions about this ridiculous exchange… though I will say it is ironic to be accused of uncivility by a contributor of a site that accused MM of being a pedophile, for goodness sake!

            Mark, I apologize to you. My initial comment was directed at you, as you are the only one who I at least hope knows me as a real person.
            I should have known better than to engage with Maarten, since he tends to pop into these MM discussions, pushing his own agenda.
            His initial doxxing accusation seemed a bit strong to me, and when I realized that he didn’t mention in his comment, that Miles actually stated that Jeff had been at his conferences, I began to suspect that Maarten had reasons other than protecting Jeff from harm, for accusing me.
            Then when I called him on it, he doubled down, saying he actually changed his mind about Jeff, and was simply worried about the “online photo”! All this obfuscation, just so he wouldn’t have to admit his error or his motives.

            I invite others to engage with Maarten with the above exchange in mind.
            Mark, if I have comments/observations to you in the future on this topic, I’ll simply email you. Everyone will be happier that way.


            1. Your being an actual human does not say a thing about your motives. Just saying. It’s a weird thing to say that Mark knows that you are a person like this is meaningful. The guy in Taos is a real, flesh and blood human. It doesn’t mean that he is the individual and apparent genius known as Miles Mathis or that his motives are pure.

              Honestly, I don’t understand why you are so up in arms that Maartin had a concern about being doxxed. You are making some wild claims about his motivations in that like he had 100 ulterior motives, when really doxxing is a genuine concern. I mean you really want him to apologize for not knowing a Mathis paper had named this guy? Then you accuse him of…using this all to put you on the defensive? Huh? Methinks you doth protesteth too much.

              If anything, if feels like YOU have been the main agent derailing any critical discussion of discrepancies in the Mathis site. I know I said many comments ago that I was suspicious of you. I still am, especially with your continuing to fuel this off topic bickering on ridiculous premises. So, again, I apologize if your motives are pure. The waters are just too muddy to assume that everyone’s motives are pure on a topic like this.


              1. Just so, fauxlex. Your observations about the artwork are brilliant. There are so many rich lodes to mine in the observations from this thread: questions of priority of ideas, mismatching website archives, and the strange gaps in the Wayback Machine archives just around the time that one might hypothesize that the real Mathis died. I hope we can return to them in future discussions.

                But every time a thread goes in the direction of pulling back the curtain on the Wizard of Taos, we get sidetracked by angst and drama from commenters out of the woodwork. The long history of brigading that happens any time MM is discussed here demonstrates a pattern that cannot be ignored.

                For the record, the charge against Mathis was NOT pedophilia, but child pornography. It is not a mere accusation: Mathis and gang openly admit he has a portfolio of nude images of an underage female that he wants to get published. If BMSeattle is so upset by this revelation at POM … why has he still hung around here since May 2018???

                And now I am off to Like that other comment by you, fauxlex …

                Liked by 1 person

          7. @FAUXLEX

            The thing is, Maarten did know about the paper wherin Miles mentioned Jeff.
            See his comment further up, where he first accused me…he linked to it.
            Yet while he linked to it, and admitted that Miles mentioned Jeff’s name, he purposefully (or negligently) didn’t include the part where Miles also mentions Jeff having attended several conferences.

            So, you are wrong in saying that Maarten didn’t know.
            You see, that’s why Maarten needed to emphasise that there was a photo out there somewhere online, since it was clear I hadn’t doxxed Jeff by simply repeating something that Miles had already made public.
            The only way that Maarten could keep up with the “doxxed” angle was to emphasise the photo.
            Once I called him on it and asked him to direct me to said photo, he left, knowing that if he stayed, he’d have to admit his error. And, of course, fess up to the obvious conclusion that his accusation of doxxing toward me was wrong, and that he made up the part about the photo being online. (or just threw the idea out there to save face).

            I invite you to click on the link that Maarten provided you and read the second paragraph, and decide for yourself how likely it seems that Maarten just missed the information there. And then ask yourself why he chose not to include it in his accusation to me.

            Re: being “real”.
            I mean that Mark has met me, in person. We also have a history at POM, and we have had many interactions via email. My point was that if anyone would give me the benefit of the doubt (assume that my “motives are pure”, as you say), and as knowing that I am what/who I say I am, it would be Mark.
            Can you blame me for caring about that? You openly admit that you don’t trust me, and take everything I say as confirmation of that distrust. Why would anyone want to engage with a person who says such a thing?

            Not sure what you mean by “derailing”. I’ve only ever relayed my personal experiences interacting with Miles and the others at his conference.
            Disagreeing or offering differing perspectives of experiences is not derailing.
            I started out simply engaging with Mark on the topic of Jeff. Perhaps when others (yourself included) jumped in, you were the one’s doing the derailing?


            1. Seattle, I REALLY don’t trust your responses. You accuse me of derailing? Every single comment I have made in this thread has been an attempt for us to look at the clues and evidence surrounding the Mathis site. You don’t understand why I accused you of derailing??? Seriously? Even with Maartin knowing of the name reference, did you consider that he pointed to the photo he’d seen because it really was his concern? A name is one thing, a name with a face is another. And more to the point, WHO CARES? You really think he is some sinister agent in his…concern of doxxing? Huh? This was somehow a way to discredit you? You’ve lost me there.

              I accused you of derailing because it’s what it feels like you’re doing. Long and detailed responses feeding completely trivial and off topic squabbles. Mark said he’s closing down comments and I don’t blame him, but I worry this is EXACTLY what someone seeking to derail is looking for. I have not seen a comment of yours that did not make me question your motives. You don’t seem as interested in a real exchange on the Mathis topic as you do feeding off-topic trivialities. If you believe Mathis is an individual genius, have you seen the discrepancies pointed out in this thread? Commented back about them? Because it feels like you’re ignoring them, subtly supporting the idea of sole genius Mathis, and making sure the conversation doesn’t stay too on point.

              You are seeking to be given the benefit of the doubt by Mark, because he met you and emailed you? This is no reason to trust. In fact, I am sure this is how infiltration begins. Obviously I have no idea where your motives lie, but I can’t understand a lot of your actions in this thread. This could very well be two people innocently coming from a completely different point of view. I hope that’s all it is, but as I’ve mentioned we SHOULD be skeptical and look for those who seek to derail us.

              Mark, apart from the squabbles and attack on you, I thought this thread was spurring a lot of good evidence gathering and idea sharing. Isn’t it funny that whenever we might be moving in the right direction, out comes the funny business? Just an observation.


          8. @ fauxlex
            Since BMSeattle has been open about his support for John Le Bon, his reactions aren’t all that surprising to me. They are consistent with the way Le Bon responded when I expressed disagreement with him. Make baseless assumptions, ascribe ridiculous motives, and attack by acting as though you’ve been attacked. It’s not a great strategy for public discourse, but it also doesn’t seem to be anything personal. I think it just throws them off when non-playing characters in their familiar games behave in ways they don’t expect. (I’m not a gamer, but man, I think that would fuck with my head too.)

            Liked by 1 person

          9. FAUXLEX

            I didn’t accuse… I suggested… in response to your accusation to me.
            I was trying to get you to understand that my comment and interaction was with Mark… and it specifically wasn’t about Miles, it was about Jeff.
            If other people wanted to then join in and make it about Miles, that’s up to them… but it could be seen by me as derailing.

            It would have been fine if Maarten had simply expressed concern about the doxxing, perhaps asked me if I had thought it through, and asked if there was a picture online somewhere that I might want to consider.
            He didn’t do that.
            He accused me, and said it was shameful.
            I decided to stick up for myself. If that offends you, so be it.

            I agree that my relationship with Mark is “no reason to trust” me.
            I’ve never said you or anyone else should trust me, and it doesn’t bother me that you don’t.
            My intent was to engage with Mark, not people who don’t trust me.
            Perhaps Mark doesn’t trust me either?
            I took a chance, hoping that he did.


          10. I found you to be relaxed, friendly, funny. I wish we had spent more time … that last day was just me wanting to be home, and as it turned out, we had a surprise visit from kids, so it was good I left.

            We disagree on Miles, but it is a conundrum, a riddle wrapped in one of those, whatever, as something good is going on there, but the guy, MM, is not who he claims, and the arrogance and ego in the writing was not apparent in the man we met. He was laid back, somewhat nervous, very alert, standoffish, all things a normal human might be when surrounded by strangers, but also things that an actor might be. I do not know.

            Here’s some new evidence … that guy liked cats. I do too. They hung around, and one came in while we met, sat on the arm of the couch near him, and he stroked it while he spoke. Cannot fake that. The two were together, and the cat was free to roam. [I guess this only means that he really lives there and he really likes cats. It doesn’t speak to anything else, but what is a cat lady if not a lonely person?]


            1. The cat thing is interesting. That would seem to support that he really does permanently reside at that residence.


          11. @ScottRC

            What does any of this thread have to do with me?

            Why are you bringing your dislike of me into this discussion?

            Move on. I’m not that important.


  14. I have interacted with both Miles M and Mark T and I find them both to be unlikable and arrogant. No wonder they do not care for each other. It seems to me that the dislike Mark has for Miles is all about the fact that Miles does not approve of his work. Just being honest here–that is how it reads to me–his ego was bruised. Mark is bent out of shape because his work was trashed and so then he, as an arrogant male, fought back. Mark has never provided any substantial evidence against Miles, but he will not back down because of his arrogance.

    I suspect both parties are who they claim to be and are not committees. It is sad they will not work together which would help us, but the ego is a funny thing. Both men have something of value to bring to the table, despite the fact that neither is very likable. Sorry! Arrogant people never think they are arrogant, but it comes across loud and clear to everyone else.

    If Mark would humble himself and admit he made a mistake about Miles, or that he may be wrong, because after all he does not know anything for sure, it would gain him respect. Truly confident people are humble to the core.

    Miles is not capable of being humble either. Most people who read MM will agree with this statement. Big egos do not work well together which is mostly why Miles and Mark will never get along. Sadly, it weakens the cause for everyone involved.

    However, I am grateful to both men for the information they have shared. To show my appreciation, where can I send some humble pie?

    (P.S. Can we please stop using famous people, such as Johnny Carson, to present an argument? These people are not what they appear to be and using them as examples is worthless and annoying.)


    1. “I suspect both parties are who they claim to be and are not committees.”

      This is dropped in passing completely without anything in support and the way it clearly tries to provoke Mark strikes me as a highly suspicious comment. Not to rehash the whole debate, but anyone who responds in a way that intends to enflame things here and makes sure to continue repetition of belief that the Mathis site is the work of one legitimate genius. My alarm bells are going off like mad here. Sorry, person behind the comment, if you are not trolling here. But I know enough of these types of communities to be on high guard for those attempting to damage the useful lines of inquiry.


    2. Well hello Lisa! Your concern about Mark being humble enough to admit he may be wrong about Miles is so sweet, though it might be misplaced, since I have seen him admit over and over that his views on MM and other issues may be wrong. Perhaps you simply hope he could be humble enough to admit you’re right? That’s the same kind of humility BMSeattle’s trying to instill in Maarten and Mark, and that John Le Bon has so fervently tried to impart to me. Did you all go to the same humility certification classes? Do you have, like, monthly contests to see who can convert the most people to lead their lives with humility? If you win, do you proudly display the trophy on your mantelpiece, or do you hid it under the bathroom sink behind the toilet paper?

      Liked by 1 person

  15. All I said was…”I suspect…” I do not need to prove anything with such an opinion as “suspect.” How do I know anything for sure? How does anyone? I have not read any concrete proof that Miles is in fact a committee. To me, Mark seems to be angry that Miles does not support his work. He always leads with it. His attack of Miles fell way short, in my opinion. If you think I am a troll then your instincts are not intact and you need to reset the alarm bells. I am not trying to damage anything, especially since I said I liked the work of both men. Or is it that anyone who thinks Miles is not part of a committee is not welcome to make a comment because they will be assumed a troll? Lame!


    1. Your comment just seems intentionally inflammatory. I do have too much suspicion of those who still maintain they believe (or suspect, whatever) that the Mathis page is the work of one independent individual. This comes out a lot here, and maybe too much, but I think there is good reason to think that not all here is as it seems. I called you a troll specifically because of the inflammatory nature of your comment. It was intentionally provoking Mark. I find your claims ridiculous, because I seem to remember reading that Mark actually took those criticisms to heart. That is not the response of a man who is overcome by their own ego. Your saying that you suspect Mathis to not be a committee was only a second factor, where as I said, numerous alarm bells were sounding. They still are. Your comment went to great trouble to try to provoke Mark and protect the “legend” of the sole genius of Mathis. Pardon my alarm bells, but they’re still ringing.


    2. You said you liked the work of both men after completely trashing Mark and provoking him in numerous ways. So…I’m not buying your intentions as legitimate here. Sorry. My alarm bells are just fine, and even if you are legitimate, I find the fact that you would post something so inflammatory and provocative to be inappropriate and unhelpful. Clearly we were discussing the evidence surrounding Mathis being a committee, and not only did you fail to add anything to that, you offered a blind support to Mathis while directly provoking Mark. If you’re not a troll, you sure act like one.


  16. I don’t see any bad people here, and I fail to see why we should burn up in battle over MM when we all agree that whatever the source, good and useful information comes from there. If it is a LH, take what is good and leave the rest. And when someone tells me what exactly “the rest” is, I’ll be happy to know. This is pointless. Please get your last digs in over night while I sleep … I will shut down comment on this thread in the morning. Please, manners everyone.

    I’ll be damned if I can figure out why they let so much stuff out. Urge to confess is all I can make if it.


  17. BMSEATTLE what was the obvious mistake you pointed out in that Manson Paper?
    If not already mentioned how about another conference for all the new fans and writers?
    Could be a very interesting meeting of the minds, of course generously aligned with a weekend sport or concert event for those that travel?

    Back to the article topic, the Berlin Wall from a quick search states it was nearly “12” feet high and approximately “27” miles long, with 302 guard towers and ” 55″,000 anti-personnel explosive devices . Thickness was 282 mm or about 11 inches, less than a foot. Compare that with Trump’s planned Mexican Wall. Any speculations for a shooting hoax for this upcoming 11/9…


  18. “Let’s step back … MM is said to be a savant, one who has unearthed mistakes made by the most well-known scientists in history, including Einstein and Newton (men who at least possessed modesty).”

    “Most well-known” is not exactly a sterling credential around here… Just saying…

    Also, I think there’s a list of science types who have problems with Einstein… Can’t remember if that was referenced in a Mathis paper, or I came across it elsewhere. But in any event, if Einstein is an actor with overinflated accomplishments, then it’s no great hubris for MM to challenge his work.


    1. @ TimR
      Lately I’ve wondered if Einstein was the Steve Jobs of his day. Like Jobs, he was sold as the unlikely source of a massive cultural shift that benefited power enormously, but which seemed to represent progress for all. After dropping their respective bombs (Theory of Relativity, I-Phones), they turned into pop gurus spouting irresistibly quotable wisdom. And maybe him not speaking English made him a more credible guru than dipshits like Gates and Zuckerberg and those Google guys.


    2. Einstein was as human as they come, and modest as well, as he knew he had not figured it out. A large group of scientists in Europe sent him a letter telling him he was wrong on his T of R, and he wondered why a large group when it only takes one to prove him wrong. I said “well known” because I am only vaguely familiar with the lesser knowns and so could not spell their names correctly. I dabble in this stuff. I have the book Physics is Constipated next to me. It is wasted on me. Want it?

      Liked by 1 person

  19. This thread has been a joy. Completely agree…take the good of the LH and leave the bad. As constructive as it is to put our minds together on the Mathis site, we could just as easily do our favorite Mathis paper revelations.

    Mine? Pointing out that Lee Harvey Oswald is wearing a black sweater when “shot” by Ruby because a black sweater doesn’t show blood. That seemed so obvious in retrospect, that the hooks were immediately into me. There is some amazing stuff in certain Mathis papers.


Comments are closed.