The Bill Cosby Accusations


Rape is a serious crime. Drugging someone without their knowledge is considered assault. Drugging someone to have sex is considered both aggravated assault and rape, and should result in a serious prison sentence, as much as thirty years plus ten, or forty per offense.

At the end of this post is a list of women who were assaulted, drugged, and of whom 26** were raped by Bill Cosby. Only three of sixty cases were reported to police, none involving rape, including that of Andrea Costand, which recently resulted in Cosby’s conviction. That case could result in three ten-year sentences for Cosby. He is currently age 80.

I looked over the list wanting to know what fire lays behind the smoke. If Bill Cosby is a serial rapist, no one has ever filed charges against him for rape. It is unfathomable to think that of 26 women, not one would have stepped forward – take, for instance, the case of Cindra Ladd, #36, who is said to be a powerful business executive. This would be no shrinking violet. The assumption behind the reticence of women in reporting rape is that men are more powerful and can intimidate them into silence. A wealthy man like Cosby can throw legal obstacles in the path that extend the proceedings for months. But Ladd should have fewer problems.

There is, however, another problem associated with absence of police reports. Since the 1970s we have had a forensic tool known as a “rape kit,” by which medical personnel collect evidence and preserve it for the legal system. Consider that we have 26 incidents where Cosby is accused of rape, and yet we have no police reports, and no physical evidence.

I am not insensitive to rape, and the power that men can exert over women, and the shaming that can take place when a woman claims rape. Often enough rape is a matter of a man and woman getting carried away, the woman calling a halt, and the man going forward anyway. I do not take this lightly, as it is still rape, but in these cases the woman will be questioned severely by defense attorneys, and have to admit to at least some consensual activity. For that reason, the woman might just shelve the matter.

Then, of course, is the problem of making public accusations against a high-profile and wealthy man like Cosby. Generally it is understood that courts are not about law, but about lawyers, and Cosby can afford the best. The accuser might end up with a court-appointed public prosecutor. This too is a deterrent to reporting the crime.

Of the 60 cases listed at the end of this post, 26 are women who have publicly accused Cosby of sexual offenses, and of those 25 have these two things in common: They were drugged beyond their ability to resist, and they filed no report with police. Given the use of rape kits, all of the women should have been able report the crime, give up fluid and blood and hair and dust samples, and have the entire matter preserved for the record. None did.

With a rape kit in hand, a woman can make an accusation and back it up with hard evidence. She can offer powerful evidence of both intercourse and drugs.

Instead, with Cosby, what we have are 26 cases of rape for which we have no physical evidence.

I repeatedly hear the defense that all of these women would not independently come together and lie. That seems logical, but there might be other factors. What if the women are not real? What if they are literary inventions? What if they are being paid? Could be some of each, too.

I suspect that with Bill Cosby, a much bigger game is afoot, that of a large project that has been going on for years now, an attack on men in general. Here’s what we see and hear about ourselves:

  • We only think about sex. We are sluts.
  • We have consensual sex with a perfect strangers, quickly forgetting about them.
  • In the workplace, we harass women. They have to be constantly on guard.
  • On the college campuses, women are being raped in large numbers.
  • Women who are raped usually do not report it.
  • If a woman does report rape, she will be publicly shamed.

The larger project is called (I do not know who originated the term) “Men are Pigs.” Couple this with the usual portrayal of men in TV sitcoms as borderline morons, or manic sexual freaks like Charlie Harper, and a man who is nice, respectful, smart and capable of emotional depth (most of us) has to overcome a whole lot of presumption.

The Cosby case falls in this line. I think perhaps his role as Cliff Huxtable, the kindly pediatrician on the wildly popular TV show of the 1980s, was part of the reason he was chosen for the part of serial rapist. All men, you see, ALL men are not to be trusted. All men are pigs.

Is Cosby cooperating in this psyop? I suspect so. His wife, Camille, is juiced, a member of the Hanks family, part of the peerage. His son, Ennis, suffered what appeared to be a fake death (see below), as happens so often in the peerage. Why would he cooperate? Some oath he took? Knowledge that he will just disappear from view (fake jail sentence as OJ was given, of fake death). I cannot know, of course. I only know there is no real threat to anything but Cosby’s reputation, and his wife and children know this.

The Andrea Costand case

ConstadCosby’s conviction in the case of Andrea Costand (#49 below) is a physical molestation case, and carries a lighter penalty. Since no traceable bodily fluids are present (there was no rape) the trial and conviction were built on other evidence. This included sworn testimony by Cosby that had been sealed in 2006 by the court as part of his settlement with Costand. In that testimony, which was released to the public by the New York Times after a court reporting service gave it to that newspaper, he admitted using drugs to induce women to have sex (to lessen resistance), but did not confess to rape.He claimed that the resulting sex was consensual, and only made easier by the use of drugs.

Even so, this admission is astounding, and the fact that it was presented to the public via newspaper articles even more so. Set aside the nature of the behavior for just one moment, and understand that the breach by the court reporting service should have been heavily penalized, and that further, the publication by the Times so prejudiced the entire American public that Cosby could not possibly have gotten a fair trial. As far as anyone knew, he had confessed to rape. This makes me wonder if we are witness to a real legal proceeding, or just another show trial.

I am aware of the irony of the Costand proceeding, the first to obtain a conviction against Cosby, was as a result of accusations made by a lesbian who had no interest in men, much less one old enough to be her father. Cosby was surely a man out of control, even delusional, if the accusations are true.

The mysterious death of Ennis Cosby

EnnisBill Cosby has five children with his wife Camille, four girls and one boy. Ennis Cosby died in 1997 at age 27 on Interstate 405 in Sepulveda Pass in Los Angeles, a very busy highway. It makes very little sense, that is, Cosby was driving a Mercedes-Benz and had a flat tire. Instead of calling AAA, which even people of regular income would do, he called a friend, Stephanie Crane,  to come and park behind him with her lights on while he changed the tire. Along came Mikhail “Michael” Markhasev, who threatened to kill Crane, who took off and who then returned very quickly to find Cosby shot in the head and dead. He was still wearing his Rolex and had $60 in his pocket.

Back when Straight was still with us he and I were working with the Social Security Death Index, he asked me to check there for Ennis Cosby. Apparently the age, 27, a common year of death for spooks, caught his eye. Sure enough, there was no Ennis Cosby listed at SSDI. This looked like another fake death.

The alleged murderer, Markhasev, has asked all his attorneys to cease appeals to gain his release, confessing to the crime. This means no more court appearances. Perhaps the gig was over, and he returned to his regular life. I wish there were some surreptitious way to ascertain whether or not famous perps like Markhasev, Sirhan Sirhan, the late Charles Manson and so many others are really in a jail cell at any given time. Merely reporting that they are in jail removes them from the public mind. They can walk freely among us.

Of course, I cannot say with certainty that Cosby’s death was fake, only that it is surrounded by red flags. Neither can I suggest why high-profile people (and their children) fake their deaths. That is above my pay grade. It seems common, however, in people of the peerage, and we know that Camille Cosby, his wife, is of the Hanks line. That line is connected not to just the actor, but also to Abraham Lincoln. It seems that connections like that never fail to turn up in these highly publicized scandals.

The list of women accusing Cosby of sexual crimes (those in bold are legally called “rape” cases):

  1. Barbara Bowman: 1986/2005, drugged, raped, slandered. No charges filed.
  2. Beverly Johnson: 1980s/2013, drugged, resisted, reported in Vanity Fair article, for which Cosby sued.
  3. Louisa Moritz: 1971/2014, forced to have oral sex. No charges filed.
  4. Kristina Ruehli: 2014, drugged, raped. No charges filed.
  5. Theresa Serignese: 1976/2005, Drugged, raped, paid off. No charges filed.
  6. Tamara Green: 1970s/2005, drugged, attempted rape. No charges filed.
  7. Beth Ferrier: 1980s/2005, Drugged, raped. No charges filed.
  8. Joan Tarshis: 1969/1980s, drugged, raped. No charges filed.
  9. Victoria Valentino: 1970/1996, drugged, raped. No charges filed.
  10. Janice Dickenson: 1982/2002, stalked, drugged, raped. No charges filed.
  11. Carla Ferrigno: 1967/2014, molested. No charges filed.
  12. Linda Joy Traitz: 1969/2014, molested. No charges filed.
  13. Renita Chaney Hill: 1982/2014, drugged as a minor, no memory. No charges filed.
  14. Angela Leslie: 1992/2014, molested. No charges filed.
  15. Lachele Covington: 2000/2000, molested, reported to police. No charges filed.
  16. Patricia Leary Steuer: 1978, 1980/2015, drugged, no memory, happened twice. No charges filed.
  17. Linda Kirkpatrick: 1981/2015, drugged, attempted rape (at least). No charges filed.
  18. Linda Brown: 1969/2015, drugged, assaulted. No charges filed.
  19. Kaya Thompson: 1980s/2015, molested, paid off. No charges filed.
  20. Sunni Welles: 1960s/2015, drugged, no memory, wakes up naked twice. No charges filed.
  21. “Kacey”: 1996/2015, drugged, no memory, woke up in bed with him. No charges filed.
  22. Chelan Lasha: 1986/2014, drugged, blacked out, woke up as he was molesting her. Paid off. No charges filed.
  23. Helen Hayes: 1973/2014, Stalked, molested. No charges filed.
  24. Heidi Thomas: 1984/2015, drugged, awoke to him performing oral sex. No charges filed.
  25. PJ Masten: 1979/2014, Drugged, woke up bruised and naked, allegedly raped. No charges filed.
  26. Sarita Butterfield: 1977/2014, stalked, molested. No charges filed.
  27. Janice Baker-Kinney: 1982/2015, drugged, awoke naked in bed with Cosby. No charges filed.
  28. Autumn Burns: 1970/2015, drugged, forcible oral sex. No charges filed.
  29. Lili Bernard: 1990s/2015, drugged, raped, intimidated. No charges filed.
  30. Sammie Mays: 1987/2015, drugged, molested. No charges filed.
  31. Margie Shapiro: drugged, raped. No charges filed.
  32. Joyce Emmoms: 1979-1980/2014, drugged, woke up with Cosby’s friend. No charges filed.
  33. Rebecca Lynn Neal: 1986/2015, drugged, raped. No charges filed.
  34. Jewel Allison: 1990/2015, drugged, no memory, saw semen on floor. No charges filed.
  35. Lise-Lotte Lublin: 1989/2015, drugged, awoke to Cosby straddling her. No charges filed.
  36. Cindra Ladd: 1969/2015, drugged, possibly raped. No charges filed.
  37. Helen Gumpel: 1987/2015, refused drink, attempted sexual advances. No charges filed.
  38. Kathy McKee: 1973/2014, raped No charges filed.
  39. Charlotte Fox: 1970s/2015, drugged, raped. No charges filed.
  40. Marcella Tate: Drugged, blacked out, probably raped. No charges filed.
  41. Shawn Brown: 1970s/1990s, even as consensual affair with Cosby was going on, drugged, raped. No charges filed.
  42. Lisa Jones: 1986/2014, Attempted drugging, molestation. No charges filed.
  43. Judith Huth: 1974/2014, molested at age 15, LAPD filed no charges.
  44. Eden Tirl: 1990/2015, Sexually molested, reported to Cosby Show staff, no action.
  45. “Elizabeth”: 1976/2015, Drugged, assaulted. No charges filed.
  46. Jena T: 1988/2015, forced in to unspecified sexual activity, paid $700. No charges filed.
  47. “Lisa”: 1988/2015, drugged, molested. No charges filed.
  48. Michelle Hurd: 1995/2014, attempted assault. No charges filed.
  49. *Andrea Costand: 2004/2005, drugged, molested, charges filed, settled out of court. Ultimately led to 4/2018 conviction.
  50. Chloe Goins: 2008/2014, drugged, assaulted. Charges filed in 2015, no charges filed, inadequate evidence.
  51. Lisa Christie: 1989/2015, came on to her, threatened her career if she did not have sex with him. No charges filed.
  52. Pamela Abeyta: 1979/2015, drugged, awoke with three naked men, including Cosby. No charges filed.
  53. Sharon Van Ert: 1976/2015, Drugged, woke up without panties. No charges filed.
  54. Jane Doe: Numerous witnesses who agreed to testify in Constand trial did not show.
  55. “Sandy”: 1980/2014, second hand information, had a consensual relationship with Cosby but was drugged and raped anyway. No charges filed.
  56. Cynthia Myers (deceased): 1997/2011 claimed to have witnessed Cosby using drugs to have sex with women at Playboy Mansion. Did not report incidents.
  57. Charlotte Kemp: 1980s/2014: Drugged. Was witness to the rape of Victoria Valentino. Did not report incident.
  58. Dottye: 1984/2015, drugged, raped. No charges filed.
  59. Donna Barlett: 2004/2015, Molested. No charges filed.
  60. Linda Ridgeway Whitedeer: 1970s/2015, sexual assault. No charges filed.

*49, Andrea Costand, is the one for which Cosby was convicted.

** Just to add a spook marker note, in addition to 26 rapes (=8), there are 8 civil law suits against Cosby, and Gloria Allred is representing 33 of the women on the list above.

60 thoughts on “The Bill Cosby Accusations

  1. From the beginning of all this Cosby mess I smelled a rat. Nothing is as it seems here. Cosby has been “used” by his own will by the puppet masters to control how black men are supposed to be viewed. I suspect other PROJECTS were also running using Cosby through the years. I think, based on what resonates with me, that he is being blackmailed/punished for not following the script. Great article on this and explains a lot!!


  2. I don’t mean to be rude but keep in mind what these women looked like when they were supposedly raped. Cosby money can buy the finest looking escorts, that will fulfill any sexual desires. He wouldn’t need to rape an of these undesirable women.


    1. Not to put too fine a point on it, but rape is disrespectful in the extreme and often men AND women will find “ugly” people sexy because they won’t fall in love and they can “feel” disrespectful and dominant when having sex with someone they only want to treat badly, even if only in their mind. That’s not a rationale for a rapist, but I do know coupling of this sort has gone on.
      And, again not to put too much into this, but a “beautiful” person who is something of a nobody regarding celebrity status often does find fame a powerful aphrodisiac. Only a maniac in Cosby’s position would enjoy the illegal behavior he’s accused of. He has never vibed as a maniac to me and I have been a fan of his comedy since he had five albums in the top ten at once, if memory serves. Not even the Beatles did that.
      Yes, “Crazy Mary” is offensive, but back then even my mother laughed at that along with my old man. “Oh, he’s terrible!” my mother laughed.
      The main draw for me was that Cosby was one of the few comics that didn’t resort to insults very much, if at all. He told hilarious stories that anyone could relate to, especially older kids, which was the main focus of all of his TV shows after I SPY (He might have had a variety show in there. Most comedians tried that format back when). Why he could be dragged down like this is a true mystery. Maybe the bill for trying to contribute positively has come due- or, because he was billed as a family man, he’s the richest target available to continue the “Destroy All Families!” soft genocide we are experiencing now.

      Liked by 3 people

      1. ” Why he could be dragged down like this is a true mystery. Maybe the bill for trying to contribute positively has come due- or, because he was billed as a family man, he’s the richest target available to continue the “Destroy All Families!” soft genocide we are experiencing now.”

        I think it is because one wouldn’t think a guy like Cosby would be involved in something like this that he was chosen. They always seem to go for maximum shock value. Like Michael Richards who was one of the most beloved comedians being involved in that “racial hate” psyop.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. How was the Michael Richards case a ‘psyop’? He repeatedly and gratuitously used the word nigger to disparage black audience members who were talking during his set, then continued making racially offensive remarks as they got up to leave. Are you suggesting they were paid to cause a commotion, and he was paid or otherwise encouraged to ruin his own career and become a pariah by insulting them in the manner that he did?


          1. Keep in mind Michael Richards is a high ranking freemason. There wasn’t much of a future acting career to be ruined for him. Some comics get into a rush on stage and overplay the issues , but this was an obvious act to get into the mainstream which it did. As for Cosby I guess the 1st date/ is when the rape or assault happened and then the 2nd date is when it was reported? Huge time gaps and so many no charges filed. I see that it does fall into the “Destroy All Families, All men are pigs” agenda.


  3. ”I wish there were some surreptitious way to ascertain whether or not famous perps like Markhasev, Sirhan Sirhan, the late Charles Manson and so many others are really in a jail cell at any given time. Merely reporting that they are in jail removes them from the public mind. They can walk freely among us.”

    Remember Paris Hilton?

    I live in Los Angeles and about 10 years ago, according to the news media, Hilton was ordered to jail here in LA to serve a sentence for driving violations. She was ordered to jail by a judge and to jail she did go, we were told. We were given a blow by blow description of Paris’ emotional outbursts during this sentencing and the whole thing was all so very dramatic, we were told. Paris Hilton was then transported to jail.

    A day or two later something bizarre happened. I mean, what are the odds? There I was driving my car in this city of 4 million people, stopped at a red light, when a big black Mercedes pulled up beside me. And, who should be driving that car? None other than Paris Hilton! The same Paris Hilton who had been all over the news of late and was supposed to now be in jail. There was no doubt it was her. She even had that little “BFF” of hers sitting beside her. I looked at the car, noted its color and model number and when I got home I posted this sighting on a major internet “conspiracy” type forum on what I’d just seen with the details of the car.

    Obviously Paris Hilton was NOT in jail, I said, contrary to what the media was telling us. Within hours of posting this sighting the news media announced, “er, uh … the LA County Sheriff has ordered that Paris be released from jail.”

    It was a strange thing, they said, and gave some sort of weakly illogical reason for this new development which I don’t recall. They also gave no explanation as to how a County Sheriff could order any prisoner released from jail who had been duly sentenced by a judge. It made no sense at all. I mean, Law Enforcement can’t tell the judicial system or the correctional system what to do with a particular prisoner who has been duly sentenced by the courts.

    It was as if somebody somewhere read my post and the details I gave in it and decided the jig was up and they better come up with another story before Paris totally blew it by being seen by more of the public as being out of jail.

    I always knew that the media was wildly inaccurate with its reporting but it was at that moment that I realized that the media was completely fake and simply a propaganda machine that made up “news” stories to suit their agenda. Since then I don’t believe any news story about any notable person going to jail. Or any other news story for that matter.

    Liked by 4 people

    1. Someone may have read your post! I once contacted a very high level person at the NFL and posted information on his twitter account about why the NFL was fake. Within a week, my account was closed by Twitter. I then opened a FB page and contacted the same person on FB. Again, my account was closed by FB shortly afterwards. I have also made comments on GoFundMe pages that I believe are hoaxes, and I have been blocked every time. It is my belief that our comments are monitored by the powers that be, even though that sounds paranoid. Big brother is watching and responds. This blog is most likely monitored as well.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. I think something is going on with, the “Swiss” mail service that is “encrypted.” Mathis started using it and others followed suit, but even then I was suspicious. What better way to keep track of troublemakers than to lure them to a supposedly secure site, and then read their every word!

        Liked by 1 person

        1. Thanks, Mark! Good to know! I understand no one is worried about little ol’ me. I have no following and people tend to not believe me any way. But I have had strange experiences and it does appear that “someone” seems to notice and react when I when I make certain comments.


          1. I believe you just bc i like your name. Name of a lovely city in georgia AND a place where nature flourishes still in Africa according to tv. 😀

            Liked by 1 person

  4. “In the criminal justice system, sexually based offenses are considered especially heinous. In New York City, the dedicated detectives who investigate these vicious felonies are members of an elite squad known as the Special Victims Unit. These are their stories.”, Yeah, right. This psyop did not start over night. No women will wait decades to get revenge for being raped in the past. As for the Cosby boy, I think this VIP’s have that problem that their children cannot escape being VIP’s too. Some of them don’t want to play along and prefer to have a normal life. It does not happen very often probably but if you’re a child of a famous person who’s making a living in the media and you don’t want to participate, they will not want you to come back some day and spill the beans. Or maybe he really died in an embarrassing way and they invented a story to cover that.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I completely agree. Regarding your last sentence, it struck me that sometimes other actors/famous people die in (what we’re told are) pretty embarrassing ways – such as David Carradine. You know, Kill Bill guy, and the guy from the old Kung Fu show? Found dead from strangling himself while jerkin’, so we’re told. He never struck me as the type, and I have a good idea of “the type” as my first real experience with death was a close friend killing himself the same way. Sure, it’s possible. But why would Kung Fu guy do that? It seemed highly suspect, like someone wanted to blackwash him.

      Just conjecture there. I have no evidence that anything else happened to David Carradine, but this BIll Cosby thing reminds me a lot of how I felt about reading/hearing about David’s alleged death story. It stinks. Smells rotten.

      As an aside connection, David Carradine’s brother played Wild Bill Hickcok on “Deadwood”. So we know they’re involved with spooky people in both directions – Kill Bill and Wild Bill. Bill Cosby. They Killed Bill Cosby.


      1. At the risk of being thought a name-dropper or nut case, I have another personal celeb experience related to this Carradine thing …

        I met David Carradine’s brother Bruce in 2009, just days after David’s alleged death. I was at his house in Encino. Just another wild chance thing. Bruce was having a yard sale which I went to (I go to lots of them every weekend) not knowing who he was until I got there. He was very friendly and polite and had some things he wanted to sell. He walked us around his place (there was one other shopper there too) and he got to a cabinet that contained a box of family photos. Inside where photos of David, Keith, John – the whole Carradine family. (That was when he told us who he was). At that point Bruce got choked up and said he wasn’t selling those photos and there was an awkward silence for a moment before moving on. I believe Bruce’s reaction there was a genuine expression of grief over the loss of his brother. That doesn’t prove to me that the death was genuine because David’s death could still be faked without Bruce being privy to it but, well, there it is — make of it what you will.

        Yes, I seem to have more than my share of these odd coincidental encounters for some reason – I don’t know why but I seem to attract them if that’s possible.

        Liked by 1 person

  5. Good piece and comments.

    That list of vicsims looks indeed like made up, the names sound very strange or surnames are linked to some major spooks we have seen in the past, some of the most obvious ones:
    Sunni Welles
    Margie Shapiro
    Charlotte Fox
    Marcella Tate
    Cynthia Myers

    And Andrea Costand is obviously a MTF. MrE made a piece about “her”, but his channel has been pulled.


    1. Here Andrea Costand shares a hint of the esoteric:

      She’s wearing a caduceus pendant. The caduceus is carried by Greek god Hermes and the Roman god Mercury.

      From wiki:

      “In Roman iconography, it was often depicted being carried in the left hand of Mercury, the messenger of the gods, guide of the dead and protector of merchants, shepherds, gamblers, liars, and thieves.”

      “…It is said the wand would wake the sleeping and send the awake to sleep. If applied to the dying, their death was gentle; if applied to the dead, they returned to life.”

      She (he) looks to me like an older, fourth Jonas Brother.


      1. “Here Andrea Costand shares a hint of the esoteric.”

        She also looks very much like a man, and a very unattractive man at that, sort of like Simpson’s Side-Show Bob with the goofy hair and gangly tall frame.

        For the life of me I cannot imagine any man wanting to have sexual relations with her – but maybe that’s part of the psyop.

        Liked by 2 people

    2. Barbara Bowman: shares surname with supposed Ted Bundy victim and the main character of “2001: A Space Odyssey”.
      Lachele Covington: shares surname with White Nationalist Harold Covington.
      Chelan Lasha: reminds me of the White Nationalist “Lasha Darkmoon”.

      Liked by 1 person

  6. The anti-male project seems to be in high gear at the moment. It’s probably one of the biggest if not THE biggest psyop currently operating. And, it is not only done with celeb “news” stories. Practically every TV sitcom and drama pushes some corner of the propaganda of male piggishness, cruelty and stupidity. Every other commercial on TV that I see shows some idiot male being outdone by a smart-ass woman one way or another. Hollywood feature films have been pushing it for decades and is currently pushing the idea of not only feminine intellectual dominance but female physical superiority as well showing women kicking male ass like never before. And, most “comedy” films these days are nothing more than males depicted as Three Stooges type nincompoops surrounded by females coping with their antics.

    At this rate in a couple of generations I imagine most of the Western world will believe that woman are super hero queens and men are nothing but stupid, pathetic, criminal weaklings who deserve only to be done away with.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Sadly, all men are pigs & weaklings and all women are crazy bitches who kick ass. This seems to be the current narrative. The message first gets put into the media and then programmed into the brain. Clearly the powers that be want to divide us. Luckily, I have never experienced men to be that way. And my generation of women have no desire to kick ass!


    1. Thanks, interesting:

      When you think about it
      Lying doesn’t take much skill
      But it’s kind of like a snowball
      Rolling down the hill
      It just keeps getting bigger
      And harder to stop
      And when it blows up in your face
      Tell me, who comes out on top?
      Not you.
      So, don’t go telling a lie.

      It may indeed be a case where he got duped. At age 80, what is there to win for him if he would be an actor in this whole scheme?


      In 1956,[14] Cosby enlisted in the Navy and served as a hospital corpsman at the Marine Corps Base Quantico in Virginia; at Naval Station Argentia in Newfoundland, Canada; and at the National Naval Medical Center in Maryland. He worked in physical therapy with Navy and Marine Corps personnel who were injured during the Korean War.

      He lined up stand-up jobs at clubs in Philadelphia and then in New York City, where he appeared at The Gaslight Cafe beginning in 1961.

      Gaslighting is a form of manipulation that seeks to sow seeds of doubt in a targeted individual or in members of a targeted group, hoping to make them question their own memory, perception, and sanity. Using persistent denial, misdirection, contradiction, and lying, it attempts to destabilize the target and delegitimize the target’s belief.

      Instances may range from the denial by an abuser that previous abusive incidents ever occurred up to the staging of bizarre events by the abuser with the intention of disorienting the victim. The term owes its origin to the 1938 Patrick Hamilton play Gas Light and its 1940 and 1944 film adaptations. The term has been used in clinical and research literature, as well as in political commentary.

      What a coincidence?

      Many Americans wondered about the absence of race as a topic in Cosby’s stories. As Cosby’s success grew he had to defend his choice of material regularly; as he argued, “A white person listens to my act and he laughs and he thinks, ‘Yeah, that’s the way I see it too.’ Okay. He’s white. I’m Negro. And we both see things the same way. That must mean that we are alike. Right? So I figure this way I’m doing as much for good race relations as the next guy.”

      That didn’t go well with the culture creators of the roaring 1960s… and neither today. He sounds genuine and like an outsider to the system here.

      When accepting his third Emmy for the show I Spy, Cosby told the audience: “Let the message be known to bigots and racists that they don’t count!”

      And again, not the kind of “Malcolm X” sound that was the theme of the day…

      A new NBC show scheduled for 2015, created by Mike O’Malley and Mike Sikowitz and to have been produced by The Cosby Show’s Tom Werner, was set to feature Cosby as Jonathan Franklin, the patriarch of a multi-generational family. On November 19, 2014, NBC scrapped Cosby’s new show after accusations resurfaced that he sexually assaulted and raped women.

      Same we saw with the Schweinstein “me too” cases. Not on the basis of court case convictions, but on the basis of “accusations”.

      I am inclined to think not all of the mainstream actors are necessarily bad people. Of course many of them were railroaded into those “careers” and play life-time acting roles. But apart from that I am quite sure the industry also merely abuses talented people and get them to do things against their will.

      Was Bill Cosby too much opposing a certain agenda, scripted out for him as an unwilling perpetraitor and he got duped by these silly accusations?


      1. I did a word search for “false” and “accusation” on MM’s recent rape article. And the poll results show that MM finds the topic of false accusations of 0% importance. I find that odd.


        1. I only read the first part of that The Sword paper, Mark has created a separate blog to talk about it, but it’s also relevant here.

          Now reading on…

          Which brings us to another problem of math. If around 60% of these college girls are virgins, then they
          can’t have been raped, right? If you have been raped, you aren’t a virgin anymore, by definition. So,
          that leaves 40%. Therefore, we have to apply the 25% to the 40%. Do you see where I am going,
          you math brainiacs of both sexes? This means. . . if you believe these statistics and polls, then almost
          63% (25/40) of the sexually active (non-virgin) girls must have been raped.
          Do you really believe 63% of sexually active college girls are being raped?
          I don’t, but if you do, you
          will have to explain why women continue to apply to colleges with those sort of odds facing them.

          I am sorry Miles, but this is number juggling, bad statistics and sloppy conclusions from such action…

          Like almost everybody here, I agree that this “Men are Pigs” meme is pushed in the West, luckily much less here in South America, but this is not the best approach to counter that…

          Liked by 1 person

          1. Miles Mathis didn’t write anything of value for quite a while now. His latest papers are pointless, as this rape paper is. Especially his “Replay to Michael Shermer” is simply an in-house advertising. The entire world fears MM’s science and only MM The Great knows the truth? It’s pathetic. Similar things are happening on the cluesforum by the way. Cluesforum collected lots of excellent research over the years and then flooded it with Simons pseudoscience in an attempt to blackwash it. Looks like they create those honeypots on purpose only to prevent future generations to take anything of it seriously. Imagine your children’s children stumble upon this pages. Would they think: “wow, this is incredible, it opens my eyes to a completely new perspective”? No they would think, what a bunch of dumbasses all those flatearthers, tychos and chargers. MM wrote it himself: the higher you climb the more sophisticated the misleading will become.

            Liked by 1 person

          2. Random thoughts from your replies:

            Coming soon to a screen near you… the “Pigs are Men” and other equal rights for animals memes.

            For some time, I have been pondering doing a satirical MM-esque pdf send-up busting… the MM op.

            I am unashamedly a man, a husband, father, grandfather, son, brother. My life is informed by childhood observation of my male ancestors, not based on monkey-see, monkey-do du jour from idiotic electronic screens. For me, the more they denigrate manhood in the media, the more they merely out themselves and their agenda. The play’s the thing, eh?

            Liked by 1 person

          3. I don’t understand your comment. Have you tried the math? It’s pretty straightforward, even for Mathis:


            So are you saying that virgins HAVE had sex, or that being raped doesn’t count against virginity?

            Liked by 1 person

          4. @ B. Muller
            So you missed his paper on Polarizers in Sequence, his latest paper on The Solution to Tides, his paper on Curium being the last stable element, his paper on Cool Moonlight, his paper on Additive Color Theory and Antiphotons, his paper on Arp, Quasars, and Redshift, his paper on “A New Form of Light”, his paper on pole-reversals, his recent paper on Rutherford and electrons, and his paper on Graphene?

            Tell us what exactly “of value” he could possibly write, beyond fixing and upgrading the entire field of physics wholesale. Would you prefer economics or perhaps seamstressing? Should he be writing about scrapbooking techniques?


      2. Well in my admittedly limited experience, I have seen Cosby live 30 years or so ago. My impression was that he was very charismatic, well dressed, and had a natural talent for comedy. I would not have guessed that he would have any trouble with the ladies other than fighting them off. Far different than the current Fred Sanford impersonation. FWIW.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. As a kid I watched Cosby too. And while I love politically incorrect humor, I also liked the light-hearted comedy by Cosby.

          Growing up in Holland we got the best share of polincor humor. So much better than the -still great- sarcastic English humor and the boring German humor.

          A prime example by one of the greatest ones (pity there is no translation in English, but you get the idea):


  7. Jared I stopped following his scientific papers since the infamous PI=4. His entire science idea promotes theoretical physics which I consider to be a hoax. He should be writing about things that can be observed and measured in nature (applied physics). I liked his rainbow paper for instance. Theories only make sense if used for predictions. Like the atomic theory for instance allows very accurate predictions for chemical reactions. This theory may have its flaws but in general it is very useful. We have exactly 81 stable elements numbered from 1 to 83. Numbers 43 and 61 are missing which is because of the art of encoding used by nature. From the number 84 on all is unstable and mostly non existing in the universe anymore. Curium is an artificial element and I don’t think it was really created. It was mostly used on Mars-Rovers to analyze the surface Mars. He also recently confirmed that he believes in space travel, see? His scientific papers read like a theological disputes about how can God be good and almighty and allow all the evil at the same time. Especially his “charge feedback loop” (in the tide paper) looks very much like Simon Shacks Tycho model. Looks like Simon and Miles use their reputation to tear conventional science apart and replace it with weird and complicated theories only to give answers to questions nobody asked. Its project chaos, don’t you see that? 81 = 9² by the way, 1/81 creates all natural numbers in the form 0.0123456789(10)(11)…. Its a real magic number. 9=3*3 (33), etc. There’s a lot more on it.


    1. “Numbers 43 and 61 are missing ”

      Lol i have an idea who stole them. 4+3 = 6 + 1 = you know …


    2. While we often agree on social/historical topics, Muller, I find your utter lack of scientific study to be rather telling.

      “From the number 84 on all is unstable and mostly non existing in the universe anymore.”

      So Uranium and Thorium don’t exist in the universe anymore. Despite Uranium being almost as common as Tin, and Thorium being 3 times as common. They’re both many times more common than Silver, but you don’t believe they exist anymore, in the entire Universe, of which you’ve visited most of I imagine despite not believing in space travel?

      His Tide papers have nothing in common with Simon Shack’s horseshit. Miles presents us with an actual, physical mechanism – charge. Did you miss the part where he presented us with an actual physical mechanism called charge? It’s in almost every one of his science papers.

      There’s nothing weird or complicated about his physics, it’s simple and straightforward pool-ball mechanics from top to bottom. And questions nobody has asked? Your responses on this topic are worse than terrible. Nobody has ever asked about why rainbows curve, or why prisms refract? Or why heat rises? Or why the atmosphere floats, or why the elements in the atmosphere have the abundances they do, or why lift on a wing happens, or why the moon is the same size as the sun visually from us in the same way that Mercury, Earth, and Saturn are the same size from the sun?

      On top of you not knowing what questions anyone else may or may not be asking and not being qualified to speak for anyone but yourself, your straw men are rather pathetic. Just like everyone else I’ve seen criticizing his science, you haven’t bothered to read his papers very studiously and are unable to refute his math or his physics at all.

      Seen it all before. In fact, seen it all every time anyone tries to bash him. It’s pathetic.


    3. Also, #43 is Technetium and #61 is Promethium. How are those two elements missing when they’re simply not missing at all? They aren’t very stable and aren’t very naturally abundant, but that’s not “missing”, that just means they aren’t very stable and aren’t very naturally abundant. Just because you missed them somehow in your oh-so-rigorous study of the Periodic Table does not mean they’re missing. What’s missing here is your knowledge of the topic, not these elements.


      1. Jared, only stable elements count. The periodic table of elements is a system of ordering them. You can fill all the gaps in that system and extend it with elements only existing in your brain and maybe create some of them artificially as you can create a fake vacuum but it will not be the same vacuum as it exists in the space where it is the consequence of absence of matter and energy. If you want to understand our universe you have to ask why only this 81 elements are stable and exists to this day as and others not. Unstable elements exist only as ore and in combination with other substances and not in pure form. Uranium for instance exists only as oxide or phosphate, etc. where it becomes stable.


        1. Wrong again. Of course they do count, you’re just upset about being wrong. Uranium is very stable, as is Thorium. And without Mathis’s theory stability can’t even be predicted or explained at all in the first place, or radioactivity, or decay. Unstable elements count just as much as stable ones because they’re all the same fundamental matter, just in different configurations. If I want to understand the universe, I sure wouldn’t turn to you for any insight. You have none on this topic. You’re just as bad as Simon Shack.

          You would know these things if you had bothered to study the physics involved, instead of just ham-handedly firing off poor rebuttals. Uranium 238 and 235 are VERY stable elements, with half lives of 4.5 billion years and 700 million years respectively.

          Your entire concept of stability and elemental configurations is wrong. That’s what happens when you stop reading physics papers just because you’re upset about being wrong.


    4. You have so many assumptions in your thoughts that it’s amazing how you manage to function in real life. Can you really? It would be certainly better for your own state of mind and reputation likewise to stick to commenting issues you’re capable of understanding.

      When criticizing latest output Mathis has published, saying there was nothing of value in there, what is this claim based on? Your opinion only, I reckon, is everything you have to offer when bashing other man’s work. Can you finally show me/us anything you were able to compose and confidently publish on your blog somewhere? No, but you’re surely confident enough to comment about Mathis output while offering nothing substantial. In other words, it’s a crappy critique, full of nothing. Again. Yawn, boring.

      Everybody knows what Pi represents, as we all know how to properly calculate circumference of a circle using it. Mathis included, guaranteed. Which is entirely different application of math then trying to calculate and predict the position of an object moving in a curved trajectory, for instance. You have failed to understand the concept of Pi in kinematic situations and have failed to acknowledge your lack of understanding in this subject. That’s why you have managed to connect all the wrong dots, which then makes you think Mathis is the only one to know the truth in physics. Not anymore, you see, ever since he published his revelations there are tens or even hundreds of us who know portions of it. The same applies to charge; you have failed to understand field de-unification and acknowledge how wrong is the 300-year old Newton-age dogma.

      I’m still waiting for anything scientific and thorough coming from you. Your bashing is far, far away from a critique. It’s only a bald comment, full of wrong assumptions and misconceptions.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. The science is “above their pay-grade”. Which is hilarious considering I don’t get paid to study physics, and neither does Miles. And yet here we are, doing exactly that, with absolutely zero “pay-grade”.

        It’s a dodge. Mathis consistently states and shows how people use the same weak-sauce rebuttals to his science over and over, and this is no exception. They won’t address his physics or math because they cannot, not because they WILL not.


  8. The MM stuff is better discussed on the new blog, but this claim “that Mercury, Earth, and Saturn are the same size from the sun?” makes no sense.

    Mercury and Saturn from Earth have a comparable apparent magnitude. If you could stand on the Sun, Mercury is much closer to the Sun than it is from Earth and Saturn is 1 AU farther, so how can they look all the same size?


    1. No, we can discuss these things here just fine. And the claim makes perfect sense once you understand the dynamics and mechanics involved.

      The moon, from Earth, appears as a disc the same size as the sun (on average) for the same reason as the Mercury/Earth/Saturn appearance from the sun. They are in relative charge balance. They are being repulsed by charge emission at the same magnitude, owing to their radius and distance.

      This is also why Jupiter causes so much chaos in our system. It’s not in charge balance and wants to go above Saturn, but the outer Jovians push it back in. Mathis has explained these things in great detail, something nobody else has ever done. I’m kinda surprised you haven’t read those papers.


      1. Nobody understands the mechanics. Also Miles Mathis not. He has hypothesized a different idea, with “charge”. But it is not backed up by experiments, it is just the same juggling with equations as the mainstream psience does.

        No experimental science = no science.

        The moon, from Earth, appears as a disc the same size as the sun (on average) for the same reason as the Mercury/Earth/Saturn appearance from the sun. They are in relative charge balance. They are being repulsed by charge emission at the same magnitude, owing to their radius and distance.

        We don’t know what causes the Moon and Sun to have such similar apparent sizes. To hypothesize they are in “relative charge balance”, whatever that may mean, is just a proposed idea, it is not based on anything.

        “They are being repulsed by charge emission”, what does repulsed mean? Repelled? And which “charge emission”, do we have measurements for that?

        This is also why Jupiter causes so much chaos in our system. It’s not in charge balance and wants to go above Saturn, but the outer Jovians push it back in. Mathis has explained these things in great detail, something nobody else has ever done. I’m kinda surprised you haven’t read those papers.

        What “chaos” does Jupiter produce in our system? I see quite orderly and predictable paths of the celestial bodies (planets, moons, stars) in the skies.
        “Wants to go above Saturn”, what kind of physical description is that? Jupiter’s and Saturn’s inclination to the ecliptic are pretty much the same; low. Lower than Mercury and especially Pluto. How do you know what Jupiter “wants to do”?

        Mathis has stepped in somewhere half-way in a theoretical model and then shuffles the maths a bit around. It is not a theory based on the scientific method; first doing observations, doing experiments, developing hypotheses, test those with new data, refine them into theories and make sure those are predictive.

        In that sense Mathis “physics” and Simon Shack’s “model” are very alike. Both proponents are also way too arrogant for their capabilities and lack of experiments to make such grandiose claims; SS “the only coherent [not] logical and scientific [not] model of the skies” and MM “a theory of everything, combining quantum physics [magic] with astrophysics [mostly magic]”.


        1. Wrong. Just because you don’t understand these things doesn’t mean “nobody does.” I understand them very well, and will explain them to you right now using simple words so you can be sure to understand. Gravity is “pulling” the planets towards the sun, but if that were the only force in play they would simply spiral in and be consumed. What’s observed are elliptical orbits – in all bodies, not just the nearby ones. We’ve never observed a natural circular orbit. So we have some force repelling the orbiting bodies as they get too close – and Miles has shown this force to be charge, which is photons. The pressure of light balances against gravity to cause the elliptical orbits. This is the same thing that causes the apparent visual similarity in radius of the sun/moon from Earth, and the aforementioned planets from the sun’s POV.

          You say this “is not based on anything”, but it’s actually based on everything we see in the sky, so your assessment here is false. It’s not just a proposed idea, it’s a theory which you have not falsified – nor has anyone else. That’s a key part of the definition of a scientific theory. You should have said “its’ not based on anything I understand or know, since I haven’t taken the time to read up on the theory or study Mathis’s counter-theory.” Your ignorance is not mine.

          What chaos does Jupiter exert? It pushes (via charge) against the inner planets (and outer, to a lesser extent) causing axial tilts and inclinations. You would know this if you’d read his papers on those topics as well. “I see quite orderly and predictable paths of the celestial bodies (planets, moons, stars) in the skies.” Yes, they are quite orderly but you cannot predict them, not with any math you’ve seen or know, since you refuse to take into account the charge field. And saying the paths are orderly and predictable doesn’t explain their ellipses, nor their tilts, nor their inclinations. What is orderly and predictable about Uranus’s massive tilts at 107°, or ANY of the planetary tilts or inclinations? Nobody predicted those, ever in history.

          Then you hedge off into the familiar “Mathis hasn’t done any experiments.” trifling. He doesn’t need to do experiments on the planets, nor could he or anyone else. He has observed nature, developed a hypothesis, and confirmed it in thousands of ways. So yes, his theories are as scientific as possible – and it’s up to you to falsify them, which is the last step in a theory. ALL solide theories are simple unfalsified-as-of-yet, there are no “facts” in the Scientific Method. His theories are more solid than almost all the mainstream ones on these topics, because we can easily falsify the theories in question.

          Then you tell us that you think quantum mechanics is mostly magic, which means you’ve either never read a single paper by Mathis on the topic or are purposely pretending to ignorance. It’s precisely that “magic” that Mathis demolishes with his charge field – the magics of Newton, Einstein, Maxwell, Bohr, Heisenberg, Feynman and many others.

          So once again we have someone who hasn’t done their homework making terrible arguments, easily refuted, simply because you never bothered to read the material. Why am I so vehement on this topic? Because I’ve read ALL those papers, dozens or hundreds of times, and have used these theories myself in my own physics work. And guess what? It works. He’s right, on almost every topic in his science papers. He nails it. He has every reason to be arrogant and obnoxious – he’s earned it, as have I. I’m no weak ally. I give as good as I get and try not to be too predictable, so if you feel attacked and demolished, you should. I’ve argued these exact same points a hundred times. This wasn’t even a warm-up.


          1. I don’t waste time reading Gaia’s comments – as I’ve said before, he writes about stuff he doesn’t appear to have a clue about but he keeps spouting off … again, again, again like a flippn broken record. That is spooky behavior to me.

            Liked by 1 person

          2. I feel you on this one, but at the same time SOME of Gaia’s insight and commentary I agree with and find useful, chiefly his/her dissection of Simon Shack’s bullshit – though not as vehement as that guy deserved, in my opinion.

            We’re all different and come from different walks of life, different educations and backgrounds, and different belief systems/structures. I’ll take the good with the bad, but I don’t hesitate to call out the bad when I see it.


  9. Heh, well I just assumed the Cosby thing was fake without even bothering to look into it. Nice to see it though. Not really sure what is with the Mathis bashing though. We all agree that Mcgowan was limited hangout but I really like his writing and picked up a lot from it. I would not throw Miles under the bus just for being related to the peerage though. My ancestors include many of those families ( yes they intermarried ) but not everyone is a member of the club. Hate to disappoint everyone but back then the first surviving son ( of the wealthy families ) got all the money. The second got a nice fat military commission. ( a good gig if you were halfway intelligent and lacking any morals ), The third got a cushy clergy appointment. Number 4 and after were shit out of luck. Maybe they’s get 100 acres to farm or something. You see it really doesn’t require an extensive understanding of physics. Just simple math. The club would be too big otherwise.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Mathis appears to have been a vehicle by which tons of important information were released. He himself said repeatedly with limited hangouts to take what is offered and discard what is not useful.


      1. And now you’ve closed comments on your Mathis expose’ blog as well? Jesus, Mark. You shouldn’t take these topics so personally, and censoring the conversation isn’t helping your cause at all.

        To reiterate, I don’t think either of you are spooky. We’ve spotted a few spooks here and there in these discussions, but the only thing “spooky” around here is, as Grace said on the other site, your continuous censorship of discussions you yourself started.


        Liked by 2 people

          1. Then why would you close off discussion? I mean, if the long thread annoy you, you could simply unFollow them in your email or whatever.

            Liked by 1 person

        1. Jared

          Your comments have been excellent but I think the behavior IS spooky, perplexing, schizophrenic, Jekyll and Hyde, and it is not new and it’s something I completely dislike about POM. As Mark says “use your brain.” Mark is now saying MM “appears” to be a vehicle. Why now?? Just because of some genealogical tidbits? It’s spooky to me. The evidence is fairly circumstantial – nothing but genealogy notes to tar and feather and black wash MM. really, where is the beef? Mark backed himself into a corner and he knows it and that folks weren’t buying it hook, line and sinker so he cut off comments, arbitrarily, no warning! That’s not spooky? What is he afraid of? Sorry, I have to ask! And I ask with all sincerity because I am using my brain AND my heart. It does not speak well for POM so I ask again why should I trust POM? If MM is a vehicle so is Mark and POM. If I were to choose between the two, I think I will be in the MM camp. Don’t start a discussion board on MM and then close down comments on a whim. Again, it doesn’t look good. It looks spooky.

          Liked by 2 people

          1. Agreed, Grace. I am firmly in the Mathis camp and generally defend him the same way I would defend myself – which I also do, constantly, in many other forums and on many sites. I came her to share ideas and hopefully learn stuff,. On Facebook itself I run a group called “Really Fake Science”, in which we post stupid sciencey-memes but also I out mainstream theory and demolish belief structures for my 300-400 members. Lots of good debates to be had, as well as mirth and a general spirit of friendliness. Now of course Miles and many others have outed Facebook (easily done, it’s blatantly obvious what the entire platform is about and Zucky is a complete fraud) and refuse to use them, but I have thousands of friends and contacts there and scores of them learn more about physics through my argumentation.

            I get messages all the time asking questions and where to find more answers and depth, and of course much of the time I direct them right to Mathis. So, he’s welcome. It’s my pleasure. I’m in it for the LEARNING, not for anything else, and prestige be damned. I don’t want any. I just want to contribute and learn and eventually perhaps DO something with it all… which I have been, in horticulture using Mathis’s charge theories. But nothing powerful yet to share or write up, since the season just began and my test plants have many months ahead to grow.

            So my point is, Mark, that cutting off the dialogue is not only bad form – it’s REALLY bad form. Ending a discussion like this shouldn’t be forced – it will just happen on its own, and most importantly what about FUTURE readers? You don’t care much about our opinions, is what you’re saying. And to potential new readers, allies, and idea-sharers you’re saying, “Fuck you.” as well.

            That is the opposite of being open-minded, or “Mindful”, piece or otherwise.

            Liked by 2 people

      2. I would guess that anyone that had made it this far is a rather discriminating buffet eater already. I have no qualms about taking a cube of offending jello on a plastic spoon and flinging it across the room. so for me at least, the question is not really critical. Even a rich gold mine has only a few grams per ton.

        Liked by 1 person

  10. I feel you on this one, but at the same time SOME of Gaia’s insight and commentary I agree with and find useful, chiefly his/her dissection of Simon Shack’s bullshit – though not as vehement as that guy deserved, in my opinion.

    We’re all different and come from different walks of life, different educations and backgrounds, and different belief systems/structures. I’ll take the good with the bad, but I don’t hesitate to call out the bad when I see it.

    And that is the problem with both MM and SS. Are their initials just “coincidentally” repetitive?

    Both rely on mainstream non-empirical ideas to “refute” part of the mainstream claims, while embracing other ones without questioning them.

    I just today read MM’s papers about Mercury, Saturn, Enceladus and went back to his paper about plate tectonics that I read before. He doesn’t present new ideas from the root of science; using experiments, yet steps in half-way, praises Einstein in many of his papers (instead for calling the clown out for the wizard he was) and believes in the muon, negative vs positive spin and other metaphysical ideas.

    The two personalities align quite well. MM claims to have established a “Grand Unified Theory” and while SS claims to present not a unified model, he still claims his model is “the only logically and scientifically consistent model”.

    Both are false and confirmation biased cherry picking; what goes along with my idea/model is ok, that what goes against it is not. Both are not relying on real science (experiments, empiricism), but step in half-way, taking a lot of psience claims for granted and build their models on top of them.

    Nobody has observed “charge fields”, so this whole path MM takes is relying on fantasy. He believes in Space Travel (outlined in his latest papers), while physical laws do not allow for Space Travel to happen. Ever.

    Note that in my reaction to Kevin Starr’s excellent analysis of Miles Mathis, definitely MM-style and praised by his own admission in his Sofia Smallstorm paper, I never called him “a spook”. Nor did he. The boomerang action however was marvelous.

    I agree with those who say get the good stuff out of it and ditch the bad stuff. MM has helped me a lot in waking up to the lies and so has SS. That however doesn’t mean you have to turn into a “bewildered fanboy” who stops criticizing.

    My criticism to the owner of PoM, Mark, has been clear, and at the same time I respect him for doing good analysis on many subjects (John Denver, Waco and more) and allowing us to discuss those subjects.

    Those who want to steer others into a black-and-white George Dabya “either you are with me, or with the terrorists” position are more into misdirection than those who can discern every individual point and analyze the validity of them by themselves.

    My baseline is that MM’s “physical model” is just mathematical magic, SS’s “geometrical model” is faulty and zombies are rather less abundant than more.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply to Rendar Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s