Walk away … it’s not worth it … walk away

“I skimmed those websites and could tell at a glance the theory was purposeful misdirection just from their form. They tend to use picture fades and chops, sort of like DallasBoldPest or Tokarski. Although the theory ought to be pretty easy to prove with straight forward analysis like I do, they never get around to that.”

“DallasBoldPest” is is Ed Chiarini, or Dallas Goldbug, controlled opposition put in place to discredit photographic analysis of faces by making absurd comparisons, such as JFK becoming Jimmy Carter or Jim Morrison transforming into Rush Limbaugh (God rest his soul). Since there are so many around us who are actors, even people who have faked their deaths to assume other roles, it was important for Intel to get out in front and establish that speculation about such matters would be verboten, and Chiarani was given the task. He has served nobly, and Mathis in the above paragraph is using him as intended, to discredit me. Interesting.

The paragraph is lifted from a Mathis essay on Amelia Earhart in which he claims her death was faked, and that ala Sharon Tate (Patty) and Nicole Brown Simpson (Denise), the alleged deceased merely became her sister, in this case, Muriel Earhart. He’s right about that, and before I do get into photographic evidence to this effect, I need to work a little bit on Mathis himself. We published an attack here by a writer using the pseudonym Robert Zherunkel attacking Mathis on personal grounds. That essay is no longer available for viewing, and I have told Mathis privately that we crossed a line that cannot be uncrossed, and that I regretted that. However, even as I can regret it all I want, I cannot un-publish it. So I understand his resentment of me even as it seems to stem from other matters as well. I can live with it. The Mathis story is interesting, and as we have discussed here and as others have noted, one man cannot possibly be the source of so much that has been revealed.

His role appears to be in our cryptocracy to fulfill the function called “now it can be told.” As some have noted, we are often warned in advance of fake events, and then those events unfold. Later, usually much later, we are told the truth, but in such a way that only a very few access it. Mathis, with his limited audience and off-putting genealogy and Phoenics, is a good source for NICBT. Long after events have occurred, he  comes along to explain what really went down. But notice his role in the present moment, with the scamdemic, the most important psyop of all of our lives, that he’s not too well versed. He claims it’s a money grab, as if the people behind it are hard up for cash. He’s phoning it in, and not of much use to us.

With Amelia Earhart he gets it right, but stand back a minute. He’s not saying she kamikazied her plane into a Phoenician Navy vessel, but rather tells us that he figured out the scam based primarily on this photo:

It’s pretty easy to see after the fact, but not something we would stumble on. He had to be directed to that, and this is where “now it can be told” comes into play. Mathis was allowed to disclose the Earhart scam, as well as a host of others that have taken place in our own and European history. It’s his role. NICBT.

After reading the essay (eyes glazing over in the genealogy parts), my first impulse was to prove him wrong about Amelia becoming her sister Muriel. It was confusing at first, as the photos below which are labeled “Muriel Earhart” are indeed of Amelia.

In the last one, the photo is very clearly labeled as one of “Muriel” with her mother, as shown below. There are, to my knowledge, no family photos that include Muriel and Amelia together.

I have done the necessary analysis here but won’t bore you with it, as I only needed to convince myself that Mathis was right. Someone fed him correct information, but he did not take time to show us, instead telling us to rely on his remarkable judgment to make his case. Just trust him, he said.

What was confusing were other photos claimed to be “Muriel” Earhart, two of which (there aren’t many) were not even close in resemblance to Amelia, shown below.

The first and second line up well enough to possibly be Amelia in her younger and middle years. (Amelia died in 1998.) The two on the right are not even close.

Conclusion: Amelia Earhart’s death was faked, and she became her sister, Muriel. Mathis claims she was gay, but I don’t know how we can make such an assertion without better knowledge. Mathis thinks a lot of people are gay.

So he’s right. His gratuitous shot at me was uncalled for, and as I said at the outset, I should just walk away. But the guy can be annoying. So I gratuitously begrudge him a correct analysis.

43 thoughts on “Walk away … it’s not worth it … walk away

    1. It’s interesting to note Earhart’s famous kin are a collection of political movers and shakers until we get close to our time when show biz connections become more prominent. Tells you something about how the importance of actors have superseded politicos. Electronic media has made armies obsolete.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. That is quite a list. I think if it goes on out to 32nd cousin six times removed, I might be listed. But everyone famous is there, all one big family, aka the owners and rulers of the planet. I did not see Prince Charles, and since we know that Prince Harry and Prince William are not of his lineage, I think it safe to say that the whole list is challenged for accuracy … Maybe Juan Carlos steps in for Charles, so it is still in the family. But a lot of dogs have surely gotten over the back fence and mated with the pure breeds, which keeps diversity alive. Otherwise they’d all be like Charles, and have Hapsberg chins to boot. (I regard Bill Gates as the American counterpart of Charles, borderline moron.)


  1. Mark, I like how you get the “star” treatment: one name. It’s a begrudging compliment to you, sir! Pele, Cher, Tokarski…
    “eyes glazing over…” LOL


  2. While MM was ruminating about Phoenicians and Tokarski, some observant guy remarks that the CPAC convention stage as an exact replica of the Nazi SS rune for racial purity. In your faces, MFs? Just a coincidence, move on, nothing to see here, folks.


  3. Speaking of chops- and I don’t mean singing. (Yeah, this is a doozy, but it may explain their ferocious loyalty- they’re cousins, probably from the same Duke of Earl and obviously different royal mistresses- chew on that Miles, you magnificent sonofabitch!) sf3


    1. A new addition to the Jack Nicholson/Serial Killer group, John Hinckley Jr. The guy messed up, however, as Reagan lived.

      Hinckley Nicholson

      Jeffrey Dahmer could have Matt Damon for dinner!

      Dahmer Damon

      But oddly, Dahmer is not himself in later photos … these two, said to be him, vary enough to be two different people.

      Dahmer Dahmer


          1. I thought Lynch and Dahmer might be a batch thing (skulls/ ears didn’t match), but the more I look at Dahmer, the more I see multiples and composites in the mug shots. Like Brevik, for example. Nothing really adds up in the photos. The court pix indicate what we know- bullshite- and then there’s the Zal rule. Ross Lynch was a Disney bimbo and he ages out and goes right to serial killer. Obviously we’re not their demographic, but like Miley Cyrus going from school kid to stripper, teen heartthrob goes from dream boyfriend to homo cannibal. Thanks Uncle Walt.


  4. Ah the tangled web! Yes MM is about as arrogant as we will ever find but is fun to read. Steer clear of ever making a suggestion though! Regarding his repeated references to The Phoenician Navy it should be noted, if memory serves, that “Phoenician” is Greek meaning “Purple Men” which is why the dress worn by Kamala Harris was “Phoenician Purple” AKA Royal Purple, Imperial Purple, Tyrian Purple, Phoenician Red, etc. The dress was designed by 27-year-old black gay designer Christopher John Rogers. The Official Color of the LGBT is of course “Phoenician Purple”. BIG TECH as it is called, has as its epicenter, the San Francisco Metro area, otherwise known as “Silicon Valley”. San Francisco has the highest percentage of LGBT persons in the world and if it were a country would be the 18th largest economy on earth with a GDP in excess of $840 Billion. The misdirection of the MM documents would be all of the references to “The Peerage” as if all of the players are “related by normal heterosexual procreation” as opposed to a multitude of CORPORATIONS acting as fake families in a “birds of a feather” type of militant opposition to normalcy.
    Look into all of the MAYORS of major CITY GOVERNMENTS. The MAYOR of CHICAGO is just one of THOUSANDS of positions of major POLITICAL or CELEBRITY POWER occupied by the LGBT. NCIS Gibbs Rule #39 “There is no such thing as coincidence”.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. The official gay color is lavender, often mistaken for purple. Towards the end of the 19th century the public began linking lavender with homosexuality. Gay men in America were taunted for possessing a “dash” or “streak” of lavender.


      1. Kinda splittin “hairs” aint ya XS? Purple and Lavender are one and the uncle same. Yes I am well aware of the Hollywood “Lavender Marriages” and use of the word Lavender in reference to homosexuals. Lavender, (from the Latin Lavandula) is actually a genus of plant (47 to be exact) which has “purple” flowers so WTF are ya doing trying to put a fly in the annointment?


      1. Purple Heart, the U.S. decoration for service members wounded in combat, was instituted 1932; originally it was a cloth decoration begun by George Washington in 1782. Hendrix’ Purple Haze (1967) is slang for “LSD.” Purple death “cheap Italian red wine” is by 1947. Purple finch, the common North American bird, was so called by 1760 in catalogues; “the name is a misnomer, arising from the faulty coloring of a plate by Mark Catesby, 1731” [Century Dictionary]. It also is called house finch, for its domesticity. Purple martin is from 1743.”


    2. Phoenician (n.)
      late 14c., phenicienes (plural), “native or inhabitant of the ancient country of Phoenicia” on the coast of Syria, from Old French phenicien or formed from Latin Phoenice, Phoenices, on the model of Persian, etc. The Latin word is from Greek Phoinike “Phoenicia” (including its colony Carthage), which is perhaps of Pre-Greek origin [Beekes].

      Compare phoenix, which seems to be unrelated. Greek phoinix also meant “(the color) purple,” perhaps “the Phoenician color,” because the Greeks obtained purple dyes from the Phoenicians, but scholars disagree about this (Greek also had phoinos “red, blood red,” which is of uncertain etymology). Greek phoinix was also “palm-tree,” especially “the date,” fruit and tree, probably literally “the Phoenician (tree),” because the palm originated in the East and the Greeks traded with the Phoenicians for dates. It also was the name of a stringed instrument, probably also a reference to a Phoenician origin.

      In reference to the Semitic language spoken by the people, from 1836; as an adjective, from c. 1600.



  5. There are many bogus things about the Amelia Earhart story, but she definitely did have a sister named Grace Muriel Earhart. Newspapers.com has several articles from the early 1900s that mention both children’s names.

    See also:


    1. Very interesting! All I know for sure is that photos labeled Muriel were actually Amelia, but beyond that, many things are possible. I did not show my work on Amanda vs. Muriel in the post above. I was more about responding to the shot that MM took at me.


        1. Possibilities … Millie died by some means (not foul play) in the interim. Or Millie wanted out of the spotlight, and became someone else, early Witness Protection. By whatever means, there was, after Amelia’s disappearance, only one Earhart visible, and that was Amelia using the name Muriel. As I see it. I really haven’t spent enough time with this to have strong opinions, so I am open to other opinions.


          1. Is that really valid evidence though? Are we expected to believe they couldn’t mock those articles up? Has anyone actually gone and verified it on microfilm? Do we really think for one moment that they’re NOT manipulating old newspaper archives? It’s literally even in “Nineteen eighty four”. I don’t care one way or the other because, as Mark said, it doesn’t disprove the story – but surely we need to examine these old clippings before we accept them!


            1. They are images of newspaper pages. I’m convinced that they are genuine newspaper pages (there are several cites), and that Amelia Earhart had a sister.

              I believe that the Amelia Earhart story we’ve been told is mostly bunk, but the sister-replacement theory might be questionable.


              1. Yes, I am sure they are largely genuine – but are they untampered with? When I posted my original comment I hadn’t even looked at the photo. Now I have. Look at the outline on Grace’s wedding veil. Horrible paste job. And as with all these ridiculous paste ups, everyone’s looking in different directions and there are no consistent, coherent expressions among them. And what’s with that photobomber in the background? Could just be chance, but more likely it’s someone who was meant to be there in the original photo, but has been pasted over by the foreground figures.


                1. Yes, one of the newspapers has a photo, and it is a cut and paste job. It appears to be a cut and paste job that was done originally for the newspaper when printed, not many years afterward. There are photos of the two sisters, and they were cut and pasted in the newspaper. I don’t see any conspiracy here at this time.


                  1. No shame in getting caught up in their web occasionally – we’ve all done it! The only shame is when you double down and refuse to admit it! 😉


  6. Amelia Earhart could also have played a Romanov, like Natalie Wood’s mother. She looked exactly like Tatiana Romanov, Anastasia’s older sister. They even shared the same birth year: 1897.


    1. Wow. Now that surely deserves more attention than it’s getting!

      Only difference I can see between the two is that she looks hideous as Amelia and somehow mysteriously beautiful as Tatiana.


    2. Only difference I can see between the two is that she looks hideous as Amelia and somehow mysteriously beautiful as Tatiana.

      The wonders of cosmetics and optical illusions are to be marveled at.


      1. For me it’s mostly the two sets of clothing, and everything they imply. One is a pants-wearing feminist trailblazer, the other is a dignified and graceful woman with oodles of feminine mystique. Of course, that’s me buying into the whole Romanov myth, but it’s hard not to when you see the photos of them.

        Anyway, it proves something I’ve always said – even plain women can be beautiful with the right attitude, clothing and deportment. Men would go crazy for a woman like Tatiana now – if she lived up to that photo.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. Men would go crazy for a woman like Tatiana now – if she lived up to that photo.

          Like this pic?


          1. I think front-on is the best view of her – it seems to smooth out the (presumably Jewish) angles in her face. Women always look more beautiful when they’re gentle and curvy – men always look their best when they are hard and angular. She also has a genuinely sour expression in that one, whereas in the other she just looks piously calm and resigned.

            She’s also taking up an extraordinary amount of space in this one. The more space you take up, the more powerful your energy. That’s why when you turn up to a job interview, everyone looks like a crumpled heap – and why I always spread myself out and try to put my arm around something. It might have been the photographer’s suggestion, but it’s not a great look for a woman. Every man is subconsciously thinking “glad I’m not married to that!”

            So yeah, I prefer the earlier photo – I think she looks genuinely and profoundly beautiful in that one. But, again, what I see in that photo is the myth of the gentle, pious young saint that’s sold to us. The real context might have been “ok, can we get this crap off me now?”

            P.S. Also just one footnote to my above comment about the newspaper clipping, not directed at you Harry, but at anyone with doubts that the clipping photo was fake. Since photographs were so much more time and effort consuming to take then vs. now, there’s no way any photographer would have taken a shot with a photobomber in the background. It’s easy to do now, but back then you would have asked the person to move or restaged the shot.


Leave a Reply to John Burgess Cancel reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s