+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 3
Results 41 to 52 of 52

Thread: Miles W. Mathis Theories about Engineered Events in History

  1. Link to Post #41
    Ireland Avalon Member gnostic9's Avatar
    Join Date
    3rd January 2014
    Age
    55
    Posts
    186
    Thanks
    1,285
    Thanked 657 times in 157 posts

    Default Re: Miles W. Mathis Theories about Engineered Events in History

    Ships of the United States Navy in Cork Ireland during World War One
    (For fleet list click here)

    USS JACOB JONES DD61
    (Tucker Class, 1915)







    USS Jacob Jones arrived in Queenstown (now Cobh) in the south of Ireland, on the 17th of May, 1917. She was in company of Rowan, Tucker, Ericsson, Cassin and Winslow. Queenstown was the centre for anti-submarine forces, on the Western Approaches, under the command of Admiral Lewis Bayley, Commander in Chief , Coast of Ireland. Jacob Jones commenced operations immediately.
    Initially there was uncertainty as to the most effective use of destroyers. At first they were given patrol areas which they would scout, singly or in pairs. Any stray incoming merchantmen seen, were to be escorted to near their destinations. This was a most ineffective use of the force, as the chances of coming across, and destroying a lone submarine in the vastness of the Western Approaches was virtually nil.
    By Summer 1917, under the urging of commanders such as Admiral Sims, Commander of US Naval Forces in Europe, the convoy system was initiated. Groups of merchantmen were escorted through the war zone by flanking destroyer screens. This had the dual effect of reducing the amount of targets for German u-boats, and allowing destroyers and sloops to attack the harassing submarines. The priorities of the destroyers were to:
    Destroy Submarines.
    Protect and escort Merchantmen.
    Save the crews and passengers of torpedoed ships.
    Anti-submarine patrols did continue also for the duration of the war, especially in the Irish Sea and close to the coast of France, where u-boats would try to sink merchantmen as the convoys dispersed. In 1918, any destroyer in the Irish Sea, which was not actively convoying, came under the orders of The Irish Sea Hunting Flotilla, under the command of Captain Gordon Campbell VC based in Holyhead, Wales. US destroyers were also used to patrol the west coast of Ireland to hunt suspected gun-running ships, for Irish Republicans.
    The destroyers , initially, were ill-equipped to fight submerged submarines. When they arrived in Europe they were armed with guns and torpedoes. The only undersea weapons supplied were single hand-launched 50lb depth charges which were particularly ineffective. It was the later fitting of dual depth charge racks on the sterns of the ships, Thornycroft depth charge throwers, and Y shaped charge throwers that turned them into a dangerous force. These were capable of dropping and firing a continuous patterned barrage of 200lb, charges around a submarine's suspected position. Most of the retro-fitting of these armaments was done at Cammel Laird in Birkenhead, England.
    On the 6th of June, 1917, SS Manchester Miller was torpedoed and abandoned in position 52.30N, 15.00W. USS McDougal rescued the survivors. USS Jacob Jones, USS Cassin and HMS Camellia arrived to offer assistance. Camellia took the Manchester Miller in tow, escorted by McDougal. Jacob Jones and Cassin returned on patrol. The Manchester Miller sank after 12 miles, in position 52.46N, 13.43W.
    On the 6th of June, 1917, in pos 52.05N, 12.19W, USS Jacob Jones sighted a submarine which submerged.
    On the 7th of June, 1917, in position 52.35N, 12.11W, Jacob Jones spotted large oil slick. One hand launched depth charge was dropped on the spot, but no result seen.
    On the 28th of June , 1917, in pos 7 miles off Old Head lighthouse Jacob Jones dropped depth charge on oil and bubbles. No result seen.
    On the 8th of July, 1917, in pos 51.49N, 12.00W, the SS Valetta was torpedoed and sunk. USS Jacob Jones picked up the whole of the crew, 44 in number and landed the at Queenstown.
    On July 15th, 1917, Jacob Jones went to the assistance of SS Abinsi, which was being chased by submarine. Jacob Jones caught up with steamer and went alongside her. The two vessels touched, ns some damage was done to the Jacob Jones, with one whaleboat destroyed.
    On the 20th of July, 1917, in pos 51.01N, 11.21W, USS Jacob Jones sighted submarine which submerged. Jacob Jones dropped 2 depth charges. No result seen.
    On the 21st of July, 1917, in pos 50.50N, 11.36W, USS Jacob Jones picked up 25 survivors of SS Dafila torpedoed by enemy submarine and landed them at Bantry. Whilst searching vicinity, Jacob Jones was attacked and missed by torpedo.
    On July 28th 1917, USS Trippe,USS Wadsworth, USS McDougal, USS Porter, USS Wainwright, USS Jacob Jones, USS Shaw, and USS Ericsson, formed an escort for an incoming convoy of 19 ships. On July 29th 1917,at 10.55pm, USS Wadsworth dropped a depth charge on a suspected submarine wake. 5 minutes later the nearby USS Trippe collided with an underwater object, no serious damage was done and nothing further was seen.


    On the 19th of August, 1917, USS Trippe, USS Rowan, USS Jacob Jones, USS Ericsson, USS Shaw, and
    USS Wainwright, were escorting a US Army convoy to St Nazaire, France. At 1.15pm Jacob Jones reported “periscope sighted”. At 1.34pm Ericsson dropped a depth charge, there was nothing further seen. On the 20th of August. Land was sighted near Belle Ile. At 8.17am one of the transports, the USS Finland opened fire with her stern gun. The Rowan and Trippe rushed to the spot and both dropped depth charges. The transports began firing in multiple directions as two French areoplanes flew over the convoy. USS Shaw was narrowly missed by firing and shrapnel landed within 200 yards of her. On later examination it was felt that the ships had been firing at schools of porpoises. The incident became known as the ‘Battle of Belle Ile’ and was an example of how easily crews were fooled into thinking submarines were attacking a
    Convoy.
    On the 6th of September, 1917, in pos 51.40N, 06.35W, USS Jacob Jones in company with USS Paulding sighted submarine which submerged immediately. Jacob Jones dropped depth charge, but no result seen.

    On the 19th of October, 1917, HMS Orama was torpedoed and sunk, in pos 48.00N, 09.20W. USS Conyngham picked up 50 survivors and USS Jacob Jones picked up 305. Conyngham chased after submarine and dropped depth charge on her. Admiral Bayley, Commander in Chief, Coast of Ireland reported - The picking up of those survivors alongside a sinking ship at night was a fine feat of seamanship.
    On the night of November 3rd 1917, USS Parker was part of the escort for convoy HS14. At 10.30 pm sighted suspicious object and headed for it at 22 knots, all guns manned. Parker maded challenge by blinker light, but received no reply. Parker fired one shot. Immediately other vessel turned on masthead recognition lights. This vessel turned out to be the Jacob Jones. The two vessels continued in company.
    On the 6th of December, 1917, USS Jacob Jones was returning to Queenstown from convoy duties in Brest. The ship was off the Scilly Isles, in position 49.23N, 06.13W, when a single torpedo was seen speeding towards the starboard side of the ship. Lieutenant F.S.Kalk, officer of the watch turned the helm hard to port and increased speed, but to no avail and the torpedo struck the starboard oil tank and exploded. No SOS could be sent as the mainmast was collapsed by the explosion. Efforts were made to launch any available rafts and boats, and the splinter mats were cut off the bridge to aid men in the water. Two shots were fired by the number four gun to try to attract attention from any passing ships. Lieut Commander Bagley ordered abandon ship


    The Jacob Jones sank by the stern in 8 minutes, and as it sank, the armed depth charges exploded, injuring and killing some of those in the water. Immediate efforts were made to get the men in the water onto rafts and to keep rafts and boats together.


    15 minutes after the ship sank. The submarine surfaced, and was seen to rescue one man struggling in the water. It then submerged and was not seen again. Lieut Commander Bagley was picked up up from the water into the motor dory. This boat made for the Scilly Isles, to try to get help for the men on the rafts, who were now getting separated. When Lieut Commander Bagley reached the Scilly Isles, he was informed that most of the survivors had been picked up by HMS Camellia, and one small raft was rescued by the merchant vessel SS Catalina. HMS Insolent picked up the last of the survivors.


    That so many men survived the frigid December waters, was down to the fact that the Commander of the the German submarine U-53, Hans Rose, had radioed the position of the sinking to Queenstown – a rare humane gesture in time of war.


    Notes:
    Commanding Officer, Lieut Commander D.W.Bagley , 1917,


    http://www.corkshipwrecks.net/ussjacobjonesdd61.html



    I hope this helps.

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to gnostic9 For This Post:

    Ewan (24th March 2017)

  3. Link to Post #42
    United States Avalon Retired Member
    Join Date
    26th December 2014
    Age
    50
    Posts
    293
    Thanks
    1,094
    Thanked 1,763 times in 275 posts

    Default Re: Miles W. Mathis Theories about Engineered Events in History

    Here is Weisbecker's Part II of his musings on the artist formerly known as Miles W. Mathis... It's a bit of a meandering rant, and thus harder to follow than Part I, but I still think Weisbecker is on to something with respect to Mathis.

    http://blog.banditobooks.com/an-open...this-part-two/


    As a writer/researcher myself, I know how long it takes to research any subject with any depth, and Weisbecker's word count for Mathis is pretty astounding....

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to awakeningmom For This Post:

    Foxie Loxie (23rd March 2017)

  5. Link to Post #43
    United States Administrator Paul's Avatar
    Join Date
    4th January 2011
    Location
    North Texas
    Age
    69
    Posts
    23,842
    Thanks
    19,940
    Thanked 97,955 times in 16,862 posts

    Default Re: Miles W. Mathis Theories about Engineered Events in History

    Quote Posted by awakeningmom (here)
    Here is Weisbecker's Part II of his musings on the artist formerly known as Miles W. Mathis... It's a bit of a meandering rant, and thus harder to follow than Part I, but I still think Weisbecker is on to something with respect to Mathis.

    http://blog.banditobooks.com/an-open...this-part-two/


    As a writer/researcher myself, I know how long it takes to research any subject with any depth, and Weisbecker's word count for Mathis is pretty astounding....
    Weisbecker states that Miles Mathis' updates to his earlier papers don't actually contain any change.

    This is false. I routinely scan his updated papers, to read just the added material, and there is always something added, just as Miles claims.

    I also have downloaded dozens of papers of Miles on my computer that Miles has updated, sometimes several times, and that have gotten longer with each update. That's not just my memory saying this - it's evidence collected over the years.

    ... Did Weisbecker think we weren't going to actually verify his claims? Oh the irony!

    Perhaps where Weisbecker got confused is that he followed the various links to a particular paper, both from the original posting, to the update postings, and noticed that all links to the same paper yielded the same paper. This is because Miles is updating in place. He has for example a single link to his Sharon Tate paper, at mileswmathis.com/tate.pdf. Only the latest tate.pdf can be found there. But I happened to have downloaded one of the earlier versions as well, and its a few hundred words shorter than the current version.
    Last edited by Paul; 23rd March 2017 at 20:38.
    *** Avalon Forum Guidelines - Membership Guidelines.
    *** ProjectAvalonStatus.net - Check here for forum status.
    Formerly known as "ThePythonicCow", aka "Cow", "Mooster", ...

  6. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Paul For This Post:

    Foxie Loxie (23rd March 2017), Helene West (23rd March 2017)

  7. Link to Post #44
    United States Avalon Member
    Join Date
    18th September 2016
    Posts
    458
    Thanks
    909
    Thanked 1,791 times in 428 posts

    Default Re: Miles W. Mathis Theories about Engineered Events in History

    I don't know why some people read MM I only know why I do.

    As he makes a disclaimer at the beginning of each essay letting you know these are his opinions, not some post grad dissertation and he lets you know upfront he gets his info from easily accessible public sources not from some 'deep throat' scenario hoping to break open a controversial story, i don't sweat over every detail and idea.

    --I get, as Gordon Gekko would say, ".. perks, lots and lots of perks".
    --I got a less lazy way of looking at photos, people in the public eye and events taught in school or the media.
    --I get chuckles with his sardonic sense of humor and exasperation over much of the same things I feel exasperated about.
    --And lastly, and I've mentioned this before but it may be for me my biggest takeaway, he has made me wonder if the entire western world, primarily gentile, is really ruled ultimately by jews.

    People now get upset with me for this as I've been throwing out this idea recently. They will say things like: "...I couldn't care less who is ruling, what do you care? Will it change your life? Get a life! Are they bothering you? (lol, my fave!) What difference does it make? and of course the all-time favorite - you're anti-semitic.... "

    I've always been intrigued with con artists, my tastes in stories, films, etc. show characters who get over on others. So coming from a very christian area and being taught and seeing most famous and/or powerful people seeming to be non-jewish, MM's indirect supposition that the puppeteers of the world are jews intrigues me. if that is the case it's one of the biggest hoaxes played on people of the western world especially considering numerically they are so small.

    They were money changers at the time of the Romans at least. Plenty of time to come up through the centuries amassing wealth through lending and usury and it's known they were lending to royals of europe in the medieval days. Lending to kings, princes and dukes, i.e. owning or influencing them.

    When I see europe today, with european men being murdered and european children and women raped by refugees and their men disabled to do anything and the leaders not only apathetic but hostile to the euro victims I wonder how they can be so heartless? They have no identification with the populace. The populace is gentile. Perhaps they don't identify with the gentile europeans because they are Not gentiles. Just a consideration.
    Then take in on our forum just today in the politics category the threat of Mr. Schwartz (AKA Soros) to bring very planned out and coordinated mayhem to the streets of the U.S. as he does in europe. Perhaps it's all just a coincidence that he is jewish. I love his cover story by the way - that he hates israel, hah, hah...We're supposed to believe he is a self-hating jew to throw us off as to the cultural genocide of gentile whites I guess.

    Anyhow, as it is a recurring theme of Miles, i.e. 'Is everyone jewish'?? in his essays, he (or his supposed group), may be, just may be, trying to warn passive, scared, sleepy, naive Goy America!

    I particularly find the essay on Hitler intriguing. When he throws out his little tidbits like some photos of Hitler's top generals, Himmler, Goebbels, etc. and asks is it me or do they look jewish? And hmmm, don't the names actually sound jewish? and at the end of his maze of genealogies and other tidbits leaves you wondering - Oh, No, Don't tell me the Nazis were jewish! Don't tell me it was all an incredible plan to get the world to WANT to give the Jews a home in the middle of muslim land probably to take the oil of the region.
    I grew up assuming the Rockefellers (Standard Oil) were gentile. But in a 10 lb book written only for the jewish community (only 550 printed and consecutively numbered) called - “Americans of Jewish Decent” by Malcolm H. Stern the Rockefellers are listed as "Marranos" (those Jews who “PRETEND” to be Christians in their community but secretly hold to their Jewish faith and race when among their own kind.)

    'Weisbecker' - hmmm. Could jolly well be a tribesman. A tribesman that is pissed that someone or some group is getting too hip to the hoax? Won't come out and say that as to not put ideas in heads that are not quite getting it so he sticks to picking at minutiae.

    So though it's annoying the thought that adorable looking, sharp as a tack Miles Mathis may be some group with an agenda I'm still choosing to go with Miles. And, even if it is some group of sharp shooter deconstructionists, I think they are doing a service..., not that the goyim will do anything anyhow, they've been sufficiently crushed by the white guilt psy-ops thing, but a service nonetheless....

  8. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Helene West For This Post:

    Bruno (24th March 2017), Ewan (24th March 2017)

  9. Link to Post #45
    United States Avalon Retired Member
    Join Date
    26th December 2014
    Age
    50
    Posts
    293
    Thanks
    1,094
    Thanked 1,763 times in 275 posts

    Default Re: Miles W. Mathis Theories about Engineered Events in History

    Quote Posted by Paul (here)
    Quote Posted by awakeningmom (here)
    Here is Weisbecker's Part II of his musings on the artist formerly known as Miles W. Mathis... It's a bit of a meandering rant, and thus harder to follow than Part I, but I still think Weisbecker is on to something with respect to Mathis.

    http://blog.banditobooks.com/an-open...this-part-two/


    As a writer/researcher myself, I know how long it takes to research any subject with any depth, and Weisbecker's word count for Mathis is pretty astounding....
    Weisbecker states that Miles Mathis' updates to his earlier papers don't actually contain any change.

    This is false. I routinely scan his updated papers, to read just the added material, and there is always something added, just as Miles claims.

    I also have downloaded dozens of papers of Miles on my computer that Miles has updated, sometimes several times, and that have gotten longer with each update. That's not just my memory saying this - it's evidence collected over the years.

    ... Did Weisbecker think we weren't going to actually verify his claims? Oh the irony!

    Perhaps where Weisbecker got confused is that he followed the various links to a particular paper, both from the original posting, to the update postings, and noticed that all links to the same paper yielded the same paper. This is because Miles is updating in place. He has for example a single link to his Sharon Tate paper, at mileswmathis.com/tate.pdf. Only the latest tate.pdf can be found there. But I happened to have downloaded one of the earlier versions as well, and its a few hundred words shorter than the current version.
    Good catch, Paul! Very interesting.

    And Helene, while I don't agree with you on the 'everyone-bad-is-really-a-crypto-jew' theme, I do agree with your assessment of Miles' "adorableness." However, I would guess that the cute grundge-REI traveler picture of him in his bio is quite old. Judging from the bio, Miles' likely graduated high school in the early 80's, putting him in the mid-50's range today, and I don't know many mid-50's men who still look like that with a full head of hair. Plus, he doesn't hold a candle in adorableness to Sean Stone in my opinion.

    Finally, can someone please tell me how to cut and quote only snippets of a previous poster's post? I have tried just hitting "reply with quotes" and then manually deleting the unnecessary text, but then it doesn't show up as blue quoted material in my own post. I am sure there's some thread that explains this, but I haven't found it!

  10. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to awakeningmom For This Post:

    Bruno (24th March 2017), Shannon (24th March 2017)

  11. Link to Post #46
    United States Administrator Paul's Avatar
    Join Date
    4th January 2011
    Location
    North Texas
    Age
    69
    Posts
    23,842
    Thanks
    19,940
    Thanked 97,955 times in 16,862 posts

    Default Re: Miles W. Mathis Theories about Engineered Events in History

    Quote Posted by awakeningmom (here)
    Finally, can someone please tell me how to cut and quote only snippets of a previous poster's post? I have tried just hitting "reply with quotes" and then manually deleting the unnecessary text, but then it doesn't show up as blue quoted material in my own post. I am sure there's some thread that explains this, but I haven't found it!
    Try this explanation - see if it makes sense: How to quote part of a post -- Post #4.
    *** Avalon Forum Guidelines - Membership Guidelines.
    *** ProjectAvalonStatus.net - Check here for forum status.
    Formerly known as "ThePythonicCow", aka "Cow", "Mooster", ...

  12. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Paul For This Post:

    awakeningmom (24th March 2017), Billy (24th March 2017), Shannon (24th March 2017)

  13. Link to Post #47
    United States Avalon Member
    Join Date
    18th September 2016
    Posts
    458
    Thanks
    909
    Thanked 1,791 times in 428 posts

    Default Re: Miles W. Mathis Theories about Engineered Events in History

    AwakeMom

    It’s not 'everyone-bad-is-really-a-crypto-jew' theme – it’s ‘many famous and/or powerful persons past and present you thought were gentile are really jews who purposely altered their names and why is that? Theme’

    Slight difference

  14. Link to Post #48
    United States Avalon Retired Member
    Join Date
    26th December 2014
    Age
    50
    Posts
    293
    Thanks
    1,094
    Thanked 1,763 times in 275 posts

    Default Re: Miles W. Mathis Theories about Engineered Events in History

    Quote Posted by Helene West (here)
    AwakeMom

    It’s not 'everyone-bad-is-really-a-crypto-jew' theme – it’s ‘many famous and/or powerful persons past and present you thought were gentile are really jews who purposely altered their names and why is that? Theme’

    Slight difference
    I'm not sure I really see the difference, tbh. Isn't the theory that 'they' are changing their names so that when they do something nefarious to advance their nefarious agenda it won't be connected back to their jewishness or to the fact that 'they' are really in control of the entire world?

  15. Link to Post #49
    United States Administrator Paul's Avatar
    Join Date
    4th January 2011
    Location
    North Texas
    Age
    69
    Posts
    23,842
    Thanks
    19,940
    Thanked 97,955 times in 16,862 posts

    Default Re: Miles W. Mathis Theories about Engineered Events in History

    Quote Posted by awakeningmom (here)
    I'm not sure I really see the difference, tbh. Isn't the theory that 'they' are changing their names so that when they do something nefarious to advance their nefarious agenda it won't be connected back to their jewishness or to the fact that 'they' are really in control of the entire world?
    The difference is in whether (1) most Jews are nefarious (I trust not), or (2) an unusually high proportion of nefarious people have maternal Jewish ancestry (apparently yes).
    *** Avalon Forum Guidelines - Membership Guidelines.
    *** ProjectAvalonStatus.net - Check here for forum status.
    Formerly known as "ThePythonicCow", aka "Cow", "Mooster", ...

  16. Link to Post #50
    France Avalon Member araucaria's Avatar
    Join Date
    24th January 2011
    Posts
    5,010
    Thanks
    11,911
    Thanked 28,274 times in 4,623 posts

    Default Re: Miles W. Mathis Theories about Engineered Events in History

    Although I too came independently to the idea that Mathis was putting out a lot of material for a single individual (an idea that Paul refutes based on his own performance... ), I want to highlight a difference between Weisbecker and myself in this same regard. Weisbecker comes out all guns blazing, and is hard to follow because he is jumping around all the time.

    My own approach tends rather towards depth than breadth. Mathis has a tendency to make connections between individuals on the basis that their names appear on the same Wikipedia page. This is worse than treating people as cardboard cutouts: they are reduced to mere labels. My method has simply been to flesh out portraits of the characters involved, notably by extensively quoting things they actually wrote, said or did.

    Consider that there are only six degrees of separation between any two individuals on the planet, and that a single degree of separation can cover the mixed bunch of Avalon members. Most of them you would consider your friends, or agreeable acquaintances; others are way out of range, and one or two are maybe on a diametrically opposite course. You don’t want to be linked indiscriminately to all of these people. And this applies to families. Here in France we have a presidential hopeful (Fillon) whose younger brother is a decent jazz pianist. There is not much interesting to be said about either on the basis of that relationship: statesmanship and musicianship have little in common. Similarly, even being married to someone is not enough to validate comments about one or the other being made to include the spouse – which is why we have a high divorce rate: people are different.

    If six degrees of separation are sufficient to bring two persons together, however hastily, then I suggest there has to be a law of x degrees of connection to prise any two people apart. Take this quote by Mathis about Ben Bradlee, editor of the Washington Post, stating that his second marriage was to the sister-in-law (very soon to be ex-sister-in-law) of a CIA man:
    Quote In 1957, Bradlee married his second wife, Antoinette Pinchot. Do you recognize that name from my Kennedy paper? She was the sister of Mary Pinchot, wife of Cord Meyer. Meyer just happened to be a top CIA agent involved in Project Mockingbird. And what was that about? According to Wikipedia, it was a “program to influence the media”. But Bradlee was never influenced, right? He was just a straight editor later at the Post, right?
    By the degrees of separation law, this is very close: close enough to draw conclusions. This is the gray area where, depending on one’s standpoint, conspiracy theory becomes conspiracy fact, or conspiracy fact can be plausibly denied as conspiracy theory. Overall, I would say this is where we get stuck.

    By my ‘degrees of connection’ law, on the other hand, this relationship is fairly distant: distant enough to make room for a whole new picture to be drawn by developing these name labels into cardboard cutouts, and the cardboard cutouts into rounded individuals. First, sisters can be very different, including in their tastes regarding men. Antoinette did not necessarily marry a CIA man on the basis that Mary had. Secondly, by 1957 Mary was actually in the process of leaving her CIA man, the divorce proceedings being drawn out owing to the death of their son Michael. Thirdly, Mary was leaving her CIA man precisely because the man she had married was a very different person altogether, a leading campaigner for world peace in fact. And Mary herself was later murdered for knowing too much about the JFK assassination, very likely murdered by CIA husbands and even with Meyer’s consent.

    This is not to say that Bradlee was not CIA, applying Project Mockingbird to the Washington Post. On the contrary, I would accept that he was. But what has Mathis done when he stops there? He has placed another label on someone. Big deal. You couldn’t believe everything you read in his newspaper. Now what? Big question. Big question that doesn’t get asked. But one that deserves an answer on the lines of honest consistency within a given individual. For example: Mary Pinchot married a peace activist and divorced a CIA agent, the peace activist husband having done a complete U-turn, while she remained consistent. This consistent woman later fell in love with JFK, who must then have been himself a peace-lover, or more likely a Cold Warrior/CIA sympathizer doing a complete U-turn with her help.

    The bottom line is that some people change in relatively superficial ways by being consistent in changing circumstances, while other are profoundly changed one way or the other (revert to type?) by changing circumstances. This is a dynamic picture we don’t get from Miles Mathis. It is symptomatic that he doesn’t allow people to die, although death is an integral part of this dynamic process. In 1963, there were plenty of people wishing Kennedy dead, more than enough to see him off. That sentiment has been gradually reversed over the decades, with more and more people wishing he were still alive, or someone like him. What would be the motive then for claiming that JFK’s death was faked? It would be to immortalize the moment when a maximum of people (albeit a tiny minority) were glad he was dead.

    This sums up my difference with Miles Mathis. My goal is to immortalize the moment when a maximum number of people are glad that JFK, Mary Meyer, so many others, up to and including you and I, were/are alive. When a maximum number of people are glad that a maximum number of people are alive.


  17. The Following User Says Thank You to araucaria For This Post:

    Post-Structuralist Comet (24th March 2017)

  18. Link to Post #51
    Avalon Member Satori's Avatar
    Join Date
    26th May 2010
    Location
    Albuquerque, NM, USA
    Age
    66
    Posts
    376
    Thanks
    879
    Thanked 1,759 times in 354 posts

    Default Re: Miles W. Mathis Theories about Engineered Events in History

    Quote Posted by araucaria (here)
    Although I too came independently to the idea that Mathis was putting out a lot of material for a single individual (an idea that Paul refutes based on his own performance... ), I want to highlight a difference between Weisbecker and myself in this same regard. Weisbecker comes out all guns blazing, and is hard to follow because he is jumping around all the time.

    My own approach tends rather towards depth than breadth. Mathis has a tendency to make connections between individuals on the basis that their names appear on the same Wikipedia page. This is worse than treating people as cardboard cutouts: they are reduced to mere labels. My method has simply been to flesh out portraits of the characters involved, notably by extensively quoting things they actually wrote, said or did.

    Consider that there are only six degrees of separation between any two individuals on the planet, and that a single degree of separation can cover the mixed bunch of Avalon members. Most of them you would consider your friends, or agreeable acquaintances; others are way out of range, and one or two are maybe on a diametrically opposite course. You don’t want to be linked indiscriminately to all of these people. And this applies to families. Here in France we have a presidential hopeful (Fillon) whose younger brother is a decent jazz pianist. There is not much interesting to be said about either on the basis of that relationship: statesmanship and musicianship have little in common. Similarly, even being married to someone is not enough to validate comments about one or the other being made to include the spouse – which is why we have a high divorce rate: people are different.

    If six degrees of separation are sufficient to bring two persons together, however hastily, then I suggest there has to be a law of x degrees of connection to prise any two people apart. Take this quote by Mathis about Ben Bradlee, editor of the Washington Post, stating that his second marriage was to the sister-in-law (very soon to be ex-sister-in-law) of a CIA man:
    Quote In 1957, Bradlee married his second wife, Antoinette Pinchot. Do you recognize that name from my Kennedy paper? She was the sister of Mary Pinchot, wife of Cord Meyer. Meyer just happened to be a top CIA agent involved in Project Mockingbird. And what was that about? According to Wikipedia, it was a “program to influence the media”. But Bradlee was never influenced, right? He was just a straight editor later at the Post, right?
    By the degrees of separation law, this is very close: close enough to draw conclusions. This is the gray area where, depending on one’s standpoint, conspiracy theory becomes conspiracy fact, or conspiracy fact can be plausibly denied as conspiracy theory. Overall, I would say this is where we get stuck.

    By my ‘degrees of connection’ law, on the other hand, this relationship is fairly distant: distant enough to make room for a whole new picture to be drawn by developing these name labels into cardboard cutouts, and the cardboard cutouts into rounded individuals. First, sisters can be very different, including in their tastes regarding men. Antoinette did not necessarily marry a CIA man on the basis that Mary had. Secondly, by 1957 Mary was actually in the process of leaving her CIA man, the divorce proceedings being drawn out owing to the death of their son Michael. Thirdly, Mary was leaving her CIA man precisely because the man she had married was a very different person altogether, a leading campaigner for world peace in fact. And Mary herself was later murdered for knowing too much about the JFK assassination, very likely murdered by CIA husbands and even with Meyer’s consent.

    This is not to say that Bradlee was not CIA, applying Project Mockingbird to the Washington Post. On the contrary, I would accept that he was. But what has Mathis done when he stops there? He has placed another label on someone. Big deal. You couldn’t believe everything you read in his newspaper. Now what? Big question. Big question that doesn’t get asked. But one that deserves an answer on the lines of honest consistency within a given individual. For example: Mary Pinchot married a peace activist and divorced a CIA agent, the peace activist husband having done a complete U-turn, while she remained consistent. This consistent woman later fell in love with JFK, who must then have been himself a peace-lover, or more likely a Cold Warrior/CIA sympathizer doing a complete U-turn with her help.

    The bottom line is that some people change in relatively superficial ways by being consistent in changing circumstances, while other are profoundly changed one way or the other (revert to type?) by changing circumstances. This is a dynamic picture we don’t get from Miles Mathis. It is symptomatic that he doesn’t allow people to die, although death is an integral part of this dynamic process. In 1963, there were plenty of people wishing Kennedy dead, more than enough to see him off. That sentiment has been gradually reversed over the decades, with more and more people wishing he were still alive, or someone like him. What would be the motive then for claiming that JFK’s death was faked? It would be to immortalize the moment when a maximum of people (albeit a tiny minority) were glad he was dead.

    This sums up my difference with Miles Mathis. My goal is to immortalize the moment when a maximum number of people are glad that JFK, Mary Meyer, so many others, up to and including you and I, were/are alive. When a maximum number of people are glad that a maximum number of people are alive.

    Araucaria. If I understand your point, as to the assassination of JFK, you are saying that MM pushes the claim that JFK faked his death in order to allow those who are/were glad he was murdered more time to revel in and enjoy the fact that he was indeed murdered on 11/22/1963. If I am correct, then does it follow that MM gains some form of pleasure that JFK was assassinated? Or perhaps more accurately, does he gain some form of pleasure, or monetary benefit (or both), from ensconcing himself in murder and other intrigues? Mason/Tate, JFK, Laurel Canyon, etc... Do you believe that to be true? If so, what is his motive and who does he work for--in your view?

  19. The Following User Says Thank You to Satori For This Post:

    araucaria (28th March 2017)

  20. Link to Post #52
    France Avalon Member araucaria's Avatar
    Join Date
    24th January 2011
    Posts
    5,010
    Thanks
    11,911
    Thanked 28,274 times in 4,623 posts

    Default Re: Miles W. Mathis Theories about Engineered Events in History

    Quote Posted by Satori (here)
    Araucaria. If I understand your point, as to the assassination of JFK, you are saying that MM pushes the claim that JFK faked his death in order to allow those who are/were glad he was murdered more time to revel in and enjoy the fact that he was indeed murdered on 11/22/1963. If I am correct, then does it follow that MM gains some form of pleasure that JFK was assassinated? Or perhaps more accurately, does he gain some form of pleasure, or monetary benefit (or both), from ensconcing himself in murder and other intrigues? Mason/Tate, JFK, Laurel Canyon, etc... Do you believe that to be true? If so, what is his motive and who does he work for--in your view?
    Thank you satori, for framing the question in those terms. I have only a hazy recollection of the Kennedy essay, and had not realized JFK was supposed to have organized the thing himself, or at least connived. What is a faked death? It is the removal from all the trappings of a person’s life, short of shuffling off the mortal coil. The more trappings one has, White House, power, lots of beautiful women, loved ones.... the more an earthly exile away from all that might begin to resemble the experience of being in a box six feet underground. It makes no sense to me that JFK was planning his own disappearance, least of all at the specific juncture at which it occurred. With Kennedy a shoo-in for re-election the following year, and planning all the decisive action that cannot get done in a first term, we know how he was planning on dumping LBJ as his running mate. A Johnson aide was about to be indicted, with Johnson to follow. That is one of those things that were about to happen and were successfully aborted. Would Kennedy have done precisely the craziest possible thing by removing HIMSELF from the presidential ticket and actually placing LBJ directly in the Oval Office without an election? I very much doubt it. One way of checking this point would be to ask whether Johnson had done anything wrong to make his original nomination a big mistake, or if there is any truth to the idea that the president and vice-president got on famously.

    No, I think we are just talking about an idea in the mind of Miles Mathis, but one that already has plenty of... miles on the clock Is he acting alone, or as someone’s agent? I can’t answer that, beyond this one impression that “Miles Mathis” is a group, bolstered by the evidence now provided, and which impressed Paul, that there is a Britisher in that team. But there is quite a bit to be said without addressing this question at all – in other words, suggesting that it may be somewhat irrelevant. This is the issue of fakery with regard to Mathis’s daytime job as a commercial artist. I want to expand (warning: rather substantially) on remarks made in my own thread and elsewhere.

    A major component of Mathis’s many portraits is heavy reliance on the idea of art as producing an almost photographic resemblance, mostly for the benefit of people who know the sitter. This was an important function of serious art until photography came in; most portraits were done for the persons portrayed and those who knew and loved them. Visit any stately home and see for yourself how dull as ditchwater pictures of important nobodies can be. Of course, nowadays, we have long since passed the point where serious photography itself has moved on to other things apart from photographic, eye-witness resemblance. However since that time in the 19th century, serious art has moved on from fulfilling that imitative function. This is the serious art of the 20th century that Miles rejects en bloc, and which notably problematizes the concept of photographic resemblance in paint.

    When you take a photograph of someone, that person’s actual presence is partially transferred directly onto the film or other medium through the light they emit or reflect. The photographer of course has an input in terms of various parameters, but the sitter has a direct role to play, as can be seen from my great-nephew, who invariably contrives to whip his hand up in front of his face! Hence one major difference is that a photograph is taken in a fraction of a second, while a painting takes much longer than that. The sitter is in a sense neutralized, and only faces the challenge of not looking bored, i.e. uninvolved.

    Take the Mona Lisa. Leonardo da Vinci slaved at it for ages, so much so that Vasari in his Lives of the Artists tells us he brought in musicians and other entertainers to keep the lady happy while he painted that smile. The thing is: that smile was likely one of those expressions that we are always looking out in someone because they make us melt and because they only last a quarter of a second (we may even try to say or do things to make them happen more often). Since Leonardo could not make his sitter hold the smile any longer, he could at least try and get her to repeat it every now and again. We now find the Mona Lisa smile so mysterious because instead of being fleeting, it has lasted all of five centuries. Hence the picture may be as faithful to the original moment as you like, but in this one respect it is massively faked. We wonder about the lady because all we know of her entire life is this quarter of a second. But we do know she wasn’t smiling all the time, any more than a loved one goes around with that delightful expression all day long. In a sense, an interesting pose has to be fake, being so uncharacteristic. The mystery of La Joconda lies in all the things she got up to when she wasn’t turning on that probably not so enigmatic smile.

    Similarly, we know next to nothing about Miles Mathis, and only a little more about JFK. Our perceptions are truly tiny, and we very likely seek to fill in what we don’t know with what we do know. Like photoshopping out a gap or an eyesore on a holiday snap by copy/pasting some background grass or sky.

    These are the issues that Miles Mathis is facing in his art, but instead of addressing them in his art itself, as a serious artist would, it looks like the inevitable fakery of his art is being explored separately, in his conspiracy research. He may have become disillusioned with his commercial art, but been prepared to carry on anyway because it was paying the bills and maybe more. I am not talking about culpable dishonesty, simply about an insufficient grasp of complex processes leading to material comfort replacing a more satisfying spiritual kind. This means that one cannot stand in judgement, because we all have bills to pay, along with an insufficient grasp of complex processes, and can only hope to improve things generally by sharing our insights.

    Dissatisfaction in art can be expressed in the passage from the Pygmalion complex to the Pinocchio effect. Pygmalion is that mythical sculptor who falls in love with one of his statues, Galatea, who comes to life, an early form of artificial intelligence I suppose. The one memorable thing about Carlo Collodi’s wooden puppet, however, is that Pinocchio is full of mischief, notably telling lies, seen not when his lips move but when his nose grows.

    My intuition here is that the link between JFK and Miles Mathis is the death of art, or the repression of the feminine. Kennedy was changing under the influence of Mary Pinchot Meyer, who was herself a serious artist, murdered while taking a break from work in her studio. She had a relationship for a time with the well-known artist Kenneth Noland, but for a feminine point of view I will turn to her close friend, the sculptor Anne Truitt, who has an interesting woman’s take on the Pygmalion-Pinocchio effect.
    Quote When I conceive a new sculpture, there is a magical period in which we seem to fall in love with one another. This explains to me why, when I was in Yaddo and deprived of my large pieces, I felt lonely with the same quality of loneliness I would feel for a missing lover. This mutual exchange is one of exploration on my part, and, it seems to me, on the sculpture’s also. Its life is its own, I receive it. And after the sculpture stands free, finished, I have the feeling of “oh, it was you,” akin to the feeling with which I always recognized my babies when I first saw them, having made their acquaintance before their birth. This feeling of recognition lasts only a second or two, but is my ample reward...
    [...]
    In some curious way difficult to put my finger on, my generation of women suffer from a subtle sorrow that stiffens us against just such abandonment to the pleasures of the moment. A legacy, perhaps, from the Victorian rigidity that in America bypassed the Edwardian frivolity and descended to us in the form of standards precluding pagan joy. Many of us have been lonely too, deprived by our male peers of that sensitivity they had to brutalize out of themselves in order to undergo the Second World War. Confronted by the probability of their own deaths, it seems to me that many of the most percipient men of my generation killed off those parts of themselves that were most vulnerably to pain, and thus lost forever a delicacy of feeling on which intimacy depends. To a less tragic extent, we women also had to harden ourselves and stood to lose with them the vulnerability that is one of the guardians of the human spirit.
    (From “Daybook: The Journal of an Artist”, 1982, quoted in “Theories and Documents of Contemporary Art: a Sourcebook of Artist’s Writings”, 1996)
    These comments on men can be taken to refer not only to the hardened CIA men among Anne Truitt’s connections but also to JFK, whose tenderer side was showing through under the influence of her friend and fellow artist Mary Pinchot Meyer, of whom she later said, ‘In addition to art, Mary was an acute judge of masculine character’ (Peter Janney, Mary’s Mosaic, p.36).

    If JFK’s murder may have been faked, Mary Meyer’s was certainly not. Why does the faked assassination story sound so familiar? Maybe because it is reminiscent of the theory of Jesus faking, or somehow surviving, the crucifixion. The aforementioned Leonardo da Vinci is supposed to have encoded some esoteric information into his Last Supper. I don’t know about that, but what I can address is a very painterly issue he was confronting, namely how to portray someone on the basis of zero visual clue. If the Mona Lisa smile was so painstakingly obtained from a vanishingly small clue, then painting the purely spiritual encounter with Jesus was literally beyond the possibilities of figurative painting. Leonardo was protesting on artistic grounds as the Protestants were protesting on theological grounds, and as Abstract artists later protested also. Anything he could achieve was therefore a betrayal, which is no doubt why he combines the moment of the institution of the Eucharist (as life after death) with the moment of betrayal, and doubtless also why he used the monk representing the monastery that commissioned the work to model the features of Judas in what amounted to a special kind of very early abstract art. See this post.

    Here is some corroboration for the above thesis. Vasari describes how as a boy Leonardo painted a peasant’s shield with a terrifying Medusa’s head that would effectively scare off his enemy. According to the myth, sight of the Gorgon’s head would petrify anyone to death (a kind of inverse Pygmalion process), so Perseus had to behead the monster by using his shield as a rearview mirror. Hence Leonardo, who was left-handed and used mirror writing, already knew the difference between the reflection on the protective shield he was painting and the real-life monster whose looks could kill. Hence also the idea that a genuine image of Jesus was something... not to be contemplated, something misleading, since whatever picture one might produce, Jesus was not that. Since a monster is someone to gawp at for their weirdness (the word means something to show – same radical as ‘demonstration’), the ultimate monster is too horrific for that. Jesus then typifies the anti-monster, the son/sun too indescribably wonderful to behold for real except via a reflection in a protective shield.

    The JFK assassination, with its doctored pictures, would appear to be the latest rerun of the death/resurrection-of-a-king archetype, which of course predates Christianity, going all the way back to Egypt and notably including the Oedipus story, which is the stuff of both myth and much later Greek tragedy: Sophocles’ Oedipus trilogy. Notice how Oedipus, the source of great fortune and great misfortune, does not die, he mysteriously disappears from view, much as Jesus was to do. In mythological times, kingship was a temporary post, and at one time the king was actually sacrificed to make way for his ‘tanist’ – another process of abstraction separating the concept of kingship as independent of and bigger than any particular embodiment.

    Ritual murder then gradually became symbolic – or maybe not as much as we thought. We are still caught up in the theatricality of re-enactments: JFK killed in a Lincoln, recalling Lincoln killed in a theatre etc. Multiple layers of fakery to hide our ignorance of what death actually is, and what life is too. We play around with these ideas in various ways: Philip K. Dick’s Ubik features characters who don’t know they are dead. Or take The Hothouse by the East River, a Muriel Spark novel I have just finished, in which the mad behaviour of the main characters is due to their having been dead these last thirty years. There is also of course the reverse strand of sacrificing children, then learning to fake that, as exemplified by Abraham killing a lamb instead of his son Isaac. Jesus as God’s son fulfills that scenario too.

    Another example of this constant rehearsing of the archetype is the opera Tosca by Giacomo Puccini, who incidentally scores pretty high at 540 on David Hawkins calibration list. The singing role of Tosca is of a prima donna whose lover Cavaradossi, an independentist rebel arrested while painting a Madonna, has been tortured and condemned to death by Scarpia, head of the secret police. To win Tosca’s favours, Scarpia offers to commute the sentence, telling a henchman to stage a fake execution, like they did to one Palmieri. Tosca is taken in by the fake fakery (the execution is for real), and watches him – tells him to – ‘die like an artist’, i.e. dying but not dying, playing at playing dead and playing at being dead for real, night after night. Apart from being taken out of the action, how many twists are there to this story, and what does it really mean to be dead? That is the question we endlessly wrestle with, or not.

    Further reading: http://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...l=1#post777383
    http://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...l=1#post921607


    To suggest there is Christlike quality to Kennedy (as seen in continued idealization of the man) is to suggest that Christ was basically the JFK figure of his day, as was Oedipus before that. The successor to the ritual re-enactment of Greek tragedy was the religious commemoration of the mystery called the Mass; and doubtless surprisingly, their presentday equivalent would appear to be... conspiracy theory. There is nothing new under the sun and we are still struggling to come to terms with death and life, and still learning that killing people is not the best way to ascertain the difference between the two. Faking killings is nearly as ineffective, and symbolic thought is also proving inadequate when it continues to focus on death. With the understanding that death is not an end, but the passage to another form of life, the only way forward is to learn to understand life by fostering life.

    My only quibble with a fascination for the Miles Mathis material then is that we can do considerably better than that.
    Last edited by araucaria; 28th March 2017 at 18:18.


  21. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to araucaria For This Post:

    Paul (29th March 2017), Sam Hunter (29th March 2017), Satori (28th March 2017)

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 3

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts