Miles W. Mathis Theories about Engineered Events in History

[awakeningmom]

I’ve been reading through articles by Miles W. Mathis – and they have got my head spinning. Recently, his article about the Tate Murders was posted on the Zen Gardener website. It’s an 80 pager, arguing that the Manson-Sharon Tate Murders were all one big staged psy-op. Here are the links to the Zen Gardener post and Mathis’ own website.

http://www.zengardner.com/tate-murders-psyop-stifled-generation/

http://mileswmathis.com/tate.pdf

In this article, Mathis connects the dots between the Intelligence Community at Lookout Mountain on Laurel Canyon (LA) and the alleged murder victims and other players in the tragedy, who, Mathis alleges, were either agents themselves or (mostly related to the Intelligence Community) actors participating in one big hoax, largely in order to dismantle the legitimate anti-war/hippie movement. I was surprised to discover, for example, just how connected Sharon Tate’s father Paul was to the Intelligence Community and that Angela Lansbury’s 13 year old daughter was a “Manson” girl – with permission! Mathis writes quite well, and presents a compelling theory here, which if true, really underscores just how much of our “history” is a completely engineered and technicolor hoax.

Mathis has a bunch of other articles on his website that also present fairly compelling theories about other large scale and allegedly bogus events (the OJ Simpson trial, JFK’s murder, the Unibomber, Patty Hearst’s Kidnapping, etc…). Mathis takes on those personalities in history that most already assume were/are the bad guys, but he also takes on some personalities who many of us presumed were genuine artists or heroes. For example, Mathis suggests that JFK may not have been the last “real” President many have assumed him to be (before the “coup”), but was just another willing actor in the grand psy-op on the rest of us. In some ways, this makes sense to me, as I have always wondered why the Kennedys have continued to work in/for government – i.e., wouldn’t three family assassinations be enough to dissuade? In this respect, Mathis’ work coincides with authors/researchers like Jan Irwin and Dave McGowan, who have taken on various presumed counterculture personalities like Jim Morrison, Terrence McKenna, etc. and shown them to be other than what they claimed.

Another topic Mathis touches on in this particular article is Satanism. From Mathis’ point of view, going down the Satanic rabbit hole is just a “sucker’s path,” used to divert legitimate researchers from the real trail of perpetrators – the intelligence agencies. This is definitely food for thought for me, since I have come to understand through my research that the PTB are really a depraved group of psychopaths who truly believe in/worship some ancient evil (interdimensional, extraterrestrial, or otherwise) and believe they derive their power from this ancient source. From this POV, I’ve basically assumed that the intelligence agencies were set up to serve that ancient esoteric agenda. Is it possible that this understanding is backwards and that Satanism is simply used by intelligence agencies in order to scare most people off their (more mundane but certainly still evil) intelligence trails?

Anyway, I’m hoping we can use this thread to explore Mathis’ various theories on various "historical" events. It feels like there’s an important piece of the puzzle here. So, my initial questions to the forum:

1. If you have read any of Mathis’ articles, what resonated with you? What parts do you feel he probably got right/wrong? And in particular, what do you think of the Satanic rabbit hole as a “sucker’s path” theory?

2. Assuming you think Mathis got some things right, what are your thoughts on why so many events in “history” have been engineered. For example, if JFK wasn’t really murdered by CIA, LBJ, etc. etc. as many believe, but was actually part of the Murdered King hoax himself – for what end? Is every mass media event simply to keep us traumatized energetically, generation after generation? Is each piece of this manufactured history leading us towards some desired end? (and if so, why take so long to get us there?). Or are these events engineered in desperation, in order to counter legitimate movements of the people that could lead us out of our servitude?

[happyuk]

Superb! It's getting late where I am, will continue digging into this saga later...

[aranuk]

It's taken me hours to read the full story and it looks to me like Mathis says a well scripted false story. If you watch the many videos now of that time in 69 they all look so fake and scripted. Accused people most willingly speaking to tv reporters and their lawyers also allowing their clients to speak to the cameras. It all looks like an obvious hoax. But it got the job done the Vietnam war continued for 4 more years with many billions of $ into the already filthy rich peoples pockets.

It reminded me of Sandy Hook.


Stan

[Cidersomerset]

I posted this article a couple of days ago on Greybeards thread.
Its all part of the propaganda , mind control games always played
by the rich and elites and church to win and control the 'minds
and the souls of the people'.

==========================================

Re: Whats your definition of false flag?

This is interesting from yesterday and illustrates the point I
was making above , and maybe why you asked for individuals
interpretation of 'False flag' events.....

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.zengardner.com/wp-content/uploads/logo-top1.png

The Tate Murders – The Psyop That Stifled a Generation
Mar 25, 2015

http://www.zengardner.com/wp-content/uploads/sharon-tate.jpg


by Miles W. Mathis

Of all the “conspiracy theories” I have run across over the years, amazingly this
is not one of them. I searched the internet for anything on this theory and got
nothing, even at Above Top Secret and sites like that. But now that we know
many recent tragedies have been faked in Hollywood fashion, why not go back
to previous decades, to see how long this has been going on?

Before I start, let me say two things. One, we will have to study the crime scene
photographs of Sharon Tate, but I will make it as easy on you as possible. They
aren’t what you think anyway. I was apprehensive when I clicked on them for
the first time, but I was very surprised. They aren’t at all what we have been
led to believe. Even so, I will lead you in slowly, making a strong case that they
are fake before you even take a look [If you want to skip ahead, go to p. 46]. By
the time we get there, you will already be pretty sure they aren’t what they are
supposed to be, and you won’t be afraid to look at them. Two, I will also prepare
your mind and eyes by making it clear why the murders needed to be faked. It will
be much easier for a reader to understand how they were faked once he or she
understands why they were faked.


A large article...Read more if you wish....


http://www.zengardner.com/tate-murde...ed-generation/

http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?81056-Whats-your-definition-of-false-flag

[Cidersomerset]

I was thinking about putting up a new thread , but it ties in with the general theme
of this thread I think....................



I have been watching the first two series of the Following and that is a total mind
job along with other shows like Home land and 24 where the atrocities get bigger
and horrific so our heroes have to turn to torture or illegal methods to fight these
comic book villains . Whether the writers are deliberately doing this or its just a
reflection of society. The more you find out about their methods and how they
control the public thru the media the more obvious it becomes.

We were always taught torture did not work as underpain the victim will say
anything the torturer wish's.But since Bush 2's sanctioning of waterboarding
there have been attempts to justify its use and effectiveness. Just one of many
ways we are manipulated everyday. Also torture has and still does go on because
their is a sadistic streak on all sides for its justification , and believe it or not many
people pay good money to be tortured in role play games that usually do end
before serious things go wrong. So like everything as Dr Fraud would say nothing is
straight forward and the human psych , it is very complex ...UHM !!

The series is full of scenes similar to this, and portrays the police , FBI, US
Marshalls as totally incompetent and the only answer is an eye for an eye,
by a specially sanctioned black op off the books counter squad, echos
of the wild west....

The Following - Mike kills Lily

1CD2FYzdf-4

=================================

There are many 'CONDTIONING ' articles and you can see them everyday, one
your eyes are open like in the movie 'They Live' the media and now especially with
the web it works both ways and is why the US propaganda machine is in a pannick
at the moment with Russia.............

US losing information war to Russia - report

spqb6CxdRy8

Published on 26 Mar 2015


Former US broadcasting officials, diplomats and politicians are calling for a
complete overhaul of government-funded news operations, arguing
that Washington’s rivals are winning the information war. READ MORE: http://on.rt.com/wkx36a

===============================
===============================

Soldiers patrolling Broad Street, Birmingham with police officers ‘to keep clubbers safe’ (Yeah, right)

Sunday 29th March 2015 at 09:01 By David Icke

To get people used to it more like.

http://www.davidicke.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Red-Caps-on-patrol-with-police-in-Broad-Street-587x390.jpg

http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/soldiers-patrolling-broad-street-police-8938379

==============================
==============================

Its when they control the internet as well its back to square one. The elites back
totally in control with little opposition.....


Google controls what we buy, the news we read — and Obama’s policies

Sunday 29th March 2015 at 07:37 By David Icke

http://www.davidicke.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/get-attachment-4382-587x378.jpg

http://nypost.com/2015/03/28/google-controls-what-we-buy-the-news-we-read-and-obamas-policies/

====================================================
====================================================

This is probably coincidence , as it is an Argentine movie and unless it has been
funded by nefarious groups its part of the human psych , but we have seen
predictive planning many times before.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Outrage over the release of Oscar-nominated movie showing member of aircrew
locking himself in cockpit to crash a plane and kill everyone on board

Saturday 28th March 2015 at 09:39 By David Icke

http://www.davidicke.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/270CB86F00000578-3014631-image-m-22_1427466260984.jpg

===================================================

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/sitelogos/logo_mol.gif


Outrage over the release of Oscar-nominated movie showing member of aircrew
locking himself in cockpit to crash a plane and kill everyone on board
Film fans raise chilling similarity between Wild Tales and Alps disaster
First scenes of movie show madman crashing jet to murder his enemies
Acclaimed Argentinian film released in UK today and is out in America
Controversial movie was released in Germany and Spain last autumn

By Martin Robinson and Maria Realf For Mailonline

Published: 14:30, 27 March 2015 | Updated: 19:36, 27 March 2015


‘An Oscar-nominated film will still be released in the UK today despite its disturbing
similarities to the Alps air disaster – to the disgust of cinema-goers near to the
home of one of the three British victims.

Argentinian film Wild Tales features a mass killer who locks himself in the cockpit of
a passenger jet and crashes it in to the ground to murder everyone on board.

In terrifying scenes the fictional passengers panic and one tries to smash his way
through a door to get to the controls in chillingly similar circumstances to the ill-
fated Germanwings Airbus A320 flight.’

Read more: Outrage over the release of Oscar-nominated movie showing member
of aircrew locking himself in cockpit to crash a plane and kill everyone on board

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3014631/Questions-raised-release-Oscar-nominated-movie-showing-member-aircrew-locking-cockpit-crash-plane-kill-board.html

[awakeningmom]

The Hidden King – Camelot Ruled from the Cave Of Merlin

Here’s another Miles W. Mathis article – this one takes on the Kennedys, and theorizes that the assassinations of JFK, RFK, and the downed airplane death of JFK, Jr. were all hoaxes – and that the Kennedys instead ruled as part of (or as leaders of) the shadow government.

http://mileswmathis.com/barindex2.pdf

I have to admit – this one was much harder to swallow than the Manson-Tate Murder article. I was born three years after JFK was assassinated, so the whole “conspiracy” about who really killed him was not interesting to me until my awakening in 2013. And, growing up just outside of Boston, the Kennedys were revered around my house – we even had a picture of JFK on our hall wall. Nevertheless, I do think Mathis raises some interesting points. I wish he’d try to write shorter articles – this one clocked in at 76 pages – but I think he’s trying to lay a solid foundation and he presents a lot of photographic “evidence” to consider. Mathis is a painter/artist by trade, so he gets into some minute details about the way an ear, hair line, arm placement differs in photos that are supposed to be taken at the same time/place, etc. – differences and details that most people (myself included) would not normally notice.

So, I’m not sure if I’m just blinded by my own preconceived positive programming about the Kennedys, but overall, I didn’t find Mathis’ major premise convincing – that the Kennedys were not the heroes many of us believed them to be – but were simply playing their parts in the oligarchical fascist take-over of the U.S. However, Mathis made some interesting points to consider:

1. Mathis starts off with the premise that most of the “alternate” researchers into the JFK assassination are really controlled opposition. Being controlled opposition, they start with the same premise that the official story starts with – i.e., that Kennedy was assassinated. Their version only differs in “who” was responsible, but fails to ask the key question of whether there is any evidence to suggest that Kennedy was killed that day at all. Mathis then provides detailed photographic analysis of the JFK in the motorcade and in the autopsy photos, arguing that neither are actually Kennedy. He points out that we are never provided with DNA or other forensic proof that Kennedy was killed. (Mathis offers two theories – either that a body double of Kennedy was killed – or that no-one was killed and the entire episode was staged with actors and acting). While I ultimately couldn’t bite off on this entirely, once Mathis points out the staged scenes at Dealy Plaza/Square, it’s hard not to see it as anything other than a sparsely populated staged film set.

2. Next, Mathis suggests that Lee Harvey Oswald was also not killed – and that the entire Jack Ruby shooting was faked/staged. This part was a bit more persuasive to me, since that scene always did look bogus in photos. And Mathis gets into convincing details about the clothes Oswald was wearing (black sweater so the lack of blood isn’t apparent to anyone who wasn’t in the “know”), the fact that the entire basement where the shooting supposedly happened randomly was too well lit and microphoned, etc. , the fact that Oswald appears to react to being shot before the shots were fired, etc. This part makes sense to me – even if JFK wasn’t part of this and was really assassinated. The real killers certainly could have saved their patsy rather than killing him, which makes sense if you want to try to get future patsies to do anything in the future without fearing they are going to die for it (makes me also wonder what happened to Timothy McVeigh – or now, the Tsarnov brothers).

3. Mathis also argues that RFK was also part of the plot and also faked his own death. One point he made that did strike me was that RFK didn’t put up any fight when the Warren Commission came out with its bogus report, even though he was still Attorney General and still supposedly had lots of power of his own. And if he was so intimidated into not saying anything, why would he run for President himself a few years later? That doesn’t suggest a man who is afraid for his own life, given his own brother was gunned down and that the killers were supposedly still very much capable of doing it again. (it has also always struck me as strange that the Kennedys would continue to be part of politics, given so many family assassinations and their own knowledge of the shadow government).

4. Mathis also suggests that “conspiracy theorists” are misquoting both Kennedy and Eisenhower where they supposedly warn us about the “military industrial complex” and the “shadow government” – he says both of these alleged warnings are taken out of context and the actual speeches show that both were advocating for more secrecy! I guess this one is easily verifiable or debunk-able – and I will have to do some further research on that.

Anyway, there are a lot more interesting points in this article that I would love to discuss with interested members of the forum, if anyone is willing to read 76 pages of this stuff. I would particularly love to hear from those who have done much more research on JFK than I have – which is just about anyone.

[Selkie]

I’ve been reading through articles by Miles W. Mathis – and they have got my head spinning. Recently, his article about the Tate Murders was posted on the Zen Gardener website. It’s an 80 pager, arguing that the Manson-Sharon Tate Murders were all one big staged psy-op. Here are the links to the Zen Gardener post and Mathis’ own website.

http://www.zengardner.com/tate-murders-psyop-stifled-generation/

http://mileswmathis.com/tate.pdf

In this article, Mathis connects the dots between the Intelligence Community at Lookout Mountain on Laurel Canyon (LA) and the alleged murder victims and other players in the tragedy, who, Mathis alleges, were either agents themselves or (mostly related to the Intelligence Community) actors participating in one big hoax, largely in order to dismantle the legitimate anti-war/hippie movement. I was surprised to discover, for example, just how connected Sharon Tate’s father Paul was to the Intelligence Community and that Angela Lansbury’s 13 year old daughter was a “Manson” girl – with permission! Mathis writes quite well, and presents a compelling theory here, which if true, really underscores just how much of our “history” is a completely engineered and technicolor hoax.

Mathis has a bunch of other articles on his website that also present fairly compelling theories about other large scale and allegedly bogus events (the OJ Simpson trial, JFK’s murder, the Unibomber, Patty Hearst’s Kidnapping, etc…). Mathis takes on those personalities in history that most already assume were/are the bad guys, but he also takes on some personalities who many of us presumed were genuine artists or heroes. For example, Mathis suggests that JFK may not have been the last “real” President many have assumed him to be (before the “coup”), but was just another willing actor in the grand psy-op on the rest of us. In some ways, this makes sense to me, as I have always wondered why the Kennedys have continued to work in/for government – i.e., wouldn’t three family assassinations be enough to dissuade? In this respect, Mathis’ work coincides with authors/researchers like Jan Irwin and Dave McGowan, who have taken on various presumed counterculture personalities like Jim Morrison, Terrence McKenna, etc. and shown them to be other than what they claimed.

Another topic Mathis touches on in this particular article is Satanism. From Mathis’ point of view, going down the Satanic rabbit hole is just a “sucker’s path,” used to divert legitimate researchers from the real trail of perpetrators – the intelligence agencies. This is definitely food for thought for me, since I have come to understand through my research that the PTB are really a depraved group of psychopaths who truly believe in/worship some ancient evil (interdimensional, extraterrestrial, or otherwise) and believe they derive their power from this ancient source. From this POV, I’ve basically assumed that the intelligence agencies were set up to serve that ancient esoteric agenda. Is it possible that this understanding is backwards and that Satanism is simply used by intelligence agencies in order to scare most people off their (more mundane but certainly still evil) intelligence trails?

Anyway, I’m hoping we can use this thread to explore Mathis’ various theories on various "historical" events. It feels like there’s an important piece of the puzzle here. So, my initial questions to the forum:

1. If you have read any of Mathis’ articles, what resonated with you? What parts do you feel he probably got right/wrong? And in particular, what do you think of the Satanic rabbit hole as a “sucker’s path” theory?

2. Assuming you think Mathis got some things right, what are your thoughts on why so many events in “history” have been engineered. For example, if JFK wasn’t really murdered by CIA, LBJ, etc. etc. as many believe, but was actually part of the Murdered King hoax himself – for what end? Is every mass media event simply to keep us traumatized energetically, generation after generation? Is each piece of this manufactured history leading us towards some desired end? (and if so, why take so long to get us there?). Or are these events engineered in desperation, in order to counter legitimate movements of the people that could lead us out of our servitude?

One thing that it is imperative to understand in all of this is the nature of the psychopathic mind. In the psychopathic pursuit of power, there are no prepositions...there are no words like "to" and "for". They do not want power to, or power for. This renders what they do and why they do it incomprehensible to the human mind, because human minds are rational, while the psychopathic mind is not. Because to the psychopathic mind, there is no "why"...there are no reasons, which would indicate some kind of rationality, however twisted. It is like The Joker says in Batman..."I'm like a dog that chases cars...I wouldn't know what to do with one if I caught it." Psychopaths are like dogs that have caught cars; there they are with all these cars (with all this power), and yet, they keep trying to catch more cars (gain more power), even though they do not know what to do with the cars (power) they have already caught.** This applies to all psychopaths, from the slob who subjugates girlfriend all the way up to the uber-psychopaths at the very top of the game.

**The analogy isn't exact, but its the best I can do right now.

[happyuk]

For me page 71 of the pdf is really strange.

It compares a 2009 / 1971 photos of Manson, who in the ensuing period has clearly had some kind of surgical procedure to pin back his right ear (otoplasty?), presumably all paid for by the State of California...

[Bluegreen]

Thank you for posting. He certainly brings up some perspectives that never occurred to me.
I encountered this essay written by retired attorney Michael B. Schweitzer elsewhere on this site in 2012. It is breezier reading than Mathis, and seemed to me at the time to be the last word. Now, well, my head is spinning.
http://mikiestar.com/qa-about-the-assassination-of-president-kennedy-2/
:sick:

[aranuk]

Just read Miles article on JFK assassination! Brilliant reading. He is a very intelligent man. I could not stop reading until I got to the end of 85 pages.

Stan

[awakeningmom]

I just posted this on another thread but thought it appropriate to include here as well. Mathis recently wrote an article on the sham Boston Marathon bombing trial. Like he opines in his Tate Murders article, he believes that the BMB trial was also a sham from beginning to end. Compelling article in my opinion, which begins:



The Boston Marathon
Bombing Trial
by Miles Mathis
First published April 3, 2015

The Boston Marathon trial is now being manufactured for your amusement in the media, so we will take a quick look at it, for more proof this is all theater. On the front page of most newspapers, we got
this headline on March 5:


IT WAS HIM

That is telling us that the defendant, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, is guilty as presumed. But notice who is saying that. It is Tsarnaev's own defense attorney, Judy Clarke, in her opening statement. Don't you find it a little odd that Tsarnaev's attorney is admitting he is guilty in her opening statement? Do you really think the legal system works that way? I will tell you a secret: all lawyers and law students
know this trial is fake, and they know because they know that real trials don't work like this. Our legal system is an adversarial system, where the two attorneys argue opposite sides. In a criminal trial, the prosecuting attorney is hired to argue the side of the State and the defense attorney is hired to argue the
side of the defendant. The defense attorney must argue for a not guilty finding, even if he or she knows the defendant is guilty. That is the process. If both attorneys are arguing for a guilty verdict, then the trial is pointless. You might as well have a summary finding by the judge. But it isn't done that way. In our system, the accused has a right to a trial and a right to an attorney. As part of that right, the accused has a right to have an attorney argue in his favor. If the defense attorney argues he is guilty, his rights have just been violated. In a real trial, as soon as Tsarnaev's attorney said, “it was him,” the judge would have declared a mistrial, and the defense attorney would have been dismissed, fined, and possibly disbarred. Since none of that happened, we know this trial is fake. It is another Hollywood trial, like the Manson trial, the Hearst trial, the Chicago 8 trials, the Unabomber trial, and hundreds of
other high-profile trials.

The complete article is here:

http://mileswmathis.com/boston2.pdf

[awakeningmom]

Here's a link to a recent Jay Weidner interview on Veritas Radio where Jay recommends that everyone check out Miles W. Mathis. I really enjoy Jay's take on a lot of things anyway, but good to hear that he also finds Mathis credible.

https://deusnexus.wordpress.com/2015/06/07/dissecting-the-endgame/

Sorry, but I don't know how to imbed the video directly!

[Bluegreen]

Sjmt23LUHI8
:thumb:

[awakeningmom]

There's a writer/researcher, Alan Weisbecker, who has basically argued on his blog that most of the alternative community personalities/leaders are really limited hangouts set on leading us astray and confusing us on our search for truth (more than we already are, apparently). He's gone after James Corbett, Sofia Smallstorm, Joseph Farrell, etc., and lately he's been on a Miles W. Mathis kick.

Weisbecker proposes that Miles Mathis is not really a single individual putting out prolific amounts of revisionist histories and revisionist physics, but rather a collection of psy-operators, probably affiliated with Tavistock, who throw us some truth but more disinfo in the various expose essays. Weisbecker argues that the Tate/Manson essay was largely true, but that the JFK revisionist essay and others are largely disinformation. Weisbecker also argues that Miles W. Mathis is not a guy born and bred in Texas -- as Mathis claims on his bio -- but is rather a Brit (or a group of Brits). Weisbecker suggests that Mathis gives this away with numerous language "tells" (e.g., Mathis doesn't put a "the" in front of University or Hospital the way Americans would, Mathis also uses words like shi#e and "tenner" that are not really used by Americans, etc.)

Anyway, another rabbit hole to contemplate. Here's the link.

http://blog.banditobooks.com/an-open-letter-to-miles-mathis-part-one/

[waves]

There's a writer/researcher, Alan Weisbecker, who has basically argued on his blog that most of the alternative community personalities/leaders are really limited hangouts set on leading us astray and confusing us on our search for truth (more than we already are, apparently). He's gone after James Corbett, Sofia Smallstorm, Joseph Farrell, etc., and lately he's been on a Miles W. Mathis kick. .......

I went looking for a documentary I saw some years ago pointing out all the inconsistencies in the official Tate-Manson drama as portrayed in the media. Not sure if this was it, but at the beginning, the narrator says he based it on the Miles Mathis information. The narrator is not identified, but guess who he sounds exactly like... James Corbett - either younger, low quality audio or an attempt to disguise his voice, but the inflections are a dead ringer.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYKG5YFMJ90

[ThePythonicCow]

The narrator is not identified, but guess who he sounds exactly like... James Corbett - either younger, low quality audio or an attempt to disguise his voice, but the inflections are a dead ringer.
Yes, the narrator does sound like James Corbett.

However at about 11 minutes into this video, the narrator mentions growing up in San Jose, California.

James Corbett, in Episode 167 of Skeptico (http://skeptiko.com/167-investigative-journalist-james-corbett/), states "I’m a Canadian. I was born in Calgary, Canada and I lived in Alberta in Canada for most of my life. I went to university in my hometown of Calgary. Eventually I went for my master’s degree at Trinity College, Dublin in Ireland and I spent a year there."

[ThePythonicCow]

Weisbecker also argues that Miles W. Mathis is not a guy born and bred in Texas

Good points about the language - Miles sur dont talk like no Texan I know :)

[ThePythonicCow]

Anyway, another rabbit hole to contemplate. Here's the link.

http://blog.banditobooks.com/an-open-letter-to-miles-mathis-part-one/

Dang - now that I've read it - that's one detailed and rather damning examination of Miles Mathis that Allan C. Weisbecker wrote there. Thanks for linking it.

I've been a Miles Mathis fan for quite a while - though some of his stuff doesn't click for me. I tend to read weirdo conspiracy and other oddball theorists like someone at an all-you-can-eat buffet in Las Vegas, glancing at everything that's offered, and taking what looks tasty. One doesn't usually have to worry about getting food poisoning from food one only looked at and then passed by. But does it work like that for mind poisoning from deliberate disinformation - is just reading it and "passing it by" toxic to the mind?

[waves]

Anyway, another rabbit hole to contemplate. Here's the link.

http://blog.banditobooks.com/an-open-letter-to-miles-mathis-part-one/

Dang - now that I've read it - that's one detailed and rather damning examination of Miles Mathis that Allan C. Weisbecker wrote there. Thanks for linking it.

I've been a Miles Mathis fan for quite a while - though some of his stuff doesn't click for me. I tend to read weirdo conspiracy and other oddball theorists like someone at an all-you-can-eat buffet in Las Vegas, glancing at everything that's offered, and taking what looks tasty. One doesn't usually have to worry about getting food poisoning from food one only looked at and then passed by. But does it work like that for mind poisoning from deliberate disinformation - is just reading it and "passing it by" toxic to the mind?

Good question. I think those of us who have been digging into this hole deeper and deeper for a long time eventually hit a crossroads after realizing the deceptions are endless and deeper and deeper. You are faced with the choice of either continuing to dig and dig as it seems like no matter what you once thought you realized was finally actually true also gets toppled... or... you realize you'll never get any real satisfaction, decide quit spending your time digging and have fun just gardening on the surface, loving and enjoying life.

If you choose to keep digging you have to accept that there's no way around exposing yourself to constant disinfo toxicity and the game includes having to get better and better at stopping yourself from believing nearly anything along the way to keep your shields strong against the poisoning and stay in observation only. So to answer your question, in my opinion I think yes, that the deception has been deliberately designed to include the poisoning you are sensing, therefore the game forces you to learn how to stay unpoisoned to make any progress at all.

I know I won't stop being a digger and don't feel hopeless or defeated. I am very, very happy about having cleaned out so much of what ISN'T true, despite having little to declare about the big Q's that IS true.

On a larger scale side note, I think one of the longterm poisoning agendas to obfuscate/play both sides/controlled opposition/seeding-planting books, people, movements many years in advance for future use may have been called Operation Chaos, or at least one of the disinfo operations, and stuff planted in the 60's to poison the boomer generation is in full bloom right now having created the extreme leftists being used right now.

[awakeningmom]

Agree -- and sometimes I have to stop the digging and just do the gardening or I fear I will go nuts trying to get to the TRUTH with all the layers of deception and limited hangouts and disinfo.

I just finished reading Robert Anton Wilson's Cosmic Trigger I book and I am starting to warm to his philosophy that one should remain an agnostic about just about everything -- including the Deep State machinations or a belief in what the "Illuminati" actually is. Chances are, much of what I currently "be-lie-ve" now will be unveiled as total hogwash down the line. Case in point: I had recently heard during an interview with George Webb (I think it was with Marty Leeds, but could have been with Kerry Cassidy), who has been covering the corruption within the Clinton Foundation and particularly its role in child trafficking/organ trafficking in Haiti. Webb threw out some quip about the elites getting organ transplants all the time from unwilling donors from places like Haiti, etc... and he tossed out something about David Rockefeller having had "7 heart transplants." Well, this outraged me and I ended up repeating it to my husband, who demanded proof....but when I went in search of "proof," all I found were links to very questionable sources (e.g., one called Scorched Earth, etc...). And then I thought about it and realized that David Rockefeller's private medical information would likely never be leaked into the public like that. Needless to say, my credibility in my husband's eyes suffered, but that's what I get for repeating sensational info like that without doing my own independent investigation. It did make me wonder about George Webb too, since I had heard it from him and he sounds so legitimate and knowledgeable when you listen to him -- but why wouldn't HE make sure that something inflammatory like that was true before repeating it?

Used to think that remaining "agnostic" would mean remaining passive to what's happening in the world, but I am coming to realize that I really can only affect the local level anyway, and thus spending too much time digging into the nasty business of the PTB and suffering the blows of realizing that people I tended to trust were likely limited hangouts/deliberate disinfo agents time and time again does nothing but depress me and further confuse/pollute my mind. I'm becoming more and more interested in the gardening because, as someone on this site brilliantly said: "I am here in this experience, and what now"?

[heretogrow]

I went to follow the link in the opening post to go to Zen's site. His account has been suspended. Hmm...

Sorry, just can't help but think that all of this is significant, and he was too close to the truth so his account was suspended. I am a bit conspiracy minded.

[waves]

Agree -- and sometimes I have to stop the digging and just do the gardening or I fear I will go nuts trying to get to the TRUTH with all the layers of deception and limited hangouts and disinfo.

I just finished reading Robert Anton Wilson's Cosmic Trigger I book and I am starting to warm to his philosophy that one should remain an agnostic about just about everything -- including the Deep State machinations or a belief in what the "Illuminati" actually is. Chances are, much of what I currently "be-lie-ve" now will be unveiled as total hogwash down the line. Case in point: I had recently heard during an interview with George Webb (I think it was with Marty Leeds, but could have been with Kerry Cassidy), who has been covering the corruption within the Clinton Foundation and particularly its role in child trafficking/organ trafficking in Haiti. Webb threw out some quip about the elites getting organ transplants all the time from unwilling donors from places like Haiti, etc... and he tossed out something about David Rockefeller having had "7 heart transplants." Well, this outraged me and I ended up repeating it to my husband, who demanded proof....but when I went in search of "proof," all I found were links to very questionable sources (e.g., one called Scorched Earth, etc...). And then I thought about it and realized that David Rockefeller's private medical information would likely never be leaked into the public like that. Needless to say, my credibility in my husband's eyes suffered, but that's what I get for repeating sensational info like that without doing my own independent investigation. It did make me wonder about George Webb too, since I had heard it from him and he sounds so legitimate and knowledgeable when you listen to him -- but why wouldn't HE make sure that something inflammatory like that was true before repeating it?

Used to think that remaining "agnostic" would mean remaining passive to what's happening in the world, but I am coming to realize that I really can only affect the local level anyway, and thus spending too much time digging into the nasty business of the PTB and suffering the blows of realizing that people I tended to trust were likely limited hangouts/deliberate disinfo agents time and time again does nothing but depress me and further confuse/pollute my mind. I'm becoming more and more interested in the gardening because, as someone on this site brilliantly said: "I am here in this experience, and what now"?

The Rockefeller disinfo experience is a great example of 'gotcha' tidbits manipulators know truth seekers are drawn to thinking they're getting some satisfaction of adding a puzzle piece only to find themselves having been steered toward a dead end and set up to be ridiculed. It's a very, very clever minefield of them out there. Been there many times, at least it's a puzzle piece of whoa, that's disinfo too.

And sorry to throw you another whoa, but one of my whoa's of the last year was unearthing the connection of Mr. Wilson to the 60's Stanford social engineering agenda along with Huxley, Kesey, Alpert, Ram Dass and Esalen and more, including Leary and Hofman I had already outed. Anton was a favorite too, and this new discovery leaves any conclusion about him still very tangled. I like to think Anton wasn't incorrect in a bigger overall way... but what was his part in the deeper manipulative agenda HE was manipulated to produce? Dig around gnosticmedia.com for these Anton connections I'm talking about.

I agree completely about realizing that the local level is the only real sphere of influence for most, but I'm still hanging on to the suspicion that the most powerful thing I can contribute to the whole is to free my own mind as much as possible.... and that includes a lot of happy gardening.

[waves]

The narrator is not identified, but guess who he sounds exactly like... James Corbett - either younger, low quality audio or an attempt to disguise his voice, but the inflections are a dead ringer.
Yes, the narrator does sound like James Corbett.

However at about 11 minutes into this video, the narrator mentions growing up in San Jose, California.

James Corbett, in Episode 167 of Skeptico (http://skeptiko.com/167-investigative-journalist-james-corbett/), states "I’m a Canadian. I was born in Calgary, Canada and I lived in Alberta in Canada for most of my life. I went to university in my hometown of Calgary. Eventually I went for my master’s degree at Trinity College, Dublin in Ireland and I spent a year there."

That's what they said, now what are we sure is true and why? Especially unverifiable would be the 'I'm from San Jose' guy leaving a chance to be Corbett.

[lilac]

Jay Weidner corroborates quite a lot of Miles Mathis' information, and I feel that Jay is a source of truth.

Just in the interest of getting things right, (Richard) Alpert and Ram Dass are the same person. He gave much of his money away before suffering a stroke. He now lives on Maui, where I joined Kirtan around him a few times. A little story about him and Wayne Dyer: https://www.ramdass.org/remembering-wayne-dyer/

I have had several friends in my life who knew Ram Dass very well. He is the real deal.

[awakeningmom]

I went to follow the link in the opening post to go to Zen's site. His account has been suspended. Hmm...

Sorry, just can't help but think that all of this is significant, and he was too close to the truth so his account was suspended. I am a bit conspiracy minded.

Hi heretogrow,
Actually, Zen's site was shut down for other reasons. Last year there was some significant controversy when it was discovered that Zen Gardner had once been a high ranking member of a cult called Children of God (I think that's the name). COG was under scrutiny due to rampant accusations of sexual abuse of children in the cult, and when word got out that Zen had been a part of it, there was quite a lot of alternative community backlash, and Zen elected to take down his own site (if I recall). Not sure what he's up to now.

You can still access Miles W. Mathis' work directly at www.mileswmathis.com. I think the link is just below the Zen link in the OP #1.

[awakeningmom]

Hi Waves,
Don't worry, you aren't disillusioning me at all about Robert Anton Wilson. :) The entire Cosmic Trigger book pays significant homage to Aleister Crowley, Tim Leary, and many of the others you name, and I was already familiar with Gnostic media and Jan Irwin....so I was already thinking along the lines of: this guy must also have been part of the whole social engineering/psychedelic mind control/Tavistock/CIA operation as well. And particularly when Wilson concludes that "The Biggest Secret" of the "Illuminati" is nothing more than, wait for it...Tantric Sex Yoga. ??? Um, yeah, I highly doubt it.

Still, I do think that remaining agnostic about most things going on out there in the Matrix makes a lot of sense (at least for my own sanity). Believing too much in one narrative/philosophy/person/leader sets one up for a much harder fall when it/they topple. And I'm pretty convinced that we aren't ever going to fully know what's really going on. The game has been so corrupted with disinformation, distractions, and detours, and I've already been duped many times since my self-characterized "awakening" four years ago (as illustrated in my earlier post) that I am starting to realize that I know nothing at all.

Even if he was an agent with a social engineering agenda, I do like that Wilson spent the book exploring various ways to explore his own consciousness, with and without the assistance of entheogens. I'm trying to move more towards that inner exploration and less "outer" PTB stuff. It seems like, other than trying to do good at the local level, and engaging in healthy things like gardening, writing, painting, etc., the most exciting thing we can do while we are here ('in this experience") is to try to figure out how our consciousness works and whether there are ways to access a higher level of it.

[heretogrow]

Thanks for clearing that up awakeningmom! I tried to download the pdf file of mathis' research yesterday but our internet is used up for the month. It reboots on the 24th so I will have to wait until then to continue with this thread. I can read what others have posted but I cannot follow any of the links or research anything myself. I guess that is the price I have to pay for living so far out in the boonies now. I used to be able to follow everything on Avalon when I lived in town, but now I have to pick and choose what to look at due to our Hughesnet connection being so limited. If you want to know the truth I miss being an active member of this community. But due to my limited amount of research time I seldom post anymore. I feel like I know so little nowadays and I seldom post because I am always behind the curve of the information streams across the board. Still I can gather an inkling of what is gong on from others posts on various subjects. I am very grateful for that. Hope I did not derail your tread. Back to topic!

Much love,
Julia

[Helene West]

Just some meandering thoughts as I read the recent posts above.

First - I'm not letting anyone take my enjoyment of miles mathis away!

I have to have bloody good proof. I enjoy him too much and that is more than I can say for much of my 'alt' info. I get info from my alt world because it just simply is my life. I'm just not a mainstream kinda girl.

On a recent post I wondered out loud how George Webb could have so much knowledge like he does and still be walking around. So yeah, I dropped my grains of salt on him but that doesn't mean he isn't giving out some good stuff. Something about him intrigues me and that's good enough for me. Does everyone telling the truth have to be assassinated before I believe they are the real deal?

In regards to AwakeningMom's comment to her hubby about the amount of rockefeller's transplants and how would Webb know about this? what if he does have a source that told him about Rockefeller but he can't say who the source is? maybe it was an aside that slipped out of his mouth while he was making some other point he felt was more important.

It has been because of listening to some of Webb's work I've changed my attitude about alt writers, researchers, etc. This is just since YESTERDAY!! I too felt that alt reporters, researchers, talk show hosts and guests had better be able to back up every utterance out of their mouths. RD Steele annoys me and I felt righteous about him blathering his dire warnings re Trump all over the web. I want Proof he is who he says he is and what he says is true. But I won't get it. The truth is not forthcoming.

There is just so much info being avalanched on our heads it may be impossible to expect all these people to provide back-up for everything they put out. Now we have 'Insiders' coming out of the woodwork relaying/leaking inside info. And the insiders are outing alt people besides mainstream people. One is accusing the other of being 'controlled opposition'. I had read on a post on avalon on a similar subject where Bill Ryan mentioned this forum could be controlled opposition for that matter. I have thought that many times before he said that. Our intel agencies are corrupt so we want our alt people to be incorruptible, transparent as angels, perfect. It's not happening.

Like the conclusion I believe awakeningmom came to - if we are going to repeat something to someone else, especially if we are trying to be persuasive with someone else then it is beholden upon us to check it out. If we don't want to check it out then either don't give it to someone as truth, give it as interesting conversation - or take it the way I take Miles Mathis - I just enjoy him. I feel I have also learned from him but I won't try to convince anyone that he is the delphic oracle.

My bottom line is spiritual of sorts - I accept I'm a speck of sand in the infinite sea of life and I'm going to leave life hardly knowing anything.

We're lucky we're still in the position of pondering all of these things - people at other times and places have actually had to take stands - physically and financially. We may be put in that position with all the craziness going on, hopefully not.

When I was a teenager I had a quip that I had meant back then as sarcastic but now is axiomatic for me - take the good and spit the rest out. I'll add at this later date - with that good that i do take i'll connect a few dots because I feel a hunger in my brain to synthesize. But I won't throw my alt babies out with the bathwater. Now let me go read me some Miles!

[heretogrow]

I loved reading your post Helen West! I can't wait for my internet to reload for the month so I can read me some Miles Mathias! You and I if we ever met would be fast friends because I respect your Moxie!!!

Much Love,
Julia

[araucaria]

Not to rain on anyone’s parade, but I’m afraid enjoyment is a difficult argument to respond to. People enjoy smoking, even to the point of overriding a SMOKING KILLS message every time they open a packet of cigarettes. Their enjoyment is real and the warning, although deliberately overstated, is not untrue either. A health worker/researcher might tell you one thing and do the other, and can do so because any given cigarette is not going to do them much harm, even though that doesn’t invalidate their careful formal recommendations.

As someone who has posted the equivalent of about a hundred pages on anomalies (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?94924-Some-anomalies-in-the-Miles-Mathis-material-an-alternative-picture&p=1119681&viewfull=1#post1119681)in just one of Mathis’s essays, I would simply say this in answer to Helene West, who joined that thread but only briefly, I am not repeating anything to anyone else, I am doing my own research. And while I am not presenting anything as truth either, I am defending dead writers, who incidentally have brought huge ‘enjoyment’ to millions, on the basis of what I know (sources provided). The fact that this comes to be turned against Miles Mathis himself is not my fault; he is the one who is not finding much good and spitting nearly everything out. He has been maligning people whom I respect and recommend. That is one ingredient of his concoction that ought to be mentioned in small print on the package.

One other point before I go, regarding the time when Bill Ryan mentioned this forum could be controlled opposition. Bill can respond for himself, but I took him to mean this is how the elite might view us. It doesn’t mean they control what we say and think, simply that as the lunatic fringe, we are under control (meaning simply: unruly but not totally out of hand) to the extent that no one is listening to this crazy minority. That view is predicated on both terms remaining correct; but of course the process, and the challenge, is about showing that WE are not the crazy ones and on the basis of this new definition of what is crazy and what is sane, turning a tiny minority into a majority. The attraction of enjoyment – and also the problem with it – is that it is irrational. This is very much okay because there is a vital irrational component to sanity; but it is problematic to the extent that it can lead through addiction to insanity and through insanity to addiction. CIA chiefs like Angleton and Crowley not only played havoc with themselves and the entire world by being infected with foreign agents but, not coincidentally, they also smoked and drank themselves to death in the process.

Coming back to Mathis, to claim for instance that someone like James Joyce was no more than an intelligence asset is demonstrably preposterous and spoils any enjoyment this reader might have had reading Mathis. It may be crazy to make that claim or it may just be misguided. It is certainly not crazy or misguided to point out that it is probably incorrect. Interesting that no one is debating these issues with me. This is how the impression can be created of someone ranting away in a crazy little world of their own and in no need of debunking. I am prepared to accept that risk of total misunderstanding, but I think my track record as an honest researcher on this forum would show that to date it would have to come from an inadequate grasp of what I am saying. If anyone has a full understanding and greater knowledge to impart, that is what I am striving for: any help is welcome, but until I can attract it I shall struggle on manfully on my own. I am not complaining, for the task is both healthy and enjoyable, although it is not a passive consumer-type enjoyment.

[Ewan]

Not to rain on anyone’s parade, but I’m afraid enjoyment is a difficult argument to respond to. People enjoy smoking, even to the point of overriding a SMOKING KILLS message every time they open a packet of cigarettes. Their enjoyment is real and the warning, although deliberately overstated, is not untrue either. A health worker/researcher might tell you one thing and do the other, and can do so because any given cigarette is not going to do them much harm, even though that doesn’t invalidate their careful formal recommendations.

As someone who has posted the equivalent of about a hundred pages on anomalies (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?94924-Some-anomalies-in-the-Miles-Mathis-material-an-alternative-picture&p=1119681&viewfull=1#post1119681)in just one of Mathis’s essays, I would simply say this in answer to Helene West, who joined that thread but only briefly, I am not repeating anything to anyone else, I am doing my own research. And while I am not presenting anything as truth either, I am defending dead writers, who incidentally have brought huge ‘enjoyment’ to millions, on the basis of what I know (sources provided). The fact that this comes to be turned against Miles Mathis himself is not my fault; he is the one who is not finding much good and spitting nearly everything out. He has been maligning people whom I respect and recommend. That is one ingredient of his concoction that ought to be mentioned in small print on the package.

One other point before I go, regarding the time when Bill Ryan mentioned this forum could be controlled opposition. Bill can respond for himself, but I took him to mean this is how the elite might view us. It doesn’t mean they control what we say and think, simply that as the lunatic fringe, we are under control (meaning simply: unruly but not totally out of hand) to the extent that no one is listening to this crazy minority. That view is predicated on both terms remaining correct; but of course the process, and the challenge, is about showing that WE are not the crazy ones and on the basis of this new definition of what is crazy and what is sane, turning a tiny minority into a majority. The attraction of enjoyment – and also the problem with it – is that it is irrational. This is very much okay because there is a vital irrational component to sanity; but it is problematic to the extent that it can lead through addiction to insanity and through insanity to addiction. CIA chiefs like Angleton and Crowley not only played havoc with themselves and the entire world by being infected with foreign agents but, not coincidentally, they also smoked and drank themselves to death in the process.

Coming back to Mathis, to claim for instance that someone like James Joyce was no more than an intelligence asset is demonstrably preposterous and spoils any enjoyment this reader might have had reading Mathis. It may be crazy to make that claim or it may just be misguided. It is certainly not crazy or misguided to point out that it is probably incorrect. Interesting that no one is debating these issues with me. This is how the impression can be created of someone ranting away in a crazy little world of their own and in no need of debunking. I am prepared to accept that risk of total misunderstanding, but I think my track record as an honest researcher on this forum would show that to date it would have to come from an inadequate grasp of what I am saying. If anyone has a full understanding and greater knowledge to impart, that is what I am striving for: any help is welcome, but until I can attract it I shall struggle on manfully on my own. I am not complaining, for the task is both healthy and enjoyable, although it is not a passive consumer-type enjoyment.

I don't debate with you because I find nothing to disagree with, so please carry on ranting away as you are certainly not on your own. :)

[Helene West]

Dear Araucaria

Correct, 'enjoyment' is actually no basis for argument at all. You want argument and debate but it's not coming from me, not on this thread at least.

However, lest you are despondent that my enjoyment is completely superficial and so perhaps dragging down the quality of the thread - I'm a person who has had my basic beliefs since youth to middle age robbed from me; robbed, disparaged and bunched into a burlap sack and thrown over a bridge. I also see the world I live in as a place where half the youth of my country are allowing themselves to be duped the way young chinese were duped during the people's revolution where they were used to kill over 90 million of their fellow chinese, only to be told in their middle age - oops, it was a big joke or a mistake, whatever. The same attempt is going to be made here I believe.

Sooooo, if I looked at a pic supposedly of Miles and think he's cute, this is a rabbit i'll follow down the hole he jumps in, so be it. Most alt researchers or writers I look to for info more seriously, albeit after I've baptized them with grains of salt. But his sardonic style makes me chuckle and that is my form of alt 'enjoyment'.. I've watched countless folks, including my family, turn on 6 o'clock news because it's their routine like brushing their teeth, and it goes in one ear and out the other. They are not bothered. Come the next election they will 'throw the bums out!' and that is it.... I do not know how it feels to be that kind of mainstream person, I only know I'm not one of them... right now, thanks to miles (or the hydra headed british agents some think he may be) I'm having fun wondering or casually finding out if almost every famous person I ever heard of is really jewish, lol, I'm finding that funny these days, considering they are less than 2% of our population and I was raised to believe I'm in a world of gentile players...

Anyway, I may or may not look at your anomalies of Miles...but I hope you find the person that will give you the cerebral duel you are seeking in this regard...

[Caliban]

Great thread awakeningmom and great contributions from Helene West, araucaria, heretogrow, et alia.

This Miles Mathis "character" certainly stirs up a lot of emotions doesn't he? Or is it "them" ? As a friend said above, I think it might be a team of Miles's cooking up these pieces. First of all, this Miles has written hundreds of pages on these topics. Not impossible, but is it a full time job? It must be. What I think we find fascinating about his writings is that they're like a Meta Conspiracy. Not in the sense of RA Wilson, not metaphysically. He's basically saying that we've all been duped, over and over again. Duped by the original events, duped by the stories about them, duped by the theorisers, duped by the investigators, ad infinitum. Only "Miles" has the answers and they are basically that the duping never ends. His stuff is interesting to be sure, but something doesn't sit right with me about it. And yes, araucaria, I don't dig him knocking artists and writers like Joyce and Jackson Pollock, either.

Regarding Robert Anton, I kinda love the guy. Was he in that Stanford circle? yes, okay... but don't forget in those days a lot of people were mixing, some of whom would hold decidedly contradictory viewpoints of what they want their realities to look like. Doesn't mean RAW, Ram Dass and even Mr. Tune in Turn on were not "good guys."

[awakeningmom]

I definitely agree with you, Caliban (and Alan C. Weisbecker), about how unlikely it is that ONE PERSON is writing all of those Miles W. Mathis posts. And when you read some of them, his understanding of U.S. history (e.g. barely known dates/events and obscure points about lesser known U.S. Presidents are tossed about as if they are common knowledge) and science seems beyond what an average educated person in the U.S. would know....too Renaissance Man to be one person in my opinion. I get that he could be doing extensive research before writing his various essays, but that must take a lot of time....does he make a decent living writing this stuff? Access is free.

Also, although I was initially blown away by the Charles Manson essay two years ago (as shown by my original post #1), some of his other essays scream disinfo to me. In particular, Miles has been very quick to dismiss anything about Pizzagate in particular or pedophilia in general. That is a red flag to me, since I happen to believe there is something there there. His essay on the movie Spotlight was also particularly disturbing to me, since Miles suggests that the Boston priest scandals were faked or overstated (!!!). In particular, Mathis argues that victimized boys "would talk" if priests were molesting them. Oh Really? As someone who grew up in the very Catholic working class outskirts of Boston, I know that the priests were revered/respected as God's Messengers to many of the hard-working devout families I knew. And I happen to have personally known at least four pedophiles growing up, even by Mathis' dubious definition (which he says is only adults going after children 11 and under), so Mathis' minimizing of pedophilia in general and his dismissal of Pizzagate in particular really puts me off and suggests to me that he is (or they are) some sort of disinfo agent.

Anyway, here's the Spotlight essay. Wonder if it doesn't sit right to others as well. To me, if anything, the Spotlight coverage whitewashed/minimized the extent of Priest pedophilia in the Church - it didn't overstate anything.

http://mileswmathis.com/spot.pdf

[Caliban]

I skimmed the essay on Spotlight. Again, where does someone find the time to do such in depth research as this as a part time thing? It's pretty impressive if one person pulls this off.

I agree with you awakeningmom -- what's the point of such an essay? He starts off saying that because it was promoted and won an Oscar it's immediately suspect. Really? Why? Oddly, he talks about the real life reporters and their "crooked smiles and shifty eyes." Of course it's all down to the Jews, and everyone's a Jew, including Stanley Tucci!!

What if it's actually far worse than this movie depicts and involves all the levels of power and persuasions talked about on Avalon? Could our pal Miles be doing a little three card monty game here? He reminds me of that video maker on YT, Russian Vids. He too is very provocative and he too sees a conspiracy behind a conspiracy behind a ... to the point that no celebrity can die--David Bowie, Alan Rickman--it's all B.S. they've just disappeared, it's part of the game. Of course Miles Mathis (Master Manipulator?) is far more nuanced and in depth, although apparently they both do the numerology hoe-down. Spotlight was good, maybe not perfect but it showed some honest reporters doing their job. You know what I thought about after I saw it? Why don't those guys investigate the bloody Boston "bombing" ? Or-- maybe not? ;)

[araucaria]

Anyway, I may or may not look at your anomalies of Miles...but I hope you find the person that will give you the cerebral duel you are seeking in this regard...
:confused: You already have looked, and commented, and received a reply from me. Did you see it?
http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?94924-Some-anomalies-in-the-Miles-Mathis-material-an-alternative-picture&p=1121722&viewfull=1#post1121722

‘Duel’ is a belligerent term that I find inappropriate to what I am about. ‘Dual’ would be more suitable, because it is not all cerebral either.

[ThePythonicCow]

I definitely agree with you, Caliban (and Alan C. Weisbecker), about how unlikely it is that ONE PERSON is writing all of those Miles W. Mathis posts. And when you read some of them, his understanding of U.S. history (e.g. barely known dates/events and obscure points about lesser known U.S. Presidents are tossed about as if they are common knowledge) and science seems beyond what an average educated person in the U.S. would know....too Renaissance Man to be one person in my opinion. I get that he could be doing extensive research before writing his various essays, but that must take a lot of time....does he make a decent living writing this stuff? Access is free.

My sense is that he's the single author of what he claims to write. Perhaps ten per-cent of the time, he'll post something written by others, and he will openly state such. I presume that one man, named Miles Mathis, is the researcher and author of what he so claims.

He has a very rapid and detailed memory for names and such, well above the norm. But that doesn't tell me that "Miles Mathis" is a pseudonym for a group. Rather it seems to me that he has a few special talents that he has developed to a quite unusual degree.

His writing style "feels" consistent to me, and his articles seem to be written quickly, as he is researching. His science understanding is quite different from what is taught in universities, but also limited in ways that I find strange. He can easily cite, and explain in the context of his physics theories, experiments that have amazed and befuddled students of physics and chemistry for a century now. He seems to be applying his keen intuitive awareness of geometric shapes to a degree well developed over the last decade or two. However Mathis can't hold a candle to the skilled use of advanced calculus, computer hardware and software, and electrical test equipment that someone like Robert Distinti (https://www.youtube.com/user/rdistinti) displays.

As a portrait artist, he probably has days and even weeks when business is slow, and he can focus on his "hobbies", his conspiracy theory work and his physics work. Other than the little bit of traffic that his research might bring to his artist business, I doubt he makes much money from this. He does encourage donations to the SAVE THE ARTISTS FOUNDATION, of "a dollar or more", which he says enables him to continue this research. I doubt that's much income, but on the other hand, his needs are likely quite modest. Beyond having a computer attached to the Internet, his research costs him nothing, except for the time and the application of his special talents.

There seems to me to be a wider variation in abilities amongst men than amongst women. The village idiot and the village shaman are both more often than not male. One man in a thousand can take a couple of special aptitudes and push them orders of magnitude beyond the ordinary (while perhaps being somewhat, or even very, limited, in other ways.)

Mathis has a great talent for shapes, sizes, colors and such. He has an extraordinary memory for names, dates, places and such. He thinks "outside of the box" about as readily as a bear in the woods thinks outside of the property lines filed with the county clerk. He has the time and an Internet connection. He's been at this since at least Articles from 2003 and Earlier (http://mileswmathis.com/2003.html), so his talents are well developed.

[Helene West]

further to what Paul has written, mm doesn't purport to be doing some in depth or secret research. he says outright he gets what he does from public sites that anyone can go to geni.com, ancestry, etc. I'm too lazy to verify so I just enjoy.
as far as his tracing jewish ancestry to so many I feel he may be on to something that the sleepy goyim don't get - when I look at what the white ruling class is doing to the home of whites, europe, you have to ask yourself - this is their home too how can they do this to their own? but if the majority of the white ruling class are jews that might explain the ease of their destroying europe, as western civilization was at least originally christian, jews may have NEVER identified with it, they used the resources to make themselves richer, they navigated through it, they lent to governments which is a way of owning governments, but they didn't identify on an emotional basis with the majority population or its traditions. It could make some sense as to what is going on today....

[Kristin]

Anyway, I may or may not look at your anomalies of Miles...but I hope you find the person that will give you the cerebral duel you are seeking in this regard...
:confused: You already have looked, and commented, and received a reply from me. Did you see it?
http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?94924-Some-anomalies-in-the-Miles-Mathis-material-an-alternative-picture&p=1121722&viewfull=1#post1121722

‘Duel’ is a belligerent term that I find inappropriate to what I am about. ‘Dual’ would be more suitable, because it is not all cerebral either.

It can be very difficult to identify tone and intent in a written conversation. On a forum we are missing the basic human qualities of facial expression and voice cadence. All of us need to take care in not triggering each other, particularly in these charged times we live in and when opinions are held strongly.

Great conversation, thank you for keeping things on an even keel with such a difficult subject.
From the heart,
Kris

[araucaria]

I have read only a couple of lines of Mathis’s Spotlight essay, and found this:

In early December, Jacob Jones helped escort a convoy to Brest, France, with five other Queenstown-based destroyers. The last to depart from Brest on the return to Ireland, Jacob Jones was steaming alone in a zig-zag pattern when she was spotted [...]
Makes no sense, as usual. If the ship was escorting a convoy, how could it be steaming alone? A convoy is a group of ships, by definition. And why would it be moving in a zig-zag pattern?

Well Miles, it’s really quite simple: just read what’s there. The convoy was escorted to Brest, in France, after which the destroyers headed off in their own good time back to Ireland. Hence the need for a straggler, steaming alone, to follow a zig-zag pattern: to dodge torpedoes.

[gnostic9]

Ships of the United States Navy in Cork Ireland during World War One
(For fleet list click here (http://www.corkshipwrecks.net/us%20navy%20fleet.html))

USS JACOB JONES DD61
(Tucker Class, 1915)


http://www.corkshipwrecks.net/wpimages/wpcc602665_05_06.jpg




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.

[awakeningmom]

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-letter-to-miles-mathis-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....

[ThePythonicCow]

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-letter-to-miles-mathis-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.

[Helene West]

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....

[awakeningmom]

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-letter-to-miles-mathis-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!

[ThePythonicCow]

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 (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?13680-How-to-quote-part-of-a-post&p=130200&viewfull=1#post130200).

[Helene West]

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

[awakeningmom]

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?

[ThePythonicCow]

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).

[araucaria]

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:

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.

[Satori]

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:

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?

[araucaria]

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 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pygmalion_(mythology))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.

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 (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?69110-The-principle-behind-remote-viewing-a-critical-analysis&p=810013&viewfull=1#post810013).

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 (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?96140-Power-vs-Force-and-Kinesiology-by-David-R.-Hawkins&p=1135677&viewfull=1#post1135677). 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/showthread.php?66854-Are-we-living-a-pre-scripted-story--Implications-Revelations-and-the-Future-&p=777383&viewfull=1#post777383
http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?78782-Charlie-Hebdo-shooting-eleven-dead-at-Paris-offices-of-satirical-magazine&p=921607&viewfull=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.