An Open Letter to Miles Mathis, Part One

Hi folks (plus Miles),

I’ve been itching to press on to this web character ‘Miles Mathis’ and, interestingly, ‘Miles’ himself has provided a direct segue. Last week he posted an ‘outing’ of the same two alt media figures I covered in my last post, David Weiss and Sofia Smallstorm; MM also did a defacto debunk of flat earth (FE), which I also did in my post. He mentions Jim Fetzer, whom I also refer to. On top of that, as a tack-on he repeated his bald assertion that pizzagate (pedogate) is ‘faked,’ meanwhile claiming that David Seaman (who has taken heat for being all over Pizzagate) has ‘gone into hiding’ – two easily verifiable lies, btw. And my video from last time included a clip from Seaman talking about the importance of pizzagate and how FE is a distraction from it.

 

So everyone/everything I mentioned or quoted – Smallstorm, Weiss, Fetzer, Seaman, FE, plus pizzagate – were all in the MM post. That the post followed directly on the heels of mine (by a week or so) equals the extreme likelihood that MM is keeping an eye on my sorry ass and what I have to say. The fact that my readership is small (though loyal and smart) makes this doubly interesting.

Why is an ambitious/expensive government operation like ‘Miles Mathis’ taking the time to monitor me (let alone post on the same subjects)? Two reasons, IMO: 1) I don’t say (post) much, but when I do, it’s on the money, and 2) I’ve been threatening for months to do an exposè on MM, proving beyond reasonable doubt that he is what I say he is, i.e., a committee of spooks (possibly out of Tavistock) out to misdirect/misinform you, but meanwhile (like any ‘good’ LH) providing valuable truths — in the case of MM, extremely valuable, which is why he should be of extreme interest to anyone with a real interest in HTWRW (how it really works). An example of this is in fact included in the opening paragraph of the recent MM post I refer to:

‘…she [Sofia Smallstorm] wanted to talk about my Manson/Tate research… She said that one of her friends had told her it was great…’ [He then goes on to ‘out’ David Weiss, as I did]

And indeed, the MM essay on the Manson/Tate ‘events’ (truly worth a ‘cautious’ read) is undoubtedly ‘correct’ in its conclusion that the ‘murders’ and even the trial itself were fraudulent; it was an early example of Sandy Hook and the spate of frauds to come, the Boston bombing being another example. I characterize the essay as ‘correct’ rather than ‘accurate’ since there are several factual ‘errors’ in the piece, although none that reverse the ultimate conclusion that the Manson event was a psy op, one of the most ambitious in recent American history. (Keep in mind that the murders/trial were not false flag events in the sense of 9/11 but rather ‘history theater’ (to coin a term) — the ‘crime’ itself was apparently faked, not who committed it (as in a false flag).

I’ve lost count of the times MM prefaces an essay (invariably a particularly outrageous one) with a strong suggestion that the reader go back and read his Manson/Tate essay before carrying on with the current one; this has become a ‘tell’ that ‘the current one’ is disinformation; he is literally pointing out the M.O. of a LH by suggesting we read some (real) truth so we’re more easily sucked into the whooper to come. Let’s quote from the first paragraph of the essay that first tipped me to MM’s status as ambitious psy op – his essay claiming that JFK faked his own assassination:

‘If the thesis [of this essay] is too far-out for you at a first glance… I also recommend my very long paper on the Tate/Manson event. The photographic evidence I compiled for that one exceeds even the photographic evidence here—which is extensive.’

I’ll not parse the Manson essay, although I will show you how I know the JFK one is balderdash, transparently so. I’ll do this partly via MM’s own words, a response to an email I sent him. The issue was one of motive, which, in a general sense can be used as a short hand method of sussing the likelihood that you are being conned. Always ask yourself the classic qui bono? Who benefits? (In this case: Did JFK himself benefit from his own ‘death’? How?)

To do this, often we must look at historical context. In the case of the Manson/Tate event, who benefitted is obvious. In the summer of 1969 (the time of the ‘murders’) the U.S. was in the midst of the worst of the Vietnam crisis (my best friend was killed there the previous May). The counterculture was running amok with protests; Woodstock was about to ‘happen’ (there are some doubts about the veracity of the historical portrayal of that event as well). The ops known as COINTELPRO (by the FBI) and CHAOS (less well known but now an outed CIA operation) were in full swing. What was desperately needed was a discrediting of the anti-war movement and the counterculture (hippies) in general. The Manson/Tate event was a spectacular success in this sense. (Although I was surfing in rural Hawaii at the time, I clearly recall that given my long hair and ratty (Manson-esque) garb, hitchhiking, for example, immediately became more difficult, and it was no secret why.)

Point being, though: the MM essay on the subject was truly a revelation. Once the evidence was really looked at, I was astounded at my own naivety. Had the Manson/Tate event taken place now, in place of, say, Sandy Hook or the Boston bombing, Internet sleuths would have taken it apart just as fast as they did these later frauds. That MM looked back and exposed an even more spectacular hoax (you ‘hadda be there’ to understand what a sensation the ‘murders’ were in ‘69), was impressive indeed. It amounted to a ‘cultural 9/11.’

In my own case, as MM directed me to, I had read his Manson/Tate essay (which is almost of short-book length and heavy with photos) before the JFK analysis. I was so taken in by the Manson paper, that – I have to admit – upon first read I halfway accepted the verdict that JFK engineered his own fraudulent demise on November 22, 1963. Looking back, that I for one minute believed this (given the depth of my research into JFK) is a perfect example of how a well-wrought limited hangout/misdirection really works.

Having reread it, however, I had my own ‘Wait a fucking minute!’ epiphany, and at first (before really parsing the ‘facts’ according to MM) this was based solely on motive. The best way to show you what I mean is to quote from a thread at the CluesForum on Miles Mathis I participated in a few months ago:

(Those who want to plow through the whole thread can start here — scroll down to ‘allancw’. The photos on this page are significant also in that they proof MM deceit: The wide angle lens photo of Jackie in the limo is obviously from a theatrical film, not from that day in Dallas. This fact, and MM handling of it – plus MM’s status as expert in photo analysis — should be enough proof that MM is a LH/disinfo agent…)

(This is me writing)

My main problem is best summed up by a subscriber to my site. In my recent post I suggested my people read Miles’s JFK essay, the better to understand my upcoming analysis. Here’s an email that came in:

‘Good afternoon, Allan,
I can see why you want to call your next entry [on Miles Mathis] “The Most Important Person in the World.”I’ve been reading Miles Mathis for the better part of two days and all I can say is, “Holy crap!” I’m extremely interested in your next blog post…

But at this point, where I struggle is with putting the pieces together in a way that makes sense. If we are as stupid as we appear to be, why does anyone have to disappear in order to be part of a shadow government? … there must be “something better” for these elites to give up living in the seen world. And this is where MM stops; for me to believe, and granted he makes a great case and pulls some things together that never made sense before, it ALL has to make sense. Elite people sacrificing their freedom to move about in the world…I need more information as to why they’d do that…[my emphases]

I hope you’re doing well!
Take care,’
Holly’ (end of quote)

I had already contacted Miles via email (more below) so I sent him the above text as a way of voicing my main concern about his essay theorizing that JFK faked his own assassination. (It was encouraging that a subscriber to my blog likewise saw the main weakness in MM’s blockbuster essay.) This is the reply I got:

From: “mm@milesmathis.com” <mm@milesmathis.com>
To: Allan Weisbecker <acwdownsouth@yahoo.com>
Sent: Sunday, August 7, 2016 9:31 PM
Subject: re: a subscriber’s email

‘Because I don’t know everything I am a limited hangout? Beautiful logic. ‘
#
You must understand that one of the issues that attracted me to Miles to begin with is that he’s strong with motives; virtually all his other essays tell us WHY the events were faked, and he usually makes sense. His email answer above is… balderdash. In fact, here’s my reply (just sent a few hours ago):

Miles,

if you’re too busy to write a proper answer you should have remained silent — your response both took time to write and was counter-productive, no matter who you are. in fact, i find it hard to believe that the same person who wrote the ‘beat’ essay (and others) is answering emails. FYI.

AW

[The above should be enough to bust MM as a psy op: that he doesn’t know why all these Kennedys faked their deaths (part of MM’s treatise is that all the Kennedy deaths were faked, from Joe Jr. in WW2 to JFK Jr. in 1999) is… as I say, balderdash of the first order. And there you have it, in his email reply, i.e., a direct quote from the ‘man’ himself: he doesn’t have a clue why.]

But let’s go back to Manson/Tate for a moment. Although it’s a ‘credit’ to MM for unearthing and exposing the mountain of evidence that the whole Manson/Tate event was a fraud from the bottom up, it’s also a disparagement of anyone who considers him/herself a student of American history – when I wonder why no one else noticed the fraud, I include myself. After all, in hindsight, and with the exception of the fraudulent Apollo moon missions, the Manson/Tate event was the most horrendous example of government/media deceit since the JFK assassination itself. In terms of American ‘jurisprudence,’ it probably ‘takes the cake’ in all of American history. As with the Apollo fraud, there is not one aspect of the ‘case’ that stands up to scrutiny. (By the way, MM also makes a seemingly good case that the O.J. Simpson murders/trial was a fraud as well, although I haven’t had time to verify MM’s ‘facts.’)

In my own investigation (partly to verify MM’s information), it took me all of about an hour to come across incontrovertible evidence that the Manson ‘legal’ machinations were a total and transparent fraud. To present you with the proofs I unearthed (separate from those of MM) would be off-subject, considering the purpose of this post, so I’ll just provide a bit that is easy to put together, and brief. If you know anything about the law – even if you don’t – you should immediately see my point:

Keep in mind that Manson, Atkins et al. were all in jail for multiple murders – no bail, of course. That the co-defendants would be allowed to get together is absurd – keeping them separate before the grand jury/arraignment is Police Work 101. Also, I have been unable to find even one photo of the females in handcuffs – many ‘perp walk’ photos of Manson are cuff-less as well. Re the lawyer, given that his only responsibility is to defend his client, how to rationalize his spouting of the evidence that his client is guilty?

(Most of the Manson-related images here are anomalies I found, on top of those from MM’s essay. Also, I have decided not to include the disinformation I found in his paper – since the over all verdict (the ‘murders’/trial were frauds) is correct, why muddy those waters? I suspect the disinfo was meant to get us ‘used to’ falsehoods in an otherwise well-wrought investigation… Yes, this is a very tangled web and was crafted to be so. It takes real dedication/critical thinking/self reflection to get to the murky bottom of it.)

So my own digging around corroborates MM’s essay, notwithstanding some falsehoods therein. In my case, it soon became obvious why MM insists we read his Manson essay before his JFK one; the above ‘motive problem’ (with the JFK paper) is merely the tip of a very deep and wide ‘berg.

One more minor though blatant example, this from MM’s JFK essay, wherein the Kennedys (from Joe Jr. to JFK Jr. — who ‘faked his death’ in the 1999 plane crash) are accused of being the underground ‘kings’ of the U.S.A. In attempting to tear down the ‘Kennedy myth,’ MM writes, referring to JFK’s funeral:

 

I almost hate to spoil this for you, but even JFK, Jr.’s saluting photo is purposely misinterpreted.

Look where the sun is in the picture. Junior isn’t saluting, he is just shading his eyes from the bright sun. If you watch the film of that moment, it is clear. Only in the still photo does he appear to be saluting.

Okay, let’s do what I promise you MM hopes you will not do, i.e., actually look at the video, below (MM doesn’t give a link to it, for reasons that will be obvious… scroll to halfway in…. it’s only like 15 seconds… go ahead, look at it… then re-read MM’s description.)

Really, does anyone doubt what actually happened?: JFK Jr. did salute, on the suggestion of his mom. What’s going on here with MM is the following: He knows he’s not going to ensnare everyone with his complex bullshit, but he does figure that those who read his Manson paper first will take his word on something minor, like a kid’s salute or non-salute. This is the way the mind of an ‘in effect’ psychopath works — sorry, but I include ‘truthers’ who are actually government disinfo agents as psychopaths, since what is true or not true means nothing to them; what counts is what they can get away with, plus what effect they will have.

Is the video lie a small thing, a minor thing? Not to me, it isn’t, but I understand if you need more. There is plenty of it.

So let me get to it: ‘Miles Mathis’ is the deepest, darkest, most insidious of all the government limited hangout (LH) psy ops I’ve yet run across. This one is truly on a new and startling level, in both motive and machinations; no matter on what level you accept or do not accept the work of MM, it can be as damaging (to anyone on a ‘search for truth’) as any body of historical work you will ever come across. Can be as damaging. What I hope to do here is provide a way of interpreting LH psy ops like MM that will not only control the damage but turn the tables on those out to deceive us.

I blurt all this without any doubt whatsoever – most of the rest of this post will be the observations and deductions that led me to these conclusions, and the surety underlying them. As with my exposè of James Corbett, I do not take my accusations lightly or with any sort of smugness or, least of all, glee, especially given the many genuine ‘ah-ha!’ moments MM has provided me with, which moments (wonderful as they are, or were) are now offset by the nagging doubts that have reared since my major epiphany – that MM is not only dirty, but out to psychologically destroy any of us left in the hunt for the reality behind who we all are, and what we’re in for in the near future. When I say ‘nagging doubts,’ I of course mean separating MM’s limited hangout truths from his ‘laid in’ deceits (like his JFK paper). And of course there’s my hope to defeat the MM meta-agenda: the growing hopelessness that comes with our knowledge that ‘they’ can do whatever they want and not only are we helpless against them in terms of defense, but in the end we will have no interest in mounting a defense at all.

Could I be wrong about MM? Theoretically, of course. But I’m not.

As MM himself repeats under each of his titles, applies to me as well: ‘This is an opinion piece, protected by my first amendment rights as an American citizen.’ (The irony here is that as a betting type I’d put my money on ‘MM’ not even being an American; more to come on this.)

I’ll start simple, and in reverse chronological order: After a couple months of obsessive Miles-reading, I suddenly saw a bit of MM’s ‘prose forest’ for the trees, so to speak — this may remind some of you (if you’ve read my site essays) of the moment I had while on the phone with FBI Agent Mark Rossini, discussing Rossini’s close friend John O’Neill (the ‘hero’ FBI agent ‘killed’ on 9/11): Rossini exclaimed that ‘John is a great guy!’ The use of present tense I took to mean that O’Neill is in fact still among the living.

I’ve been criticized for assuming a ‘conspiracy’ with the turn of a single word, but those who have actually read my essay will know that Rossini’s flub (and it was a flub, based on his immediate and stuttering change-of-subject) merely launched my investigation; the real evidence surfaced later.

You may see the following MM-prose-analysis in the same way – not as ‘proof’ of anything — although I do not; what I’m about to tell you may be viewed as ‘mere’ words, ‘turns of phrase’ – or simple, innocent flubs, Rossini-style – but the way people speak, or write, i.e., their usage (or non-usage) of certain words, is a ‘tell,’ a giveaway as to where they learned their language, as much as any biographical data.

An example of what I mean: I recall viewing a Youtube wherein someone was arguing that a particular TV newscaster was actually a ‘crypto’ Canadian, pretending to be an ‘American’ citizen from a western U.S. state. A newscast was shown wherein the ‘accused’ pronounced a word in a way she had never done before on air. She said the word ‘about’ thusly: ‘A-boot.’ It was also clear that – like Agent Rossini with his ‘is’ – she knew she’d slipped up. The moment passed but the filmmaker replayed it over and over: there was no doubt about the pronunciation, or the flicker of embarrassment at the slip. (I’m sorry I can’t find the URL or recall the exact point behind the exercise, but no matter; for our purposes please assume this happened as I describe…)

Let me ask you something: Assuming you are raised in the U.S. of A., not close to the northern border, is there any chance you might ‘accidently’ pronounce ‘about’ with the second syllable as ‘boot’? (An aside: what are the chances you would refer to a close friend, now dead for a decade, in the present tense?)

I didn’t think so.

My above examples (‘is’ and ‘about’) are both ‘slips of the tongue’; a whole other subject matter from essay-prose word usage, right? No, not really. A few days ago, while hoeing the row of one of MM’s denser physics essays, I came across the following:

‘I have shown how it causes tilt, eccentricities, and other variables, and here you will begin to better understand how it causes spin. If you have been following the titles of my papers this past twelvemonth, you will have seen that the charge field causes almost everything.’

No, my jaw did not drop, nor did the hair on my neck rise (as with Rossini), although I already strongly suspected that ‘Miles William Mathis’ was not in fact an almost ‘too good to be true’ Renaissance Truther but rather some sort of ultimately sinister group think tank… No, my reaction was more like, ‘Mmmm, ”Twelvemonth” is certainly an odd way of referring to a year, coming from someone born and raised in Texas, having learned his English in places like Amarillo and Lubbock, and, according to his bio, not having exited the Lone Star State even for college (U of Austin, Rice).’

Twelvemonth? Well, hell, maybe ‘twelvemonth’ is Texas backwoods vernacular for…. ‘Poppa’s likker still down in the holla’ must needs relocatin’, seein’ as how it’s been there a twelvemonth.’…

 

No, the best my entomological effort could do:

 

/ˈtwɛlvˌmʌnθ/

noun

1.

(mainly Brit) an archaic or dialect word for year

Collins English Dictionary – Complete & Unabridged 2012 Digital

Right. ‘Mainly Brit dialect’ was what I figured… If MM the physicist-writer is actually a Brit… What does that mean? We’ll get to that but first…

…if you haven’t read any of MM or have no interest in him for whatever reason you’re probably getting drowsy now, and ready to punch some key to cyber-elsewhere. Fine. But if you understand how important this persona truly is, I’ll ask you to hang in, be patient. If you’re on the fence, I’ll do my best to give the reasons why you should care – I’m hoping his spectacular outing of the Manson ‘event’ will do. Then we’ll return to this linguistic business, and the matter of who MM really is, plus the implications thereof.

What MM tells us is that many if not most of the more spectacular historical events going back to the foundation of this country are likewise frauds (the Salem Witch Trials, for instance). But what makes all this so complex, and so important, and so goddamn strange, is the fact that Miles is one of them. Which gives a whole different meaning to the nature of ‘truth’ and, while we’re at it (and this is my main interest), a certain question is begged: which of Miles’s revelations are true? And when he lies to us, why is he doing that? Even weirder: When he is telling the truth, why is he doing that? I mean, re the Manson outing, aside from gaining our trust/attention: Why? Revelation of the method? Pure braggadocio?

If you don’t find these questions interesting… well, we’re different, you and me.

So okay, I’ve done my best to tweak your curiosity, keep you reading. Now back to the linguistics.

‘Twelvemonth’? No, not enough proof that MM is misrepresenting who he is (lying about his history). So let’s dig a little deeper, with our new knowledge in mind that MM is completely capable of deceit (JFK Jr. ‘not saluting,’ if nothing else).

When you read someone’s prose, usually it’s your own voice you ‘hear’ in your head, even when dialog is spoken (on the page) and it’s the opposite sex to yourself that’s speaking. So written linguistic clues are hidden, mostly. When I read that word, ‘twelvemonth,’ though, something clicked; something that had been bugging me from the get-go. Since I didn’t know what I was looking for, it took me a couple hours of re-reading to realize what it was. It was a word, just one. But it had implications:

‘University.’

Quoting from MM:

‘This would explain why this prominent person has no bio. His mainstream bios list no age, no parents, and no bio before 1973, when he is said to have gotten a PhD from University of Wisconsin. This indicates he is a ghost, if not a spook.’

If you don’t see what I mean, that’s okay; I’ll work with you on this; see if you follow. Me, as an American English speaker/writer, I’d have written ‘…when he is said to have gotten a PhD from the University of Wisconsin.’ See the ‘the’ before ‘University of Wisconsin’, missing in Miles’s sentence? As with ‘twelvemonth,’ that’s a Brit’s way of writing. Still not convinced? Good. Me either. From his ‘Scopes Trial’ exposè:

‘Like other fake attorneys we have studied, Darrow never graduated law school. He attended University of Michigan but never got a degree, neither undergraduate nor law.’

And so forth. Never a ‘the’ in front of University.

Thing is, either as a writer or speaker I rarely use the word ‘university’ at all unless it’s part of the name of the school. American writers tend to use the word ‘college,’ as in ‘I went to college.’ Miles uses ‘university.’ Pretty much always. As here:

‘Generally, the only ones who graduate in three years are brainy kids who go straight to university and load up their schedules.’

‘Brainy kids who go straight to college’ is how I would have written that. How about you? Still needing more, I thought about this sort of thing, then did a word search for… read this passage and guess which word I searched to bring up the quoted passage:

‘Instead of finding these people in the novel you have been attached to becoming larger and more wise, you see them become smaller and smaller, drinking themselves into hospital, swapping lovers, buying things they don’t need…’ etc.

Same word is missing, except now it should be in front of ‘hospital,’ as in ‘drinking themselves into the hospital.’ That’s American English. I feel safe in saying that no American writer would omit the ‘the’ in the above sentence. Go ahead and read the passage out loud. If you’re from this side of the Atlantic, it will not sound right.

Am I right?

No, you won’t find any Anglicized spelling in MM’s essays, as in ‘programme’ or some such, and Miles himself – in a ‘doth protest too much’ passage – goes out of his way to mention his consistent spelling and ‘normal’ amount of typos, which prompts one to ask, ‘Wherefore comes that observation, Miles? Why bring it up?’ Another example:

‘What we are never told is why Guthrie agreed to see him. Dylan was a college-dropout nobody. If you are a famous guy in hospital with a serious disease, do you want to see every stranger kid who knocks on the door?’

This is from Miles’s exposè on Bob Dylan – over all a solid piece of investigating (I think), indicating that Dylan was a creation of Military Intelligence. (The deepest and best of this sort of cultural exposè is bound to not only enlighten you but to impart trust – trust being the sin qua non of LH, as with the Manson issue. Ditto with MM’s analysis of the ‘art scene,’ including writers.)

I grew up with Bob Dylan. My worldview, who I am, was shaped by many of the people and events Miles ‘outs’ as psy ops. As I state in my filmed memoir, Water Time, I was early on most influenced by Jack London, Jack Kerouac, and Bruce Brown (of Endless Summer fame). According to MM, the first two were outright agents of the state (I can only pray he’ll leave BB alone). In fact, his exposè of the ‘beats’ has to rank as one of his most convincing; a classic in historical revisionism. I think… but, IMO, it’s a ‘dangle’ as well.

Given his destruction of two of my three childhood idols, when I refer to Miles as ‘the most important person on the planet,’ maybe you’ll forgive, or at least understand, my hyperbole. And maybe you’ll understand the urgency with which I pursue the Miles Mathis phenom (his historical revisionism essays are now over a million words total, so ‘mammoth’ seems a justifiable adjective here).

(Full disclosure: I have not verified the majority of MM’s factual claims, and given his blatant and inarguable deceit in his JFK paper (and elsewhere), one cannot assume anything in MM’s essays to be true and accurate. Having said that – and these are just two examples – the photo analysis in his Tate/Manson and O.J. Simpson exposès are enough to at least verify the over all truth of his theses in these cases, notwithstanding some fudging.)

If your curiosity about ‘Miles Mathis’ is aroused, you might take a look at his ‘Extended Bio.’ If you’re at all like me, you’ll find it odd that it’s written in third person. Is pretending some ‘close friend’ wrote what amounts to an ode to genius supposed to distract us from the ‘ego factor’? Who does MM think he’s fooling (does anyone doubt that he wrote the goddamn thing!)? Let’s look at the opening:

‘Although some believe he may have been hatched from an egg deposited in mysterious ways in the 19^thcentury or cloned from the fingernail clippings of a Florentine Fra, trusted paperwork informs us that Miles Williams Mathis was born in Amarillo, Texas, on the 17^th of September, in the wee hours of the morning. Scant months later, we imagine, he must have ventured from his swaddling clothes and stuffed animals, upon hands and knees, muling and burbling, in search of his first crayon.’

At the bottom this intimately descriptive bio page we find this: ‘Compiled by Marie-Claude Lacroix, formerly of Cirque du Soleil and boleadoras performer extraordinaire.’ Notice the ‘compiled by’ as opposed to ‘written by’ credit. Given that a ‘Marie-Claude Lacroix + Miles Mathis’ search reveals no connection between the two, a good question might be How did this French woman ‘compile’ the life of Miles Mathis? Just wondering, Miles. I mean, if you’re going to ask us to trust you as opposed to the hundreds of other humans you ‘out’ as enemies of truth and the common man, how about a little more candor about the provenance of your bio? Oh, and by the way, Miles, is there some titillating subtext to the credit? A French gymnast (extraordinaire!), a babe, knows you well enough to ‘compile’ your life story? Mmmm…

I don’t doubt that Miles William Mathis as a person exists on planet earth; ‘he’ probably does live in New Mexico. My interest is in the who/what/when/where and, mostly, why of the essays credited to ‘Miles Mathis.’ (I’m also mildly curious why Miles left out the year of his birth in his bio, considering that the ‘trusted paperwork’ no doubt included it. He doesn’t hide his age in years  — 52 as of this writing, I believe — yet in his holding back the actual date, perhaps by instinct, methinks he’s letting slip that there’s a crack somewhere in the wall of his past…)

Perhaps the age sensitivity is related to the following: An interest in physics – a branch of science which Miles claims to have revolutionized in its very principals (he really does) – is not mentioned in his bio until about the year 2000, which means that Miles somehow ‘became’ a genius in this most technical and arcane intellectual exercise as he closed in on age 40. As anyone who has studied the lives of ‘true geniuses’ (however you define the concept) well knows, the works of genius are invariably accomplished very early – look at the ground-breaking scientists, from Newton (whose laws of optics, gravitation, plus calculus were all developed before age 25) to Einstein (whose first relativity paper came at age 25). If MM’s ‘charge field’ is as revolutionary as he consistently asserts, he’s broken the ‘chronological law of genius’ to the tune of at least an order of magnitude.

It may also be worth mentioning that no where in his bio is mentioned an interest in revisionist history, not even after September 11, 2001, an event which, by any real logic should have stood out to a physicist of MM’s brilliance. Given MM’s claimed ability to see obvious truths behind the smokescreen curtain of various mainstream paradigms, 9/11 should be viewed as a worldview-changing event, given that all of the most basic laws of physics were apparently suspended that day, according to the official story. It is impossible to read the reality-busting historical essays of the current MM without picturing him watching the disintegration of the WTC and screaming ‘what the fuck is this supposed to be!’ Yet not a word of it in his Bio, nor hardly a peep in his historical essays — his most memorable 9/11-related piece being a farce about ignited toilet paper bringing down WTC Building 7. What gives, Miles?

Wait. Let me say it again, with a little more pizzazz: Here’s a guy most famous for his densely researched, borderline impossibly copious revisionist historical essays, and his ‘Extended Bio’ fails to mention, in any way, 9/11. And again, he doesn’t write ‘deep’ essays about it either, his excuse being that… we already ‘know it all’ (it was ‘an inside job’) so why bother? For me (and for a lot of ‘awake’ folks), 9/11 changed everything (even if it took some time). How about you? Would you mention 9/11 in an ‘Extended Bio’ that at least in part was meant to explain how you became a (self-proclaimed and to some extent and an actual) definer/describer of the faked and false flag events everyone else missed?

Seriously, folks, what’s wrong with this picture?

As mentioned in a previous post (and which bears repetition), Miles from New Mexico gives an annual conference. For $400 you can come talk to the Renaissance Truther himself, apparently, although your travel, room, board, etc. is your own problem. I say ‘apparently’ because I did email Miles inquiring about my possible attendance. It didn’t go well, speaking of apparently — amongst my interests I stated physics and NASA’s continuing frauds, plus my suspicion that a lot of the alt media are LH psy ops. Whether I struck a nerve here I cannot for sure say, but Miles replied that I’d likely be a ‘disruptive’ influence at his conference, and would probably ‘ask questions no one would want to hear.’ This exchange was early on, well before my epiphany that MM is… a lot more than his flowery cv would indicate. (I’d included links to my essays, including the Snowden one in Veterans Today, and the outing of FBI agent John O’Neil as a 9/11 colluder; both expose agents of the state for what they are.)

A related matter: MM often brags (in his essays) that he is continually approached to do interviews, which he always refuses (as he says he did with Sofia Smallstorm). He is not shy about his reason: the assumption that – since most alt media outlets are LH psy ops (something Miles and I agree on!), his work would be ‘spun.’ Well now, wait a minute, Miles, wouldn’t the simple demand that an interview be conducted live take care of that concern? Sure it would, especially considering your superior intellect and debating skills.

Here’s why you don’t do interviews, Miles: ‘You’ are a committee of ‘experts,’ a half dozen at least (not counting low level ‘researchers’), specializing in ‘real’ (as opposed to ‘mainstream’) science, history, and, above all, the reality of false flag and staged events, both recent and going way back. See, we have to imagine how an interview, a live one (since you’d insist upon that), would go. What if the interviewer switched topics without warning, say, from subatomic physics to art history? Maybe an ear bud and the rest of the gang huddled ‘off-Skype’ would work, but the hell with it; too complicated, right? Hence your refusal to do interviews.

Which leads me to this: Is your annual ‘conference’ real or just a way of implying that you are actually a one man show, somewhere in New Mexico? Why are there no still photos or, better, Youtube clips of your past conferences? (A search for ‘Miles Mathis’ on Youtube brings up zip, nada, nothing, other than a blithering dude who calls himself ‘DraftScience’ – who ain’t you, Miles.) How could that be? Do you charge $400 for face time and ban cameras? If so, why? (Wouldn’t someone who attended your conference at least have popped a selfy with you and posted it on Facebook or wherever? No, apparently: try finding one.

For a persona who likes to brag about how many millions of views your essays boast, why no Youtube channel, to ‘up’ that number, increase your hit rate? You used to have a Youtube channel; but since about 2010 it’s ‘unavailable.’ What’s with that?

[Here’s the last reference to MM’s Youtube channel (mainly proving he had one):

NEW, added 8/10/10, Sunrise, Sunset. I have just posted some cover songs on my youtube channel, working on my voice. Some of you may be interested in this, especially those of you who are professional singers looking for a good laugh. [From MM’s Update page]

So you killed your Youtube channel, with no explanation. What’s up with that? What’s so harmful about a Youtube channel that you’d completely delete it?

Interestingly, MM killed his Youtube presence at about the same time he ‘caught fire’ with his historical revisionism essays, around 2011, when his essay subject matter segued from 90% art to 90% exposès on the lies we’ve been told, whenever possible combining the subject matters, as in his CIA-controls-art/culture pieces, which are some of his ‘best’ — meaning with the least disinformation.

Speaking of copious wordage, this essay is getting long, isn’t it? And I’m only halfway done; the real meat about MM is still in the offing. So what I’ll do is pause here, give you a couple days to give this a look, then post the second half.

Thanks for hanging in. If you’ve made it this far, Part II will likely get your attention as well.

Allan

I decided at the last minute to title this post as ‘An Open Letter to Miles Mathis’ and will send him the link. Although a response is unlikely, you never know. If he does get back, you’ll surely hear about it.

One more thing. My copious notes on MM are a real mess and go back to last August; I lost at least one file, the one that listed more MM ‘Brit-isms.’ There’s a real beaut but it was in the lost file, so I can’t quote it verbatim. (I don’t have energy to word-search all the essays.) Still, it’s too good to leave out:

In one of his papers MM uses the term ‘tenner,’ referring to money; it was something like ‘I’d bet a tenner on such-and-such’ or ‘Such-and-such wouldn’t be worth a tenner.’ The closest we can come to this in American English would be ‘tenspot.’ But ‘tenner’? Not only Brit but Cockney Brit. Sorry, ‘Miles’ (if one of you is reading this), but you should tweak your text algorithm to rid your essays of all the Brit shit. Wait! I remember another one! Shite for shit! Here’s one wherein MM gives his opinion of a movie he didn’t care for:

‘I don’t know all the details, since I haven’t watched even one minute of this shite, much less wasted my time…’

How about this from his bogus JFK paper:

With the Kennedy assassination, we had to study Zapruder’s shite flm [sic] shot with a Bell and Howell Zoomatic, although we now know professional cameramen were standing curbside during all the action. [MM’s ‘photo proofs’ that pro cameramen were there are all stills from theatrical films shot later, so the last bit is more disinformation]

Find me even one writer this side of the pond that would stick an ‘e’ on the end of good old American-English ‘shit’! Can you do it?

Noun[edit]

shite (plural shites)

1. (Britain,Ireland, vulgar) Shit, trash, rubbish.
2. (Britain,Ireland, pejorative) A foolish or deceitful

He’s a useless shite. (My emphases)

Yup, Miles, the usage phrase says it all – a useless shite — here referring to whomever proof reads your essays for ‘tells.’