An Open Letter To Miles Mathis, Part Two

Hi folks (plus ‘Miles,’ whoever ya’ll are),

Sorry for the delay. It took longer than I thought to put together the supporting imagery. Keep in mind that this is a continuation of Part One!

I got an email from a reader who found the MM essay containing the word ‘tenner,’ which I really appreciated. (I referred to ‘tenner’ in my last post from memory — I didn’t have the patience to word-search every MM essay). Here’s the quote, from MM’s essay on Mark Twain:

‘As we know, these people don’t spend a dime unless they can be sure to make a tenner from it.’

As mentioned in Part One re ‘twelvemonth,’ ‘shite,’ and others, no American writer (let alone one born and raised in Texas) would use this Brit colloquialism in an essay. If you are aware of these Brit-isms, i.e., look for them, they are all over MM’s essays. That at least some of MM’s essays are written by a Brit should tell you all you need to know about who MM really is (think Tavistock).

While I was at MM’s Mark Twain essay (which claims Twain was a government operative) extracting the quote, I thought I’d reread it; in doing so I was reminded of another MM method of misdirection/deceit – the way he goes off on an unrelated subject, usually one of his ‘guilt by association’/ancestor/genealogy rants, which rarely (if ever) have anything to do with the subject at hand. The rants invariably sound impressive, like MM has done deep research, and the reader is quickly lost in the details, distracting himself from the irrelevancy of the passage. (I first became aware of this sort of misdirection while analyzing the work of Joe Atwill/Jan Irvin; Atwill especially is good at this sort of misdirection.)

I think it’s worth one quote from MM’s Twain essay to show you what I mean here. Recognizing misdirection rambles will come in handy while you’re reading anyone’s historical revisionist essay (in principal, any nonfiction):

But to move on. Twain’s first successful publication was “The Celebrated Jumping Frog of Calaveras County.” It was published in the Saturday Press in New York on November 18, 1865. Note that date: 11/18/65. Aces and eights….

Over and above MM’s ridiculous link to numerology (without actually saying it), especially his ‘Note that date: Aces and eights….’, the next paragraph is typical of MM’s M.O., i.e., boldly and baldly branding a newspaper and those involved in it of being involved with spookery, with no evidence given, then, using a classic ‘guilt by association’ fallacy ‘connecting’ the person he wishes to discredit to the mess of families and people he apparently knows little about. More (note how, via doubly false ‘guilt by association,’ MM brands Twain a ‘fake writer’!):

The fake writers of the Saturday Press liked to congregate at Pfaff’s Beer Cellar in New York. Guess who else frequented the joint? The actors Edwin and John Wilkes Booth. Just so you can add them to your “compromised” list, others include FitzJames O’Brien, Thomas Butler Gunn, FitzHugh Ludlow, Adah Menken, John Brougham, Elihu Vedder, Daisy Sheppard, and Artemus Ward. Those names demand a couple of comments. You will remember that Bob Dylan (Zimmerman) used the alias Elston Gunnn. He was probably referencing this Gunn family, to which he was likely related. And Eddie Vedder is probably descended from these Vedders, explaining his rise.* Daisy Sheppard reminds us of Cybill Shepard and Sam Shepard. Remember, Cybill married a Ford and an Oppenheim. Sam Shepard was also a Rogers, but he descended from Shep(p)ards. Sam’s mother was a Dodge. See my paper on Mabel Dodge Luhan. He also descends from the Chases. He also descends from Morses, who lived in Newbury, MA. This links him to the witch of Newbury, Elizabeth Morse. She is actually in his genealogy.** He is also related to the Howes, Lyons, Cheneys, and Millers.

Dizzying, isn’t it? Plus, not only does the above passage have nothing to do Mark Twain (Samuel Clemmons) in any way – and aside from my previous note – the passage also is indicative of another MM M.O., which he has of late become all but obsessed with. I speak of genealogy, and ‘Jews.’ Who is ‘connected’ to whom, who is a Jew or a ‘cripto’-Jew; a sort of bloodline guilt by association. Some of this may be of some use, but, IMO, not much. Here’s why, and I’ll make this point by asking a question:

Going back, say, 250 years (which is considered 10 generations), how many Great –g-g-g etc. grandparents do you have? (This is the era of the American Revolution.) Remember that these are direct ancestors, not cousins however-many-times ‘removed’…

The answer may surprise you.

How many direct ancestors do you have?

How many direct ancestors do you have?

4,096. These ancestors are as ‘close’ (in terms of genetics, or ‘bloodline’) as you will find from that many years ago. Now, going back to that era (the Revolutionary War), how many people alive today do you figure share one of your many direct ancestors? (Your total direct ancestors number over 8,000, if you add them all up.) [See illustration]

I don’t know the answer but ‘plenty’ is a good approximation. (If you add in the multitude of ‘cousins’ of some sort and the number is probably in the hundreds of thousands.) You go back another 10 generations and the odds that you and I are ‘directly related’ is pretty good, until (as the geneticists say) we find a common ancestor to everyone alive at this moment.

This is called our most recent common ancestor, or MRCA. On the female side, this ‘Eve’ – or ‘mitochondrial Eve’ lived some 150 – 200,000 years ago. Wow. (I have reasons for not believing a lot of the current ‘genetic work’ but that’s another subject for another time.)

Think about it. Or don’t. Me, I get confused as soon as they start in with (some number) ‘cousins (some number) ‘removed.’’ As in ‘Barack Obama, Dick Cheney and Brad Pitt’ are all related’ in the ‘cousins removed’ way (which is way less direct than ‘direct’ ancestor, as above). Well, considering all our direct common ancestors (going back to the 18th century, say), it would be unusual if we were not ‘cousins’ of some sort, wouldn’t it?

Point being though: MM interrupts just about every essay by ‘connecting’ PTB movers and shakers from various periods of history, as if it means…. anything. Generally, it doesn’t. In the case of the Twain essay, he does a ‘genetic ramble’ at least four times, returning to the subject of Twain with the following connectives:

‘So, back to Twain’… ‘Anyway, back to Twain’… ‘But to move on’…. ‘But I will have to return to that hoax another time. I need to return to Twain.’

Misdirection. There are many versions of misdirection and it often takes real concentration to recognize when you’re being subjected to it. MM is sometimes skillful at it, sometimes not. Lately, with his obsessive bloodline guilt by ‘connection’ and ‘Jew-connection,’ he’s pretty sloppy. One more little quote from MM’s Twain essay then we’ll… ‘move on,’ as MM would say. MM is referring to one of Twain’s early travel books, Innocents Abroad:

‘Twain tells us there were only two pieces of statuary he saw in Odessa. The first was of the Duc de Richelieu, who founded Odessa. That’s a big clue, since—like Twain and all the rest—Richelieu was a crypto-Jew.’

The bold emphasis above is mine and I hope you see what I mean: If mentioning a statue Twain saw is a big clue (that Twain was secretly working for the PTB)… I mean, let alone the ‘crypto-Jew’ crapola… a big clue?… Pu-lease. This is MM struggling, trying to flesh out a weak premise with misleading genealogy.

But let’s… move on. Let’s return to a point I made in Part One: How MM insists the reader take in his Manson/Tate paper before his JFK ‘Hidden King’ tome (which claims that the Kennedys have been the secret ‘kings’ of the U.S.A. since Joe Jr. — who was supposedly not killed in WW2 but returned to ‘rule’ while in hiding. This utterly depends on you believing that the three major Kennedy deaths (Joe Jr., JFK, and JFK Jr.) were all faked. MM’s Kennedy house of cards falls if any one of the major deaths were proved to be a flat out assassination. Aside from JFK himself (the copious proofs of his actual murder), I suggest a viewing of John Hankey’s analysis of the plane crash ‘accidental’ death of JFK Jr. Sorry, but Jr. didn’t ‘kill’ himself, his fiancé, and her sister so he could ‘rule by telephone’ or whatever nonsense his ‘motive’ is.

I’ve already reproduced the email wherein MM ‘himself’ admitted he had no idea how ‘dying’ was advantageous to any of the Kennedy’s or their ‘under ground rule.’

As further evidence of MM’s blatant deceit, notice the ‘Update’ papers he has on his list; we’ll stick to the Manson/Tate and JFK essays. Each new one is supposed to add still more ‘evidence,’ after the first one posted. I’ll line these up in the order they appeared at MM’s site.

NEW PAPER, added 6/29/14, The Tate Murders were Faked. That’s right. Manson is another creation of the MATRIX. Over 80 pages of photographic evidence.

PAPER UPDATE, added 12/3/14, Tate Murders. The mainstream tells us Manson is now living in Santa Barbara! Skip to near bottom of paper for the update.

PAPER UPDATE, added 12/11/15, The Tate Murders were FakedI have added a couple of paragraphs showing Sharon Tate’s death certificate is fake. Also several other anomalies on that document. See p. 48.

What you will find in the above “Paper Updates’ is that they are identical to the first one. In other words, his boasting on new information is totally bogus. For example, pages 48 are identical in all three incarnations of the essay. No ‘New anomalies’ at all. In fact all three have identical word counts (37,751), plus the last pages of the three are identical (p82).

(To check on my observations,  copy and paste the above essays on a clean Word document and get the word count using the ‘Tool’ option.)

Then do the same with the JFK papers, titled ‘The Hidden King’: it’s been posted three times, supposedly with new information in each incarnation:

NEW PAPER, added 3/18/15, The Hidden King: Camelot ruled from the Cave of Merlin. If you thought you had hit the bottom of the rabbit hole, click on the title here. Take a deep breath first, though.

PAPER UPDATE, added 3/25/15, The Hidden King: Camelot ruled from the Cave of Merlin. I have added another 25 pages of explosive evidence, most of it old photographs. Via this evidence, I should change my title to Hidden Kings.

If he’s added 25 pages of new photos, how come both the word count (38,300) and the last page (86) are all the same?

PAPER UPDATE, added 9/25/16, The Hidden KingsI have added about 7 pages of photo analysis to this paper, which now makes it even longer than my Tate/Manson paper. See p. 31 for more photos of the Presidential limo, and p. 73 for 7 more fake photos of the family.

All six incarnations of both of these MM papers – one because it’s true, the other because it’s false – are utterly identical, notwithstanding his outright lies of ’25 pages of explosive [new] evidence’ and ‘added 7 pages of photo analysis.’ He even tells you what page to go to for the ‘new’ stuff – utterly counting on you that you won’t actually check. (Go to Page 31, for example, and see if you can find anything new.)

But why? Why these bald-faced lies? Especially considering that anyone with a word processor (which is everyone) could easily check the word counts (not that easily, there’s a lot of copying and pasting and so forth to do).

The answer is obvious: MM really wants you to read them, both of them. Gain your trust with the Tate/Manson paper, then bend your sense of reality (plus your sense of ‘historical hope’) with the JFK one.

The trick with MM is this: None of his papers are wholly false, none wholly true. Pretend there’s a true/false spectrum. The majority if MM papers, I believe, are skewed slightly toward falsity, i.e., you can believe about half of what he says. Same for the over all premise of any given paper, with the Manson/Tate one (and a few others, especially his ‘cultural/art’ critiques) as the ‘mostly true’ dangle.

The repetition (dishonestly calling an old paper ‘new and Improved’) is also a way to ensure that Newbies to his site are properly… broken in. And anyway, what’s to lose? Anyone who ‘distrusts’ MM to the extent of checking on word count lies, etc., as I have done, isn’t part of his demographic anyway. MM is looking to establish a cult following: folks who will read this exposé and somehow come to the conclusion that I am the liar, hence the… bad guy.


Okay, if you’re still with me, I have a slight subject change I’m hoping you’ll put up with, since it bears so closely upon our main subject, MM and who ‘he’ is. Also, in researching MM, I stumbled upon what may be an even ‘deeper’ psy op. Hang in and we’ll see. I’ll be ‘thinking out loud’ with this one as we go along…

Up front I mentioned how, over the past few months, I’ve been ‘distracted’ – ‘misdirected’ may turn out to be the better verb – in my investigation into the persona of MM. As mentioned, a part of this has involved a correspondence with MM himself (or, rather, an entity or entities claiming to be MM), plus a spirited forum discussion with Clues Forum,’ a group I’ve always found… interesting… in their views, if not always on the money about details. Clues Forum (CF) is an offshoot of the Youtube blockbuster September Clues, an exposé on 9/11 film fakery by Italian auteur ‘Simon Shack.’ September Clues is a must-see for anyone interested in true historical revisionism and the role of the media in it.

Problem is — and I realize that fans of Simon Shack and his CF will hit the roof with this – in my ‘following of the evidence wherever it leads,’ I’ve had to come to the conclusion that Simon himself is LH/controlled op. Hang in, keep an open mind, and we’ll see. I know I’m right about ‘Miles Mathis’; I’m not so sure with SS. I do know that something is wrong…

I got friendly with Simon five or so years ago, when I realized that – notwithstanding some puzzling boners (Simon doesn’t believe that a rocket will work in a vacuum) – his film in effect lays bare the single most important revelation of the 9/11 whole affair: The active participation of the mainstream media. I’m not talking simple, under-orders cover up here, as we may assume in the matter of, say, JFK. I’m talking the entity that had everyone’s full attention at the (imaginary or not) ‘Round Table’ wherein the final plan was crafted. The problem solver. The sin qua non of the mega psy op itself. Again, the mainstream media, particularly the TV end of it.

In fact, the major ‘tell’ or giveaway that the alt media is largely (80% or better, maybe way better) controlled op is the fact that media fakery is not, by far, the number one issue at ‘truther’ events/websites/blogs/forums. In fact, the very subject is taboo at most of these venues; the NLP/misdirection has been so successful that ‘No Planer’ has become a way of labeling a ‘truther’ as a nutcase. This is brilliant PR by the PTB – a way of keeping the most important single ‘truth’ of 9/11 (direct media participation) completely off the table. The situation is also further evidence that ‘9/11 truth,’ like the alt media itself, is mostly LH.

If we need further reasons for MM’s 9/11 lassitude – his avoidance of it in his essays — MM also claims that he doesn’t deal with the subject because he has nothing more to add (‘it was an inside job’ seems enough). I’m sorry, but this lame excuse coming from a physicist just doesn’t wash. (Although he off-handedly mentions the Apollo fraud, that he’s basically silent on NASA’s continuing and utterly transparent chicanery, is another flag of the brightest crimson variety.)

If you think I’m rambling off subject by bringing up 9/11, NASA, etc., hang in and you’ll see my point, how it, and how Clues Forum (CF), ties to MM.

I got friendly with Simon Shack, even sent him a hard copy of Cosmic Banditos (all the way to Italy), which he loved, as I’d hoped. Gradually, though, things went sour between us (Can’t I Get Along With Anyone?), until a few days ago (this is back around early September, when I was not only banned from Clues Forum, but referred to as ‘subhuman’ by Simon himself. He even predicted (or hoped) that my dog would turn on me. IMO, Shack’s vicious ad hominems were a way to distract from my observations re his and his forum cohorts’ misdirections. If you hang in, you be the judge, but here’s a bit more of Simon’s way of discrediting me on his forum:

(referring to me)….’pitiful Hollywood-payrolled clowns like yourself. You American Hollywood/CIA/ military/ media spooks are a bunch of losers – as you are getting far too easy to detect – due to your piss-poor education.’

There’s more to Simon’s rant but for now I’ll only point out that there is zero information in it. Pure bald assertion/ad hominem. As you’ll see, what touched off the tirade was merely my pointing out the misdirection I’d been subject to by Simon and his CF cohorts; the thread, of course, was about MM.

I believe Simon Shack and his Clues Forum (the institution, not necessarily all the membership) works for the same Power That Be (PTB) as Miles Mathis. This is possibly an oversimplification, although I believe it to be basically true. (The ‘conflict’ between MM and SS being more misdirection.)

What I’ll do next is paste in relevant bits of my recent Clues Forum (CF) thread. If you want to see it all (god forbid I take anything ‘out of context’), I’ll provide the urls below. The stuff I’m deleting here is for attention span reasons only (I’ll add connective notes where necessary). Still, you may find the following slow going, depending upon your curiosity about who amongst us is working for the PTB.

Addendum: Since long, rambling ‘true-but-irrelevant’ misdirection passages (by CF folks) are, IMO, important tells, I do encourage the reader to stick with the thread in its entirety (at least after my entrance to it), meanwhile actively asking him/herself ‘Is this relevant to the issue at hand, especially ‘allancw’s observations?’

Note the date of my first post, August 9th; this was a couple or so weeks prior to my Brit-isms epiphany and before I sucked in my gut and shed my own denial about MM. (For a long time I hoped MM was for real…)

[Keep in mind that ‘allancw’ is me…]

Re: Discussing Miles W. Mathis

by allancw on August 9th, 2016, 12:15 am

Hi Simon & Co.,

Up front: I don’t know what to think of Miles (the dots mean I deleted a passage)….
…Having read a lot (but not all) of his fakery stuff and maybe gotten a bit of the gist of his physics, and having read this whole thread start to finish, at the moment I have two ‘problems’ with Miles: 1. The content of my recent correspondence with him, and 2. His JFK essay. I’ll be brief; I’ll have a lot more to say in my blog post. [Here I refer to the blog post you’re reading now]

First let me point out that I’ve been doing a careful study of how misdirection/NLP works. I’ve come to the conclusion that if you spot its continual or blatant use by someone, that someone must be considered to be a mole/shill/limited hangout, i.e., a government agent. My personal best example is my outing of James Corbett:

[addendum: The irony is that the ‘continual and blatant use’ of misdirection will apply to nearly everyone participating in the thread – about 20 people! The two CF ‘members’ who agreed with me contacted me via my website’s email; they went to some trouble to ‘agree’ without anyone else knowing – minus the NSA database, etc., of course]

If anyone disagrees with my take on Corbett, I am of course all ears. Okay, then. Back to Miles.

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:
[Assuming you already read the following email, skip down to my next bold remark in brackets… maybe refresh your memory with the bold phrase]….
‘Good afternoon, Allan,
I can see why you want to call your next entry “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 about how you see his limited hangout [LH] manifesting, where the disinfo might be, what his origins of influence are, etc. Admittedly, I need to process some of this before more incisive questions will even come to mind.

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…
This is heavy stuff; fascinating… [I cut a bit here]

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: “” <>
To: Allan Weisbecker <>
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.
[The above should be enough to bust MM as a psy op: that he doesn’t know why all these Kennedys are faking their deaths tells us… as I say, that his theory is garbage.

And there you have it, in his email reply, i.e., a direct quote from the ‘man’ himself…]

[Okay, the below stuff is new]

Anyone wishing to read the whole thread starting with the above can go here.

Also on that page (near the top) is one of the dead giveaways that MM is deceiving us – imparting disinformation as opposed to misinformation. Look at the photos and understand that they are from MM’s JFK essay; also understand that in his original post (in 2011) there was no ‘It turns out that…’ correction. He was passing off ‘movie stills’ for ‘proof’ that the assassination was faked.  

Okay, we jump forward (in the CR thread) to August 25, when my ‘creeping epiphany’ about MM surfaces.

Re: Discussing Miles W. Mathis

by allancw on August 25th, 2016, 5:37 pm

Since my last post I’ve been on a marathon read of Miles Mathis… but yesterday something occurred to me…

See, I was reading along and suddenly realized how much I was enjoying myself. I thought, Jeez, it’s going to be a bummer when I run out of Miles’s essays to read!’

Then I did some counting and pretty much… this is only a slight exaggeration… came to the conclusion that Miles is writing about as fast as I can read, at least this year. I believe I counted 53 essays since the first of the year [through August, the time of this thread), some of which essays are actually short-book length, and keep in mind I’m NOT counting his physics stuff or his art work. And of course, we have the research inherent in the essays… [this was also before my ‘Brit-isms’ epiphany]
Being a writer myself (see Amazon, ‘Allan Weisbecker’), my conclusion is that ‘’, the persona thereof, has to be a group, a very well organized group with serious resources. Which means that ‘Miles’ has been… less than honest with us in claiming to be a one man show… which usually means that we are dealing with some sort of limited hangout… [this turns out to be quite an understatement!]
Is it possible that ‘they’, the PTB, have finally decided – for whatever reason — that they want a ‘real’ history on the record? I mean, what harm could it do? I mean, you run around summing up Miles’s essays, the likely result will be a straight jacket, no? Reminds me of the book ‘The Most Dangerous Book in the World; 9/11 as Mega-Ritual’, which, although written by an obvious mole, likewise spills some amazing beans (while at the same time claiming that real planes were involved, etc., etc., etc.).

One of Miles’s conclusions – one I had already come to – is that there is a split in the PTB. ‘Miles Mathis’ might actually represent one faction… [more on this important matter to come].

I actually have a lot to say about some of the essays but for now I’d just like to put out there the fact that ‘Miles’s’ output is not humanly possible.

But please mainly deal with word counting, etc., and see if you believe any single human could do what Miles claims to have done, starting with this year (January, 2016).



by hoi.polloi on August 26th, 2016, 4:58 am

I am not sure I buy the argument. Since you’ve collected all the essays, would you mind copy-pasting them into a word processor that gives word counts and producing statistics for us? Or if not you, someone that thinks this is a good argument?
[I edited out a good bit of Hoi’s post – in retrospect I now see it as misdirection. Go to…

….if you’re interested (scroll down to ‘Hoi’s’ reply to ‘allancw’. The stuff I’m cutting is for attention span reasons, in order to keep on-topic. However, the CF members’ continual rambling off-topic is the ‘tell’ that they (several of them at least) are LH, or the shills of such.

Re: Discussing Miles W. Mathis

by allancw on August 26th, 2016, 6:44 pm
First, thanks for the suggestion that I actually count MM’s words; it didn’t take that long and will allow me to easily do word searches, etc. Rounding off, so far this year MM has written 362,000 words in his Updates section (‘historical’ stuff), which averages out to be 1,500 words a day. That number may seem do-able but keep in mind that we’re talking every day, seven days a week, no let up, no days off. My average output on a good day is about that, and most days are not good. And this is when I KNOW WHAT I WANT TO SAY (no research, and dealing with a subject I already know about).

Adding MM’s physics word output is a problem… [addendum: I was able to suss out MM’s physics wordage for the period in question. It comes out to 103,000 words; in effect, another book’s worth of research and writing over the 8-month time span. This certainly adds to the ‘impossibility factor,’ especially given the incredibly complex subject matter involved.]

What the brute word count does not reflect is the time/effort in research. Becoming an ‘expert’ on so many disparate subjects… well, it boggles MY mind… I also assume that MM is a voracious reader… on everything, it seems… does he ever… get out and about?…

By his own account and via the images he presents, we know that MM is also a dedicated artist. I’m talking dedicated. I find it hard to believe that (at least in theory) he does not spend half his ‘free time’ (whatever that means) with his art projects. If he does not do this, then I don’t understand his outrage over the state of the art world/business. So, in a sense, you can either double the above number or halve the other (you know what I mean).

In one of my emails to MM I commented that he seems ‘too good to be true.’ This is my point, I guess. I have to repeat: that he gave up $400 so as not to be subjected to questions from me is… under ‘normal’ circumstances this would be enough…
Here’s my last email to MM, sent on August 20:


[I cut redundant stuff from this email; the PS is relevant, very much so, so I’ll leave it in.]
I’m coming around re your JFK thesis. [That I wrote this line is a tribute to MM’s expertise at misdirection] A piece of related weirdness: the microphone hanging down in one of the Ruby-shoots-Oswald still photos, which would appear to indicate multiple takes, looks to me like a paste-in (the mic’s shadow is wrong). Given your expertise in photo analysis, be great to get your take on this anomaly… like, why would they do that?
Addendum: Interestingly, this is where MM quit answering my emails, the obvious reason being that it was unanswerable, i.e., it outed MM for the psy op that he is. If you go to the thread and plow thru it, you’ll find that no one answers my points. Call this ‘misdirection by silence.’

[In fact, the issue of the hanging mic photo is more than interesting; it’s vital, not only in terms of our interest in rooting out the truth behind who MM is, but the in the matter of what really happened in Dallas on November 22, 1963. I will try to explain why this is so, then we’ll move on; please give what follows your full attention… 

Click the image on the right: It is a page from MM’s JFK essay…

No competent photo analyst would write this...

No competent photo analyst would write this… 

In the MM JFK essay, go to to Page 14. The photo of Ruby about to shoot Oswald. Notice the hanging mic. Here is what MM has to say about the photo (as is on his page, repro-ed here):

‘See a problem there? How about that microphone hanging down from the rafters? Don’t you think it is suspicious that this scene was pre-miced, since it was supposed to be unpredicted and spontaneous? [This is untrue since Dallas journalists were tipped ahead of time] Don’t you think it is suspicious that two separate cameras from two separate angles just happened to capture this unpredictable event? [Not suspicious at all] And where is this second cameraman supposed to be, hanging from the ceiling? Either that or he is twelve feet tall. [He himself says he was standing on a ledge, but this is a red herring anyway, i.e., irrelevant] Also, this is supposed to be in a parking garage in the basement of Dallas Police Station. There is a white car right in front of these guys. What basement is lit like this? Look at the shadows cast by the people as well as the shadow cast by the hanging microphone. [Yes! Do Look!] There are powerful lights set up in front of these people. They are not lit from above, as you would expect in such a place. They are lit strongly from in front, so there were powerful lights set up on this scene. This is indication it was staged.’ [It may have been staged but none of this is evidence of that. This is pure NLP/misdirection]

Okay. Coming from MM, this is very, very strange, and ultimately intensely revealing. In virtually every essay MM brags about what a great photographer and photo-analyst he is. In fact, his exacting and very technical photo analyses can be said to form the very bedrock of many of his exposés, including this one. This is vital because MM completely busts himself with the above analysis of the Oswald/Ruby photo.

Listen: Even a half-assed photographer will tell you that this photo is lit by the photographer’s camera-mounted flash, not by big H-wood arc lights: Please examine the shadows carefully. Look especially at the very thin shadow thrown by the leg of the guy in the beige suit. Although the dark suits worn by the rest of people make it difficult to separate shadow from fabric, you can see that all the objects in frame are lit by the same source (with one big exception, which I’ll get to).

Also, if you watch the video of the shooting (URL in a moment), you can see where the still photo flashes go off, including at this moment (one frame is over-exposed). There is no doubt whatsoever that this photo is flash-lit.

Also, looking at the video of the scene, it’s obvious that it was lit by dim ambient light, not by arc lights. Are we supposed to believe that this brilliant analyst (MM) didn’t compare the still photo lighting with that of the video?

It gets weirder. It we compare the above photo to the one taken just a second or so later, we find that the hanging mic is gone!

Where is the hanging mic?

Where is the hanging mic?

And if we watch any of the many Youtubes of the Oswald shooting, we find the hanging mic likewise gone.

But this is nothing short of spectacular news for MM! Why? Because the only explanation for the missing mic in the video and the other still photo is that it’s a ‘continuity error’ (as they say in the movie biz), which can only happen when there is more than one take of a scene. More than one take means – and it can only mean this – that the whole scene was staged, and Oswald was a knowing participant. This fits perfectly with MM thesis that the assassination was a fraud. [It also can fit with Oswald being a knowing participant in a real assassination; more on this in a bit]

If you’re getting the feeling that something really weird – and really important – is going on here, good for you. I will eventually deal with what the ‘hanging mic’ might imply for what really happened in Dallas but for now let’s stick with MM.

Here’s a question: If the ‘disappearing hanging mic’ is ‘proof’ that the Oswald shooting was staged, why didn’t MM point it out?

But let’s take a closer look at the above photo. Look carefully at the hanging mic, and its shadow. See how the shadow is thrown noticeably to the right, onto the brick wall? The mic is not lit by the same source as all else in the photo. If you’re unsure of this, and if you have a photog friend, ask him/her. This is very important. Why? Because the only way that mic (and its shadow) could appear in this image is via pasting it in, in the darkroom. It was not there when the photo was taken.

Look at the mic's shadow...

Look at the mic’s shadow…

This is a better explanation of why there is no hanging mic in any of the other images: The anomalous shadow is key: the mic was pasted in. Zero doubt.

Photo analysis and especially shadow analysis being aspects of MM’s alleged fortes, how could he have missed all this? The answer is, he didn’t miss it. He’s misdirecting us, and outright lying. (Hang in, but this alone should tell you he is working for the other side…)
Here’s why MM didn’t bring up the hanging mic as proof that the shooting was staged: It’s so obvious that the hanging mic was pasted in that MM didn’t want to ‘hitch his wagon’ to that star. In other words, and bear with my redundancy: The ‘disappearing hanging mic’ – the continuity error it represents – is proof that multiple takes were done at the Oswald ‘shooting,’ meaning that Oswald was a knowing participant in the event (and was not shot, not there in the garage anyway). This is such a blockbuster that by calling attention to it as such would invite intense scrutiny – someone other than myself would have noticed that the shadow is wrong (the mic was pasted in). (An ancillary point: if we want evidence that the Oswald shooting was staged, we’ll have to look elsewhere, which I will do in the summation.)

Just to make this doubly clear: MM knew very well all of the above but wanted someone else to notice the misleading implications of the hanging mic, so no one could call him a fraud. In fact, good ol’ Ed Chiarini [an infamous/unreliable ‘researcher’ from] brings up the subject in a video – but Ed also fails to mention that the mic is pasted in – a somewhat vital detail, to say the least.]

(For some reason my new video will not Imbed properly. If you don’t see it below, click here to go my Video.)

But who is behind this complex deception, and what was the motive? This sort of a double reverse whammy aimed at those seeking the truth behind the assassination is certainly a work of the PTB, i.e., the same PTB behind MM. The Why of it is partly obvious: a further muddying of the waters of truth, and another example of how hopeless is the quest for historical truth.

Here’s a thought: The name conspicuously absent in this MM JFK extravaganza – and indeed missing from virtually all his essays – is one George H W Bush. Indeed, GHW is so conspicuous in his over all absence from MM’s version of history that – aside from the Tavistock Institute, which is only a hunch – it’s impossible not to sense his lurking presence somewhere in the shadows behind the essays of Miles William Mathis.

[Addendum: I hope you will take the above seriously, folks. The issue of the hanging mic is enough, IMO, to settle the issue of who MM really is.]  

A challenge to MM: In the unlikely event that you respond to this essay, rather than cherry picking, just answer the question implied by your deceit regarding the photo with the hanging mic: Given the stupendous implications, how did you miss all this?  

1) The photo is flash lit, not by arc lamps, as anyone with any knowledge of photography can clearly see.

2) The hanging mic is missing from all the other images of the shooting, implying multiple takes.

3) The hanging mic was pasted in, i.e., is a false lead. 

(Whaddarya gonna say, Miles, another example of your motive-ignorance? Like, ‘I miss one little thing and you call me a psy op? Beautiful.’ Tiresome, Miles. In fact, anyone who would believe that belongs in hospital. I mean in the hospital.)


Okay, the above is a more detailed version of my post at the Clues Forum (CF). Here’s the rest of my thread post:

If I recall correctly, an aspect of CF is that individuals who are obviously moles/shills/trolls are quickly banned. IMO, MM is a unique case here. I repeat: MM’s output is too far above that which is possible for a human being. Ergo, MM is not what he claims to be. Ergo… I dunno. [Wait. Ergo how much more obvious can I be? MM is a psy op. Let’s see how that plays with the CF crew… let’s see if they even deal with the issue of the hanging mic…]

Re: Discussing Miles W. Mathis

by hoi.polloi on August 26th, 2016, 10:33 pm


You make a good point. Thank you for counting the words. That is indeed a large sum. Hmm. But my cousin is pretty prolific on his iPhone and if he just learned to use some big words [my emphasis; this is the totality of Hoi’s ‘dealing with’ my word-count epiphany; he’ll never mention the hanging mic issue, nor will anyone else. Are you getting the idea about misdirection?]

In answer to your curiosity about Miles’ supposed artistry, allancw, and to add to the puzzle, I would submit my original contention.

[Whoa! My curiosity about his supposed artistry? Since I never voiced any such curiosity, Hoi is relying on the readers’ inattention here; a giveaway that misdirection is afoot. As I’ve often pointed out, misdirection equals deceit, which equals… at least possible psy opery.  

I’m leaving in Hoi’s endless ramblings as a classic example of misdirection. Notice how his ‘essay’ is ‘anti-MM,’ which makes it sound like he somehow agrees with me, while avoiding the real point – that MM is a committee (not just a lousy artist), working for the PTB.

And Hoi rambles on:
Miles cannot with honesty take his “art” seriously, since it’s not good and as an artist he would not only intuitively know that but be able to see that even his own documentation of his art isn’t professional. It resembles at best someone who is doing entry-level paintings for a professor, who would tell them, “Miles, for fucks’s sake, stop copying from photography or trying to make your pieces inordinately in that vein, and actually take real observations from life and develop something! You’re not going to get perfect by imitating an imitation of perfection! You need to render as if you care instead of as if you were trying to just slap up your imagined idea of a painting. Stop being lazy, stop taking shortcuts, you don’t want to be king of the dipshits.”

Why do I think this is what they would say? Because this message is one of the first messages of every art professor (I’ve met) addressing any of their haughty students who thought they were hot shit in high school because they could mimic some basic illusions.

I contend again that he does not take his art seriously and he is not an artist in the sense he would have us believe — as some kind of “classical” or visual artist. He is a tinkerer. And, I would say that about myself in the case of most visual art that I’ve attempted, and maybe it takes one to know one, fine. The difference is some people are actively and daily trying to improve, while others — characters like Miles — are entirely content to suck and demand attention rather than earning it, like those particular Instagram Twitter artists broadcasting their butthurt about “copyright” to the world instead of getting their nose back to the studio and producing better things. Separate issue.

I am prepared to believe he may be “dedicated” to the art of writing, perhaps. Or conning.

But any visual artist bitching about the state of the “art world” instead of driving themselves to improve from hotel lobby portfolio pieces and claiming they’re marvelous and inspiring is suspicious in my book. Often, these types are also in the “art world” for entirely the wrong reasons; that is, for fame and money. However, I would never accuse “MWM” of this since it is mere speculation should we actually have any real grounds to suspect him.

[Notice how he now leads us off into a merry red herring chase by claiming the obvious – a hack artist could still provide valuable information. Well, duhhh. How about dealing with the impossibility of one-man show writing the equivalent of four books covering 53 wildly different, densely researched subject matters in 8 months, and this feat representing only one third of his ‘professional life,’ after physics and art. And not a mention of the hanging mic deception.

This whole art-critique essay is the essence of misdirection… which begs the question: since writing is work, why would anyone burn the time working on an irrelevancy? One answer: He’s being paid to. It’s his job. His government job. Yes, I’m talking about ‘Hoi’ here]

[Hoi continues]: Once again, I contend if the writings credited to him contain good info, that’s all that matters. If they do, it doesn’t matter if he’s a hack or not. He could be a hack that’s onto something very important to humanity! But in any case, that’s my thoughts on this for now. I think it could be he’s just a bit of a prolific ‘incompletist’. If we’re being optimistic.



Posts: 4511

Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

[You might notice that Hoi.polloi is an administrator of the Clues Forum; indeed, he is a personal buddy of Simon Shack; the theory has been floated that Hoi is actually another Avatar for Simon himself. True or not, that the two work closely is not an issue. They do. Interestingly, Hoi never responds to me again, even when I outright label him ‘controlled op’; Simon eventually takes over, until I’m labeled ‘subhuman’ and banned from the forum. Anyone taking the time to read the CF thread, I would ask you to pay close attention to the misdirection. See if you can find any post that deals with any of my actual points re MM as LH. It was here that I began to suspect that with CF I was dealing with still another psy op, either related to the MMP (Miles Mathis Project) or not…]

[I’ve deleted a slew of replies: In my view they are all blatant misdirection and so not worth the space here. They are important for what they represent, however. I leave it up to you to decide whether to take the time to see what I mean (and agree or not). I’m leaving in the following for how utterly blatant is the misdirection; it rises to the level of humor…]

Re: Discussing Miles W. Mathis

by Kham on August 27th, 2016, 5:55 am


I have been enjoying your research, thank you.

I have a question concerning this video you made:

full link: [A two years-old video of mine, irrelevant to the subject at hand]

What is the purpose of the music playing in the background?


[What the fuck kind of question is that? Keep in mind that CF is supposed to be the bottom of the truth researcher rabbit hole…]

Re: Discussing Miles W. Mathis

by hoi.polloi on August 28th, 2016, 10:06 pm

Farcevalue wrote:I do understand that art is subjective and not everyone shares particular tastes.

[In an attempt at mercy, I’ve deleted some 500 words of further misdirection from Hoi’s post here. I’ve left in his last paragraph since it represents a change of tactics in avoiding any of my points about MM: the impossibility of his output, assuming a one man show; his blatant deceit about the ‘movie still’ photos and his blowing his cover as a photo analyst via the ‘hanging mic’ issue. (At this point I still hadn’t had my epiphany re his ‘Brit-prose slips.’) Hoi now goes on the attack…]

Your post implies you like to advertise your mistrust, while demanding people serve trustworthiness to you. I would like you to take some of our own “trust tests” then. Will you kindly answer the questions put forth to you by myself and other members?



[What startles me is the fact that still no one on the forum has dealt with any of my observations, apart from three emails I received via my private account, folks that for whatever reason did not seem to want to publicly oppose the CF ‘boys’ – I did a count and found that about 30 people were contributing to the thread. And now, presumably to continue the misdirection, I’m supposed to answer questions about who I am. Classic ad hominem/red herring: who I am is irrelevant to my points. Hoi (or is it Simon?) seems desperate to change the subject…]

by simonshack on August 29th, 2016, 3:50 pm

allancw wrote:What’s interesting about your reply — especially considering your history on CF as a serious researcher — is how it completely avoids my points. I don’t know what this means. To some extent ditto re Simon, who is pretty quiet here. Perhaps he’s busy today.
Yes, Allan – been both busy and (finally) managed to relax with new lovely gf at the beachside lately. I should soon ‘return to normal forum activity’ again, though.

[I sensed pure bullshit behind Simon’s finally entering the fray. Keep that in mind; the sarcasm in my first paragraph below is thinly veiled for a reason…]

Re: Discussing Miles W. Mathis

by allancw on August 29th, 2016, 5:59 pm


Good for you! In truth, I was getting worried. I assume you have something lengthy to say on this thread — and need time to think about it — otherwise you would have included it in your above post. So I look forward to that. Wait. On the other hand, maybe you missed my post with the word count and the implications thereof and don’t realize that something important has happened here.

(By the way, when I first chimed in, I recall this thread being titled ‘Miles Mathis, Truther or Something Else?’. I dunno how/when the title change came about but no matter: Assume that I’m dealing with that question, rather than the blander ‘Discussing Miles Mathis.’

I’ve blabbed too much on this thread and apologize for that, but I think I have to repeat myself, since for once I think I really did figure something out (maybe more than one thing), and, as I say, maybe Simon missed it. Somewhere above, Hoi asked me to count MM’s wordage in 2016. Here’s what I came up with:

[Here I repeat the points already made at least twice on this forum yet not dealt with by anyone — the blatant, even bizarre misdirections have likewise been deleted in deference to your attention span, although they are worth a look for their educational value]
[Ok, I’m leaving in a bit of my post]….

Even if we pretend he does the art/physics in his sleep, we still have to account for the in-effect writing of a 1,500 page book (or four average books) with 53 chapters, each chapter being pretty much from-scratch in terms of research. Dense research. In eight months. [It is worth repearting: it’s MM’s dedication to his art, plus his potentially paradigm busting physics, somehow mixed in with his 300,000 words of ‘conspiracy’ work (so far in 2016) that tipped me to the impossibility of MM as one man show]

I heard from a CF member privately (he wishes to remain anonymous b/c of his job) who is somewhat of an expert on the matter of ‘committee’ writing/ghost writing and so forth and who has corresponded with MM. In his opinion and just based on the numbers I came up with, the matter is closed: MM is a committee. He also shared with me some of his emails with MM. As my new friend tells me, and I totally agree with him (having had a similar experience) the emails were obviously written by different people. (This also explains why MM doesn’t do interviews and why he didn’t want to meet me — I never bought his ‘spin’ excuse for no interviews since all he had to do was demand it be live or unedited. You get the idea… if an interviewer suddenly switched topics on him he’d be screwed.)
[Here I mention all the misdirection (in the thread), in effect asking ‘What’s up, Simon?’…no reply…]


[Finally, someone did do a post that dealt with one of my issues. I won’t subject you to it – it can be found here:

Just scroll down until you find the chart. It’s a bunch of novelists listing how many words per day they say they write. If it says anything, it buttresses my point, IMO.

Re: Discussing Miles W. Mathis

by allancw on August 30th, 2016, 6:31 pm
[I cut most of my post since it was redundant]
Look, I welcome the dissection of MM’s essays on a case by case basis. There is a huge amount of valuable, even groundbreaking stuff here [who among you, for instance, knew that the whole ‘beat’ generation and its writings was a psy op?]; this is why I am doing this. Providing valuable info is what a LH (limited hangout) is all about. My mind is blown by some of MM’s stuff BUT. But what is he up to? I have theories but for now I’ll just point out a blatant dishonesty in MM’s JFK essay (that essay may be a vital part of his agenda). We all know about how MM puts up photos from an old movie and claims for a few paragraphs that they are from November 22. Then he says, ‘Turns out that… etc.’, admitting they are meaningless. Well, I found a guy who got a screen shot of that essay when it was first posted: The ‘Turns out that…etc.’ WAS NOT THERE. In other words, MM screwed up and blatantly lied in order to mislead. When someone busted him, he went back and added the ‘Turns out…’

Here’s the link:

Scroll down to ‘Pierce Scrim’s comment then to his drop box link. I had trouble reading the drop box screen shots but if we give Scrim the benefit of the doubt… that’s about it for MM, IMO.

[Sorry for the redundancy but the above allows you to fact check my accusation on a major MM deceit]

[Here I REPEAT the vital issue of the hanging mic, detailed above…and guess what? No reply from anyone.]

Re: Discussing Miles W. Mathis

by allancw on August 30th, 2016, 7:28 pm

Everyone says he ‘follows the evidence wherever it leads,’ but I try to actually do it. Hoi being second in the order of things only to Simon himself (who was off to the beach for a few days…), I have to at least seriously entertain the notion that, like MM, CF is a psy op (not everyone, obviously!).

If anyone is offended by this… I dunno what to say… I just call ’em as I see ’em… that I could be wrong is an understatement.

[See the thread for the posts I’ve deleted here, for space reasons, but I finally said what’s on my mind regarding the misdirection at this forum. I’m quoting Simon Shack en toto here but feel free to skip down if it’s just too much information…]

Re: Discussing Miles W. Mathis

by simonshack on August 31st, 2016, 3:05 pm

allancw wrote:
Everyone says he ‘follows the evidence wherever it leads,’ but I try to actually do it. Hoi being second in the order of things only to Simon himself (who was off to the beach for a few days…), I have to at least seriously entertain the notion that, like MM, CF is a psy op (not everyone, obviously!).

If anyone is offended by this… I dunno what to say… I just call ’em as I see ’em… that I could be wrong is an understatement.

Offended? No, Allan – just a tad confused & worried as to exactly how your brain functions nowadays. [Rather than deal with my observations, Simon switches to gaslighting as misdirection – insinuating that I’m mentally deficient] Why on Earth would you now“seriously entertain the notion that, like MM, CF is a psy op”? Is it because this forum’s readership hasn’t granted you a unanimous standing ovation for your ‘groundbreaking discovery’ that MM might be a disinfo clown / or cointelpro team? Sheesh – it’s not like this thread has been praising MM’s writings as if they were the Sacred Gospel of Truth. In fact, far from it: my very first post on page 1 of this thread, for instance, pointed out the utter absurdity of MM being an avid, daily follower of Alex Jones and his INFOWARS trash-terror site:

[Simon here launches into his own brand of misdirection, as if anything to do with Alex Jones is relevant. See if you can find a reference to my observation that CF is engaging in misdirection re this thread.]
“INFOWARS: Not the corporate media. I visit it every day.”

If you go to that link, you’ll see that ‘MM’ has now deleted that astonishing statement. Funny, eh?

I clearly remember that as I first stumbled upon the Alex Jones character several years ago, it took me about 10min (or perhaps max 1 day) to decide that he was a total (unfunny) clown… [and he goes on about Alex…]
[As you read his next paragraph, notice how Simon completely avoids mention of my multiple ‘proofs’, especially regarding the JFK essay, which by themselves are inarguable and blatant deceits, not only about the assassination itself but about who MM really is (the impossibility that a ‘photo expert’ could have completely misread the Oswald-shooting flash picture). Simon’s ramblings below truly are right from the NLP handbook, including his ‘appeal to emotion’ fallacy of bringing up his invitation to Italy, which – like a visit to MM in New Mexico – is proof of nothing (I don’t doubt that, like MM himself, ‘Simon Shack’ is a real person. So what?).]

If you, Allan, think that the best evidence for MM being a ‘psy op’ is constituted by his (its) vast /seemingly over-prolific output, fine. [What happened to all my other evidence?] Some may agree with that – and some won’t. But why whine about the response you’re getting from this forum’s membership?… To the point where you now “seriously entertain the notion that this place is a psy op too”?  I’d say that this tells me more about your own ‘seriousness’ than anything else.

So what’s your problem, Allan? Is this forum’s output too prolific? Or are we, on the contrary, too lazy / or timid when it comes to expose phony ‘truthers’? I wouldn’t think so. [See if you can make sense of this paragraph] In fact, I almost regret having spent far too much of my time over the years exposing the countless clowns & rats surrounding our noble and valiant efforts – just check out this forum’s “Truthers and Shills” section to see what I mean: viewforum.php?f=20 Has it been worth the trouble? Perhaps yes, perhaps no – and I can partly understand your current obsession with the bizarre MM person / entity. Now, if you think this (to expose MM as a fraud) is a matter of life or death, why don’t you just take a pleasure-trip to New Mexico with your camper and dog – and knock on his door (if it exists)? See, this is what I keep telling (the interesting sort of)folks who doubt of my own existence – and many have done just that over the years. [Another obvious fallacy, since I have never doubted Simon’s existence] And yes, my invite to you still stands for the coming 15th 9/11 Hoax Anniversary party at my house. I can’t extend this invite to international all comers this year (as I’ll have a full house of mostly Italian friends) – but I may still be able to put up another 2 or 3 couch-surfing guests flying in from abroad (so let me know, anyone – contact me by e-mail). Oh, and btw… I have never (as a matter of principle – and in spite of living on a shoe-string) charged any of my stayover guests one single penny for the – uh – ‘privilege’ of meeting / and talking with me in person.



[As with Hoi’s endless/irrelevant art critique, I have to wonder why someone would take the time to write so many meaningless words, unless it was their job, i.e., a paying job.]

Re: Discussing Miles W. Mathis

by simonshack on August 31st, 2016, 7:27

[I deleted a lot here, for your sake…but I urge you to go to the link if you have the patience]

Sorry, dude – I have a precious few decades of real life left to live – and have no more time for pitiful Hollywood-payrolled clowns like yourself.

You American Hollywood/CIA/ military/ media spooks are a bunch of losers – as you are getting far too easy to detect – due to your piss-poor education. [Red herring/ad hominem/bald assertion: now I’m a psy op, giving no reason for the claim – when I suggest that CF is an op, I give my reasoning – continual misdirection via red herrings, ad hominems, etc.]

Bye now, Allan boy. Say hi to your dog – who most assuredly will rebel one fine day – and bite off your grotty Pinocchio nose. [Whoa!]

For curiosity’s sake, I will let you reply to this post of mine – before disabling you (for VERY good reasons) from spamming your crap on this most virtuous forum.

[Shack then repeats the bald assertion that I am a govt agent, citing nothing as evidence]



[In the spirit of Jan Irvin/Joe Atwill, Simon then banishes me from the forum – ‘for good cause!’ he insists, but does not define such cause (since it would refer to the evidence never dealt with by anyone). He then offers a screen shot of a private email I sent him, hoping that the readers don’t notice that it’s utterly dripping with irony, a fact that I can only point out here, since I’m forever censored from CF.]

For anyone curious, here’s the last page of the ‘Miles Mathis; Truther or Something Else’ thread, as of March 15, 2017:

A full reading of the ‘MM; Truther or Something Else’ thread after my banishment is further evidence that my ‘misdirection’ accusation is spot on: Once I’m gone, no further reference is made to my observations regarding MM’s many deceits and the impossibility of his output. Poof! Never happened! So calling me out because I didn’t ‘wait long enough’ for a response to my observations about MM can now be seen absolutely as more misdirection. Or should we wait another 6 months, Simon? 


Whew! Who needs all this crap? I do, I guess, for the mental challenge if nothing else.

On the Other Hand… The Sweater Issue

I have to point out another example of why ‘Miles Mathis’ should not be summarily ignored, since he is a major psy op and therefore (in theory) the enemy: In his JFK-faked-his-assassination travesty, he points out something that I wish to hell had noticed, and I’ll pose it as a question: Why is Lee Oswald wearing a black sweater when he is ‘shot’ by Jack Ruby?

In a movie (especially an ‘action’ movie), when a character is suddenly wearing a white shirt, I always think, ‘Watch out, he/she is going to get shot in this scene.’ Why? Because the wound/blood shows up better. The converse is true: A character wearing black is not going to get shot, because a wound/blood will not show up.

Let’s quote MM, from page 12 of his essay:

But we should ask four questions, at least. 1) Are we to believe that Oswald was arrested in the theater with a bag full of different colored sweaters, and that he was allowed to keep them in his cell? 2) Or are we to believe, alternately, that his wife Marina showed up with a suitcase full of clothes and it was sent directly on to Oswald, for his maximum comfort? 3) Or are we to assume that officers who had starved and punched Oswald into to the shape we see him in the famous footage suddenly became concerned that he might be a tad chilly, and offered him his choice of garments? 4) But, most importantly, we should ask why the sweater is black. We must assume that it was not Oswald’s free choice, taken from his traveling wardrobe. Prisoners are not given choices like that. It was the choice of the handlers, whoever they were, Dallas police or FBI or whoever. And it was chosen for a reason. Why black?

Here’s the other thing, and I thought of this a long time ago: Why would Jack Ruby go through with the ‘shooting,’ in effect ending his own life? How could whoever put him up to it be sure he’d do it? One possible answer: The whole shooting in fact was staged, with Oswald’s cooperation, and the knowledge that no one was actually getting killed. (Oswald, like Ruby, would simply ‘disappear’…. all part of the deal…)

A stretch? Absolutely. I’m not saying I buy it…. but it’s possible… Keep in mind that this does not mean that the assassination itself was staged — this is one of MM’s M.O.s in his JFK essay. Point out a supposed anomaly, like, say, Zapruder filming from far away, and claim this as evidence of fakery (so you don’t recognize that ‘JFK’ is a body double). The truth is, in a real assassination with Zapruder documenting it (for various reasons), they would also have him film from a distance, so the ‘wound chicanery’ and other fakery of the Z film are hidden.

Then there’s the horn honking. Watch any of the film footage of Oswald’s shooting and notice that a horn honks just as Oswald appears in the doorway (which would be out of Ruby’s sight), then another quick honk just as Ruby appears from the crowd. Pretty obvious signaling… Between that and the black sweater…. I know, it’s weak, but it sort of explains the hanging mic getting pasted in — either as Revelation of the Method or by a whistle blower…. I dunno. Whaddya think?

All right. If you made it this far, you probably have something to say. Go ahead, please do. Just don’t bother me with crapola like this one, which I got after the last post:

‘Hey Allan-  You should find a better use of your time.’


Here’s my answer (I do try to answer everyone, even people whose message contains no actual information):


So far, you’re the only one that feels this way [I meant via email]. for instance, here’s the opening of the email immediately after yours:
‘Stunning, for me the best piece you have written to date. Don’t usually read a piece start to finish, this one from beginning to end and then back again. My jaw locked open and still sore.

This is what real journalism, analysis, research is all about. Even if it’s not spot on (who or what is) it is spot in how to dig in and grit out the most obscure tells. Damn, I’m speechless.’

Most (about a dozen so far) are of this ilk. Who should I believe? If you’re not interested in who the govt is paying to lie to you…. well, you’re less curious than I am.


Most were more less effusive:

I thought what you said about him not  being from the USA convincing as well…. I must say I have enjoyed your exposure of limited hang outs. That alone has saved me a lot of wasted time.

Please keep it up.


Ooops. Just as I was about to post this, a guy in the UK had this to say:

‘I work hard supervising criminals. I protect the public. Allan what are you doing that is useful. Stop being preoccupied with conspiracy rubbish & get a life mate.’

Sent from my Sony Xperia™ smartphone

I answered:

“I ‘work hard supervising criminals’ too, mate. I ‘protect the public’ by pointing at the criminals among them (using public funds to mislead the public is against the law here). I assume you work at a prison (in the UK). Why don’t you look at the paperwork and see what percentage of your ‘criminals’ are there under ‘conspiracy’ charges. Over here ‘conspiracy’ means two or more people who plan an illegal/immoral act and make one move to carry it out. Is it different over there?

If you think my evidence is incorrect, please point out how. I welcome criticism, but only from those who understand the law, and, more importantly, the difference between right and wrong.’


That about covers it. For now. Oh, and hey: Sorry for the endless crapola about Simon Shack and Clues Forum. It’s hard to imagine Simon as controlled op/LH, but how else to explain all the misdirection? For those interested in the alt media… it’s starting to look like we’re… pretty much surrounded…