From a Blues Festival at Noxon, Montana

Hi Folks (I’m combining this post with an email to Miles Mathis),

Miles, I meant to answer your last email much sooner but got distracted reading more of your essays, plus I’ve been looking into this flat earth (FE) meme that has exploded lately; I even started a blog post on the subject, which I’ll try to get out there soon. (I’m looking forward to anything you might blog on the subject.)

IMG_0816 copy

About 10 miles away and a week after I shot this, a mt. biker was mauled to death by a griz, at Glacier Nat’l Park.

I don’t know how popular your essay-site is but given the several alt media personalities who have plugged it with high praise, and, especially given your talent for recognizing subtle but important anomalies in ‘official stories’ and, more importantly, their implications, I suspect that you’ll go as far as you want in notoriety (the good kind).

In fact, and notwithstanding your suggestion (via email) that I stay away from your conference, you’ve goosed my curiosity to the point that I’m diving back into the blogosphere, with you being the subject matter of my next little essay – along with FE and its implications. (I’m not linking you with FE, except on a very hazy, the-way-my-mind-works level.)

By the way, if you get bored/distracted and don’t finish this, no worries from my point of view. As I often do, I’m actually writing for the benefit of my blog as well. (A version of this email will appear on So I’m not wasting my time. And be advised that I may quote any response you may make, but only on matters of facts, logic, and so forth. Although Dr. Joseph Farrell has accused me of ‘counting coup’ as a motive for quoting his emails, neither with him, you, nor anyone else who ‘puts themselves out there’ do I consider this (whatever it is) some sort of game or ego booster. As I know you would agree, these are dead serious times we’re living in, even possibly some sort of ‘end times,’ so please do not consider anything I write to be an attack on your person. I’m simply looking for a bit of truth, plus an understanding of who might provide it, and on what level.

Country music shot

It occurs to me that my photog friend (I hope) Walter might like this one.


A bit of truth. Yes. Having read most of your essays on historical events and quite a few on physics, I found myself returning again and again to your essay of the JFK assassination, not only because of my long-standing interest in the issue, but as sort of an indication of your motives and the nature of any outside backing you may have.


Although all your deep event essays are laden with insightful observations, the JFK one really tips the scales. If JFK did indeed fake his own murder, let’s face it, even the most pessimistic of us is missing the ‘matrix mark’ by a country mile. And by god you make a good case for yourself, Miles, you really do. At least upon an initial read.

(A note to my subscribers: I’m suggesting you read Miles’s JFK essay over the next week, to be better prepared for my analysis of it. I should point out that Miles suggests you take in one or more of his other (deep event, as opposed to physics) essays first, for reasons implied above: not only are the implications of the JFK essay of high profundity, but it’s the one most bound to stir up cognitive dissonance, especially among those who have studied the event; so Miles suggests you ease your way into it. Plus I can assure you that no matter how you ultimately come away from Miles’s effort, the exercise in critical thought will have been worth it.

chem 1

…and I wonder why I’m not feeling too good these days…

If I were to recommend which essays you give a go in preparation for the JFK one, I would list Miles’s study of the Manson/Tate Murders and the Lincoln assassination exposé, in that order.)

Now, to be bluntly up front (to Miles and to my subscribers), there are mainly two issues at work here, and which are quite separate. The first being the truth of any given essay (but especially the JFK one); the second, to me the more important, and, again to be quite blunt, the question of who Miles Mathis really is; for whom does he work?

I say the issues are separate because any sort of agent of limited hangout/misdirection, to be effective, must provide new and interesting facts/insights/observations; without such he/she is not going to be taken seriously. Here, Miles Mathis is a standout. For example, and assuming his photo evidence is not futzed with (by him) or is otherwise misleading, his Manson/Tate exposé is quite remarkable, and tough to argue with. This is enough to put Miles up near the top of my list of interesting alt media folks. (That Miles thought of ‘going back’ in history to revisit major events – given the mainstream media’s (MSM) recent evolution to utterly blatant deceit, as in Sandy Hook, the Boston bombing, etc., etc., etc., not to mention 9/11…) – is one of those concepts that ‘I wish I’d thought of.’ And he does it so well (apparently)!

IMG_0431 copy

I get a hundred shots like this… every week.


I’m going to try to keep this post brief, so best if I just explain what bothers me about Miles Mathis, aside from issues in his JFK essay, which is for next time. I wrote Miles, asking about attending a conference he is giving this month in New Mexico (not far from where I am, and for which Miles charges $400, not counting room/meals, etc.). In my email to him I included a few links, notably to my Corbett exposé, and explained that I’m interested in identifying other moles in the alt media (I’ve already compiled an interesting list). I also included a link to my NASA ‘no stars’ video, which currently has over 60k views and more than 1,000 comments (90% from govt trolls so I must’ve touched a nerve). Given Miles’s physics background, I thought he might find that one interesting.

But no, as with Jay Dyer, Miles ignored any actual and possibly insightful information in my email and chose to zero in on what he thought my attitude towards him might be. In spite of my outright saying that I think he is ‘for real,’ he claimed I am…

IMG_3525 copy ‘in a place where you want to disrupt things, and I can’t have that.’

I replied, in part:

…the idea that I am out to disrupt is very… odd… if you refer (for ex) to my expose of Corbett (or of the SSP group), I can only ask you to point out how I could possibly be wrong about him (or them)… I cannot imagine any ‘pure’ motive for not wanting to out an obvious alt media mole(s), a subject no one but me seems to be interested in…

…ditto NASA’s continuing frauds (which spawned the mammoth flat earth psy op plus h-wood projects aplenty)… I’ve spent the last couple days hoping to find at least a reference to them in your voluminous work…


If I have a ‘problem’ with you it’s that you seem too good to be true. Sorry about that. oh, and sorry if I include you in the same universe as the rest of us. [By this I meant that he should be viewed with the same skepticism as anyone else who claims insights on HTWRW.]

IMG_3635 copy

Again, Miles ignored the pith of my email, and wrote that (at the conference) I’d likely ask questions ‘no one would want to hear the answer to.’ He did not elaborate on what he meant, but it had the same ring to it as Dyer’s sudden disinclination to be in the physical presence of my sorry ass.


Just for the record, I’ll include the whole text of my original email to Miles at the end of this. It does seem to be a trend, though: alt media pundits don’t want to deal with the subject of limited hangout moles in the alt media. Aside from Jim Fetzer, I’ve gotten nothing but hostility (or a roaring silence) when I breach the subject (see my various past posts). Make of this what you will but I do ask myself how I would respond to the notion (worded without rancor/nastiness) that maybe I am a government mole perpetrating some sort of misdirection/limited hangout (LH).

I’d probably respond with a ‘good for you’ for understanding that this is indeed a vital issue, and ask that the questioner let me know his final verdict, and why. I’d offer to answer questions, if thoughtful and not of ill will. I certainly wouldn’t give up $400 for fear of queries that might be aired in the presence of others…


I’m almost pickin’ ’em at random…

But more important than Miles’s unwarranted hostility towards me and what it might mean is the worth of his work, and its implications. So again, I urge you to give him a look, so you can better understand the essay I’m working on.

Miles, if you’re still reading this, and for the record, my questions were going to be regarding physics, space travel, and NASA. (Perhaps, as with the SSP presenters, this subject isone you too would rather avoid – as you did in your emails — but more on this in my next blog.)

One more thing, Miles. Since one of your major interests is ‘faked deaths’ (as in JFK), you might be interested in the exposé of mine that got me into my initial trouble with alt media types (James Corbett and Alex Jones, among others). Go here for my essay on FBI agent John O’Neill and how he faked his death on 9/11. For some reason – and as obvious as the O’Neill fakery was – it’s off limits to every alt media figure I’ve run it by (with the exception of Fetzer). If you have an opinion on it, Miles, I’m all ears…

FYI, I believe I’ll title my coming post ‘An Open Letter To The Most Important Person On The Planet’. Although this may ring hyperbolic, it would be literally accurate if I were able to work in ‘to me’ and ‘right now’ (the sucker is too long as it is)… See, as mentioned above, if Miles is right about everything, or nearly so… whoa! On the other hand, if he’s only and purposefully partially right, well, that implies a whole other level of misdirection, given the beans he does spill. A similar situation to The Most Dangerous Book in the World; 9/11 as Mega-Ritual, which likewise contains mind-bending and true observations mixed with disinfo, and all via one of them.

See ya’ll in about a week.


YouTube Preview Image

Here’s my email to Miles. To those who have followed my sporadic blabbing — I apologize for the redundancies. What jumps out at me are all the subjects he ignores, but more on that next time.

From: “Allan Weisbecker” <>
Sent: Friday, July 22, 2016 2:47 PM
To: “” <>
Subject: This… and that…
Hi Miles,

I’ve contacted you once before, re Steve Crothers, whom I met at the 2015 EU [Electric Universe] conference and have kept in touch with. He speaks highly of you, which was enough for me. But…

But I’ve lately gotten so discouraged/disgusted with the state of the world/human nature that I’ve quit writing and making films; what’s the point? kind-of-a-thing. I haven’t blogged in two months – amusingly, that folks keep sending me money has sort of prodded me to consider starting up again. Part of this was to re-read some of your stuff. Since I live on the road anyway ( and am always looking for a reason to go somewhere, I’m considering attending your conference.

Behind my aforementioned discouragement/disgust was my decision to research the extent to which the alternative media (however you define it) is limited hangout/misdirection. (The Elite’s post 9/11 plan surely included as near as complete control as possible.) My realization that alt media rising star James Corbett is LH/misdirection via NLP, plus my attendance at the last Secret Space Program conference proved to me beyond doubt that at least 80% of alt media are dirty. Here’s my Corbett expose:

My Secret Space Program attendance was as illuminating as Corbett’s NLP-laden presentation. I made the trip in order to ask the presenters a question that I’ve never seen dealt with, figuring that a face-to-face would assure I’d get an answer (hah!). The question was simple, and keep in mind it was to be posed to a dozen truth luminaries who believe that mankind has been zipping around the solar system for some 50 years (presumably gleaning all the science-data they wanted). Here’s the question:

‘Given your belief in mankind’s science-history, why would NASA (etc.) spend the money on any given chemical rocket program when they can fake it for a tiny fraction of the cost? (Keeping in mind that they already know what the ‘mission’ was meant to find out.) The ‘saved’ money can then go to the SSP and other black ops.’

(An offshoot of this is that virtually all of the presenters believe in the Apollo hoax. I didn’t even bring this up.)

At the conference I made the error of (early on) trying to ask this question face-to-face to five of the presenters, rather than at the televised Q & A at the end. I wanted the answers on the Youtube record.

All five flat out (and rudely) bolted from me rather than answer, then the Q & A was abruptly canceled, at the last moment (I suspect word of my question had gotten out). Within days of the conference I tried emailing the question to one and all; no one would deal with it. (I’ll provide links at the end of this if you want to know more.)

The question of NASA’s fakery has major implications of course, and I know you very well know this. I’ve done some videos on the subject, one of which is notable for the number of comments – well over 1,000, at least 90% of which are clear shills, so I apparently struck a nerve. I’ll put it here:

Here’s another one with shills all over the comments:

(RichplanetTV has done an expose that shows without doubt that the Mars Rover missions are faked.)

But the main point here is that my LH (limited hangout) suspicions about the people (and the very idea of a SSP) were greatly heightened. Why would no one (out of 12) answer this simple yet quite vital question?

This relates to you and to my possible attendance at your conference, but first I’ll say this: In my questioning of the motives of ‘truth types’ I first ask myself this: What is the real, practical result of this person’s information (ignoring the truth or lack thereof)?

A quick example (among many) is Dr. Judy Wood, who is telling us this (and, I submit, only this): ‘Be aware that the entity that did 9/11 can ‘dustify’ you or any of your works whenever they want.’ A warning not to fuck with them. If in all practicality her work tells us something else, I’d like to know about it – for example, in 15 years she has been completely silent on who did 9/11. (Keep in mind I don’t know for sure who/what she is – and I believe she is basically correct re a DEW. This is simply an example of my way of thinking.)

What does this have to do with you? Well, a simple-minded version of what might be taken away from your site: ‘Since everything is a fraud/conspiracy, nothing can really be known, so don’t worry about it.’

Unfortunately, your work is not so simple to dissect as is Dr. Wood’s – even aside from the (conceptually) related conundrum of the meaning of ‘Everything I say is a lie.’ [I thought it obvious that I was not calling Miles a liar, but merely observing the ‘Catch 22’ in the quoted thought]

What makes parsing your site so complex is the sheer amount of valuable information that has little to do with the idea that ‘everything is a conspiracy’ – which, btw, I tend to agree with (sort of). But this of course brings us back to the above conundrum.

Bottom line is that I tend to take you at face value, i.e., you’re for real. [Keep this in mind, what I’m saying here…]

Do you think I could contribute to the conference? If so, where and when (exactly) is it?


Here’s the discussion at the end of the SSP conference, wherein they didn’t want to hear my question:

I had quite a conflict with the first speaker, Jay Dyer. Here’s my blog about it:

A related blog:

My conflict with Dr. Joseph Farrell (I’d be curious what you think of this guy, who considers me ‘the lowest form of human life,’ because I quoted him re a science subject):

More on the conference:

One of my books was bought for the movies by Sean Penn (another was bought by John Cusack). My conflict with Penn may be of interest to you:

Yes, this is the same as the one above, but if you’re curious about my pointing the finger at Penn as a govt operative, just scroll pretty far down to where I link (in blue) to Penn’s Rolling Stone article..

(My third book is appropriately titled ‘Can’t You Get Along With Anyone?’ If you plug my name into Amazon books, you’ll find my books are highly thought-of.

If you go to, you’ll find that my documentary film is well thought of. It’s on Youtube.)

So: I’m well thought-of and disliked, by a lot of people.