The faked OJ trial – a paper

Be the 1st to vote.

Drop what you’re doing now and read this fantastic piece. I’ll quote some great parts later. Put your favorite quotes below in comments.

Miles Mathis-The OJ Simpson Trial was faked-as were the murders

In conclusion, we see that both the murders and the trial were faked. To what ends? I have already shown several, including planned promotion for Frogmen (which didn’t happen) and further erosion of the Constitution—via destruction of the 4th Amendment (which did happen). We also saw the creation of fake precedent in fake events by fake judges, further eroding the legal system as a whole. We saw the creation of racial tension, to keep blacks and whites looking suspiciously at one another instead of at bankers or other billionaires. But the main end of this event was misdirection. There were a lot of things going on in 1994-95 that they wanted to keep your eyes off. They manufacture big events to keep your eyes off the real history happening just beyond your line of sight. If they can keep you watching this circus for more than a year (June 17, 1994 to October 2, 1995), you will have missed all of their real crimes during that time.

h/t Blue Moon

Hoi Polloi of cluesforum.info offers his analysis here: www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic….

Miles W. Mathis seems to be someone who is interested in the truth that we are interested in, as ugly as we find it, and he imitates the character of someone who can boldly stand against authority. But does his truth authentically resemble the truth we are uncovering on CluesForum, or is he a subtle mockery of our position of authenticity and/or the study of fake science? Is he a creation meant to lure our interest and smear the basically acceptable character traits of the average “truth seeker” to create associations in the minds of the average person? Does he genuinely believe what he is saying?

Worthy passages from the essay

On televised trials:

Remember, there are statutes forbidding cameras in the courtroom. That is why they have court artists, you know? Again, this is statutory, meaning there are laws on the books. It isn’t discretionary. It isn’t something a judge can simply allow based on his or her own authority. Therefore, anytime you see a televised trial for murder, you should know it is fake. Basically, cameras are allowed in the courtroom in these events because the CIA allows it, and the CIA is above the law. The statutes only apply to real trials. The laws say nothing about trials that are faked by the CIA.

Therefore, the following 11 trials must be CIA trials, or fake.

11 of the Most-Watched Television Trials

1. Ted Bundy, 1979
2. William Kennedy Smith, 1991
3. Jeffrey Dahmer, 1992
4. The Officers who assaulted Rodney King, 1992
5. Lyle and Erik Menendez, 1993
6. O.J. Simpson, 1995
7. Phil Spector, 2007 & 2009
8. Lindsay Lohan, 2010
9. Casey Anthony, 2011
10. Dr. Conrad Murray, 2011
11. Jodi Arias, 2013

An outstanding passage for your consideration:

Before we move on, let me answer my own question. Why did NASA cooperate with
Capricorn One? Damage control. The movie was conceived of and promoted by the government itself. They weren’t confirming the Moon landing was a hoax, of course. No, they were taking an idea which they knew was already in the head of the nation and trying to turn it subtly away from its target. They were planting this idea in the heads of those watching the film:
Yes, the government might be corrupt enough to plan something like this, but they could never get away with it because too many good and honest people (like Elliott Gould) would expose it. It involves too many uncontrollable factors and unpredictable outcomes for any agency to get away it.
At the end of Capricorn One, the hoax is exposed.
That is the crucial element of the film, not the hoax itself. Just as with Watergate, these things eventually come out of the dark. Or this is what the audience of Capricorn One was meant to conclude, and most of them did conclude just that. They thought that they had gotten to the bottom of Watergate with Nixon’s demise, and they were assured by Capricorn One that if something fishy had gone on with the Moon Landing, that would also come out eventually. The fact that nothing did come out on the Moon Landing, either before or after 1978, seemed to confirm to most people that the Moon Landing was real.

This is the go-to misdirection to this day, for all conspiracy theories. After 911, they used the same misdirection, leading most debunkings with the idea that with so many people involved and so many intangibles, secrecy could never be maintained. That’s nonsense, of course, but it fools most people.
Most people don’t want to believe in faked events, so they are pretty easy to deflect with false
reasoning like this.
The truth is, secrecy isn’t maintained. There are leaks, and many people know the truth. Others find out the truth. But that doesn’t matter because total secrecy isn’t necessary. All that is necessary is that the leaks aren’t reported by the mainstream press. As long as the government and press stonewall and deny, the majority of people aren’t going to move past a certain point. The CIA learned a long time ago that a small percentage of activists can be ignored, because the masses won’t follow them. Most people will follow the majority, no matter where it goes. That is why it is called the majority. Because of that, Intelligence only needs to manufacture the majority opinion. In other words, the majority of people don’t even need to believe something, they only need to be told that a majority believe it. That is enough to stop them from acting on their own beliefs or suspicions. The government doesn’t poll the public to discover a majority opinion, at least not on important topics. The government just creates a majority opinion and publishes it. Most people then believe it—or at least believe it is the majority opinion—simply because they saw it published. Even if they don’t share the opinion, they believe they are in a minority, and therefore powerless.
You see, in this way, the governors can cleverly stop majorities. To stop a majority, all you have to do is prevent it from realizing it is a majority. In a so-called democracy, this is enough to stall it, since people have been taught from childhood to bow to greater numbers. If you get outvoted, you are supposed to back down. So the governors simply tell a majority it is a minority, and it immediately loses steam.
For example, I think a majority of real people now believe 911 was manufactured in some way, but even when the mainstream reports on this “conspiracy theory,” they report that some minority of kooks believes it. The word “kook,” with any number under 50% is enough to stall most people. Most people won’t even think of getting off the couch until the number hits 51%, and even if 100% of everyone they have ever talked to indicates they believe it, they will still be stalled if the media tells them they are in a minority. They will believe the media over their own eyes and ears.

On the change of venue:

And how is Los Angeles any less media saturated than Santa Monica? Are we supposed to believe there are fewer TV’s there, or fewer newsstands, or what? Clearly, the trial was moved to make a conviction less likely and easier to broadcast. I’m just surprised they didn’t change the venue to Universal City or Television City. That would have been the most convenient thing. For all we know they did, and just built a set to look like LA Superior Court.

 

12 thoughts on “The faked OJ trial – a paper

  1. Hoi PolloiHoi Polloi

    Yeah, he ‘gets it’ alright. So did Psyopticon, though. And countless others who praised September Clues before attacking it. I withhold my judgment until my concerns and questions about him are addressed, but I have posted some concerns about this character at CluesForum for consideration.

    Having said that, I really like a LOT of what he writes in some cases. I laughed at some of the points of the OJ piece that are genuinely amusing and good. So I hope he is on the side of truth, despite thinking himself as a new Leonardo or that we really need to throw out the old definition of Pi as 3.14159…

    Sigh.

    Worth reading anyway. Some valid concerns about the case.

    1. smj

      i think the point of the pi article was that we must account for the slope of an object even in circular motion, while you don’t have to do so in dealing with a circle that isn’t being used to model reality. i think i agree with him. i don’t know if it merits the ‘sigh’ response.

      hopefully he will take the next step and realize that the nasa satellite engineers are in show business as well.

      this dude is no psyopticon, with his laroucheian shtick; nor some low-grade moron like your former “fan” herge degrelle… www.jailingopinions.com/tintin…

      who is defacing the hoaxbusters site with his inane graffiti nowadays under the handle negentropic.

      herge degrelle/negentropic apparently fancies this obvious actor… m.youtube.com/watch?v=slHWloSr… … who is the author of tin tin mon copain… www.naufrageur.com/a-copain.ht…www.delcampe.net/page/item/id,…

      1. Blue MoonBlue Moon

        Since I led this character onto the dance floor, I must admit I do not have a scientific temperament but my father did put a paintbrush in my hand at the age of four and I’ve been grinding out hardcore realism for decades- So, I’m likely to be more sympathetic than cautious with this “individual” than I should be (Although the sugar coated sentimentality on his canvases doesn’t do much for me either)- That said, I’m a prospector after a fashion and this guy has produced a couple of rich veins from which to extract some very good information- That doesn’t excuse his other efforts from criticism, but I do agree with his admission that the media game is rigged from top to bottom (at this point hardly breaking news but if this guy is on the level, it’s encouraging to add another voice to the chorus)- As for personality cults, I don’t think I’d want to spend any time listening to the sound of this guy’s voice in person, if he isn’t in fact a committee, but I was stunned when I did see September Clues was in his links page and was highly rated- As for his being a potential turncoat, only time, and dispassionate observation, will tell-

    2. richard benedict

      I agree with Hoi Polloi’s analysis of Miles. When I first posted one of Miles’ papers here
      (Sharon Tate) I felt uneasy about him. Miles said he was an expert in analyzing faces so I emailed pictures of John Lennon’s doubles along with Paul McCartney’s doubles and asked him to catalog them. Frankly, he failed miserably.
      I know this replacement of the Beatles is a tricky subject and I might lose my audience, nevertheless, people can reach a point where they can readily discern the various doubles that were used among the Beatles. IMO Miles makes mistakes re: Sharon Tate, Lennon and OJ that should not be made. For example, saying Nicole Brown is Denise Brown and SharonTate is her younger sister. And John Lennon is the Strayer fellow. Like all good disinfo, he has nuggets but then drives right into the ditch. It is possible that he is there to muddy the waters of fakery and replacement as these issues are gaining traction. I know of one researcher who is promoting the idea all of the Beatles were replaced but is intentionally muddying the waters. Again, I think this in reaction to the growing awareness of fakery used in the media.
      The real John Lennon
      www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qc9OIE…
      A different Lennon.
      www.youtube.com/watch?v=fXIQ3u…
      Note the mole on his left cheek. He also is not as brawny as the first video. It is a video of a different person. Also the fuzzy video is deliberate to obfuscate the original Lennon.

      1. ab Post author

        If there are so many Dopplergangers, how can we say who the “real” Lennon is. Perhaps it’s better to say “the first entity portraying Lennon”.

        1. xileffilex

          I read that Lennon file by Mathis a good few months ago. What really impressed me was the speaking voice of Stracer on one of the linked YT vids there. For someone who had a US midwest pedigree [writing from memory] – wow. Beats psyopticon’s scouser into by miles [sic] Beyond that, who knows.

      2. Mickey

        Has anyone EVER seen a video of Nicole BS ? If so how about a video of her and OJ together or even better, the whole family together? Nope, there are just a few pics (composites) & that retarded “911 tapes of horror” that get regurgitated down everyone’s eyes, ears and throats. It’s a fakery at a different level, that was followed more after the OJ fakery success. I would have like Miles M (yah MM) to expand on this instead of blatantly calling Denise Brown the same as Nicole BS. It is overall a very good piece on the fakery, but misses a lot of things that he should have been understanding by now. Perhaps some of it is not really intentional but in the eyes of fakeologists, everyone is guilty until proven innocent.

        1. Mark Tokarski

          I have run a photo comparison of Nicole Simpson and Denise Brown, placing their faces side by side based on an identical pupil distance for both. The result was stunning – an exact lineup of all other features. The odds of this happening with two random people are at least ten million to one. Mathis is correct, Nicole did become Denise, and he did it without my techniques, relying only on his eyes and judgment.

          pieceofmindful.com/2016/06/30/…

  2. simonshacksimonshack

    Even though it hasn’t been televised, you may want to add to your “11 most-watched-trials” the hilarious, two-year-long “trial” of yours truly – over at the Let’s Troll forums – with its almost 100.000 views…

    ” Simon Shack, Maker of Sept Clues – One person Removed Bin Ladin”
    letsrollforums.com/simon-shack…

    HAPPY NEW YEAR to all you beautiful fakeoligists !

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.