Audiochat-Unreal on Black Frosting

Be the 1st to vote.

Unreal and I convene for a discussion on Miles Mathis and the bloated Black Frosting thread.

Download

Notes:

tkelly6785757.podomatic.com/

 

No tags for this post.

32 thoughts on “Audiochat-Unreal on Black Frosting

  1. straightfromthedevilsmouth

    It’s pretty obvious to me that Willard and Vespadouglas are agents. I’m on the fence with UNreal.

    They know Mathis is real, their assignment is to plants seeds of doubt around him. They also know that Brandon, Mark, Blue Moon, and I are real too. This is all a game to influence outside readers. And tells you how much they fear Mathis to build an intelligence budget around him.

    What’s more important than anything is that we don’t discuss what Mathis wrote about, which is that the entire Flat Earth movement is an intelligence creation to discredit by association. You’ll notice 77 posts in the other thread and double digit posts in this thread, and none of them discuss the topic at hand or the merit of the argument.

    Folks, if you want to sniff through these Langley minimum-wagers, you need to trust your intuition since they’ll try to f*ck with your logic. Which posters come off as most genuine? Who gives the most information, not just the shallow stuff. Read Willard’s reply to Mark and ask yourself if he really discredited his work, or if he just did a few sly ad hominems, posted pictures of his work to give the impression he looked at it when he didn’t, and leaned on “I don’t believe they match” without explaining why. Willard knows they match, he just doesn’t have anything to bite back with, at least until his superiors give him something to bite back with, which they will as the awareness of his work grows.

    Honestly, these people are so see-through, I’ll just leave this here and have faith in humanity to see their low-level tactics. I trust that the genuine posters who follow this website will be able to discern who is who, even if they just lurk. I don’t have time for this waste.

    One more reason to know that me, Mark, Blue Moon, and Brandon are real: If we were agents, we would be the best damn agents they have in Langley, at least compared to this garbage. As much as these fools I mentioned above pride themselves in being above us, they are so worthless and such order-followers, if they were regular citizens, they would never in a million years get this far on fakery. They would be watching Fox News and MSNBC while breathing through their mouths.

    1. UnrealUNreal

      @straightfromthedevilsmouth

      Normally we encourage polite discussion on this site, even though we all have different views and draw different conclusions. Your defense of Miles Mathis however is not very well presented. You do not refer to any facts nor do you explain in any way the reason you support MM and/or his research.

      Regarding “Flat Earth” and its so-called DBA strategy, you have actually proven how this invasive campaign works in two ways :
      • to give the general public a fetching “appeal to ridicule” argument to discredit any alternative research by a slight of hand (works just like “conspiracy theorist” used to, only better)
      • to create confusion and strife amongst alternative researchers presenting them first with an unsolvable problem*, then skillfully inverting the burden of evidence for the alternative research to fail at.

      *the impossibility to solve an apparent trivial subject (Gordian knot) is very efficient when the subject is not familiar with the complexity involved and the impossibility of the task. We are hardcoded to believe our civilisation has the answer to everything which is in fact far from the truth but still the most powerful tool for controlling the minds of the masses. Any claim can be valid if no answer can be had. By means of experts, authorities and specialization the public is incessantly maintained in their false belief. Alternative research is different from the general public in this regard as it disputes this fallacious presupposition. Yet, even if we don’t fall for the programming aimed at the general population, we can still we buy into the false belief that an alternative answer always awaits us. Herein lies the secret behind what many take as a “Flat Earth” DBA campaign: there is no alternative answer to be had,,,

      1. straightfromthedevilsmouth

        Disinfo doesn’t deserve a polite discussion. If they can’t handle it, then they can go join another department in Langley.

        I’m also not going to waste my time convincing you Mathis exists. Feel free to believe whatever you want. You are a great case study of how the mind believes whatever it wants to believe.

  2. Blue MoonBlue Moon

    This is a lift from daddie_o’s post on Clues Forum re: Miles Mathis:
    “As for his art, I think it’s a rather arbitrary assumption to assume that he spends 1/2 his time painting. From what I can tell, Miles is someone who follows his passion. In the 1980s and 1990s he was painting like mad. Then in the 2000s he got into science and wrote like crazy. His newest passion is the conspiracy stuff. And you can see that as he has written more on those topics, his science writing has tapered off considerably. It seems 2013 was a pivotal year for him in this respect, when he realized that Modern art was a CIA creation. I’ve never met the man in person, so I’m only drawing these conclusions based on his writing. I have no idea how much time he spends painting now, but I doubt it’s very much. I believe he does teach art classes, though. And probably takes commissions for portraits, etc. But how often? I’m guessing not that frequently.” (Emphasis mine)
    This particular aspect, of many, that convinces me that Miles is a real person is his passion- As a long time artist and writer I can tell you one does not produce anything without passion, even to the point where one believes the Earth will hurtle into the sun if the public does not get to experience one’s creative output- No artist, writer, actor etc. will succeed at communicating anything without an ego and shrieking muse demanding he get to work-
    In the 90’s, at my peak as a painter, I was cranking out 3-4 photo-realistic canvasses a week- That is easily the equivalent of 2-3,000 coherent words a day, maybe more- It was a full time job and I would not have stopped for anything- I had to do it- I built my day around it and without it I’d go mad- I turned to writing and publishing because after decades of fine art, I felt I had met that challenge and then some- I needed new challenges- The way Miles has moved from one discipline to another over time is not the behavior of a committee- It’s the pattern of a mad man who needs to create- His frequent mentions of research that will take years to complete is the kind of thing a man would say who is welcoming such long term projects- I know I get very dark and panicky when I don’t have a long term project to build my days around- I recognize in him a kindred depressive, which is to say, at least for me, work= happy- writer’s block= alcohol- That’s a human being over there in Taos, brilliant and flawed as we all are, not a group of cynical government hires who will become drunks soon enough-
    PS- If you are reading Mark’s blog, Piece of Mindful (and you should) I’m Tyrone over there-
    Clue link: cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?…

    1. willardwillard

      @Blue Moon,
      “…If you are reading Mark’s blog, Piece of Mindful (and you should) I’m Tyrone over there-

      Read more: fakeologist.com/blog/2016/09/0…

      Yes, Blue Moon. I have read both sites. Mark Torkarski is a poor man’s Dallas Goldbug. His side by side photo comparisons are so off, it reminds me of gaslighting.

      Remember, MM is the fellow that says Denise Brown is Nicole Brown and Sharon Tate is really her sister too. Umm, let’s see, what other glaring errors does MM have? Let me think-His John Lennon/Mark Strayer comparison essay is just plain stupid. I read his JFK essay where he tried to fobbed off a picture as real rather than from a movie before it was edited. But those examples do not point at the work of military intelligence. Wait! I know… Miles Mathis’ material on Mike
      McGear!!

      mileswmathis.com/paul8.pdf

      The part about 1967 Mike McCartney not looking like 1964 (!!!). was cribbed from a private source unavailable to the public . This original research was filched from a private forum through espionage. The material was then forwarded to agents like MM, who disseminate it.

      “Is that true, Mathis?”
      Now there
      is a question someone can ask MM when they see him in person {or perhaps through an email}. You may tell him little old me said it.

      I agree with Marin. Unreal is my favorite for a chat. That why I laid the nugget about Mike Mcgear. While my comment may alienate people, I want Unreal to be aware of the real espionage that takes place in private forums.

      I have a great deal of respect for what Unreal says. I am grateful to him for his audio chats (and comments).

      1. Mark Tokarski

        Willard, we have a lot of trolls passing through my blog who, like you, simply do the dismissive wave-off, a logical blunder and a debate tactic centered on weakness of ability to mount a counterargument.

        We put up evidence, lots of it, and demand that you either debunk it by similar techniques or accept it as valid. Too many, like you, unable to deal with evidence, resort to the sneer and walk-off.

        So either put up, or shut up. So far, you’ve done neither.

        1. willardwillard

          @mark,
          Look at yourself. Look at how you are behaving. Are you behaving like a reasonable, sensible person with your remarks at me?
          A troll?
          Mark, did you read where I questioned Brandon?
          “@ Brandon, sorry, I wasn’t trying to be rude….just delicate.
          …… However, I seem to remember, I could be wrong, a fellow from Dave McGowan’s Weird Scenes Inside the Canyon Facebook page who defended Miles Mathis as a real person

          Read more: fakeologist.com/blog/2016/08/2…

          I asked Brandon about Nathan Andrew and Brandon verified that Andrew fit the profile Unreal gave of a supporter in an intelligence op.

          Am I being a troll when I do this?

          If Rollo or Uninstall media disagreed with me, would they call me a troll or tell me to put up or shut up?

          Dave McGowan used to talk to anyone who even slightly disagreed in a hostile aggressive manner as you have. Is this suppose to make someone nervous or afraid to post?

          Mark, you wanted evidence from me. Here goes:

          You posted this list below of replaced people.

          You preface this list below of replaced people with this sentence:
          “So far we have given you, sometimes with help from outsiders, and always with whiners and bitchers crying it just ain’t so,…”

          A grown man talking about bitchers and whiners. This sentence is written by a man involved in an intellectual pursuit?

          Here is your list:

          ‘Bill Hicks became Alex Jones. He’s a conspiracy guy. Controversy swilled about us, but Straight nailed it with a dental analysis.
          Jimi Hendrix became Cornell West. He undermines philosophy. It is his job now.
          Rocker Duane Allman became heavy metal artist Lemmy Kilmister.
          Phil Hartman became Glenn Beck. Acting training taught him to cry on screen.
          Gary Hinman, whose talents were uncertain anyway, became Maury Povich, but I repeat myself.
          Pamela Courson became Barbara Walters, a later-life body switch.
          Brandon DeWilde became Thom Hartmann, who in reality loathes liberals and progressives.
          Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris, the fake Columbine shooters, using fake names (as fake people do), became Matt Stone and Trey Parker, also fake names for the fake creators of South Park. Fake fake fake fake fake!
          Bobby Fuller became Bill O’Reilly, a fake singer turned fake pundit.
          David Box became Charlie Rose, so that the ‘thoughtful’ PBS set is kept in the dark too.
          Bruce Lee became Judge Lance Ito, totaling nailing the part.
          The Janis Joplin twins became the Amy Goodman twins.

          Mark, you even have the temerity to bring the Paul McCartney/ Mike McCartney! twin noise!

          pieceofmindful.com/2016/08/26/…

          Here the link:
          pieceofmindful.com/2016/08/29/…
          You provide photo comparisons elsewhere on your blog as evidence.

          Here is one you gave. You assert Pete Ham became Bill Maher. IMHO, the two images do not match. Neither does Bruce Li and Jusge Ito or Jimi Hendrix and Cornel West, etc. ad nauseum. How do I know they do not match because I can see they do not match.

          What does match is how your provocative assertions about people being replaced, supported with dubious photo evidence is similar to Dallas Goldbug. You are a poor man’s Dallas Goldbug because, like McGowan, and Tom dalpra and Blue Moon, you have no class. You can not disagree without being disagreeable. You can not answer a critic without resorting to profanity and name calling.

          I do not think Dallas Goldbug stoops that low.

          Mark, go back and look at the question I asked Brandon about the woman from the Apple Records/ Paul McCartney camp. McGowan was in contact with the McCartney Machine before Weird Scenes Facebook went online. Either wittingly or unwittingly, McGowan ran interference for Apple, huge cash cow, with the Paul Is Dead/Paul is Alive disinfo.
          And I have already mentioned that MM’s Paul McCarthey/Mike McGear material was filched from a private forum.

          That is how I troll, homes.

          www.urbandictionary.com/define…

          1. tokarski

            Not much to answer there. I sense that if I get into it with you that you have then achieved your purpose. So I choose to talk by you and will not engage you again until you put something answerable up. If you cannot do that, then shut up.

            Anyone reading this, all you have to do is go to my website and review athe evidence for yourself. Please note that we do not seek controversy for its own sake; that we ask readers to replicate our findings on their own, and give them the methods we use. We do not fudge results. We either get a match or not. If not, we set the case aside and move on. That is usually what we end up doing. Success is a rare treat.

            However, where we achieve a match, as with the photo above of Bill Maher and Pete Ham, note that we ve an exact match based on at least seven factors: pupil distance, eyes, eyebrows, mouth, nose, skull shape and shape of chin. Ears are useful too but are often hidden from view on rock stars of days gone by, long hair and all.

            Note that there are variations in all of our faces on each of these features. I use the factor one chance in ten of a matchup, but it is really much more than that. But just using 1 in 10, to get a match on all seven features, as we did on Maher/Ham would be a once one in 10,000,000 (ten to the seventh power).

            That, of course, does not rule,out the possibility of lookalikes, as there are seven billion people on the planet, so conceivably 700 of us could match based in those criteria. But then consider the very narrow population we deal in: “dead” rock star and current TV news personalities, pundits and comedians. Now we are not dealing with 7 billion, but perhaps with a few thousand people who were rock stars who died and those who are current media personalities. Then you will see that a1/10,000,00 shot at a match applied to a very same population, as with Maher/Ham, means we probably have our man.

            For myself, I have no doubt – I do not know how it was done, whether Maher was sent to England for training or whether he is an Americanized Brit. I only know he and Ham are one.

            Again, this response is meant to go by Willard, whose comment above I found wildly accusatory but lacking rigor or any reference to actual evidence. I don’t care if he does not “see” what is before his eyes. Most cannot, frankly, and we discuss that matter as well at the website, as people are possessed of critical thinking skills but are often afraid to use them, instead resorting to trust in authority figures. Trust your eyes and judgment.

            I urge all readers to consult our evidence, weight it, replicate it, consider my math above, and check my credentials. I am real, use my real name, have a real bio, drink water and eat food. I sometimes doubt those things about critics.

    2. UnrealUNreal


      There are many posts by “daddie_o” on the CF thread, needless to say he’s a big supporter of MM.

      It’s actually quite curious how well all of MM’s fans seem to know him despite him being portayed as a recluse savant loner that spend all his time between painting, mathematics and conspiracy theory. As much as MM must be exceptional to maintain all his activities and productivity, so must “daddie_o” to crank out 3-4 hyperrealist paintings a week (yes photorealistic paintings is referred to as the hyperrealist movement in art and they are extremely laborious to execute). As a very productive artist, “daddie_o” would also know there is no way but regular practice when it comes to drawing, which take time and effort.

      Anyhow, if we consider MM as a genius, it would be reassuring if we had examples of his many breakthroughs and verifiable discoveries in his alternative research. As it is now, MM still has not contributed with any breakthrough line of research. Mostly just contributing with older ranting on people that were suspect from before in alt media. I guess the most genius part of MM is having been able to create a fan cult.

      On the cultic appearance of MM, it must also be emphasized that Miles Mathis is suspected of using fake aliases in the past (Steven Oostdijk amongst others) and that all the intrigue around MM’s person/genius is typical of such manipulations* as multiple commentaries from one person trying to garner credibility and attention for his work.

      1. Blue MoonBlue Moon

        UNreal- I’m not daddie_o- I’m Blue Moon/Tyrone- Laborious is a subjective term- BTW, how can you be so intelligent and buy into that flat earth crap? I just can’t feature Langley employing someone with such a tenuous grasp of the English language- But then again, maybe that’s a new wrinkle in troll camouflage- (I hate posting contentious shit)

        1. UnrealUNreal

          @Blue Moon

          In your post you made a citation from “daddie_o”, and in my response i addressed his defense of Miles Mathis. Maybe i misunderstood who was painting 3-4 photorealistic paintings a week? It can take a good month to produce a photorealistic painting by an accomplished artist involved in hyperrealism. If you painted 3-4 photorealistic quality works a week, this is unusually quick.

          If MM can write, paint, research and do science in such an extent, my point is that this is extra-ordinary. We have to believe in exceptions in several fields regarding MM as he flourishes not only in writing, but simultaneously in art and science. I don’t lend credence to the genius theory for MM judging from his alternative research and art. Critics of his self-published science books on Amazon do not seem to be overly enthused either by his endeavors either. I can still understand that you and others believe what we are told by MM and his supporters, although i don’t share that view*.

          I hope i have not claimed to be very smart or exceptional, if so, i take it back.

          The post “Black Frosting” was initially about how MM in his paper dismiss Flat Earth research without any arguments whatsoever. It has become an epidemic to dismiss anyone who question the shape and mechanics of Earth and to label such researchers as “Flat Earthers” with the same conviction “conspiracy theorist” was used in the past. In my opinion, we are lied to on every occasion by the elite be it regarding science, history or current events. Thereby the occam’s razor stand is that we are also lied to regarding our planet and solar system. If i have to be labelled a “Flat Earther” or be ashamed to ask such questions, so be it. And it is so.

          Am i sure the earth is flat? No. But i’m of the opinion we don’t have a valid model of Earth. Researchers that dismiss and name-call others for following alternative research on this subject that i see as fundamental are actually playing nicely along with the agenda as they shut down their inquisitive minds without any tenable proof nor logic.

          There is no 24h HD video from space showing how the continents move with the skies playing above us on an oblate spinning spheroid. There is a good reason for that. The model we are presented is more debatable science and theory with more poor excuses for not delivering any unshakable proof. Just as i’m a “no-planer” regarding 9/11 and “conspiracy theorist” regarding JFK, I’m a “Flat Earther” regarding our planet, plane or whatever we’re living on**. I’ll gladly change my mind when proof of the current model comes forth, but i’m not holding my breath NASA or the Vatican will ever enlighten us***.

          *in the comment-section in the original “Black Frosting” there is more detailed argumentation on why i’m not comfortable with MM’s claims nor his person
          **land surveyors and engineers use ocean level as a flat constant in their calculations
          ***Not Miles Mathis either, despite his physics skills

    3. stephen

      4.bp.blogspot.com/_QPYh2tlcChA…

      “I was cranking out 3-4 photo-realistic canvasses a week” !? Really? How big were they, postage stamps? Do you mean, a sheet of tracing paper and thick marker pens? Or projecting onto surface and daubing in, crudely painting-by-numbers essentially? Why bother?

      Here’s a clip of Peter Blake painting his, “realistic”, portrait of Kendo Nagasaki. The ground outline is a, professionally taken large frame I think, transparency projection. I doubt he churns many of these out a year.

      “Masters of the Canvas Painting”:

      1. Blue MoonBlue Moon

        Let me try this again- Being prolific at something refined is not impossible if you want/need to do it- I focused on still life and portraits, in the range of 9”x12” to 2’x3’- Painting with hand/eye coordination alone is considered by non-painters as “honest” painting- Using tricks to expand inventory and increase speed is considered by the same experience-challenged observers as “cheating”- If you work at something long enough, you will master the craft part of it- The aesthetics is personal and my tastes at the time jibed with many local collectors- This encouragement will also increase output- Greed will refine one’s techniques fast- Artists aren’t enlightened beings, we’re exploiting a super power just like an athlete or a musician- How many baseball players juice? You do what you have to do to feed your creative muse, an entity that has absolutely no morals whatsoever- The sensitive shit has to clamp that beast down- Salvador Dali understood this and did everything he could to leash in his sensitivity- I couldn’t do that- I write books now-

        1. stephen

          Being prolific at something refined is not impossible if you want/need to do it” I agree, and that’s what a machine often does, you switch it on and it churns them out, but that isn’t Art, craft maybe but not Art.

          “Using tricks to expand inventory and increase speed is considered by the same experience-challenged observers as “cheating”” It may well be considered “cheating” by people who have no experience or knowledge of Art, but anyone who has been anywhere near the production of even failed Art knows that “tricks” are valid tools like brushes, paint, recording tape or pens for example.

          “If you work at something long enough, you will master the craft part of it” No you wont if you are stupid or cack-handed, talentless. For the same reasons, at least, this isn’t true either “Greed will refine one’s techniques fast”.

          “Artists aren’t enlightened beings”. A lot of them are, the long-long journey of true artistic creation, more often than not I suspect, leads to deeper understanding, hence various enlightenment. You wont be an Artist if you don’t see clearer than non-artists; that’s why society encourages and supports Art.

          Equating athletics and baseball with Art? I don’t think you have ever knowingly produced any Art, it is not a sport. Wrestling could be considered an art, perhaps you meant to say that, or Ballet maybe?

          Peter Blake mentioned Mcmanus, in clip I posted above, he was well known to me as a child, “World Of Sport – Mick Mcmanus Vs. Catweazle (1975)”:
          www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_PFJM…

          Ballet? “THE MOST HILARIOUS WRESTLING MATCH EVER !”:
          www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFdpXC…

          I have some doubts that the person presented as Francis Bacon actually painted the pictures attributed to him but I still rate them who ever put paint to canvas:
          www.rudedo.be/amarant06/wp-con…

          “You do what you have to do to feed your creative muse, an entity that has absolutely no morals whatsoever”. True up to a point, but most of the time an artist is simply working, the Muse inspires relatively briefly, the artist then laboriously depicts, defines, realises that inspiration, and too perhaps searches for the Muse again.

          “Salvador Dali understood this and did everything he could to leash in his sensitivity”. If I understand correctly, I don’t think that is true. Dali’s “paranoiac-critical method. He employed it in the production of paintings and other artworks, especially those that involved optical illusions and other multiple images. The technique consists of the artist invoking a paranoid state”

          “The Paranoiac-critical method… According to Dali by simulating paranoia one can systematically undermine one’s rational view of the world… The point is to persuade oneself or others of the authenticity of these transformations in such a way that the ‘real’ world from which they arise loses its validity. The mad logic of Dali’s method leads to a world seen in continuous flux…”

          languageisavirus.com/articles/…
          =============================================================
          On Miley Mathis, I took UNreal’s suggestion and looked at “his self-published science books on Amazon”.

          “When I stumbled across Mathis’ stuff online I just had to show the other folks at the physics department. Not because it was insightful, oh no. My interest was piqued in the same way that a really poorly made movie can be worth watching just for the laughs. The guy is a complete crank. Some of his “papers” may fool the average non-scientific reader who stumbles across his ramblings, but thankfully he’s seen fit to include multiple claims absurd enough to give pause to even the most scientifically illiterate, for instance, that pi=4, or that he has proven wrong every mathematician since Euclid.
          Although this doesn’t relate to his book specifically, it is worth noting that his online presence isn’t limited to posting pseudoscience. Anytime someone has drawn attention to Mathis’ site (usually to laugh at him), the Mathis “supporters” (read: aliases) are never far behind, writing in the same style as Mathis, and having an impeccable knowledge of Mathis very extensive works. He even admits to using multiple pen-names on his own site. I mention this only to warn people that the 5-star reviews of his book are very likely written by Mathis himself. For instance, Steven Oostdijk is a known Mathis alias. If any of the positive reviews for this collection of nonsense are actually written by sincerely impressed readers, I’ll not only be surprised, but I’d feel quite sad for that person.
          Becoming scientifically literate is a great aspiration, but don’t be suckered by an opportunistic crank looking to offer the easy way out by claiming that everything from particle physics to astrophysics to integral calculus can be done using only high school math. If you’re looking to learn, look elsewhere than this self-aggrandizing, pseudoscientific blowhard. If you’re looking to laugh, look no further than this self-aggrandizing, pseudoscientific blowhard.”

          “All you need to do is search the Thunderbolts Forum. Over the course of two years (Aug 2, 2008 to Sept 20, 2010), StevenO posted a staggering 893 comments. It’s a veritable gold mine of material that can be sifted through and directly compared to Mathis’ philosophy and writing style.

          During the first year (pre-Mathis website and book), StevenO uses the Thunderbolts Forum as a sounding board; he is flushing out his ideas that will later become the Mathis theories. This material is particularly interesting since it pre-dates Mathis. In it you will find StevenO discussing all the topics that Mathis will later write articles about: time, charge, spin, gravity, relativity, etc. Also, you will find all the overused phrases, such as ‘fudge’, ‘straw man’, ‘red herring’, ‘ad hominem attack’, as well as references to peer review, thought control, conspiracies, and quotes from philosophers; it’s all there; pre-Mathis.

          Then in the second year, it is StevenO who proudly announces the birth of a new website (July 2009); Miles Mathis has sprung to life, and lo and behold, all of his articles are the very topics that StevenO just spent the previous year discussing. Shazam! And from this point forward, all of his comments become Mathis this, and Mathis that (literally hundreds of times).

          Later that same year, Steven Oostdijk submits an article into the FQXI essay contest (Oct 2009). The article is nothing more than an advertisement for the Mathis website. Oostdijk even admits that it was a joint effort: “It was indeed written with cooperation from Miles. You can say the storyline is mine while most physical content is from Miles.”

          The essay is then followed by the publication of the first book (June 2010). Oostdijk spends that summer relentlessly trolling the internet; parroting Mathis monotonously and groveling for handouts: “please feed the web-kitty”.

          By now the critics have come crawling out of the woodwork and Oostdijk is given a severe dressing-down. And how does he respond to the harsh criticism leveled at the book and website? This way: “You must read the entire 1500 pages to understand… blah, blah, blah.” Sound familiar?

          At this point things begin to spiral out of control. Oostdijk can’t post a comment anywhere without either being heckled or dubbed a Mathis sockpuppet (Oct 2010).

          In the fall of 2010, Oostdijk, now under intense scrutiny, wisely turns tail and lowers the “Cone of Silence”. Coincidently, the very same month that Oostdijk clams up (Nov 2010), a new blog is launched: Sagacity’s Sentinel.

          Over the last two years, Oostdijk has scarcely uttered a word. Here is one of his last comments before disappearing:

          “I was the first in the world to order the book and read all the articles on his website several times… if you want to save money no need to buy the book, but you could consider making a donation to the ‘save the artists’ fund.” — Steven Oostdijk”:

          www.amazon.com/gp/customer-rev…

          Lot’s more enlightening comments to “The Un-Unified Field: And Other Problems”:
          www.amazon.com/Unified-Field-O…

          Perhaps Miley’s “The Incorporation of Light” has something to enlighten many in Truther World?

          “This book is written for those who never attended high school (the target audience), and know very little about math and science; which is ideal, because neither does Miles Mathis. The book is just a collection of random thoughts that pop into authors head that he writes down and posts at his website. He then periodically gathers these web postings together into his so-called books, and tries to pawn them off as legitimate science. But there isn’t any substance to it; just long-winded, incoherent navel-gazing.”

          “He is not a scientist or a mathematician but merely an amateur who seems to resent his work being rejected for publications in peer-reviewed journals, hence his constant trashing of actual scientists.
          Mathis avoids all possibility of having his ideas tested and deliberately writes articles and books targeting people who have no grounding in math or science. He criticizes scientists and mathematicians to an audience which is not equipped to fact check his claims, then goes on to substitute his baseless theories as being actual science.
          The reason he can’t get his work peer-reviewed is not because all scientists and mathematicians are corrupt, it is because Mathis’ work is a collection pseudoscientific nonsense, misinformation and bad math.

          Mathis apparently knows none of his theories are valid. That’s why he won’t test them.”:

          www.amazon.com/Incorporation-L…

          1. daddie_o

            Ugh, I hate how these people always seem to manage to drag me down into the sewer and waste my time with this BS. I’m going to hold my nose. Here we go:

            I have never met Miles, and all my conclusions about him are based on a very thorough reading (often multiple times) of his work, including his work in physics. And that is why I’m chiming in here – to respond to the lame copy-paste of that drivel from Amazon. When I first started to really grasp the depth and scope of Miles’s physics, I was really floored. I thought it was amazing. Miles presents his thoughts and conclusions in such a logical and concise manner. He makes it simple without being simplistic.

            But I’ll have to admit: I don’t have a degree in physics, though I could have easily pursued a career in the natural sciences had I wanted to. So I doubted my own ability to assess the validity of the work, even though it is expressed with such straight-forward clarity (and incredible wit – I found myself laughing longer and harder than when reading his conspiracy stuff). So what did I do? I went on line to find out what “other people” thought about his work. I even hoped to find an “expert” opinion. But instead I mostly found things like the amazon reviews trashing his work. I started to really doubt my ability to assess his work. I then tried posting about his (physics) work in a few places on the internet, and lo and behold: posters would just come out of the woodwork to trash him. Within minutes they would start to bring up some topic or other of his (not related to the original post) to try to discredit him. The most common one is “he says Pi=4, WTF?” And I admit it sounds so preposterous when put like that it can’t possibly be right. But the argument is far more nuanced.

            But something one commenter said somewhere reminded me of the Amazon review you linked to. But in my case this person said they pass the paper around in their math department for a good laugh. What I finally started to realize is that the effort to discredit him is coordinated. People just come out of the woodwork on random forums with surprising familiarity with his work (or at least the lines they’re supposed to use to talk about his work). We’re seeing it here and on CF. The attacks have a very similar pattern. 99% of the time there is no substance. It is all geared to make you feel silly and small for being hoodwinked by this ‘crackpot.’ Nobody likes to be laughed at, and if you hear that knowledgeable experts are laughing at Miles’s work, then by god you don’t want them laughing at you. Notice that the reviews Stephen posted here have no substance to them. It’s all about appeals to authority and a other tricks pulled out of a Rhetoric 101 class. It’s very effective. I almost abandoned my faith in my own critical thinking skills. But then I realized how coordinated it is, and I thought, “they wouldn’t be going to so much trouble to discredit him if he wasn’t onto something.” And he is. He’s onto something big. As much as some people think his conspiracy work is huge, let me tell you that it pales in comparison to his work in physics and its potential. It is one of the reasons I have as much esteem for him as I do.

            Three last things:
            1. Miles doesn’t have the means to test his theories, but he has proposed several ways in which they might be tested. However his work is consistent with existing experiments and he is able to make sense of puzzling findings the mainstream cannot. I take that as strong empirical support.

            2. Steve Oostdijk is not a Miles sockpuppet or alias. He’s an electrical engineer working in the semiconductor industry in the Netherlands. You can find him on Linked In and Facebook. He is currently a moderator of a facebook page devoted to Miles’s physics. It’s ‘Miles Mathis Revolution.’ The page has over 200 members. There is a “companion site” at milesmathis.the-talk.net/

            3. And finally, Miles’s first book was published with the encouragement of an actual astrophysicist at Johns Hopkins, Dr. Tahir Yaqoob, PhD, who wrote the preface. He is not the only ‘expert’ who would confirm Miles’s contributions. Of course, it would be wrong to make an ‘appeal to authority’ when I’ve just finished saying that such cheap tricks won’t cut it. So I won’t make that appeal, but the point is that I could if I wanted to. I simply recommend making an assessment for yourself. And if you don’t feel capable, you should still try. And if you don’t succeed, then I think the best is not to take advice from anonymous Amazon reviewers.

            1. stephen

              Daddy Oh-Dear if you “hate how these people always seem to manage to drag me down into the sewer and waste my time with this BS”, why have you chosen to write 851 words in rebuttal? It seems the behaviour of someone silly enough to call themselves daddie_o.

              Is this the encouraging “Dr. Tahir Yaqoob, PhD”?
              heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/bio…

              If so, has Doc Encouragement introduced Magnificant Mathis to any of those lads that wandered around the moon?

              Miles also plays on this “One for Daddy-O”:
              www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2xx3Y…

              Remember children “He makes it simple without being simplistic.”!

              1. daddie_o

                I guess the only explanation is that I care about the truth and abhor deception, lies and false rumors. Unlike you.

                Yes, that is the same Dr. Yaqoob. He’s an astrophycist at Johns Hopkins who analyzes data from x-ray telescopes and is affiliated with NASA. I agree that he should be viewed with some skepticism for that reason alone. But on the other hand NASA is an enormous organization, with the vast majority of people working there undoubtedly unaware of the moon landing shenanigans. You have heard of compartmentalization, haven’t you? Actually, no need to answer as I’m done quite with this exchange.

                Thanks for the youtube link. At least I can’t fault your taste in music.

                1. stephen

                  Oh dear, there you go again, “Actually, no need to answer as I’m done quite with this exchange.” So Dad why the reply to me? Again? Why ask me a question then immediately tell me not to answer it? If it’s a waste of your time just ignore me. But no you keep coming back, giving me another opportunity to have another pop at you!

                  Carl G Jung Theory: Psychological Projection:
                  www.youtube.com/watch?v=FjqhVC…

                  “I guess the only explanation is that I care about the truth and abhor deception, lies and false rumors. Unlike you.” What can I say? Takes one to know one? But, you are wrong again. And that’s why I’m keeping at you and your ridiculous, transparently disingenuous, promotion of Mighty Mathis.

                  This is one of my favourite bits from your previous post – it’d be wrong to do it, so I will, then say I haven’t but add I could!

                  “He is not the only ‘expert’ who would confirm Miles’s contributions. Of course, it would be wrong to make an ‘appeal to authority’ when I’ve just finished saying that such cheap tricks won’t cut it. So I won’t make that appeal, but the point is that I could if I wanted to.”

                  You’re either a reasonably clever clown or a wonderful example of Spazmolodicus.

                  www.urbandictionary.com/define…

          2. Blue MoonBlue Moon

            You say tomato, I say the process is the art- The people that believe art is some higher state of being made manifest are the ones who empty their wallets to buy that manifestation- If that’s what they need, I’m not going to burst their bubble- But it is work- Fun work, but intense labor that comes from conscious resolve as well as inspiration- And let’s be honest, modern art is basically shit, so anyone doing realistic art has to love it for its own sake because it won’t sell nearly as well as sponsored work by intel funded arts associations and their attendant publications- Its a labor of love that sometimes pays-
            I have no interest in Miles’ science stuff-

            1. stephen

              “The King Of Comedy – Trailer – HQ – (1983)”:
              www.youtube.com/watch?v=bUhDp0…

              Blue Moon you say you’re a writer now? Why is your orthography so terrible? “Say tomato” all you like but judging by what else you’ve said in this thread I think your painting was as poor as your punctuation. Though perhaps like you say, who am I to”burst their bubble”, Buddy Love Makes His Debut!:
              www.youtube.com/watch?v=Etshli…

              “… process is the art” is just the sort of thing people who aren’t much good at producing works of Art say to excuse their crappy productions.

              “… modern art is basically shit”. No it isn’t. Some is and some isn’t. You sound like the little-minded-angry-bitter semi-educated that fill up comments under a Daily Mail or Daily Express article.

              “… anyone doing realistic art has to love it for its own sake because it won’t sell…” I presume by “realistic” you mean realism? Hockney, Freud, Bacon, Blake, Balthus are all modern realist painters that sell. The more obscure Andrew Wyeth and Anthony Green for example also sell, are they “intel funded” too?

              Here’s a tiny look at a tiny bit of the process behind making Art, “A Shot At The Top: The Making Of The King Of Comedy”:

              1. Blue MoonBlue Moon

                “Stephen”- What exactly are you arguing for? I had two eggs over easy for breakfast this morning- Care to comment? The fact that I didn’t have them poached means, what, I can’t read? Or clip my toe nails? I don’t see the logic in your blathering so I’m going to let you nit pick other postings- I have a life in progress and must tend to it-

                1. stephen

                  dyk.homestead.com/files/real42…

                  “I have a life in progress and must tend to it-“. That old chestnut again, I luvit! Well Bluey, don’t waste your precious time with me-n-me-nit-pickings, surely you’ve got some books to write or old-time-realistic paintings to gift humanity with? Or some faces to split by The Mighty Infallible Method!

                  “What exactly are you arguing for?” Because I enjoy it? I like irritating you, picking apart your overblown assertions.

                  “Andy Hodgson remembers Nitty Nora on Bid TV”:

          3. stephen

            “Mathis apparently knows none of his theories are valid. That’s why he won’t test them”

            “Chattanooga Choo Choo – The Andrews Sisters”:
            www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwcNg0…

            “I guess some people believe Mathis when he says he’s a physicist, so they probably also believe he knows what contemporary physicists do. But in my experience, someone who calls himself a physicist or architect or engineer, who never studied the subject in college, generally isn’t one.”

            Someone posted a very recent Math-Is-Proof vid in the Chattango-Choo-Choo, “For circular motion does PI equal 4?”:
            www.youtube.com/watch?v=5c79mh…

            ” [3 years ago] You may be interested to know that Miles Mathis recently doubled down on his pi = 4 nonsense, having discovered a 19th-century curiosity known as taxicab geometry or the “Manhattan metric,” in which distance is measured only along orthogonal axes such as X and Y. Well, of course “pi” “equals” 4 in this imaginary scenario — where true circles and orbits with constant centripetal acceleration are impossible — but this made-up geometry doesn’t apply to anything in the real world besides taxis and Manhattan. Mathis says “contemporary physicists often use the Manhattan distance or metric when they get in a jam, especially at the quantum level,” which is a complete lie. (That’s on top of the fact that orbital mechanics, where Mathis claims that pi really does equal 4, is nothing like a “quantum level” situation.) I challenge anyone to find a case where this mathematical phrenology is used to get out of any kind of jam, let alone that it could possibly apply to an orbiting body experiencing a constant centripetal acceleration.”:
            www.amazon.com/gp/customer-rev…

            Don’t claim to understand it much but here’s a page showing “How to convince a layman that the ?=4 proof is wrong?”:
            math.stackexchange.com/questio…

            “I would actually try to topple their intuition with Koch’s snowflake. After that they will understand how much they don’t understand, well usually”

            Kids today? Think they know everything! “The Koch Snowflake”:
            www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0rz5l…

            “Rhapsody on the Proof of Pi = 4”:
            www.youtube.com/watch?v=D2xYji…

            From the comments to above:
            “Pi does not equal 4 because no matter how many times you “fold” the perimeter in on itself, it will still have edges, and is therefore not a circle…”

            “Ohoho, but the square cannot, in fact, infinitely fold its corners inward, as soon as the length of each fold is 1 planck length they cannot get smaller, if we are talking about a theoretical physical object. If this is purely mathematical, then yes it can infinitely fold, but if this is a physical thing then we find a limit, and because there is a limit, there cannot be any true mathematical circles in reality as their curve would have points less than 1 planck length apart. In the real world, roundness is limited to the plank length, and thus any physical circle that could be created to such precision is in fact just a square with folded corners! Pi does equal 4!?”

            “Yes, but “a circle” itself cannot exist in the real world. Also, in the video we were given two examples, one with a circle and the other with a triangle. In the first example, the peaks became a bow, and in the second it became a straight line, if we consider that the peaks CAN fold into them. But still that is impossible. A curve is not a line, to create a curve, the angle of each peak won’t be 90 degrees and thus this proof is false. And because the figure you get from folding the peaks, even to 1 plank length is not a circle, we cannot say that pi = 4, because pi can only be used in a circle.”

            “Yes, I can imagine a perfect circle but no such thing can physically exist in reality. I was really just making a joke as the pi=4 proof has no real practical application even though it is technically true of any physical circle that could exist, as a physical circle’s precision is limited and can never be truly “round”. It’s meaningless to consider as macroscopic objects don’t care about quantum-scale precision.?”

            “It has no practical application, and it can’t be true, either.?”

            “Planck units”:
            en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_u…

            “There is currently no proven physical significance of the Planck length; it is, however, a topic of theoretical research. Since the Planck length is so many orders of magnitude smaller than any current instrument could possibly measure, there is no way of examining it directly.”

            1. stephen

              I doubt there is still anyone here buying into the Math-Is-Myth, but if so this should pull you up short, what a prat:
              mileswmathis.com/me.html

              I laughed, out loud. Not just because he looks a total twat, I doubt it’s him-it, but the painting is so very-very-very awful, if you can’t see that then just accept the word of those who know more than you, it is truly amateur… not the work of, ho-ho-ho, genius! Even the framing is the work of a joke shop, far-far too narrow. They are having us on. A thought… he-it’s done Art, Physics, Conspiracy, where next to find The Gullible? Religion possibly; Math-Is-Saviour? Miles Cums Again? I can’t wait. “The Who: I Can See for Miles Lyrics”:
              www.youtube.com/watch?v=ft1C0f…

              Moving on, Truther World is full of people who fit much of these descriptions of Brand Mathis:

              “Unbelievable, absolutely gob-smacking Unbelievable. I’ve had a quick look at Mathis’ work and yes it’s gobbledegook (As if I even needed to say that). However, I did wonder if he is cynically bating established science and knows that he is simply pushing nonsense using (in his own words) “for the most part.. high school level algebra”. But although he is a dissenter and doesn’t believe established science he really does believe in himself. As is so often the case, the ego is the key. You might win the argument but you won’t win him – his ego is so big that you may as well attack a death star with a paper dart. In studying Mathis works you are not so much studying science but studying the world of Mathis, which of course is what the cosmos is all about as far as he’s concerned.
              Trouble is, Marhis is likely to pick up disaffected anti-scientific establishment people out there for whom modern science has gone right over the horizon and for whom the use of elementary algebra will appeal. It is Mathis’s ironic opinion that: “Simple math ….. cannot be used as ballast, as misdirection, or as obfuscation.” (!!!)

              Mathis is a terrible time waster and attention seeker.”

              “Mathis is so inconsistent that it can be difficult to argue against him. He says a radius is a velocity, so you demonstrate this makes no sense. Not to worry he says, you misunderstood, the radius is an acceleration. Again you demonstrate this makes no sense. Not to worry he says, the velocity of the radius = velocity of the circumference (apparently this is a postulate in his little world). Again you demonstrate this makes no sense. Not to worry he says, since in the history of man he is the only one to have the mental ability to truly understand these problems it is not surprising that your simple mind cannot comprehend the complexity of his genius. Go home and play with some lego.”

              “He has a sort of answer for it… It’s based on a rather arrogant and pig-ignorant hand-wave about engineering.

              See, engineers don’t need to actually understand what they’re doing. They just do whatever-the-fuck works. So when things don’t work the way they want them to, they just add slop factors for error correction until they work. So, hidden in the manufacturing process for those round parts (and in the computation process for satellites, airplane routes, paving requirements for traffic circles, etc.) is a slop factor which, if extracted, would prove that the computation is really using \(pi=4\).

              Don’t let the fact that slop-factors like that don’t exist worry you. Nor should you worry about the fact that slop-factors like that wouldn’t work. Because the only reason that you believe that those things don’t work is because you don’t understand that the circumference is a velocity squared.

              See how easy it is to argue when you’re a crackpot?”

              “I appreciate the comments concerning Mathis and his bizarre mistakes in science and mathematics. But this faux renaissance man fumbles about in several fields, including art. He is a critic and an artist but he seems to do very little painting and sculpture, preferring instead to criticize other artists with a bitterness which hints at something deeply resentful in his nature. He pretends not to want material success but his virulent rants against gifted artists whose work is eagerly purchased by collectors give the lie to this.”

              “The following is a collection of quips and witticisms [a best of] taken directly from the Miles Mathis web site:

              “that solution looks like a fudge”
              “fudged from top to bottom”
              “a big fudge”
              “a blatant fudge”
              “a clear fudge”
              “a double and triple fudge”
              “a flagrant fudge”
              “a further fudge”
              “a highly successful fudge”
              “a horrible fudge”
              “a magnificent fudge”
              “a major fudge”
              “a massive fudge”
              “a mathematical fudge”
              “a new fudge”
              “a non-mechanical fudge”
              “a purposeful fudge”
              “a triple-decker fudge”
              “a virtual fudge”
              “embarrassing fudges”
              “the biggest cheats and fudges”
              “have to be fudged”
              “they had to be fudged”
              “is a fudge”
              “was just a fudge”
              “to fudge later”
              “fudged and false”
              “fudged as well”
              “both illegal and a fudge”
              “that manipulation was a fudge”
              “full of fudges”
              “must be fudged”
              “this is just one more fudge”
              “fudged corrections”
              “forced to fudge”
              “talk about a fudge”
              “to fudge over”
              “all the fudges”
              “the barycenter fudge”
              “the spring tide fudge”
              “the standard model fudge”
              “repeating a fudge”
              “to be fudged”
              “based on a fudge”
              “pushes and fudges”
              “an excuse to fudge”
              “correct their fudge”
              “fudge the math”
              “the moon’s orbit is fudged”
              “the whole thing is a fudge”
              “room to fudge”
              “forced to fudge”
              “fudged data”
              “that is a fudge”
              “there is even more fudge”
              “big fudged equations”
              “fudge any equation”
              “fudge your math”
              “another fudge”
              “remove all the fudge”
              “you fudge your fudge”
              “refudging the old fudges”
              “just one more fudge”

              This is only a partial list; there are many more!”

              “Grandiose Crackpottery Proves Pi=4”:
              goodmath.scientopia.org/2010/1…

  3. tokarski

    Mathis mentioned during the conference that he had been approached by Jim Fetzer to do an interview, and turned him down. Smart move, as Fetzer is not trustworthy, in my view, most likely a Spook.

    But Mathis knew little of Fetzer (who will someday die in the middle of a long, long sentence). He generally shuns interviews because people can pick and choose and reshape them to fit their own agendas. What you need to know about him is contained in his written words.

    I listened for substantial criticism of Mathis in your show. There was precious little of merit. You’re suspicious of his voluminous output. I am not. Anyone who writes a lot and has experienced thinking with one’s fingers understands that his output is a natural product of a facile mind.

    1. Vespadouglas

      It’s a bit odd that you call him “Mathis ”

      “What you need to know about him is contained in his written words”. That sounds like a Sunday sermon.
      Are you a Christian tokarski?

Leave a Reply