Allan says Miles Mathis is cointelpro 

like this

Allan says MM is made in the Queen’s backyard. How much of MM is truth and how much is fiction? 

I’ve been itching to press on to this web character ‘Miles Mathis’ and, interestingly, ‘Miles’ himself has provided a direct segue. Last week he posted an ‘outing’ of the same two alt media figures I covered in my last post, David Weiss and Sofia Smallstorm; 

blog.banditobooks.com…

7 thoughts on “Allan says Miles Mathis is cointelpro 

  1. joshg

    An Open Letter to AllanCW:

    Hi Allan,

    I want to preface my remarks by saying that I’ve enjoyed reading your blog. You’ve made some interesting points that I completely agree with. To give two examples: the importance of understanding how involved the media were in manufacturing the 9/11 myth and the deeply, fundamentally corrupted nature of mainstream science.

    But I find your crusade against Miles to be misguided. And frankly many of your arguments just don’t wash. Now if I wanted to follow your method I’d say that because I find many of your arguments specious, it means you’re trying to use NLP to convince me that Miles is an LH when he’s really not. But based on what I’ve read of your work, I don’t think that’s true—although I admit you’ve got a lot of what Miles would call ‘red flags’ in your bio. But I chalk it up to sour grapes. You wanted to come to Miles’s conference and he slammed the door in your face, so to speak. He said you’d ask questions no one would want to hear and be disruptive. So in the first case he doesn’t find what you do very interesting, which has got to sting. And as for being disruptive, well, you did write a book about yourself called “Can’t You Get Along with Anyone?” Is it any wonder he might think you’d be hard to get along with?

    So let’s take a look at your arguments against him, starting with the weakest one, which appears in Part II of your open letter:

    As background, it should be noted that you boasted that you don’t post much but when you do “it’s on the money.” You said that his “Paper Updates” are identical to the previous drafts. “In other words, his boasting on new information is totally bogus.” I literally did a face palm when I read that. The reason they are identical is that both the original links and the updated links point to the same document. You see, he doesn’t put up a new document with a new name for each update. He simply updates the paper, saves it with the same name, and uploads the new document as a replacement for the old one. So when you click on the original document, it links you to the updated one. You do understand how these things work, don’t you? Yes, you should. You seem to be pretty computer savvy. Plus, if you’ve ever read through one of his papers before the update (as I have on many occasions), then after the update, you can very clearly see the new information (which he always puts in [brackets] with the date of the update).

    Now, if I were to use your “method” of deduction, I would say something like this: there is no possible way that this Allan character (or whoever the jokers are on the Weisbecker committee) could have made this mistake. He’s (they’re?) always telling us how careful he is and how it takes him forever to post because he waits until he’s absolutely sure and “on the money.” Plus he’s obviously very savvy with computers, having edited many videos on his own computer. He has his own website! This can’t possibly be an honest mistake. There is no way he could be that stupid. He’s clearly using deceit and NLP to make us think that Miles is deceiving us on that. No, it’s obvious to me now (although it took me awhile to suck in my gut and admit it to myself), that he’s LH. But why? Why the bald-faced lies?

    Almost all of your other criticism chalks up to: I don’t agree with him or I think his argument is specious, therefore he is using NLP and trying to misdirect. Can you see how the conclusion doesn’t really follow from the premises? What a non sequitur it is? (Miles tried to show you that in his “beautiful logic” response to you, but it obviously didn’t sink in.)
    I just caught you lying to your readers, but even so I’m willing to (tentatively) give you the benefit of the doubt and chalk it up to an honest mistake. You seem to think Miles is infallible and therefore any sign of fallibility is clearly a sign of misdirection. That’s a pretty high bar and one that you’ve just hit your head on in an unforced error, ya dingus!
    You say that he must know why the JFK assassination was hoaxed, and is just misdirecting on the reasons why. Again, it’s a non sequitur. Why should he know? You might disagree with his argument about the motives for it (as I do), but that doesn’t mean he’s trying to misdirect. In all your flailing and finger-pointing, did you offer us a better idea of what the motive is? Instead of just saying: “I disagree, here’s why, and here’s a better hypothesis” all you can do is shout “NLP!” and dance around pointing fingers.

    The real irony, though, is that you take his inability to provide a convincing motive for the JFK assassination as evidence of misdirection, while you yourself offer up not a single argument about what Miles’s motives are in his misdirection. You say his genealogy work is bunk and his focus on Jews is unimportant. So if you think he’s pointing us in the wrong direction, can you tell us what he’s misdirecting us away from? Or, as you did with Corbett, what lies he is trying to get us to unthinkingly accept? If you’re so far ahead of us, why don’t you tell us what his motive is? And if you can’t or if I disagree with you, then by your standards that means you must be a LH.

    Same thing with your arguments about what you call his “guilt by association” tactics, his faulty inferences about genealogy, and most of your other criticisms as well. You’re grasping at straws, which you take as “big clues” (although you don’t necessarily call them that), and then have the temerity to say that Miles is a LH because he does the same. It would be far more constructive, and in my view, to engage in a substantive critique. It is actually possible to disagree with someone and tell them “I think you’re wrong about this” without saying “therefore you’re obviously an LH engaged in NLP.” That would actually be far more interesting. And mature.

    As for Clues Forum, I agree they’re a limited hangout and part of what I call “operation fantasy land.” Flat Earth is part of operation fantasy land. You noted the CF position that rockets don’t work in a vacuum, which is based on a complete misunderstanding of how rockets work. One could perhaps chalk it up to an honest mistake, except that it has been explained to them very clearly ad nauseum. Yet they still “don’t get it.” Well in my view it’s not just a fluke. They appear to be engaged in a slightly more sophisticated form of the ‘flat earth’ psyop. I was kicked off of CF for defending Miles’s argument that you have to assign Pi the value of 4 in kinematic situations. (I was the one who did a word count to show you that his output, although exceptional, is far from “impossible.”) But your attacks on them are completely irrelevant to Miles. What, because you don’t agree with their criticism of Miles it’s evidence that they are colluding with him? Come on! They have trashed him and his work every which way and left. By the way, your time would be better spent reading Miles’s work on physics than coming up with a hatful of specious and tenuous (and disingenuous?) arguments for why he’s an LH.
    Your pinpointing of his British-isms is probably the best argument you have, but that’s not saying much. It’s still very tenuous. I used the word dingus earlier. Does that mean I’m Australian? Yes, it’s true that you wouldn’t expect someone from Texas to use those colloquialisms, but the words “nobody from Texas would” could be used to describe most other things about Miles. He’s very unique, to say the least. And not just for a Texan. If you’ve read his poetry, you will see that he has a very broad vocabulary. So I don’t find it impossible to believe that he peppers his language with British slang. And if he has spent time with British people in the past, he might have picked up on a few expressions. It seems to me to be just as plausible that it is a quirk—even if he is from Texas.

    I could go on and enumerate other problems with your argument and provide you will all the other evidence I have and reasons I believe that he is NOT an LH. (Though of course I cannot rule out the possibility). I could also go on and dissect your arguments to expose the “hidden” workings of NLP. But I think I’ve made my point, and I’ve got better things to do.

    Happy Trails,

    Josh G (aka daddie_o or daddieuhoh)

    1. joshg

      One more thing: you repeat again and again in the Part II post that nobody on the Clues Forum thread addressed your argument about the microphone shadow. (Frankly I’m still confused about what your argument is as to why he didn’t point that out.) But that’s also not true. In this comment I wrote:

      “And as for the microphone shadow, I’m not convinced you’re right, mainly because it’s a bit difficult to say exactly what position the mic is in. If you look at the shadow cast by Jack Ruby, it goes behind him and to the right. Well the shadow is also behind the mic and to the right. The angle looks a little off, but it’s hard to say for sure given that the location of the mic vis-a-vis the lights is hard to triangulate. But if it’s off, it’s only a little bit off. Maybe MM didn’t answer you because he also didn’t think you were right.

      “If you’re right, then it’s hard to say why someone would have added that in there. Your conclusion is that it is a sign that the clues pointing towards a hoax were placed deliberately for us to think the event was hoaxed when in fact it was real. In other words, you’re saying the hoax is a hoax. I suppose it’s possible, but I doubt it. If it was indeed pasted in, I would guess it’s one of those little details they’ve added to troll us. They love trolling us.”

      Do you realize how badly you’ve torpedoed your credibility with these demonstrably false accusations? Why should anybody believe any claim you make if you can’t get basic facts straight?

      Or as you would say: Your claim that nobody ever addressed the microphone shadow is another lie. But why, Allan, why the bald-faced lie?

    2. brandon

      Miles mentions, in the bio on his site (as well as in several of his papers) that he lived/travelled in Europe for a time, including London. This could possibly explain how someone born and raised in Texas could potentially pick up some British expressions.

  2. vexman

    You can’t be serious with this attempt at logic. I won’t even go into your attempt here as I was actively present at Cluesforum when you were trying to show something that just doesn’t exist, accusing Simon along with everybody else of some heavy stuff. With no arguments beside your opinion and feelings, like a true reasonable sceptic, in your belief I’d presume.

    His email reply, on which you’ve based your entire assumption of Mathis within some Cointelpro nonsense, is exactly what anybody capable of some common sense could de-cypher. ‘Because I don’t know everything I am a limited hangout? Beautiful logic. ‘ -> it means literally what it is supposed to mean. Out of everything written in his monumental deconstruction of single event, you are able to pick on one of his assumptions by demanding an absolute answer to it. Shadow or no shadow government as a consequence of Kennedy family’s fake murders, the point of that particular essay was that nobody was killed on 11/22 1963. Have you ever read anything like that before in your life? Have you thought about something that yourself before reading it? Sure you did.

    Your argument to accuse Mathis is nonsensical already here, but you develop your “case” further with asserting meaning to that particular Mathis’ email reply, saying that his reply does bear the meaning, quoting your wording here: “….that he doesn’t know why all these Kennedys faked their deaths…., is… as I say, balderdash of the first order.. He did assert a thesis about it, didn’t he? And he asserted such thesis that took your breath away, didn’t he, by saying they’ve transferred into some shadow government by faking their deaths. If you’re not within such shadow government yourself (which I claim you’re ost certainly not), how could you even negate his assertion that it exists? Moreover, how do you see possible to argue such personal opinion (!)? By asking why such transfer to shadow government should be executed in such manner? Well, brilliant logic, indeed.

    By the way, do you have a better thesis about all faked deaths, JFK included? If you did, let’s presume, have such thesis, I really wonder if you as well had enough balls to publish it.

  3. xileffilex

    HaHa MM is a Brit operation. I buy the analysis. Unsurprising. His “papers” have the look of something from Robert Maxwell’s Pergamon Press.

Leave a Reply