Black Frosting 

Be the 1st to vote.

M2 fans may be happy to note that Miles Mathis says that the earth is flat meme is a to discredit debunkers.

He also calls out Russianvids as the most popular baker on the topic. 


 Here is the project: they want to make you think that the only people questioning or exposing NASA or

SpaceX are Flat Earthers or other obvious kooks. So they surround any real analysis with tons of fake

analysis that resembles the real analysis in most ways. They then add a layer of black frosting to the

fake analysis. This frosting is now most often stuff, but it could be a frosting of

promotion or Satanism or anything else that most people find a complete turn-off. Most people will

then refuse the cake because of the frosting. They will refuse the Flat Earth, and in doing so will refuse

the exposing of SpaceX or NASA.

No tags for this post.

77 thoughts on “Black Frosting 

  1. Allan Weisbecker

    I find ‘Miles Mathis’ — whoever/whatever ‘he’ is — to be an intensely interesting entity. My interest and observations got me banned from CF yesterday (or the day before) when I came to the evidenced-based conclusion that CF, like MM, is likely an op. One of the interesting aspects of my experience is Simon Shack’s behavior. In a post, he reproduced a private email I sent him and simultaneously banned me from replying. (The email was sarcastic; I sent it to him privately b/c he was so silent on the thread. The ‘PS’ is pure irony. That Shack would do this — using my real name, etc. — tells me a lot about him. Too much… [yes, I don’t make my name a secret but that is not the point.]

    I’ll paste in my last post, before being banned.

    I’m not going to suggest anything to slant anyone’s views — odds are that everyone will remember and react to only that which supports his/her already existing view. This is human nature, not an insult directed at anyone here. But I would suggest that the reader ask him/herself ‘is this misdirection’ while reading (yes, my stuff too). IMO – and i guess I AM ‘slanting’ – all but one post after my word-count one was misdirection, i.e., meant to avoid subjects of actual import.

    Here’s my post:

    I was indeed going to bow out — one thing I’ve learned is that NO ONE CHANGES THEIR MIND ABOUT ANYTHING. Basically true, not literally. But it’s obvious that minds here are made up; the three people whom I had an effect on contacted me privately, and with them I was basically preaching to the choir.

    What jumps out at you (since my word count post) is how virtually no one dealt with any of my observations until daddy_o, but of course even he cherry picked — neither he nor anyone else mentioned the many ‘tell’s I brought up, even aside from the word count issue. (And as Seneca pointed out, daddy_o made a fool of himself in calling me either dishonest or stupid; I made it clear I was only counting 2016 and indeed my exact count was 1,508.)

    My interest is more re Simon, who took the tack of Appeal to Ridicule to new heights and does not even pretend to deal with WHY I came to the conclusion that ‘outraged’ him. For example:

    ‘This fact alone shows what a rude, subhuman and soul-less entity that you are – i.e. a sorry clown wholly unable & unwilling to communicate in civil, well-mannered fashion. Much like your ‘quite amazing truther-hero MM’, in fact – who keeps responding rudely to anyone contacting him (it).’

    ‘Subhuman’? I point out misdirection and Simon’s response is to ramp it up exponentially, with the most blatant ad hominem one can think of. More:

    ‘Offended? No, Allan – just a tad confused & worried as to exactly how your brain functions nowadays. Why on Earth would you now “seriously entertain the notion that, like MM, CF is a psy op”? Is it because this forum’s readership hasn’t granted you a unanimous standing ovation for your ‘groundbreaking discovery’ that MM might be a disinfo clown / or cointelpro team?’

    Shall we count the logical fallacies? Straw man (exaggerating my position), red herring, more appeal to ridicule, more ad hominem, and of course neglected aspect.

    The concept I really like, though, is Simon’s reference to my brain functions. Reminds me of Richard Grove’s response to my James Corbett outing (google ‘An Open Letter to James Corbett’). Grove likewise questioned my sanity: in pointing out that Corbett repeats 23 times the biggest 9/11 lie (at a truther conference) in 25 minutes and is therefore guilty of the worst sort of NLP. Grove’s reasoning was ‘James doesn’t know what hit the Pentagon and neither do you.’ He then questioned my sanity. This is from a guy who has posted 10 hour podcasts on the trivium and logical thinking.

    At the risk of bombast, I’ll quote a line from my last book, a memoir: ‘You lie about someone, they get mad. You tell the truth, they get outraged.’

    Simon claims I ‘worship’ MM or some such. What can I even say? I point out two MAJOR dishonesties in his JFK essay, inarguable stuff, i.e., his posting of those pics from a fiction film and (in his original posting) not revealing what they really are (until he was busted). And the Ruby-about-to-shoot-Oswald photo issue. There’s something really important there — aside from the proof that the MM who claims to be an expert at photo analysis did not write that passage — and yet no one even comments on it. And from my research those two bits of dishonesty (in the JFK essay) are just the tip…

    That I’ve been banned from here is interesting since in my banning Simon does not deal with, let alone refute, my main point about CF, which I’ll repeat:

    ‘Simon, just FYI, my conclusion about CF is partly based on Hoi’s utterly blatant misdirection in his ‘cousin’ post. Sometimes one slip up will give it away. (Hoi being your number 2 man and all.) I mean plus all the other misdirection. Just too much misdirection. My two new friends both were surprised at the transparency of this and went out of their way to mention it, so if you’re going to gaslight me on that, the two of them can consider themselves gaslit as well.’

    I’m about done. To anyone who is really interested in getting to the truth of these matters (whatever they are), I can only suggest you go back and read this thread, at least from my word count post. It’s on this page:…

    Ask yourself if anyone dealt with any of my actual observations (be they right or wrong in your opinion). If it’s all been misdirection/NLP, ask yourself what that means. END OF POST

    Okay. Re how many words it’s possible to write, etc., etc., I would suggest the reader randomly pick three MM essays then randomly pick a paragraph from each. Then ask yourself how much reading/research (including dead ends not mentioned) each paragraph involves. As a book writer I can tell you that the research inherent in MM essays is…. not possible for a real human, especially on with two other major interests (art and physics) to accomplish in 8 months (2016).

    Oh, by the way, someone here pointed out MM’s apparent support for Relativity theory. I have not brought this up before but… Bingo! Relativity is, IMO, THE biggest, most devastating scientific fraud since… I dunno… Newton… That MM supports it is, you know, one of those flags…

    Shoot. Sorry. One last thing. My comments on MM’s deceptions in his JFK essay should be important to folks here, so I humbly ask you to give them a look, especially the one re the ‘hanging mic’ photo of Ruby/Oswald. It’s in one of my posts. Just scan them… Please, critical thinking would be nice.

  2. Vespadouglas


    Some people coming to Fakeologist seem to enjoy talking about a particular, unwavering mindset that some members here are alleged to have.
    Fakeologist. IMO is less a gathering of people, more a place where people gather.
    Thanks to ab I’m able to chat with a variety of people from all over the world who think Fakery ( a word that is slowly being killed off) is pretty much everywhere. Even here.

    Maybe abs the psyop?
    Doubtful, Yes!
    Definitely not. No.

    My point is, being suspicious of someones possible motives, someones opinion or someones connections and voicing opinion on it is accepted although it does not always warrant comment.

    Perhaps nobody called out Willard because he calls himself out with his RV shilling?

    No mention that the Mod movement was possibly hijacked early doors and became a psyop?

    1. willard

      @ Vespadouglas and Brandon, may we have a peace treaty please? I am willing to concede that RV may be some sort of controlled op but I am not as certain as I am the MM is bad news. I am willing to absorb any criticism. My only defense is to say that I must be circumspect and if that troubles anyone, so be it. I bear no animosity toward anyone.

      Unreal wrote, “…I’m most interested in the mechanics of this probable operation, …”

      Read more:…

      Ab has said that there is no instruction manual on deconstructing fakeology. In the spirit of inquiry we press on and make mistakes along the way. I have made mistakes b ut in the spirit of inquiry I would like to illustrate the mechanics of what I think was , if not an operation, an example how power works in our mileau. However, I need Brandon’s help, [or someone who frequented McGowan’s Weird Scenes FB page]. I believe the evidence will show that McGowan, at the very least, was in over his head, or was a witting operative with his Weird Scenes book. And, interestingly enough, involves MM tangentially.

      Brandon, do you remember when there was a great discussion on McGowan’s FB about whether or not Paul McCartney died and was replaced with an impostor? At some point, a woman from England chimed in claiming to be a friend of the McCartney family. Her father had befriended Paul McCartney in the 1960’s. As a way of offering her bona fides, this woman posted pictures of herself at Paul and Linda’s wedding as well as smoking pot with “Aunty Ginn”. This woman appeared to be about 14 yrs old at the time. I can not remember the woman’s name. Perhaps someone can tell me. I need to know her name to go further.

      Why is this important? Because when I saw her post, I had a hunch. Acting on that hunch I went back to the first posts on the FB page and I had found she was one of the first posters. I believe it was in march of 2014. The book was published I believe in April, 2014.
      As i remember, it was just one post but it was enough to get the message across.

      And to confirm my hunch.

    2. stephen

      Vespers, I’d go further and suspect that the whole Mod-Thing was, from its inception, scripted. A fabricated part of the journey, that social change Op we call The Sixties.

      Some notes:

      In this reading I’d say Elvis and his satellites were the beginning, the prep for lift-off with JFK and The Beatles and landing Armstrong on the Moon for the fade.

      Which is not to say the music around the Moderns is anything other than good to excellent, because it is. Like I do about Beatles, Beach Boys, Byrds, Dylan and his Rolling Stones, I wonder who the writers were behind say Mowtown, and how they all worked together. An example, some one like Jack Nitzsche worked with bizarrely you’d think, the Stones, but also Beach Boys, Spector, Monkees, Ike Turner, and Spector worked with bizarrely, for their final album release, Beatles.

      Here Beatles do Motown, according to Paul, “The Beatles – Got To Get You Into My Life”:…

      The clothes are real nice too, specifically Mod’s, is there a better shoe than a Church’s Brogue or any suiting to top Dog Tooth?

      The later Northern Soul culture seems a true grass roots phenomena, and did valuable work in revealing and cataloguing some of the great music that was inspired out of The Sixties Thing.

      An intriguing thing about the Sixties Movement is that it simultaneously ushered in the end of conscription for the UK but the increased imposition of it, for an apparent Vietnam War too, in America. Weird? Maybe, “weird (adj.) c. 1400, “having power to control fate, from wierd (n.), from Old English wyrd “fate, chance, fortune; destiny; the Fates,” literally “that which comes…” The Beatles – Magical Mystery Tour:…

      Wolfe had Kenny say, in 68, “There are going to be times when we can’t wait for somebody. Now, you’re either on the bus or off the bus. If you’re on the bus, and you get left behind, then you’ll find it again. If you’re off the bus in the first place — then it won’t make a damn.

      Look at Life “60’s Fashion”:

  3. Vespadouglas

    Apologies Brandon. 7 attendees not 10.
    Presumably 7/8 expected attendees meant the vacant seat belonged to the unwelcome CF member. Did Miles elaborate on the reasoning for the short numbers.
    It’s quite remarkable that 2/7 of the lucky ones pop up here shortly after. Did Mark mention fakeologist to you at the conference, he being an existing member here. Its quite strange that you entered the thread without a nod to Mark, with whom you recently spent the best part of a working week with. You must’ve got a little friendly in such a small office type environment. Annoying habits too, I suspect.

    As for being humpty about being doubted. What did you expect? Unfortunately for you, any credibility you might have had was blown to shit the minute Mark backed you up.

    1. Brandon

      No need to apologize… I was simply clarifying the number, because at the time, I incorrectly assumed that you were asking me questions out of legitimate curiosity, and that you hadn’t already formed an opinion of me after I was “outed” by Mark.
      Btw… am I to assume that if Mark had disagreed with me, that it would have somehow validated my comments?! Yes, it’s possible that two people who relate the same general experience are part of a coordinated effort to fool you and others here. It’s also possible that we actually both had a relatively similar experience.
      You do understand that it would get frustrating after several days of trying to thoroughly answer everyone’s questions here, to find out, it was all a waste of time, the whole thing was just an attempt to… I don’t know what… Trick me, make fun of me?
      I’m not at all “humpty” about being doubted. As I’ve stated several times, to several commenters, I didn’t expect to change people’s minds who already have such rigid beliefs. If you want to accuse me of being sensi-poo after 4 days of seemingly pointless interaction, that’s fine, of course. But it’s rather beside the point, don’t you think?
      In fact, maybe it would convince you I’m actually a real person if I showed a little emotion.

    2. Brandon

      Also, to answer your questions…
      My first comment was on the 26th, and I believe Mark’s was on the 27th. Please correct me if I’m wrong. As soon as I read his comment and realized it was the Mark from the conference, I did acknowledge him.
      He did not bring up or mention during the conference, that I remember, and I didn’t know he was an existing member here. I didn’t even know one could become a “member” here, to be honest. I feel badly for him and wish he hadn’t decided to try to confirm what I was saying. I’m guessing that you now consider him compromised and will not take his comments here seriously. He probably realized that’s where this was heading and that’s why he decided to quit commenting.
      All Miles said about the person who backed out, was that it was someone who he believed had an issue with his article on Donald Trump. I have no further information about who it was or the reason.
      I’m assuming it wasn’t allancw, as Miles said the person “backed out” not that he turned him away.
      Obviously, I can’t know for certain.

  4. willard

    Is it me, or has the redoubtable Miles Mathis “upped his game” in the past several months? His essays no longer have the glaring non-sequiturs we once enjoyed [see MM’s Ted Bundy and Paul McCartney essays]. *

    But ’tis no matter: MM broached the topic of Russianvids. Anyone who has delved into Russianvids series this past summer on the occult significance of “44” , the color orange and the sinister “777”s embedded in the conga line of summer PSYOPS, will garner a certain smug delight in the following press conference by Dallas Police Chief David Brown

    @ 21min mark [7+7+7=777=21] Chief Brown evokes the $44 grand” sigil. This is the 44 coding/ sigil Russianvids mentioned in his video on the pulse shooting and elsewhere [Obama is 44th president. 4 x4 at Pulse, etc.] @ the 40:20 ,mark [2 x 4 or 44 mark.] Our freemason Chief calls on, incredibly, the Lady in orange… Russianvids has spoken extensively on the role the color orange plays in these PSYOPS

    Masonic Sorcery Theatre, Mr. Miles Mathis…nothing more than Masonic Sorcery Theatre and outside the ken of any controlled opposition operative.

    Weird Scenes inside the American City of Dreadful Night

    Mr. Mathis, by questioning Russianvids, you overplayed your hand.

    Incidentally, the Dallas news conference was given, as best as I can determine, for no reason whatsoever

    1. Tom Dalpra

      Willard said – ”Mr. Mathis, by questioning Russianvids, you overplayed your hand.”

      The thing is, 250,000 views per youtube, ABC Australia promoted Russian vids is full of crap himself.
      Much as he talks about plenty of interesting things based on reality as Miles Mathis does, he makes pains to relentlessly quote from the Bible and attach the blatant strawmen of Hicks-is-Jones and Kennedy-is-Carter to his research, for example.

      It doesn’t take a genius to work out that Russianvids ‘isn’t the full biscuit’, so to speak, regardless of whether he’s doing it on purpose, or not.
      Mathis is the same. Glaring fallacies such as ‘Mark Staycer is John Lennon’ revealed him, to me, as not quite the ‘full biscuit’, some time ago.

      Mathis talking about Russianvids to me, is therefore a case of one person who isn’t quite the ‘full biscuit’ talking about someone else who isn’t quite the full biscuit and I suggest this isn’t solid evidence of anything at all. It’s crumbly.

      1. Mark Tokarski

        I took photos of our TV screen of the character “Noel Snow” in the movie that Mathis wrote about, Let Him Be. There is a musical scene towards the end that provided some front-on views. While it was clear he was wearing a wig (you can see the glue line), I was able to split that face with a younger Lennon based on pupil distance. It is Lennon. He was alive in 2008. Of that I a sure. The match was dead-on.

        However, I think Mathis did err in asserting that the character Mark Staycer is also John Lennon. The movie makers were messing with us, sneaking Lennon in and out. Some of the Staycer’s seen in various venues are not Lennon, some are. Mathis was partially right, partially wrong.

        It takes some effort to work your way through that movie and do a hard analysis of evidence. Mathis has done so. You should also.

  5. Brandon

    Barbara & Unreal,

    Just thought I’d throw my 2 cents in about Miles Mathis.
    He’s definitely a real person. I attended his conference, in his home in Taos, earlier this month.
    He’s not an egomaniac, or a weirdo or anything. He’s just a very intelligent, somewhat reclusive guy, who spends most of his time on his art and his research.
    Having read all of his art/conspiracy/cultural papers, and some of his physics stuff, I have no problem believing that the same person wrote them all. The style, tone, and sense of humor remains constant… and he is constantly referring back to his previous work.
    Not to mention, in person, he was able to answer questions and recall things from papers that he wrote years ago.
    Also, I know for a fact that he will add research from readers to his papers. I know this, because he has used information I have passed along to him in updates before.
    That doesn’t seem like something a committee would bother with.
    When you look at the wide range of sometimes obscure topics he researches (often related to the art world), it seems very unlikely that a committee would bother with much of it. Who is the intended audience? It’s not like Miles Mathis is promoted at all beyond sites like this one.
    As an example, the last day of the conference, I asked him about Mabel Dodge, because my girlfriend was interested in visiting her Museaum/house in Taos. Miles gave me his impressions of her and her stance in the art world.
    Lo and behold, a week or so after I’d returned home from the conference, he posted a lengthy article on Mabel Dodge on his site (with info on Georgia O’Keefe, who I’d also asked him about).
    What kind of controlled opposition/committee would bother writing and posting an article about Mabel Dodge on their conspiracy site? Who the hell knows/cares about Mable Dodge?
    Anyway, any lingering doubts about Miles were alleviated for me, after meeting him, and spending around 30 hours with him over the course of a week.
    You may not like his “opinions”, or his research. It may anger you that he doesn’t write about things that interest you. But that doesn’t make him controlled opposition.

    1. UNreal

      @Brandon: If you actually went to MM’s 4th annual conference, you have already thrown in more than 2cents, more like $400, not counting food and accommodation.

      Cluesforum member “allancw” was not lucky enough to be allowed in on the WE you were attending, but he did do a word-count on MM’s singlehanded output: 1,500 words a day so far in 2016, seven days a week. When do you reckon Miles Mathis does all his artwork and research ? Out of curiosity, i have not seen your signature much on this website. What is your general view of media fakery and what research do you not agree with from MM, if any ?

      1. stephen

        In England we say “two pennies worth”, and here’s mine. First coming across The Miles Mathis thought “I don’t know what to make of him”.

        He brought up fakes I’d never considered, I think maybe it was him who got me wondering on the reality of WW2 and looking, a bit, into old-style Hollywood special effects. But he/it produces far too much stuff for one guy, and what he does produce has a strange unsatisfying quality.

        The thing that stuck out as dodgy, from the very beginning, were his paintings; they are really bad! The type that competent Illustrators used to do for pulp paperback covers, or the arty tourist sites of Italy or France. How any one clued-up could be blind to, and make pompous claims for, such trash screams wind-up to me. Add to that his great-artistic-trained-eye ability to discern fraud in images and I have to chuckle when he presents his Revealed John Lennon as John Lennon OBE, it’s a joke.

        So yes I think MM, skewed ninety, is 33 and is a brand name for well I don’t know what. Maybe just a bunch of intelligent chaps having a laugh?

        If movie special-effects are of interest check out this, some incredibly talented, clever, people co-operating out there, “MAGICIANS OF THE MINIATURE”:…

      2. Mark Tokarski

        I attended the same conference for four of the five days. Brandon is dead-on in his analysis. I was not being sneaky or anything, but was answering for myself the question is MM real. He is just as Brandon describes, reclusive, funny, hard-working, honest and insightful. My take on the guy: a man of high intelligence, good heart, and utter sincerity.

      3. Brandon

        Well, the 2 cents was for you, the $400 was for Miles. Not sure what your point is about the money, but if you are concerned, don’t be. My girlfriend used to live in Santa Fe, and we love that part of the country, so spending a week in Taos was a nice vacation for us.
        I’m sorry that “allancw” wasn’t invited to attend the conference. Miles told us that he limits the attendees to 8, and that he didn’t want people who would hijack the group. He is inviting people into his own home, and I defer to his decision in that matter. If I was inviting strangers into a conference in my own home, I would probably be rather discriminating about who I accepted.
        This is not to disparage “allancw”, of course… I don’t know him.
        As to “allancw”‘s disbelief in the ability to write 1,500 words/day (if that figure is accurate), I find that a very weak argument.
        I just received an email from a friend today that consisted of 500 words. Tripling that amount does not seem “impossible” by any means, especially if you don’t have a day job or much (if any) of a social life. People’s capacity for artistic output varies dramatically, obviously, and just because 1,500 words seems difficult for one person, does not make it so for another.
        As to me… no I rarely comment on this site, though I do lurk here fairly regularly. I happened to see this article and felt compelled to respond since it was relevant to an experience I’d recently had.
        I’m relatively new to the idea of media fakery (last 2 years or so), though I’ve been avidly interested in “conspiracies” for several years… mainly because of (like so many others) 9/11. Loose Change opened my eyes, and though my thoughts on 9/11 have evolved since then, I credit that movie for starting me down the path.
        As far as media fakery goes, it was Dave McGowen’s series on the Boston Bombing (and to a lesser extent his Moon Landing stuff) that opened my mind to that. I think it was a commenter on his Weird Scenes facebook page that steered me toward Miles Mathis… but I don’t remember for sure. I may have stumbled upon one of his articles by another means.
        I remember a commenter named “Richard Benedict” linked me to Clues Forum and September Clues, which has been very influential in my thinking.
        I agree with much of what Miles writes, but not all. I’m often uncomfortable when he jumps to certain conclusions. The JFK paper is probably the biggest example of this. I think he does a fine job of debunking the deaths, but I didn’t quite see the (rather large) leap he took with the whole “Hidden Kings” angle.
        Btw…up to this point, there are 469 words in this comment. It took me about 10 minutes to write.
        No, it didn’t involve research, and I understand that it would take longer to put together the articles that Miles writes, but the point is that 1,500 words is not actually that many, and someone who spends several hours a day on writing would have no problem producing that many words/day.

        1. UNreal

          @Brandon — Appreciate your detailed response and 2 cents.

          As you might understand as a fellow Fakeologist and Cluesforum follower, i’m not convinced of MM’s existence nor of you discovering this post by happenstance* and be so lucky to demonstratively handshake fellow MM attendee** “Mark Tokarski” in this very comment-section.

          Culture creation relies heavily on witnesses accounts and from the research gathered on this site we most commonly find that these entities have the same stories, use the same vocabulary and present an uncanny agreement upon the events. Kind of what i’ve heard so far from the tree accounts i’ve read from these MM meet-ups***, a 100% approval rate. In reality however, witnesses do not experience any kind of event in nearly the same way, nor do they express themselves in accord. Also quite surprised that a “recluse”and opinionated person would be so easygoing, “cool”, uncontroversial, extraverted and inviting as you all describe.

          *”I happened to see this article”
          **i could be wrong, but i have not read many posts by Mark Tokarski before he post in this thread in defense of MM
          ***on Fakeologist and CF

          1. Brandon


            I’m confused about what you think is going on here, or who you think I am, exactly.
            If I’d used an expression other than “happened to,” would you be more likely to believe me?
            Would it have made a difference if I’d said, “I periodically browse the articles here at, and saw one about Miles Mathis. I’m interested in Miles Mathis, so I decided to read it. When I saw in the comments section, that people were questioning the existence of MM, I decided to share my experience of having met him in person, in case anyone was interested.”?
            My guess is that it’s not actually anything I said that has you doubting, it’s that you already have a well established opinion, and absolutely nothing anyone posts here can change your mind.
            I do understand your perspective, and I wasn’t honestly thinking that I would change your mind based on an account from someone you don’t know. I thought there might be others who were interested in my experience, so my comments were just as much for them as for you.
            I would ask you, if you don’t mind, is there anything at all that anyone could say to you, that could allow you to admit that it’s at all possible that MM is a real person, and that I’m real, and that the experiences I related to you are true? As a fakeologist, you are obviously open to many ideas that others might deem “unbelievable.”
            Is it really so difficult to believe that MM exists and writes all his papers?
            Is it really unlikely that someone (me) who is interested in fake events, would read both MM’s articles AND visit
            Is it really unlikely that multiple people who admire MM and attend his conference, actually agree that the experience is positive, and feel compelled to stand up for him when people say he doesn’t exist?
            I’m not sure why the existence of Miles is so unbelievable. Often times, it seems like people get angry with him for more personal reasons… ie, disagreeing with his opinions, him not focusing his research on things that “they” feel are important, not being allowed to his conference, etc.
            Is it really the 1,500 words/day argument that has you convinced? I noticed that you didn’t comment on my assertion that it wouldn’t be unreasonable for a writer to produce 1,500 words in a day.
            Is it that you think he makes mistakes, or contradicts himself?
            Do you think he ignores important issues that he wouldn’t ignore if he were “real” or legitimate?
            I know my experiences are true, and I am more than willing to answer any questions about my experiences, or myself, if you are truly open to the idea, in any way, that Miles is actually a real person. If your mind is completely closed, however, there is no point in continuing this, unless you think you can somehow prove I am fake, or lying, or something.
            btw… this comment has 504 words.

            1. UNreal


              Appreciate your comment, and you are right about most of your assumptions. I guess i’d be less critical if you were contributing on more topics on the site or offered more than just your word and polite, skillful manner to express yourself.

              As stated in previous posts, i suspect that MM is a controlled conspiracy media outlet. I’ve seen supportive commentary quite often whenever an intelligence operation is attacked, be it here on fakeologist or elsewhere. Your own and Mark Tokarski’s endorsements with similar, coordinated messages is quite common for protecting an active operation as i suspect (and have suspected for quite some time) MM to be. New ressources seems to have been invested in MM however as media-fakery has been included and the number of articles augmented and Cluesforum recently “outed” in an uncalled for manner. I however do not dismiss all of the research presented by MM, still i take his “persona” and artwork quite lightly.

              1. Brandon

                thanks for being up front about your rigidity of opinion. I guess that explains why you weren’t willing to specifically address any points I brought up in any of my responses. You weren’t really interested in my responses, other than looking for clues that would “out” me as a fake.
                Obviously, I can’t retroactively contribute to topics here. Perhaps I will going forward, if my contributions are welcome.
                You mentioned me “offering more” in support of my experience, and I ask again, what could possibly sway you or open your mind to the possibility that I attended a conference hosted by MM? I ask this with the utmost sincerity, and with no judgement. I’m honestly curious.
                As I mentioned in my response to ab, I don’t think that even posting a photograph would convince skeptics. So, I’m at a loss.
                One of your arguments against the reality of one person writing all the articles on MM’s site, was that it is impossible for a person to write 1,500 words/day. I “offered” an alternative perspective about that but you don’t seem inclined to acknowledge that, even if to disagree with me.
                I understand that you are inclined to be suspicious of people supporting someone that you have already decided is a fraud. Thus, you are viewing everything I say, not as evidence that you are potentially wrong, but that I MUST be lying. And if another person comes out in support of what I’m saying, well, that person must be lying as well.
                I suppose that the more people who support MM, the more suspicious it becomes?

                Never-the-less, perhaps in the future, you will get more confirmation of Miles Mathis being a real person, from someone that you are more inclined to trust. If that happens, I hope that you may re-consider your perspective on what I’ve told you, and potentially take it out of the “controlled opposition” file in your mind, and place it in the “open to the possibility of being true” part.

                1. Brandon

                  btw… while I can’t be convinced that I didn’t attend a conference earlier this month, hosted by someone claiming to be MM, I am open to hearing your reasons that you believe he is fake, or controlled, or his work is written by a committee, etc.
                  It is possible that I took part in some sort of elaborate hoax, and that great lengths were gone through to fool me in order to get $400 from me, and make me look stupid.
                  I’m assuming that since you have been suspicious of MM for quite some time, that you have an accumulation of evidence that supports your opinion.
                  So far I gather that…
                  – you believe it is impossible for one person to have the time, talent, or inclination to write all that is presented on MM’s website.
                  – You think that his removal of his link to cluesforum and his belief that people attack him on the forums there is unwarranted, and unbelievable. The MM persona is being used to smear clues forum.
                  – You feel that MM is arrogant and obnoxious, based on his writings, so he cannot possibly be kind and hospitable in person. Thus, the person I met ( assuming that I am real, and met someone pretending to be MM), cannot be the same person(s) who writes the articles on the MM website.
                  – You think his art is terrible. because it is obvious that his art is terrible, he is lying to us about being a real artist. thus, he has some other agenda for promoting himself as a real artist, and you don’t trust that reason, and this confirms to you that he is a fake person, and not just someone who produces art you don’t like.
                  – You believe that whenever anyone bad mouths MM, people respond in a coordinated way in order to defend him. based on how obvious it is that no real person could like or agree with MM, You assume all these people are part of an operation to try to convince people that MM is a real person.
                  – You think that if two or more people claim to have met MM, it is suspicious, especially if they agree upon the characteristics of MM, or the meeting.
                  – You think it is suspicious that MM charges money for his conferences, and doesn’t allow everyone to show up.
                  – You don’t like that he’s handsome.
                  – you believe he doesn’t go into enough detail about the topics you find important. the only reason someone would ignore these important topics is if they are fake, controlled opposition, or diverting people.

                  This is what I’ve gathered from reading your comments. Forgive me if I’ve mis-represented your thoughts. Like I said, I’m open to anything you can relate that could convince me of the MM “project.”

                  1. stephen

                    The B-52’s – “Love Shack” (Official Music Video):

                    Another two penn’orth from me.

                    MM Fanboy Brandon is right when he wonders what evidence can he supply… how a photo will prove anything. Brandon cannot do anything because he can lie. It’s that simple, he can fake. This is the point I’ve made about audio appearances here, I can lie just as easily with my voice as I can with text. That’s what actors do, they also do it visually on screen. Photo’s can easily be faked, staged, so can events. Even meeting a person means little because they can, and most do, lie to varying degrees.

                    You demand photo’s from Brandon of Miles Mathis [MM] a Genius [G] as proof of some kind of genuineness, but, if I remember correctly, Mrs Hammad, the jet setting muslim, met the equally, perhaps, suspicious Simon Shack [SS] of Social Service[SS] fame and provided zero photo proof of him or the meeting; no audio recording even though I think she was doing some sort of podcast at the time; instead talked to Ab immediately afterwards from inside an airport apparently, “you do believe me” I think she said? Correct me if I’m wrong, please. This is the Simon Shack who has links to the Bin Laden family! Where is the consistency from SS Fanboys?

                    Remember the nonsense with, seeming down-the-line fellow, Brian Staveley? The lengths he went to try and prove he was real-n-legit; he was accused of being not even human! A simulation! But he got nowhere with some. He didn’t fit. A shame because, though I wished he blew his nose more often, he was enthusiastic, inquisitive and friendly.

                    But in the end I don’t care if MM or SS are who it says it is, they are not compelling, they are dullish and their work is mostly now uninteresting. Whatever happened to Shaky Shacks cosmo-model? Perhaps Shack’s music is not as shallow as Mathis’s painting but there’s not much in it. I now only read a Renaissance Man “paper”[!] or visit the impeccably grammatical, condescending, Clues Forum if linked to from here.

                    Why anyone would want to meet up with nine other strangers for days-of-hours of nattering from the likes of MM and pay, though he’s gorgeous, $400 for the privilege is absolutely beyond me, are these people nuts? And what sort of very attractive person invites ten strangers, possibly nutters, to come to his house, give him $400 each, then have to entertain them for five days? Sounds like the beginning of a Cult to me.

                    But now something from the, genuinely, superior Motown, “THE TEMPTATIONS – “Psychedelic Shack” (1970).wmv”:

                    Oh, that was good! Let’s try another, “now if you don’t want to go i can’t make you but if you do want to go i will take you… to the soulful shack, c’mon babe “SMOKEY ROBINSON AND THE MIRACLES- THE SOULFUL SHACK MOTOWN SOUL 1967)”:

                    1. Marin

                      The page “Miles Williams Mathis” does not exist. You can ask for it to be created, but consider checking the search results below to see whether the topic is already covered. This according to good old Wikipedia.

                      I got the feeling that this raises some questions.

                    2. stephen

                      To any Moderns of taste out there in fake-o-land. I would never-ever call, what I would call classic, Motown “fluff”; and many-many times stuff is commercially successful because it is superior; still I whole heartedly agree there’re gems just below the surface.

                      Why not pop these more obscure quick-pick Souly randoms if it’s your bag?

                      “Nat Phillips – I’m Sorry I Hurt You”:

                      “I’m Gonna Stay – Mary Wells 45 rpm!”:

                      “Jimmy Winston & His Reflections – Sorry She’s Mine – 1966 45rpm”:

                      “Henry Shed – Somethings Drastically Wrong”:

                    3. stephen

                      But Ab you like Radio Rollo, he plays “tunes”?

                      Most every music-link I post comments in some way on what I’m writing. If you don’t understand the language you’ll miss what is being said. Maybe you don’t care. That post above, a throw away nothing special, “To Moderns in Fake-Land”, was in reply to a Scooter Douglas’s […. ], [should that be VD], comment in Chatango. But if you don’t realise that a language is alluding across media, platforms, levels, history, you will not understand what is being said. So maybe it attempts a little lesson.

                      “Diagnosis of Venereal Diseases. HD Stock Footage”:

                      Hoaxbusters drew my attention a couple days ago to a Neil Postman, here he talks about educating to improve,understand, from about 14:50 in particular, “Neil Postman’s Conscientious Objections, Jan 1989”:

                      Sometimes I’m presenting jokes, you like a laugh, you posted one recently. My from “Love Shack to Soulfull Shack” muso-links post was just a Simon-Says play on words, or was it? Music is a lot of indeterminate, hidden depths. I’m trying to understand, comment, for myself too and see how far one can stretch and still be coherent, discover unexpected connections, insights. However, “1910 Fruitgum Company – Simon Says”:

                      A Multi Dimensional World, songs, pictures, texts, jokes… It’s interesting trying to fit some, and more, enrich, into comments of a fewish lines, on a forum about Illusional Life. Have you read, or tried to, “Finnegans Wake”? Maybe you think it a huge Art Hoax? Or maybe you don’t have the knowledge to understand it, I don’t. It suggests Occult, maybe it is an elite joke, but over many years, occasional dips have teased out very evocative passages that feel special and just beyond my grasp. In an inept, ignorant, micro way I attempt sometimes something cack-handedly related.


                      But let’s expand this comment further, you ask me what I’m “trying to accomplish”, I presume with at least a hint of criticism, while you’ve got Terrapin Downvale turning into a reptile and you don’t ask, “really, have you got any evidence for that?” And Tom Dalpra claiming the Thames is the thalamus of not Albion but Horus or Ra or whoever, based on the fact it appears on the end credits to Eastenders, but do you say “Tom, what’s this all about mate?” And Tom replies, “Oh yes, something Egyptian”, “But why Tom, what’s the evidence?” he replies “The spray painted Herons on some walls in Cambridge, which are really Ibis Hotels.” “Dr. Evil – Riiiight [HD]”:

                      So I’d wonder what you are trying to accomplish Ab? After six or seven replies to a post, a comments section becomes unreadable in any serious way unless you follow a few times a day, every day. Babs, felt she had to post a Mathis response in a completely unrelated thread to have it read, which encourages me to think it really doesn’t matter what I post in this now abandoned, unreadable, Mathis thread. What Babs was saying was important too, if correct, that Mathis is claiming Pi is 4!

                      How many people are actually posting replies anyway, anywhere? Hardly any. There’s more activity in the ephemeral, mostly incomprehensible Chatango. Many-many of the podcasts are endless hours of self-congratulatory, repetitive nothing, sometimes not uninteresting from a sociological point of view true, but… “I could have been a contender”:

                      This is not high quality intellectual debate or conversation. I think I’m right in saying you Ab are often conducting interviews or lecturing whilst driving?[!] Nobody serious would do that, the same as they wouldn’t roll in from the Pub and think “let’s inform the world about Truth, the fools, I’ll teach them about True Reality!” You hear topping up in the background as another Tennent’s Super is cracked open. So really what does it matter what I’m trying to accomplish with a few music links, or even evil Tons-n-Tons of Salt Man with his Golden Buggered Boy? “RETURN OF ‘DAVE THE CAN'”:

                      Don’t get me wrong, I like the feel of this place, I’ve followed it for three maybe four years, I make some comments now, but I’m not delusional as to what it generally is. If you want it to be something else, great; things improve, I love it. Raise the standards, brilliant. Otherwise why make trillions when we can make billions?:

                      Here’s Babsy on Pi:

                      Shack Attack:

                      Temporarily Psychotic:

                2. UNreal


                  What you offer to sustain MM’s credibility is your word as it is, and you can therefore not objectively invalidate my general observations or suspicion.

                  Your summary of my viewpoints and your analysis are mostly to the point. However i’m not criticizing MM for his (possibly) good looks, just that this feature seem scripted if/as he’s stage-managed to the aspirations of an independent alternative researcher.
                  As for MM’s artworks, i’m not saying they’re terrible, just that they’re average and not really “à propos” in todays art. I’m not implying MM is obnoxious either, this issue is quite besides my criticism of his research and entity/person.

                  It could well be that you have been played, as you suggest. Nevertheless, we are all well enough “clued-in” on the fact that most figures in the alternative research field do have issues*, and so does MM. On this point we disagree.

                  *as a sidenote, i quite like McGowan as well, but i’m suspicious of him and his death too

                  1. Barbara Müller

                    one of MM’s main points is, that all the modern art in painting, music sculpturing, etc, is a CIA project. He’s painting realistic which may look old fashioned. But how do you decide about the quality of his paintings? Do you compare them to modern paintings? Do you compare them to other realistic painters? Which ones? Can you do better? 🙂 Realistic paintings require much more work and skills than modern art. Do you agree? Photographs of paintings do not give the whole impression of the quality of painting. Ever been in Louvre? He maybe even better then he is qualifying himself. McGowan became very suspicious to me after his “sudden” death caused by “cancer”. Did you found any flaws in MM’s papers? I don’t have the time to double check his countless genealogy findings. Was he correct in his latest update to his Lincoln Assassination paper? If MM is scripted, then to what purpose? What is there not to believe in his papers?

                    1. Brandon


                      I agree with you about Miles’ art.
                      I realize that not everyone appreciates it, but I think it is very good.
                      Also, seeing it in person, is *much* more impressive than just looking at the little photos on his website.
                      Btw… to anyone here that is honestly interested in seeing MM’s art, my impression is that he is more than willing to show people his “studio”, which is just his house, as most of his art is hanging throughout it.
                      I know that most people aren’t inclined to travel to Taos, just to see MMs art, and/or meet the man… but the point is, it’s an potential possibility for someone who is.

                    2. UNreal

                      @Barbara Müller

                      Yes the CIA have of course been active in art related projects and movements. This does not mean that the CIA is behind all of contemporary art, far from it. The most enslaved are those who falsely believe they are free. Most devoted artist are quite unfamiliar/uninterested with the politics and intelligence work of this world in my experience.

                      There are approximately 400 schools of art in Europe alone, and if we admit they all have at least 1 graduating class of 20 students each we have 8000 new qualified artists every year in Europe alone. Art school typically would consist of one year foundation and 3-4 years of courses. At least half of the students would have the skillset to paint (or copy if you like) what MM produce as artworks from what i see from his photos. To see qualitative work done by contemporary artists, i join an image* of the painting “Gran Via”, a street in Madrid**, made by hyper-realist painter Antonio López García.

                      I do not agree that a particular type of art is more difficult to elaborate than others, this is the misconception of the mediocre artist. Great art is very hard to achieve, even so if it consists of painting broad strokes on top of a silkscreened print on canvas (A. Warhola).

                      I’m actually based in Paris, so i’ve had the chance to go to the Louvre many times although my favorite Parisian venue is the ‘Palais de Tokyo’ contemporary arts museum (PdT).

                      I agree with your suspicion of Mc Gowan as an author and his sudden disappearance. His death was caused by cancer which is very often misused by intelligence (big Pharma/MCP). We have also seen altered images of S. Jobs to the same effect as the last published pictures of McGowan. As to the flaws in MM’s research, i’d say his John Lennon take is weak and his facial morphology skills from painting curiously very poor. I have yet to read his Lincoln paper. As a general observation, it is inoffensive to reveal old material which MM often does.

                      *completely agree that no rgb screen can do justice to artwork created on paper/hard surface/by addition.
                      **Gran Via is a recurring subject in Antonio Lopez’ work

                    3. stephen

                      I agree that good paintings are far richer in reality, but so too are many paintings/prints far better in reproduction. If one cannot see that Mathis’s paintings are good illustrations at best, and nothing more, then it’s because you haven’t looked-listened, or you appreciate very little about Art. This again shows the low standards that so much of Truther World considers acceptable, the culture that they inhabit.

                      The idea that modern Art requires less work or skill than ye-olde-worlde is absurd.

                      I wont spend any real time on this comment because, as I say, if you aren’t up to the level required to appreciate the Art nothing I say will make any difference, and if you are you know all this already and quite possibly better than I do. I’m no connoisseur, but off the top of my head here are two various very-very high quality pieces that I have looked at quite a few times in London

                      Lucas Cranach’s Adam and Eve at the Courtauld:

                      Seurat’s Bathers at Asnières at the National Gallery:

                      I have only seen this in detailed reproduction and it is still incredible, The Ghent Altarpiece by Jan Van Eyck:

                      Here’s someone very Modern, very rich stuff, put Andy Goldsworthy in google images with “leaf” or “twig” even “ice”.

                      And further, regards music here are a few random recommendations I’ve had cause to offer this past year, we are talking a different order of things from pop-rock, however jazzy.

                      “Augustin Dumay – Massenet: Méditation de Thaïs; Chausson: Poèm…”:

                      “Vicente Martín y Soler: Una cosa rara”:

                      “Mozart: Concerto for Flute and Harp KV 299; Concerto for Clarinet, KV 622. Jean-François Paillard”:

                      Arthur Rubinstein: The Chopin Collection:

                      For someone Modern, more-or-less any piece by Benjamin Britten will be great to fantastic. A recommendation? Curlew River for starters.

                      There is plenty of amazing Art out there both old and new. Mathis for all his claims is nowhere near.

                  2. Brandon


                    Thank you for you response, I appreciate it.
                    I guess I’d like to point out that, while I agree that all I have to offer regarding MM’s credibility is my word, I assume that you knew that going into this lengthy conversation. Why engage with me for so long? Was this a game or exercise for you? Why all the questions, that you clearly wouldn’t have accepted any answers to?
                    The whole reason I commented on this article in the first place was that I noticed that people were commenting on the possibility of MM being a fake person, and/or not existing. From August 8th – 12th, I attended a conference at the house of someone in Taos, NM, who looked like the photos I’d seen of MM (albeit older)… and I thought that there might be someone here that was open minded enough to think that was actually true.
                    I’ve never stated that I know for certain *anything* about Miles, other than what I observed personally. I could give more details about things that happened, things I noticed in his home, or conversations we had, that could possibly lend credence to my experience.
                    If you believed I was a real person, of course.
                    It seems like the crux of the issue is that in order for you to maintain your belief system, you must conclude that it is me that is fake, or controlled, or compromised in some way. I can also only conclude that the many, many questions posed to me, were not given with open-minded curiosity, but to were more akin to a police interrogation, where one perceived slip up would cause my whole house of cards story to come tumbling down.
                    I do appreciate, btw, that you have been polite throughout our exchange.
                    I must say, that this introduction to commenting on, has not spurred my interest in engaging in any other conversations. I’ve stated several times that I am open to evidence that you could present to me that has you convinced that MM is what you think he is. While I understand that is it just “your word”, I am interested in other people’s opinions and ideas, and I by no way feel like I know/understand everything in the realm of conspiracy/fake events/hoaxes.
                    When I look back on the path I’ve travelled, I sometimes get sort of embarrassed about certain people/sites I’ve followed. ATS… David Icke…and the like. However, in my opinion, that path was necessary to get to where I am today… and I doubt I’m at the end of the path.
                    Basically, I’m suspicious of anyone who is so certain of their beliefs that they wont even engage in an open matter with someone who might disagree with them.
                    One of the things that was so great about the conference, is that, while everyone came from a different background, and had slightly different beliefs, and areas of interest… it was a comfortable, safe environment to discuss things that I can’t really discuss anywhere else in my life.
                    Perhaps you, or Stephen, or others here already have a network of people that they can connect with to toss ideas around, and feel like your opinions will be heard and discussed.
                    I don’t. Where should I go? Online comments sections like this one? Like I said, this experience hasn’t been particularly inviting. I suppose if I agreed 100% with others here, I could join the group of “defenders of the truth” that march out when a fake person or an agent shows up. Then I could ask multiple questions that would ultimately (because how could it not!) confirm the biases I already held!
                    Perhaps you and others here feel they have things figured out, and that this is a place for you to defend your ideas, not actually engage with people who have different ones?
                    Anyway, I’ll sign off now. Perhaps these points will have meaning to some here… perhaps not. Again, I thank those here that at least showed politeness when interacting with me. And thanks to VD for asking what seemed to be actual questions that he was interested in hearing the answers to.

                    1. UNreal


                      It would be unfair of you to judge this site and its members by comments made in a thread where you have put out your very own testimony. You are not a mere commenter on this topic, and to expect other researchers to be uncritical about your personal testimony would not be reasonable. All commenters are treated respectfully on this site in my experience, and so will you on topics where you do not play an active part. I honestly can’t see why you insist on being victimized and hint at being badly treated as to not come back to this site or comment here furthermore. An artificially childish attitude judging from your analytic and intellectual capacities.

      4. Barbara Müller

        dear UNreal, the two comments “allancw” gave in the cluesforum contained 1795 words in total and took 20 min of his precious time. So Miles Mathis can easily write 1500 words per day especially if he does not have to care for family, children, job, etc. That “allancw” character is much more suspicious to me that MM is. I still wish, MM or other people could post some recent pictures of him, not that I believe that much in the reality of pictures, but still. I understand why he’s feeling alienated in cluesforum and not reacting to calls from other fakeologists. It’s his free choice, this may look arrogant to some, but it does not prove at all he’s a fake person.

        1. UNreal

          @Barbara Müller

          MM is supposed to only write part-time as he is, & claim to be, a painter & physicist/ mathematician as well. All these skills must be practiced on a regular basis*. Writing 10.500 words a week as a part time endeavor** is quite exceptional***.

          *most probably daily as witnessed from other polymaths
          **I’m familiar with artists and quite frankly it is time consuming. Research also takes lots of time, and much more time than just writing down your opinion down for a comment. The topics covered are also very diverse, which does not facilitate the writing, not to mention the time lost going down rabbit-holes, and there are many of them (especially in the area of conspiracy). 99% of the professional “conspiracy” authors seems to be linked in one way or another to intelligence. By the amount of writing, MM would qualify as a professional writer
          ***I don’t trust MM’s exceptional characteristics, and for more reasons than his word-count

          1. Barbara Müller

            again I don’t care that much about the person Miles Mathis. His papers seem to be correct and consistent. That’s all, what matters to me. You have to find holes in his findings to debunk him and not holes in his life. That amount of text he is producing does not impress me much. He with the time developed methods of researching certain things, knows where to look, collects notes, refers to his own older findings. Its perfectly imaginable to me he writes all of it himself and still has time to think, paint and read. Just look for flaws in his texts and not in his life.

          2. Brandon

            After 4 days of trying to honestly engage with you and others, I’m (at the least) entitled to judge the experience I’ve had. Again, it’s not the criticism or disagreement I object to at all… it’s that I’ve assumed that the folks asking me questions here, and engaging with me, were doing so in good faith. It now seems clear to me that I was “outed” here once Mark stood up for me, so… what was the point of all this?
            I ask you again… why did you continue to engage with me?
            I never said that I wouldn’t visit this site anymore, either. I will continue to visit fakeologist, hoaxbusters, clues forum, and yes MMs site, because I believe there is good information to be found on all of these sites.
            I doubt I will comment here though… I fail to see the point, as it’s clear that I’m considered “compromised.” I suppose I could use a fake name, but to be honest, all I could ever offer here is my “opinion” on anything. I decided to comment on this particular topic because I had specific knowledge that I thought some might be interested in.
            By the way you responded to me, however, it seems that perhaps you are coming around to the idea that I’m a real person (just an overly-sensitive, misguided one).
            So, progress was made at last!

            Also, I find it interesting that the first comment I post that elaborated on my experience here, elicited two prompt comments (one from you, one from VD), accusing me of being overly sensitive.
            Imagine for a moment (if you are able) that I am who I say I am, and my experiences were true. Part of this whole experience of posting here, from my perspective, would be to “judge” for lack of a better word, how people reacted to me, and how open they were to honestly engaging with me.
            I, at least, waited 4 days to form some conclusions.
            How quickly did you form yours?

            1. UNreal


              It would be more fitting to qualify your role and participation in this post as a testimony rather than mere commenting, but i see you insist on the angle of being an “outed” member. That’s a bit repetitive, but this emphasis could well serve to discourage other newcomers from participating on the site (as well as justify slandering i’d guess).

              As the comment section of this post slowly becomes bloated and unreadable, i suppose our recent observations might be moot points by now. Maybe a forum thread could be devoted to the MM attendees as 28% of the last MM meet-up actually are Fakeologist members ?

              I’ve formed my opinion on MM over a year at least i’d say, so i have not been in any hurry either.

              1. Brandon

                I meant your opinion of me… not of MM.
                The question was in reference to you calling me out on forming an opinion about my experience here. I was making the point that I was expecting open-minded conversation, and that if people were engaging with me, I assumed that there was a point behind it that could potentially benefit both parties. In reality, it seems like people had already formed their conclusions about me almost immediately, and I was asking you for some understanding about how after 4 days of this, I might be allowed to start making up my mind about you.
                As Vespadouglas so succinctly stated it to me…
                “Unfortunately for you, any credibility you might have had was blown to shit the minute Mark backed you up.”

                You’ve also admitted to me that nothing I could have said could have changed your mind, so you could see how a reasonable person would wonder what the point of all this was. I keep asking you why you continued (and continue) to engage with me. I’m asking that for a reason, because I really am curious. And it would help me to put this interaction into context if I knew your motives… even if it was just to out me as a fraud.

                1. UNreal


                  Ok, i thought you alluded to how long it took me to have an opinion on MM. Regarding forming my opinion on your testimony on MM’s conference, i was sceptic from previous research and still am regarding the conferences/meetings. Regarding you as a person, i don’t know you but hold your writing in regard as well as many of your arguments. You seem knowledgable, and i understand you are a person, just like Miles likely is (still don’t trust he’s a one man show or earn a living from paintings).

                  As to why i answer your postings it is very simple, i answer all questions addressed to me (as long as they are polite), and in your case i do the same.

                  Hope to hear you on an audio-chat with Ab.

                  1. Brandon

                    I think we still are having a bit of a miss-communication issue, but that’s okay, there is no need to press the issue or say any more.
                    Ultimately, I stand by the comments I’ve contributed, for what they are worth to anyone.
                    I have no allusions that I have changed anyone’s mind, but perhaps neutral readers, who may be lurking, can find something of value in our exchange. I’ve answered all questions honestly, and I hope that comes across to anyone who is reading this.
                    I’m not sure what chatting about this topic would accomplish, and I’m not concerned with establishing credibility, if credibility is even something that can be established via chat.
                    Even if I was somehow able to convince you that I actually attended a conference at MM’s house, there is no way I could convince you that he is legit. Heck, even though I believe he is legit, I’m not 100% confident of it.
                    You understand I am a person, and that Miles likely is… that’s enough for me.
                    Thanks again for the interesting experience. It wasn’t at all what I expected when I first commented, that’s for sure!

                    1. Brandon

                      Sorry… but I had just a few more thought’s to pass your way, if you don’t mind.

                      1. Doesn’t it seem like the people who coordinate these collective efforts (promoting fake people or fake events) would know better by now that having multiple people show up on threads like this, is a huge red flag?
                      I mean, I’m assuming these people are reasonably intelligent, or, at the very least, able to learn from past mistakes… so why keep doing something that they know is such an obvious red-flag to fakeologist members?
                      I’m certain (like you) that these operations do in fact exist, and I understand why you would want to be extremely careful before believing a story like mine… but you’d have to think the people running these operations would have changed their tactics once they realized one of their strategies had been figured out by so many people. I mean, how long has that tactic been known to you? You don’t believe that these people monitor these forums to see how well their tactics work, and then adjust them going forward?
                      Yet you believe that it’s more likely that I’m on a coordinated team, that just didn’t know what the hell we were doing and blew the whole operation by mistakenly having a second conference participant show up to defend my story?
                      Because its so difficult to believe that two people who believe in fake events would visit the same websites devoted to fake events?

                      2. These are the four sites I frequent that I feel have reliable info about fake events…
                      (if there are others you recommend, I’d be grateful if you passed them along)
                      My job allows me to listen to podcasts while I work, so it’s common for me to check hoaxbusters and fakeologist during the day, to see if there is a link to a podcast or chat that intrigues me.
                      Putting aside your suspicions for a moment that my showing up here was a planned attack… I hope you can see an obvious series of events wherein I might have seen an article about MM while perusing the fakeologist site, and decided to read it… because I’m a fan of MM. While reading the comments, I noticed that some folks were expressing doubt as to the reality of MM. Since I had recently met and interacted with someone I believe was MM, I decided to share my experience. Obviously, anyone can come to their own conclusions about what is more likely… * I’m part of a coordinated effort to promote a fake entity called MM, and was directed to come to this specific comment section and try to change the minds of a bunch of people who’s minds clearly cannot be changed.
                      * Or I’m a real person who (perhaps misguidedly) admires MM and his research, and decided to attend his conference in order to meet him and clear up any remaining doubts I had about his existence and sincerity. Having done that, I felt compelled to defend his existence when I saw the comments denying it.
                      3. Why fakeologist? Why this comment thread?
                      Meaning, why the coordinated ambush here, in the proverbial lion’s den of people who *know* MM is fake? If I was part of some coordinated effort to convince people of the existence of MM, don’t you think we’d be clever enough to go to people who still had an open mind about it? I mean, the group would probably have been following the comments of fakeologist members for a long time and would know that you, Unreal, and VD, and others here have strong opinions that cannot be altered. Why direct me and Mark to bumble in here with such amateurish tactics that any fakeologist worth his salt would see through immediately?
                      I’m not sure how much money you think I’m being paid to continue to engage with you here, but you’d think if I was hired to try to convince people of the existence of MM, I would have likely been directed to give up the effort several days ago.
                      I didn’t give up, because I’m actually a real person who attended MMs conference, and I mistakenly thought that people here who were interacting with me, were doing so with at least a partially open mind.
                      If I was part of a team of people promoting MM, I would have known who you were and your perspectives already, and not bothered.

                      4. Have you considered that Willard remembering me from the Weird Scenes forum confirms what I told you earlier in our conversation, and legitimates my story?
                      If you recall, you asked me what my general views of media fakery were, and I went into a somewhat lengthy (as is my style, sorry about that) explanation, that included my time at Dave McGowan’s Weird Scenes page.
                      Then, days later, another member here actually remembered me from there!!… and I actually used the same name in my comments here (my real one, btw) as I did there!
                      That seems like it could be confirmation I was telling the truth, doesn’t it?
                      Or, is it a red flag that Willard supported my story? Perhaps Willard is part of the group too, like Mark? I mean, any confirmation of what I say by another party is automatically suspicious, by your admission.
                      If the response is… “no, the point is, you were defending MM back then, too, so that confirms you are part of a coordinated effort to promote the fake MM!”…
                      …well, I’d invite anyone to go back and read my comments on the Weird Scenes page…they are all still there. You can read the many, many comments I wrote on a multitude of topics. The comments I posted about MM were basically stating that I can’t be sure he is real, but I liked certain things he wrote. Dave was sort of attacking MM, and I stood up for him, because I thought Dave was using very poor arguments. It seemed like he had a personal issue with him, almost.
                      You see, at the time, I had just recently discovered MM’s site, and wasn’t at all convinced of anything about him.
                      Now, at least, I know enough to stand by my claims that he (at least) exists, and is a real person… which is all I meant to say when I first commented here.

                    2. Brandon

                      And to elaborate on point 4, because I believe it is an important one.

                      First off, I was teasing about Willard being part of a coordinated effort to support my reality. I said it to point out that you are being selective in the evidence you are choosing to pay attention to.
                      As far as I know Willard is a true and honest fakeologist.

                      It seems to me that he felt like he was laying some sort of trap for me, based on the fact that two years ago, I didn’t understand that 9/11 was a completely fake event. The fact that I just believed it was an “inside job” somehow confirmed to him that I was a fake person, I guess? And that the fact that I admit that my thoughts have evolved (gasp!) over time as I’ve been exposed to new information, is somehow suspicious?
                      It’s difficult logic to follow, and I’m guessing that’s why Willard dropped the subject. Especially since he started to realize what I pointed out above… that all he was doing was confirming part of my story (and history) that I had related to you earlier… and that wasn’t what he wanted to do at all!
                      Just to make sure that you knew he was still on “your side”, he made sure to flatter you with his “blood ran cold” comment.

                      Luckily for Willard, he was never in any danger of being lumped in with me, even after confirming my story.

                      Btw, I too remember the Nathan Andrew character that commented on nearly every Dave McGowan post… and defended him to increasingly dramatic lengths.
                      He was one of the several reasons that I started having doubts about McGowan myself!
                      He was acting almost like a close friend or relative of Dave, he was so protective.

                      Anyway, I’d like to point out now, that unlike Nathan Andrew, I’ve done nothing to promote the accuracy or legitimacy of MMs writings throughout this thread. And I’ve always even allowed for the possibility that MM is controlled in some way. All I’ve ever claimed is to have met him, and attended his conference. That I had a positive experience there, and I trust him.

                    3. UNreal


                      I feel like i’m being as much questioned in this thread as are you, Brandon. I commented in this thread as to offer my opinion on Miles Mathis and i hope it is explicit. I believe MM is an intelligence operation*, possibly fronted by a real person (or not). While commenting in the thread, i came across your testimony (and Mark’s) as you both claim to have been to the latest MM conference recently. I’m also skeptical of the conference as such, and by interference to your and Mark’s testimony and person/role. It is of course both possible that i’m wrong and that you were at the conference as layman, still MM could be an operation. I’m most interested in the mechanics of this probable operation, more-so than to establish whether the conference really took place or not and who were there (or not).

                      1 The people than run these operations are human and make many smart manoeuvres as well as repeat errors of past operations. There is no unique modus operandi.
                      2 All the sites you refer to are excellent. I’d add Jays Analysis to the playlist. Regarding the veracity of your person we have covered this in previous posts. To me you are a person who’s story that is yet to be substantiated and fit into the bigger MM picture.
                      3 Once more, regarding you as a person i have nothing for/against you, but you can not objectively invalidate my general observations or suspicion by your statements alone.
                      4 The fact is that you have been commenting on McGowens FB page is coincidental*, nevertheless it was quite remarquable for Fakeologist member Willard to make the connection.

                      I’m mostly commenting as to exchange ideas and further my understanding. I don’t want to quarrel on words with anyone in my spare time, nor would most people likely want to read such material. Thanks for the discussion Brandon, you have given me a fair perspective of your points of view, and i’ve tried to explain my points although i understand you don’t agree. As stated in an earlier post, would be good if you accept Ab’s invitation and do an audio with him.

                      *If anyone discover this post first, i’ve covered my viewpoints in earlier posts
                      **multiplying coincidences can sometimes be worrisome in conspiracy circles

                    4. Brandon


                      Fair points, and I respect your stance.
                      I just like to point out that me posting on Dave McGowan’s page wasn’t “coincidental” at all. In fact I told that very truth in one of my very first responses to you as part of my “conspiracy biography” so to speak.

                      The coincidental part, from my perspective, is that a fellow fakeologist just “happened” to remember me from a year and a half ago. What are the odds that fakeologist Willard was commenting on both this thread, the same time I was… and he remembered me from a different site, so long ago? Yet that coincidence elicited not a peep from any of the folks here that jumped on the Mark “coincidence.”

                      The curious part of that whole exchange, is that no other fakeologist called out Willard as being suspicious!
                      Everyone just ignored the fact that a trusted member just vouched for me, and proved that my story about myself that I told you earlier was true. Sure, it wasn’t directly confirming my conference experience, but it showed I was being honest about my background, and it also directed people to a place where I posted dozens and dozens of comments on a variety of topics, for anyone to peruse and further establish an opinion of me, if they so desired.

                      Where was VD, calling bullshit, like he did with Mark? Why didn’t you make the connection that Willard could be part of the operation to legitimize me in a more subtle way? By pretending to try to trap me, but instead he ends up indirectly promoting me. That’s probably a common tactic, right?
                      Instead, Willard got a hearty pat on the back for his excellent memory… as if him remembering me from Weird Scenes actually tarnishes my story further, somehow.

                      You notice that I’ve never once suggested the possibility that commenters here are actually part of an operation to *discredit Miles Mathis.*
                      If there are groups out there that promote fake people… there are certainly groups out there who’s job it is to destroy the reputation of real people.
                      Miles himself is convinced that is the case.
                      I have no way of knowing if I’ve just spent the past several days interacting with such people, of course… but if I could imagine how such a group might operate, this thread might be a common template.
                      My best to you,

                  2. willard

                    my blood ran cold when I read what your comment here”…I’ve seen supportive commentary quite often whenever an intelligence operation is attacked, be it here on fakeologist or elsewhere. Your own and Mark Tokarski’s endorsements with similar, coordinated messages is quite common for protecting an active operation as i suspect (and have suspected for quite some time) MM to be. <

                    Anyone familiar with Dave McGowan's Weird Scenes Facebook page would know of an entity there named "Nathan Andrew". A strident, at times embarrassing supporter of McGowan, he disappeared without comment [as far as I know] once McGowan's terminal illness became known. A wordless knowing came over me: Nathan Andrew is the type Unreal is talking about.

                    Read more:…

                    1. UNreal


                      Quite impressed by the fact you were able to recognize new Fakeologist member Brandon from Dave McGowans facebook page. If my commentary helped you on the way even better!

                      To be able to make a living as a conspiracy author in a very restrained field is close to impossible, so in this aspect Dave McGowen’s story makes a lot of sense (he was a building contractor). If we for the arguments sake would suppose both MM and McGowen are intelligence operations, they have this element in common, to establish a credible/viable livelihood as their authorship would prove unsustainable by itself. To be able to lead the “opposition” at our end of the conspiracy scale, it would be difficult not serve us a very high percentage of “good” conspiracy candy to be credible, and both McGowen and MM are to the point here. However, both entities are serving older/unoffensive stories that are not part of the current news/media-attention*. Seeing that books are no longer the main source for conspiracy theory, MM’s pdf world is a more potent resource as he/they can serve more “digestible” material for the internet world with our much shorter attention span. However, the output and research required for MM’s forays into such a plethora of subjects/personalities (mostly intelligence based anyhow) would prove very hard to achieve by one person alone, not to mention sustaining a livelihood while pursuing such a time-wrecking effort. The solution for this situation is easily solved for MM by establishing him as genius, garnering a plausible income from art (a field poorly mastered by conspiracy theorists) and depriving him of a personal life.

                      In the case of MM, it would be most plausible that his material is a collaborative effort where the writers might depend on the successful adoption of their fictitious character onto the alternative conspiracy scene, more-so than in the sales-numbers of books or radio-presence as were/is measured the intelligence operations before. In this scenario, the MM conference could be an effective way to raise attention and help assert the existence of an artificial entity, something that “MM witnesses” from CF and Mark Tokarski and Brandon all achieve with their interactions. We can even speculate that the MM conferences actually describe how the MM group really work, there would be 7-10 people working in a collaborative effort that meet up over a few days to work out their material as to make all subjects match and the style coherent,,,,

                      *McGowen as i recall, did jump on the Boston-bombing wagon, but he was late to the game and not all that successful in leading the charge (maybe this was a last effort to keep him in the game,,, thereafter: more valuable dead than alive?)

      1. Brandon

        I’m happy to share details, and answer any questions, if you are curious.
        Basically, it was an informal get-together at Miles’ house in Taos, NM.
        The group met from approximately 10am – 5 pm, Monday through Friday. Miles generally had physics topics planned for discussion (based on his more recent papers), and he would lead the discussion, but attendees were free to interject and/or ask questions.
        The “conspiracy” talk was more fluid and less structured. As you can imagine, when you get a group of strangers together, everyone has a different area of interest or knowledge, so the discussion ranged all over the place.
        The whole group would go out for lunch together (including Miles). Overall, I found him extremely accommodating and the whole experience was interesting and rewarding.
        As I’m sure most here know, these topics aren’t always easy to bring up in conversations with friends and family members. It was great to be around a group of open-minded people, and to be able to freely discuss topics with people, in person, who took each other seriously.

        1. Vespadouglas

          Hi Brandon.

          Would you consider yourself to be Miles’ student?
          Did you and the other “students” retire, in any way collectively, of an evening?
          Are you a fakeologist?
          Would you say that any of the other students are fakeologists?
          Did you go by yourself or in company?

          I hope you don’t find these questions too intrusive.

          1. Brandon


            I wouldn’t call myself his student. I’ve been interested in his papers, and I admire his research. Based on a handful of email interactions I’d had with him, I tended to trust him.
            One of the reasons I decided to try and attend his conference was to form a more complete opinion/picture of him… as well as to have a chance to discuss fake events, in person, with like-minded people. What I mean is… part of the draw of Miles’ conference was meeting the other attendees (or students, as you call them).
            I’m not sure what you mean by the question “Are you a fakeologist”?
            I believe that the media is controlled and that the news footage/stories that are presented to us are often faked. I agree that most of history that has been presented to us is false.
            As far as the other members of the conference… half the group was there for the physics talk, the other half was there more for the fake events talk.
            Almost everyone there, it seems, was open to the idea of “conspiracies.” Although one attendee was there solely for the math/physics talk, and was skeptical of any conspiracy that didn’t involve the suppression of Miles’ physics work.
            I attended the conference by myself. But my girlfriend went with me to Taos, and we spent the week there on a mini-vacation. Miles did invite her to join the conference on the last day, and she showed up for a couple hours. She was interested in looking at Miles art, so he showed us around his place and we talked about his paintings, etc.

            I didn’t understand your question, “Did you and the other “students” retire, in any way collectively, of an evening?”
            A couple of nights, after the conference, some of the attendees went out to dinner with Miles. Is that what you mean? I didn’t go to dinner with him, since I wanted to spend time with my girlfriend after being in the conference all day.

              1. Brandon

                I get the sense that you are trying to determine if I am “real”, not that you are particularly interested in the details of the conference.
                As you can imagine, over the course of approximately 35 hours together, a lot of topics were covered.
                As far as physics was concerned, Miles wanted to focus on his papers over the past year, since he covered the earlier ones in previous conferences.
                Frankly, the physics talk was mostly over my head. I found it interesting, and I could follow the basic concepts, but my background in physics is limited.
                As far as the “conspiracy”/fake events talk, it ran the gamut.
                Like I mentioned before, everyone there had different interests.
                Miles, himself, basically tried to steer the conversation toward articles he’d written. But he was open to discussing just about whatever anyone brought up.
                He did spend some time on photo analysis… particularly facial recognition, and noticing anomalies in shadows, etc. The stuff he points out in his articles.

                Speaking of photos, you asked if I had any.
                May I ask you this?
                Would it make any difference to you, or anyone else here, if I actually shared them?
                What would they prove, really?
                I have a photo of Miles and some of the group, at a café in Taos, where we had lunch one of the days.
                I also have a photo of Miles, on his couch, with one of his cats.
                I thought about sharing them here, but I’m hesitant to for a couple of reasons. One, I don’t have the permission of Miles, or the other people in the café photo, to post them online.
                Two, if you, or Unreal, or anyone else here, is convinced that Miles is fake, or that there is some guy who is a “front” for MM, then you won’t be convinced by a picture of him, will you?
                If I am part of some committee who is assigned to come to this comment section and follow some elaborate script to try and convince a few people the MM exists… then certainly me showing a couple of photos would be part of the “script,” right?

                1. Vespadouglas

                  I’m using the term, student because that’s what MM himself calls you.

                  By Fakeologist I mean –
                  No planes / no terror.
                  No space travel.
                  Controlled media.
                  Controlled governments.
                  Recognising as one of, (if not) , the most important research tool on the Internet.

                  By ” retire collectively ” I meant , did you socialise/dine out etc with other students away from Miles.

                  1. Brandon

                    Ah, I understand. I think you are referring to the link that ab posted where Miles announced his second physics conference? That was from a couple of years ago. The only conference I have attended was his most recent one, a few weeks ago. Miles opened up the discussion to include fake events, which is why I even bothered to ask him about possibly attending. I didn’t want my lack of physics background to be an issue.
                    Perhaps when he was focusing entirely on physics, Miles thought of the dynamic as more of a student/teacher one?
                    He never referred to me as his student, and I don’t consider myself one.
                    I am curious as to why the “student” issue interests you. Does it mean something to you? I ask in all honesty, and curiosity.
                    Regarding “Fakeologists”…
                    I am still in the process of trying to learn and expose myself to as many ideas and beliefs as possible.
                    Currently, I don’t trust/believe the mainstream story regarding any “terror” event, mass shooting, serial killer, etc.
                    I would steer anyone toward Cluesforum and the vicsim report as important resources in trying to get to the bottom of what actually happened on 9/11.
                    controlled media? – yes, I believe so
                    controlled governments? yes, I believe so
                    no space travel? I don’t have a strong opinion. I believe the moon landing footage is fake, and based on what I’ve seen/read/been told, i’m skeptical of space travel. but like most things, I am relying upon the research of others as far as that goes.

                    I didn’t socialize with members of the group away from Miles, other than riding in the car to lunch, and hanging out in his driveway, chatting, after the conference ended for the day.
                    Again, I’m curious as to the conclusions you would draw from this, one way or another.

                    1. Vespadouglas

                      Not so much “conclusions” to be drawn, more, getting an idea of the type of a typical MM follower.
                      From 10 attendees you seem to be the only one who understands fakery.The rest of the group being ” open to conspiracies” , at best, tells me a bit about Maths. Put 10 fakeo’s or 10 CF followers in the same town for five days.

                    2. Brandon


                      Just to clarify, there were 7 attendees at the conference. Miles told us that 8 were accepted (that’s his limit), but that one person backed out at the last minute.
                      I’m not sure I would say that I “understand fakery” better than anyone else that attended. I’m still learning and trying to figure things out.
                      It was a diverse group, as far as topics of interest was concerned, but when the conversation steered toward fake events/conspiracies, there was definitely open and interesting discussion. I was actually surprised at how much time we spent on those ideas, compared to the physics topics.
                      My impression was that Miles adjusted the format as we went along, based on what people wanted to discuss.
                      The group is remaining in contact, btw. One of the attendees is attempting to build a model that will demonstrate one of Miles’ physics theories, and he is letting us know his progress and asking for input, etc.

                    3. Brandon

                      No, I don’t know anyone who died on 9/11, or during any other “terror event.”
                      Do you?

                    4. willard

                      @Brandon, thank you for answering my question.
                      do you know anyone who knew someone who died on 911?

                      By the way, may I ask what your opinion is of the late Dave McGowan?

                    5. Brandon


                      Seems like I’m being asked a lot of questions… but most folks here seem reluctant to show me the courtesy of answering mine.
                      I’ll ask again. Do you know anyone who died on 9/11 or in any other terror event?

                      As for Dave McGowan. I mentioned him in one of my responses to the many questions posed by Unreal, but I’ll elaborate for you.
                      I enjoyed visiting/reading Dave’s website. His deconstruction of the Boston Marathon Bombing was really my first exposure to (what I considered) convincing evidence of a fake/manufactured event.
                      I think his series on the Moon Landings is another good example.
                      As time went on, I realized that Dave was reluctant to make the leap to recognizing other fake events, and I found that curious.
                      I know that some people found that suspicious, but I tended to give him the benefit of the doubt, as far as his motives were concerned.
                      Perhaps I was naïve on that matter… I don’t know.
                      I will say, that I could understand him being reluctant to accept fake events that would contradict his past research (his serial killer book comes to mind). I don’t say it was right or admirable… just that I understand it.
                      Overall, I credit McGowan for opening my eyes/mind to a lot of things I had never considered before. I didn’t agree with everything he said/wrote, but I don’t think agreeing with everything is necessary. Even if McGowan was “controlled” as some people suggest, he got a lot of people talking and thinking about fake events, whether he wanted them to or not.
                      As an aside, I have heard suggested that McGowan faked his death. I have no opinion or evidence on that matter. Based on the little information I have, I tend to think he died. But obviously I can’t be certain of that.

                    6. willard

                      @ Brandon, sorry, I wasn’t trying to be rude….just delicate.
                      I do not know anyone who died on 911. 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. The person’s name was Brandon PostalService, who, if memory serves me right, said he worked in the airline industry and worked with people who died on 911. They were his co-workers who worked on one of the airplanes that crashed in New York, etc.
                      Do you smell what I am cooking?

                    7. Brandon

                      Yes, that was me who posted on Dave’s weird scenes page.
                      I’m not sure why you need to be delicate.
                      I did stick up for MM a few times on that site, though I think I did it somewhat diplomatically. I was a relatively new reader of MM at the time, and didn’t have as firm of an opinion about him as I do now.
                      I also stuck up for Dave in an email I sent to MM. Both of those guys seemed not to trust each other, and since I liked them both, it kind of bothered me, I guess.
                      I’m not sure if your being “delicate” was to try and trick me into admitting something about my thoughts on 9/11, or what. It seems like you asked me a question that you didn’t really want the answer to. Did you really want to know my opinions on Dave McGowan? I’d prefer you just ask me what you want to know straight up. That way I don’t waste my time writing out lengthy responses that aren’t necessary.
                      Anyway… since it seems you really want to know my opinions on 9/11, here you go…
                      I don’t believe that anyone died in the “plane crashes.” Two years ago, when I was commenting on Dave’s page, I hadn’t even been exposed to the idea that the whole thing was a fake video presentation, I just knew that the whole thing was bullshit in some way I didn’t understand. Because I was familiar with the airline industry and how things worked on planes, so much of the story didn’t make sense to me. Like I said in my response to Unreal, I am relatively new to the idea of fake events. It was during that conversation about 9/11 that someone linked September Clues to me. When I first watched it, I was skeptical. The more I’ve studied it, the more I tend to think that it is the most plausible explanation of what happened that day.
                      Oh, and I tend to think that the people who “died” that were crew members, were planted ahead of time, to establish themselves as legitimate employees.
                      Being a flight attendant for United Airlines, at a small base like, say, Newark, everyone knows each other. So it makes sense that the coordinators of the event would plant some “real” people in places that people would remember seeing them. That said, I think the vicsim report is likely accurate, and that the majority of people who “died” on 9/11, probably never existed.
                      I do have a personal story about one of the flight attendants that supposedly died on flight 93… but suffice it to say, I no longer believe she actually died.

  6. BonusObliquus

    Great observations UN! You ever think about doing your own show, or do you have some independent audios already? The stuff you have done with the Hoaxbusters guys and the few you have on here with Ab are really excellent. I’d even brush up on my French if I had to, as long as you go slow…

    1. Tom Dalpra

      Yes, UN your comments and contributions always welcomed ‘here’, too.
      Certainly don’t be a stranger, not that you’ve ever been one in these years.
      You must be one of the originals here. It’s good to have that reference and a familiar trusted ‘voice’. Thanks .

      To BonusObliquus, nice avatar. Classic referencing to the actual brain and to the root of our consciousness, is what it suggests to me.
      The dual snakes – up the column to enlightenment. In this case suggested by a mushroom – an hallucinogenic variety of which may induce a secretion from the pineal gland and open up the ‘head’ to ‘enlightenment’ ?

      Is this perhaps, how you would interpret it ?
      I’m genuinely interested as it’s related to things I’ve been looking at lately.
      I see brain referencing on a broad scale with the London Eye alluding to the eye of Horus and the O2 Arena the pineal gland with the snaking Thames running through them.

      I’m playing ‘spot the brain ‘ at the moment and I just wanted to check if my ‘eye’s in’ as it were !

      1. BonusObliquus

        Sure that’s a good interpretation. It is almost undoubtedly a mushroom of the Amanita genus, which does contain the muscaria species, which is considered to be hallucinogenic, though not in the fun sort of way that the psilocybe genus generally is. Amanita also contains a number of deadly poisonous members: a few that will shut down your liver in a matter of hours. I’ve also heard the caduceus referred to as the ‘rod of the dead’, so that may be a good pairing with the Amanita.

        It’s actually kind of a relic that I’m having a hard time getting rid of, both figurative and literally: it is associated with a ‘blogger’ or somesuch account that I forget the login to, but somehow is still associated with me when I post on this site, among others…

        Or it’s the scrawlings of an idiot, full of rich symbolic history signifying nothing… but in any case thank you for the compliment!

        1. stephen

          “… full of rich symbolic history signifying nothing…” Ha, ha, I like it.

          My wife is a knowledgeable Mush’ amateur. We collect, wild, then fresh and dried we eat quite a lot; expecting a new batch round about now.

          Amanita are quite common and there are edibles, tasty too apparently, but even though she is confident about the Blusher for example, any from that family are a no-no for us, it’s too risky. Very nice to look at though, the Fly Agaric is an especial beauty, an archetype. Here’s a nice article, fine comments too, “Eating Santa’s Shroom”:

          1. BonusObliquus

            Your wife must be pretty self confident: I tend to steer clear all amanitas . I’ve heard they are quite delicious though, and not just the ‘blusher’ or ‘Caesar’s amanita’: probably urban/rural legend but I’ve often heard of people dying from amanita poisoning remarking about what an exceptional tasting mushroom they are as they slip away. A good reminder I guess that even something most attractive to our senses can deceive, sometimes mortally. As they say: “All mushrooms are edible, some only once…”

            1. stephen

              No! That’s my poor writing, we don’t eat any from Amanita family, like you we steer clear.

              We went out looking this morning and saw two Blushers, we left them exactly where they were!

              “A good reminder I guess that even something most attractive to our senses can deceive…” true, true, fortunately I’ve, mostly, been more of a Peeper than a Doer.

    2. UNreal

      Thanks for voicing your encouragement BonusObliquus & Tom Dalpra. All the audios i’ve participated in have been here @ Fakeologist and as of late John Adams has invited me to join him and Chris a couple of times. I actually first had the chance to talk with John Adams through Ab’s ‘afternoon Fakeologist commute’ as Ab invited me in for one of the calls.

      As to your (BonusObliquus) question about radioshows, i have not thought much about it. not sure my broken english* would be appealing on a regular basis. My own voice annoys myself for starters,,,! Radio-wise, I much miss my favorite shows here on Fakeologist hosted by Ab. I really hope Ab soon will have time to do more shows** like back in the golden saturdays !

      *my french is also broken, so not much luck in that language either !
      **Kudos to Rollo on his radio-shows that keep on getting better

  7. UNreal

    Miles Mathis claims are too many and very diverse in accuracy. The psyop here is the MM character itself which i take as pure fiction crafted to represent the lone alternative researchers dream:

    -a true polymath
    -an artist
    -a handsome alpha male*

    There is no 1person MM that produce all this research all by himself without relying on anything or anyone but his own genius and that doesn’t even bother reading a single line of other people’s findings,,,,

    What appears significant in the MM psyop is that the percentage of “good” or “new” information represent a higher ratio than what is usually practiced by other front figures of alternative research, like say Davis Icke or Judy Wood. MM is more crafted to suit Clues than Flat Earth ever was. CF still debate over MM being “legit” or not. MM is not legit, he is controlled opposition. MM is a team of writers that might be fronted by a poor artist with over-dimensioned ego, but still very much an operation.

    1. Barbara Müller

      not bad…I mean the picture. Well this is your opinion dear Unreal and nothing else. I have my doubts also but so far, MM writings seem to be very consistent. He develops from paper to paper. I don’t like his scientific papers much because he’s heavily propagating relativity theory and that is the only thing which makes my wonder. He can be visited in the USA and maybe one of the people who will do it can show us some pictures, in the way Simon Shack does it occasionally. MM seems to be living without any “proper” job, he has no children, no family, which gives him a lot of time to analyze and write. He writes lets say 1-2 papers per week, which isn’t that much. Ken Follett (british writer) said once, he writes 5 pages a day, when he works on a book. That makes MM look pretty lazy. Oh, by the way, Ken Follett’s last trilogy was written by many different writers. Its a good read but still I’m pretty sure, the books were written in parts by different people. Not so MM’s papers. That’s my opinion.

      1. UNreal

        Comparing Ken Follet literature to MM conspiracy research is a bit unfair. It takes much more time to do all a multitude of fact-filled research-papers on various topics than to write a one theme novel (or trilogy). Also, as you point out, if Follets last trilogy was a combined effort of multiple writers, what differs in these books from his previous ones ? If nothing much differs, maybe Follet’s books were always a combined effort anyways.

        Miles Mathis ‘spacex’ paper is equally just opinion. in fact, the paper “debunks” Flat earth and Russianvids without any information whatsoever, except that readers are expected to take what MM writes at face value. This MM ‘certified truth’ paper is a huge ‘appeal to authority’ fallacy.

        MM is quite late to the game of “outing” the Flat Earth and Space X and he doesn’t do much of a job of it. I’m not surprised that we get get more appeal to authority or ridicule on the topic as so many content themselves with the fact that FE is a psyop, but i expected more than an opinion from MM the ‘scientist’.

        Unfortunately, all of our perceived culture is manufactured (aka a psyop), and the spherical, 40000km 1000mph spinning Globe is very much a part of our false reality. Back in the day JFK was a giant psyop, still we all were fine with investigating it. We were ‘conspiracy’ theorists. Half a century later things seems to have changed.

        We have huge quantities of fake footage and pictures of the earth, the scientific facts do not check out, we have a pile of controlled opposition,,, looks like a standard covert operation to me where what we are presented is not as it seems. I have been glad to be called a ‘conspiracy’ researcher as we were labelled for 50 odd years, and now we have a new name on the block that very few seems to have the spine to support: Flat Earther. I would like the word to be prettier, represent me better (globe earth sceptic?) but the fact is that the spinning globe in an infinite multiverse is a lie. if you doubt it, you are a “Flat Earther” in the lingo of our culture creators, even if you don’t agree on the manufactured term.

  8. Barbara Müller

    Miles Mathis made himself some reputation. He recently warned of some youtube guy who excessively analyzes his findings. That youtube guy even tries to look like Miles which probably is not accidental. I understand why he does not want to participate on the Cluesforum. He considers himself being on a different level and he maybe right. If you want to debunk Miles Mathis you must recheck his findings for flaws and that won’t be easy.

Leave a Reply

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