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.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. logo

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