Miles Mathis on Bob Dylan & Operation Rolling Stone

[PufPuf93]

I was just re-visiting the Mile Mathis site for the active Leonard Cohen thread.

The Hippie Matrix - How the government infiltrated the environmental, hippie, progressive, and new age movements.

http://mileswmathis.com/hippie.pdf

This may be of general interest to RI and specifically pertains to the Leonard Cohen and McGowan threads.

I am in the progress of this read.

Another new thread is entitled Marilyn Monroe's death was faked.

http://mileswmathis.com/monroe.pdf

There are several Monroe threads at RI and she is also brought up in passing in other topic.

I like Marilyn Monroe.

[guruilla]

I'm not sure I can stomach any more MM; it feels too tainted. Too much joining, not enough dots. I mean, where does he get all this stuff? He might as well be making it up.

I haven't read much tho, so I could be casting judgment too soon. Meaty quotes would be nice.

[PufPuf93]

I'm not sure I can stomach any more MM; it feels too tainted. Too much joining, not enough dots. I mean, where does he get all this stuff? He might as well be making it up.

I haven't read much tho, so I could be casting judgment too soon. Meaty quotes would be nice.

MM seems a little icky, too serious, and dis-info to me as well.

I get a much more genuine and good-natured / humorous vibe from McGowan.

I "met" Mathis in this thread.

The problem with most conspiracy topics on the internet is that there is as much muddying as true info and clarification..

The Dylan / Leonard Cohan conjecture in the other thread are at the end of the Mathis piece beginning with the Ginsberg quote and what brought me back into this thread.

One frustrating problem for me at RI is my mind gets racing and connecting dots and thoughts are in a number of threads and topics at once.

Like now. Apologize for this tendency.

[guruilla]

I tried to listen to a Joe Atwill podcast last night (he's the guy Jan Irving has on Gnostic Media all the time) and was disturbed to hear him and Jerry Russell talk about Miles Mathis in glowing terms and specifically discuss MM's theory that John Lennon faked his death, the evidence being this pseudo documentary "I'm Still Here." Atwill or Russell, I couldn't tell which, was arguing that MM presented "proof," or undeniable evidence, that JL was alive. I saw that documentary (it wasn't easy to find a working torrent so my guess is those guys didn't bother to check out the source material), and it wasn't even a well-done hoax.

I'm sort of sorry I even started this thread now ~ anything that gives MM more exposure seems like a bad idea ~ but on the other hand, people seem to be swallowing his stuff with a disturbing lack of critical discernment.

Here's a post from my own forum sapce:

Compare liberty's comment:

liberty wrote:
I am also reading the Miles Mathis article on the Manson [alleged] killings.. His articles are long, I think hundreds of pages each. When I started reading the Kennedy one, after being pointed over there from here. I could not stop.. and the the Lincoln one after that... My whole inner life changed from these.. Everything seemed to change.. I felt much lighter. And felt a great lifting of a burden..

with:

Jeff22 wrote:
The mind goes into a state of suspicion, confusion, maybe even apathy =+*@ which might serve to shut down the intuition or the imagination. At least, that’s the way that I felt after spending an hour just trying to get through one article written by Winston Smith, er uh… I mean Miles Mathis. It’s like a hypnotic spell used as fly paper for the third dimension. I don’t believe the official version of 9/11, Sandy Hook, or a hundred other media stories, too many to mention. But now it seems as though everyone I thought was dead is alive and many I thought were alive are dead or clones and NOTHING I thought happened did, and people like Jay Weidner are saying that atomic bombs were never dropped , and that the earth is flat, and hell, maybe they weren’t and maybe it is. But it seems like someone just said…Ok, you want conspiracies? We’ll give you conspiracies. Have fun never leaving your computer screen again.

I wonder, then (since I lean more towards Jeff's POV here, tho i think I understand liberty's a bit), if what MM and his ilk are offering, with their spatter-gun conspiracy research in which nothing we ever believed was true is left standing ~ is the relief of a dissociative fantasy in which we can finally "know" that nothing is real?

Is this something like what happens to us as children, as we discover that our parents are lying to us and concealing distorted behaviors under the guise of a false wisdom and authority, with tropes like "It's grown-up stuff" and "We know what's best for you, trust us," etc. With the shock of finding out that those caregivers who were supposed to guide us into a sense of what's real and true are themselves incapable (or unwilling) of telling the difference, we retreat into a fantasy land in which mom and dad are evil robots from another planet and our real parents are a mythical king and queen, waiting for us in fairyland? (Or, as adolescence hits, we start to dream of a "real life" beyond the sordid lies of home, a life as a Hollywood celeb, heavy metal rock star junky, or whatever.)

For myself at least, I know I experience a sort of instant "buzz" when I read or hear another wild and out-there C-theory that turns everything I thought was real upside down. It's exciting, perhaps precisely because, the more unreal official reality starts to look, the more we begin to think nothing is real so we can just create our own version of reality, and sail off into that virtual sunset.

In contrast, when I have got closer to finding a coherent reality hidden behind the false one by my own efforts, such as with Strieber or with my family background, I notice that there is more a feeling of exhaustion, sickness, and despair that characterizes the seeing, not exclusively, but probably as strongly as any feeling of relief that this, at least, is closer to something real. The inner lightening comes later, I think, once I have let go of the old cover story and relinquished the unconscious effort to keep it in place.

[Twyla LaSarc]

I dunno about being 'freed' to my own version of reality. I already live there and it is a sticky place. Lord knows if Jack Palance is dead at any given time, it's like schrodinger's cat.

But to put it in Dickish terminology, (to paraphrase) 'Reality is what still exists whether you believe in it or not' and I bet dollars to donuts John Lennon is as dead at this point in time as Jack Palance (but perhaps not as dead as Abe Vigoda?)...

[guruilla]

that line has been on my mind a lot recently (& we have the recent Dick thread too): Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.

I wonder if he went far enough? "Reality is what's left when you stop believing in anything?"

[tapitsbo]

I know it's tough to believe people would be taking someone like Mathis seriously, but it could just be a symptom of cognitive fatigue (as well as all the explanations you guys have been giving).

[guruilla]

Alleged proof according to Miles ("if you buy this I've got a bridge to sell you") Mathis, that John Lennon faked his death and then became a mediocre John Lennon impersonator. I have put this video up a) so people can see the "evidence" for themselves and decide; b) to see if it stays up. You can skip to the end to see "John" performing.

[Grizzly]

Alleged proof according to Miles ("if you buy this I've got a bridge to sell you") Mathis, that John Lennon faked his death and then became a mediocre John Lennon impersonator. I have put this video up a) so people can see the "evidence" for themselves and decide; b) to see if it stays up. You can skip to the end to see "John" performing.

Across The Universe - Strawberry Fields Forever [HQ]

http://www.prologue.com/projects/across ... rry-fields

[guruilla]

Discussing the toxic honey pot that is Miles Mathis, in comments section at Ted Bundy podcast: https://auticulture.com/the-liminalist- ... ment-77516

rossgopicotrain
Amongst the many heads of the hydra in the ‘conspiracy theory’ world, there’s one Miles W. Mathis (see, ‘mileswmathis.com’ site); who would take umbrage with any sources of info (or dis/mis-info for that matter), vis-a-vis said case, positing that the whole Ted Bundy scenario was anything besides a hoax (viz, in MM’s eyes, Ted Bundy wasn’t a murderer let alone a serial one); as such, Mr. Mathis would no doubt conclude that your entire conversation was pure speculation; and, consequently, quite specious! RGB-Y2 out!!

Jasun
MM is a limited hangout overflowing with shite

rossgopicotrain
That may be the case; but it still does not militate vs the import of many of the premisses MM details in his paper on TB; which engenders, in toto, a very sound argument vs the idea of said ‘serial killer’ scenario being real. For example, the interviews of TB in prison were fake (i.e., interviews of prisoners not permitted); the trial was fake (i.e., trials are not permitted to be televised; moreover, upon viewing them one should discern how risible, nay ridiculous the trial actually was back in the day); the escape from prison was fake (i.e., the series of steps invoked by TB to actualize said escape is completely implausible); many of the photos of purported victims were fake; etc.; etc.! Really surprised, nay disappointed that these points were missed by the triumvirate of researchers that comprised this podcast. RGB-Y2 out!!

Jasun
you’ve been MM-slimed!
acc to MM, everything that was ever reported in the media is fake; it’s a self-reducing, self-cancelling hypothesis meant to either push people away from conspiracy research or drag them all the way into a flat-earth bardo realm of reductio ad absurdum.
I am disappointed that MM followers post comments about him here at all

rossgopicotrain
I don’t disagree with you Jasun; however, once again, that does not necessarily negate the fact that MM (or, most plausibly, a committee of ‘conspirators’ who are responsible for said writings) does invoke many nuggets of truths vis-a-vis many, many suspect erstwhile events; with the TB one being at the top of that list. I certainly don’t mean to belabor this point {for many reasons not the least of which is that I have too much respect for your work; and concomitant high IQ (which is probably 50 points higher than mine)}; but just wanted to put in my two-penny worth! God Bless you and your family!! (and thanks for responding!) [By the by: I absolutely luv your podcasts; and books: your insights and revelations are truly unique; and inspiring!! RGB-Y2 out!!!

Jasun
There will always be anomalies, as we discuss in the podcast, and a totally tidy and coherent narrative is not possible, or really desirable, since it would indicate it was falsified. I don’t know if IQ has much to do with it, but research and analysis has to be grounded, and MM’s just isn’t, it’s ludicrous, & I think deliberately. Even if it weren’t, it can be counterproductive to make blanket statements like “what about this researcher?” – rather than cite a specific anomaly or two. I am sure, and have seen for myself, that MM’s analyses aren’t completely devoid of genuinely odd data points; it’s the overall weave that is so toxic. With someone like MM, I recommend isolating the anomalous facts that interest you, confirming them elsewhere, and presenting them independently of the toxic honey pot that is MM. I did this with some facts I found via LaRouche, in Vice of Kings, & you will note that I never site LaRouche, because I know he’s seen as tainted source. Ditto, with MM, I don’t know of a single competent researcher who takes him seriously.

[Agent Orange Cooper]

IMO, any discussion of MM must include Allan Weisbecker's "An Open Letter to Miles Mathis" (both parts). Fairly convincing analysis that the essays credited to him (including all the dense essays on revisionist physics, which it seems like nobody reads) are written-by-committee, possibly a British intelligence project based on certain tells in the prose.

http://blog.banditobooks.com/an-open-le ... -part-one/

As mentioned in a previous post (and which bears repetition), Miles from New Mexico gives an annual conference. For $400 you can come talk to the Renaissance Truther himself, apparently, although your travel, room, board, etc. is your own problem. I say ‘apparently’ because I did email Miles inquiring about my possible attendance. It didn’t go well, speaking of apparently — amongst my interests I stated physics and NASA’s continuing frauds, plus my suspicion that a lot of the alt media are LH psy ops. Whether I struck a nerve here I cannot for sure say, but Miles replied that I’d likely be a ‘disruptive’ influence at his conference, and would probably ‘ask questions no one would want to hear.’ This exchange was early on, well before my epiphany that MM is… a lot more than his flowery cv would indicate. (I’d included links to my essays, including the Snowden one in Veterans Today, and the outing of FBI agent John O’Neil as a 9/11 colluder; both expose agents of the state for what they are.)

A related matter: MM often brags (in his essays) that he is continually approached to do interviews, which he always refuses (as he says he did with Sofia Smallstorm). He is not shy about his reason: the assumption that – since most alt media outlets are LH psy ops (something Miles and I agree on!), his work would be ‘spun.’ Well now, wait a minute, Miles, wouldn’t the simple demand that an interview be conducted live take care of that concern? Sure it would, especially considering your superior intellect and debating skills.

Here’s why you don’t do interviews, Miles: ‘You’ are a committee of ‘experts,’ a half dozen at least (not counting low level ‘researchers’), specializing in ‘real’ (as opposed to ‘mainstream’) science, history, and, above all, the reality of false flag and staged events, both recent and going way back. See, we have to imagine how an interview, a live one (since you’d insist upon that), would go. What if the interviewer switched topics without warning, say, from subatomic physics to art history? Maybe an ear bud and the rest of the gang huddled ‘off-Skype’ would work, but the hell with it; too complicated, right? Hence your refusal to do interviews.

Which leads me to this: Is your annual ‘conference’ real or just a way of implying that you are actually a one man show, somewhere in New Mexico? Why are there no still photos or, better, Youtube clips of your past conferences? (A search for ‘Miles Mathis’ on Youtube brings up zip, nada, nothing, other than a blithering dude who calls himself ‘DraftScience’ – who ain’t you, Miles.) How could that be? Do you charge $400 for face time and ban cameras? If so, why? (Wouldn’t someone who attended your conference at least have popped a selfy with you and posted it on Facebook or wherever? No, apparently: try finding one.

http://blog.banditobooks.com/an-open-le ... -part-two/

The second part is even more involved and includes the author's correspondence with Mathis and Simon Shack of cluesforum (another limited hangout).

[guruilla]

Good to see someone has done the heavy lifting of this albatrossic Miles-stone around the neck of the alt. research community.

[Marionumber1]

Miles Mathis-type reasoning is practically designed to redirect genuine anomalies towards the most simplistic explanation: that the anomalies prove a person/event is fake. It's a tempting mental shortcut that preempts having to do the legwork of investigating deep crimes. When you do dive into that netherworld, it is a mess of contradictory narratives and dubious evidence that resists imposing any sort of order on it. Think, for instance, how hard it is to reconcile the opposing theories in the Jeffrey MacDonald, West Memphis Three, or JonBenet Ramsey cases. The end result of this investigation leaves the truth feeling murkier than when you started, to the point where you're quite certain what didn't happen but don't know where to begin about what did happen. Is it any wonder that, to some conspiracy researchers, it might be attractive to sweep away the whole mess as a hoax rather than trying to make sense of it?

With the specific points that this commenter raises about Ted Bundy, all of the anomalies which they list have better explanations. The level of publicized access to Bundy during his incarceration and trials would be unusual, if not for the likelihood that turning him into the public face of evil served various propaganda purposes (e.g. covering up broader-scale criminal networks like those in Grand Junction CO, and feeding a domestic Phoenix Program). And the official story of Bundy's prison escapes is indeed ludicrous, but that's more indicative of complicity by Colorado authorities. In fact, as I'll be unveiling in an upcoming article on my site, there is some brand-new evidence that part of the narrative of Bundy's second escape (the one in which he got all the way to Florida) was fabricated to hide outside involvement.

I would have to see if there's any validity to Bundy victim photos being faked — photo analysis is a facet of conspiracy research that I tend to view with extreme skepticism — but murky information about the victims of deep crime would not automatically imply that the victims don't exist. If Bundy was tied to parapolitical structures (as I believe he was), then it's likely that some victims were too (hence why they were targeted to begin with); in Donna Gail Manson's case this is pretty overtly proven with her connection to Richard Alan Miller of Mankind Research Unlimited. And if the victims were linked to this world, there are reasons (beyond the facile conclusion that they're not real victims) to make it difficult to track down information on them. This reminds me of how the difficulty of obtaining crime scene and autopsy information from mass shootings is cast as evidence of a hoax, rather than evidence that authorities are lying about the number of shooters, the actions of the gunmen at various times, etc.