MILES MATHIS TRUTH
https://pieceofmindful.com/2018/03/16/iconoclasts-miles-w-mathis/
Iconoclasts: Miles W. Mathis
iconOf the four I have written about these past two weeks, this one stands out as a true icon buster. He has disassembled fake reality before our eyes in almost every imaginable area of life, from science to fake events to art.
In my interview with Faye, she seemed deeply suspicious that Mr. Mathis is a front for a committee, and I could not dissuade her. But stop and think: If it is so, then the overlords are working against themselves, one faction exposing perhaps some truth while another (larger one) works to keep us in the dark. Just as a thought experiment, imagine that to be the case. Would it not then point to a split, factions working against each other? And if Mr. Mathis is right in any, most, or all of his writings, then he would he not represent a faction of light? (It could be that all factions are putting out misdirection … if so, I have to resign. It is too much.)
I don’t think the committee-front idea to be the case. I simply think that Faye and others who make these suppositions have a hard time grappling with the idea of one man having so much ability. He puts out tremendous written volume on science as well as fake events and history. He paints, restores old books, sculpts … he does not travel much that I know about. I assume he needs less sleep than the average person. He doesn’t drink or use drugs, meaning his mind is constantly clear when not sleeping. Not only do I think it possible that he is real and genuine, but highly probable.
I mentioned Mark Devlin in the interview with Faye as the opposite of Mathis. Devlin is a disc jockey in England, and presents himself as an expert on music. He was written books like Musical Truth 1 and 2 … full disclosure here – after listening to him interviewed I decided I did not want to read his books. They are at best limited hangouts. In interviews he seldom ever gets to a point or reaches a conclusion. It is frustrating … “Get to the point, man! Say something final!” But it does not happen. He just rattles on.
I bring up Mr. Devlin because he as a water carrier for the Paul-is-Dead psyop. I contacted him personally when in Europe (and in his time zone) to explain to him that the McCartney mystery had long been solved, and presented the evidence. He engaged me briefly and then blew me off, and not kindly. He’s still doing the psyop. My conclusion: SPOOK! His job: Keep the mysteries alive.
Mr. Mathis, on the other hand, solves mysteries and moves on. Mathis (along with Tyrone McCloskey) solved JFK, at least that the assassination was fake, setting me free. I am grateful for that. He solved Lincoln. He solved the Tate/Manson affair. He solved Lennon, OJ, MLK … even reaching out to take on the Shakespeare controversy (which I do not regard as solved.) He has thrown the unexpected at us, giving us new takes on Custer’s Last Stand, the Lindbergh flight/kidnapping and Salem Witch Trials (on which Gnostic Media, by comparison, has done a half fast job.) His genealogy is testing my patience, and his focus on Jews troubles as well … that is, anyone who wants to discredit him can easily point to the matter of Jews and take an easy exit. But I withhold judgement on things I do not like just to see where he takes us.
Mathis has a standalone website that has built up a large following without him ever having done a YouTube or an interview. We have to come to him. He does not seek us out. That is evidence towards genuine, as I see it.
I ask that commenters here be respectful. This is not a venue for personal attacks. If you want to insinuate that Mathis is a spook or a front for a committee, or that his genealogy is too loose and undisciplined, fine. That is fair chase. Do not stoop to low-grade insult. If I have Internet while traveling, I will remove any such comments.
And understand, Mathis has attacked this website, and is not my friend. I am not sucking up to him, as he would trust me even less if I did. I simply take him as real, admire him, and understand that needs his independence.
Here is what I think: He is an isolated genius, and in person a genuinely nice man, soft-spoken and possessed of a good heart. He has trust issues with … well, everyone. He is, in my mind, a true iconoclast.
Share this:
FacebookTwitterRedditLinkedIn
Posted on March 16, 2018 by Mark Tokarski
Posted in Iconoclasts
Post navigation
Previous
Previous post:
ICONOCLASTS: JOSEPH KINSEY HOWARD
Next
Next post:
EVA PERÓN, A FAIRY TALE LIFE
156 THOUGHTS ON “ICONOCLASTS: MILES W. MATHIS”
LAVENDER DREAMS
March 16, 2018 at 1:52 pm
I don’t know how I found Miles. I think I saw some one mention him in a blog and I investigated on my own. I like Miles. I find the genealogy boring so I usually go to the last part where he puts it all together. I resonate when he unravels the fake events. I was blown away with all the JFK,Lincoln,OJ, Tate, ect papers! We have been lied to on such a HUGE LEVEL that I appreciate someone like Miles to help me sort through. I’ve e mailed him a few times and he really seems like a normal guy with above normal intelligence. I wish I knew some one to introduce him to because I think he is a little lonely…I don’t think living in Taos gives him many options in that department. But then if he was happily living with some one we might not get these awesome updates. I like Miles and wish him continued good health and peace. I’ll continue to check in on his site. Thanks for the nice article on him, it was a good read.
Liked by 2 people
MARK TOKARSKI
March 16, 2018 at 2:23 pm
Just a word of warning … we are not censorious in that we warn you in advance that under “About this Blog” and “Commenting Policy” above. Transgender, like flat earth, is not allowed. You will see in the policy that you are simply warned, and if a repeat offender, banned, but only for a short while. No one is permanently banned here. But you are warned now, stay away from transgender.
Like
HEALINGWITHSAVANNAH
March 16, 2018 at 3:26 pm
Sorry. I did not know. Please feel free to delete my comments and I will not post anymore. Bye. Have a nice day.
Like
MARK TOKARSKI
March 16, 2018 at 3:33 pm
You are free to comment. Just avoid those subjects.
Like
PAINFULTRUTH2017
March 17, 2018 at 10:34 am
Yes, remember don’t bring up anything of any importance.
Like
MARK TOKARSKI
March 17, 2018 at 10:49 am
Man, you guys and your psyops! You never show shame or embarrassment as you put forth this crap. You just push it. It must be for pay, otherwise I cannot see how people stoop so low.
So where on this flat earth does one go for refuge from it all? Oh yeah. here.
Like
HEALINGWITHSAVANNAH
March 17, 2018 at 11:05 am
Right! And this blog has a post about Miles Mathis and his take on trannies, which is the only reason I mentioned it. Perhaps they need to send themselves a warning! Whatever…hypocrites…big turn-off for me. https://pieceofmindful.com/2017/03/30/straight-on-mathis-and-trannies/
Liked by 1 person
MARK TOKARSKI
March 17, 2018 at 11:13 am
“Straight,”a former writer here, wrote that piece long, long ago before we had a commenting policy that forbade delving into issues that were obvious psyops. As can be seen with your engagement here, they tend to derail threads. So cool it, or you are gone.
Like
JARED MAGNESON
March 17, 2018 at 2:43 pm
This type of behavior, Mark, is why Miles “doesn’t like” you. Savannah only briefly mentioned the forbidden topic, then you derail into the censorship stuff, then accuse HER of derailing. I don’t see anything she said about it as annoying, offensive, or off the mark. We should be free to discuss things without worrying about stuff like that.
I generally enjoy your open-mindedness but in this particular situation, I think you’re just being weird.
Liked by 1 person
MARK TOKARSKI
March 17, 2018 at 2:50 pm
It was Painful and not Healing that set me off, as he claimed that we were not allowed to talk about anything important because trannies were not being discussed. Trannies is not important, in my view, just a distraction.
Like
MAARTEN ROSSAERT
March 17, 2018 at 3:32 pm
Jared Magneson wrote: This type of behavior, Mark, is why Miles “doesn’t like” you.
What a curious, random, personal bit of knowledge for Jared to have! And to share in this way …
Like
ALANACKLEY
March 17, 2018 at 5:33 pm
I went back and re-read the article Miles Mathis wrote on Piece of Mindful.
Click to access pom.pdf
Mathis states that he was breaking off any perceived links with this website because he was getting annoying emails & he did not agree with the conclusions being reached here, and also did not like the method of picture portrait comparisons. When Jared Magneson
says “This type of behavior, Mark, is why Miles “doesn’t like” you. ” this does not appear to be an accurate assessment of what Mathis said.
But when Jared Magneson then says “I generally enjoy your open-mindedness but in this particular situation, I think you’re just being weird.” I do agree with that assessment. Healingwithsavannah said nothing out of line and her mention of the forbidden word seems blown out of proportion. It reminds me of the story about a 5 year old who got expelled from school for making a paper cutout of a gun. Just because you made a rule is no excuse to over-enforce it in some sort of zero tolerance policy.
This sort of zero tolerance enforcement is one of the symptoms of the “collective insanity of mankind”, well illustrated in Sean Kerrigan’s book: https://www.amazon.com/Bureaucratic-Insanity-American-Bureaucrats-Descent/dp/1530989523/
Liked by 1 person
MARK TOKARSKI
March 17, 2018 at 7:10 pm
I did not take the comment about him not liking me personally … I don’t think he functions that way. I never got the sense that he liked or disliked me or anyone. He can as easily dismiss someone as be nice … just his way.
Regarding the dust up on trannies, HealingwithSavannah had already announced she was done and allowed me to delete her comments (which I did not do) as the subject was important to her. I went off on PainfulTruth2017 because he seemed to think if we did not talk about trannies, we were not taking about anything important. That is how they insinuate, bringing these topics in and derailing threads. I won’t have it. I rarely step on anyone except for weird comments that never get published. This time I did. Maybe Painful doesn’t like me now too.
Like
MAARTEN ROSSAERT
March 17, 2018 at 9:06 pm
PainfulTruth2017 also is linked to a single-post blog. Looks like something thrown up a year ago. By itself this means nothing. But it would be consistent with the m.o. of someone with a covert agenda.
Like
CARRI
March 20, 2018 at 12:52 pm
Damn, Mark! It looks like you were triggered! You say you don’t censor, yet we are “not allowed” to mention certain subjects, that we must “stay away” from them, or else be “banned”? Does this make PoM a “limited hangout” then, and you, a “gatekeeper”?
I’ll state here, at the risk of being banned, that yes, the “transgender” subject IS important. 20+ years ago, I turned off the TV, cancelled my newspaper and magazine subscriptions, and stopped watching movies. When I occasionally watch or read the media these days, I can clearly see that something is very different! All the women on my mother’s favorite “news” channel, FOX, look strangely masculine. (Now I know why they use tons of makeup and dress them in revealing clothing, showing lots of cleavage: so you don’t notice the masculine features, strong brow ridges or jawlines.) You say it’s all a “psyop”, which I can partially agree with; I think most of the “transvestigation” YouTube channels are “controlled opposition”. (Why have no celebrities sued them yet?) I don’t believe they are all “gender-reversed”, that it’s something else like genetic-modification and engineering to create a new, intersex/androgynous/transhuman species? GMO “humans”. I want to know why this is being done, and I have some idea about what’s happening, and what the end game is, but can’t discuss those things here because it’s “not important”…
Perhaps, if you had children who were so thoroughly programmed by schools, universities, TV, media, music and everything else labeled “culture”, are now in their late 30’s and never had a long-term relationship, never married and will never have any children, then you’d consider it more seriously. (I know it’s “real”, because I, too, had idolized my favorite rock stars and actors, finding real boys and men to be substandard to the ideal male with the pretty-boy looks that I was programmed to find most attractive. My ex-husband fell in love with skinny Victoria’s Secret models with their masculine looks, tiny asses and fake big boobs.) And it’s not just my family, it’s the same with quite a few family members, friends and associates. My bloodline will become extinct when my children die, as will all the others without any progeny. That is devastatingly significant and yes, important, at least to me.
Liked by 3 people
ALANACKLEY
March 16, 2018 at 3:02 pm
I ran across Miles Mathis a few years ago from a link in a comment at sott.net. I have been reading everything. I ordered two of his science books which I have not yet had the time to fully absorb and verify. Seems like the book purchase was from Melisa Smith, whom he says is just himself (an anagram of his name). I came to this website after Miles Mathis mentioned it.
From around day 2 of reading his stuff I became convinced that all this material had to be produced by a committee. He has just too many areas of expertise, for instance his knowledge of law and courtroom protocol does not seem consistent with the stay at home artist. But he is at his best when analyzing portrait photographs, which is certainly consistent with his profession as an artist. He himself mentioned that there has been so many intelligence fakery operations that the real history was in danger of being entirely lost. If Miles Mathis is himself the front for an intelligence operation then part of it’s purpose must be to clarify some of the historical record. Likewise there has been so much fakery in science that his physics and math work could be seen in the same light, as a correction to the historical record.
I think that in his recent work on genealogy he has been discrediting his previous work. It is not as carefully done nor is it as convincing. Perhaps he was becoming too convincing, and it was decided to back off some?
I think he is flat out wrong on a few topics – one, for instance is the chemtrails issue. He may be right that the majority of that is fly ash disposal, but there seems to me to be more than that to it. I think he brushed off the topic without a fair appraisal.
I wrote him a few emails but he was pretty short with me, and I think he suspects that I may be some sort of intel operation. Either that, or the committee is just not all that into responding to email. I remain undecided – either he is our generation’s Leonardo, or he is an artist fronting for an intelligence committee.
I have tried to get many people to read his stuff. I think it is best to start with some of the older articles like the Tate.pdf or Lennon, where his skills in picture analysis shines. I have only one friend who has followed through and actually read his material, so it is not easy to get people to start into his writings.
Like
MARK TOKARSKI
March 16, 2018 at 3:24 pm
I like this comment and agree with the general thrust. I must say, however, that as an accounting student I had to study law, and I loved it. It flowed logically and naturally. In practice, it is a matter of who has the better lawyer, but baseline law was understandable, logical, and a thing of beauty. I do not think it outside the realm of the non-lawyer to grasp the concepts.
Liked by 2 people
JARED MAGNESON
March 17, 2018 at 2:48 pm
I completely disagree about him having multiple areas of knowledge being a marker or flag. I myself have dozens, maybe hundreds. Physics, art, computing tech, CGI, 3D rendering, gardening, horticulture, engineering and auto mechanics, raising animals and pets, raising children, studying music, legalities of criminal and family law, and on and on and on. I can discourse on any of those topics readily – all without any committee at all.
If you’re not able to discourse about multiple topics that are very different, you’re simply not an apt student. Everyone I interact with in real life can handle it without committee as well.
Liked by 2 people
GAIA
March 16, 2018 at 4:44 pm
It was through Miles Mathis that I found POM, via Josh as in-between step. I read every hoax paper of MM and some of his earlier art stuff too, have read like 5-10 science papers, but I stay away from those.
I think he is genuine and he may have a different style, staying away from all others (no blog comments, audios, YouTube, etc.). He has all the right to do that and there is nothing wrong with that. Now, with the YouTube (and blog; Hoax Busters Call) purge, I understand why he writes his papers in pdf format; they are stored and he simply can (re)upload them to his simple, not fancy site.
Genealogy is fun if you do it yourself and as he does it himself, I very well understand he enjoys it. When you have to read it, it can be pretty boring indeed.
His output I do not find at all impossible. It is impressive, but if some YouTube watcher who spends 8-10 hours a day on YT would use his/her time the way Miles Mathis does, easily you can write big papers he does. And the more you practice, the better you get at something.
And that ties in to my only criticism to Miles Mathis in the hoax arena; I feel he sometimes skips steps and jumps to conclusions which may be sloppy, shaky. A more perfectionistic approach would improve the quality of his papers even more but lower the output as a result a bit.
His science stuff I skip, don’t find it convincing or interesting. But that is fine. Mark is not into EGI and FE (just like myself) and yet can perfectly contribute to and comment on Ab’s blog where there are 2 dedicated sub blogs for those controversial and in my view misdirecting topics.
If there will be another conference, I will try to make that effort, because I think talking with him in person is a lot of fun and a hugely interesting week of learning. Just like I enjoyed talking with Mark about all the research he has done.
Like
JARED MAGNESON
March 17, 2018 at 2:50 pm
If you didn’t find his science and physics convincing, you simply didn’t read it. You said 5-10 papers, which ones might those have been? He has hundreds, and they’re all very solid and devastating to the mainstream models. Damning, really. Game over type stuff, for the current physics agenda.
Liked by 2 people
S.G.
March 17, 2018 at 7:11 pm
Gaia thinks he can attend a future MM conference but MM screens his attendees carefully. No slam dunk. As contrarian Allan Weisbecker will attest to!
Like
LAVENDER DREAMS
March 20, 2018 at 3:36 pm
That’s interesting. I e mailed MM two years ago and asked if he covered other topics other than physics at his conference since that was not my real interest. He said he was considering including some of the other things he does in the updates. He said I should come and hear the whole conference. I could not attend as it happened, but thought it was nice he offered.
Liked by 1 person
CALGACUS
March 16, 2018 at 7:38 pm
I am one of the few people that defends his emphasis on genealogy. Probably his methods need improvement. When he speculates about genealogy he is most likely right if we consider everything else. He usually also looks at biographical anomalies, not just the genealogy. The most important thing is that he emphasizes the “who”. Historical events are made or manufactured by actual people, so the issue of “who” is very important. The people that manufacture major events are not random people that belong to the disorganized masses. I also assume that this world is not just a hologram or the game of some god or gods.
The topic of “Jews” is related to the who. A few times he mentioned that these elites are elite Jews (he always connects these people to the peerage), not your Jewish spouse, your Jewish coworker or what not (unless you move in elite circles). In previous comments I already mentioned that some words have more meanings, even esoteric meanings that most people don’t know about (even I don’t pretend to know the real origins of these words, but I am aware of certain additional possibilities). Nonetheless, if we see patterns we cannot ignore them. If you want to ignore these patterns , then you waste your time trying to understand the topics where this patterns occur. Maybe Mathis doesn’t have the best explanation, but he at least he points out the patterns, including the Jewish connections. Also you can look at these patterns without hate and anger.
Regarding his science, I appreciate his emphasis on real mechanics. No hyperdimensions, virtual particles, funny paradoxes or other booshit. The real mechanics resonates well with me. Some people may want more illustrations of his principles. Despite being a painter he probably is not good with computer software like Blender or other software that can be used for animation or drawing.
His realism in paintings also resonate with me. Some people criticized him for having an apprentice that is better than him. This is ridiculous. Even Leonardo said that the apprentice or pupil should be better than the master . I am not a painter, so I cannot comment on his technique. I can say that I am not a fan of portraits. I usually like landscapes, seascapes or symbolic paintings (but still realist). Nonetheless, his defense of realism was also a major plus for me.
Liked by 2 people
MARK TOKARSKI
March 16, 2018 at 10:28 pm
Love that word “booshit” and will use it (along with “fooking”) from this point forward. Thank you.
Like
JARED MAGNESON
March 17, 2018 at 2:54 pm
I feel pretty much the same way. Mathis hits me with all kinds of new knowledge and ideas I’d have never learned of otherwise. He does give me a lot of shit about my CGI art, but that’s to be expected.
As for diagrams, myself and a few others have been working pretty hard on that type of stuff. I have a small pile of videos if anyone is interested, here’s my favorite one outlining how charge flows through Helium, the so-called “Alpha particle”:
Liked by 3 people
GAIA
March 16, 2018 at 7:44 pm
Agreed with the rest but this “some people may want more illustrations of his principles” is one my points against his science stuff. Break it down so normal people can understand it. He surely has that capacity and a good “teacher” can do that. Others I have talked to question him for that point only. I don’t, I am just not convinced.
His hoax and especially history papers are at such a different level and angle; they show he actually dives deep and doesn’t care about what others think of it. His science papers imho step in half-way. Taking some claims seriously, but just rearrange the maths and tie it into the “Electrical Universe”/”Charge Model” idea.
Miles Mathsis…
Like
JARED MAGNESON
March 17, 2018 at 2:55 pm
He’s a theorist, not a schoolteacher. And we’re all free to analyze and diagram his theories – so that’s what I do in my spare time. Here for example is a simple video I made showing how stacked spins occur, mechanically:
Liked by 2 people
GRACE
March 17, 2018 at 7:03 pm
Thank you Jared. MM has no obligation whatsoever to simplify his theories for the “normal people”. You weren’t stopped from creating a video to bring the theory to life. Good for you.
Liked by 2 people
ROLLEIKIN
March 16, 2018 at 8:36 pm
I’ve read many of MM’s “updates” papers and enjoy them. He is my favorite researcher by far. I don’t always agree 100% but then I’ve never met anyone I agree with 100% and don’t expect I ever will. I’d say I agree with about 90% of Miles’ opinions and that’s a great deal more than anyone else out there at the moment. Miles has told us may times that his papers represent his opinions so I don’t care what logical jumps he might make. They’re his opinions and he can jump anywhere he wants to. I jump to conclusions too at times. We all do.
I usually skim through his genealogy research. I have had some realizations from reading it but I don’t consider it as important as many other points that he makes. The reason I don’t think it’s all that important is that, from my own research, it appears that many famous personalities may not actually come from the families that they are claimed to come from. That is, their alleged parents are not really their biological parents. So, the genealogy being researched is not really that of the subject. And, I suspect the reason for THAT is that many of these people actually come from a very few or perhaps even only one family and that fact is being covered up by shuffling babies around to different families further down the food chain.
Liked by 1 person
RIPPERDUCK
March 16, 2018 at 9:29 pm
pretty sure mm is committee. his physics work was covered years ago by milton monson’s ‘physics is constipated.’ my high school physics teacher used monson’s work to reveal the outright fraud of much of modern science. i emailed mm to find out if he was aware of monson, never received a response, which was revelatory, in that someone had always gotten back to me prior to my asking that question.
not to say that what is posted isn’t worth considering, but much of what he claims is his cv is hard to believe….
Like
RENDAR
March 17, 2018 at 10:52 am
Miles W. Mathis
Milton W. Monson
“Milton W. Monson, First Lieutenant Air Force, WW II Veteran. Beloved husband of the late Charlotte R.; loving father of Milton W. Monson II, of Bridgeview, IL, and stepfather to Rita G. (James G.) Dakin of Bridgeview, IL; cherished grandfather of Michael J. (Michele) Linden and Edward C. (Valerie) Linden; great-grandfather of four. Born February 29, 1912 in Orrville, OH, lived for the last 43 years in Bridgeview, IL. Died at Hines VA Hospital, Hines, IL, on October 4, 2002. Retired training officer for the Veterans Administration, Member of American Association for Advancement of Science Interests. Singer with the Buddy Rogers Band. Author of Physics text book. Inventor of the Calen-culator. Future service to be held at Abraham Lincoln National Cemetery. In lieu of flowers, donations may be made to the Disabled American Veterans Charitable Service Trust, 3725 Alexandria Pike, Cold Spring, KY, 41076. Info: 859-441-7300. Cremation Society of Illinois handling arrangements.”
Published in a Chicago Tribune Media Group Publication on Oct. 13, 2002
Like
CARRI
March 20, 2018 at 1:46 pm
Interesting find about Milton W Monson…
Like
WALLACE
March 16, 2018 at 10:24 pm
MM makes a lot of good points, but is still flawed in many others. He makes too many assumptions in his analyses. I still believe that Hitler was legit, but some may say I am biased since I am German – but I may change my mind on Hitler with new information in the future.
Like
ALANACKLEY
March 16, 2018 at 10:27 pm
A further remark on Miles Mathis’ genealogy work, and also the science and math:
I am finding what I have gone through on the math errors to be correct and significant. It has revealed to me what I had found to be depressing about a calculus class I took in high school in 1970. when I first had decided not to be railroaded into a math career. I now believe I had detected subconsciously one of the errors he points out and at that point I lost all interest in math until I went back to it in 1980 for my pursuit of the EE degree.
I had already developed major disagreements with the progression of electrical science that are consistent with Mathis’ approach. The scalar term (the constant) that is dropped from the complete form of Maxwell’s equations seems to relate to gravity fields and I have yet to decode if or how Mathis has dealt with this in his “charge field” theories. The typical use of “scalar” as a term describing covert technology (by T Bearden, for instance) appears to be disinformation, or a form of incorrect use of language.
Since I have recently (in the past 2 months) retired (at least temporarily) I hope to find time to make more sense of the science side of Mathis’ work.
The genealogy work I find believable but annoyingly filled with unverified leaps of intuition. I believe it myself, since I was already quite familiar with the stories that a few bloodline families form an intergenerational cult that favors it’s own linage with money and power, and I needed no convincing. But I am mostly annoyed by it because this part of Mathis’ work cannot seem to stand on it’s own. He has not filled it in enough that I can use any of the articles in that vein to convince any of my skeptical friends. Many of his works, like the takedown of the replacement for S. Hawking are stand-alone proofs that do not require a new reader to be familiar with his earlier work to be convincing. I wish he would return to doing more work along that line.
I began to investigate the “conspiracy” realm when I began to work on “free energy” devices in the 1990’s. At that time I found myself in a circle of people who had been infiltrated by intelligence agents. Free energy is quite obviously possible (though I’d prefer to call it “ambient energy”) and I ran across evidence that it has been repeatedly suppressed. I stopped this line of work when I saw there was no way to succeed in the work without it being weaponized and control of it stolen from me. From there my research diverted into studying the collective insanity of humanity.
Finding Mathis’ descriptions of systematic deceptions in our contemporary history filled in a lot of holes in the big picture. He even wrote one article that directly exposed a person I had been introduced to in my “free energy” phase as certainly being an intelligence agent, and I will always be grateful for his adding clarity to my own personal history in the puzzling events that turned me away from doing the “free energy” work.
Liked by 3 people
MARK TOKARSKI
March 17, 2018 at 3:46 am
I would be interested in your work on collective insanity of humanity. Seems a rich vein.
Like
ALANACKLEY
March 17, 2018 at 12:49 pm
OK, well now that I am retired perhaps I will start a blog. As well as addressing my odd tracks of research, I would have to do some of it on converting bicycles to electric bikes. I wrote an outline this morning (more like a list of starting points on the theme). It won’t be right away since I will probably want to build my own server first and will avoid all the Google censorship traps if I can.
Once central problem humanity faces though, is that a large percentage of people can be easily hypnotized and led around by the nose.
Like
MARK TOKARSKI
March 17, 2018 at 7:33 pm
You got that right. Hypnosis s key to what we see around us.
Like
JOSH
March 18, 2018 at 3:13 am
Alan, I would be interested in hearing more about your experiences from working on free energy (and being turned away from it) and who was the intelligence agent you had been introduced to. And what is the mathematical error Miles pointed out that you had intuited long ago.
In my opinion, the introduction of a DIY ‘free energy’ device is the best chance we have at anything revolutionary as it would remove one of the major choke-holds TPTB have on humanity. I have encouraged Miles to put his scientific theories to work on it, and he said he has but is for now reluctant to publish due in part to the possibility of weaponization. In my opinion, TPTB have already learned how to take advantage of ‘free energy,’ both for power supply and weapons. The enormous smokescreen and misdirection that is much of 20th century science (and probably long before that) was purposely designed to move the commoners off the scent of an accurate science that would give them power.
I’ve been following the field of cold fusion/LENR for some years now, and two years ago when I started reading Miles’s physics work, it quickly became clear to me that his theories could be used to explain (and ideally harness) LENR and other ‘free energy’ devices. What you call ‘ambient energy’ is just Mathis’s charge field. I wrote a paper trying to apply some of his theories to LENR. I’ll link to it below, with the caveat that some of my thinking on the issue has changed. But it at least offers a brief overview of parts of his theory along with lots of links to related papers: https://goo.gl/5kgB0G
I’ll be happy to continue a dialogue with you at the e-mail listed at the top of that paper.
As for Maxwell’s equations and scalars, you should read the papers on his science website under the section ‘The Unified Field’ plus paper #3 in the overview/intro section. Alternatively, read his paper on Maxwell’s equations and all the papers linked to within, and I believe it will answer your question: http://milesmathis.com/disp.pdf
Liked by 1 person
RENDAR
March 18, 2018 at 1:32 pm
Josh, thank you for your paper on Mathis’ theories and LENR, I found it very enlightening. I’ve read Mathis’ papers “The Nuclear Hoax” and “The Bikini Atoll Nuclear Tests were Faked” and agree with his conclusions regarding hoaxed detonations. However, I’m still trying to make sense of the physics behind nuclear weapons. For example, is a nuclear chain reaction a real event or another example of fake science? I’m open to the possibility that a nuclear hoax has been perpetuated for decades to keep the masses frightened so that they are:
1) easier to control
2) dissuaded from exploring avenues toward free energy
I’m just trying to get a better grasp on the mechanics so that it will be easier to separate fact from fiction. If you have any additional information, or suggestions for further reading, I would be most appreciative.
Liked by 1 person
JOSH
March 18, 2018 at 1:56 pm
Thanks for the kind words. In his paper on “What is Really Going on Behind the Nuclear Program?” he says they’re mainly using Uranium to produce Caesium, from which they can harness free electrons.
In that paper he says that is the main use of nuclear power: the creation of caesium atoms. He has a paper on the structure of the Uranium atom that helps explain why it is so radioactive (that is, why it splits apart so easily): http://milesmathis.com/uranium.pdf
So it doesn’t seem like he is opposed to the idea that uranium is radioactive. But I’ve never read anything where he said that nuclear weapons should not be feasible on the basis of his scientific theories. In fact, his paper on Uranium suggests that they could very well be feasible. I have never asked him if there is a scientific basis for believing nuclear weapons don’t exist. All I have seen are his papers showing that the visual evidence for them is bunk. So I can’t offer you any clarification I’m afraid. I know that Bryan M who posted a comment here has spent a good deal of time looking into this issue and decided that nuclear weapons do not exist. I don’t want to put words in his mouth, but perhaps he can explain what brought him to that conclusion (if he’s listening).
Liked by 1 person
RENDAR
March 18, 2018 at 8:04 pm
You’re welcome, Josh. I’ve always enjoyed your pieces wherever I’ve found them (here, Mathis’ site, your own site). Thanks for the recommendations. It’s been a while since I’ve read those two Mathis papers but I’ll revisit them and see if I can glean more information.
I think you’re right: Mathis hasn’t said explicitly that nuclear weapons aren’t feasible. I’d be curious to know where he stands on the issue of their existence. Perhaps I’ll send him an email with a few questions.
I’d love to read Bryan M’s thoughts on the matter, if he’s interested in sharing.
Liked by 1 person
BRYAN M
March 19, 2018 at 7:25 am
Hi Josh. I haven’t looked at the science of nukes at all, just the test videos and related history. Along the way, I found a lot of small things that Miles may not have mentioned in his papers. As I’ve mentioned before, the most convincing thing for me is the absence of any photographic evidence of a surface formed by the heat of a nuclear explosion. If explosions so powerful existed, you’d figure that one photograph would exist of a melted rock crater surface. But it seems like they never even bothered to fake a photo of that.
But are nuclear explosions possible? I don’t know enough about the science to say. My gut tells me, probably not. I have a particle physicist friend who doesn’t know how nuclear explosions work, really, and claims to have never met someone who did. Apparently, this isn’t a thing they teach to physicists.
Liked by 1 person
JARED MAGNESON
March 20, 2018 at 10:08 am
In his paper on Uranium, he explains its radioactivity (and all radioactivity) as those atomic structures which “leak” the most charge non-linearly (electricity) or magnetically (equatorial emissions). Uranium is so large, it’s basically a molecule, a union of Krypton and Barium. It’s radioactive decay comes from its charge profile, which is pretty stable (U238 has a half-life of 4.47 billion years, U235 some 704 million).
But when it comes to nuclear fission, the issue is how COULD a “chain reaction” occur. It would require more energy in than can be accounted for, as in more energy comes out than goes in. We have neutrons bombarding the Uranium nucleus, and to “break” Uranium they’d have to hit roughly on that connecting alpha, between Krypton and Barium. I believe this is possible and is what they do at fission energy reactors.
But the problem is that (in the mainstream theory) the incoming collision plus the “binding energy” somehow propels those two Uranium neutrons out at speeds equivalent to the incoming, bombarding ones. Here is a video I made diagramming the issue:
If the incoming neutron has, say, an energy of “10” (for easy math), then a collision would half that, for example. So the incoming would drop to 5, and the Uranium neutron hit would go up to 5. That leaves us with two moving neutrons with half the energy it might take to bump out OTHER neutrons. So let’s track the second collision – energy of 5 neutron hits another Uranium atom’s central alpha (where Krypton and Barium are joined), dropping to 2.5 and knocking another out with an energy of 2.5. The third collision, 1.25, and on like that.
Really basic example using quick math, but hopefully that makes my point. The chain reaction is the myth. If it were real, we should see a lot of Uranium randomly exploding naturally, since stray neutrons bounce around us all the time. Protons too – remember, Hydrogen itself is just a proton with an electron pal trailing behind, and sometimes a neutron pal too.
Liked by 2 people
ALANACKLEY
March 18, 2018 at 2:05 pm
Mathis proves that a few initial nuke test events were faked. It may be that captured German weapons were used in Japan. I would like to know if Mathis thinks depleted uranium pollution is dangerous.
Like
RENDAR
March 18, 2018 at 2:47 pm
Alan, this brings to my mind the Fukushima disaster. I’ve occasionally come across comments on the internet alluding to the disaster being a hoax. An interesting assertion! Could it be true? I wish I knew the answer. This kind of speculation fuels my own personal desire to learn as much as I can about nuclear physics. In that regard, Mathis’ papers are very helpful, although there is always more to uncover and learn.
Like
WALLACE
March 18, 2018 at 5:24 pm
NUCLEAR WEAPONS DO NOT EXIST:
Click to access atombomben-gibt-es-nicht.pdf
http://heiwaco.tripod.com/bomb.htm
http://www.big-lies.org
Click to access trinity.pdf
https://vexmansthoughts.wordpress.com/2017/08/27/what-the-nuclear-hoax-implies/
https://pieceofmindful.com/2017/09/27/no-nukes-yes-folks-there-are-no-nukes/
Like
ALANACKLEY
March 18, 2018 at 5:27 pm
RE: RENDAR
I too have been trying to figure out the Fukushima situation. I believe the ocean pollution picture is being complicated by glyphosate (Roundup) which may not be breaking down in water fast enough so that there are problems with the plankton. Could it be that problems being caused by other forms of pollution are being blamed on Fukushima?
I have been observing disinformation on radiation readings. Reporting counts per minute is sort of meaningless, since the orientation of the sensor and it’s size is not accounted for in CPM measurements. It is also possible to sense the voltage of an ionization event, but cheap sensors cannot do this, and confused reporters miss this sort of thing entirely. Some data I’ve looked at appeared to correlate with altitude, and that also was being overlooked and misreported, but it makes sense that locations at higher altitude would naturally have a higher background count. I saw some fear porn reporting on radiation that appeared on Veterans Today, and they should know better.
Liked by 1 person
GREG
March 17, 2018 at 11:28 am
Wondering how certain people get to the top of my local corporations, and even local government positions. I noticed none of these “suits” or “goons” ever worked their way up from the entry level jobs like the rest of us. I guess four more years of true/false and multiple choice questions, or walking across a checker board floor, earns the right to six more digits of pay. And for example how does one in his early 20’s from Lafayette, Indiana just move to L.A. and within a short time frame becomes a global rock icon…..Welcome to the Jungle? Or thanks to MM, Welcome to the Genealogy! Aha and all along I thought those big profitable and famous positions went to the ones on the basis of talent, effort and achievement…
Liked by 1 person
JARED MAGNESON
March 17, 2018 at 3:01 pm
In my experience, Mathis is brief and curt in his replies to my physics questions – but always helpful. And supportive of my attempts to diagram and illustrate his theories. He doesn’t care for my art but I’m not a big fan of portrait painting either, though I do recognize his skill there.
Here’s one of mine:
In my opinion, a committee would more likely LOVE my artwork. Not because I’m vain but because of the technique involved (using Maya, full-on 3D rendering and modeling). It’s often humorous to me to see NASA vids and SpaceX stuff, because I can readily spot the CGI every time. Which further bolsters Mathis’s position on those industries.
Liked by 4 people
JARED MAGNESON
March 17, 2018 at 7:29 pm
Mathis also wrote a paper on this very topic – “ON WEAK ALLIES”
“In this sense alone, my friend above is dead wrong: the more cracks the better. The more evidence of fraud I can compile, the stronger my overall argument becomes. And the more cracks I show, the more opportunities for escape from the current prison there will be. What is a passable crack to a physicist may not be a passable crack for a chemist or geologist or astronomer. So although I hit a lot of topics to keep myself fresh, this method has the welcome side effect of creating many points of weakness in the current edifice, points of exit from many cells. After a decade, my papers are starting to have the effect of a colony of termites on a wooden penitentiary, and the guards hardly have enough planks or nails to fill all the escape holes. In truth, the integrity of the entire structure has been compromised, and a collapse is imminent. It would probably be best for the inmates to get out before they get trapped under the falling rubble. ”
Mathis
Liked by 1 person
ROLLEIKIN
March 17, 2018 at 5:51 pm
Miles is a front for an intel committee exposing fake writers fronting for intel committees?
I think Miles would laugh at that one. I know I did.
But, I don’t think that knowing something about more than one subject is a red flag or that it means he is a committee. Intelligent people often do know about more than one thing and these days a great deal can be learned by simply searching online.
Miles isn’t even always right about all these “extramural” details. For example, when discussing Charlie Manson he commented that prisoners are not allowed to have beards which isn’t true, at least not in California. Google it. It’s also not necessarily true that a dark outline around a figure in a film photograph means it is a paste-up. This outlining was a common form of photo retouching done with news photos to separate figures from similarly shaded background so they would be more distinct when published in the crappy halftone resolution used by newspapers of the day.
But, I don’t say these things to knock Miles, only to point out that he is human. As I said above I agree with 90% of what he writes but there a few things I know about that he might not. I have written him about some details that I thought he was mistaken about and he was polite and receptive of my comments.
In any case, I think Miles is a pretty smart guy and quite observant and logical. He is also quite funny and I very much enjoy his writings.
Like
ALANACKLEY
March 17, 2018 at 6:39 pm
OK then that makes a few people who have criticized my comment that I (at first) thought that Miles Mathis may be a front for a committee. I accept this criticism kindly and agree now that he is probably doing most of his work without assistance except where he says otherwise.
I don’t have the references handy but he himself brought up the need for “intelligence” to correct the historical record – he says often that intelligence products are written by committee, and so it was not so large a leap for me to make that he might even be surreptitiously be admitting to that very fact. With a bit of work I could tie together quotes from him to support this point but it would only be a joke that I would not myself be taking seriously (at this late date).
I am glad to hear that a few of you have met him in person. I have not. I was joking to my friend the other day that Miles Mathis as pictured in his recent photos might just be the silicone love doll owned by Melisa Smith, dressed and propped against the wall for the pictures. Seriously though, I occasionally resort to sarcasm.
Liked by 1 person
ROLLEIKIN
March 17, 2018 at 7:28 pm
Well, I think it’s always good to be alert to the possibility that a writer/researcher in this milieu might be a spook. Lord knows there are many who are.
It has happened more than once that a writer I thought was genuine turned out not to be. So, I am always a bit wary too.
So far I believe that Miles is genuine and who he says he is. I hope I am never proven wrong about that.
Like
JARED MAGNESON
March 17, 2018 at 9:48 pm
It seems to me, after pouring over and re-re-re-reading all of his physics papers a dozen times (and most of his art/expose’ papers as well) that anyone THAT dead-on about math and physics, that consistent in theory and writing style, and that obviously and impressively intelligent could only be so consistent by being one mind.
That and the fact that multiple people I know have been to his conferences, along with his email correspondence to myself and a few other physics pals, closes the gap for me. He’s never exhibited any inconsistencies that I’ve seen – and I write far, far more than he does every day, in various forums from CGI to physics to social commentary to Facebook arguments on those same topics. So the volume isn’t a problem for anyone with a phone or a computer at all.
Like
BRYAN M
March 17, 2018 at 8:32 pm
I found Mathis’ website last year, by following a link from reddit.com/r/conspiracy to a guest paper about Ben Affleck and Robert Ludlum.
That paper was pretty good, and led me to dig around Mathis’ site, where I found the papers for Charles Manson and O. J. Simpson and John Lennon. These ones are really excellent, and are the thing that finally convinced me that news and history is largely manufactured.
I’d already been reading papers about JFK and 9/11 and Apollo for about ten years, feeling that there was some truth I was missing, but failing to reach any larger conclusions, I guess because the subject matter was too broad, and had too many angles to look at. The smaller events featuring the actions of a single main character were the key I needed to unlock the puzzle, and Miles’ papers on those were exactly on point.
It was a few months later that I finally could begin to approach the possibility that nukes are fictional. That one was really hard, because it can be true only if the media and sciences are really tightly coordinated in lying (which they apparently are!)
I wrote a guest paper for Miles about the Kent State Massacre, and been working on and off on a paper about the Berkley scene of the 1960s. I’ve newly uncovered so many small-time phonies while doing so, that I’m at a loss for how to categorize them. I’m not sure how many more papers I really want to write, either. But I also don’t feel that short form writing does the subject justice.
I appreciate the genealogy work as very important, and I think the guy has a real knack for it that I haven’t seen elsewhere. But it is not what convinced me about widespread hoaxing, and I don’t think it would be particularly convincing for most people who don’t understand hoaxing yet. I’m glad that the early papers I read didn’t have too much focus on genealogy in them, because it probably would have turned me off at the time.
There is something of a trick to coming at Mathis’ papers in rough chronological order, so you can take your journey alongside his, and get into the more advanced stuff only once you’re prepared to handle it.
Liked by 3 people
MARK TOKARSKI
March 18, 2018 at 3:56 am
Writing for me is an investigatory tool, as I don’t really get a feel for something until fingers hit the keyboard. Too often I quit too soon since, as you are finding, topics just get bigger. I look forward to seeing more of your work.
Like
MAARTEN ROSSAERT
March 17, 2018 at 9:38 pm
Is there a forum where die-hard MM fans gather to trade commentary on his posts? I have never seen one. Critics, yes. E.g. https://milespantloadmathis.wordpress.com.
One wonders why the gung-ho partisans haven’t built their own site for this purpose, but instead gravitate to the comment section of other blogs.
Like
STEVE KELLY
March 18, 2018 at 5:29 am
Very insightful comment, Maarten. It’s ‘the pattern’ of human behavior that often gives away that slight difference that can’t be faked, no matter how ‘good’ the artist, or how much money the collaborative group has to spend on the project.
Like
MAARTEN ROSSAERT
March 18, 2018 at 1:21 pm
Wow! Did you miss the point of my comment or what?
I merely made a simple observation. MM has some really fervent acolytes. Some of them weigh in at this blog. Some weigh in elsewhere. No one, especially not me, has tried to stop that.
But it stands to reason that his enthusiasts would want a safe place to trade high-fives and thoughts about his essays. Many of them display the web skillz to make that happen, to create a forum for positive commentary. But they have not.
You can find a forum for enthusiasts of just about any subject under the sun. How is it that there is not one by now for the Theories of Miles Mathis?
This is not a critique of MM. This is not a critique of his acolytes. It is just an observation.
To which I add another observation. In my experience, any time anyone even breathes a whisper of doubt or reservation about Miles Mathis, out of the woodwork come all kinds of apologists itching to kick ass now and take names later. It is a level of enthusiasm that seems nearly religious in its fervor. Take for an example a remark above: “If you didn’t find his science and physics convincing, you simply didn’t read it.”
To which my response must be:
Liked by 1 person
JOSH
March 18, 2018 at 1:31 pm
Maarten, your observation is quite interesting. I have actually found the reverse: wherever anybody speaks well of Miles’s work, people come out of the woodwork to denigrate it. That is especially true of his work on science.
As for sites devoted to his work, there is a Facebook group and website (under separate management) devoted to discussions of his scientific work. The Facebook group is called MilesMathisRevolution and the website is http://milesmathis.the-talk.net
But as far as I’m aware there is no place for a fully supportive discussion of his conspiracy/history work.
Liked by 1 person
MAARTEN ROSSAERT
March 18, 2018 at 3:59 pm
Hey Josh! Thanks for the link. I had not stumbled across this previously (not for lack of searching). Lots of food for thought.
I followed some of the links. This one caught my eye:
http://milesmathis.the-talk.net/t119-john-gabriel-another-strict-finitist-like-mathis
The MM acolyte who created this thread says:
“This is a weird coincidence with John Gabriel’s calculus and Mathis’ theories. Both are nearly identical. Gabriel’s were published a few years before but apparently discovered independently from Miles Mathis. He, like Mathis, is a strict “finitist” in that you cannot have a “curve” without measurable angles (hence Pi=4) …”
I clicked the top link listed: http://web.mit.edu/andersk/Public/John-Gabriel.pdf. Of great interest was the remark by Anders Kaseorg:
“ … what he means by “set” and other terms (let alone “tangent line”!) is different from what mainstream mathematicians mean by these terms—he is not speaking the same language. … Perhaps that’s why [he] feels the need to so viciously attack anyone who contradicts his work. Which is a shame, because some of his work … would actually do a pretty good job of illustrating how standard calculus works, if he were willing to use the same common language of mathematics for long enough to see this.
I have seen other instances (quite recently, in fact) where a “revolutionary mind” makes a compelling case by using words to mean something different from their conventional denotation within a field of specialty. The dilettantes won’t catch it, of course, and will applaud like a shelf of wind-up toy monkeys. It takes a real expert to catch the semantic shell-game that is being played. And even when the legerdemain is pointed out, the Amen corner will still consider it magic and not trickery.
Like
JOSH
March 19, 2018 at 5:10 am
Well then, Maarten, I guess that means I’m a wind-up toy monkey. I do take your point but also note that your comment here is full of questionable assumptions. I don’t really feel like hashing them all out with you, but I will point to what I see as the biggest and most problematic one: you have never read or tried to understand Miles’s work in physics. So you have taken the criticism that someone at MIT has directed at someone else’s work, then applied that criticism to work of which you yourself are almost (entirely) ignorant (and willfully so)–implicitly criticizing Miles’s physics work of nothing more than an elaborate semantic shell game that none of us dilettante monkeys are smart or self-aware enough to recognize.
I will say for my part that for a long time I doubted my assessment of Miles’s physics work and sought out criticism that actually engages it in a substantive way — even to point out some kind of semantic sophistry. You’d be surprised how little substantive criticism there is. 99% of it is just a lot of pettifogging, (deliberate?) misconstrual, ad hominems, and casting of aspersions.
Respectfully,
Wind-up toy monkey acolyte #267
Like
MAARTEN ROSSAERT
March 19, 2018 at 9:44 am
Josh,
I address you here as a friend—or, if you feel (as some do) that Americans use that word too freely, then as an esteemed acquaintance. I consider myself a fan and follower of Miles Mathis and of yourself. Of the dozens of websites that once lined my bookmark bar, yours and his are among the few remaining. If Kevin Starr, another Mathis ally, reappears with his own blog, I will be checking in daily at his site as well.
Surely you know—from our personal communications over the years—that I make a huge distinction between you and someone like WE♥MM, who created a throw-away identity simply to spin the comment thread here in one direction. Do you lump yourself in with that lot? Or with someone who brags: “ … I splatter [Mathisian things] all over [other people’s] Face book …” Classy … real classy …
I certainly don’t lump you in with that ilk. Apples and oranges …
You say that my biggest and most problematic assumption is that I “have never read or tried to understand Miles’s work in physics”
Josh, that was just an odd statement. First, because this is not my assumption, it is yours. Second, I cannot fathom what your basis for this unwarranted assumption could be. Do you claim to be privy to my browser history? If so, your information is outdated. I don’t know that anyone who knows me well has ever accused me of “willful ignorance” about any topic. You don’t know me that well, so perhaps you have over-interpreted the modesty I may have expressed in private communications about my level of understanding of this or that. That modesty comes from being an actual expert in a certain field, and seeing how utterly wrong dilettantes can be when opining on matters in that field.
Take a step back and consider what a hair-trigger reaction has resulted over a criticism of Miles Mathis. Except … I never actually criticized him. I made some observations. You provided some corrective information about one of those, and I am genuinely grateful. But when trivially reproducible observations are construed as criticisms, direct or implied, then there is another dynamic at work. And that’s the dynamic that is drawing my attention, and what I am pointing out to our other readers.
You seem not to like my use of the word “enthusiast” or “acolyte” (which simply means “follower”). Well, I myself am a follower of Mathis. I check his website almost daily for updates, and if that’s not a follower, then I don’t know what is. I am also a fan, as is obvious from the fact that I link points in my writing to him, with full credit as is due; and I have commended his website to other people, selectively. But there remains a level of advocacy above my own, and I don’t know how else to label it except as “enthusiast.” If that word is unacceptable, please suggest another. “Disciple” comes to mind, but I sense negative connotations in that term, so I didn’t use it.
Do I have misgivings about certain elements in the Mathis oeuvre? Yes. What are they? My own counsel shall I keep on these matters for now.
What I will not respond positively to, though, is this Manichaean insistence that if I am not entirely for Mathis, I am against him. That dynamic in this thread is far more troubling than any quibbles I might have over any of his methods or conclusions.
Josh, I would welcome you to email me privately to discuss the other assumptions you find faulty in my observations. I am glad to recant when I am wrong, and I have the power to delete my own comments if necessary.
But for now I am finding the atmosphere in this comment thread to be getting a little … benauwd, my Dutch grandfather would say. I think it’s time for me to step away from this thread and get some air.
Like
VEXMAN
March 20, 2018 at 12:21 am
With your reply to Josh bellow, you are backpedaling. Why?
I never actually criticized him. I made some observations.
Yes you did criticize him, big time. And you have managed to insult many of us here, who have read and at least partially understood his breakthrough science work. Let me briefly remind how you pulled it off.
After quoting from MIT quacademic anonymous, you said:
I have seen other instances (quite recently, in fact) where a “revolutionary mind” makes a compelling case by using words to mean something different from their conventional denotation within a field of specialty. The dilettantes won’t catch it, of course, and will applaud like a shelf of wind-up toy monkeys. It takes a real expert to catch the semantic shell-game that is being played.
I am not the only one here who understood your above statement as directly applied to many of us as wind-up toy monkeys, who have read Mathis’ science opus and tried to understand it. It’s insulting, by the way, but that’s only after flushing MM away as a word-playing charlatan. By saying “other instances”, who as well play semantic games (like for instance JLB really does play), you directly applied this characteristic to Mathis. That’s an apparent and direct criticism, period. Furthermore, by suggesting the rest of us are monkeys, I assume you are looking down on us as not quite intelligent, as the word “monkey” usually suggests in terms of measurable intelligence, so a warm thank you for that as well. You may have as well thrown in some bananas while at it, it would keep us busy. With our hands full we’d be incapable of typing.
There is no way of understanding your statement in some other alternative meaning. And backpedaling from it won’t help you even a bit, in fact, it makes you look indecisive, which is not really something to be particularly proud of as a true, authentic man.
Liked by 1 person
JOSH
March 20, 2018 at 3:02 am
[For some reason I cannot reply in the comment chain at the appropriate point, so I’m replying here.]
Maarten, I also address you as a friend/esteemed acquaintance, although we’ve never met in person. In fact, I’ve never met anyone who contributes or comments here in person. But there are some, yourself included, who I have corresponded with via e-mail. For those reading this who are unaware, there is a lively group e-mail correspondence between the blog’s contributors. Or at least there was when I was contributing. Nothing nefarious; rather something that is healthy and to be entirely expected. On the basis of that correspondence and what personal details I know of the contributors, I am of the opinion that they are all genuine, well-intentioned people. Not spooks. That includes Maarten. (My conclusions about Miles are also partially based on my e-mail correspondence with him, which is now going into its third year.)
I think that many of MM’s supporters are ‘quick to anger’ over criticism of him because they assume that critics are shills whose aim is to discredit this iconoclastic thinker. From my experience trying to discuss his work in various forums, I do not think they are being paranoid about that. But they do not necessarily share my perspective about you and that may be enough to explain the hair trigger.
Although I sort of agreed with your point in principle, I took issue with what you wrote less because it was an attack on Miles but more because it seemed to be casting aspersions on people like me, with the additional chutzpah of doing so from a place of ignorance. I think Vexman has clarified my point for you (thanks, Vex!), so I won’t belabor it, other than to say that the assumption I pointed to was that MM’s scientific work can be compared to or criticized on the same basis as the guy to whom you referred.
Of course your criticism was implied not explicit, and despite being clear as day perhaps you did not intend what was implied. I’m willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. But if you go back and read it with an open mind, I think you’ll see clearly enough why it sounds like a rather disdainful dismissal. I won’t take you up on your kind offer to continue discussing this over e-mail. Not because I’m upset — just lack of time.
Like
ALANACKLEY
March 18, 2018 at 1:39 pm
It’s like you are asking, “Where do we find the herd of cats?”
Liked by 1 person
MAARTEN ROSSAERT
March 18, 2018 at 6:00 pm
Oops! So sorry, WE❤️MM. I missed them the first time around … the Langley-esque typos in the quotation. You’re just doing your job. Carry on …
Like
WE💝MM
March 18, 2018 at 7:11 pm
m.r.
Thanks to Josh and you for the links.
I was upfront in my post, “I’m assuming your comment …”, so it appears comical that you see “Langley-esque typos” in my quote.
Please point them out and explain in detail the meaning(s) they have. It would be educational.
Like
JARED MAGNESON
March 18, 2018 at 9:59 pm
So… Have you read his science/physics papers, Maarten?
I disagree about one point in particular. As an “enthusiast” of Mathis, I don’t want a safe place to trade high-fives at all. I want to argue with and demolish the smallfolk, instead – those who would prefer Hawking and Feynman over Mathis, Einstein, and Tesla. I don’t need any high-fives from anyone – though my pal from the Mathis forum has helped me refine and correct a lot of my physics videos, and he’s about the only one has done so – also excluding Mathis in some cases. I find Nevyn to be of the utmost value and clarity, but not because he “high-fives” me, rather because of the opposite. He shows me where I’m wrong and tells me how to fix things.
This was especially critical in my stacked spin videos, which required very precise retiming to “get it right”. Mathis couldn’t help. Nobody else on Earth could have, as far as I know, because Nevyn has gone even deeper into the topic than anyone else around. Except me, kinda trailing behind him but learning all the same.
I also splatter Mathisian physics and ideas all over Facebook, and make just about ZERO friends doing so. But I have changed and opened hundreds of minds, and so it’s worth it for me.
Like
MAARTEN ROSSAERT
March 19, 2018 at 7:00 am
Ah, but you first, Jared! Please answer my prior question to you about your understanding of Jewishness, back under the Velikovsky article: https://pieceofmindful.com/2018/03/06/immanuel-velikovsky/
Like
JARED MAGNESON
March 20, 2018 at 2:56 am
Ahh, but no. My question to you was simple and straightforward, but you dodged it anyway. If you haven’t read the papers and wish to pretend to insult me sideways for other comments I made, then you’re already playing catch-up and lucky for you I don’t mind the open goals.
We agree on many things but then you pull this shady dodginess. If you’ve read all the papers I was talking about you would just say so instead of slinking around. It’s not a battle of words here on this site until you make it one. And when it is, you should at least come armed.
Like
B. MÜLLER
March 19, 2018 at 5:36 am
I still remember very well how I went through all this. From Alex Jones to Alex “Ace” Baker and from David Icke to David McGowan. From there to the cluesforum. Then I googled cluesforum and found the fakeologist and there in the comment section our patient host Mark Tokarski. In the cluesforum I read about Miles Mathis for the first time. In between I went through the letsrollforums and some other less important blogs and always had some doubts. Especially the cluesforum which I in my Ace Baker time firstly rejected and then completely accepted only to come to the conclusion even the cluesforum is somehow weird and not quite honest. I exchanged some emails with Simon Shack and he disappointed me rejecting satellites as not possible. Fakeologist banned me for satellites. Here I’m allowed to occasionally comment on something I consider interesting. In Cluesforum I couldn’t even register. I also exchanged some emails with Miles Mathis, him always being polite and patient. Except after I asked him why he in his pi=4 paper uses the sides of a triangle to approximate the circle (or the curve in general) instead of the hypotenuse which obviously is the proper way, he simply stated I didn’t understand the paper. I like his non scientific papers a lot though.
Liked by 1 person
MAARTEN ROSSAERT
March 19, 2018 at 7:03 am
I always enjoy your contributions here, and I would love to ask you more about what life was like in a divided Germany.
I also concur with your assessment of Cluesforum: “somehow weird and not quite honest.” I can’t put my finger on it either. But the fact that they have hundreds of registered members but on many days fewer postings than this little blog is a curious fact.
Liked by 1 person
ROLLEIKIN
March 19, 2018 at 7:44 am
The late father of Simon Hytten (aka Shack) was an official with the United Nations. Simon’s brother Mario has known financial ties to the Bin Laden family (they financed his race car). Simon lives in a large house in Italy in which he rents out rooms to visiting employees of the European Space Agency and the Nuclear Research Institute. All of the above is admitted by Simon.
If there aren’t enough red flags in the above 4 sentences I’m sure you can find plenty more by doing a little research. 🙂
Liked by 1 person
GAIASSPHERE
March 19, 2018 at 8:25 am
The first 2 points I knew about, but what is the relevance of it? Are we responsible for the choices of our family members? Why?
The last point I didn’t know, do you have a link where he admits that?
But why is it a “red flag”? What better entrance to change people’s views is there than to actually be able to explain the two major hoaxes of our times; the Space Hoax and the Nuke Hoax in your own house?
Like
CARRI
March 20, 2018 at 10:30 am
Gaiasspere – are you serious? Do you honestly think The Controllers would allow SIMon to release all that information about hoaxes unless they wanted it? If they didn’t want the word to get out, his important guests would no longer come around, his fancy house in Italy would be ransacked/damaged/destroyed/foreclosed, his name and forum would be outed as a shill or controlled opposition, he would be deemed a nutcase and/or “suicided”…you get the picture. Maybe the discussion should really be about WHY Simon, MM, Let’s Roll, Fakeologist and yes, even PoM, are being allowed to do all this without being shut down? Cui bono? Use your intuition!
Now here’s a forum that was targeted and shut down, the Synchromysticsm forum; they’re still trying to raise funds to salvage their work. https://fundrazr.com/31C9Ta?ref=sh_36QBZ9_ab_9dP6jvIEiR39dP6jvIEiR3
Like
GAIASSPHERE
March 20, 2018 at 10:49 am
Cluesforum and Simon have been called “controlled opposition”, “shill”, “misdirection”, “nutcase” and what names more.
Why would his house be demolished? What is your evidence that should happen?
I think the “controllers” (I fear their control is very much less than people paint it) indeed don’t care a rat’s tail for what we write, think, discuss etc. here or there. They know they have the vast majority of mankind believing their stories, and that is enough for them. How many unique truth seekers are there? A couple of thousand, maybe 10? On a population of 7 billion (taking the official number seriously)… We pose no threat to anyone “up there”, believing we do imho is hybris and falls into the trap of “FEMA camp narratives” pushed to us by fearmongering conspiracy theorists, Alex Jones style.
Look at the latest purge on YouTube (many accounts) and Blogger (Hoax Busters Call). It was haphazard, poorly directed or motivated and many channels still exist. No houses demolished, at least not that I know of.
Like
GAIASSPHERE
March 20, 2018 at 10:54 am
“I fear for bursting the bubble”, not fear as in real fear. Cannot edit it unfortunately.
Also to answer the question “qui bono?” we need to know who “qui” are. Do you know that? Actually know for sure who they are? With all this fragmentation going on?
Like
JOSH
March 20, 2018 at 3:21 am
“he simply stated I didn’t understand the paper”
He may be right. I don’t know which pi=4 paper you’re referring to, but this is the most extensive one: http://milesmathis.com/pi2.html
In the introduction he writes: “This is admittedly one of my most difficult papers to absorb. It alone is a huge red pill, and will start you on a journey far more fantastic and interesting than any Matrix movie. Beyond that, this paper cannot stand alone. It is a mistake to start with this paper. Those who do start with this paper will very likely be led to believe I am simply doing the calculus wrong. It is Newton and Leibniz and Cauchy and everyone since who has been doing the calculus wrong. I have earned the right to write this paper by first writing three important papers…. Those who don’t find enough rigor or math in this paper should read those three papers before they decide this is all too big a leap. I cannot rederive all my proofs in each paper, or restate all my arguments, so I am afraid more reading is due for those who really wish to be convinced. This paper cannot stand without the historical rewrite contained in those papers, and I would be the first to admit it.”
So if you want to understand his argument about pi and have an answer to your question, you really have to first come to grips with the other three papers he mentions. I am only pointing this out if you are interested in trying to understand his reasoning. I do not want to open a discussion here about his papers on Pi.
Like
B. MÜLLER
March 20, 2018 at 5:59 am
I heard the same from people claiming, they understood the relativity theory. My simple question stays unanswered: why approximate the circle or curve using the sides of the triangle instead of the hypotenuse?
Like
IMAFAKEOLOGIST
March 20, 2018 at 6:20 pm
@B. Mueller I don’t believe you’re banned at fakeologist. Almost no-one is banned that I can recall. What username did you register as? We have many conflicting beliefs and tolerate many disparate views. There is no one view.
Like
B. MÜLLER
March 21, 2018 at 12:43 am
I always use my name B. Müller. You will find Abiratos remark banning me for my satellites opinion in the comment section if you care. I don’t.
Like
B. MÜLLER
March 19, 2018 at 9:09 am
thank you Maarten. When I think back at the life in the East block, it wasn’t that bad at all. We did not go to Mallorca on vacation but to Bulgaria (which has excellent and not over crowded beaches and very nice people), we occasionally had coca cola and other western “goodies”, we could watch many Hollywood blockbusters like Star Wars or Indiana Jones. The horror stories about Stasi and political persecution in general are IMO greatly exaggerated if true at all. I did not experience any of it but my family was politically not involved in anything. So what do I know? People can be happy with very little just knowing others don’t have more than they have. Live was more simple, people read books and played chess instead of watching hundreds of TV programs and playing silly computer games. But that is past and live today is not less enjoyable. At least to me.
Like
B. MÜLLER
March 19, 2018 at 9:20 am
Rolleikin, did you read, what the former cluesforum member kentrailer wrote on letsrollforums? He then was banned there. His comments are still available. This entire Bin laden and Simon Shack connection just gives Simon credit as a real person. What if he is a SIMon only. The entire “conflict” between Simon and Phil Jayhan looks scripted.
Like
ROLLEIKIN
March 19, 2018 at 1:11 pm
@B. Müller
Having a father who was a U.N. official and a having a connection to the Bin Laden family gives Simon credit as a “real person”? What are you smoking?
I wouldn’t be at all surprised to learn that the “conflict” between Jahan and Simon is scripted.
BTW, it’s my opinion after reading Simon’s posts on CF for several years and listening to his podcasts on Fakeology (or whatever it’s called) that “Simon Shack” is a persona that has been played by more than one person.
Like
ROLLEIKIN
March 19, 2018 at 5:50 pm
Speaking of Simon Shack I just noticed that Cluesforum has just yesterday declared him “the preeminent researcher in media fakery and propaganda, having proven to be a reliable, real, down-to-Earth person that has a humble and genuine interest in the truth.”
This is as stated by his cohort hoi.polloi who evidently feels a need to remind us that Simon is “real.”
We’re told Simon is about to release his masterpiece of astrophysical cosmology in which he will tell us what the solar system really looks like. I can’t think of a less qualified “person” to take on such a task but it should at least prove to be a good laugh.
Like
B. MÜLLER
March 20, 2018 at 12:52 am
oh, I meant it is supposed to give him credit as real. Personally I think, when cluesforum started it was a real forum for a while maybe only to collect some content and then got under control somehow and now it looks more like a story board with some cartoon characters. Occasionally they let somebody register and contribute a little bit only to make him look foolish after a while. I’m looking forward to this “Simon book” revelation. Could be fun. Anyway, I emailed “Simon” a few times in the past and got answers which of course proves nothing. Once I asked him about an earthquake near Rom and he confirmed to me, he felt it. Just saying.
Like
LAWRENCE ROTHMAN
March 19, 2018 at 9:50 am
“It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.”
Like
TYRONE MCCLOSKEY
March 19, 2018 at 2:47 pm
As Miles says, this is only my opinion…
What makes Miles Mathis most singularly real to me are the glimpses of a truly obsessive personality embedded in his papers that I cannot imagine a committee could replicate.
As well, the unfinished quality of many of his works of art suggest a waxing and waning interest in one project or another, again a subtlety I think that a committee would find impossible to sustain convincingly.
There’s also the grating “me first and only” boasting that is waaay to familiar as a truly human trait. Spooks try to seduce- MM just throws it at you and you either duck or brace for the catch. If you argue with him convincingly, or have something to add, you get a quick, terse response, sometimes positive and thankful, but right to the point. That, too, sounds to me like a real person who finds at this point in middle age he’s accepted responsibilities he could have never foreseen and is coping with the attention of enthusiastic strangers the way a guy who seems slightly reclusive would do. In and out.
I’ve sent him a couple of links that he placed in addenda, but the way I see it, that doesn’t mean much as far as accumulating brownie points. You are only as good as your last email and that does not sound like a committee of misdirection experts trying to sell nutrition-free information like flat oith or Vril power or lizards whom speak the King’s.
Liked by 2 people
JOSH
March 20, 2018 at 3:39 am
Well said, Tyrone. I especially liked: “MM just throws it at you and you either duck or brace for the catch.”
Like
LAWRENCE ROTHMAN
March 19, 2018 at 2:55 pm
I hope somebody can pick up from here and share honest feedback and keep a respectful exchange on the following:
(Also not alluding to the personnas of either conspicuous writers involved neither attempting to assess the contents of the papers for now)
What do you readers make of the fact that MM’s JFK paper “resurfaced” (according to own writer – bottom of paper) on the Internet approx., roughly 3 months before JFKTV paper was realeased to the world?
Is this just a happy coincidence? The stars up in the skies aligned? The paper was written in late 2007/ early 2008 and was dormant for about 6 years, Google -the most powerful search engine commercially known- rendered unable to find this page with this JFK paper and after that looong lapse (by Internet standards), voila!: Accessible to anybody with a slight curiosity in Conspiracy after 9/11, Aurora, Sandy Hook, etc.
I bet my two nickels that a link came to you and you followed that link to MM’s paper. A link either from Google, from a website (like Gnostic Media, cluesforum, etc.), a blog, or somebody linking to it from an article or personal website… either way it came to you, you did not go to it on your own. It is not that you went directly and typed the url to his paper out of the blue.
Like
TYRONE MCCLOSKEY
March 19, 2018 at 3:30 pm
LR- Are you asking me if I found MM’s JFK paper before MM published it on his current Updates page? I can tell you truthfully that I came across MM’s JFK paper when he published it three years ago, yesterday, 3/18/15 on his Updates page- I was in the finishing stages of my final draft when he dropped his paper. If someone hacked my emails, which had most of the content of my book in various stages of development, well, that would be magical thinking on my part. I think it just a coincidence, though I still don’t know what to make of his claim that his paper was 8 years old and languishing in the bowels of the internet archives.
Truthfully, I don’t care. This is neither a competition nor therapy. It is what it is. Stimulating.
Like
GAIASSPHERE
March 19, 2018 at 4:04 pm
If anything, your JFKTV and Miles Mathis’s take on JFK are complementary. Or maybe better phrased complimentary… They sealed the case, like September Clues and the Vicsim Report together sealed 9/11. I enjoyed both your views on that day, a common psyop day in his-story (11/22 adding up to 33…):
– Staten Island Ferry octopus hoax – admitted hoax (1963)
– Death of Michael Hutchence – DCP (1997)
– Baghdad DHL attempted shootdown – staged plane crash (2003)
– RDS-37 – first 2-stage Soviet “hydrogen bomb” (1955)
More 33 numerology (not complete yet, but we’re getting there):
http://fakeologist.com/fakeopedia/index.php/Category:33_numerology
For links see Fakeopedia:
– List of psyops
– Jet rule
– Nuke Hoax
Like
LAWRENCE ROTHMAN
March 19, 2018 at 4:12 pm
First, let me say I am grateful to MWM for the amounts of revelatory concepts, missing links recovered and dots he connected. No committee. Real man… but time is UP. If pertinent, I will expand on the matter.
TM: Thanks for asking me to confirm the question. No, I am not asking if you found his paper or not before or after. You did what you did and that is fine as you said, it is not a competition. The concern I was sharing in phlegmatic spirit to everybody is regarding the claim that the hidden kings paper was long forgotten (or hidden) for about 7-8 yrs even took down (offline) as a favor and then resurfaced after such hiatus. Just think about that
Like
JLB
March 19, 2018 at 9:12 pm
We all arrive at an understanding of ‘media fakery’ via different paths, and for many people a key stepping stone along that path is/was the work of Miles Mathis.
Generally we tend to maintain a certain affinity for those who have in one way or another ‘opened our eyes’, and it may be difficult to remain entirely objective when assessing their work later down the line.
This has been my personal experience: my gratitude towards the work of certain individuals has, both ‘consciously’ and ‘subconsciously’ (in the loose sense of the terms), led me to be more forgiving when their work has later revealed itself to be less then exemplary.
With the exception of his paper on the Cavendish experiment, I have had scant exposure to Mathis’ work until relatively recently. A number of PoM regulars have recently joined my site and several of them have spoken highly of Mathis’ material (and/or its impact upon them). Therefore I have been trying to engage more with both PoM and Mathis’ work.
If you have not already done so, I highly recommend checking out Mathis’ paper on the Cavendish experiment. In 2015 I found it to be the only comprehensive analysis/review of the scientific breakthrough in question available at the time. For the sake of brevity I will try to condense my own take on Mathis’ review down to a single paragraph:
I find (found) it rather astonishing that an intelligent person could study the Cavendish experiment, and understand the concepts/claims involved, and then conclude that it is a plausible method for determining the mass of not only the earth but every major object in the ‘solar system’.
If you are interested to learn more about this little-known but highly-important ‘scientific experiment’, I provide a detailed analysis in a video embedded on this page (available publicly, no membership necessary):
http://www.johnlebon.com/key-topics/cavendish-experiment/
The 40-minute video at the bottom of that page also goes into some detail concerning my 2015 review of Mathis’ paper on Cavendish.
Recently on my site we conducted a roundtable conversation focused on Miles Mathis and related topics. It is only available to Full Members of the site but I will be happy to share it with PoM regulars at no cost. Just email me and let me know that you read this post at PoM and I will send you the link to the two-hour conversation (which featured at least one other regular reader of this site).
I look forward to reading more of the comments in this thread. It has been illuminating to say the least. Thank you.
Like
B. MÜLLER
March 20, 2018 at 1:18 am
I just read Miles’ last paper about “abnormalization”. Miles pretends to be debunking some pseudo-critic but what he really does the entire time is confirming the ideas, there are greedy and powerful people out there who are after our money, that there are big companies making big profits from our misery, that there are bad things going on and we must fight against them, etc. That is not the way I see it. IMO the world is getting better not worse, our life is better than our parents life was and it applies to all people not only those from some rich and “developed” countries. I think, what TPTB do is to give all people equal chances to make a living and it means, the rich ones have to share with the poor ones. There is no way around it. That’s why China is producing the majority of what I call “low level goodies” and which can be bought around the world in almost every store. That’s why eastern countries in Europe build “German” cars now. That’s why there are so many third world foreigners everywhere, call them migrants or fugitives.
Like
JARED MAGNESON
March 20, 2018 at 3:10 am
You’re simply not paying attention if you think TPTB are trying to make the world a better place. The death tolls alone should convince you otherwise. The pollution alone should convince you. The deforestation should. The policy of covering all Earth in concrete should. The theft, rapine, and murder of all kinds of people should.
“Love level goodies” do not make the world a better place. German cars do not make the world a better place. We’re locusts and nothing our culture offers makes the world a better place.
And you missed the entire point of his latest paper, with that response.
Like
B. MÜLLER
March 20, 2018 at 6:07 am
Jared, all those things exist only in the news. I see no pollution, the Main river in Frankfurt is as clean as never before. I see no deforestation and I don’t believe in the “death tolls”, whatever you mean. I’m having two family members who are close to 100 years old now. Still counting. Looks like you have fallen for the fear porn TPTB is pouring over us every day via “The News”.
Like
ALANACKLEY
March 20, 2018 at 7:46 am
I have a friend who worked with uranium on nuclear triggers years ago. Now she gets cancer lesions on her scalp and face every few months. This is not news report pear porn. I have been working with a doctor on symptoms of gut microbe disbiosys, which is not only in me but throughout her full range of medical patients and pretty much everyone. This is not the fear porn found in the news. It is real. Deny it at your own risk and the risk to your families.
Liked by 1 person
B. MÜLLER
March 20, 2018 at 8:09 am
there are no nukes dude. Get real. What your friend has is probably caused by heavy medication. Your microbe disbiosys sounds to me like an opportunistic infection which is a bacterial infection which takes over when the immune functions are down, when you have an immune defect or an immune deficiency. Are you taking any medication? Then stop it. It is the reason for your health problems not pollution.
Like
ALANACKLEY
March 20, 2018 at 8:14 am
RE: B. Muller
You are apparently in Europe where glyphosate pollution has not yet pervaded the entire food supply. Get your denial in now while you still can.
You should look into cognitive dissonance and consider whether you are really immune to the effects. It is looking to me like your mind is not entirely clear.
Like
ALANACKLEY
March 20, 2018 at 9:12 am
Re: B. Muller
Interesting how you can deliver a diagnosis from your remote location, without medical tests, patient history, or really even the slightest clue. I did consult with my doctor in order to get some actual lab work done so that there was at least a chance for an accurate diagnosis.
I was convinced by Mathis that some of the nuclear detonations were faked. But I have some personal experience with the toxicity of some nuclear substances. My family has been in the market for mineral samples for many years. A man had a very hot sample of uranium ore kept in a cabinet next to his reading chair. He died of cancer. The police hazardous materials team were glad to have it to be used for training purposes. The Geiger counter clicked next to it showing that there were a whole lot of ionization events occurring in the vicinity of that sample. There are a whole lot of people who get cancer, counted by epidemiologists as a “cancer cluster” who have been exposed to this sort of toxic material. Deny it at your own risk. Closing your mind to the evidence may not be enough to save your life.
Liked by 1 person
GAIASSPHERE
March 20, 2018 at 9:31 am
Alan, radioactive minerals do exist, there is no doubt about that. That doesn’t make nukes real however. It is not “certain detonations” that are faked, the whole concept of fission and fusion is magic.
But you’re right about B. Müller, I cringed before when reading the “from the comfy couch” comments on “the world”. The hilarious claim “blood transfusions don’t exist” comes to mind. If she doesn’t believe in deforestation, book a ticket to Brazil and look at how huge parts of the Amazon rainforest are turned into cattle ranches. And then come back with some real knowledge.
Liked by 1 person
JARED MAGNESON
March 20, 2018 at 10:17 am
Well it must be nice to live in Frankfurt, then, but over here in the US it’s a complete shit-show. I live halfway between Seattle and Mt. Rainier, the largest volcano in the contiguous states here, in the Cascade Mountain foothills. These foothills have been massively logged and deforested, to make way for expansion and to of course feed the lumber industry.
And almost every river here is so polluted, to drink it would put you in the hospital. The Green River isn’t too bad, you can swim in it – the same Green River that the Green River Killer (Gary Ridgeway, a fake op most likely) used to hide the dead prostitutes. So we’re swimming in dead prostitutes in that one, but in all the others its chemicals and fertilizers and all manner of silliness. You can only really fish closer up to the mountains. And that’s just semi-locally.
When I visit the Puget Sound, which is the huge body of water adjacent to Seattle and Tacoma, the shores are covered in garbage and there’s a lot floating everywhere too. The plant life has changed since my childhood, along these shores. Only foxgloves are prolific now, which are slightly toxic themselves. But the lupines and zinnias and celosias are nowhere to be seen, until you go fifty miles inland towards the mountains.
Like
B. MÜLLER
March 21, 2018 at 1:07 am
I would not drink the water from Main river either, yet still it is considered to be clean and there are fishes living in it now, which wasn’t the case 30 years ago. The water cleans itself on the earth (sand) on the ground. I’m not saying there is no pollution at all, but some amount of pollution can be easily taken care of by nature itself. As some amount of poison in our bodies can also be taken care of. As some amount of deforestation can be of no importance to the nature. All agrarian fields we use to feed humans were forests first. You said yourself, you can fish in the river but in some other place. So it can’t be that bad. I think, there was a heavy pollution of the rivers back in the 70-s, that’s what really caused Ebola and other “diseases”. The chemical industry uses “rare earths” for its processes, which hast to be collected from many places and which when concentrated become very poisonous. Used rare earths had to be spread again back into the nature. They used rivers for it once which didn’t work and people got sick. Now they probably spread this substances via what we call chemtrails. That’s my opinion on the topic. I think, that’s what TPTB really work on, to create a long term process allowing to feed all humans and not to destroy the nature unnecessary and it is not an easy task. At least I observe a positive progress in it.
Like
CALGACUS
March 20, 2018 at 10:30 am
Yes, let the good times roll. We will see what happens when the families achieve their demographic goals in the white countries. How these countries will look in the future? What type of laws will they have? Detroit, St. Louis, Baltimore and New Orleans are now much better, their problems are just an illusion.
Yes, we can make the case that technology improved many things. But life is more than digital goods and other material trinkets. Actually we discussed in previous posts about the lack of nutrition in our food. We can even talk about the fact that important things like home ownership is probably in decline. Not to mention that people had houses with gardens and animals, so they could sustain themselves. Even technology can be a great trap. Instead of owning the technology, the technology can own us (and the technology is mostly owned by the big families). Let’s see if China implements its Social Credit System that uses “big data”. How good will the families be when they achieve almost total centralization?
You can still try to work on your own projects and try to achieve independence (economic, philosophical etc). You can work towards happiness and well-being. You should accept that there are things that you cannot change. But I would be careful with the “happy goy” approach to life.
Like
JARED MAGNESON
March 20, 2018 at 3:03 am
Did Maarten censor some posts? I checked but it doesn’t seem like he deleted any of mine, and he definitely couldn’t keep up with the banter end of things. I don’t come here to cut people in half mentally but dish out as good as I get, without being too predictable.
Thank you for your comments on my vids and stuff, too. I also don’t come here for accolades but it’s nice to be noticed and maybe even appreciated. I’d love feedback on those if you like, always trying to refine the models to make more sense or be more accurate.
Feel free to join our research on the http://milesmathis.the-talk.net/forum site if you like.
Like
WALLACE
March 20, 2018 at 8:03 am
Who thinks the bombings in Texas are fake and another psyop project?
Like
ALANACKLEY
March 20, 2018 at 8:16 am
Saw this on the Texas package bombs, quoted from the “deplorable” reporter Jim Stone:
“New rules to soon be announced for use of postal service:
You must be 21 years old to mail a package.
You must pass a background check to mail a package.
You must pass an additional psychiatric evaluation to mail a package.
If you are found guilty of any crimes, you cannot mail a package.
If you have ever had any type of domestic dispute, you cannot mail a package.
Packages kill. One, in Austin Texas this morning, killed someone, and injured another. Packages must be regulated today, not tomorrow, for the good of the children.”
Liked by 2 people
B. MÜLLER
March 20, 2018 at 8:12 am
after serial killer there is now a serial bomber? Come on. It stinks.
Like
WALLACE
March 20, 2018 at 8:34 am
Apparently another probable fake school shooting in Maryland.
Could there be competing Intelligence agencies/peerage families trying to outdo each other? Or maybe they are trying a new tactic – a “combo” school shooting/serial bombing event. If the public is not becoming more aware of this chicanery, maybe at least they are becoming desensitized to this stupidity.
Like
LAWRENCE ROTHMAN
March 20, 2018 at 8:55 am
An ounce of estimation is worth a pound of speculation. What follows is about prototyping the project, not the person.
MWM (b. 9/18/63). Note the date. MWM, NYFS: Not your father’s spook. A spook for the 2007-2017 decade. A new kind of spook, to predate the Third Industrial Revolution, where the physical and digital world will converge. The project is winding down. Some of you will not accept this even if the Agency comes in and released a note saying: “He is our guy”. You can ignore this at your own peril, you are free to do so… & you do not have to come back and reply to me. I am not trying to persuade anybody.
It is dangerous to have a theory before you have the facts. Skeptic? Do your own research. It is hard work.
Like
JARED MAGNESON
March 20, 2018 at 10:21 am
I’ve done my own research. It’s how I found this site, and others similar. I can ignore your accusation because of this research, because Miles physics hasn’t been done by anyone else. If it had been, wouldn’t NASA and SpaceX be able to figure out that Pi=4 in kinematics? Or the orbits and why they’re elliptical? Or that you can’t ever have a breathable atmosphere on Mars? Or three hundred other questions he answers that the mainstream can’t?
Like
WALLACE
March 20, 2018 at 10:49 am
“orbits”? – Nothing gets off the Earth.
Like
CALGACUS
March 20, 2018 at 10:55 am
Mathis goes against “time is an illusion”, hyperdimensions, the universe is a hologram etc. These are things promoted in this era of digital convergence, where they will want to sell you various types of virtual worlds. Even if he is 99% wrong about his physics, he promotes real mechanics.
Lawrence, can you be more clear about Mathis. I can at least point out why Mathis resonates with me and why I believe he is mostly correct. Yes, I can point out a few topics that I believe are important and Mathis doesn’t talk about them (like demographic changes). But it would be ridiculous to expect him to cover every topic that I believe to be important. I also don’t agree with some of his conclusions, but I also see an evolution in his thoughts (which is a good sign) . I can also say that his evolution makes sense to me.
Can you talk more about the project and maybe the relationship between the project and Mathis (the project that “is winding down”). I assume that it is something to do with digital converge. Maybe you can talk about Mathis in general, but be more specific. Some of your comments are similar to the oracular statements from Delphi.
Like
LAWRENCE ROTHMAN
March 20, 2018 at 12:11 pm
Ehm, no. I am not talking about outer space, holograms, hyperspace or hyperloops. I was referring to the 3d-printing phenomenom. Also, your digital life and your phisical life. Also, the zero marginal cost societies. How so? Just a pair of examples: Almost anybody can now write a book and publish it in electronic form. Marginal cost of making an e-book? Near zero. Why do some musicians release free and downloadable albums now? Because you following them and attending their concerts is way more valuable to them in the long term. Also, you can attend several MOOC in almost any area of your interest at a very low cost, some of them even for free. The prototyping of the project brings to fruition an exercise in research and imagination. Not suitable for a comment section, but also not sure I want to release it through this channel. I will let out pieces though, like the comment I started above. Feel free to expand on it. You can heed it or ignore it, but it will make you think.
Like
WALLACE
March 20, 2018 at 9:01 am
http://newobserveronline.com/us-national-health-director-inadvertently-reveals-that-stephen-hawking-did-nothing-valuable/
This is because Hawking was a fraud.
Liked by 2 people
CARRI
March 20, 2018 at 1:14 pm
Hawking was a just another artificially-promoted fearmonger, gaining lots of publicity as a “genius” and selling tons of books while spreading the fear virus among the unthinking and walking dead. “You’re all going to die!!”
Oh yeah, he died at the age of 76 on March 14 — the same day Albert Einstein was born. Pi day! lol!
Like
GAIASSPHERE
March 20, 2018 at 9:27 am
“allow me one last general question that I do not want a reply to.” – so why ask it in the first place?
I haven’t read that thread before, the correct link is this:
https://pieceofmindful.com/2016/09/23/a-comment-worth-a-second-look/
And I see a lot of in-fighting going on. Well, that is what happens on the internet and more so with controversial.
To suggest there is a “circle j*rk” here doesn’t apply to me, I had my outbursts with certain people here too. But learned a lot from the writers here as well, and that’s far more important.
What this have to do with Miles Mathis escapes me (other than his wise decision not to engage in blogging, commenting and other activities that are not research), but it’s a “done deal” for you anyway…
Like
GAIASSPHERE
March 20, 2018 at 2:36 pm
Thank you for the announcement, Mark and safe travels.
What has been remarked before, that Miles Mathis “doesn’t look into current matters”, which is untrue seeing his coverage of current events, yet looks into historical and lesser known ones I see as his big strength. It is through understanding the past, the blueprints for hoaxing and staging in the present.
It gives the framework, the bigger picture, the ways those families operate, how long they are already active and that sets the stage for today.
I find it a relief he is not as many others, who cover present events only. What is the value of 10 different accounts on “Vegas” or “Parkland”, if just with 1 or 2, you get the drill (pun intended)? That time and energy is better spent on the Cru(el)sades, the French “Revolution” and Billy the Kid, as prescriptive programming for the present day thug scares and “terrorist” plots.
I am very grateful to Miles Mathis opening my eyes on the extent of staging stories, a huge development in my process of awakening.
Like
CARRI
March 20, 2018 at 10:46 pm
Yes, I agree with you about the value of MM’s work in revealing the extent of our scripted, delusional and fake culture. And it’s totally OK that he spends little time delving into current hoaxes, as his followers are already aware of their absurdity. I just don’t agree with his conclusion that it’s all about money. He repeatedly identifies the (((chosen ones))) and their intermarriage and connections to The Families, then says he’s doesn’t have a problem with (((them))). He stops short of going any further than that, and neglects to even speculate on the WHY of it all (beyond profit), and HOW it is all connected to the endless array of “projects” (the WHAT, much of which he does not write about) currently being run. Lots of milk, with a little meat, IMO. But that’s fine, I just know it’s time to move on now.
Like
LAWRENCE ROTHMAN
March 20, 2018 at 4:03 pm
“Adiós compadres”, “Satan Inside”, McCool, J-Scores, “Schiffer brains”, “High, Wide and Handsome” and now “Wind-up toy monkeys”… you guys never dissapoint. That’s what makes one a follower.
Like
WALLACE
March 20, 2018 at 4:54 pm
OT: Consider that the Earth is fixed, stationary and does not move in any way (except for Earthquakes and such), and is the center of all creation, and the Sun and other celestial bodies move about the Earth [I believe this is actually the reality – and I’m a scientist/engineer with Ph.D. believing this] – the diametric opposite of what we all have been taught since we were children, what are the philosophical, intellectual, metaphysical, religious, moral and psychological – and even political, implications of this astounding realization? Think about this for a moment and the ramifications.
By removing Earth from the motionless center of the Universe, these Masons, or whoever, have moved us physically and metaphysically from a place of supreme importance to one of complete nihilistic indifference. They want us to feel alone, fearful of the unknown and insignificant – It makes the masses easier to control, exploit and manipulate, so they think. [I believe this was the goal and intention of the “work” of Stephen Hawking, Carl Sagan, et al. and their ilk.]
If the Earth is the center of the Universe, then the ideas of God, creation, and a purpose for human existence are resplendent. But if the Earth is just one of billions of planets revolving around billions of stars in billions of galaxies, then the ideas of God, creation, and a specific purpose for Earth and human existence become highly implausible.
Liked by 1 person
GAIASSPHERE
March 20, 2018 at 6:38 pm
Wallace, and anyone else, Simon Shack is about to release his book about his TychoS geo-heliocentric model of the skies. I am thrilled to read everything, but for now he has a separate website where he already lists some chapters. I have passed on some questions to him, which he answered, and when time comes will link his work on my (fresh, just started 2 days ago) blog.
For anyone interested in an alternative cosmological view:
http://www.tychos.info/
Liked by 1 person
B. MÜLLER
March 21, 2018 at 3:22 am
hmm…Simon wants 25 EUR per year for reading his revelations. This alone makes me a little suspicious . From the overview I don’t even understand how it is supposed to be in the universe. What is the red planet, the Earth is circling around? Is this Mars? Is he claiming, the Earth circles around the Mars and the Sun circles the Earth and Mars? Do I have to pay 25 Eur to get the explanation how he comes to this conclusion? And he claims to explain some relativity theory issues and mentions Sirius. Did he ever observed Sirius himself? Or any cosmic object at all except what is visible with bare eye? I doubt it. It is what I suspected would be. A lot of complicated crap, some naive Simon Shack fans will claim to understand. The same thing, Miles Mathis delivers with his scientific papers. At least he does not want any money for it. And you have to register first, etc. So it’s simply a honeytrap.
Liked by 1 person
GAIASSPHERE
March 21, 2018 at 5:35 am
A mere 25 euros for a book and a free model to use after 5 years of hard work, but it is waived away by the hand even before reading it by Prof. Dr. B. Müller, who claims physically impossible things exist (man-made satellites) but without any evidence claims blood transfusions don’t or that there is no pollution (go visit a Chinese city or stroll along the shores of the Caspian Sea in Azerbaijan). Sirius is the brightest star in the sky but you think Simon hasn’t observed it? Seeing the “red spot” on Jupiter’s surface, are you serious? Even with a normal telescope you cannot see that, and yes I have seen Jupiter through a telescope.
What a clown you are.
Liked by 1 person
B. MÜLLER
March 21, 2018 at 7:08 am
Maybe you remember the latest discussion on Cluesforum about satellites (Oct 2017 and later) where Simon presented my pictures of the ISS and member notrappaport explained why “it” has to fly on an altitude of some 400km. Also there are TV-satellites and other geostationary objects which can also be photographed. The Big Red Spot on Jupiter moves quite fast and you have to know the time when it is visible and have some practice in observing such objects. The details are sometimes not easy to spot. I suppose “Simon” is no more a person but a front of shills now. Sirius as a double star can only be seen in a telescope and it is not that easy. “Simon” claims the Sun (a star) and Mars (a planet) are virtually identical to a double star system far far away. How stupid he thinks we are? All that Tycho idea looks very flat earth-ish to me. Actually Mars is quite far away now. You won’t see any details in a telescope. A couple of years ago I saw the white pol on Mars. The distance to Earth vary between 50 and 400 million km. How can that be if the Earth is circling around Mars, as Simon claims?
Like
MARK TOKARSKI
March 21, 2018 at 7:34 am
MM mentioned in the 2016 conference I attended that Shack was going “anti” on us and might endorse flat earth.
Like
B. MÜLLER
March 21, 2018 at 8:05 am
gaiassphere, have you ever been in China or Azerbaijan? Probably not. I was in Hong Kong once on my way to New Zealand and the City didn’t look especially dirty to me. Just like every big city I have visited. The streets were better than in Frankfurt actually. A friend of us married a Chinese woman and moved permanently to Peking a few years ago and he also does not complain about pollution. As for Azerbaijan, a colleague from the bank I’m working for will indeed go there in early summer (on business) and probably see the Caspian Sea. I’ll ask him.
Like
GAIASSPHERE
March 21, 2018 at 8:49 am
I haven’t been to China, no, but friends of mine have been and lived there. The smog is ridiculous. I have been to Tehran which is just as bad. I also have been to Azerbaijan, yes. But what do you care? You seem comfy with a nihilistic “what I don’t see doesn’t exist” worldview, while at the same time pushing mainstream lies about “satellites”. Just how do you think you can photograph a geostationary satellite (something that physically cannot exist in the first place), the size of a car, at allegedly 35,000 km distance?
Like
B. MÜLLER
March 21, 2018 at 9:25 am
gaiassphere, TV-satellites can be photographed using long time exposure (a few minutes at least) on dark nights. You have to point the camera roughly in the direction the dishes in your neighborhood are pointing or where the geostationary orbit at your place is supposed to be. Use a zoom of about 100-200mm. After a few minutes the stars become lines and satellites visible as dots. Then move the camera slightly to the left or right and repeat. You will see the same dots on other place on your photo. Or just google. There are many excellent photos online.
Like
GAIASSPHERE
March 21, 2018 at 10:10 am
The only possibility for that so-called geostationary (physical bollocks; the center of Earth is not the center of gravity) satellite to show up as a light, is if it is reflecting sunlight.
“On a dark night”, that satellite is in the shadow of Earth (the Sun is directly opposite where you stand) and thus cannot reflect any sunlight.
The myth of “satellite dishes need to be pointed exactly at the “satellite”, otherwise it doesn’t receive a signal is debunked with just one look from my balcony where the satellite dishes of the houses below are not at all perfectly aligned, with an estimated up to 40 degrees (!!) difference even (and yes the same company):
Liked by 1 person
ALANACKLEY
March 21, 2018 at 11:02 am
Here where I am, some companies have repeaters on nearby mountains, so some of the dishes are aimed there instead of the southern sky.
Liked by 1 person
ALANACKLEY
March 21, 2018 at 11:30 am
A geostationary orbit is 22,236 miles high, or say 44 thousand in diameter. The Earth’s diameter is around 7926 miles, so the shadow of the earth covers one location in the geostationary orbit for just a little over two hours.
Like
CALGACUS
March 20, 2018 at 8:08 pm
I am not sure that the size of the universe changes anything. You can have a god or gods and purpose no matter how big the universe is. Some people already believed that god is infinite in many aspects. So you are already insignificant with respect to god. What about our insignificance with respect to time. If the universe is not eternal, at least god must be eternal or at least perpetual (with a beginning but no end).
I believe that a pantheistic view is closer to the truth, and I also don’t have a problem with an eternal and infinite universe. But eternity and infinity is beyond my comprehension.
Most people don’t care about the size of the universe, and most are probably not nihilistic. Many believe that they follow the word of god and these people are actually easier to control. The fear comes from the fear porn: terrorism, nukes, Satanic rituals, white supremacism and what not. Maybe sometimes they mention an asteroid, but this is not directly connected to the size of the universe.
Like
ALANACKLEY
March 20, 2018 at 8:36 pm
If you mount a gyroscope in a friction-less gimble, then it retains it’s angular momentum without precessing. A gyroscope tends to keep to the same axis and on the same plane of rotation. The same relative to what? Why does the gyroscope with the axis at right angles to the Earths axis rotate as the Earth turns if the Earth is still?
The same considerations apply to the Foucault pendulum
Why assume the Earth is the center of the universe, when instead you might assume that you, personally are the center of the universe ?
Like
B. MÜLLER
March 21, 2018 at 1:26 am
alanackley, it doesn’t really matter if you have a theory on it or not, the gyroscope will still work. The Foucault pendulum is an easy test to demonstrate, the earth is moving (rotating), which you can very easy observe on other planets too. Jupiter rotates visibly within an hour or so. Just observe the Big Red Spot for a while. Or his moons change visibly their position through the night. Which can also easily be observed. I saw that many times and it’s fascinating. You can even see the shadows of the moons on Jupiter, but for this you’ll need a telescope and some experience in watching such things. Even the sun is rotating. Sunspots change their position and form from day to day. I saw that many times too.
Like
ALANACKLEY
March 21, 2018 at 6:01 am
I certainly agree that the Earth and other planets are rotating. What I was curious about was how one might imagine they are not given these easy proofs.
It does seem so easy for people to believe this or that and state opinion as if it were certain truth. So rare to find people skilled to say only what they really know.
Then there is the strange and troll-like skill to misconstrue what people say. Does this skill serve some purpose in evolution?
Like
IMAFAKEOLOGIST
March 21, 2018 at 8:03 am
” I suppose “Simon” is no more a person but a front of shills now.”
OK maybe I did ban you back in the day.
Liked by 3 people
ROLLEIKIN
March 21, 2018 at 12:41 pm
From what bodily orifice did Simon pull his Tychos BS? He has no education in anything remotely related to either physics or astronomy or any related field and has never even owned a telescope.
Shack also pushes the “rockets don’t work in a vacuum” nonsense which was the predecessor to the flat earth crap.
To me it seems Simon’s only purpose is to make those who genuinely research media and historical fakery look like idiots.
Like
WALLACE
March 21, 2018 at 6:59 pm
ROLLEIKIN is just a butt-hurt spook caught with its pants down – Go crawl under the rock were you came from with the other immoral and criminal degenerates.
Like
ROLLEIKIN
March 21, 2018 at 7:15 pm
Why do you think I’m a spook?
Like
GAIASSPHERE
March 21, 2018 at 8:15 pm
We have about 12 hours left in this comment thread, but “I ask that commenters here be respectful. This is not a venue for personal attacks.” is what Mark said in the OP.
“Rockets do not work in a vacuum” is a completely wrong statement (though I reacted in that Cluesforum thread and was the first one to move from a purely mechanical to the correct chemical-mechanical point).
A – the mainstream doesn’t say it is a vacuum (0 pressure), they claim it is 10^-16 bar
B – it is not about “just a vacuum”, it is about an infinite low-pressure environment
That said, what Simon posted there with lots of contributions by others, in Boëthius’s thread is right.
There has been no experiment done to replicate the -alleged- conditions of Space, because that is impossible to test on Earth. So we are led to believe that people went up there (after sending dogs and monkeys) without any testing?
Anyone who has worked in engineering knows the real world doesn’t work like that. Apollo 2-12 was all successful. Such a success ratio in the most hostile and unknown environment thinkable is a laugh. A movie script. Don’t believe me, listen to everyone who has worked in engineering, IT and related subjects. They will tell you trial-and-error is the common way. Not for NASA; no trials (impossible to replicate what they claim Space is) and 0 error… That is Hollywood storytelling, not a real-life experience.
Liked by 1 person
JOSH
March 22, 2018 at 12:59 am
This one had me in stitches. You are 100% correct that rockets can work in a vacuum. But that does not imply that NASA is to be trusted or believed. There is no need to tie those two things together. I am glad Mark decided to close this increasingly absurd comment thread.
Yes, Shack is definitely on a mission to discredit the media fakery line of business. But he’s also trying to misdirect truth-seekers into fantasy land: https://pieceofmindful.com/2017/02/01/the-curious-case-of-the-jerusalem-truck-attack-notes-on-operation-fantasy-land/
Like
GAIASSPHERE
March 22, 2018 at 6:58 am
It is not a “non sequitur” and does not avoid anything, it actually expands on an unaddressed (avoided) topic.
“a rocket produces its own gas.”
Under the alleged conditions of Space (P~0, T~3 K), there is no gas. Everything becomes solid or superfluid (H, He). Making the whole idea of “rockets in Space” a physical-chemical impossibility.
Like
ROLLEIKIN
March 22, 2018 at 11:36 am
… based on what? Something Boethius said?
As I said above it can be easily proven in the real world that rockets do not depend on atmosphere to produce thrust.
Like
GAIASSPHERE
March 22, 2018 at 11:47 am
No, based on middle school science; look up a phase diagram for extremely low P and T and you see it; no gases.
And what you say doesn’t mean they can work in the alleged conditions of Space, that are untestable on Earth by definition anyway.
It’s magic, just as the Nuke Hoax. But keep believing it, if you wish.
Like
ROLLEIKIN
March 22, 2018 at 11:54 am
Gas or not, mass is expelled by a rocket which produces thrust in the opposite direction regardless of atmospheric conditions.
Liked by 1 person
ROLLEIKIN
March 22, 2018 at 12:26 pm
In this quote …
http://fakeologist.com/blog/2015/01/28/why-rockets-dont-work-in-a-vacuum/
… Boethius claims that rockets work with “gas pressure”. He says,
“The reason space travel is not possible is because the systems we claim to use to propel a rocket through space operate on gas pressure and there is no gas pressure in space.”
But rocket propulsion has nothing to do with “gas pressure.” It has to do with moving a mass in one direction resulting is a force produced in the opposite direction. It has nothing to do with gas pushing against anything.
I’m not saying that the space program isn’t fake. IT IS FAKE but it’s not fake because “rockets can’t work in space.”
Liked by 1 person
GAIASSPHERE
March 22, 2018 at 12:48 pm
There are indeed more physical arguments against the whole idea:
1 – allegedly the mysterious force of gravity (that I accept exists, but stay open to other possibilities) holds us on Earth. Gravity is based on mass (m) and acceleration (g). Now, they claim we can escape Earth by reaching an “escape velocity” of 11 km/s. How can a velocity counter an acceleration (v^2)? From the basic mathematical foundation that doesn’t make any sense.
2 – even if you could get a rocket in Space, the alleged condition make it impossible to survive there. 50% of the rocket is lit by the Sun, has very little possibility to radiate away heat (though that is what they claim) and will heat up to 300+ degrees (C or F, not K). The other side is in the shadow and surrounded by Space with a temperature of 3 K. So we have a 600 degree temperature difference of a cilinder made from metals. We have no tests that actually show that is possible. At very low temperatures metals become very brittle, at high temperatures they become ductile. So one side should deform, the other side just crumble to pieces.
A so-called “debunking” of that has been presented by shills online, that the rocket itself transfers the received heat on the Sun side by conduction to the stone cold side. The problem is; material properties depend on the temperature that material has. And with extremely low temperatures the thermal conductivity drops dramatically too.
Like
MARK TOKARSKI
March 22, 2018 at 3:58 pm
NOTE: COMMENTS WILL END ON THIS AND ALL POSTS AFTER 14 DAYS, MERCIFULLY. SO THIS COMMENT SECTION WILL CLOSE ON MARCH 30.
Liked by 1 person
ROLLEIKIN
March 22, 2018 at 4:58 pm
I agree that rocketry is a lousy way to travel through space and might only work for very short distances — IF you could get the thing out there at all.
I also agree that it may be impossible to even launch a rocket into space with enough fuel and whatnot to then go anywhere worth going.
Rocket propulsion would probably only be useful for positional changes of a craft (rotation, etc) or very short movements.
Actually sending a human to another planet with rockets and returning and landing safely on Earth seems to me to be totally impractical, especially when you consider all the provisions, fuel and protection from radiation, meteors, etc that would have to be included in the rocket.
More details on this can be found here:
http://heiwaco.tripod.com/moontravel.htm
This is not my site. The site owner once posted on Cluesforum but was banned for posting factual material regarding physics and the impossibility of rocket space travel.
Like
VEXMAN
March 22, 2018 at 11:53 pm
I have a personal experience of watching the assembly and launch of a small rocket model, approximately 1,5m in overall size, which has reached the altitude of almost 2 kilometers before its engines ran out of solid fuel. So I was curious enough about this rocket business to have asked Miles for an advice about it. Miles, too, had thought that low Earth orbit could be made possible to reach using the rocket propulsion.
That was in late 2016 and I still think low orbit flight can be made possible using a rocket. The issue of dubious and sometimes hilarious televised videos of this process creates further confusion, as it proves rather the opposite – that the space rockets exist only in fairytales. So, in my mind, I see an absurd duality – rockets as presented on TV so far cannot reach deep space (i.e. the Moon) as there are numerous logical reasons against it, but on the other hand I know an object can accelerate to a great speed if a rocket engine is installed on its tale.
Whether rockets can move (accelerate/decelerate) in space using this very same (primitive) physics principle is a tricky question since we cannot replicate the exact conditions in order to test it. It’s confusing, especially if one has already understood the improbability of walking the Moon as it was televised to us. So bear in mind that it was most probably done this way on purpose, since creating confusion represents the best weapon against clear thoughts and any real progress. Maybe PTB just wanted to let us know that they have already developed the proper technology to perform space travel and have used that as a fact, while wrapping the same fact in nonsense we are all familiar with from the analysis of Apollo program. “Give them a snippet of truth and hide it within the piles of lies and manipulation” -> isn’t that the modus operandi going on for centuries already? It would be reasonable to believe that the same MO was applied to this section of reality.
I think it is possible and probable that the proper space travel technology already exists. Most likely, we have no clue how to notice it and have been left in the dark. Well, almost in the dark – they illuminate our mind with false pictures, lies and silly ideas, while it’s reasonable to expect we have been misguided, lied to and manipulated into believing utter nonsense.
Fun fact – I got banned from Cluesforum for saying this.
Like
B. MÜLLER
March 23, 2018 at 1:32 am
Vexman, when I was young I learned about rockets in therms like “the first space velocity”, which means the velocity required to reach a permanent orbit. We also speak of “shooting a rocket into space”, right? IMO, all it takes is to create a rocket powerful enough to reach a certain speed at the start and the rest will follow automatically incl. orbiting. The engine does not have to power the rocket anymore, therefore does not have to work in a vacuum, etc. If you can calculate precisely the power of your rocket engine, you can exactly calculate the high your rocket will reach. A rocket never “flies” perpendicular to the earth because the earth is rotating, etc. I’m convinced that this “first space velocity” formula already contains everything which is needed to put an object into permanent orbit. All rocket videos are probably fake, so we don’t really know, how a starting rocket looks like, but it does not prove, this is not possible. And as I mentioned several times, there are TV satellites, which I know since the 80-s where there wasn’t any transponder antennas everywhere. We watched satellite TV in the middle 80-s in Eastern Germany. And our Russian friends did the same. And the ISS is definitely flying in 400km altitude. So satellites do exists and somehow can be shot into orbit.
Like
B. MÜLLER
March 23, 2018 at 3:42 am
gaiassphere, you talk a lot of crap here. You cannot even distinct between the center of a sphere and a center of gravity. This entire talk about rockets working with pressure or friction instead of propulsion is flat earth level. Not everything we’re learning in physics is wrong. Get some education first then come back.
Liked by 1 person
B. MÜLLER
March 23, 2018 at 3:48 am
a firework will fly in the horizontal position, where it cannot push itself up from anything, or started in some height without anything under it. Which a simple proof for propulsion in rocket engines.
Liked by 1 person
COMMENTS ARE CLOSED.
extract from http://mileswmathis.com/terrain.pdf
the Cohens are THE top hoaxing Jews of all time, coming from the priestly class of Phoenicia/Israel, which gets it greatest joy lying to you and watching those lies destroy you.
kaufman CEO of Zinnia Safety Systems, which makes anti-suicide devices.SUNY Upstate Medical College, where Kaufman worked as an assistant professor, gave Zinnia several grants totaling at least $75,000. rial.
Terrain the movie was produced and directed by Marcelina Cravat Jewish.
I finally found the direct link between Terrain theory and Flat Earth. On that page for the cast of Terrain the movie, we find Jason Lindgren: Yes, I mean who wouldn't trust that guy? They brag that Lindgren has been working since 2016 with Crrow777. Wait, I recognize that handle! He is one of the top Flat Earthers on Youtube. So my intuition pays off again. This connection is not accidental. You would think they would hide their connections to Flat Earth at Terrain.com, but they don't. It is there because they want it to be found. As I say, Terrain theory is a controlled op and planned fail, meant to throw the game to the mainstream. According the Zoominfo Crrow777.com has 25 employees and 1-5 million in revenue. we have evidence here Crrow is a committee.
this Terrain project is incredibly clunky, and one of the first thing these Phoenician bozos do is tie their Terrain theory to Rudolph Steiner, including his claim the heart is not a pump.
this Terrain theory is the Flat Earth of medicineif you embraced Kaufman and Cowan, because in that case your opposition to Pfizer has just become meaningless.That is why Flat Earth peaked at Youtube a few years ago and is still strong there, despite Youtube supposedly cracking down on conspiracy theory. Everything but Flat Earth and Terrain, You can tell what is a psyop just by what is allowed to stay up at Youtube and those places. Flat Earth became so heavily promoted because it was being promoted by NASA and the government. The governors don't want to debate on the facts: they would prefer to debate Flat Earthers, since they can win that one. In the same way, Pfizer and Moderna and J&J don't want to debate on the facts of the recent genocide, they want to debate these Terrain theory agents, since they can win that one. Smart, educated people will read this Terrain theory garbage and think that is the serious opposition to mainstream medical science now. Which of course sends them running back to the mainstream.
You see how it works. I know what the response to this paper will be: all these agents will simultaneously cry out that I haven't even addressed their arguments, making me “unscientific”. But that isn't what I have done. They have no arguments, since all their points are these pathetic soundbites like “the heart is not a pump” or “viruses don't exist”. Those aren't scientific arguments, they are just the most lunatic claims they could come up with at short notice, purposely chosen to drive all sane people off the subject. As with Flat Earth, I refuse to waste my time on this, since that is exactly what they want. A large part of their project is misdirection, which means any time you waste addressing this stuff is a win for them. They want you debating them endlessly, since that keeps you off real actions like starting the revolution today. You don't need to debate the finer points of pathology or virology in order to figure out Terrain theory is a psyop.
Once you look closely at it, like I finally did, you can tell it is a project just from its form and its players. It has all the usual earmarks, being put together very sloppily for an uneducated audience, and constructed to fall apart in the lightest wind. This is to benefit their masters, who demanded the theory be paper thin and obviously wrong—hence the inclusion of things like “the heart is not a pump”. This is so that if Pfizer ever gets in a jam or needs a quick point in a debate or lecture, it can reference Terrain theory and score a few immediate points. We have seen NASA do it with Flat Earth, trying to peg all opposition as coming from Flat Earthers, and we see it here, too, with mainstream medicine claiming all opposition comes from these medical Flat Earthers in Terrain theory, who think the heart is not a pump and who bow to Rudolph Steiner, who worshipped gnomes. Plus, I don't need to address more specific points in Terrain theory since it has already been done. If you want extended critiques, they are up all over the internet. But I will end with one or two tidbits. These guys always focus on viruses, since the mainstream admits viruses are still mysterious. But what about bacteria? Why do they keep the focus on viruses and off bacteria? Because bacteria are better understood and have been caught causing problems millions of times.
Both viruses and bacteria are “germs”, so to disprove germ theory, you would expect these guys to talk a lot about bacteria. They almost never do. This is because it was already admitted before they came along that Koch's second criterium couldn't be applied to viruses, because they are obligate intracellular parasites. So when Cowan or Kaufman claim Galileo status for pointing this out, as if they just discovered it, they are just blowing smoke once again. The fact that viruses can't be isolated this way
Terrain theorists generally argue that rolling in the dirt is GOOD for children, so I see a big contradiction here. I agree that rolling in the dirt is generally a good thing for animals and children, but that is because it strengthens the immune system, which is a germ theory explanation. The kids get introduced to pathogens and develop antigens. White blood cells fight off the undesirable bacteria and viruses. If that is true, why have sanitation at all? Obviously because you can overdo it on the dirty environment. Rolling around in dirt is one thing. Rolling around in sewage or your own feces is another thing. There is a limit to what the immune system can handle. And even a ripping immune system like many Natives probably had couldn't deal with pathogens it had never encountered. It makes perfect sense that stirring large populations together that had never met would cause major problems like this. But only if germ theory is true.
Without germ theory, Natives would have nothing to fear from sick colonists. This is also strange: it isn't only Youtube that is promoting this “fringe” theory in high gear, it is also Google, Bing, and the other search engines. I was astonished to find that it is far easier to find support for Terrain theory than criticism. The opposite of what you would expect. For instance, I typed in “contagion myth debunked” at Bing, but Bing doesn't want to show me that. Instead, Bing is very insistent that I be taken to sites that sell it, and those sites were top-listed. Same thing for other similar searches like “terrain theory negative reviews”. Clearly, if you are questioning anything right now, this is where you are being herded by the mainstream. That is enough to prove this is a psyop by itself. Although Terrain theory is supposed to be a fringe theory, somehow it managed to get huge promotion not only from the big search engines, but from all the usual big alternative sites. How does that work? Terrain theory is promoted from literally thousands of websites, the same websites that won't touch my stuff. I wonder why that is?
Actually I don't wonder because I know why: I am real and they are fake. They are promoted from Langley and I am anti-promoted from the Air Force on down. Perhaps the most nefarious thing about this psyop is the way Cowan, Kaufman, et al stir in a lot of truth*, not only to lasso you but also to blackwash that truth. Like so many current psyops, this one is aimed directly at me and my readers, since we see them stir in light and photons and blood moving through veins due to EM, paralleling my paper on transport in plants. When they pull the plug on this farce and you inevitably flush Terrain theory as the garbage it is, they want to be sure you let a lot of babies go out with that bathwater, also flushing my charge theory. That's why they spent so much time tying photon and light theory—including Pollack's theory of structured water—to this mess. They were clearly instructed to blow smoke around my papers on Pollack as well. Ditto for my papers on walking barefoot and so on. They want to blackwash all that stuff at the same time by pretending to embrace it and then in the next sentence telling you something so kooky the whole thing collapses on you and you run screaming. This is what they do, and thousands of spook websites now exist on that plan. I have previously blown the cover of some of them.
If you visit those sites, you find them agreeing with me on everything for ten pages, then on page eleven you find out they are Flat Earthers or geocentrists or Luciferians or pedophiles. That is why they tied this to Steiner. Despite my destruction of Steiner, they are desperately trying to tie my ideas to Steiner and other kooks, so when you read me you think of him. They want you to think my charge theories arose somehow from former discredited fringe theories, which is why they are always trying so desperately to link me to them. But none of my theories on the science site have any ancestry, since I came up with them on my own, by picking apart mainstream equations directly. You can watch me do it. Yes, there are sometimes some after-the-fact similarities between what I have discovered and what previous people have suggested, but I am always quick to explain why they are not the same. Usually it is because those previous people just suggested a foggy possibility of a mechanism, whereas I show the actual mechanism and the math, with diagrams and full explanations. I show that whereas the previous guys were roughly on the right track, they nonetheless misunderstood or ignored all the most important points, which is why they didn't solve it to start with. See my comments on Lesage in my gravity papers, as just one example.
This is another central difference between me and them, one that should be obvious but that I guess isn't to anyone but me. Although I am considered Against-the-Mainstream, I never dredge up old discarded theories from decades or centuries ago and reset them up against the mainstream. I never promote anyone but me. You may think that is because I am so into myself, but it isn't. It is because I am capable of creating new theory and they aren't. When these agents are assigned these projects, they have to set up something as the false opposition to whatever they are really trying to sell. Well, since they aren't theorists or scientists, they can't create a whole new theory from new cloth, can they? So they have to dig up these old theories from the past and try to clean them up and sell them as viable. They figure that with enough yapping they can sell anything, since they always have. That's the main reason you see them pushing Bechamp and Steiner here: that was what was available in their quick check of Wikipedia. But when I attack the mainstream, I do it with my own new theories, which have taken me decades to create and polish. Which is of course why my arguments have an entirely different feel and weight to them.
I am able to put together an extended and detailed argument, linking you to dozens of my old papers, while all they can do is paste-up these wretched agitprojects, ones that crumble on any close reading. So the moment I see heavily promoted people come out of nowhere trying to resell discarded projects from previous centuries—especially highly ridiculed ones like Flat Earth or Theosophy/Anthroposophy —I know without further research I am in the middle of a psyop. It helps that I now know these projects like Theosophy/Anthroposophy are their own previous projects, since of course they are going to have those projects sitting on their shelves. This psyop is nefarious for another reason: many reading this paper will think I am defending mainstream medicine here, which is of course the opposite of my intent. As usual, this Terrain psyop creates a dialectic where the truth is on neither side. Some have said both germ theory and Terrain theory are right, since germ theory admits the health of the host is very important. The terrain after all is the IMMUNE SYSTEM. A stronger host will have a stronger immune system, which may be able to fight off any germ with little sign or symptom. [Which is of course what made the Covid “science” so perverse: it is based on vaccines, which were invented to confer immunity by calling up a response from the host's immune system. But in this current fiasco, we were told immune responses were inadequate or inferior: we needed this new faux-vaccine, which they sold almost as some sort of antibiotic or magic bullet, capable of wiping out a disease on its own. A vaccine that was better than an immune response.
Totally illogical, since a vaccine calls up an immune response. Or used to, when vaccines were actually immunizations instead of deadly gene therapies.] But instead of being politic and claiming both are right, I think it would be more accurate to say both are wrong. Terrain theory is wrong because it was created to be wrong. It is the manufactured false opposition.
But germ theory, though roughly correct, has been captured by the capitalists and corrupted to sell fake vaccines. Because germ theory is very young, being only about 150 years old in its current form, we would expect it to be incomplete. But this fledging status isn't its current greatest problem. The problem is that medicine, like everything else, has been infiltrated and monetized out of all recognition of its original form. So arguing about history or science is actually misdirection here. This isn't a matter of history or science, it is a matter or economics or ethics. We now know that Pfizer bought out a majority of the world, including most American institutions: the medical profession, the universities, the government, and the media. In doing that they ignored all standing science in all fields, just making it up to suit themselves. As in art, everything previously known was thrown out the window and the field was reinvented overnight by salesmen and promoters. So arguing about germ theory is bootless.
None of this mRNA stuff is even based on germ theory. It is based on making you sick and killing you via jacking with your genes. Which is exactly why they have framed the argument as if it is about germ theory. They want you out in the bushes arguing about germ theory, because that keeps you off far larger questions, such as why we have drug companies running the country and buying out regulatory agencies and governors and Presidents and courts and all the TV channels and the internet. And such as why we are messing with our genes to start with. And such as whether we should just call the US a fascist country, since the media is now a government front, censoring widely and wildly under direct orders from the Feds. Yes, I could hit in more depth the history of germ theory and of immunology, but as I have reminded you, that isn't really what this is about. The US could be running on Terrain theory or even old Miasma theory and it wouldn't have made the slightest possible difference here. Those running the show don't give two figs about real science, art, or medicine, since they have all been redefined as schemes of mass looting for them. Whatever the standing science or laws had been in 2020, they would have ignored them and replaced them with this fantastic propaganda scheme, a scheme that yielded over $100 billion for Pfizer in 2022 alone.
That is more than half of their total assets, meaning they just raped the treasury like no one before them, even the Rockefellers, Astors, or Goulds. And they did it worldwide, all at once, partnering with governments everywhere to do it. And unlike their other drugs, they didn't have to sell this one to you directly. The government bought the vaccines in your name— whether you wanted them or not—and then forced you to take them with huge levels of duress and outright lies. Another question being passed over here is whether or not this is taxation without representation. You will say Congress voted on it, but those people don't represent you. They represent Pfizer.
They bought these untested fake vaccines, gave the companies immunity from prosecution, and stood by silently as they were forced on you, while investing heavily in those same vaccines. That's right, your Congressmen were allowed to own shares of these companies while forcing you to buy their products. Isn't that a conflict of interest? Of course it is. It is highly illegal but who is going to prosecute them? The Justice Department? Don't make me laugh.
But it isn't just through investments these people were paid. They were paid directly by campaign financing. Over 75% of US senators and representatives took money from Big Pharma ahead of the 2020 election. The other 25% missed out because they are not involved in regulating the industry. This is not chump change, either, being six figure “donations” totaling $14 million. Why isn't that illegal? It is, but they keep the lawbooks in dark corners. Besides, again, who is going to prosecute them? The “Justice” Department? Don't make me cry. Back to the matter of taxation without representation, it is worth reminding you that most state legislatures didn't vote on vaccine or masking mandates at all.
As you will remember, all these “mandates”—which have zero legal standing—didn't come out legislatures, either federal or state. So they weren't laws. They were just pronouncements or bluffs from governors or health departments, which again had no legal standing for making such pronouncements, much less for enforcing them with any kind of police. Which is why many sheriff's departments—and a few police departments—refused to enforce these mandates. Many more police departments silently declined to enforce, without making any statements to that effect.
Businesses also had no authority to enforce vaccine or mask mandates, and in the matter of masks were actually breaking standing OSHA laws on masking of employees. As for requiring masking of customers, that was a white area, but no standing laws gave them that authority. They hid behind illegal “emergency measures”, but even those emergency measures were limited to 30 days—which they dragged out for two or three years.
It is things like that that people like Cowan and Kaufman are trying to keep you away from. They have dredged up Antoine Bechamp from 150 years ago and Rudolph Steiner from 100 years ago because they want you arguing about Terrain theory instead of remembering your own government just bilked trillions from you while murdering your family members with an illegal drug marketed illegally, and forced down your throat by a captured Congress and media. They want to move you on from the biggest theft and mass murder in the history of the world, a murder in which large parts of the country were complicit, including your doctor, your pharmacist, your governor, your mayor, your health department, your insurance company, your President, your Supreme Court, all your TV channels, your congresses, your favorite movie stars, your favorite sports stars, and many of your neighbors and friends/acquaintances.
This is also interesting in hindsight: Politifact fact-checked a Facebook post from 2022 claiming members of Congress were exempt from Biden's vaccine mandate on federal workers. Politifact tagged it “false”. So if you don't read closely or don't read the whole thing, you may think Congress did have to get vaccinated. But no, in the final paragraph they admit the claim was false because the mandate never applied to Congress in the first place. . . so they didn't need an exemption from Biden. They were exempt to start with. Hah. Talk about pettifogging. The bottom line is that while investing in vaccines and taking huge donations from Big Pharma, Congress didn't have to get vaccinated, and many of them didn't. The CEO of Pfizer Bourla admitted on camera that he and his family weren't vaccinated. Whoops! He claimed it was because he wanted to let more needy people get theirs first. Yeah, right. So now maybe you understand why I have refused to talk about germ or Terrain theory from the beginning. For several years I was commenting at CTTF and they went round and round on this— without me. I have been getting links to Cowan and Kaufman for years and still am. Until now I have just advised my readers to focus elsewhere. I still do. This Terrain theory is a tarbaby, blackwashing, and eye's-off project rolled into one, and the best thing you can do is tell these Kaufmans and Cowans to take their projects elsewhere. And let this be a lesson to you: pay attention to names and be very suspicious when these and other names pop up. I haven't done all that genealogy work for no reason. You were supposed to learn something from it.
If you couldn't slog through it, I will give you the short version: you should have lost trust for anyone in these old peerage families, with the reddest flags hanging on names like Cohen, Levi, Kaufmann, Hoffman, Stanley, Stuart/Stewart, Comnene/Comin/Cummings, Vasa, Jagiellon, Murray, Bennett, Webb, Whitney, Spencer, Russell, Sachs/Saxe, Schiff, and many others. If someone has the same name as a President or other famous politician, a movie star, or a billionaire, be very suspicious. Rather than assume no one is related and there are no links, assume all these famous people are related and that all possible links pertain. You should trust no one in government or Hollywood on either side, since they are all cousins working together to turn your mind to mush. Resist. No matter what they say or claim, these people will never save you. They will only continue to prey on you. Only you can save you, and the first step in that saving is refusing to fall for any of their projects. *Raw milk, anti-soy, good fats, etc.
Miles Mathis comments from the recent forum 2023
Yes, charge is moving up all the time, so there are a million uses for it. Go outside and run in the grass barefoot. That is immediately healing, since you are getting free charge therapy. You don’t need to live in a pyramid to get it.
Don't buy plastic or rubber soled shoes, which is most shoes now. That’s one of the reasons they sell the plebes such shoes, it disempowers them, literally. Leather is OK, unless you are vegan.
THe second two are too big for this party, but I will answer the first. Yes, I also like dogs. I used to like them more than cats, but now I like cats. Cats tear up your house less, which is good for an artist. And I don’t have a proper fenced yard.
Grounding is a real thing, though it doesn’t have much to do with electrons. It has to do with charge, which is photons. The body is a charge engine, like everything else in this universe.
The entire ruling class of Europe is Jewish. Unless you mean circumcision. One reason is that Euros like to get naked on the beach and elsewhere, and you don’t want a circumcised weenie on the beaches. If it gets cold, you shrink up to nothing. Nobody likes that! If you are uncircumcised, he have your own little coat, so you get far less shrinkage. And yes, I am completely serious. ALthough there are other reasons. A far larger percentage of AMericans have Jewish “blood” than is admitted, especially in the upper classes.
I play trivia at a local Brewery. We are the top team, but a lot of the questions leave me empty. I have started calling it propaganda night, instead of trivia night. I am their art, history, literature, and science specialist, but you would be surprised how little of that there is on any given quiz. It is all vidgames, TV, Hollywood, and fake current events. And when they do ask a literature question, it tends to be Harry Potter or Game of Thrones
Before people can do anything, they have to know what is going on. Before they can come together and talk and make plans, they have to know what is going on. No action is possible without knowledge. So this is the first step in any revolution. If you don’t know what you are up against, you have no chance of defeating it. You cannot organize or lead people who aren’t aware of what is going on around them, or what has happened in recent history. I have tried to talk to well-meaning people around town, but it is pointless. They have no idea how the world works. They want to talk about Trump or Congress or some article in the New York TImes or some show they saw on CNN. THese people have to be deprogrammed before you even think of asking them to act in any way.
. Life isn’t about majorities or political wins. It is about private wins. It is about setting yourself (and those around you) up for your next life and all the next lives down the line. In other words, your longterm relation to the Gods or Muses or whatever you wish to call them is important. Far more important than your relation to the current ruling party. Life may seem long but it is really rather short. It is just a page in a much longer book. All the wise have known that, and it doesn’t take a guru to see it.
I don’t want to talk about aliens, since I don’t know anything about them. It is like talking about gods. There may be aliens, but the gov alien projects are all misdirection. I see a lot of evidence of higher powers, but it is all pretty murky beyond that. If they wanted us to know, we would know. Whether gods or aliens, they DON’T want us to know, and I don’t see it as a code we are going to crack. Life is some sort of test, and if we had the answer sheet, the test wouldn’t work, would it? You know enough to know right from wrong, but you are never going to be told all the secrets. If you knew all the secrets, the fun would be gone from the game anyway. So stick with the questions that have answers and leave the other ones be. I have shown there are lot of questions that can be answered that haven’t been. Those are the ones I am interested in looking at.
Rather than eternal recurrence, I believe each of our actions is etched in time somehow, and can’t be destroyed. That achieves the same thing, without the need to relive the same life over and over. The past can’t be destroyed, and always remains a part of the present. So you build on your past lives and past actions. Everything you do remains eternally important, without reoccuring eternally.
Everybody is always asking me what I think about some other author, so let me answer all those questions at once. I don’t read anyone anymore. I do my own research and don’t trust anyone else. 99% of the people pushing theories online are spooks, so be very careful. Research them yourselves.If they don’t have a full bio posted with facts you can check, be very suspicious
The last thing you want to do is block heat rising out of the ground, since that is the same as charge. That is your oil and your gasoline. You are a charge engine, just like everything else. So don't insulate subfloor and don't wear shoes around the house, except leather soled.
Concerning radiation, it isn’t just a matter of radiation levels or wavelengths, it is a matter of whether the body has a method of dealing with them. The newer forms, being new and unnatural, leave the body with no natural defenses. The body knows how to process and defend against sunlight (to an extent), but has no analogous ways to process or defend against focused wifi and other new forms. It may develop defenses, but who knows how long that will take. The human body is notoriously weak compared to other animals, and is weaker now than it has ever been in history. It has been weakened by purposely polluted air, water, and food, and heightened levels of unnatural radiation can only add to the toxic mix. So avoiding new radiation is a smart move, in my opinion.
I would have thought insulators would be better at blocking EM than metals. They partially block the charge field, which is why I earlier recommended wearing leather soled shoes rather than plastic or rubber. Your body wants the photons coming up, since they keep you charged in the right amount. This charge helps you repel or process EM fields, so part of the modern problem is that the body is torpid regarding charge, preventing it from dealing with EM fields in the correct way, you see. Houses are also built wrong, since many have insulation beneath the floors. You don’t want any insulators beneath the floors. You want charge rising naturally. It can do that through rock and I assume concrete, and of course wood, but it can’t do that through insulation. Big cities have the same problem, since they have a lot of crap beneath the streets, including insulators. That’s why you should never live downtown. ANyway, metals can work as insulators, but they have to be turned in the right direction. You want them spreading out charge laterally instead of conducting it straight through. But remember, no matter what you are using as an insulator, it is not soaking up anything, or even blocking it. It is just redirecting it. So if you are using metals as insulators, be aware that the EM radiation is still coming out the sides in the same amounts. In other words, if you are standing in front of the metal and it is positioned correctly, you will be protected, but if you move around to the side, you will still get zapped. So don’t protect yourself and accidentally zap your cat, for instance.
order miles mathis books here http://milesmathis.com/scibook.html proofs of Miles Mathis https://www.godparticle.xyz/Essays.html
https://ia601509.us.archive.org/27/items/235-pgs-the-real-history-of-the-earth/235PGS%20THE%20REAL%20HISTORY%20OF%20THE%20EARTH.pdf What I Finally Understood by Miles Mathis, mileswmathis.com PG179
VIEW 78 MILES MATHIS ART WORKS HERE: https://archive.org/details/mathis-miles-williams-5/Mathis%20Miles%20Williams%20%281%29.JPG
http://mileswmathis.com/mcilvaine.pdf CHK LINK TO 911 PASSENGERS
Miles Mathis is an example of a a very creative spiritual person .
http://mileswmathis.com/patton.pdf PG21
the current blackwashing of all liberals and the Democratic party, as they push us all hard right. They apparently want you hating university professors, teachers unions (all unions), people who are against fascism (antifa), black people, trannies, gays, people who are for social justice (SJW), and so on. The project is incredibly transparent, but most people are missing it. They don't see that all the events going on right now actually benefit the rich, the far right, and the Republican party. Those sectors have always been anti-black, pro-fascism, anti-justice, and anti-union. Do you really think it is an accident that Greta Thunberg is so unappealing, that the leaders of BLM are so unappealing, that the frontline trannies and social justice warriors are so unappealing? Do you think they just accidentally manage to say all the wrong things, pissing off the white majority in this country? No, this is all scripted, and is being scripted knowing what your reaction will be. They know how to push your buttons. They want you to identify as conservative, because the moment you do you are their ally. ... they will have you thinking you are a revolutionary while you support their far-right candidate. That is where all this is heading. I repeat: do not support ANY of their candidates. Now is the time to drive around these people or to take it right at them. ANYTHING they suggest, say NO. They are your enemies. ALL OF THEM. Do not be fooled when they pretend to agree with you.
As another example, Mike Adams at NaturalNews just published a lead article about end times, trying
to appeal to you as a Christian. From that perspective, it starts out OK, since it frames current events as
the result of sin and the wrath of God, which in a sense is true. But notice how that switches midarticle, and he starts trying to sell you prepper gear.
Those who are spiritually prepared will be able to walk with God through the valley of the shadow of
death (Psalm 23) and fear no evil, for they are prepared both spiritually and physically. Physical
preparedness means having food, emergency supplies, self-defense supplies and readiness for the
total collapse of food, electricity, telecommunications and the rule of law.
You have to laugh. If these are really end times, do you think you can avoid them by buying guns or
canned food? Yes, be spiritually prepared. Be righteous. But there is no being physically prepared for
such a thing. You can't buy or plan your way out of a 500ft tidal wave or an endtimes famine or a
plague of locusts or whatever. As you walk through the valley of the shadow of death, Michael and
Gabriel aren't going to be impressed with a camouflage jacket, a Glock, or a backpack filled with
Powerbars. If God is going to save you, he is going to save you, and you won't need any of that stuff.
It won't be Powerbars it will be nectar and ambrosia, remember? It will manna, whatever that is. And
yes, I am being completely serious. I believe in being saved, but not through prepping. Prepping is
just another way for the Phoenicians to scare you and sell you stuff.
https://archive.org/details/maxwell-chikumbutso-new-nikola-tesla-of-the-21st-century SANGULANI (MAXWELL) CHIKUMBUTSO'S GAME-CHANGING FREE ENERGY DEVICES: Max is an inventor in Africa who had built a "Microsonic Energy Device" generator, car, helicopter, and drone that run on radio frequencies. The generator (a true free energy mechanism that keeps eighteen 12-volt batteries consistently charged) generates half a megawatt which can power about 300 homes.
https://thehonestscientist.wordpress.com/miles-mathis/
HOW a BATTERY CIRCUIT WORKS http://milesmathis.com/seft.pdf
https://archive.org/details/maxwell-chikumbutso-new-nikola-tesla-of-the-21st-century SANGULANI (MAXWELL) CHIKUMBUTSO'S GAME-CHANGING FREE ENERGY DEVICES: Max is an inventor in Africa who had built a "Microsonic Energy Device" generator AND car that run on radio frequencies. The generator generates half a megawatt which can power about 300 homes. The car does not use a liquid fuel and can go from los angeles to new york without having to stop and be charged. http://chikumbutso.com/ 7 WEB ARTICLES ABOUT CHIKUMBUTSO IS HERE: https://archive.org/details/activist-post-article-on-chikumbutso_202102
Dear Friend:
Please let me know if you did not get your tea and coffee. I am very honored to supply schedule III controlled substances to the best and most creative researcher on the web. :) :D 8) ^_^ :3 -_- <3
Favorite new paper by Miles from 2020: Yes, this is a Test by Miles Mathis First published March 18, 2020
FAVORITE GUEST PAPER OF 2020:Why I Believe the Coronavirus Scare Has Been Manufactured by Russell Sackett
These papers were spot on and allowed me to see the lies for what they were and send an early warning (via mms ) to those that would value it.
love,
greatest book ever written jokebook.com/john-david-garcia/spinoza-the-ethics-english-presentation-by-henri-lurie.pdf
send coffee end of august
excerpts from
Rudolf Steiner andAnthroposophy by Miles Mathis
First published October 16, 2020
As I see it, as soon as I blew the cover of Theosophy everyone should have written off Steiner at the same time. Some probably did, but many apparently didn't, which is why I am back today. I want to be sure this guy's ghost can never get on his feet again.
Since Anthroposophy was just an offshoot of Theosophy, it would be very difficult to argue Theosophy was run by spooks but Anthroposophy wasn't. But somehow people do make that argument. I will show it holds no water. Anthroposophy was always just as spooky as Theosophy, and was in no way a corrective for it.
I intuited Anthroposophy was a conjob the very first time I heard of it, without reading a single word of its theories. That was back in college. Turns out I was right, but how did I know? Just from the title: Anthroposophy. No serious scholar makes up such a stupid word. Even in my early 20s, words like that had already developed a bad taste in my mouth upon receipt, due I suppose to the fact that I had discovered these words always seemed to be connected to dubious projects. You may have noticed that I myself have very little interest in coining terms or using or generating lingo. Same reason. Inventing silly new words is a sign of Modernism, and Modernism is a sign of Intelligence. I didn't know that back then, or not in the way I do now. I didn't know all these projects were run by spooks. But I intuited the information they were trying to push on me wasn't worth looking at. The form wasn't appealing to my artist's eye, or my logician's ear, so I knew the content would follow form.
After researching Steiner, Anthroposophy, and Waldorf, I have a lot of facts to back up my old opinion, and in this case I will start with the biggest red flag and work down from there. So if you get bored you
can quit early. Most likely the first flag, or the first few, will do it for you.
If you have ever been to a Waldorf school, you may know about the gnomes:
They look pretty cute there, but the story behind them is far from cute. If you don't know what I mean, you can start by reading this 2013 article from The Atlantic, by a Jewish guy named Noah Berlatsky. He does his best to whitewash the subject, which by itself is a bad sign. So is The Atlantic, which we already know is a propaganda font, owned by Intelligence. Frankly, the very fact that The Atlantic is telling us gnomes are OK means they aren't.
But you may need to know more about gnomes to see what I mean, so next go here. There you will discover the truth: Steiner believed gnomes really exist. Or said he did. And not as cute little people made of felt, and not as Tolkien's dwarves, but as frightening beings who “lack moral responsibility”. They are actually the same as goblins. Spooked yet?
Steiner also believed that the Earth was made by gnomes of the Old Moon. Meaning? Who knows? But can it be a good sign?
Steiner also believed that there were good and bad gnomes, but the good gnomes tended to link themselves to the plant world. Those linked to the human world were the bad ones. Beyond that, the gnomes hate logic and hate what is earthly. They created the earth but have no liking for it. Hmmm. Sounds a lot like the Phoenicians, doesn't it?
The gnomes are also the bearers of parasites, poisons, and illnesses. Again, like the Phoenicians.
The gnomes have yet another characteristic. They are flled with an absolutely unconquerable lust for independence. They trouble themselves little about one another and give their attention only to the world of their own surroundings. One gnome takes little interest in another. But everything else in this world around them, in which they live, this interests them exceedingly.
Are you seeing the pattern?
Steiner believed that when we fell asleep we were “entombed” by the gnomes, being trapped in their
world. He says that anyone who truly remembers his dreams will know this. Except that I always remember my dreams, and I have never once seen a gnome in them. I have never once felt entombed, alarmed, or terrified. The only time I feel entombed is when I am awake, and I realize the levels of control the Phoenicians have over the waking world. That sometimes feels like an entombment.
Next, you should know that although both Steiner “scholars” and the mainstream deny he was Jewish, his early bio is the usual unbelievable mess, indicating he was both Jewish and privileged. To start with, his name Rudolf Lorenz Steiner all but proves he was Jewish, Lorenz and Steiner both being common Jewish surnames in the region of his birth (Kraljevec, Croatia). Geni scrubs his maternal line very quickly, indicating something big is being hidden. His mother was a Blie, which is a Jewish name. See Anna Blie, director of the Jewish Museum of Rome. His grandmother was a Schellerl, and Scheller is a Jewish name, meaning a noisy person. His paternal grandmother is also scrubbed, though they do admit she was a Boigner. Bogner is a Jewish name. The Steiner line also ends with his grandparents, which is not much of a genealogy for such a famous person. Geni lists another Rudolf Steiner of Austria, with lines from Bratislava, born eight years later, and he is obviously Jewish, being related to Rosenzweigs and Hellins and Reinitz and Sterns and Pollacks and Anningers and Kubinskys.
We are told Steiner was the son of a gamekeeper and later stationmaster, so he should have been working class. But if we look closer, we find the father was connected to the Count von Hoyos, who at the time was Ludwig Graf, Freiherr zu Stichsentein, chef du cabinet of the Austro-Hungarian Foreign Minister during WWI. Graf's grandfather was the Englishman Robert Whitehead, who was also a Swift through his mother. Whitehead is famous for inventing the torpedo, and he also ran a large Hungarian company that built submarines. So we have the usual military links. He sold his companies to British arms conglomerate Vickers. Graf's sister married Prince Herbert von Bismarck, son of Duke Otto von Bismarck-Schoenhausen, President of Prussia and first Chancellor of Germany. So Steiner's dad was just two steps removed from Bismarck. My guess is his father wasn't a gamekeeper at all, but more likely a secretary, minister, or “close companion” of Graf. The families may even have been related. At any rate, we will see that little Rudy was chosen from the crib for the parts he would play.
But let's back up. How did the British Robert Whitehead manage to marry his granddaughter to the son of the Chancellor of Germany? One, by marrying a Bovill. The Bovills were related to the Runcimans, Viscounts of Doxford, who were shipping magnates. Also related to the MacKenzie- Kennedys, the Sclater-Booths, the Campbells, the Fishes, the Leighs, the Beresfords, the Lucas-Tooths, the Goslings, and the Owens. Whitehead himself was the grandson of a Lever, linking him to the Viscounts Leverhulme, including the soap billionaire. Through the Orams, the Whiteheads descended from the Kays who invented the flying shuttle in 1751, and through them to the biggest cotton weavers and merchants. Whitehead's mother Swift was of the family wealthy from iron foundries. They link us to the Erskines. In the time of this Whitehead, these Swifts had just married the Wykeham-Musgraves, linking them through the Greys, Earls Grey, to the Stuarts of Blantyre as well as the Lindsays, Hays, Haliburtons, Hamiltons, Lyons, Setons, Stanhopes, Sutherland-Leveson-Gowers, Howards, and everyone else. Whitehead's other granddaughter Agathe married Georg von Trapp, and her children were the von Trapp singers, the basis for The Sound of Music. Just so you know, von Trapp was a noble (ritter) and a Lt. Commander in the navy, captaining submarines. This of course links him to his in-laws the Whiteheads, who built those submarines.
So, just in case you missed it, the von Trapps were second cousins of the Bismarcks. The dead mother of those children in the movie was the second cousin of the Bismarcks. They forget to tell you that, don't they?
Another cousin was Sir Edgar Cuthbert Whitehead, Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia. His father was Counselor to the British Embassy in Berlin and his mother was a Brodrick, daughter of the Viscount Midleton. This also links us to the Pelhams, Earls of Chichester, and the Bernards, Earls of Bandon. This is where actor Matthew Broderick comes from as well.
All this may help to explain why Steiner scored a scholarship to the Vienna Institute of Technology, despite allegedly being the son of a stationmaster and showing no special promise. It may also explain why he dropped out of VIT with no degree. Normally, you would expect someone from a working class background to make the most of an opportunity like that: it is rich kids who commonly drop out of university only a few credits shy of a degree. It also explains how this college drop-out got appointed to be natural science editor of a new edition of Goethe's works at age 20, again with no obvious qualifications. They admit Steiner had no academic credentials or previous publications.
The teacher who nominated Steiner for the Goethe editorship was Karl Julius Schroer. Another Jewish name. See Silvia Schroer, who is still at it today, being Vice Rector at the University of Bern, where she specializes in a secular, Jewish, feminist interpretation of the Bible. Just what we need, right? A secular interpretation of a religious text. That is sort of like a vegetarian interpretation of a tiger's diet. It makes no effing sense, and can only be perverse.
However, none of this explains how Steiner got a PhD in Philosophy nine years later at age 29, despite never getting an undergraduate degree. His common bios just skip over that little problem. My guess is the PhD was just rubberstamped on his resume by Intelligence, to give him the appearance of some credentials at last. That is the way it is normally done.
At university, Steiner was a student of Franz von Brentano, a nobleman and crypto-Jew with six names. Franz Clemens Honoratus Hermann Josef Brentano.
His aunt was the Countess Bettina von Arnim, a close friend of both Goethe and Beethoven. The
Brentanos were very wealthy Italian merchants, closely related to the Bellinis, Mattonis, von Laroches, von Stadion-Warthausens, von Birkenstocks, von Hays, von Rottenhofs, von Schonborns, von Sonnenfels, Heinzelmanns, and Gutermanns. The Stadion-Warthausens were the top bankers in Austria, running the central bank, and Bettina von Arnim's great-grandfather was Johann von Stadion- Warthausen, founder of the Austrian Central Bank. Bettina married Achim von Arnim, the famous poet, who himself was raised by his grandmother the Countess von Labes, wife of Michael Fredersdorf. Fredersdorf is of course famous for being the gay lover of Frederick II of Prussia.
Brentano's brother Lujo was a famous Socialist economist, meaning he was a spook working that project. His uncle was the famous German Romantic poet Clemens Brentano. Through the von Birkenstocks, we link to Antonie von Birkenstock (below), friend of Beethoven and dedicatee of his Diabelli Variations.
Note the nose. I would say that name Diabelli (Diaboli) is appropriate, given what we are discovering here (see below). Antonie's father was Johann Melchior Edler von Birkenstock, Imperial Advisor to Emperor Joseph II of Austria. Note the names Melchior and Edler, which are Jewish. Birkenstock's brother-in-law was Joseph von Sonnenfels, grandson of the Chief Rabbi in Brandenburg. So they finally admit one of these people is Jewish. He was born a Lipmann. He is now most well-known as one of the leaders of the Illuminati movement in Austria. Sonnenfels' father Alois Sonnenfels allegedly converted to Catholicism, though his wife remained Jewish. So we are supposed to believe the son of the Chief Rabbi of the region converted to Catholicism? Oivay caramba. He became Empress Maria Theresa's Court Interpreter and Kabbalist, and she knighted him. His son Joseph followed in his footsteps, also being Court Interpreter and Kabbalist to the Empress. He was also an economic advisor. Although, like his father, he claimed to no longer be Jewish, he wrote the Emperor's Tolerance Edict, which extended the rights of Jews to run large-scale businesses and factories, attend university, and so on. It basically put into writing what was already the case: all economic restrictions against Jews were void.
The von Schonborns had been the rulers of Mainz and Worms back to 1647, when Johann Philipp became Archbishop of Mainz and Archchancellor of the Holy Roman Empire. His nephew Lothar became Prince-Bishop of Wurzburg. By 1743 the family ruled large parts the Empire, including
Bamberg, Mainz, Worms, Speyer, Wurzburg, Trier, and Konstanz. Schonborn Palace in Prague is one of their most famous residences.
In his early years, Steiner tutored the Specht children, also Jewish. See Minna Specht, a leading Socialist during the Second World War. She was born in Reinbek castle. She later taught at the Walkenmuhle, a school for the children of Jewish Socialists. It was a spook feeder. She is one of the ones alleged “interned” on the Isle of Man in 1940. You have to laugh.
Steiner dedicated his first book to Eduard von Hartmann, son of a Prussian major general. His mother was a Dohse—another Jewish name. Hartmann's wife was Alma Lorenz. Does that last name look familiar? Rudolf Lorenz Steiner. So probably a close cousin. Hartmann was a heavily promoted philosopher and spook who had come out of the army. He is most famous for his 1,100-page Philosophy of the Unconscious—which is what you will be after trying to read it. Nietzsche rightly dismissed Hartmann as a schalk and a schelm, though I think what he meant by that has been misread. By calling Hartmann a joker and a rogue, Nietzsche was pointing to what I am pointing at: all these people like Hartmann and Steiner were. . . agents. See this translation of Philip Mainlander for confirmation of that. There he says that Hartmann is one of those people who was a hot topic for a few decades while he was alive, but who has since been completely forgotten. That is because that is the common arc of agents. They require heavy promotion and cannot exist without it. Once worldwide Intel decides to drop them from the rotation, they immediately evaporate. Intel selects only a few for permanent promotion, which is why agents like Marx and Steiner are still hot. Since Steiner is non- mainstream in most ways, you would expect the mainstream to have buried him. You would expect his Wikipedia page to be very negative, for instance, but it isn't. It is extremely long and mostly positive. That can only be explained by the fact that he is still in rotation. He is still being sold, since 1) he remains—along with Theosophy—a prominent plank in Operation Chaos, 2) his Waldorf schools remain an important part of alternative indoctrination and confusion of childhood. Along with Montessori and a few others, Waldorf acts as a mop-up on all those who are dissatisfied with public schools, being sure no one makes it to the far side of adolescence with any connection to reality. The gnomes see to that.
In 1894 Steiner published Philosophy of Spiritual Activity, which he later claimed was the groundwork for Anthroposophy. He called it the epistemological basis for all his later thinking. Meaning? Well, since this was all a thumbscrew, it means nothing. Was the Philosophy of Spiritual Activity the epistemological basis for his theory of gnomes and his theory that the heart did not pump blood? I guess so.
Here is a typical quote from the Wiki page on Philosophy of Spiritual Activity:
For Steiner, true morality, the highest good, is the universal mediated by the profoundly individual and situational; it depends upon our achieving freedom from both our inner drives and outer pressures. To achieve such free deeds, we must cultivate our moral imagination, our ability to imaginatively create ethically sound and practical solutions to new situations, in fact, to forge our own ethical principles and to transform these flexibly as needed - not in the service of our own egotistical purposes, but in the face of new demands and unique situations.
As you know, I was a philosophy major, graduating summa cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa. So you may think I am impressed by sentences like that. Nope. Those sentences have very little real content, but what content they have is false. Or, they are true in that Steiner did intend to say that, but false in that he was wrong. . . or more likely flipping you on purpose. We cannot achieve freedom from our
inner drives and should not wish to. Like our innate morality, our drives were installed on purpose, and nothing could be more useful to us than those drives. Without them we would be marooned as well as entombed. What we need in this screwy world is not freedom from our inner drives, but freedom from those who would destroy them or cause them to malfunction. Those such as Steiner. Likewise, in a natural state, outer pressures would educate and sharpen our inner drives, making us smarter by the month. So we should not seek freedom from such outer pressures. The only outer pressures we should seek freedom from are pressures manufactured by government, media, and academia, which again purposely try to destroy or subvert all healthy response. But this is not what Steiner means. He wants you to think morality is far more creative, flexible, and complex than it actually is, since this will lead you to the Modern morass of relativism. But the truth is, morality is little more than an instinct. It is an instinct of all social creatures, which means we were born with it. As such, it must be consistent and non-creative. We don't imagine it into existence, anymore than we imagine our bodies or desires into existence. Can birds creatively decide to fly north, south, east or west for the winter? No. They are programmed to fly south, and any other “decision” will doom them. Just so humans and their so-called morality.
Morality is not a function of freedom, or the reverse. They hardly come into contact. I am a great fan of freedom, but not from morality or from natural constraints on it. When I think of freedom, I think of freedom from unnatural constraints upon my natural desires, choices, and actions. But those constraints aren't moral, they are political, social, or economic constraints hiding behind the guise of moralism. To be even more direct, I have been held back my entire life, but not because I wanted to do anything immoral. I have been squashed because I threatened the hegemony of those with less ability. They needed to keep me down because if I had progressed at a fair and natural rate, thousands of them would have crashed and burned. So they have had to manufacture a pseudo-morality to address that. According to that morality, the fake progress of those thousands is more important than my real progress. For them it is a matter of numbers, rather than quality. I understand that, but it isn't how Nature works. Nature determines the true morality, and contradicting her is like flying north for the winter: it begs doom.
Nature is blind to numbers. She commonly sacrifices thousands to find the one. She is ultimately interested in QUALITY. I find this as hard to understand and deal with as you, as when the weaker kittens in a litter die. Honestly, I don't like it. I want them all to live. But I would like it less if the mother cat killed or neglected the stronger kittens in favor of the weaker. That would degenerate into something truly awful after a few generations, wouldn't it?
Well, that is precisely what is happening in human society right now. It reached fruition in the field of art first, which is why I am so familiar with it. The weak artists banded together and destroyed the strong, and now art is dead. It has been replaced by therapy and politics and money laundering. But it now continues apace in all fields.
Steiner purposely garbling the concepts of morality and freedom in a book supposed to be about epistemology is a very bad sign. Epistemology is a theory of knowledge, mostly separate from ethics, so it has very little to do with freedom or morality. If morality is uncreative, epistemology is even less so. The human mind works in specific and limited ways, and we can't choose to change that. I don't see any freedom there at all. Is a dog free to think like a porpoise, or a porpoise to think like a mollusk? No. Our epistemology, whatever it is, is set, and we can only discover what it is. We gain knowledge in a certain way, and in no other ways. Any theory of knowledge is good only insofar as it is true, and that truth is not flexible. If the theory is right, then it is useful; if it is wrong, it is useless. So freedom doesn't come into the question at all. But Steiner utterly ignores that:
He proposes (1) that through introspective observation we can become conscious of the motivations of our actions, and (2) that the sole possibility of human freedom, if it exists at all, must be sought in an awareness of the motives of our actions.
Is that true? Is freedom mainly a function of our awareness of the motives of our actions? No, because freedom isn't defined with regard to an isolated individual. Freedom is a relationship the individual has to society. Individuals don't normally limit themselves; they are limited by others. So, as we have seen before, Steiner is recommending navel gazing to prevent you from seeing the truth. Like all these other spooks, he wants you to think you are limiting your own freedom due to some sort of neuroticism, inner blocking, or lack of self awareness. When the truth is you are being limited by a society purposely set up to limit you. You have been put into a tiny cage, then been told you created your own cage due to fear or self-loathing. But that simply isn't true. You didn't build that cage, any more than the monkey at the zoo or the rabbit in the lab built his.
Studying the motives for your actions is pretty much feckless, because as long as you ignore the outside world, you will always misinterpret those motives. Following Steiner and his ilk, you will find some way to blame yourself for your actions, since they have planted all sorts of fake motives in your head to confuse you. In Modern society, the motives for most of your actions don't come from within anyway. Meaning, you didn't just decide to do whatever you did for internal reasons. Almost always you were reacting to input, which means the motives came from outside your head. You are not moving so much as being moved, so all motive is external. But Steiner has to keep you as far away from that realization as possible, since that would draw your attention to the real motivators. That is to say, the real criminals.
So, as usual, these people have set up a wild goose chase for you, but this time it is inside your own head. You are sent inside to study your own motives. Yes, on some very limited interpersonal questions that might help. You might ask yourself why you said X to your lover, for instance. You might have thought in the moment it was because she said Y, but on further reflection you came to see it was because she did Z yesterday or last year, or because your mother did W when you were a child. But does that have anything to do with capital-F freedom? No. It has to do with becoming a better lover or friend, and a more stable person, but almost nothing to do with freedom. It also has almost nothing to do with morality, since it is not immoral to make a mistake about motives. It is ignorant and leads to confusion, but it isn't immoral. The added clarity will make your life easier, and make things easier for all those around you, but it won't make you any more or less evil. That new clarity may also make it easier for you to steal candy from babies, if that is your thing.
Say you develop a perfect understanding of your motives: does that tell us anything about your level of freedom or morality? No. Satan may have a perfect understanding of his motives, but he may not wish to change them, or be able to, in which case it is all a wash.
As you see, it is not your knowledge of your motives that matters. It is the quality of those motives that matters. If your motives are good, then you are set. If they are bad, knowing they are bad probably won't help you. Yes, you are free to change those motives, and I don't deny it, but you probably knew that without any self-reflection at all. Meaning, you didn't need to climb in your head and question all your motives, did you? You only had to look at your actions. If those actions are bad, you know there is a problem without discussing motives. You can just assume your motives are bad. How about just skip a step and change your actions? Then you can say your motive was changing your actions to make them better. A lot of people aren't cerebral enough to climb in their own heads and start fishing
around for motives. Their only hope is to change the actions, knowing the actions will automatically cleanse the motives. Actions are primary, and that is the way it really works.
But the Phoenicians don't want you to realize that. They want to psychologize everything, making everything too complex for normal people to penetrate. They want you to think everything requires a
12-step program and years of therapy, when all it takes is a reverse action. If moving left isn't working or is clearly wrong, try moving right.
For most people, anything that requires going inside their own head or reading an 1,100-page book on epistemology isn't going to get done, ever. Which is why these people like Steiner write 1,100-page books on epistemology or ethics. . . and why I don't. Their jobs are to keep you confused, while my job
—as I see it—is to air you out. Yes, I write a lot, giving you lots to read if you want to, but my output is as far away from theirs in style and content as possible. My output never resembles a philosophy book or a self-help book. As far as philosophy goes, they seem to think epistemology is very interesting and pertinent, but I don't. They think a theory of mind is very important, but I don't. They want you to think going inside your head and figuring out how you tick is going to solve your problems, but I don't think that it is. Yes, those questions are fascinating in limited ways, but answering them won't help you figure out your mess. That is because, as I have proved in thousands of papers, your mess doesn't come from within. You are swimming in a huge sea of garbage dumped on your head by others, on purpose, so job one existentially and experientially is coming to understand that. Once you understand that, you can 1) stop beating yourself up for your “failures”, 2) start cleaning up your environs. You can refuse the garbage deliveries, and if enough other people wake up, you can band together and outlaw the production of the garbage in the first place.
But let's move on. Another way we know Steiner was a spook is through his wife, Marie von Sivers. First of all, they misspell it on purpose to throw you off. They admit she was an aristocrat, but fail to tell you she was a von Sievers. They got their big break when Karl von Sievers hooked up with the Empress of Russia Elizabeth Petrovna in the mid-1700s. She made him a count of the Holy Roman Empire. His nephew was appointed Governor of Novgorod, Tver, and Pskov by Catherine the Great. His three great-nephews became Russian generals during the Napoleonic Wars. Emanuel von Sievers became Grandmaster of the Imperial Court under Alexander II. His wife was a Koskull, of the Barons of Sweden, Russia and the Baltics, and they too married into the royal families of Russia and Prussia. They produced several Lt. Generals of Prussia, and later the fake Nazi war criminal Andreas von Koskull. Also see fake Nazi war criminal Wolfram Sievers, who was a cousin.
We know Steiner's marriage to von Sievers was a marriage of convenience, or more likely a spook marriage, since he knew her 14 years before marrying her. You will say it is because he was married to someone else during that time, but his first wife died in 1911 and Steiner didn't marry von Sievers until
1914. So she looks like a handler and enabler more than a wife. This is confirmed by the first wife Anna Eunike, who is now buried in the hagiography. We are told she was his landlady, but nothing else. She looks like a beard, and for that reason my guess is Steiner was gay. In support of that, we find Steiner claiming the female body is an illusion beyond its head and limbs. What? Only a gay man would have such an aversion for the female torso. He also believed that in future, human souls would mature, becoming one sexually, at which time the sex organ would become the organ of speech. Really? Do you still think Steiner wasn't completely sexually confused? He was either gay or frigid, or both.
Next, we find that Wikipedia skips over some cherry information from Steiner's early years, we may assume on purpose. This we find at Goetheanum.co:
1899-1904 Teaches at the school for workers founded by Wilhelm Liebknecht in Berlin. From 1902 also in Spandau. Subjects: History, Speaking Practice, Literature, Science. Encounter with Kurt Eisner and Rosa Luxemburg among others.
You remember Liebknecht and Luxemburg from my paper on the Beer Hall Putsch, right? They were Jews and Spartacus League agents involved in the close of WWI, declaring the Socialist Republic in Germany. Both their deaths were faked in 1919. In that period Steiner was also running with or working with Ludwig Jacobowski, Else Lasker-Schüler, Peter Hille (think Hiller), Stefan Zweig, Käthe Kollwitz, Erich Mühsam, Paul Scheerbart, Frank Wedekind, and Otto Erich Hartleben. Jewish agents all. Jacobowski's father was a very wealthy merchant; Zweig's father was a very wealthy textile merchant and his mother was from the Brettauer banking family; Wedekind grew up in a Swiss castle, and was known to be a homosexual who enjoyed sadism; Hartleben's early bio is hidden, but he ran with wealthy Jews, including Hugenberg, whom the Nazis themselves later outed as Jewish. Since the Nazis were also Jewish, that looks sort of strange, but this is how they work. Once one of their projects is over, they out the previous characters to gain street cred and spread confusion. We have seen it a thousand times.
Now, let us change gears a bit and look at Steiner's claims of clairvoyance. All are frankly absurd, given the things he claimed to have seen, starting with goblins and salamanders. I don't claim to have that kind of clairvoyance, in that I don't claim to see things that are invisible. But since clairvoyance just means clear vision, I do claim to see visible things that most others miss. That is what I am most known for, after all. I see visible things that are invisible to others. And using my clear vision, I can tell you that Steiner's visions are all a horrible fiction, manufactured to frighten and confuse you. I do believe in the spiritual world, as you may know, and like everyone else I have some experience of it, via dreams as well as via living this life. Given that experience, I can tell you Steiner's stories feel wrong. I refuse to believe that someone with more experience in the spiritual world than me would come back with these idiotic stories. They contradict all my experience, both awake and asleep. I have a lot of experience asleep, since I sleep 10 to 12 hours a night, and always have. I am very at home in that world. I normally remember multiple dreams, sometimes dozens each night. None of that experience is anything like what Steiner reports. Most of my dreams are pretty easy for me to figure out, and none of them seriously frighten me. Yes, I have nightmares like anyone else, but they are no worse than a scary movie, and usually better. For the most part my dreams are wish fulfillments or fantasies, and are either pleasant or just as boring as real life. Sometimes markedly more boring. A few of my dreams have been mysterious, as when I see real events from a distance (knowing things I shouldn't know), predict things, or seem to get warnings. But those come rarely, probably no more often than is normal. I never try to guide my dreams or ask for information. Anyway, my point is, Steiner's stories read to me more like propaganda than clairvoyance. They have that bad taste I have come to recognize.
In general, it reminds me of seeing the movie Altered States back in 1980. That was a Ken Russell movie, written by Paddy Chayefsky. In it, William Hurt reverts to previous biological states in a deprivation tank, and in the end he reverts back to the primordial ooze or entity. That state is depicted as terrifying, something only the love of his wife can save him from. Which I knew even at that age (I was 16) made no sense. Why would Chayefsky assume the primal state was terrifying? What evidence did he have of that? None. I would say all evidence is to the contrary, including the reports of most non-Phoenician mystics all over the world, who report the lap of God is a pleasant place, so pleasant in fact we have to be forced out of it for our own good. Children also have nothing like that to report, and babies are not normally born PTSD. If anything, they want to go back to the womb, which was more pleasant than this world.
I mention Altered States because it is the usual Phoenician propaganda, pushed to create fear. Think also of Sartre's Nausea, which has the same basic theme. A guy picks up a rock on the beach and has a spiritual experience. He sees the rock's basic existential basis, what it really is, and feels nauseous
because that basis is. . . nothingness. Gut-wrenching emptiness. But that isn't my experience. My experience with the existential basis of a rock, or anything else, is a blissful somethingness. The rock is clearly a something, not a nothing, so how could its heart or center be nothing? How could something be fundamentally nothing? It can't, by definition, but these strange people want you to think it is.
Steiner doesn't take it that far, that I know of, but his writings give me the same sort of willies. He wants you to believe goblins are hiding behind and underneath everything, which is just as bad. I don't know who could possibly believe this, other than children who have been beaten all their lives. I also find it hard to believe any parent would allow his child to be taught this. It shows us again how truly catatonic people are, that they won't take the time to discover what their children are being taught at school, or what doctors are injecting into their children, or what TV and Hollywood are telling their children. For myself, I wouldn't let my child near a Waldorf school even for a moment. I would just as soon send them to be tutored by Charlie Manson as by Rudolf Steiner.
As with education, so with religion, and especially Christianity, which Steiner—like the Masons— pretended to accept while actually being paid to surround it with noise and ultimately destroy it. In this Anthroposophy was a direct continuation of the Theosophy project, with a few tweaks. Its main goal was to water down and pollute Christianity, separating it from its source and stranding it in the nowhere land of 20th century all-inclusiveness. Steiner, like the rest of these phonies, was constantly tipping his hand to us, one of the most obvious places being in his prediction of the second coming in 1933. He denied Christ would return in person, coming rather on the etheric plane. . . where he would be seen only by goblins and salamanders, I guess. Who did arrive in 1933? Oh, that's right. . . Hitler. The ultimate gnome.
Another big red flag on Steiner's alleged promotion of Christianity was his relationship to Friedrich Rittelmeyer. Rittelmeyer is sold to us as a Lutheran minister and founder of the Christian Community, but he looks like another crypto-Jewish spook to me. The clues jump out at us on a first reading, including the fact he wrote his dissertation on Nietzsche. I like Nietzsche, but you wouldn't expect a clergyman and son of a Lutheran priest to like him. His teachers at university were other cryptos, including von Harnack, Kaftan, and Kulpe. Kaftan was a follower of Ritschl. Adolf von Harnack was ennobled, specialized in Gnosticism, and his daughter married a Zahn.
She became a big feminist, which you also wouldn't expect from a religious family. His brother Carl became a famous mathematician, working under Felix Klein, who was of course Jewish. Carl married a von Oettingen, and they were also ennobled Jews. Oettingen was a famous Jewish enclave back to
1250. Von Harnack's nephew was Arvid Harnack, Marxist economist and Rockefeller Fellow, telling us all we need to know about him. Arvid's wife was Mildred Fish, admitted to be Jewish. We have seen that name already, see above. Adolf was a friend of Kaiser Wilhelm and was very much in favor of WWI—a strange position for a so-called liberal theologian. He is also famous for dismissing the Gospel of John as worthless. This is strange—one reason of many—because his student Steiner later called his synthesis of Catholicism and Protestantism Johannine Christianity: based on John. Another mindstir.
But back to Rittelmeyer. He was linked to the Moravian Church, which we have seen many times before, including my paper on Ben Franklin. This takes us back to Jan Hus, remember, never a good sign. Rittelmeyer married Julie Kerler, which is another Jewish name. The Christian Community is another huge red flag, being linked both to Gnosticism and German New Humanism. Along with Rittelmeyer, priestess Maria Darmstadter led the Christian Community in the early years, and they admit she was born Jewish. She allegedly died in Auschwitz. Hitler later banned the Christian Community as Jewish and Masonic, and it was. But so was Hitler and Nazism, so again we have controlled opposition working here. The Jews are working both sides, as usual, so no matter which side you choose, you are captured in their nets. We are told that Rittelmeyer maintained a “critical intellectual discussion with Nazism in numerous publications” up to his death in 1938, but how do you do that? Were the Nazis known for their intellectual debate with critics? This is just one more indication Rittelmeyer and Steiner were part of a project.
You should also know that Anthroposophy and the Goetheanum are not pushing back on the Coronahoax. As you can see at Goetheanum.co, the site is pushing Corona as real, but only giving it the usual Steiner spin, with lots of gummy talk that is hard to glean anything from. The same can be said for AI and transhumanism, as you can see on that same page. You would expect these people to
be resisting both with every fiber of their being, but they aren't. As with Corona, they are accepting it as inevitable and working to fit it into the blobby, all-inclusive net of Anthroposophy. I have to think Goethe would be horrified to see what is going on in his name.
Steiner wrote 52 “mantric verses”, one for each week of the year. Mantric means they were meant to be used as mantras, repeated frequently to aid meditation—or for other means. Here is Steiner's mantra for Easter:
When out of world-wide spaces
The sun speaks to the human mind, And gladness from the depths of soul
Becomes, in seeing, one with light,
Then rising from the sheath of self, Thoughts soar to distances of space And dimly bind
The human being to the spirit's life.
That's a bit weird, isn't it, even at a glance. Try changing just one word to make better sense of it. Change Sun to Lucifer. That explains why Steiner is talking of “dimly binding to the spirit's life”, doesn't it? Here is the mantra for week 50:
Thus to the human ego speaks In mighty revelation, Unfolding its inherent powers,
The joy of growth throughout the world: I carry into you my life
From its enchanted bondage
And so attain my truest goal.
Again, we get the talk of bondage, and the accompanying creep effect. Who is “I” there? It again sounds like Lucifer to me. Here is the mantra from week 4:
I sense a kindred nature to my own: Thus speaks perceptive feeling
As in the sun-illuminated world
It merges with the floods of light; To thinking's clarity
My feeling would give warmth
And firmly bind as one
The human being and the world.
The word bind once again, joined to the word sun. Here is the mantra for week 10:
To summer's radiant heights
The sun in shining majesty ascends; It takes my human feeling
Into its own wide realms of space. Within my inner being stirs Presentiment which heralds dimly, You shall in future know:
A godly being now has touched you.
The sun in majesty, a godly being, takes the human into its own realms. So Lucifer once again. This is all way too obvious. I am all for showing gratitude to the sun, but that is not what is going on here. I am not for binding myself to a spooky sun god. I don't recommend repeating these mantras, or reading them outloud even once. I recommend you flee them as nefarious. I can feel the darkness pouring off them.
I could continue outing Steiner all day, but I think I have done my job already. Anyone who hasn't gotten the message by now isn't paying attention.
The Fake Revolution http://mileswmathis.com/blm2.pdf
by Miles Mathis
First published July 5, 2020
Things are getting so weird I thought I should pop on this page to talk you down from the tree again. I
have told you most of these things before, but they need repeating.
To prep myself for this paper, I watched a number of recent Tucker Carlson episodes, so that we have
both sides of the current manufactured uprising in our sights. We are seeing many politicians from
both parties and all levels bowing before Black Lives Matter, as well as FBI agents and police. All this
is very prominent in the news, and I don't need to list examples. If you are awake you know of it,
probably better than I do (I don't even bother to watch it, because I know it is fake). On the other side
we have a few people like Carlson, framing this as a Democrat v. Republican issue. Some of what he
is telling you is true, but mainly he is playing the other side, making sure white people are properly
astonished and threatened and diverted.
I will give you a few examples of how Carlson is spinning. As part of his job to frame this as
Democrat v. Republican, or liberal v. conservative, see his segment on how Chris Cuomo got into Yale.
It is clever in parts, and mostly true, except for one thing. He says that these rich kids of Democratic
politicians are getting byes into Harvard, Yale, Stanford, and Georgetown, which is true. But it is also
true of Republican politicians. Remember George Bush, Jr.? He went to Yale, you know. Was he a
liberal Democrat? Not last time I checked. Was he a top student? You have to be kidding me. Same
for Trump, who got a bye into Wharton.** The truth is, it is the Republican party that was for decades
the party of greatest privilege, and that hasn't changed. What has changed is that the Democratic party
is now just as privileged. They are both parties of privilege, wealth, and incredible lies. They
sometimes tell the truth about one another, but they never tell the truth about themselves.
In the current blow-up, Carlson is against BLM, but that is not his main function. His main function is
to be sure the race wars are properly salted in. This will cause you to go out and buy more guns,
enriching the usual billionaire suspects in both parties, who bought out all the gun companies after 911.
It will cause you to fear your neighbors even more, giving you yet another reason to stay in the house
and make no alliances. But mostly, it will keep your eyes off the real things going on just beyond your
line of sight.
That's right, I repeat again that all these riots are being manufactured by the CIA and other agents, as a
huge diversion. Job one right now for the billionaires and trillionaires is keeping your attention away
from the gargantuan theft from the treasury that took place this spring—a theft so large it makes the
previous largest theft in 2007-8 look like a 7-11 burglary. The fake Covid scare was manufactured as
the primary cover for that theft, since they wanted you so worried about the health of yourself and your
children and old parents or grandparents you forgot to notice you had just been robbed blind again by
the same people as before. But they soon discovered they had miscalculated. Many people saw
through both scams, and the governors realized there was some danger of a real uprising against both
the theft from the treasury and the Covid hoax. So they ordered a large percentage of their agents
worldwide to drop the Covid hoax for a few weeks, and to switch to a massive fake uprising on race.
They have long had these race wars waiting in the wings for just such a time. They knew that if things
began to get testy for the bankers, they could always hide behind manufactured race wars. They have
done it many times before. That's one reason J. Edgar Hoover wanted to keep Africans here rather than
sending them back to Africa in the 1920s and 30s. Yes, he wanted to use them as cheap labor, but he
also wanted them here as a card he could always play, as now. The CIA learned from him and took
over most of his tricks in the 1960s and 70s.
Therefore, anyone not pushing your attention back to the theft from the treasury right now is
misdirecting you. Period. Anyone trying to scare you with some other storyline is diverting you. END
OF STORY. Anyone pushing BLM or Covid or #Metoo or Qanon or pedophiles or 5G or aliens or
anything else is either an agent or an idiot, and probably the former.
So you should ask yourself if this whole BLM storyline makes any sense. Why would blacks choose
this time of all times to riot in the streets? Were racial tensions especially high last year or in the early
part of this year? No. They were remarkably low. Does a pandemic lockdown seem like a good time
for the Black movement to come alive? No. Just the reverse. So the timing of this should look very
suspicious to you. Just when the governors most needed a diversion, the Black movement was there to
provide it. That's very convenient, don't you think?
Also convenient are the BLM leaders' top talking points. Why would the Black movement lead with
defunding police departments? Does that make any sense? No, none of this makes any sense, either
from the position of blacks or whites. Why would they lead with tearing down statues? Statues!? Do
you really think statues would be a top priority for blacks? If I were black and was pushing for change,
about the last thing I would be worried about is statues.
If you can't figure it out, I will tell you. This is all a script written by superwealthy whites, and it is
written to push certain buttons in the white majority. It is all about creating fear and division, and they
know what scares you and maddens you. They need easy visuals, and a Columbus statue with red paint
thrown on it is perfect for that. George Washington and Abe Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt taking a big
tumble into a vat of acid is perfect for that.
Same goes for defunding the police. No real blacks want that, since they rely on police protection as
much as you do, or more. But they need people to be afraid we are devolving into chaos, since nothing
gets the blood pumping more than that. Nothing will get your mind off the trillions they just stole from
the treasury and the shredding of the Constitution during the lockdown like the fear of race wars with
no police.
But I assure you none of that is going to happen. It is all a bluff. The chance of police being defunded
is. . . absolute zero. If anything, they will use this to increase funding of police and military. You will
be so scared by this near miss you will demand more police and more military. Just watch and see.
Nor will they outlaw guns of any kind. They always say they will, but they never do. Why? Because
this isn't about taking your guns. It is about selling you more.
I repeat, it is all fiction. You are watching a scripted and heavily funded movie. They have hired
literally tens of thousands of paid actors to fill the streets, and that includes all these BLM people, the
Antifa people, the fake cops in fake uniforms, and the thousands of CIA and FBI agents, many of them
in disguise. It includes the politicians and media people, who are just actors themselves, including
governors, mayors, congresspeople, and the talking heads on the news. It includes both Chris Cuomo
and Tucker Carlson. It includes Jacob Frey reading from scripts on the street in Minneapolis, Nancy
Pelosi kneeling in Washington, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez emoting on youtube or facebook, DC Mayor
Muriel Bowser renaming streets there, and Stacy Abrams* creating division in Atlanta. It even
includes Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and President Trump, who are also actors. They weren't
elected, they were installed by the CIA, to fill their roles. You have nothing to fear, because none of it
is real.
You will say, what do you mean it isn't real? I have seen it with my own eyes! These people are doing
things! What isn't real about it?
Well, you also saw Star Wars with your own eyes. And yes, real things were happening. Real actors
were on real sets running around and doing a lot of things. They said real words and were paid real
money (mostly). Things exploded and burned. There were crashes and loud noises. So the current
events are real in that sense. They aren't CGI (for the most part) and they aren't in front of green
screens (for the most part). They are burning down a few buildings and toppling a few statues.
But as an artist, I have news for you: a lot of those statues they are destroying aren't real. In some cases
they have brought in duplicates or fakes. It is easy to make a duplicate: you just make a mold and then
paint it to look like bronze. They do it for movies all the time. And besides, you can't harm bronze
with a little red paint or by kicking it. The paint washes right off, and this is metal: you would have to
melt it down. That isn't being done. So they can easily reinstall the statues later. They may be using
these fake events to steal the statues, but they certainly aren't destroying them. You can be sure the
bankers won't allow anything of real value to be destroyed.
So, ironically, what you most have to fear is not black people stealing your Downton Abbey collection
or your golf clubs. It is not dying of some new plague invented by Bill Gates. It is not that the police
will no longer be there to tell you bicycles don't belong on the street or to try to steal your car for
unpaid parking tickets. What you have most to fear is that you can no longer tell reality from fiction, or
a lie from the truth. And that you therefore no longer have any basis for saying no.
*Don't you find it curious this black lady's name is Abrams? That is a top Jewish name, you know. Tucker
Carlson even gives you the hint in his segment on her, joking that she will start “the world's 4th great Abrahamic
faith.”
**Wikipedia now admits it was erroneously reported in the New York Times that Trump graduated first in class
from Wharton, when in fact he didn't even make the honor roll. In 2015, Trump's attorneys threatened legal
action if either Fordham University or the New York Military Academy released his transcripts. Do you think
they would have done that if the transcripts were glowing?
Where is the ACLU? While I was writing this paper, a judge in Illinois threw out the Governor's covid orders as unconstitutional. See addendum for more. http://mileswmathis.com/aclu.pdf
"That's what this Corona test was about, remember? The Phoenicians wanted to see just how far gone
you are. So they decided to manufacture a huge fiction, then hit you with a bunch of ridiculous orders
to accompany it. It was like the one-dollar bet in Trading Places. One old rich guy bet another one
that he could get everyone in the world to wear a surgeon's mask, without even passing a law. He
would just order the governors to tell people to do it. And they did. With no law passed, no coercion,
no gun to anyone's head, no troops on the streets.
It reminds me of the old “If someone told you to jump off a cliff, would you do it?” The Phoenicians
are testing how close they are to having that power. Because a whole lot of people have just jumped
off that cliff, with little or no coercion. That cliff is personal bankruptcy, and millions of people just
jumped, with no gun to their head, no law passed, no fine accessed, no cop at the door, no troops on the
streets. The entire world has just been robbed in broad daylight, and the victim just handed over his
purse with no struggle, no questions asked, and no use of force. All the victim had to do was say no,
but he wasn't up to it".
Addendum July 3: "As it turns out, even as I was writing this, a court ruling was being reported in the
mainstream press in Illinois, where a Circuit Court has thrown out the Governor's executive orders on
Covid as null and void, and also as grossly unconstitutional. Confirming what I say about Covid
above. The ACLU was not involved in the suit. It was brought by State Representative Darren Bailey,
but applies to all citizens of Illinois. Despite that, the Chicago Tribune and other mainstream media
outlets are reporting today that all these voided orders will be enforced during the July 4 holiday. In
other words, the fascists are simply ignoring this judge's ruling, pretending it didn't just happen. Which
is again grossly illegal and unconstitutional. The Tribune says, Mayor [of Chicago] Lori Lightfoot had a sharp
warning for bars and restaurants that do not follow the guidelines. “If you squander this opportunity, we will shut
you down and you will not reopen anytime soon,” the mayor told holders of liquor licenses during a conference call
this week.
Like Governor Pritzker, this Mayor Lightfoot seems to have a poor understanding of the law, and of the
English language. She apparently can't read a simple ruling from a judge. Her threat is null and void,
and she has just opened herself up to a lawsuit for harassment and Civil Right violations, as has the
Chicago Tribune. Citizens of Illinois should not only mob the parks and beaches, ignoring all social
distancing rules, all businesses should immediately reopen, including bars. Anyone arrested or hassled
in any way by police should sue the city, the state, and the Chicago Tribune. Harassing citizens with
illegal orders by spreading fear is highly illegal itself, being the very definition of Civil Rights
violations. Your primary right as a US citizen is to be free of illegal orders. The government
threatening you with bankruptcy or other violence is harassment, pure and simple, and whether or not
you are actually arrested is beside the point. You have already been harassed simply by listening to
these empty threats from the Governor, the Mayor, and the media. Just by reading the newspaper or
the story on the internet, you have standing for a lawsuit, since you have thereby been harassed by your
government.
Actually, on closer reading, it appears the Mayor's “sharp warning” came before the court ruling, which
may mean it is only the Chicago Tribune spreading confusion, fear, and misinformation on purpose.
That paper is publishing this sharp warning after they have published the court ruling, so they should
know the sharp warning is null. But they are pretending not to know that, and hoping you don't notice.
As more indication of that, we see that the paper has lifted the paywall on this article, hoping it will be
read by as many as possible, and that they will mistakenly believe Mayor Lightfoot's sharp warning is
still in effect".
FakeRiotsFakeDivision
by Miles Mathis
First published June 14, 2020
Before we get started, the shooting in Atlanta was also faked. Just watch the video. Nuff said.
Also, when we see Cass Sunstein pretending to warn us about the rise of fascism, we know we have crossed over into some parallel universe where black is white and white is black. I encourage you to read that article, and count every instance where he has flipped you. I think it is possible that no one has ever woven so many layers of lies together in one short article. Start by reading Sunstein's bio, then read my papers on Hitler. Then read his article.
But the reason I am here today is that yesterday a reader sent me a link to Mike Adams at NaturalNews, who is now trying to surround my research and blackwash it, like many others. That article is about the George Floyd event being fake, but Adams ends the article with this:
It's all a reminder that when it comes to the unfolding of history, everything you see is rigged, including every mass shooting, the 9/11 attacks, the Oklahoma City bombing (which was actually staged by the FBI), the government raids in Waco, the assassination of JFK and so on.
Your entire human history has been engineered by “history’s architects” — globalists who plot and carry out all the major events of history in order to shape a public narrative that leads to your enslavement.
Hmmm. Adams wasn't pushing that line until recently. He suspiciously seems to be snuggling up to me for some reason. I can only guess it is because my research is gaining such incredible traction, these fake alternative people have to either embrace me or defeat me. Not being able to defeat me, they HAVE to embrace me, or appear to. So they admit I am right, but then try to surround me with noise. You see the same thing with Jim Fetzer, Veteran's Today, Infowars, Owen Benjamin, and hundreds of other outlets.
On other pages at NaturalNews, you find the noise: After admitting “your entire human history has been engineered”, Adams somehow forgets that when he begins talking about current events. Yes, he admits the Floyd murder was faked, but then he takes all these riots as real. He treats all these Antifa people and “leftists” as real, instead of as the paid agents they clearly are. He tells you the Democratic governors and mayors are letting this happen because they hate America and because they are leftists. So, you see, Adams is just doing his part in this stageplay. He is playing the “rightist” part, responding to the bad old leftists. In an article today, we learn Trumpy biker gangs like the Hell's Angels are planning to forcibly take back downtown Seattle on July 4. But that's just the next scene in the play. Like the Antifa leftists, the Hell's Angels rightists are just agents in disguise. The Hell's Angels have always been agents. They were trained by the CIA in the 1960s and still are. If we have some big Battle in Seattle, it will all be staged. It will be another Hollywood/CIA joint production.
Adams, Jones, and all the rest are doing the same thing on their side the Antifa people are doing on
theirs: escalating tension as much as humanly possible. Why? As yet another diversion. We have an accelerating series of fake events, all scripted to keep your eyes off the multi-trillion-dollar steal from the treasury that just happened this spring. Corona was the fake event used as primary cover, but that veil began to fail, so these jokers came up with plan B: fake race riots. These race riots almost make you forget the whole Corona fiasco, so they are primarily a feint to “move you on”. They want you so distraught over these race riots, you forget all your Corona anger. Maybe you forget to sue for Civil Rights violations over illegal Corona orders. Maybe you forget to push back on Corona, because that is no longer topic one in your mind. And, most important of all, you don't organize Corona protests, because the streets are already filled with fake BLM protestors.
The real revolution is averted by being pre-empted by a fake one. The CIA and FBI have filled the streets with every last actor they could hire, to prevent real people from filling the streets themselves. And the media is so busy reporting on this fake revolution, as they were hired to do, that there is no room left for real news. If real people are pushing back on corona or against the Federal Reserve or anything else, you won't hear about it. It will be drowned out by the fake riots.
THAT is why the police are letting actors take over their precincts, burn their buildings, and pretend to beat cops. They have been ordered to do so. They are running their little Hollywood fake revolution, to pre-empt the real one.
So that is how you should read Mike Adams, Alex Jones, and all the rest. They aren't real revolutionaries, they are fake ones. They are controlling the opposition. As I have told you before, real revolutions don't come from the right, or from conservatives, so Adams and Jones being conservatives should have been your first clue. Revolutions come from the left, since a revolution has to overthrow the rich people running the country. Those rich people are on the right, so the revolutionaries can't be on the right, too, by definition.
The idea that any sort of pushback could be coming from Trump supporters is equally absurd. Trump is a rich guy who loves the CIA, so there is no possibility he is going to be part of any revolution or pushback. The Republican party is not your friend and never has been, so get that through your head. Neither is the Democratic party. They are also owned by rich people, and always have been. This isn't a question of parties, since both parties are beyond corrupt. They will have to fall in the revolution with everything else. This isn't a question of Democrat v. Republican, or Trump v. Pelosi, or any of that. But these fake revolutionaries on both sides keep pushing you back to that split, because they want you talking about things that don't matter, and missing all the things that do.
If you consider yourself a conservative, fine, it doesn't really matter. I assume you just mean you are in favor of conserving the family, conserving morality, conserving sensible laws, conserving the Constitution, and so on. So am I. What I am not in favor of conserving is the hegemony of the very rich, and their ability to steal from the worldwide treasuries with impunity. I am not in favor of conserving their ability to lie about everything all the time. I am not in favor of their ability to fake events, using the bought media to sell them as real.
So whatever your call yourself, you need to keep your focus. This isn't about black versus white, Democrat versus Republican, Trump versus Pelosi, men versus women, young versus old, north versus south, or east versus west. This is about protecting yourself and your fellow countrymen from being looted by billionaire bankers and cloaked investment groups. This is about refusing to play the stupid victim any longer. And it should now be about getting your money back. These bastards have already stolen hundreds of trillions of dollars worldwide from you and your parents and grandparents, and that money is not gone. It did not disappear. It is not being stored on Mars or Venus. So you can get it back.
Therefore, you don't have to pick sides in this current fiasco. Tell both the Antifa actors and the Hell's Angels actors to fuck off and start your own real revolution. Drive around these bozos and do something real. Form real alliances with real people. These fake revolutionaries took over the streets because the streets were empty. You were home sucking your thumb, afraid to catch a cold, cowering under the bed as CNN and FOX told you what to think and what to do. But you can remedy that. Wake up, dunk your head in cold water, slap yourself a few times, and remind yourself that your life is yours. The future is yours. You have things to do and you know how to do them. So get busy. Start by refusing illegal orders.* Start by speaking out. Start by talking to your neighbors. Start by turning off the fake news. Do not be afraid. Do not social distance, do not wear masks, go to church, open your restaurant, open your gym. LIVE YOUR LIFE.
*All these bulls issued by Governors have no legal standing. Laws have to be passed by legislatures, and Governors cannot make laws. Even in emergencies, Executive Orders have a very limited time frame, and that time frame ended months ago. So all Corona orders expired a long time ago. Your government is currently existing on a bluff. Call their bluff.
Yes, this is a Test by Miles Mathis mp3 23mins 3-21-2020 https://archive.org/details/yesthisisatestbymilesmathis new paper by miles mathis http://mileswmathis.com/test.pdf
Yes, this is a Test by Miles Mathis
First published March 18, 2020
I keep going back to Neil Degrasse Tyson admitting to Steven Colbert this corona fake is a test on the Late Show. “A test to see if we will believe scientists.” Sorry, Neil, I fail that one with a score of zero. I don't trust you or Steven at all. In fact, I don't even believe you are a real scientist. I think you are just an actor reading from Teleprompters. But there is one thing I know for sure: no one pushing this coronahoax deserves the name of scientist, no matter what degrees he may have or what chair he may inhabit.
But that is not why I am here today. I am here because watching that clip made me realize how utterly lost these people like Tyson, Colbert, and those feeding them scripts really are. To see them smiling broadly and saying this stuff to canned applause was like watching damned spirits running gleefully through the gates of Hell. Because, yes, Neil, this is a test, but it isn't a test by you and your cabal on us unwashed masses, to see what level of your lies we will buy this month. It is a test UPON YOU, one that you aren't even aware you are taking.
All of life is a test, for everyone alive. We are all writing our own stories day by day, and the form those stories take determine the advancement of our spirits. So as the governors write these grand fictions, they aren't only trying to determine your response, for their greater profit and control, they are unwittingly writing their own life stories, where they have accepted the role of bad guy. They appear to think it all doesn't matter, since life is a stage anyway, where the bad guy is the best role—besides being the most profitable one. But in thinking this way they have trapped themselves in this lowest level of thought and existence, ignoring the level above that. This is a grave error, because the level above determines the value of everything at their level. Being trapped in this lowest level, they think value is determined by bank accounts or mundane authority, but it isn't. Value is determined by spiritual enrichment: has the story you have written about yourself made you a bigger, better person, or has it made you a smaller, nastier person? Watching Tyson and Colbert leaves us in no least doubt: they are becoming smaller and nastier by the minute, so those controlling them must be digressing even faster.
We see the same thing with someone like Tom Hanks, who started out cute and cuddly back in the Big or Splash days, but is now turning himself into some sort of lying monster. He looks effing awful, and it isn't just because he is getting old. . . it is because he has chosen to join the monsters.
Yes, he's 63 now, but he's looked like garbage for two decades now. The last time he looked decent was in Castaway, but that was 20 years ago. You have to ask why his eyes are disappearing into his face, and why he looks so forlorn, so castaway. You will say it is because he isn't sleeping, but ask yourself why he isn't sleeping. We see this look on all these people, since it is what we might call their signature. As perhaps the best example we see the same phenomenon from James Franco, another one from the families. He is only 41 but his eyes have been disappearing into his face since he was 25. When he hits 63, will he even be able to see at all?
It is doubtful, since all these people seem to be blind to what the rest of us know by heart: evil has consequences. Lying, stealing, and hoaxing aren't just games you are playing on a stupid populace, they are real events imprinting directly on your own spirits. As you become smaller, you look smaller. As you become nastier, you look nastier. It isn't rocket science. And even more important than the way your face looks, is the way your soul looks. Because once you die, you can ditch your face, but you can't ditch your soul. You have to carry it into your next life, and once you get there I assure you you will wish you had taken better care of it before.
But this is the way of it, and always has been. It is said that the bad test the good, but it is actually the reverse that is more true now. I am testing these people far more than they are testing me. People like me put huge pressure on the governors, and I am not talking about as a matter of avoiding revolution. Revolution is another mundane matter, a series of arbitrary events which—like everything else—are important only as a test of spirit. A backdrop on which your story is written. The pressure I put on them is by simply being a messenger of the truth—a truth that they and everyone else already knows. But in the hurly-burly, this truth gets buried and lost. The governors spend trillions burying it on purpose, and the rest of their time is spent in denial. So my existence is like an accelerant. The gods and muses insert me into the mix to speed up the outcome: the governors can't fool around any longer pretending they aren't who they know they are. In response to me they have to make a choice: back off and admit the con is already far too large to maintain, or continue to accelerate the con and hope it doesn't backfire on them. I have already given them that choice and shown them how easy it would be to go back. But we can see that they are choosing to go forward, and to accelerate events beyond all reason. In so doing, they are choosing to self-destruct even faster than they were before.
This is what I meant when I said before that the revolution is already proceeding. It has been happening for over a decade, as a worm in the minds of these people. The truth has been eating away at them year by year, as we can see from their response. No event is clearer evidence of that than his corona event, since it reeks of desperation, confusion, and miscalculation. It shows me that it isn't just the visible dweebs online who crumble under the least pressure, as we have seen in my droll battles with the various internet trolls. Even the biggest of the invisible big boys don't have any idea how to deal with those such as me. They are long prepared for anything. . . except reality. They can deflect any attack. . . except a messenger of the Muse walking straight up to them and telling them the truth. That is the one thing not on their lists, the one thing they have no contingency plan for.
Someone on Cuttingthroughthefog suggested this coronahoax was a message from the Cabal to me, showing me the power they have to move the masses around at will. But unfortunately I got just the opposite message, as you see. This event confirmed to me my own power, not theirs. In just the last month I have come to understand who I am, even more than before, which is very bad news for them. I won't tell you exactly what I know or how I know it, but while many think things are flying out of control, I can tell you just the opposite is true. On a spiritual level, things on this planet are finally firming up after decades or centuries of flab. Things are happening, and you should be glad of it. Welcome the test, whatever it is, since it will provide you with the opportunity to do good deeds. I say this to the governors as well. Your opportunity to turn around is and will be greater than even before, and more obvious. I suggest you take it. Only you can rewrite your own story.
If you are still not getting it, let me put it yet another way. The narrative is being pushed by some at Cutting that this latest hoax is the beginning of martial law, forced vaccines, chipping, the whole Alex Jones prison planet thing. I don't think it is. I think it is just the latest bluff, floated to create fear. But say it IS a pretext for that, and that we are moving into some sort of Mordor future. Sounds awful, but ask yourself who it will be worst for. In Mordor, who would be the most miserable? The lowest goblin or orc? No, the most miserable person in Mordor is. . . Sauron himself. But we don't have to take Tolkien's word for it, or Dante's or Milton's. All we have to do is look around.
The first, Soros, looks like he hasn't slept since about 1960. Then we have a Rothschild and a Rockefeller. Rockefeller was always smiling after about 1990, but that is because he had that grin surgically implanted on his face. But it is the eyes that tell us everything, as always.
I will be told by actual Rothschilds or Rockefellers that once in you can't get out. You can't “turn around” or go straight, because you aren't allowed to. But that is the usual bluff. As a human, your freedom is infinite from birth and never lessens. You can do anything you wish. Some things are more difficult, it is true, but nothing is impossible. The more difficult things are simply the more meaningful. You will tell me you will actually be killed if you cross your family. I don't think you will be, but even if you are, it is far better than to continue to spiral down into the abyss with them. Make the turn, and if they kill you that is their bad. Your death is not a mark upon your soul, but it will be a mark on theirs.
Some will answer me that they have no evidence of this higher world I am talking about. But they know about granddad's henchmen, because they have witnessed them. My answer to that is that if you have witnessed your granddad and his henchmen, you have witnessed all the proof of a higher world you require. Simply by calling them henchmen, you have admitted you know they are bad. If you know about bad, you also know about good. Given that, and only that, you are required to do good. You were born knowing that, so pretending otherwise is useless. Pretending you have no “evidence” won't fly. You aren't fooling anyone by pretending that the gods need to give you more evidence than that: that they are required to appear in some burning bush to you personally and give you detailed instructions. They aren't and won't, but their expectations of you haven't changed. They are what they always have been, and you know it.
I put it that way because the time for parables is over. The time for allegories and metaphors is over. If you need detailed instructions, this is all you are going to get. You are hereby reminded that the gods know you know these things, and any bag of lame excuses won't even be opened. You won't even be allowed to present evidence or make arguments, since your life already stands as your evidence and argument. The evidence and arguments are already made.
You will say, “Then there is no point to turning around. I have already done more evil than I can ever
atone for, so I might as well continue on as is.” Wrong. That is just the lazy “once a devil always a devil argument”, and you are born knowing it is false. If there were no chance of redemption, you wouldn't need to be born in the first place. Writing a new story would be pointless. So the very fact you are here disproves it. THE REASON YOU ARE HERE IS TO TURN AROUND. So best get on with it. The only thing that is pointless is continuing to be evil tomorrow, since it is just wasted time. It is like time spent hoeing rocks or watering cement. Or, to be more exact, it is like time spent investing in ugly pills, and taking one every morning.
You may laugh, but like everything else, this is indeed far simpler than people generally make it. Spiritual matters are made complex, convoluted, and esoteric as another form of pretense. People pretend this is all too difficult for humans to comprehend, hoping that will be accepted as some sort of excuse. But do you really think you are fooling anyone with that? Don't you think the gods will see through that in a second? As I said, they gave you this knowledge of good and evil as part of your package at birth. They know that and you know that, so denying it won't fly. Saying you were tricked by L. Ron Hubbard or Joseph Smith or Ram Dass or Steven Spielberg isn't going to mean anything. Nor is the plea that you were born into a “materialistic” time, and just did what everyone else was doing. That argument didn't work with your dad when you were four, so what makes you think it is going to fool the gods? “But Dad, everyone else was stealing gumballs!”
But if you need detailed instruction, I will give you a bit more. You had better start taking this seriously immediately, because it is deadly serious. Tending your own spirit and writing your own story is job one. It is the only job you are capable of. It is why you are here. All else is subordinate to that.
I'll tell you something else: the rags-to-riches story has been done and no one above is impressed by it. Same for the riches-to-riches story. Least impressive of all is the riches-to-riches story posing as the rags-to-riches story. That isn't fooling anyone and never has. The gods would rather read a bawdy limerick than read that old sham again.
There are an infinity of possible stories of virtue, and only a few of them have so far been attempted. I can tell you from experience that the gods are thrilled beyond words by any attempt at creativity, and will take time out of their busy schedules to assist new stories and storytellers.
This is why the revolution is proceeding and why it is unstoppable. It is not a revolution of guns or marching in the streets, so it can't be stopped by the National Guard. And, counter-intuitively, it isn't a revolution of the lower class against the upper. The only revolution that has any meaning at this time is a revolution of people against themselves. Bad people have to fall out of love with their own lousy stories, and they can only do that once they really comprehend just how awful those stories are. That is why I am here: to grab them and drag them forcibly from their own stages, making them see how paltry and vulgar it all is. But also to give them an idea of what else is possible.
In the end, all of life is revolutionary. The life of each person is a potential or real revolution every morning, as they choose or don't choose to write new and better things about themselves. In this sense, life only has worth as revolution. For plants and animals, the point of life would appear to be to do the same things they have always done, since there is no need to turn around, or any possibility of it. They appear to be fine as they are. But humans are not born on that cycle. They appear to be born with huge amounts of baggage from prior lives, baggage they cannot jettison. Even the best of us are weighted down with strange impulses and weird imaginings. We are at battle with ourselves from the first day. Many interpret this as a curse, but it is simply a function of our ability to grow very quickly. With that
ability comes the opposite ability: the ability to crash very quickly. But you can't have one without the other, you see. So we are always either growing or diminishing, but rarely standing still. Hence, as we grow, we are always at the same time dealing with past crashes, which haunt us. And, being at a low or middle stage of development, not that far above the animals, our crashes are frequent and horrendous, and our memory of them is recent. We are like a puppy just learning to walk, but with a much better memory than the puppy. Which is why I imagine the gods have special pity for us. They have not cursed us or damned us to this place. Just the opposite in fact. We are overwatched and tended lovingly, for if we were not the planet would have crumbled into absolute chaos long ago.
The gods are often blamed for allowing the Earth to be such a hellhole, but surely most of you have occasionally thought the opposite. I know that when I look around me, I am amazed not at how bad things are, but even now how good. As just the easiest example, I have never understood how the freeways are not clogged with huge piles of wrecks everyday. Given what we know people are, you would expect your average person to be in about ten crashes a day. In a major city, that average person should not last a week on the highways. So, you can either blame the gods for the 45,000 deaths per year in cars in the US, or you can thank them for the billions of non-deaths every year, that could have happened but didn't. You will say that if they could prevent billions, they could prevent them all, which may be true. I suppose we all have a destined end, and some of us are in a car when that time arrives.
In conclusion, although you may fear a Mordor scenario in the near future, frankly I do not. It didn't happen after 911, didn't happen after Ebola, and won't happen after this or 5G. These people are not capable of that sort of control, since they aren't even capable of the current levels. And if they were, I don't believe the gods would allow it. What they have proved themselves capable of is shooting themselves in the foot over and over, while making things more and more inconvenient for us. I for one am happy to accept the added temporary inconvenience if it means that they will graduate from shooting off their own feet to shooting off their own legs. At that point maybe they will realize the path they are on simply isn't worth walking.
I want to tack on a comment about “social distancing”, one of the most perverse and transparent gambits they have ever come up with. My readers spotted this one immediately as a continuation of the split-the-sexes project, whereby people are separated from one another on purpose, creating all sorts of anxieties that then require drugging and many other sorts of compensation. Lonely miserable people spend far more money than happy couples, and not just on drugs.
But this new social distancing thing serves double duty, since the governors hope it will keep people from talking face-to-face. If they aren't talking face-to-face, it is hoped that most talk of push-back or other revolution will be squelched. You see, they want you quiet, but if you have to talk, they want you online or on the phone, where they can track you and control you. They figure you will self-police online, since you know many others are listening. While you might feel free to say what you think face-to-face, online you will develop a persona, and the persona of most people online is one of anonymity and reserve. No one is going to seriously talk revolution online, because that would be stupid. Plus, online they can surround you with huge levels of noise. Whatever you say or wherever you say it, they can hire thousands of people to show up and drown it out with misdirection, lies, and other confusion.
So, one sort of specific revolution I am not afraid to call for right now is for you to very conspicuously ignore this social distancing recommendation. Do not stay home, do not distance yourself from people, and do not obey illegal orders from your government, federal or local. The Constitution cannot be suspended and has not been, and according to that you have the right to assembly. This current scare is just a bluff, and they know it is unenforceable, which is why they are trying to get you to police yourselves. They want you doing all this voluntarily, but I very strongly recommend you don't. That is what Neil Tyson's admission was all about: it is a test to see if you will voluntarily give up your rights, and how far they can push you in that. Can they get you to lockdown yourselves, without even passing a law? Tell them no. If fact, this is a great time to disobey orders from police concerning these things, since those orders would have no legal backing. If you got arrested and had to spend any time in jail, you would have the perfect excuse for a lawsuit, by which you could make very good money. If they rough you up, you can make even more. You could live for a decade on your proceeds from such a thing, so just remember that.
If you own a business like a restaurant and you have been told to shut down, don't do it without a court order or a definite legal writ. The request is just a request, and beyond that is a bluff. If they threaten you with further action, tell them to get to it. It won't happen, because there is no legal authority behind any of this. And if it does happen, you can sue later and live on that the rest of your life.
You may think I am way out on a limb here, but you may be interested to know that former Congressman Ron Paul is saying pretty much the same thing. The difference is, Paul concedes that corona may have killed 100 people in the US. I don't concede that it has killed any. Corona, defined as some new dangerous strain they are calling COVID19, is totally manufactured. And I don't mean manufactured in a lab. I mean manufactured on paper, and played out on a stage. I concede that some old people are dying of respiratory problems from flu symptoms, but they always are. It is nothing new. The fact is, corona strains have been around for a long time, and these strains almost always work in tandem. Furthermore, it is impossible to determine which of a multitude of strains caused the death. These new deaths are assigned to corona simply to fit the script, which is why I say the numbers have no medical basis. As Paul admits, they are massaged from the ground up, and this scare has nothing to do with preventing the spread of disease and everything to do with abetting the intentional spread of fear. Do not allow this to succeed. Do not be afraid. I'm not. Be angry.
MMMP3.... NO COMPETING MP3.. GOOD SOURCE MATERIAL AND PALATABLE SIZE FILE AND TIME LENGTHS
THIS MP3 FILE CAN BE FOUND ONLINE AT MILES MATHIS MP3 DOT COM
THIS MP3 FILE CAN BE FOUND ONLINE AT MILES MATHIS MP3 DOT COM. tHE SOURCE FOR THIS MP3 CAN BE FOUND AT MILES MATHIS ART WEBSITE miles w. mathis DOTcom
A NOTE FROM LENNY SANCHEZ: Miles Mathis is An artist, a photographer, a painter, a writer, aN AMERICAN INTELLECT, A SCIENTIST , A MATHAMATICIAN AND A critiC. mILES IS WILLING TO sift a million lies for a grain of truth.
convert mm pdf to text, convert text (and edit as required) to mp3, name mp3 file to incl file size and mins., upload mp3 file to archive, dsgn mm notepage quoting part w/ loc of mp3, upload mm note to mmtruth and link to mp3 file.
MathisderMalersaid: March 18, 2020 at 7:15 pm
Unfortunately, I see just as much fear mongering here as anywhere else, in fact even more, since at the grocery store they aren’t tying this to 5G, police states, forced vaccines, etc. Did they do any of that after Ebola or any of the other fake scares? No. Though it was talked about then as well. So everyone needs to calm down and get back to work. This is a test, yes, but it is a test of OF the Phoenician navy, not BY them. THEY are being tested by people like me, and continually failing. Every morning they awake just like the rest of us, and have the choice to decrease the scam or increase it. If they increase it, they just self-destruct faster. It is their spirits that are being tested here, perhaps even more than most of ours, and that is what they cannot wrap their minds around. They are writing their own stories, and the form of those stories determine the progress or regress of their souls. Right now they are addicted to regress.
Real Contagious fear by Enki 3-18-2020 CuttingThroughTheFog.com
Yes, what is causing this illness is “real” for most. It is contagious and spreading rapidly. It’s called FEAR. More exactly, “territorial fear”. The fear that something (in this case a “virus”) will affect the territory (in this case the fundamental territory – the body).
A territorial fear conflict refers to a threat to the “territory”, a fear within the “territory” (at home, at work, at school, at the playground, in kindergarten or daycare, in a seniors home, in the hospital, or in the village, city, and country where one lives), and to a fear regarding one’s own safety as well as the safety of the “pack”. Physical abuse, family violence, mobbing, bullying, an accident, fire or flooding, an acute medical condition, a frightening diagnosis or prognosis, scary medical procedures, or hospitalization are a few examples of what can trigger the conflict. Children suffer the conflict when they are punished, abused, or yelled at, when they are terrified of a person or a situation, when they watch spooky films or videos showing monsters or vampires, or when they have nightmares. An adult’s panic can also create a territorial fear in a child! Unborn children experience the conflict in the womb when the mother is in danger or at birth during a difficult delivery. The conflict could also concern a member of the “territory” (a fear of losing a partner who secures a home or when a loved one is seriously ill, hospitalized, or diagnosed with cancer – associated with a “fatal disease”). A territorial fear can be shared by people of large regions, for example, during a natural disaster, during wartimes, or through scares of terrorist attacks or pandemic fear-mongering (AIDS, SARS, Swine Flu, and the like) by the media.
As an example, the statistics of the Spanish Flu pandemic show that the outbreak started at the beginning of October 1918 reaching its height 3-4 weeks later. According to historical records, Germany asked the Allies for a ceasefire on October 4th, 1918 (the official date of the end of the First World War is November 11, 1918).
With the prospect of peace, millions of people worldwide went into healing of territorial fear conflicts they had suffered during four years of war (also see the graph in the link below).
In the active phase starts the ulceration in the bronchial mucosa proportional to the intensity degree and duration of the fear. The biological purpose of the cell loss is to widen the respiratory passageways so that more air can reach the lungs. The enhanced function of the lungs serves to help get rid of the threat. There are no symptoms in the conflict-active phase.
In the healing phase the bronchial mucosa starts to repair with edema (and flu, bronchitis or pneumonia simptoms will develop, proportional to the intensity degree and duration of the fear). Even pulmonar cancer could be diagnosed in some cases (see the link).
Those who are now afraid of the “deadly virus” are already in the active phase (no simptoms). When news reports will say things are starting to get better (that the pandemic is fading or over), the healing phase will begin for most. Yes, the worst is yet to come. Then they could say the COVID19 has mutated and it’s returning stronger than before because the measures were too little too late and/or they will blame us because we didn’t follow the instructions. Or they could diagnose just the regular flu, bronchitis, pneumonia. I don’t know what’s in their script. But what I’m sure of is that they know the biological laws very well. This is the explanation for the increase of all kinds of fear-mongering in the last decades.
You can read the details here:
https://learninggnm.com/SBS/documents/lungs.html#Bronchia_Mucosa_PCL_Pneumonia
See also the lung tuberculosis epidemic of 1918/19:
https://learninggnm.com/SBS/documents/lungs.html#Lung_Alveoli_PCL
The same happened during and after the WWII.
There are no “viruses”(lab manufactured or “natural”). With the PCR test they count just dead cellular DNA/RNA debris.
Kieran 3-18-2020
I haven’t weighed in yet on the Coronavirus fiasco, but I suppose I may as well give my two cents. I have been following the story since I am currently teaching English in South Korea, though my classes have been canceled since Feb 24, and will remain closed by order of the government until at least April 6. As a result I am heading back home to Canada while I still can, rather than be stuck here for the foreseeable future, possibly without a job, until the script dictates it’s safe for countries to open their borders.
The event is being used as a scapegoat to cover the crash of the economy, which was well underway even before the virus, if you look at retail, shipping, freight, housing, and debt numbers. Of course it also gives the Fed the excuse to steal trillions more from the treasury, while making it look to normies like they are trying to heroically save the economy.
I think this event is scripted to go on for at least several more months, justifying martial law and overt (rather than poorly disguised) fascism. Mandatory vaccines and forced quarantines will probably result, with anyone who dissents being cast as a dangerous lunatic and subject to social ostracism. ‘Temporary’ laws will be passed to curtail our freedoms that will never be repealed, like the Canadian income tax in 1918 that was supposed to be a temporary measure to pay for the war. I predict this will be bigger than 9/11 and the 2008 crash combined.
I haven’t seen anyone opine on this here before, but I really do believe the endgame for TPTB is the digital control grid of 5G, omnipresent surveillance through the internet of things, social crediting, and digital currency, all tied to a number representing you in the government database. If your social credit score falls too low an artificial intelligence system (one that simply takes in relevant inputs and can produce outputs in the digital system) can lock you out of your bank account, Smart House, Smart Car, workplace, whatever. All these technologies already exist and merely require widespread implementation, and we’ve seen testing of them around the world. I think the chaos will build over the next decade to justify the rollout of this system. Once it has been established it will be nigh-on impossible to escape, excepting the possibility of a global EMP event.
My plan since tumbling down the rabbit hole has been to start an intentional community somewhere remote, and everything that’s going on tells me I ought to do it sooner rather than later. Has anyone had a similar idea?
MathisderMalersaid:June 15, 2020 at 12:21 am
I have pointed this out before in my papers, but I don’t agree it is caused by vaccines (in most cases). I watched the first five minutes of that youtube video, and couldn’t watch more, because the argument was pushed. FIrst of all, he was only showing us famous faces, which heavily skewed the group. Second, some of his examples were counter to his argument. Tom Brady is cross-eyed, if anything, not wall-eyed. And when he showed us the old daguerreotypes, the old people weren’t straight at all.
Crooked faces among famous people obviously aren’t caused by vaccines. It is much more interesting than that. They are caused by crooked minds. The left side of the face is controlled by the right side of the brain, and vice versa, so what we are seeing is right/left brain split. The left brain is the center of reason while the right brain is the center of emotions. So we are seeing a big disagreement between the two halves of the brains of these people, which is not surprising considering the lies they have to tell and live. The non-smiling half of their faces is a dead giveaway, since you are seeing their residual conscience refusing to go along with the fiction. It is a very real split personality, which many of these people show in a variety of other ways, especially as they age.
Even more interesting than the wall-eyed thing, which is simply genetic, is that these people often develop non-level eyes, where one entire eye is noticeably lower than the other. This is caused by the same thing that causes the uneven mouth. One side of the face is controlled by a different part of the brain than the other, and if the two sides aren’t in agreement, they literally get out of whack. The smiling and frowning muscles develop unevenly, and the two sides of the face don’t match over time. So, in a sense, this isn’t a physical phenomenon, it is a mental and moral one.
Grahamsaid:June 15, 2020 at 8:58 am
With industrial mass production now switched to automation and robots, or based in low wage economies, there just isn’t the need for so many factory slaves any more, or even as many factories.
If the phoenies don’t need us, they are happy for us to wither out, in their minds we were just production resource all along.
They haven’t been robbing us because they need the money, its just been to keep us poor so that we need to continue slaving for them to survive.
The only beauty in this is that as we wither out they will need less and less letter agency staff and mini hitlers patrolling the streets and spying on our every move, and they will then be thrown to the dogs as well. Those cretins are paving the way for their own destruction – its these people that humanity needs to wake up the most in their silly uniforms with guaranteed incomes and pensions.
They will find when they’ve done a lifetimes service they are thrown to the dogs just the same. Their homes and their pensions will be robbed from them to cover their care costs and medical expenses.
To guarantee their children inherit nothing and have to start on the bottom rung and stay there.. Useful idiots. But not to themselves. Poetic justice.
Sir Blumenbachsaid:June 15, 2020 at 2:07 pm
Then you clearly haven’t read his Mel Gibson paper:
“Mel Gibson isn’t promoting Christianity here. He is subtly blackwashing it, making you think that anyone who has anything to do with Christianity (or any other religion) is mentally ill.”
“And when I say any other religion, yes, I mean Judaism, too. As I have said in previous papers, these Jews from the ruling families would seem to wish to destroy Judaism the religion as well. While they wish to rule the world from certain Jewish bloodlines, they wish to ditch the old moralities as far as possible, no matter where they came from. This is because the old moralities get in the way of “free trade”. Religions promote rules of conduct, such as not lying or stealing, and those rules just get in their way.”
Not only do they not believe in these religions, they don’t even see religion as a practical tool. While they do have their snitches running as “religious leaders”, they can never actually corrupt Christianity or any Abrahamic religion themselves. In-fact, they want you to have “personal sovereignty”, so that they can lie and steal from you without your consent, and without you questioning it at all.
As for Islam in particular, he has said the same thing about it on the Sam Harris/ian Murphy debate:
“He basically has no credentials, and appeared out of nowhere after 911 spouting pro-Israel, anti-Islam nonsense rhetoric, sprinkled heavily with all the other desiderata of the ruling fascists like anti-religion, modern art, neoconservatism or neoliberalism, depopulation, genetic modification, and the joys of surveillance.”
http://mileswmathis.com/lafrance.pdf
why Military Intelligence invented the internet: its ability to shatter any semblance of shared reality, undermining civil society and democratic governance in the process. And it has done that job perfectly from the beginning .
Most dangerous to democratic governance: the 6 million domestic Intelligence agents working in this country, the millions working in the mainstream media, the millions working for the government
Everyone famous on both sides of every question is a blackhat, in every field and every period of history, including Trump. All the Presidents, all the Justices, all the Governors, all the scientists, all the historians, all the artists, all the actors, all the politicians, all the newscasters, all the directors, all the producers. As Gary Oldman said in The Professional, “EVERYONE!!!” They are all Jewish close cousins, and their families have been running the world via lies and conjobs for at least 4000 years.
These people, the Phoenician overlords, are telling us they are invincible, and that we had better get used it. As I have before, I turn the tables on them and repeat “Yes, you are correct, nothing can stop what is coming.” Except that I mean something entirely different than what they mean. They mean that they own the Earth, and resistance to them is therefore futile. That may or may not be true, but it is of no consequence. It just shows that these sad people have never understood the point of life, and still aren't even close to understanding it. As they write and publish articles without knowing how to write or argue, they live life without knowing how to do that either. So they blunder along cluelessly, sniggering at their own unearned privilege, and end up reaching the end of their lives knowing no more than they did coming in—and possibly less. Do they really imagine their “ownership” of the Earth will be any consolation on their death beds, as they look back on this travesty they call a life? I know what their answer will be. It is: Ah, you naive and idealistic little fool, haven't you yet figured out that we invented all the religions to control you people? This life is all there is, so you can't shame us or scare us with some sort of afterlife judgment. We invented all that hocus-pocus. Yes, we know the point of life, and that is to win, by any means necessary. Our wealth has bought us huge levels of comfort and power, which is what we wanted from the beginning, so we will die contented. Bluff, as usual. Who of these demons has ever died contented? Even by their own shallow standards, they have failed. Not one of them goes out graciously, gratefully, or in contentment. We have seen their eyes: they can't even sleep contentedly, how could they possibly die contentedly? They may or may not have invented all the religions, but they did not invent the Earth. They may think they own the Earth, but they never created it. I don't need any invented or revealed religion to tell me that we weren't born here just to win by any means necessary. We weren't put here to “do as we will”.
I have eyes that see, and what they see is this: the difference between these people and myself is that while I am admittedly discontented with the world around me, I am contented with myself. I sleep soundly and long because I know who I am. I have not “done as I wished”, damn the consequences. I have always cared about the consequences, for the Earth and for the other creatures on it. But the rulers of the Earth are just the opposite: they are contented with the world around them, since they have forced it to bow before them. It has taken their form and mirrors their own smallness. But they are discontented with themselves. They do not need any religion or god to tell them they have done wrong, since they know it regardless. They have heard the screams of those they have trampled underfoot. They have seen the destruction and squalor. They have witnessed their own families blown apart by their “successful theories”. They have watched as their own faces and bodies have turned to horror and putrefaction. They have seen this world they rule collapse into ugliness, pollution, alienation, fear, and chaos. So although I do believe in an immortal soul, an afterlife, and life as a test, it hardly matters. I would act as I do even if I didn't. If God does not judge us after death, Nature certainly does while we are alive. I can see that the rulers' theories don't even work during this short life.
By studying the past lives of these prominent people, we can see these theories lead to an early and growing corruption, an awful and vulgar life, and usually a short one. If you want to live to a beautiful and healthy old age, the last thing you want to do is “do as thou wilt”. The last thing you want to do is chase riches and power. The last thing you want to do is lie all the time about everything. The last thing you want to do is work 10 hours a day, never sleep, and pursue fame. Gore Vidal's advice to the young was “never miss a chance to have sex or be on TV”. My advice is “never miss a chance to tell the truth, expose a lie, or do a good deed”. Nature doesn't need to see you on TV, but she will smile on your helping a frog cross the street.
http://mileswmathis.com/jeffers.pdf
In fact, “skim” is no longer a descriptive term, since it implies skimming a small portion off the top. These people no longer skim. They have dug their spoons deeper and deeper into the cream, taking the majority of it and leaving us only the watery milk at the bottom.
Only the fact that productivity is so fantastically high allows us not to live like peasants (at least in the first world). Until recently, the dregs in the US and Europe were still fairly sweet, and the rulers found that stability was easiest to maintain by keeping them that way. But in the past fifty years that has changed ever more rapidly, as the greed of the rulers has accelerated dramatically.
Due to their control of the media, they believe they can maintain stability despite growing levels of theft, so they are testing that theory. They appear to want to calculate exactly how far they can push this equation. The usual cost/benefit analysis. They want to see how much they can treat us like peasants before we start acting like peasants. That is to say, how much can they steal from us before we become so dejected we stop working and productivity takes a huge dive.
I really don't think they wish to go back to the old forms, because they have generated far more wealth this way. You can't steal much from slaves or peasants, because they don't have anything. You can't tax slaves or peasants. Once you have taken all the land and minerals, your wealth has peaked. But with a productive populace, you can steal a large part of that product, you see.
The current test, with Covid, is precisely that test. It is a psychological test of our current slave mentality. Creating a maximally productive slave is a tricky thing. To start with, we the people have to believe we are not slaves. We have to believe that “all men are created equal”, which is why Jefferson put that in his document—though he obviously didn't believe it. We have to believe that we will share in the fruits of society, both financially and spiritually.
Hence, the “Life, Liberty, and pursuit of Happiness” clause. Productive slaves have to be convinced they are happy, which is why the media used to spend so much time driving that home. This was the main line of propaganda until recently. Think of the 1950s, when the manufactured satisfaction of the middle class was job one. Almost all entertainment was geared toward a chirpy idyll of the Mayberry sort, or later of the Waltons or Little House on the Prairie sort. But a certain group among the rulers came up with a big secondary project in the 1980s, to make people unhappy on purpose. They wished to split the sexes for profit.
This misery would create a market for new products, including drugs and other healthcare, porn, beauty products, body alteration, and so on, while also de-masculating men. This, they thought, would lower the threat of revolution. However, as you can see, the two projects are contradictory. The secondary project conflicts with the primary project, doesn't it? Miserable slaves may at first spend more money compensating for their misery, but eventually they are going to admit to themselves they are miserable.
At that point, they realize they are slaves. They become dejected and stop working and productivity plummets. The main scheme has just been short-circuited by poor planning. Therefore, I would say it isn't just the populace of sheep that needs to wake up. It is the top Phoenician rulers who need to wake up and realize their whole scheme is unwinding.
This secondary project of created misery, though perhaps profitable in the short term, is fatal to their long term plans. It is certainly fatal to the Declaration of Independence, which was a good plan of control. Its true intent was well hidden and it fooled we the people for a long time. Many of us thought we were free and happy, which his why things progressed so quickly for the rulers. We were a captive audience.
The rise of Hollywood made it even easier, since that sold the propaganda like nothing before. But the huge propaganda successes of the 1960s and 70s made the rulers giddy, and they wanted more. They played a tune that worked, and so they have turned up the volume more and more since then. But what they have missed is that what sounds sweet at 60 decibels, say, sounds like pain at 150 decibels.
It causes madness in the DJ as well as the audience. They have also missed this subtlety: the 1950s were one big lie, yes, but they were not yet a vicious and insane lie. It was the lie of Mr. Ed and Kukla Fran and Ollie and Mayberry and Strangers in the Night and Moon River. It was a dreamy and pacifying lie, while the lie now is a shattering nightmare.
The lie of Game of Thrones and Breaking Bad and Dexter and Sandy Hook and Columbine and gangster rap and Django Unchained and John Wick. Yes, that sells anti-depressants out the wazoo, but what else does it do? It begs an empire-ending collapse of Biblical proportions, a Sodom and Gomorrah outcome where rich people end up as pillars of salt. You and I would love to see that, but I don't think that is what the desired endgame is for them.
The Phoenician Navy will no doubt reply they have climbed out above the possibility of a major reversal. They have fine-tuned their methods. They have contingency plans in place. They have covered all their bases. They have built walls to prevent any flood. All famous last words. For myself, the only contingency plan I see that might be successful at this point is a slow reversal, like when you cross the path of a rattlesnake or a shark.
I also remind you of this sentence in the Declaration of Independence: That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
The Declaration, being a sort of Preface to the Constitution, states that one of our unalienable rights is to abolish a destructive form of government. Which means, legally, that any court trying any person or group for sedition or treason, would have to prove the current government was NOT destructive of those ends (life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, among others). Do you think any lawyer could prove that to a jury these days? I don't.
Any educated jury should know by now that its own government, and the people who own and run it, are making us the people unhappy and fearful on purpose, in order to profit from our misery and fear and to use it to control us.
I used to think that separation of church and state was a good idea, but I have changed my mind. Not because I became a Christian, which I didn't. I haven't been to church since I was about 15, and I don't miss it. No, I changed my mind because I came to understand why the Founding Fathers were pushing this. They weren't pushing it to guarantee your right to worship as you choose, though that is the line they sell you. They were pushing it because they were deeply and profoundly irreligious themselves, and wanted to govern and trade without any interference from Christian rules against usury, or other rules of conduct.
They wished to destroy worship altogether, because it competed with them. The church competed with their ability to tax. The church competed with their ability to propagandize. And the church competed with their ability to control. That has become clearer through the decades and centuries, and should be crystal clear now, when the descendants of these people are just shutting down churches by fiat.
One of the most illogical and unConstitutional of the current executive orders promulgated by state governors has been the closing of all houses of worship. Let me just ask you this: if church and state are truly separate, then how can the state close all churches? Shouldn't churches, being separate, be able to make their own rules?
If the church can no longer influence the state, why should the state influence the church? The governors are simply using a fake crisis to do everything they ever wanted to do, and one of the things they most wanted to do is shut down churches. That should tell you who we are dealing with. So the Constitutional clauses about religion never had much to do with your right to worship.
They had to do with your right NOT to worship, you see. That subtlety was always fairly well hidden in regard to the Constitution, I admit, but if you look closely at the Founding Fathers, their lives, and their writings, you see this is true. And if you look at the history of the US from a bird's eye, including not only the original projects like the founding documents, but also later projects like the Theosophy project, Marxism, Humanism, Atheism, and Transhumanism, the greater motion becomes clear
MathisderMalersaid:
Yes, I am far less scared and pessimistic than the rest of you, it seems. I am angry, but not afraid. THings always move too slowly for me, but people eventually catch up. This won’t fly in the long run. It’s a bad move by the governors and will backfire. As I have said before, the controllers were far more in control in the 1950s. All this hype is due to the fact they are out of control. This whole project is desperate and confused. Some big folks may end up getting thrown to the wolves, and Bill Gates may be one of them.
MathisderMalersaid:
I am hoping back to school is going to be a rude awakening for the governors. A lot of people are going to hold their children back, and not just because of fear of covid. People’s trust in the gov is plummeting, in all arenas and all levels. The governors see this coming, and are instituting online classes for public schools, including here. But that won’t work either. They are putting bandaids on top of bandaids on top of tourniquets, but pretty soon the dam is going to burst. I can’t believe they haven’t seen this and backed off. I’ve been telling them for years their only hope is to back off.
http://mileswmathis.com/logic.pdf
The CDC all but admits Covid is Fake
by Miles Mathis
First published August 30, 2020
On August 26, the CDC updated its site with a co-morbidities section, where they admit only about 6%
of the reported deaths by Covid in the US in 2020 were due to Covid alone. The other 94% of deaths
included an average of 2.6 other causes—although we still aren't told which cause was primary. Most
of these deaths were among the elderly, which means we can include one other co-morbidity: OLD
AGE.
This reduces the death-by-Covid number from 185,000 to about 11,000. That is not a Covid pandemic,
since 11,000 is a pretty small number for an 8-month period. In the same period, about 30,000 people
died in car wrecks. In fact, according to mainstream numbers, about 37,000 people die of the regular
flu in every 8-month period. So Covid is more than three times less dangerous than the old flu.
And if we continue to study the CDC's own published numbers, we find that young people are almost
untouched. In the first third of the chart, we are given deaths due to influenza + pneumonia, and a total
of about 64,000 deaths. About 86% are over 60 years old, so the odds as well as logic tell us those
people were about to die anyway. Only 634 of those are under 35, and only 102 are under 25. But
remember, only 6% of those are Covid-only deaths, so the under-35 number is actually 38 and the
under-25 number is actually. . . 6. Yep, only 6 of 64,000 deaths were due to Covid-alone in those
under 25. That is less than .00009, just so you know. Less than 1 in 10,000. Since there are about 100
million people under 25 in the US, the fraction goes even lower, to .0000002. Your odds of dying of
Covid in an 8-month period in the US are about 2 in ten million. Over a lifetime, that would be about
1 in 50,000. You are about as likely to die from a bee or wasp sting. About ten times more likely to
die in a plane crash, 14 times as likely to choke on food, 33 times as likely to die in a fire, 77 times as
likely to get run over, and 440 times as likely to die in a car. So do you go around in a panic about
those things all the time? Have we bankrupted large parts of the world for any of those things?
You will say, “Sure, but that is just for the under-25 people”. Yes, but the numbers are similar if you
are middle age, 45-54. In that case, the number is 3,710 out of 64,000. But Covid-only brings that
number down to 223. So, still only .0035, or 1 in 287. There are about 40 million people in that age
group in the US, so .000017 is our fraction. Your odds of dying of Covid in an 8-month period in the
US are about 1 in 50,000, or over a lifetime about 1 in 500. About the same as getting run over. You
are about twice as likely to get killed by a gun. You are 4 times more likely to die by falling, 4 times
more likely to die in a car, 4 times more likely to die of poisoning, 4 times more likely to die of suicide,
18 times as likely to die of chronic lower respiratory disease, and 70 times as likely to die of heart
disease or cancer.
I yellowed chronic lower respiratory disease for a reason. It is because that is one of the main comorbidities listed for Covid. That is very important, and you should dwell on it. In general, chronic
lower respiratory disease is the second most common cause of death, as you see in that last link to the
National Safety Council. So you should find it strange to see it listed as a cause of death along with
Covid. The second section at the CDC is about 13,000 deaths listed as chronic lower respiratory
disease. “Chronic” means it didn't just arrive: it has been around a while in the individual. Chronic
lower respiratory disease isn't caused by influenza, since influenza is an acute reaction, not a chronic
one. It is caused by smoking, long-term environmental or work exposure, and things of that nature. So
that answers my question above about which of the 4 or 5 co-morbidities was primary. With people
over 50, the primary causes of death among several listed would be chronic lower respiratory disease or
old age, not the flu. In all those instances, Covid would be a sidelight at best.
Another 52,000 are listed as “respiratory failure”, and another 3,000 as “respiratory arrest”. I'm sorry,
what's the difference, exactly? We can see we are still being jerked here, since neither respiratory
failure nor respiratory arrest are causes of death. They are results of some underlying cause, which
then causes death. Is that underlying cause the common cold or is it smoking three packs a day for 40
years? You decide.
Another 33,000 are listed as hypertensive diseases, which would include heart attack. So they are
admitting that they assigned at least 33,000 heart attacks to Covid. But the next 56,000 are also
assigned to heart failure or cardiac arrest, etc., so we are up to 89,000 heart failures assigned to the
common cold. That's about half the total, by the way.
Another 24,000 are listed as diabetes, and Covid does not give you diabetes.
Another 13,000 are listed as sepsis, which means being in the hospital killed them.
Another 5,000 are listed as obese, and Covid does not make you obese. Nor does it target fat people.
Another 5,000 are listed as dying of Alzheimers.
73,500 are listed as “all other causes”. That's 40% of the total of 185,000, which is a huge amount of
fudge. But I guess OLD AGE fits into this category. It also means they are admitting they don't know
why most of these people died, only that they did. But if they don't know why these people died, then
they can't know that they died of Covid, right? Logic
The State of the Art in Physics Propaganda by Miles Mathis First published September 5, 2020
With each passing year, I become more and more grateful that I never became part of mainstream science: grateful I chose not to pursue a PhD in physics, and grateful I never got published by the academic press. Because if I had I would have to admit to some connection to the embarrassing conjob that now passes for science promotion.
The above graphic is a screenshot from an episode of PBS Spacetime now up at Youtube called “The Speed of Light is not about Light”. And no, it wasn't made for children. Because the presenter is a young guy in a wrinkled grey t-shirt, I suppose the target audience is grunge rockers or college drop- outs who sit at home and watch cartoons all day with their baby sisters. I can't really figure it out.
The narrator is so gruesome I found the episode almost impossible to watch. I literally got the willies. Meaning, I quite literally got sick to my stomach. There is something almost malicious in the way he moves his head about, and my spook radar immediately maxxed out. If they ever pried my eyes permanently open and forced me to watch something as punishment, like in A Clockwork Orange, this would be it. One of the first comments on the video is this: “This is the body language someone would use to convince me to invest in MLM.” Exactly.
I had never seen this guy, so I looked him up. He is Matt O'Dowd, an associate professor at CUNY. He is also a crew member of a mobile observatory that debuted at Burning Man in 2012, confirming his spook status. Burning Man is a premier CIA project and propaganda fest.
Matt specializes in Gravitational Lensing. See my paper blowing that apart.
Just for fun, I checked out the O'Dowds at the peerage, to see where this guy might have come from. They are related to the Webbs (the Queen is a Webb), Armstrongs, Goolds, Watts, and Ritchies. As for the O'Dowds of Australia, they descend from Bernard O'Dowd, a poet and prodigy who was a member of the Theosophical Society. You know what that means. Bernard's partner was a Pitt. He was a founding member of the Victorian Socialist Party. You know what that means. He wrote under the name Gavah the Blacksmith. You may not know what that means. Gavah is Hebrew and it means “witness”. O'Dowd was a comrade of John Curtin, a thoroughly nasty character who later became Prime Minister. Boy George's real name is O'Dowd. The SAS was founded by Christopher O'Dowd.
On Matt O'Dowd's Twitter page, he has posted a gif of himself with Richard Branson. What is the connection there? They aren't meeting at Starbucks: O'Dowd is visiting Branson at home on his own private island! I have shown that Branson is a hidden peer. My guess is Branson and O'Dowd are cousins, explaining the otherwise unexplainable. Like O'Dowd, Branson is also related to the Riches/Ritchies and Webbs. You may be impressed by billionaires, but I'm not.* It is always a bad sign. For several reasons O'Dowd may wish to reconsider his links to Branson, see this recent article at The Independent, where we are reminded that Virgin is being bailed out by the government. It also has a healthcare arm with strong ties to NHS. And remember how Virgin Trains was price gouging?
Among his other lead pics at Twitter, O'Dowd has a pic of the Ligo announcement, so he is pushing that fraud. See my extensive critique of that.
Also on Matt's Twitter page, we find this:
An ornate Arabic astrolabe. You will say he is just using a pretty object to reference his position as an astrophysicist, but I intuit more is going on here. Why Arabic, for a start? I can't read the Arabic top center, but if you can let me know. The word “astrolabe” means “star taker”, and we have seen these people are takers. And the astrolabe was invented and used by navigators, ie Phoenician navy.
But my point is, PBS Spacetime appears to be a very forward part of science publicity, being promoted
heavily at Youtube and other places, and someone somewhere chose O'Dowd to be a face of it. Someone thought he had the right sort of look or charm to capture some segment of the science audience, which is scary no matter how you look at it. If they are wrong, it is scary in the extent of the miscalculation; and if they are right, it is scary to think someone finds this charming.
But it isn't just O'Dowd's personality that is the frightening thing here, it is the juxtaposition of his scowling mug with the purple little unicorn, or whatever that is. I won't even do anyone the honor of looking it up. Though I do note it is purple. At least it isn't a purple phoenix, but I guess that would have been too obvious.
We know O'Dowd is going to fudge us just from the title. We can tell we will be immediately immersed in Operation Chaos once again, and that we will be inverted the whole time. “The speed of light is not about light”? That would like arguing the color blue was not about color, or about blue. It is the purposeful destruction of the meanings of words, and of language. O'Dowd takes a while to get to the point: he has to drown us in contradictions, silly graphics, and maliciously mesmerizing head nods first. But he does admit his thesis fairly early: the speed of light is about the speed of causality.
One problem though: that already contradicts his title, since the speed of causality is due to the speed of light. Causality can't exceed c because all things are caused either by transfer of atoms or photons. Cause and effect is a mechanical law, and things can't be affected by wishes or hunches. They have to be affected by matter. So he is already talking in circles.
To obscure this, O'Dowd's only hope is to muck this up as quickly as possible, which is why he brings in the monkey on the back of the unicorn on roller skates, and imprints them with Maxwell's equations. He knows that no sensible person will be able to penetrate that mash-up, or will waste time trying: they will simply shake their heads and fast forward. But O'Dowd is hoping that head shake may have softened up their brains enough to make them suggestible.
Same for bringing in Lorentz transformations. They aren't necessary to solve this, but O'Dowd knows that his audience of Youtube wankers won't know that. They will think O'Dowd knows something they don't, which softens them up even more. Since they don't know Lorentz transformations from the Transformers, they will just take O'Dowd's word for it and fast forward again.
Amazingly, at minute 4:30, O'Dowd stirs in the Galilean transform, which is a precursor to the Lorentz transformations. Einstein took the Galilean transform as given, and used it to develop Special Relativity. The Galilean transform is actually the first equation of Special Relativity, page one. I know because I have done more work on the Galilean transform than anyone in history, publishing an entire setofpapers on it. I have shown the Galilean transforms as used by Einstein are actually incorrect in form, causing many mathematical errors in Special Relativity, including the proposed result that the transformsaresymmetrical. They aren't, which means the equations O'Dowd is posting in the video aren't even correct.
It doesn't really matter, as you will see, but it is interesting nonetheless. Remember, O'Dowd is supposed to be proving to us that the speed of light is not about the speed of light, and he hasn't even begun to do that. Whether the Lorentz transformations are symmetrical has nothing to do with it, and Maxwell's equations have nothing to do with it either. It goes without saying that purple unicorns have nothing to do with it.
In the next section, starting at about minute 6:00, O'Dowd pretends he is being very modern and very
deep, making you think everything he is proposing comes out of the Lorentz transformations, but all he is describing is one of Galileo's old laws of motion: an object at constant velocity acts like an object at rest, and can be taken as such. O'Dowd wants you to think that idea was overthrown when the Galilean transform was extended by Lorentz and Einstein, but it wasn't. The only thing that was overthrown was their improper expression of Galileo in the Galilean transform they used. But as I have shown, that expression didn't even come from Galileo. The Galilean transform didn't come from Galileo, it came from a guy named Woldemar Voigt, who wrote it down in 1887 (see first link above). Unfortunately, he completely garbled it, dooming everything that came after, including Special Relativity. I am not saying Special Relativity is wrong, but I am saying it was developed from the wrong first equation, dooming all the math. The math had to be completely redone, and I have done it. I threw out Voigt's bad equations and started over from scratch, confirming Relativity but not the math.
O'Dowd doesn't know this, so he is just parroting the usual mainstream nonsense. He is trying to buffalo you, and this is the way it is currently done: you quote all the most esoteric theory you can find, then drop a completely unfounded conclusion on your audience at the end. They will have been so confused by all the esoteric theory, they can't possibly refute you. Or so O'Dowd thinks. He forgot that I was prowling.
Amazingly, O'Dowd pretty much admits what I told you about Galileo at minute 6:50, since he says we can go from the monkey to the unicorn by just putting a minus sign on the velocity. That isn't a Lorentz transformation, since a Lorentz transformation requires a term called gamma. If you are just switching signs, you are back with Galileo. But O'Dowd fudges you immediately, by bringing back in the Lorentz transformations at minute 7:00. He even prints out the math for you, where you can see the term gamma I just told you about. It is that business in the denominator under the radical.
He then tells you the Lorentz transformation must describe our reality. Except that it doesn't. It might, if the math were correct, but it isn't. Garbled equations can't describe anything. Onlymycorrected equations describe reality.
But again, O'Dowd hasn't begun to tell us what any of this stuff has to do with his thesis. The big jump is at minute 7:20, where he tells us that the Lorentz transformations predict the cosmic speed limit. Except that isn't true. That is completely upside down to the truth, in fact, both theoretically and historically. The truth is, both Einstein and Lorentz assumed the speed of light was c, and based all their equations on that assumption. So c wasn't the conclusion, it was the postulate. This is why the Lorentz equations came right out of the Michelson/Morley interferometer experiments. This is why Einstein explicitly labeled c as his Second Postulate! The speed of light had recently been determined, and that speed was found to be invariant in vacuum. It didn't matter who measured it or how fast they were going. It was always found to be c. So to claim that c was a prediction is absurd. Just the opposite, it was an outcome of experiment, and that outcome was used as the postulate in the new math. O'Dowd must know this since every schoolboy knows it, which is why I call this propaganda. He is lying right to your face.
Next, at minute 8:40, O'Dowd makes a huge leap, trying to get us nearer his thesis. He states that c is the speed of light, but that it is the speed of causality first. Notice that nothing in his presentation leads up to that raw assertion. It comes out of nowhere. None of his misdirection into the Lorentz transformation or Maxwell's equations had anything to do with that. He says correctly that c is the maximum speed that any two parts of the universe can talk to eachother, but of course that is because they talk to eachother via photons. Light has to travel between the two points to carry information. So he still isn't telling us anything. We are now up to nine full minutes of fluff and bluff.
Next, O'Dowd of course has to drop E=mc2 on you, just to be sure he includes it somewhere, but it doesn't tie in here at all. It is just another name-dropping, as part of his snowball.
O'Dowd fears you may not yet be confused enough, so at minute 10:00 he switches gears and tells you “this is all paradoxical”. Except that it isn't. He was just telling you before that that if c were infinite, there would be no mass and no time. That isn't a paradox, it is a truism. It just means that if c were infinite, you would be everything and know everything. There would be no time or distant separations, by definition. All would be one. But he seems to be afraid you might understand that, so he has to interrupt to call that a paradox. He doesn't want you understanding anything, because in that case your brain might turn back on. By calling it a paradox, he is really saying: “you can't understand anything here, since it is beyond comprehension, so just trust me. I am a physicist”.
So he gets to the end of this without saying one single word to indicate, much less prove, that the speed of light is not about light. If anything, he just proved that the speed of light IS about light, so what was the title about? No one knows.
Actually, I do know what this was about. As I told you, it is about Operation Chaos, and physicists' pre-eminent part in turning your mind to mush. And why do they want you confused? Because if you are confused you will be much less likely to say no to the modern physics program and all its treasury dips. You won't feel qualified to call foul on their theories or experiments, and won't realize what frauds they all are. They want you to believe they are superheroes, solving the greatest mysteries of the universe and moving us into a glorious technological future of omniscience. When the truth is they are just circus barkers hiding behind big fake equations and really bad theories. They want you to think they know almost everything, when the truth is they know almost nothing. It's all a mirage of unassigned numbers and fast talk. They sell you quantum mechanics as the greatest theory in history,
when in fact it is an almost total bluff, composed of a million mathematical fudges and feints. If you have eyes to see like I do, you can tell they haven't got a clue what is going on with light, or with anything else.
Another premier science propagandist is Jim Al-Khalili, who inhabits the chair of Public Engagement in Science at University of Surrey. Yes, major universities now have chairs of science propaganda, and they come very near admitting that. They just tweak the wording a bit. You can find him at Youtube as well, in a series called Reel Science. Let's look at his BBC series Atom, from 2007. Part three gives itself away with its title: “Atom: the Illusion of Reality”. Will he really be arguing that the atom is an illusion? Yep. This is a major project of Modern physics, and I have hit it many times before. They want to dissolve all reality and wipe the slate completely clean. In other fields they call it brainwashing, but in physics they just call it another day.
Already by minute 1:45, Al-Khalil has planted his thesis: “Reality is just an Illusion”. But he contradicts himself right after that, by admitting that in 1905 Einstein proved the existence as well as the size of the atom by studying how pollen moves in water. If the atom exists and has size, how can it be an illusion? Al-Khalili tells us it is because Rutherford proved the atom was almost entirely empty space. Except that he didn't. We see an animation of electrons orbiting a nucleus, and since the orbits are nearly empty space, we are supposed to see his point. Only the nucleus is packed, but the rest of the atom is mostly air. But I have shown this is false. Electrons DO NOT orbit the nucleus. The orbital levels are only distances of electron capture, but once captured the electrons move down to nucleus. Beyond that, the area of the atom is full of dense charge, which the mainstream still ignores. In other words, billions of photons are being recycled through and around the nucleus as charge, meaning none of that space is empty. In fact, the charge outweighs the matter it is moving through by
19 to 1. The mainstream doesn't know that because that charge can't be weighed in the normal ways. Charge is always moving at c and so it can't be contained for a weighing. Its mass can only be calculated from its energy equivalence.
Very quickly, Al-Khalili segues into the required heavy-handed salesmanship of Bohr and Heisenberg. That is a primary goal of all science propaganda: continue to sell the famous people as revolutionaries and geniuses, because their manufactured fame is what a lot of the story rests upon. It isn't really science, it is hero-worship.
A second plank of science propaganda is the incomprehensibility of modern theory, so Al-Khalili hits that next. He tells us at minute 3:40 that quantum physics is entirely new, unique, and “outside human comprehension”. That's convenient for the magicians selling it, right? You can't understand it, so you have to take their word for it.
Next, Al-Khalili is paid to work in some hagiography for Paul Dirac. He was a pathetic little man and a complete phony, but the propagandists insist you believe the reverse. Al-Khalili tries to make you think Dirac achieved unification, but everyone knows he didn't. The mainstream has still not gotten near unifying anything. So Al-Khalili is forced to lie right to your face, telling you Dirac's famous equation unified quantum mechanics and Relativity. He wants you to worship that equation, so that you forget to look closely at it. At minute 9:40, he actually says, “Don't try to understand it, just look at it and marvel”. Even worse than “shut up and calculate”. Don't calculate, just shut up and bow. The propaganda has gotten very raw, hasn't it?
Al-Khalili tells us Dirac's equation is up there with King Lear, Beethoven's Fifth, or Origin of Species. Except that Al-Khalili says Origin of the Species. Hah.
But the problem with the Dirac equation is that it is completely worthless in understanding the quantum world. It describes the momentum of the electron in orbit. . . except that the electron isn't in that orbit to start with. As I have shown exhaustively, the energy levels of atoms are not determined by electrons at all. Electrons are just along for the ride, and can be completely ignored in the first instance. What is important are the charge channels and charge levels that recycle through the nucleus. In other words, it is photons we should be looking at, not electrons. Writing equations for orbiting electrons was just busy work, and shows how lost Dirac really was.
Dirac never understood that the wave function didn't even apply to the electrons. Schrodinger intuited this,butevenhecouldn'treallyfathomit. This is because both men had been permanently confused byan old mistake of Bohr, who conflated the momentum of the electron with the momentum of the photon. Yes, Bohr simply made a substitution error in his equations for the first energy level of Hydrogen.
This means that Dirac's equation is completely worthless, and I have never once used it in my solutions. When calculating electron energies in my own diagrams, I need only look at the electrons on the nuclear poles, especially the north pole. Since the electron is actually orbiting the proton there, Dirac's equations don't help me. The orbit is determined by the proton and by the energy levels of the charge streams going in and out there. Those energy levels can only be calculated from the specific nuclear architecture (the element in question). Dirac's equation doesn't include all the nucleons in the nucleus, so it is far too naive.
In most cases, none of that is necessary, and the calculations I have done can be done using only the specs of the nearest protons and neutrons. I use things like magnetic moments of the various particles to develop relative forces.
Al-Khalili tells us Dirac's greatest achievement was the discovery of anti-particles, but that is also false. His equation contains a ± that implies anti-matter, but he didn't even recognize that himself. He later ran with the idea, but ran with it in the wrong direction, ignoring charge and assigning the plus/minus to the ridiculous Dirac sea. This idiotic idea cold-cocked mainstream physics for half a century, and it is still ascendant as the vacuum potential as well as electron hole theory. But all this borrowing from the vacuum is unnecessary, once you realize there is a real sea of charge photons you can use to solve
all these problems much more cleanly and directly. Al-Khalili tells us Dirac was so concerned about the mathematical beauty of physics, but Dirac actually created some of the ugliest and most dastardly theory of all time. He was also responsible in large part for time reversals or negative time being allowed in physics. This was another massive and very ugly mistake. It has prevented the real solution of many problems for several decades.
Dirac's misunderstanding of anti-matter seeded the current misunderstanding. He always sold it as some esoteric difference, whereas I have shown it is simply a spin difference. There are antiphotons as well as photons, and they are just upside-down photons, spinning the opposite way. Since everything is built up from the photon, larger particles can also have outer spins that go either way. Matter and anti- matter also do not annihilate one another. They may spin-strip one another, but the nut of the particle (the photon) always remains. Also, many of the leptons in the normal atom aren't electrons at all. They are positrons. Electrons are at the north pole while positrons are at the south pole. But since most free leptons are stripped form the north pole of the nucleus, they are the ones we normally see.
If you want to know why Dirac was and is promoted so heavily, you have to look at his family. His bio has been pretty well scrubbed, especially on his mother's side, but we can be sure he was from the Phoenician navy. His maternal grandfather was a ship's captain, and my guess he was East India Company. That is the only way I can explain Dirac's life, such as it was. As a confirmation of that, we find Dirac went to the Merchant Venturer's School. He later married Eugene Wigner's sister, and she was Jewish. Indicating Dirac was as well. More indication of that are the surnames Juge and Pottier on his paternal side, where he was from Switzerland. So, probably bankers. The Pottiers were from Monthey, which was a Counts of Savoy town, famous for silk. Like the rest of these famous people in all fields, he was promoted not on merit, he was promoted because he had to be. He was of the top families and demanded his due.
I assume the same can be said of Al-Khalili. The Al-Khalilis are a very wealthy and prominent family from the Middle East. See the Al-Khalili Group, a huge company involved in oil and gas, construction, development, computing, and security. It is based in Oman, where an Al-Khalili is also the Grand Mufti. See Ahmed Al-Khalili, also known as Abu Suliman. Suliman=Solomon. The Arabian cast of the Phoenician navy, you know. Also see Nasser Khalili, Iranian but admitted to be Jewish. He also lives in London. He professes to be a self-made billionaire, which is absurd. The Khalilis also run Afghanistan. See Karim Khalili, installed by the US along with Hamid Karzai. Jim Al-Khalili's parents are hidden on the internet. I could not find out who his mother is. However, he looks quite a bit like Karim Khalili.
But let's return to the video. When Al-Khalili is explaining the cloud chamber tracks of positrons caused by cosmic rays, he says positrons have the opposite charge to electrons. Hard to believe they still can't get this right. Positrons and electrons aren't opposite in charge, they are opposite in spin. It is spin that causes the opposite curls they take in cloud chambers. But because the word spin has a stronger physical residue than the word charge, they prefer to shunt you off into charge. Quantum physicists don't like real spin and refuse to countenance it. They could never make it work in their theories because they are terrible at visualization, so now even when they do use the word spin, it is not real spin. It is virtual spin: simply a placeholder in the matrices.
Next, Al-Khalili tells us it took the greatest minds in physics 30 years to really figure out the incredible depths of Dirac's equation. This is where he is forced to admit the equation doesn't work when you have multiple electrons. The equation works for one electron and then explodes. That is the equation he wants you to bow to. So now Al-Khalili moves away from Dirac and toward another man he has
been ordered to promote: Richard Feynman. As I said, this isn't science or history so much as hero worship. We are told the big problem mid-century was to write equations for how electrons in orbits interact, but I already told you how that is going to go. The electrons aren't in orbits like that, so there is no need to write equations for any interaction. Those guys would have made much more progress if they had ignored the electron completely, but the die had been cast long before them. For many decades the electron was the only thing they had, so they had to attach all new theory to it. By the time of Dirac and Feynman, the electron had soaked up all theory and math, and because that math was contradictory and impossible, they had a major mess. However, since they still don't realize that, we know Feynman couldn't have realized it. It never came close to occurring to him to ditch the electron orbitals.
I encourage you to go to minute 16:00 and listen closely to Al-Khalili fawning over Feynman. It is really stomach-turning. It reminds me of Eric Idle playing the master of ceremonies in a Monty Python skit, where he actually gets down on the floor and grovels: “This man, whose boots I am not fit to lick clean”. The funniest part is where Al-Khalili admits “Feynman loved to tell anecdotes. . . about himself”. Hah. So he was a shameless self-promoter—but we already knew that. And he didn't need to be a self-promoter, since they had already hired hundreds of his cousins to promote him by the time he was out of college. In the 20th century, only two physicists were promoted more than Feynman: Einstein and Hawking.
At minute 17:00, we have more unintended comedy, where Al-Khalili says Feynman “wanted to take understanding of the atom literally a quantum leap forward”. So I guess we are supposed to believe Feynman literally advanced science by about an Angstrom. That I can believe.
As with Dirac, Al-Khalili wants you to believe Feynman did major work on unification. But he didn't. He would have been the first to admit he made almost no progress on unification. So why is Al-Khalili so intent you think these guys in QED achieved great advances in unification? Some of my critics have been caught saying no one cares about unification anymore, but apparently Al-Khalili and the BBC didn't get that message. It is called misdirection. The mainstream is doing everything it can to deflect attention away from the fact that someone finally did achieve unification, but it wasn't one of their manufactured geniuses. It was me. I had already done that before 2007, and soon afterwards showed how to unify not only Newton's equations, but the Lagrangian, Maxwell's equations, Coulomb and Gauss.
You will say that I am self-promoting here, but I have no choice. Not being from the families, no one else is going to promote me. In fact, I am the target of more anti-promotion than perhaps anyone in history, so if I don't give you links to my papers, no one will.
At minute 18:00, Al-Khalili tells us QED predicted the magnetic moment of the electron to nine digits. But that is yet another fudge. No prediction was involved: the number was arrived at after the fact by manufactured loop corrections. In this paper, I show you how to get there directly, with much simpler math. I also correct all the fudges in the old math.
So when Al-Khalili says at minute 18:40 that QED is “as close to a theory of everything as we have ever come”, he is misdirecting again. The theory put forward in my papers is far beyond anything QED was able to achieve. I show that QED is quite simply wrong about thousands of things.
At minute 19:00, Al-Khalili quotes Feynman admitting that QED was incomprehensible. Feynman said his graduate students didn't understand it. Furthermore, he himself didn't understand it. In a later
book QED, Feynman admitted that much of it was mathematical hocus-pocus that was not legitimate, using those very words. So how can QED be the greatest physical theory ever? Will Al-Khalili tell us? No. According to him, its incomprehensibility is its greatest selling point. Credo quia absurdum. As with Modern art, you are supposed to accept because it is absurd.
Al-Khalili then repeats the main mantra of quantum mechanics: to hope to understand it, you have to give up all your previous ideas about rationality. Meaning, you can't expect anything to make sense. He starts by telling you the vacuum is no longer the vacuum. So you can't expect words to mean what they used to mean. In QED, the vacuum is now potentially anything. It becomes anything you wish it to be, as if you are a genie. This comes straight from Dirac and his Dirac sea, but Feynman took it even further. Anytime your equations aren't giving you what you want, you can pull the remainder right out of the vacuum. The vacuum is an auto-tune for bad equations.
As it turns out, Dirac and Feynman were right in a way. An evacuated chamber isn't empty. Once you remove all the matter and ions, the charge remains. You can't create a charge vacuum. So you always have charge to work with. But this is very different than their vacuum potential, which was totally undefined. My charge field still has rules. It is made up of real particles with real properties, so it doesn't allow infinite fudging. It isn't vacuum or potential. It is real. It has real density and pressure, and those characteristics are firm. They can't change to suit your theory or math. Nor are the characteristics chaotic, quasi, virtual, or variable. They are deterministic, real, and local.
Which is of course one more reason the mainstream prefers to ignore me. They don't want to replace their vacuum potential with my charge field, although it answers all their questions. They don't want it because it would disallow all their fudge and fake math. Millions of pages of math would have to be trashed, along with all the Nobel Prizes.
At minute 21, the lies get really nauseating. Al-Khalili tells you to imagine a bank account with nothing in it. He says that as an academic, this is a concept he is very familiar with. Gag. Do you really think this guy in his Armani suits is broke? Right. I guess we are supposed to believe this BBC presenter and university chair is living on £30,000 a year and driving a Ford Escort.
Anyway, we are supposed to believe that QED is so advanced because it understands how the vacuum works. The vacuum is nothing only on average. But over short times, it can either be positive or negative. To go positive, it borrows energy from the future. Hard to believe they are still selling this monumental cheat as an advance in thinking. Let me just ask you this: do you think they really have any physical evidence the vacuum works like that, or that it can really borrow energy from the future? Of course not. Vacuum potential wasn't proposed because they had found some evidence from experiment the vacuum worked like that. Vacuum potential was proposed to fudge equations. It is that simple. It is very ugly magic being sold to you as higher physics and genius science. Like backward causality, spooky forces, virtual particles, and a thousand other things, it is slipshod in the extreme. It is the opposite of science. But everyone pretends not to notice that.
We are told the vacuum seethes with particle pairs being created and annihilated. Except that we have no evidence for that. No experiment has ever shown it. Al-Khalili told us earlier that such pairs create huge energy in annihilation, so the vacuum should be nothing but little explosions. We don't find that at all. What we find when we look is a real field of real charge: real photons. Particle accelerators aren't awash with little pair explosions or with virtual particles, they are awash with real photons.
Which brings the video to its thesis, finally. QED claims that matter is just a tiny residue of all this
creation and destruction going on in the vacuum. But again, is that based on any physical evidence? No. None. It is just a stupid idea someone came up with to justify their mathematical fudging. Physicists love the vacuum potential since it allows unlimited cheating, so this story of the quantum foam was just dreamed up after the fact. But Al-Khalili, like his masters and forebears, has the audacity to sell that vulgar cheat as the greatest idea in the history of physics.
Amazingly, the video admits that back in the 40s, many physicists saw QED as an “unmitigated disaster”, with equations that could not be solved or even justified. “The mathematics had spiraled out of control”. To get past this, we are told Feynman replaced the math with “childish diagrams”—the Feynman diagrams. In 1947, at the Shelter Island Conference, the tide turned for QED, and it began its quick ascent into the heavens. What Al-Khalili forgets to tell you is why the tide turned in that year. That was year one of the CIA, and the Shelter Island Conference was set up by the Rockefeller Foundation and Bell Labs. That was no coincidence. QED was adopted by Intelligence as a part of Operation Chaos, and promoted in all its ugliness on purpose to spread confusion and act as cover. Real physics went underground during the war never to return, and it was replaced by physics propaganda. The physics sold to the public was only this monstrous perversion of physics. Do I have any direct evidence of that? No. It is just a theory. But it is the only way I can explain the precipitous fall of physics since that time. Either the CIA took physics underground, or the entire field crumbled of its own rot. Take your pick.
The key to understanding this is that Feynman was a protege of Schwinger, especially after the Shelter Conference, and Schwinger was a comrade of Oppenheimer. All were deep in Intelligence after the Manhattan project, and likely long before. Al-Khalili admits it was Schwinger who pushed the Feynman project forward after 1947, ordering the older guys to play along. Feynman got his Nobel Prize in tandem with Schwinger.
We do get some slivers of truth, though, I think. We are told Bohr and Heisenberg hated Feynman's diagrams, since they hated all visualizations, even tinkertoy ones like these. Feynman admitted his diagrams weren't diagrams of real particle motions or interactions, just tools to help get from point A to point B in the math, but even so they were too much for Bohr and his minions, including Dirac. Which proves many of my previous points. One of those points is that 20th century physicists weren't really physicists. The very word physics implies physicality, but these top physicists were revolted by physicality. They hated and feared mechanics, since they had never gotten anywhere with it. They couldn't visualize and didn't want to. It just reminded them of their terrible disabilities. They were the least artistic people ever born. Feynman was a bit different. He like to go to strip clubs, so he was quite visual. Nothing like me, but far more visual than his colleagues. Another point is that Feynman's diagrams aren't diagrams like my nuclear diagrams. My diagrams ARE attempting to diagram reality directly. My diagrams are not just mathematical tools to take you from point A to point B in the math. They are precursors and enablers of the math, which must come later. The math is built from the architecture, not the reverse. You can't fit reality to math, you have to fit math to reality. In other words, you have to understand what is going on physically before you can start building equations. Not only do you need a diagram, you need the diagram first. I proved that with my nuclear diagrams. The diagrams tell us where the rules come from, and you can't figure out mathematical rules or procedures without the right diagram. It is impossible. If you can't visualize, you can't do physics. It is that simple.
At minute 29, Al-Khalili admits that many skeptics remain in mainstream physics, some of them saying what I am saying: the vacuum seethe doesn't really exist. And what does Al-Khalili say about that? Nothing. He just says that labs have shown evidence for it, but doesn't show any of it. His answer
takes about ten seconds. But as I have said, what labs have shown is that the vacuum isn't empty. Which it isn't: it is full of charge. What experiments indicate isn't a Dirac sea or a vacuum potential, it is a real pre-existing field of real energy, one that doesn't come and go with the needs of mathematicians or borrow from the future. This field acts exactly like my charge field and nothing like the vacuum potential.
Next, Al-Khalili admits that things got even messier and more awkward after 1950. This was due to the mesons, and the video now moves on to glorifying Murray Gell-Mann and QCD, our next phony Jewish hero. As we know, Gell-Mann attempted to resolve the particle zoo by force-fitting it to group theory, but I have since shown how misguided that was. This is because once again he was trying to fit particles to math, instead of math to particles. He needed to know how these particles were built, so he needed an architecture before coming up with or choosing a math. I have shown that particles are built up from stacked spins, but Gell-Mann had no idea of that. To get the right equations, he needed to know that each successive spin had a radius twice that of the one below it. Without that knowledge, he could only push the equations after the fact, over and over and over. Which is what he did. But of course Al-Khalili and the BBC can't tell you that, because they have to protect Gell-Mann's legacy. He was one of their own and won major prizes, so they cannot possibly let him go. The truth means nothing next to their hierarchies of power and control.
To fit the particle zoo to his chosen groups, Gell-Mann discovered he needed to divide the nucleons. Based on this mathematical need alone, and not on experiment, he proposed quarks. There was no evidence of quarks at the time and still is no evidence of them. Not one has ever been seen. But that doesn't concern physicists, who—like Bohr and Heisenberg—are revolted by physicality. What concerns them is fitting reality to pre-chosen mathematical systems.
Unfortunately, I have since proven that Gell-Mann chose the wrong system. His system is far too complex, and even with loads of unnecessary complexity it fails to match experiment. He only needed a math of simple doubling, done correctly, to build all the particles in the particle zoo from one basic equation. The nucleons do have internal structure, but it isn't a structure of quarks—which is why we never see a quark fly out in particle accelerators when nucleons are broken up. The structure of nucleons, like everything else, is a structure of spins.
So we are starting to see that Al-Khalili chose the wrong title for his video. Instead of the Illusion of Reality, he should have called it the Illusion of Real Science. His presentation is just a history of very bad—though highly promoted—theories.
Next, Al-Khalili tells us quark theory was saved by SLAC when it was confirmed that the proton did have internal structure. But that also confirms what I have been telling you: Gell-Mann didn't base his theory on experiment, since evidence of proton structure came after his theory of quarks. And proof of internal structure wasn't proof of quarks anyway. It was proof of my model, since SLAC's experiments matched my theory, not Gell-Mann's. The structure found in particle accelerators has never matched Gell-Mann's quark models, which have had to be jerry-rigged after the fact to better match results. But they match my quantum spin equation and always have. This despite the fact that I didn't even know of SLAC's results when I built my math. I built it from the architecture I knew had to be there, since I had already diagrammed it. My visualization came before my math, as must be. And that visualization came straight from experiment. Specifically, it came from superposition results. That is where I first built my stacked spin model.
Despite this, Al-Khalili just lies to you, telling you that “here were Gell-Mann's quarks”. Except that
they weren't. The internal proton structure indicated by electron angles didn't indicate quarks at all.
Next, Al-Khalili admits the current zoo is made up of quarks and leptons. That's it. Except that my architecture is even simpler. In my theory, everything is made of . . . photons. The lepton is just a spun up X-ray, and I have shown the energies match my spin levels exactly. The most common mesons, like the muon and pion, also match fundamental levels in my quantum spin equation.
Next, Al-Khalili feels it is necessary to hit the high points of physics since 1967, after which not much positive has happened. What has happened is a series of big meltdowns, and he kind of admits that. He says that gravity has been thoroughly understood since Einstein, which is a laugh, since he admits in the next breath it hasn't been connected to atomic theory. Thoroughly understood, but not understood at all. What he means is that it hasn't been unified, though he conspicuously avoids that term here. He has to avoid it, doesn't he, since he already implied Dirac and Feynman achieved unification. This is his chance to now give a mention to String Theory, Brane Theory, and Quantum Loop Gravity, three theories that have failed utterly to achieve anything but hot air and more useless math. But it is this last, QLG, that brings him to his title: the Illusion of Reality. It is QLM that says that reality does not exist, being just loops in spacetime. Is there any evidence of that? Have any of those new theories gotten near a sensible unified field? No and no.
To cover over that, Al-Khalili diverts you into the manufactured measurement problem, which he says throws fear into all physicists. This is supposed to take your mind off other problems, I guess. The measurement problem is that nothing exists until you try to look at it. This is also called the observer problem, since it seems like the observer creates the universe. It takes us to Schrodinger's Cat problem, which Al-Khalili also has to demonstrate for you. He shows you the familiar set-up, with a real cat, and then calls it a paradox. But it isn't a paradox. It is a fake paradox. A real paradox contains some contradiction or reversal, but this problem is straightforward. It isn't even a problem. There is no mystery about it, and any and all vagueness is manufactured. We all know that when the lid is closed, the cat isn't both alive/dead, so all the rest is just bluster. Given that, why do we have to keep hearing about it? Why do we have to continue to be assaulted with this absurdity, assured that famous Nobel Prize winning physicists believe the cat is both alive and dead at the same time? A sane society would use this one assertion to revoke all these prizes, fire all the physicists, and put many of them in a sanitarium; but instead of that this problem is solemnly enshrined by all the top science experts as worthy of continued discussion and permanent reverence.
This just takes us back to my theory that new physics is created by the CIA, as a cover for real physics. Because in no other way can we explain such a stupid idea as the observer problem, or explain why the BBC is promoting it here. There is absolutely no evidence that the world is a blur until we look at it, or that reality requires an observer. The only thing physicists point to in support of this asinine idea is that quantum equations are probabilistic and therefore uncertain. But an equation is not reality. An equation is just math. There is no other reason to think anything about the quantum world is blurry. Just the opposite. Whenever we do look at it, it is NOT blurry, so why would we assume it is blurry when we are not looking at it? The idea is just childish, precisely equivalent to thinking things disappear when you turn your head. All evidence is to the contrary, so why think it?
Again, I think it is a part of Operation Chaos, meant to plant confusion in your head. If you think that these smart guys really buy this stuff, it must throw you off-balance. These are famous physicists, with many prizes, telling you the world disappears when you close your eyes. You see this physics chair at Surrey University, fronting the BBC, telling you these childish and absurd things in all apparent earnestness. What are you supposed to think? Either the world has gone mad or you have, and can you
possibly maintain against the whole world?
And I point out once again that Schrodinger himself didn't believe this. He used the cat problem to show how thoroughly daft the Copenhagen Interpretation really was. Schrodinger didn't think there was anything blurry going on, or that the cat was alive/dead at the same time until you looked at it. He still retained some sense. In fact, he later said that he wished he had had nothing to do with quantum mechanics. So he agreed with my sentiment in the first sentence above, where I said I was grateful never to have been a part of mainstream science. Schrodinger wished he could join me.
So, I think that if you have your eyes open, you have seen that this BBC video proceeds just like a psyop. It resembles science not at all. It is a pretty transparent example of brainwashing, and only someone already brainwashed could fail to see that. There is nothing solid here, just empty promotion of fake heroes and purposefully idiotic ideas. In that sense, I guess we could say it is an accurate presentation of the history of the atom, and of mainstream physics in the 20th century.
*If Congress and Parliament weren't defunct, one of the first things they should do (after defunding all the Intelligence agencies) is outlaw the big foundations like the Rockefeller, Ford, Carnegie, and Gates foundations as being detrimental to the public weal.
Extraordinary Claims Requite Extraordinary Clowns
Author: Mark Tokarski24-30 minutes 5/6/2018
This paper came my way in the wake of kstarr’s post regarding the genealogy of Miles Mathis. The author was inspired to expand on kstarr’s findings, adding depth of insight into the matter of Mr. Mathis I have not seen or heard before. I urge you read and absorb it as I did. I can add nothing. I have guaranteed anonymity to the author. Life on the Internet is like that. Privacy is a treasure. MT
By Robert Zherunkel
Why do you believe what you believe?
Because you read it in the newspaper?
Maybe at one time in your life. But if you’re here, you’re way past that level of gullibility.
Because someone posted it on the Internet?
Surely all of us have made that big U-turn on the Disinformation Highway when we realized that we were being sent down a rabbit hole.
Because certain advocates claim something loud and long enough, stridently and even viciously?
Haven’t you heard the saying, “If you’re going to tell a lie, tell a big one!”?
Extraordinary claims, it is said, require extraordinary evidence. This saying is a little fuzzy, given that there is no generally accepted measure for “ordinariness.” But the general idea holds up: if something seems too good to be true, it probably is untrue.
So … here’s a claim that keeps coming up again and again. In Taos, New Mexico there is a man with a mind greater than all the greatest thinkers in history. This man single-handedly is solving puzzles in physics and astronomy and mathematics and world history that no one else has ever solved before, and at a pace that seems superhuman. This man has accomplished these tremendous intellectual feats:
• without the aid of a laboratory or a research library
• far apart from the company of cutting-edge thinkers in the respective fields
• without the help of graduate assistants, or even a receptionist to grab him a cup of coffee in the morning
• without a high-powered computer or even any great programming (or web-design) skills
• with just a basic education, but no advanced degrees or formal training in any of these fields
He just started blogging one day and out of his nappy-headed noggin pours the wonders of heaven and earth—no experiments, no peer support or review, no co-authors—just little old him all on his lonesome, fixing and upgrading the entire field of physics wholesale.
Now, that is one extraordinary claim!
Why the hell would you believe it?
What is the evidence that this man works entirely alone?
That he is not stealing ideas from others?
That he writes up each and every word in his voluminous output without any assistance?
And that he lives apart from others as a semi-recluse because this is his own personal, unconstrained choice in middle age?
Let’s think for a moment about these claims.
Schumerian ‘Pataphysics
First, a definition for the unfamiliar from our friends at Webster’s Dictionary …
‘pataphysics noun plural but singular in construction \¦patəˈfiziks\ [from French pataphysique, alteration of métaphysique metaphysics] : intricate and whimsical nonsense intended as a parody of science
Now … suppose you had a friend that you wanted to make into a great stand-up comic. But suppose your friend isn’t all that funny or creative on his own. What do you do?
Suppose also that you have the time and money to sit in on lots of open-mic nights at big-name comedy clubs in New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, etc. You’re going to see a lot of wanna-be comics bomb out. But even the biggest stinkers crack one or two good jokes.
Suppose you collect the best joke from each of three hundred lousy comedians. You write them on 3×5 index cards and hand the stack to your friend and …Shazam! … he has a winning routine! Coach him for timing and delivery. Seed the comedy club with other friends who are instructed to laugh and applaud in such a way as to rev up the rest of the audience. Out of the blue you have created a comic genius.
But wait! What if one of the plagiarized comics recognizes his joke in your pal’s prize-winning routine?!? That’s easy: pull a Cartman and “Tom Brady this thing”—deny and subvert. “Parallel thinking! Two people can come up with the same joke independently, can’t they?” “Sounds like the loser is trying to horn in on the success of a real comic genius.”
Or easier still … steal your jokes from Canadian comedy clubs and book your friend only at venues in the US. And besides … if you steal a joke from a nobody, that doesn’t make you a bad person, does it?
Whereas … if you steal your routine from good comics, you know what that makes you??
Or Denis Leary … or Dane Cook … or Troy Holm …
So this is an actual thing: creating a comic “genius” out of stolen material.
Now suppose … just suppose … that instead of a stand-up comedian, you wanted to turn your friend into a joke scientist, a smarmy Leonardo, a “rebel with a cause” and an acid tongue who kicks mainstream ass (at least, in the estimation of those not fully trained in the relevant fields of physics and mathematics).
How would you pull that off?!?!?
Actually, it’s not so hard, if you have a merry band of pranksters who pull together to make it work. First, you need material. There’s plenty to poach. Anyone who has spent time at a world-class research university doing doctoral or post-doctoral work knows that among all the very smart and talented people, there are a few … oddballs. The oddballs often come up with grand Theories Of Everything that explain why the mainstream view is all wrong and what it should be replaced with. Generally, their critiques of the dominant paradigm have some validity, but their unique solutions do not. These oddballs labor in obscurity: their papers don’t get published in the peer-reviewed journals, and they don’t get tenure or grants and eventually fade away.
But suppose someone collected all the oddball ideas and held on to them. There are plenty of people in a position to do this: department chairs, journal editors, peer reviewers, grant committee members, department librarians with a closet full of unpublished working papers … If you collected enough of the oddball theories, in time you could write a book. Just one person in the right position at one of the leading research universities (some would say “spook schools”) could collect all kinds of eccentric theories over time.
… And funnel them to our friend, the peerless prodigy, who would then fill a blog with articles of dazzling creativity. He might be hailed as “the Da Vinci of our age” (especially if he has some skill drawing pictures). All he needs is an Amen Corner to applaud like a shelf of … Amy Schumer fans … and promote his “work” on other blogs and AND (last but not least) to attack viciously anyone who suggests that the clown prince has no clothing. Do this … et voilà! You have an Internet science phenomenon of sorts. An Einstein for the uninformed.
Because—think about it—who would be in a position to say otherwise? Except for a few people in that specialized field of study, no one else might be aware that an oddball’s ideas had been stolen. The task of identifying the plagiarism would be even harder if the ideas were stolen from loner oddballs in Europe or Asia, Slovenia or Israel, or maybe even Russia or China.
And if you are that oddball yourself whose idea was stolen … when you noticed that a blogger is saying the same thing you were saying ten years ago during your post-doc … what would you do about it?
Post a nasty comment on his blog? He doesn’t allow for comments.
Send an article to a professional journal to complain? It would never get published.
Take it up with your professional organization? The blogger’s not a member.
Start your own website? Who’s going to find it? And if they did, what would it matter if you persuaded one or two people?
Take him to civil court? In which country? And ask for what in damages?
Indeed, for our friend the joke-science genius, there would probably be very little substantive criticism to be found. Does this mean that our Schumerian ‘pataphysicist is actually right in all his outlandish theories about charges and rainbows and moonlight and kinematic circumferences? Not likely. Rather, it tells you that his ideas are so obviously false that no physicist or mathematician is going to waste even a minute to debunk them.
[A friend recently sent me a video of a guy who makes outlandish claims in my own field of expertise. No professional colleague of mine would offer substantive criticism of the video: it is wrong on so many levels that it is, as we say, “not even wrong”—it is nonsensical. And yet there were enough Likes of the video that someone out there is being taken in by the crackpottery.]
An example of a plagiarized oddball might be the mathematician John Gabriel. Mr. Gabriel has some critiques of mainstream calculus which look very much like Mathis’ claims but which Gabriel articulated years before, and in the same shrill manner as Mathis. These ideas might seem utterly compelling to a non-mathematician. But to someone in the field, Gabriel’s claims are trivially falsified—if you understand how he bends terminology to make his arguments. Suppose you found Gabriel’s (deservedly) little-known ideas a few years later and decided to promulgate them as your own. Not in a peer-reviewed journal and not at an academic conference. Just in a lowly, poorly designed website, which your web-brigade of friends can shove down people’s throats in comment-threads far and wide.
Another example of a plagiarized oddball might be Lawrence Hu and his model of the atom. Or James Carter and his ideas about circular physics, and other such people whose science works predates Mathis’ writings and is identical in its essence. Or if you are feeling lazy, you could just have your Schumerian ‘pataphysicist resurrect some the tired old math paradoxes. Like the one about π = 4, which has been around for a long time (well before September 2008!), and which is just variation of that other old chestnut, the Diagonal Paradox. And the plagiarism need not be limited to writings on science: it could extend to writings on scientists. For example, one might crib a posting on a conspiracy forum from 2013 and trot it out as original work in 2015.
That the genius of Taos comes up with so many original ideas—this is an extraordinary claim. For which there is not even ordinary evidence. In the ordinary case, someone with a novel idea wants to make sure that he or she gets due credit. In the ordinary case, such a person would copyright his or her papers. Ever notice what’s missing from a certain someone’s essays?
But if you are stealing your ideas, you better not try to copyright them. That’s legal trouble down the line potentially. No, instead, you resort to other extraordinary claims that your paper looks like it came out after another author’s recently published essay with similar conclusions, but that in reality you wrote your paper seven years ago. Only, for some inexplicable reason, the Wayback Machine just doesn’t show this. Oh, what a tangled web ….
Nom des Plumes (Pluriels)
WE WILL BE TOLD, HOWEVER … that the ultimate proof that our man in Havana Taos is the sole author of all his essays because the works all have the same distinctive writing style—snarky, biting, polemical, cocksure, and full of asides and tangents. (As if a smutty joke that Amy Schumer stole from Patrice O’Neal doesn’t sound like Amy Schumer when she tells it.)
But does a consistent style indicate a single hand behind the work? I asked a friend who is a professional ghost-writer. He laughed out loud at the idea. I asked him to write up his response …
One of my many clients is a motivational speaker. He published a book of his talks and hosted a book-signing party. A member of his staff—who knew how much of the book was actually my work—sidled up to me and asked: “Did he sign a copy for you, or did you sign a copy for him?” Of course, for the naïve reader, the book sounded like the great man through and through. He took my material and put his own spin on the diction and syntax, so in the end it sounds like it’s all him and him alone.
Think of the dictionary, which is the product of dozens of hands. Or better yet, of the encyclopedia. The style of exposition is the same from the first page until the last. And yet hundreds, maybe even thousands of people contributed material. That single voice throughout is the work of the final editor.
It would be no trick at all for one person to take basic outlines or rudimentary write-ups on various topics from different people and to produce verbiage with a single distinctive style.
Still not sure that one person’s work could be the product of a committee? This is not such an extraordinary claim. In fact, this is the explanation that our Taos friend himself holds for the output of Noam Chomsky and Stephen Hawking! And let’s be clear—both Chomsky and Hawking have their own very distinctive styles. So why reject an explanation for an author’s prolificness that the author himself advances with regard to others?
Team Mathis
Recall that part of the formula for turning our not-so-funny friend into a prize-winning comedian was to have plants in the audience to amp up the laughter and convince others that this guy really was funny (even though he isn’t) via the snowball effect. Mathis has friends like that. Or maybe “allies” is the better word. Or maybe “handlers”? Or “minders”? Or “suppliers”?
(Let’s avoid the word “spook.” Someone can claim not to be a spook [=intel agent, I guess] and still be a paid troll for some concern, corporate or governmental.)
These cyber-friends charge into any forum and defend their guy tooth and nail. Even to the point of doxxing other commenters—or at least, threatening in a devilishly sly way to out someone’s identity .
They are the ones who tout these extraordinary claims on behalf of their boy, and who dismiss the standard objections to those claims, and who deny and subvert with all their might. These are the ones who try to reassure us that Mathis’ extraordinary output is actually somehow reasonable. Who try to convince us that he is re-writing the fields of physics and math. And who insist—insist—that Mathis comes up with all this stuff by himself … a claim for which they offer not a shred of evidence.
They also claim to be from around the world, Europe and Asia and such. It is, of course, in our cyberworld, impossible to verify any of these claims. People can assume false identities and even multiple identities. Why would you accept the testimony of a witness without having first established the credibility of the witness? But what do you know for sure about the credibility of any member of Team Mathis? Zero. Zilch. Nada.
It’s a good guess that some of the players on Team Mathis are just Mathis himself under an alias. Maybe there are only one or two other guys putting on fake identities and affecting foreign accents when they write. Maybe there are two dozen of them. They all write like they are getting paid by the word, and it is pretty clear that the whole Mathis Project is a subset of the Waste Of Time psy-op.
A while back on POM someone referenced this forum where Mathisites discuss ideas with one another. It is a curious place to stroll through. First, because Mathis himself never seems to weigh in at the forum to absorb the adulation and answer the questions of his fans. Truly odd, and utterly inconsistent with the huge ego that he projects otherwise. Second, when the forum members talk about MM they seem often to be alluding to an entity rather than a person. One forum member, Cr6, for example, laments that Mathis has been putting out too many papers in 2017 not concerned with physics: He asks the group, “Just wanted to see if we could at least get a new physics paper out of him before end of 2017. Any ideas?” That sounds like a low-ranking member of Team Mathis complaining that his area of interest is getting ignored, and a plea for the Team to produce/plagiarize a new physics paper soon. Because if that’s NOT what he meant, then he is apparently talking about showing up in Taos and threatening to break Mathis’ kneecaps unless he gets off the genealogy and back to science.
How these various people, seen and unseen, got involved with Miles Mathis is anyone’s guess. They appear not to be of an artistic bent, so it is unlikely they met when Mathis was traipsing through Europe in his more carefree days. They claim to understand all his science papers, even though the most vocal partisans evince no special training or knowledge of the fields concerned. I doubt all of them on Team Mathis really comprehend the material, but they effectively bully anyone who honestly admits honestly that astrophysics is not their strong suit, as in fact it is not for 99.99% of the population.
[As an aside, let me add: any time that Mathis has written on a topic that I have direct, personal knowledge of, he has gotten it wrong. Dead wrong. He has an indifference to precision that is the exact opposite of the scientific mind. Surely if his fan club really understood his science stuff, they too would have spotted one or two errors to correct, if only in wording or use of terminology. That this never happens is an indication that they too are simply cheerleaders on the sidelines, who yell rah-rah but can’t tell the difference between a free kick and a punt.]
Given K. Starr’s recent paper about Mathis’ genealogy, though, I think it is just as likely that this whole Miles Mathis fraud is just a big game for children of the Elites. Dungeons and Dragons role-playing for the scions of the super-rich. Maybe they get some cash from their daddies for helping out with the larger psy-ops of rewriting the past and fomenting paranoia and confounding the portion of the populace that is aware of the Matrix but unsure of what out there is real.
It was a ripping good game while it lasted, but I think with K. Starr’s paper turns over the game board. Because he shows: Mathis lies. And therefore nothing else about him matters. He is just one more of the deceivers in the grand deception that is modern life. So it’s back to polo or badminton or making spirit cakes or whatever it is that you Mathis fans really do.
That reminds me … there’s something Team Mathis has in common. They all point us away from the idea that there might be an occult angle to the Elites operations, that there might be something to Pizzagate or the other rumors of pedophilia that swirl around London and Washington. “Nothing to see here!” they tell us time and again. But it is an assertion without a supporting argument. We smell the smoke but they insist there is no fire. “The lady doth protest too much, methinks.” And on that note ….
Hoist with One’s Own Petard
They must sweep my way and marshal me to knavery. Let it work, for ’tis the sport to have the engineer hoist with his own petard.
William Shakespeare, Hamlet, Act III, Scene IV
A petard was a kind of bomb, used in medieval warfare to bring down a heavy door or gate to a castle. To be hoist is to be lifted up from the ground. To be hoist with one’s own petard is to be blown up by one’s own bomb.
Some will read this essay and accuse the author of innuendo, insinuation, guilt by association, argument by assertion, and just general knavery. To this I say, then let Mathis me hoist with his own petard. For these are the very things he supplies in spades as he plants his red flags on the forehead of everyone he means to demean. If you don’t like my methodology or K. Starr’s methodology, then you can’t possibly stomach Mathis’ methodology, can you?
To take just one example: this business of pretending that one can read Jewishness off noses. Has the man never met in his life any Turks or Greeks or American Indians or Ethiopians or Ainu or Italians or … ?!?!?! You’re brain-dead if you are convinced by such a strange claim. Artistic eye or not, big schnozzes are not the exclusive domain of the Hebrew people. But Mathis builds many a case for his genealogies and spook tales based on the size of someone’s nose. Rubbish. Turns out, per K. Starr, that Mathis with his dainty nose is pretty Jewish himself genetically. Fancy that!
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Name the one incontrovertible piece of evidence that you have ever seen put forward for the idea that Taos is the home of the greatest mind in human history?
Isn’t it far more likely that Miles Mathis is a charade? Maybe the front-man for a committee of plagiarizers who found a clever fellow (that much I grant about him), perhaps a fellow with legal issues and maybe this is the deal he took to stay out of prison (because his life now sure sounds like someone under modified house arrest)? If you have been following the world since 9/11 and all the fakery and all the deception, you know that this is not the extraordinary claim. Indeed, the extraordinary claim is Mathis’ own insistence that every other guru further down the mountain than himself is misdirection, but he himself somehow is not, with his unacknowledged genealogy and his stolen ideas and his megalomaniacal assertions. (Which is just part of the facade of the amazing savant … because most people have never met a real savant and have no idea how humble and unassuming and unlike Sheldon Cooper they generally are.)
If you fellows on Team Mathis want to tell the world otherwise … where’s all that extraordinary evidence? You trolls, back up your clownish claims with some verifiable data. I know that Team Mathis will try to deny and subvert, try to turn the tables and demand a detailed refutation of every paper their group has ever produced under their boy’s name, or that I identify the source of every plagiarism. Why waste my time? Besides, whatever their numbers are, there are more of them than there are of me. They can always produce more sewage than I have time to flush. This is my one and only statement on the matter, and after this I return to lurker status. And if you think that not allowing for comments is censorship, then you don’t know what real censorship is. And if you think that not allowing comments is “spooky,” then there’s no one spookier than your boy, now is there?
And for the rest of you: you’re not being given any extraordinary evidence by Mathis or his Team. Time to stop buying into the extraordinary claims out of Clown Town, NM.
A Concluding Unscientific Postscript
How do you give medicine to a dog? Stick the pill in a chunk of hot dog.
How would you poison a dog? Still got the rest of that hot dog?
This encapsulates my view now of the Truther community. There is out there almost nothing except limited hangouts. I used to follow dozens of different websites for the “awakened.” Sometimes sooner and sometimes later, I figured out that they were all compromised sources of information. Tiffs among Truthers were just sock-puppet shows for the normies. One gets a little nugget of insight here or there, but always wrapped around some misleading agenda or another. I was pretty much down to Miles Mathis and Piece of Mindful. Now there is nothing left but POM. And to be honest, I think certain of the commenters here are on somebody’s payroll.
Why do The Powers That Be even bother with limited hangouts? I think it has something to do with what a police officer once told me, about this innate drive in all people, the urge to confess. Not out of guilt or need for atonement. Sometimes it’s just to brag, like in the movie Wag the Dog. Keeping a juicy secret is a strain for the human psyche. Those who pull off their con jobs on the public want just a little exposure, a little recognition of their brilliance. When Mark or Tyrone or Steve or Straight or Maarten or Kevin occasionally figure out one of their schemes, I think it only enhances TPTB’s delight instead of diminishing it.
Miles Mathis conned a lot of sincere people before K. Starr had him hoist on his own petard. Mathis assured us that on our trek up the mountain of Truth, all the other gurus we met were misdirection—but not him. He assured us he was not fake Guru #46. In fact, that’s what he was all along. I imagine there have been a few corks popped in Taos and elsewhere, now that the cat is out of the bag. The work of dissembling is done; the joy of gloating over the gullible can begin openly.
The upside, for me at least, is that we can maybe get some of our old heroes back. Mathis supposedly outed George Orwell as “one of them.” Now I realize that part of the larger psy-op is to control the past by giving us no clear sense of history or origins. The end result of that is a total feeling of rootlessness. Don’t be too quick to buy into those revised chronologies and take-downs of history. Some of it is true, but a lot of it is a head game.
As for the Truther movement on the Internet … there are a lot of chunks of hot dog dangled around out there. Watch what you swallow. The Web is the creation of TPTB; it is their playground and our poison pill. Keep your bullshit detector well calibrated. Just because you don’t have a rebuttal for some idea doesn’t mean you are compelled to accept it. The average person would be hard-pressed to pick out the flaw in Zeno’s Paradox, but the average person also knows, things really do move.
You must, as the Buddha advised, be a lamp unto yourself. Which is to say, don’t accept anything just on someone else’s say-so. But then, there was never really any alternative to that all along, was there?
https://pieceofmindful.com/2018/03/16/iconoclasts-miles-w-mathis/
conoclasts: Miles W. Mathis
iconOf the four I have written about these past two weeks, this one stands out as a true icon buster. He has disassembled fake reality before our eyes in almost every imaginable area of life, from science to fake events to art.
In my interview with Faye, she seemed deeply suspicious that Mr. Mathis is a front for a committee, and I could not dissuade her. But stop and think: If it is so, then the overlords are working against themselves, one faction exposing perhaps some truth while another (larger one) works to keep us in the dark. Just as a thought experiment, imagine that to be the case. Would it not then point to a split, factions working against each other? And if Mr. Mathis is right in any, most, or all of his writings, then he would he not represent a faction of light? (It could be that all factions are putting out misdirection … if so, I have to resign. It is too much.)
I don’t think the committee-front idea to be the case. I simply think that Faye and others who make these suppositions have a hard time grappling with the idea of one man having so much ability. He puts out tremendous written volume on science as well as fake events and history. He paints, restores old books, sculpts … he does not travel much that I know about. I assume he needs less sleep than the average person. He doesn’t drink or use drugs, meaning his mind is constantly clear when not sleeping. Not only do I think it possible that he is real and genuine, but highly probable.
I mentioned Mark Devlin in the interview with Faye as the opposite of Mathis. Devlin is a disc jockey in England, and presents himself as an expert on music. He was written books like Musical Truth 1 and 2 … full disclosure here – after listening to him interviewed I decided I did not want to read his books. They are at best limited hangouts. In interviews he seldom ever gets to a point or reaches a conclusion. It is frustrating … “Get to the point, man! Say something final!” But it does not happen. He just rattles on.
I bring up Mr. Devlin because he as a water carrier for the Paul-is-Dead psyop. I contacted him personally when in Europe (and in his time zone) to explain to him that the McCartney mystery had long been solved, and presented the evidence. He engaged me briefly and then blew me off, and not kindly. He’s still doing the psyop. My conclusion: SPOOK! His job: Keep the mysteries alive.
Mr. Mathis, on the other hand, solves mysteries and moves on. Mathis (along with Tyrone McCloskey) solved JFK, at least that the assassination was fake, setting me free. I am grateful for that. He solved Lincoln. He solved the Tate/Manson affair. He solved Lennon, OJ, MLK … even reaching out to take on the Shakespeare controversy (which I do not regard as solved.) He has thrown the unexpected at us, giving us new takes on Custer’s Last Stand, the Lindbergh flight/kidnapping and Salem Witch Trials (on which Gnostic Media, by comparison, has done a half fast job.) His genealogy is testing my patience, and his focus on Jews troubles as well … that is, anyone who wants to discredit him can easily point to the matter of Jews and take an easy exit. But I withhold judgement on things I do not like just to see where he takes us.
Mathis has a standalone website that has built up a large following without him ever having done a YouTube or an interview. We have to come to him. He does not seek us out. That is evidence towards genuine, as I see it.
I ask that commenters here be respectful. This is not a venue for personal attacks. If you want to insinuate that Mathis is a spook or a front for a committee, or that his genealogy is too loose and undisciplined, fine. That is fair chase. Do not stoop to low-grade insult. If I have Internet while traveling, I will remove any such comments.
And understand, Mathis has attacked this website, and is not my friend. I am not sucking up to him, as he would trust me even less if I did. I simply take him as real, admire him, and understand that needs his independence.
Here is what I think: He is an isolated genius, and in person a genuinely nice man, soft-spoken and possessed of a good heart. He has trust issues with … well, everyone. He is, in my mind, a true iconoclast.
Share this:
FacebookTwitterRedditLinkedIn
Posted on March 16, 2018 by Mark Tokarski
Posted in Iconoclasts
Post navigation
Previous
Previous post:
ICONOCLASTS: JOSEPH KINSEY HOWARD
Next
Next post:
EVA PERÓN, A FAIRY TALE LIFE
156 THOUGHTS ON “ICONOCLASTS: MILES W. MATHIS”
LAVENDER DREAMS
March 16, 2018 at 1:52 pm
I don’t know how I found Miles. I think I saw some one mention him in a blog and I investigated on my own. I like Miles. I find the genealogy boring so I usually go to the last part where he puts it all together. I resonate when he unravels the fake events. I was blown away with all the JFK,Lincoln,OJ, Tate, ect papers! We have been lied to on such a HUGE LEVEL that I appreciate someone like Miles to help me sort through. I’ve e mailed him a few times and he really seems like a normal guy with above normal intelligence. I wish I knew some one to introduce him to because I think he is a little lonely…I don’t think living in Taos gives him many options in that department. But then if he was happily living with some one we might not get these awesome updates. I like Miles and wish him continued good health and peace. I’ll continue to check in on his site. Thanks for the nice article on him, it was a good read.
Liked by 2 people
MARK TOKARSKI
March 16, 2018 at 2:23 pm
Just a word of warning … we are not censorious in that we warn you in advance that under “About this Blog” and “Commenting Policy” above. Transgender, like flat earth, is not allowed. You will see in the policy that you are simply warned, and if a repeat offender, banned, but only for a short while. No one is permanently banned here. But you are warned now, stay away from transgender.
Like
HEALINGWITHSAVANNAH
March 16, 2018 at 3:26 pm
Sorry. I did not know. Please feel free to delete my comments and I will not post anymore. Bye. Have a nice day.
Like
MARK TOKARSKI
March 16, 2018 at 3:33 pm
You are free to comment. Just avoid those subjects.
Like
PAINFULTRUTH2017
March 17, 2018 at 10:34 am
Yes, remember don’t bring up anything of any importance.
Like
MARK TOKARSKI
March 17, 2018 at 10:49 am
Man, you guys and your psyops! You never show shame or embarrassment as you put forth this crap. You just push it. It must be for pay, otherwise I cannot see how people stoop so low.
So where on this flat earth does one go for refuge from it all? Oh yeah. here.
Like
HEALINGWITHSAVANNAH
March 17, 2018 at 11:05 am
Right! And this blog has a post about Miles Mathis and his take on trannies, which is the only reason I mentioned it. Perhaps they need to send themselves a warning! Whatever…hypocrites…big turn-off for me. https://pieceofmindful.com/2017/03/30/straight-on-mathis-and-trannies/
Liked by 1 person
MARK TOKARSKI
March 17, 2018 at 11:13 am
“Straight,”a former writer here, wrote that piece long, long ago before we had a commenting policy that forbade delving into issues that were obvious psyops. As can be seen with your engagement here, they tend to derail threads. So cool it, or you are gone.
Like
JARED MAGNESON
March 17, 2018 at 2:43 pm
This type of behavior, Mark, is why Miles “doesn’t like” you. Savannah only briefly mentioned the forbidden topic, then you derail into the censorship stuff, then accuse HER of derailing. I don’t see anything she said about it as annoying, offensive, or off the mark. We should be free to discuss things without worrying about stuff like that.
I generally enjoy your open-mindedness but in this particular situation, I think you’re just being weird.
Liked by 1 person
MARK TOKARSKI
March 17, 2018 at 2:50 pm
It was Painful and not Healing that set me off, as he claimed that we were not allowed to talk about anything important because trannies were not being discussed. Trannies is not important, in my view, just a distraction.
Like
MAARTEN ROSSAERT
March 17, 2018 at 3:32 pm
Jared Magneson wrote: This type of behavior, Mark, is why Miles “doesn’t like” you.
What a curious, random, personal bit of knowledge for Jared to have! And to share in this way …
Like
ALANACKLEY
March 17, 2018 at 5:33 pm
I went back and re-read the article Miles Mathis wrote on Piece of Mindful.
Click to access pom.pdf
Mathis states that he was breaking off any perceived links with this website because he was getting annoying emails & he did not agree with the conclusions being reached here, and also did not like the method of picture portrait comparisons. When Jared Magneson
says “This type of behavior, Mark, is why Miles “doesn’t like” you. ” this does not appear to be an accurate assessment of what Mathis said.
But when Jared Magneson then says “I generally enjoy your open-mindedness but in this particular situation, I think you’re just being weird.” I do agree with that assessment. Healingwithsavannah said nothing out of line and her mention of the forbidden word seems blown out of proportion. It reminds me of the story about a 5 year old who got expelled from school for making a paper cutout of a gun. Just because you made a rule is no excuse to over-enforce it in some sort of zero tolerance policy.
This sort of zero tolerance enforcement is one of the symptoms of the “collective insanity of mankind”, well illustrated in Sean Kerrigan’s book: https://www.amazon.com/Bureaucratic-Insanity-American-Bureaucrats-Descent/dp/1530989523/
Liked by 1 person
MARK TOKARSKI
March 17, 2018 at 7:10 pm
I did not take the comment about him not liking me personally … I don’t think he functions that way. I never got the sense that he liked or disliked me or anyone. He can as easily dismiss someone as be nice … just his way.
Regarding the dust up on trannies, HealingwithSavannah had already announced she was done and allowed me to delete her comments (which I did not do) as the subject was important to her. I went off on PainfulTruth2017 because he seemed to think if we did not talk about trannies, we were not taking about anything important. That is how they insinuate, bringing these topics in and derailing threads. I won’t have it. I rarely step on anyone except for weird comments that never get published. This time I did. Maybe Painful doesn’t like me now too.
Like
MAARTEN ROSSAERT
March 17, 2018 at 9:06 pm
PainfulTruth2017 also is linked to a single-post blog. Looks like something thrown up a year ago. By itself this means nothing. But it would be consistent with the m.o. of someone with a covert agenda.
Like
CARRI
March 20, 2018 at 12:52 pm
Damn, Mark! It looks like you were triggered! You say you don’t censor, yet we are “not allowed” to mention certain subjects, that we must “stay away” from them, or else be “banned”? Does this make PoM a “limited hangout” then, and you, a “gatekeeper”?
I’ll state here, at the risk of being banned, that yes, the “transgender” subject IS important. 20+ years ago, I turned off the TV, cancelled my newspaper and magazine subscriptions, and stopped watching movies. When I occasionally watch or read the media these days, I can clearly see that something is very different! All the women on my mother’s favorite “news” channel, FOX, look strangely masculine. (Now I know why they use tons of makeup and dress them in revealing clothing, showing lots of cleavage: so you don’t notice the masculine features, strong brow ridges or jawlines.) You say it’s all a “psyop”, which I can partially agree with; I think most of the “transvestigation” YouTube channels are “controlled opposition”. (Why have no celebrities sued them yet?) I don’t believe they are all “gender-reversed”, that it’s something else like genetic-modification and engineering to create a new, intersex/androgynous/transhuman species? GMO “humans”. I want to know why this is being done, and I have some idea about what’s happening, and what the end game is, but can’t discuss those things here because it’s “not important”…
Perhaps, if you had children who were so thoroughly programmed by schools, universities, TV, media, music and everything else labeled “culture”, are now in their late 30’s and never had a long-term relationship, never married and will never have any children, then you’d consider it more seriously. (I know it’s “real”, because I, too, had idolized my favorite rock stars and actors, finding real boys and men to be substandard to the ideal male with the pretty-boy looks that I was programmed to find most attractive. My ex-husband fell in love with skinny Victoria’s Secret models with their masculine looks, tiny asses and fake big boobs.) And it’s not just my family, it’s the same with quite a few family members, friends and associates. My bloodline will become extinct when my children die, as will all the others without any progeny. That is devastatingly significant and yes, important, at least to me.
Liked by 3 people
ALANACKLEY
March 16, 2018 at 3:02 pm
I ran across Miles Mathis a few years ago from a link in a comment at sott.net. I have been reading everything. I ordered two of his science books which I have not yet had the time to fully absorb and verify. Seems like the book purchase was from Melisa Smith, whom he says is just himself (an anagram of his name). I came to this website after Miles Mathis mentioned it.
From around day 2 of reading his stuff I became convinced that all this material had to be produced by a committee. He has just too many areas of expertise, for instance his knowledge of law and courtroom protocol does not seem consistent with the stay at home artist. But he is at his best when analyzing portrait photographs, which is certainly consistent with his profession as an artist. He himself mentioned that there has been so many intelligence fakery operations that the real history was in danger of being entirely lost. If Miles Mathis is himself the front for an intelligence operation then part of it’s purpose must be to clarify some of the historical record. Likewise there has been so much fakery in science that his physics and math work could be seen in the same light, as a correction to the historical record.
I think that in his recent work on genealogy he has been discrediting his previous work. It is not as carefully done nor is it as convincing. Perhaps he was becoming too convincing, and it was decided to back off some?
I think he is flat out wrong on a few topics – one, for instance is the chemtrails issue. He may be right that the majority of that is fly ash disposal, but there seems to me to be more than that to it. I think he brushed off the topic without a fair appraisal.
I wrote him a few emails but he was pretty short with me, and I think he suspects that I may be some sort of intel operation. Either that, or the committee is just not all that into responding to email. I remain undecided – either he is our generation’s Leonardo, or he is an artist fronting for an intelligence committee.
I have tried to get many people to read his stuff. I think it is best to start with some of the older articles like the Tate.pdf or Lennon, where his skills in picture analysis shines. I have only one friend who has followed through and actually read his material, so it is not easy to get people to start into his writings.
Like
MARK TOKARSKI
March 16, 2018 at 3:24 pm
I like this comment and agree with the general thrust. I must say, however, that as an accounting student I had to study law, and I loved it. It flowed logically and naturally. In practice, it is a matter of who has the better lawyer, but baseline law was understandable, logical, and a thing of beauty. I do not think it outside the realm of the non-lawyer to grasp the concepts.
Liked by 2 people
JARED MAGNESON
March 17, 2018 at 2:48 pm
I completely disagree about him having multiple areas of knowledge being a marker or flag. I myself have dozens, maybe hundreds. Physics, art, computing tech, CGI, 3D rendering, gardening, horticulture, engineering and auto mechanics, raising animals and pets, raising children, studying music, legalities of criminal and family law, and on and on and on. I can discourse on any of those topics readily – all without any committee at all.
If you’re not able to discourse about multiple topics that are very different, you’re simply not an apt student. Everyone I interact with in real life can handle it without committee as well.
Liked by 2 people
GAIA
March 16, 2018 at 4:44 pm
It was through Miles Mathis that I found POM, via Josh as in-between step. I read every hoax paper of MM and some of his earlier art stuff too, have read like 5-10 science papers, but I stay away from those.
I think he is genuine and he may have a different style, staying away from all others (no blog comments, audios, YouTube, etc.). He has all the right to do that and there is nothing wrong with that. Now, with the YouTube (and blog; Hoax Busters Call) purge, I understand why he writes his papers in pdf format; they are stored and he simply can (re)upload them to his simple, not fancy site.
Genealogy is fun if you do it yourself and as he does it himself, I very well understand he enjoys it. When you have to read it, it can be pretty boring indeed.
His output I do not find at all impossible. It is impressive, but if some YouTube watcher who spends 8-10 hours a day on YT would use his/her time the way Miles Mathis does, easily you can write big papers he does. And the more you practice, the better you get at something.
And that ties in to my only criticism to Miles Mathis in the hoax arena; I feel he sometimes skips steps and jumps to conclusions which may be sloppy, shaky. A more perfectionistic approach would improve the quality of his papers even more but lower the output as a result a bit.
His science stuff I skip, don’t find it convincing or interesting. But that is fine. Mark is not into EGI and FE (just like myself) and yet can perfectly contribute to and comment on Ab’s blog where there are 2 dedicated sub blogs for those controversial and in my view misdirecting topics.
If there will be another conference, I will try to make that effort, because I think talking with him in person is a lot of fun and a hugely interesting week of learning. Just like I enjoyed talking with Mark about all the research he has done.
Like
JARED MAGNESON
March 17, 2018 at 2:50 pm
If you didn’t find his science and physics convincing, you simply didn’t read it. You said 5-10 papers, which ones might those have been? He has hundreds, and they’re all very solid and devastating to the mainstream models. Damning, really. Game over type stuff, for the current physics agenda.
Liked by 2 people
S.G.
March 17, 2018 at 7:11 pm
Gaia thinks he can attend a future MM conference but MM screens his attendees carefully. No slam dunk. As contrarian Allan Weisbecker will attest to!
Like
LAVENDER DREAMS
March 20, 2018 at 3:36 pm
That’s interesting. I e mailed MM two years ago and asked if he covered other topics other than physics at his conference since that was not my real interest. He said he was considering including some of the other things he does in the updates. He said I should come and hear the whole conference. I could not attend as it happened, but thought it was nice he offered.
Liked by 1 person
CALGACUS
March 16, 2018 at 7:38 pm
I am one of the few people that defends his emphasis on genealogy. Probably his methods need improvement. When he speculates about genealogy he is most likely right if we consider everything else. He usually also looks at biographical anomalies, not just the genealogy. The most important thing is that he emphasizes the “who”. Historical events are made or manufactured by actual people, so the issue of “who” is very important. The people that manufacture major events are not random people that belong to the disorganized masses. I also assume that this world is not just a hologram or the game of some god or gods.
The topic of “Jews” is related to the who. A few times he mentioned that these elites are elite Jews (he always connects these people to the peerage), not your Jewish spouse, your Jewish coworker or what not (unless you move in elite circles). In previous comments I already mentioned that some words have more meanings, even esoteric meanings that most people don’t know about (even I don’t pretend to know the real origins of these words, but I am aware of certain additional possibilities). Nonetheless, if we see patterns we cannot ignore them. If you want to ignore these patterns , then you waste your time trying to understand the topics where this patterns occur. Maybe Mathis doesn’t have the best explanation, but he at least he points out the patterns, including the Jewish connections. Also you can look at these patterns without hate and anger.
Regarding his science, I appreciate his emphasis on real mechanics. No hyperdimensions, virtual particles, funny paradoxes or other booshit. The real mechanics resonates well with me. Some people may want more illustrations of his principles. Despite being a painter he probably is not good with computer software like Blender or other software that can be used for animation or drawing.
His realism in paintings also resonate with me. Some people criticized him for having an apprentice that is better than him. This is ridiculous. Even Leonardo said that the apprentice or pupil should be better than the master . I am not a painter, so I cannot comment on his technique. I can say that I am not a fan of portraits. I usually like landscapes, seascapes or symbolic paintings (but still realist). Nonetheless, his defense of realism was also a major plus for me.
Liked by 2 people
MARK TOKARSKI
March 16, 2018 at 10:28 pm
Love that word “booshit” and will use it (along with “fooking”) from this point forward. Thank you.
Like
JARED MAGNESON
March 17, 2018 at 2:54 pm
I feel pretty much the same way. Mathis hits me with all kinds of new knowledge and ideas I’d have never learned of otherwise. He does give me a lot of shit about my CGI art, but that’s to be expected.
As for diagrams, myself and a few others have been working pretty hard on that type of stuff. I have a small pile of videos if anyone is interested, here’s my favorite one outlining how charge flows through Helium, the so-called “Alpha particle”:
Liked by 3 people
GAIA
March 16, 2018 at 7:44 pm
Agreed with the rest but this “some people may want more illustrations of his principles” is one my points against his science stuff. Break it down so normal people can understand it. He surely has that capacity and a good “teacher” can do that. Others I have talked to question him for that point only. I don’t, I am just not convinced.
His hoax and especially history papers are at such a different level and angle; they show he actually dives deep and doesn’t care about what others think of it. His science papers imho step in half-way. Taking some claims seriously, but just rearrange the maths and tie it into the “Electrical Universe”/”Charge Model” idea.
Miles Mathsis…
Like
JARED MAGNESON
March 17, 2018 at 2:55 pm
He’s a theorist, not a schoolteacher. And we’re all free to analyze and diagram his theories – so that’s what I do in my spare time. Here for example is a simple video I made showing how stacked spins occur, mechanically:
Liked by 2 people
GRACE
March 17, 2018 at 7:03 pm
Thank you Jared. MM has no obligation whatsoever to simplify his theories for the “normal people”. You weren’t stopped from creating a video to bring the theory to life. Good for you.
Liked by 2 people
ROLLEIKIN
March 16, 2018 at 8:36 pm
I’ve read many of MM’s “updates” papers and enjoy them. He is my favorite researcher by far. I don’t always agree 100% but then I’ve never met anyone I agree with 100% and don’t expect I ever will. I’d say I agree with about 90% of Miles’ opinions and that’s a great deal more than anyone else out there at the moment. Miles has told us may times that his papers represent his opinions so I don’t care what logical jumps he might make. They’re his opinions and he can jump anywhere he wants to. I jump to conclusions too at times. We all do.
I usually skim through his genealogy research. I have had some realizations from reading it but I don’t consider it as important as many other points that he makes. The reason I don’t think it’s all that important is that, from my own research, it appears that many famous personalities may not actually come from the families that they are claimed to come from. That is, their alleged parents are not really their biological parents. So, the genealogy being researched is not really that of the subject. And, I suspect the reason for THAT is that many of these people actually come from a very few or perhaps even only one family and that fact is being covered up by shuffling babies around to different families further down the food chain.
Liked by 1 person
RIPPERDUCK
March 16, 2018 at 9:29 pm
pretty sure mm is committee. his physics work was covered years ago by milton monson’s ‘physics is constipated.’ my high school physics teacher used monson’s work to reveal the outright fraud of much of modern science. i emailed mm to find out if he was aware of monson, never received a response, which was revelatory, in that someone had always gotten back to me prior to my asking that question.
not to say that what is posted isn’t worth considering, but much of what he claims is his cv is hard to believe….
Like
RENDAR
March 17, 2018 at 10:52 am
Miles W. Mathis
Milton W. Monson
“Milton W. Monson, First Lieutenant Air Force, WW II Veteran. Beloved husband of the late Charlotte R.; loving father of Milton W. Monson II, of Bridgeview, IL, and stepfather to Rita G. (James G.) Dakin of Bridgeview, IL; cherished grandfather of Michael J. (Michele) Linden and Edward C. (Valerie) Linden; great-grandfather of four. Born February 29, 1912 in Orrville, OH, lived for the last 43 years in Bridgeview, IL. Died at Hines VA Hospital, Hines, IL, on October 4, 2002. Retired training officer for the Veterans Administration, Member of American Association for Advancement of Science Interests. Singer with the Buddy Rogers Band. Author of Physics text book. Inventor of the Calen-culator. Future service to be held at Abraham Lincoln National Cemetery. In lieu of flowers, donations may be made to the Disabled American Veterans Charitable Service Trust, 3725 Alexandria Pike, Cold Spring, KY, 41076. Info: 859-441-7300. Cremation Society of Illinois handling arrangements.”
Published in a Chicago Tribune Media Group Publication on Oct. 13, 2002
Like
CARRI
March 20, 2018 at 1:46 pm
Interesting find about Milton W Monson…
Like
WALLACE
March 16, 2018 at 10:24 pm
MM makes a lot of good points, but is still flawed in many others. He makes too many assumptions in his analyses. I still believe that Hitler was legit, but some may say I am biased since I am German – but I may change my mind on Hitler with new information in the future.
Like
ALANACKLEY
March 16, 2018 at 10:27 pm
A further remark on Miles Mathis’ genealogy work, and also the science and math:
I am finding what I have gone through on the math errors to be correct and significant. It has revealed to me what I had found to be depressing about a calculus class I took in high school in 1970. when I first had decided not to be railroaded into a math career. I now believe I had detected subconsciously one of the errors he points out and at that point I lost all interest in math until I went back to it in 1980 for my pursuit of the EE degree.
I had already developed major disagreements with the progression of electrical science that are consistent with Mathis’ approach. The scalar term (the constant) that is dropped from the complete form of Maxwell’s equations seems to relate to gravity fields and I have yet to decode if or how Mathis has dealt with this in his “charge field” theories. The typical use of “scalar” as a term describing covert technology (by T Bearden, for instance) appears to be disinformation, or a form of incorrect use of language.
Since I have recently (in the past 2 months) retired (at least temporarily) I hope to find time to make more sense of the science side of Mathis’ work.
The genealogy work I find believable but annoyingly filled with unverified leaps of intuition. I believe it myself, since I was already quite familiar with the stories that a few bloodline families form an intergenerational cult that favors it’s own linage with money and power, and I needed no convincing. But I am mostly annoyed by it because this part of Mathis’ work cannot seem to stand on it’s own. He has not filled it in enough that I can use any of the articles in that vein to convince any of my skeptical friends. Many of his works, like the takedown of the replacement for S. Hawking are stand-alone proofs that do not require a new reader to be familiar with his earlier work to be convincing. I wish he would return to doing more work along that line.
I began to investigate the “conspiracy” realm when I began to work on “free energy” devices in the 1990’s. At that time I found myself in a circle of people who had been infiltrated by intelligence agents. Free energy is quite obviously possible (though I’d prefer to call it “ambient energy”) and I ran across evidence that it has been repeatedly suppressed. I stopped this line of work when I saw there was no way to succeed in the work without it being weaponized and control of it stolen from me. From there my research diverted into studying the collective insanity of humanity.
Finding Mathis’ descriptions of systematic deceptions in our contemporary history filled in a lot of holes in the big picture. He even wrote one article that directly exposed a person I had been introduced to in my “free energy” phase as certainly being an intelligence agent, and I will always be grateful for his adding clarity to my own personal history in the puzzling events that turned me away from doing the “free energy” work.
Liked by 3 people
MARK TOKARSKI
March 17, 2018 at 3:46 am
I would be interested in your work on collective insanity of humanity. Seems a rich vein.
Like
ALANACKLEY
March 17, 2018 at 12:49 pm
OK, well now that I am retired perhaps I will start a blog. As well as addressing my odd tracks of research, I would have to do some of it on converting bicycles to electric bikes. I wrote an outline this morning (more like a list of starting points on the theme). It won’t be right away since I will probably want to build my own server first and will avoid all the Google censorship traps if I can.
Once central problem humanity faces though, is that a large percentage of people can be easily hypnotized and led around by the nose.
Like
MARK TOKARSKI
March 17, 2018 at 7:33 pm
You got that right. Hypnosis s key to what we see around us.
Like
JOSH
March 18, 2018 at 3:13 am
Alan, I would be interested in hearing more about your experiences from working on free energy (and being turned away from it) and who was the intelligence agent you had been introduced to. And what is the mathematical error Miles pointed out that you had intuited long ago.
In my opinion, the introduction of a DIY ‘free energy’ device is the best chance we have at anything revolutionary as it would remove one of the major choke-holds TPTB have on humanity. I have encouraged Miles to put his scientific theories to work on it, and he said he has but is for now reluctant to publish due in part to the possibility of weaponization. In my opinion, TPTB have already learned how to take advantage of ‘free energy,’ both for power supply and weapons. The enormous smokescreen and misdirection that is much of 20th century science (and probably long before that) was purposely designed to move the commoners off the scent of an accurate science that would give them power.
I’ve been following the field of cold fusion/LENR for some years now, and two years ago when I started reading Miles’s physics work, it quickly became clear to me that his theories could be used to explain (and ideally harness) LENR and other ‘free energy’ devices. What you call ‘ambient energy’ is just Mathis’s charge field. I wrote a paper trying to apply some of his theories to LENR. I’ll link to it below, with the caveat that some of my thinking on the issue has changed. But it at least offers a brief overview of parts of his theory along with lots of links to related papers: https://goo.gl/5kgB0G
I’ll be happy to continue a dialogue with you at the e-mail listed at the top of that paper.
As for Maxwell’s equations and scalars, you should read the papers on his science website under the section ‘The Unified Field’ plus paper #3 in the overview/intro section. Alternatively, read his paper on Maxwell’s equations and all the papers linked to within, and I believe it will answer your question: http://milesmathis.com/disp.pdf
Liked by 1 person
RENDAR
March 18, 2018 at 1:32 pm
Josh, thank you for your paper on Mathis’ theories and LENR, I found it very enlightening. I’ve read Mathis’ papers “The Nuclear Hoax” and “The Bikini Atoll Nuclear Tests were Faked” and agree with his conclusions regarding hoaxed detonations. However, I’m still trying to make sense of the physics behind nuclear weapons. For example, is a nuclear chain reaction a real event or another example of fake science? I’m open to the possibility that a nuclear hoax has been perpetuated for decades to keep the masses frightened so that they are:
1) easier to control
2) dissuaded from exploring avenues toward free energy
I’m just trying to get a better grasp on the mechanics so that it will be easier to separate fact from fiction. If you have any additional information, or suggestions for further reading, I would be most appreciative.
Liked by 1 person
JOSH
March 18, 2018 at 1:56 pm
Thanks for the kind words. In his paper on “What is Really Going on Behind the Nuclear Program?” he says they’re mainly using Uranium to produce Caesium, from which they can harness free electrons.
In that paper he says that is the main use of nuclear power: the creation of caesium atoms. He has a paper on the structure of the Uranium atom that helps explain why it is so radioactive (that is, why it splits apart so easily): http://milesmathis.com/uranium.pdf
So it doesn’t seem like he is opposed to the idea that uranium is radioactive. But I’ve never read anything where he said that nuclear weapons should not be feasible on the basis of his scientific theories. In fact, his paper on Uranium suggests that they could very well be feasible. I have never asked him if there is a scientific basis for believing nuclear weapons don’t exist. All I have seen are his papers showing that the visual evidence for them is bunk. So I can’t offer you any clarification I’m afraid. I know that Bryan M who posted a comment here has spent a good deal of time looking into this issue and decided that nuclear weapons do not exist. I don’t want to put words in his mouth, but perhaps he can explain what brought him to that conclusion (if he’s listening).
Liked by 1 person
RENDAR
March 18, 2018 at 8:04 pm
You’re welcome, Josh. I’ve always enjoyed your pieces wherever I’ve found them (here, Mathis’ site, your own site). Thanks for the recommendations. It’s been a while since I’ve read those two Mathis papers but I’ll revisit them and see if I can glean more information.
I think you’re right: Mathis hasn’t said explicitly that nuclear weapons aren’t feasible. I’d be curious to know where he stands on the issue of their existence. Perhaps I’ll send him an email with a few questions.
I’d love to read Bryan M’s thoughts on the matter, if he’s interested in sharing.
Liked by 1 person
BRYAN M
March 19, 2018 at 7:25 am
Hi Josh. I haven’t looked at the science of nukes at all, just the test videos and related history. Along the way, I found a lot of small things that Miles may not have mentioned in his papers. As I’ve mentioned before, the most convincing thing for me is the absence of any photographic evidence of a surface formed by the heat of a nuclear explosion. If explosions so powerful existed, you’d figure that one photograph would exist of a melted rock crater surface. But it seems like they never even bothered to fake a photo of that.
But are nuclear explosions possible? I don’t know enough about the science to say. My gut tells me, probably not. I have a particle physicist friend who doesn’t know how nuclear explosions work, really, and claims to have never met someone who did. Apparently, this isn’t a thing they teach to physicists.
Liked by 1 person
JARED MAGNESON
March 20, 2018 at 10:08 am
In his paper on Uranium, he explains its radioactivity (and all radioactivity) as those atomic structures which “leak” the most charge non-linearly (electricity) or magnetically (equatorial emissions). Uranium is so large, it’s basically a molecule, a union of Krypton and Barium. It’s radioactive decay comes from its charge profile, which is pretty stable (U238 has a half-life of 4.47 billion years, U235 some 704 million).
But when it comes to nuclear fission, the issue is how COULD a “chain reaction” occur. It would require more energy in than can be accounted for, as in more energy comes out than goes in. We have neutrons bombarding the Uranium nucleus, and to “break” Uranium they’d have to hit roughly on that connecting alpha, between Krypton and Barium. I believe this is possible and is what they do at fission energy reactors.
But the problem is that (in the mainstream theory) the incoming collision plus the “binding energy” somehow propels those two Uranium neutrons out at speeds equivalent to the incoming, bombarding ones. Here is a video I made diagramming the issue:
If the incoming neutron has, say, an energy of “10” (for easy math), then a collision would half that, for example. So the incoming would drop to 5, and the Uranium neutron hit would go up to 5. That leaves us with two moving neutrons with half the energy it might take to bump out OTHER neutrons. So let’s track the second collision – energy of 5 neutron hits another Uranium atom’s central alpha (where Krypton and Barium are joined), dropping to 2.5 and knocking another out with an energy of 2.5. The third collision, 1.25, and on like that.
Really basic example using quick math, but hopefully that makes my point. The chain reaction is the myth. If it were real, we should see a lot of Uranium randomly exploding naturally, since stray neutrons bounce around us all the time. Protons too – remember, Hydrogen itself is just a proton with an electron pal trailing behind, and sometimes a neutron pal too.
Liked by 2 people
ALANACKLEY
March 18, 2018 at 2:05 pm
Mathis proves that a few initial nuke test events were faked. It may be that captured German weapons were used in Japan. I would like to know if Mathis thinks depleted uranium pollution is dangerous.
Like
RENDAR
March 18, 2018 at 2:47 pm
Alan, this brings to my mind the Fukushima disaster. I’ve occasionally come across comments on the internet alluding to the disaster being a hoax. An interesting assertion! Could it be true? I wish I knew the answer. This kind of speculation fuels my own personal desire to learn as much as I can about nuclear physics. In that regard, Mathis’ papers are very helpful, although there is always more to uncover and learn.
Like
WALLACE
March 18, 2018 at 5:24 pm
NUCLEAR WEAPONS DO NOT EXIST:
http://heiwaco.tripod.com/bomb.htm
http://www.big-lies.org
Click to access trinity.pdf
https://vexmansthoughts.wordpress.com/2017/08/27/what-the-nuclear-hoax-implies/
https://pieceofmindful.com/2017/09/27/no-nukes-yes-folks-there-are-no-nukes/
Like
ALANACKLEY
March 18, 2018 at 5:27 pm
RE: RENDAR
I too have been trying to figure out the Fukushima situation. I believe the ocean pollution picture is being complicated by glyphosate (Roundup) which may not be breaking down in water fast enough so that there are problems with the plankton. Could it be that problems being caused by other forms of pollution are being blamed on Fukushima?
I have been observing disinformation on radiation readings. Reporting counts per minute is sort of meaningless, since the orientation of the sensor and it’s size is not accounted for in CPM measurements. It is also possible to sense the voltage of an ionization event, but cheap sensors cannot do this, and confused reporters miss this sort of thing entirely. Some data I’ve looked at appeared to correlate with altitude, and that also was being overlooked and misreported, but it makes sense that locations at higher altitude would naturally have a higher background count. I saw some fear porn reporting on radiation that appeared on Veterans Today, and they should know better.
Liked by 1 person
GREG
March 17, 2018 at 11:28 am
Wondering how certain people get to the top of my local corporations, and even local government positions. I noticed none of these “suits” or “goons” ever worked their way up from the entry level jobs like the rest of us. I guess four more years of true/false and multiple choice questions, or walking across a checker board floor, earns the right to six more digits of pay. And for example how does one in his early 20’s from Lafayette, Indiana just move to L.A. and within a short time frame becomes a global rock icon…..Welcome to the Jungle? Or thanks to MM, Welcome to the Genealogy! Aha and all along I thought those big profitable and famous positions went to the ones on the basis of talent, effort and achievement…
Liked by 1 person
JARED MAGNESON
March 17, 2018 at 3:01 pm
In my experience, Mathis is brief and curt in his replies to my physics questions – but always helpful. And supportive of my attempts to diagram and illustrate his theories. He doesn’t care for my art but I’m not a big fan of portrait painting either, though I do recognize his skill there.
Here’s one of mine:
In my opinion, a committee would more likely LOVE my artwork. Not because I’m vain but because of the technique involved (using Maya, full-on 3D rendering and modeling). It’s often humorous to me to see NASA vids and SpaceX stuff, because I can readily spot the CGI every time. Which further bolsters Mathis’s position on those industries.
Liked by 4 people
JARED MAGNESON
March 17, 2018 at 7:29 pm
Mathis also wrote a paper on this very topic – “ON WEAK ALLIES”
“In this sense alone, my friend above is dead wrong: the more cracks the better. The more evidence of fraud I can compile, the stronger my overall argument becomes. And the more cracks I show, the more opportunities for escape from the current prison there will be. What is a passable crack to a physicist may not be a passable crack for a chemist or geologist or astronomer. So although I hit a lot of topics to keep myself fresh, this method has the welcome side effect of creating many points of weakness in the current edifice, points of exit from many cells. After a decade, my papers are starting to have the effect of a colony of termites on a wooden penitentiary, and the guards hardly have enough planks or nails to fill all the escape holes. In truth, the integrity of the entire structure has been compromised, and a collapse is imminent. It would probably be best for the inmates to get out before they get trapped under the falling rubble. ”
Mathis
Liked by 1 person
ROLLEIKIN
March 17, 2018 at 5:51 pm
Miles is a front for an intel committee exposing fake writers fronting for intel committees?
I think Miles would laugh at that one. I know I did.
But, I don’t think that knowing something about more than one subject is a red flag or that it means he is a committee. Intelligent people often do know about more than one thing and these days a great deal can be learned by simply searching online.
Miles isn’t even always right about all these “extramural” details. For example, when discussing Charlie Manson he commented that prisoners are not allowed to have beards which isn’t true, at least not in California. Google it. It’s also not necessarily true that a dark outline around a figure in a film photograph means it is a paste-up. This outlining was a common form of photo retouching done with news photos to separate figures from similarly shaded background so they would be more distinct when published in the crappy halftone resolution used by newspapers of the day.
But, I don’t say these things to knock Miles, only to point out that he is human. As I said above I agree with 90% of what he writes but there a few things I know about that he might not. I have written him about some details that I thought he was mistaken about and he was polite and receptive of my comments.
In any case, I think Miles is a pretty smart guy and quite observant and logical. He is also quite funny and I very much enjoy his writings.
Like
ALANACKLEY
March 17, 2018 at 6:39 pm
OK then that makes a few people who have criticized my comment that I (at first) thought that Miles Mathis may be a front for a committee. I accept this criticism kindly and agree now that he is probably doing most of his work without assistance except where he says otherwise.
I don’t have the references handy but he himself brought up the need for “intelligence” to correct the historical record – he says often that intelligence products are written by committee, and so it was not so large a leap for me to make that he might even be surreptitiously be admitting to that very fact. With a bit of work I could tie together quotes from him to support this point but it would only be a joke that I would not myself be taking seriously (at this late date).
I am glad to hear that a few of you have met him in person. I have not. I was joking to my friend the other day that Miles Mathis as pictured in his recent photos might just be the silicone love doll owned by Melisa Smith, dressed and propped against the wall for the pictures. Seriously though, I occasionally resort to sarcasm.
Liked by 1 person
ROLLEIKIN
March 17, 2018 at 7:28 pm
Well, I think it’s always good to be alert to the possibility that a writer/researcher in this milieu might be a spook. Lord knows there are many who are.
It has happened more than once that a writer I thought was genuine turned out not to be. So, I am always a bit wary too.
So far I believe that Miles is genuine and who he says he is. I hope I am never proven wrong about that.
Like
JARED MAGNESON
March 17, 2018 at 9:48 pm
It seems to me, after pouring over and re-re-re-reading all of his physics papers a dozen times (and most of his art/expose’ papers as well) that anyone THAT dead-on about math and physics, that consistent in theory and writing style, and that obviously and impressively intelligent could only be so consistent by being one mind.
That and the fact that multiple people I know have been to his conferences, along with his email correspondence to myself and a few other physics pals, closes the gap for me. He’s never exhibited any inconsistencies that I’ve seen – and I write far, far more than he does every day, in various forums from CGI to physics to social commentary to Facebook arguments on those same topics. So the volume isn’t a problem for anyone with a phone or a computer at all.
Like
BRYAN M
March 17, 2018 at 8:32 pm
I found Mathis’ website last year, by following a link from reddit.com/r/conspiracy to a guest paper about Ben Affleck and Robert Ludlum.
That paper was pretty good, and led me to dig around Mathis’ site, where I found the papers for Charles Manson and O. J. Simpson and John Lennon. These ones are really excellent, and are the thing that finally convinced me that news and history is largely manufactured.
I’d already been reading papers about JFK and 9/11 and Apollo for about ten years, feeling that there was some truth I was missing, but failing to reach any larger conclusions, I guess because the subject matter was too broad, and had too many angles to look at. The smaller events featuring the actions of a single main character were the key I needed to unlock the puzzle, and Miles’ papers on those were exactly on point.
It was a few months later that I finally could begin to approach the possibility that nukes are fictional. That one was really hard, because it can be true only if the media and sciences are really tightly coordinated in lying (which they apparently are!)
I wrote a guest paper for Miles about the Kent State Massacre, and been working on and off on a paper about the Berkley scene of the 1960s. I’ve newly uncovered so many small-time phonies while doing so, that I’m at a loss for how to categorize them. I’m not sure how many more papers I really want to write, either. But I also don’t feel that short form writing does the subject justice.
I appreciate the genealogy work as very important, and I think the guy has a real knack for it that I haven’t seen elsewhere. But it is not what convinced me about widespread hoaxing, and I don’t think it would be particularly convincing for most people who don’t understand hoaxing yet. I’m glad that the early papers I read didn’t have too much focus on genealogy in them, because it probably would have turned me off at the time.
There is something of a trick to coming at Mathis’ papers in rough chronological order, so you can take your journey alongside his, and get into the more advanced stuff only once you’re prepared to handle it.
Liked by 3 people
MARK TOKARSKI
March 18, 2018 at 3:56 am
Writing for me is an investigatory tool, as I don’t really get a feel for something until fingers hit the keyboard. Too often I quit too soon since, as you are finding, topics just get bigger. I look forward to seeing more of your work.
Like
MAARTEN ROSSAERT
March 17, 2018 at 9:38 pm
Is there a forum where die-hard MM fans gather to trade commentary on his posts? I have never seen one. Critics, yes. E.g. https://milespantloadmathis.wordpress.com.
One wonders why the gung-ho partisans haven’t built their own site for this purpose, but instead gravitate to the comment section of other blogs.
Like
STEVE KELLY
March 18, 2018 at 5:29 am
Very insightful comment, Maarten. It’s ‘the pattern’ of human behavior that often gives away that slight difference that can’t be faked, no matter how ‘good’ the artist, or how much money the collaborative group has to spend on the project.
Like
MAARTEN ROSSAERT
March 18, 2018 at 1:21 pm
Wow! Did you miss the point of my comment or what?
I merely made a simple observation. MM has some really fervent acolytes. Some of them weigh in at this blog. Some weigh in elsewhere. No one, especially not me, has tried to stop that.
But it stands to reason that his enthusiasts would want a safe place to trade high-fives and thoughts about his essays. Many of them display the web skillz to make that happen, to create a forum for positive commentary. But they have not.
You can find a forum for enthusiasts of just about any subject under the sun. How is it that there is not one by now for the Theories of Miles Mathis?
This is not a critique of MM. This is not a critique of his acolytes. It is just an observation.
To which I add another observation. In my experience, any time anyone even breathes a whisper of doubt or reservation about Miles Mathis, out of the woodwork come all kinds of apologists itching to kick ass now and take names later. It is a level of enthusiasm that seems nearly religious in its fervor. Take for an example a remark above: “If you didn’t find his science and physics convincing, you simply didn’t read it.”
To which my response must be:
Liked by 1 person
JOSH
March 18, 2018 at 1:31 pm
Maarten, your observation is quite interesting. I have actually found the reverse: wherever anybody speaks well of Miles’s work, people come out of the woodwork to denigrate it. That is especially true of his work on science.
As for sites devoted to his work, there is a Facebook group and website (under separate management) devoted to discussions of his scientific work. The Facebook group is called MilesMathisRevolution and the website is http://milesmathis.the-talk.net
But as far as I’m aware there is no place for a fully supportive discussion of his conspiracy/history work.
Liked by 1 person
MAARTEN ROSSAERT
March 18, 2018 at 3:59 pm
Hey Josh! Thanks for the link. I had not stumbled across this previously (not for lack of searching). Lots of food for thought.
I followed some of the links. This one caught my eye:
http://milesmathis.the-talk.net/t119-john-gabriel-another-strict-finitist-like-mathis
The MM acolyte who created this thread says:
“This is a weird coincidence with John Gabriel’s calculus and Mathis’ theories. Both are nearly identical. Gabriel’s were published a few years before but apparently discovered independently from Miles Mathis. He, like Mathis, is a strict “finitist” in that you cannot have a “curve” without measurable angles (hence Pi=4) …”
I clicked the top link listed: http://web.mit.edu/andersk/Public/John-Gabriel.pdf. Of great interest was the remark by Anders Kaseorg:
“ … what he means by “set” and other terms (let alone “tangent line”!) is different from what mainstream mathematicians mean by these terms—he is not speaking the same language. … Perhaps that’s why [he] feels the need to so viciously attack anyone who contradicts his work. Which is a shame, because some of his work … would actually do a pretty good job of illustrating how standard calculus works, if he were willing to use the same common language of mathematics for long enough to see this.
I have seen other instances (quite recently, in fact) where a “revolutionary mind” makes a compelling case by using words to mean something different from their conventional denotation within a field of specialty. The dilettantes won’t catch it, of course, and will applaud like a shelf of wind-up toy monkeys. It takes a real expert to catch the semantic shell-game that is being played. And even when the legerdemain is pointed out, the Amen corner will still consider it magic and not trickery.
Like
JOSH
March 19, 2018 at 5:10 am
Well then, Maarten, I guess that means I’m a wind-up toy monkey. I do take your point but also note that your comment here is full of questionable assumptions. I don’t really feel like hashing them all out with you, but I will point to what I see as the biggest and most problematic one: you have never read or tried to understand Miles’s work in physics. So you have taken the criticism that someone at MIT has directed at someone else’s work, then applied that criticism to work of which you yourself are almost (entirely) ignorant (and willfully so)–implicitly criticizing Miles’s physics work of nothing more than an elaborate semantic shell game that none of us dilettante monkeys are smart or self-aware enough to recognize.
I will say for my part that for a long time I doubted my assessment of Miles’s physics work and sought out criticism that actually engages it in a substantive way — even to point out some kind of semantic sophistry. You’d be surprised how little substantive criticism there is. 99% of it is just a lot of pettifogging, (deliberate?) misconstrual, ad hominems, and casting of aspersions.
Respectfully,
Wind-up toy monkey acolyte #267
Like
MAARTEN ROSSAERT
March 19, 2018 at 9:44 am
Josh,
I address you here as a friend—or, if you feel (as some do) that Americans use that word too freely, then as an esteemed acquaintance. I consider myself a fan and follower of Miles Mathis and of yourself. Of the dozens of websites that once lined my bookmark bar, yours and his are among the few remaining. If Kevin Starr, another Mathis ally, reappears with his own blog, I will be checking in daily at his site as well.
Surely you know—from our personal communications over the years—that I make a huge distinction between you and someone like WE♥MM, who created a throw-away identity simply to spin the comment thread here in one direction. Do you lump yourself in with that lot? Or with someone who brags: “ … I splatter [Mathisian things] all over [other people’s] Face book …” Classy … real classy …
I certainly don’t lump you in with that ilk. Apples and oranges …
You say that my biggest and most problematic assumption is that I “have never read or tried to understand Miles’s work in physics”
Josh, that was just an odd statement. First, because this is not my assumption, it is yours. Second, I cannot fathom what your basis for this unwarranted assumption could be. Do you claim to be privy to my browser history? If so, your information is outdated. I don’t know that anyone who knows me well has ever accused me of “willful ignorance” about any topic. You don’t know me that well, so perhaps you have over-interpreted the modesty I may have expressed in private communications about my level of understanding of this or that. That modesty comes from being an actual expert in a certain field, and seeing how utterly wrong dilettantes can be when opining on matters in that field.
Take a step back and consider what a hair-trigger reaction has resulted over a criticism of Miles Mathis. Except … I never actually criticized him. I made some observations. You provided some corrective information about one of those, and I am genuinely grateful. But when trivially reproducible observations are construed as criticisms, direct or implied, then there is another dynamic at work. And that’s the dynamic that is drawing my attention, and what I am pointing out to our other readers.
You seem not to like my use of the word “enthusiast” or “acolyte” (which simply means “follower”). Well, I myself am a follower of Mathis. I check his website almost daily for updates, and if that’s not a follower, then I don’t know what is. I am also a fan, as is obvious from the fact that I link points in my writing to him, with full credit as is due; and I have commended his website to other people, selectively. But there remains a level of advocacy above my own, and I don’t know how else to label it except as “enthusiast.” If that word is unacceptable, please suggest another. “Disciple” comes to mind, but I sense negative connotations in that term, so I didn’t use it.
Do I have misgivings about certain elements in the Mathis oeuvre? Yes. What are they? My own counsel shall I keep on these matters for now.
What I will not respond positively to, though, is this Manichaean insistence that if I am not entirely for Mathis, I am against him. That dynamic in this thread is far more troubling than any quibbles I might have over any of his methods or conclusions.
Josh, I would welcome you to email me privately to discuss the other assumptions you find faulty in my observations. I am glad to recant when I am wrong, and I have the power to delete my own comments if necessary.
But for now I am finding the atmosphere in this comment thread to be getting a little … benauwd, my Dutch grandfather would say. I think it’s time for me to step away from this thread and get some air.
Like
VEXMAN
March 20, 2018 at 12:21 am
With your reply to Josh bellow, you are backpedaling. Why?
I never actually criticized him. I made some observations.
Yes you did criticize him, big time. And you have managed to insult many of us here, who have read and at least partially understood his breakthrough science work. Let me briefly remind how you pulled it off.
After quoting from MIT quacademic anonymous, you said:
I have seen other instances (quite recently, in fact) where a “revolutionary mind” makes a compelling case by using words to mean something different from their conventional denotation within a field of specialty. The dilettantes won’t catch it, of course, and will applaud like a shelf of wind-up toy monkeys. It takes a real expert to catch the semantic shell-game that is being played.
I am not the only one here who understood your above statement as directly applied to many of us as wind-up toy monkeys, who have read Mathis’ science opus and tried to understand it. It’s insulting, by the way, but that’s only after flushing MM away as a word-playing charlatan. By saying “other instances”, who as well play semantic games (like for instance JLB really does play), you directly applied this characteristic to Mathis. That’s an apparent and direct criticism, period. Furthermore, by suggesting the rest of us are monkeys, I assume you are looking down on us as not quite intelligent, as the word “monkey” usually suggests in terms of measurable intelligence, so a warm thank you for that as well. You may have as well thrown in some bananas while at it, it would keep us busy. With our hands full we’d be incapable of typing.
There is no way of understanding your statement in some other alternative meaning. And backpedaling from it won’t help you even a bit, in fact, it makes you look indecisive, which is not really something to be particularly proud of as a true, authentic man.
Liked by 1 person
JOSH
March 20, 2018 at 3:02 am
[For some reason I cannot reply in the comment chain at the appropriate point, so I’m replying here.]
Maarten, I also address you as a friend/esteemed acquaintance, although we’ve never met in person. In fact, I’ve never met anyone who contributes or comments here in person. But there are some, yourself included, who I have corresponded with via e-mail. For those reading this who are unaware, there is a lively group e-mail correspondence between the blog’s contributors. Or at least there was when I was contributing. Nothing nefarious; rather something that is healthy and to be entirely expected. On the basis of that correspondence and what personal details I know of the contributors, I am of the opinion that they are all genuine, well-intentioned people. Not spooks. That includes Maarten. (My conclusions about Miles are also partially based on my e-mail correspondence with him, which is now going into its third year.)
I think that many of MM’s supporters are ‘quick to anger’ over criticism of him because they assume that critics are shills whose aim is to discredit this iconoclastic thinker. From my experience trying to discuss his work in various forums, I do not think they are being paranoid about that. But they do not necessarily share my perspective about you and that may be enough to explain the hair trigger.
Although I sort of agreed with your point in principle, I took issue with what you wrote less because it was an attack on Miles but more because it seemed to be casting aspersions on people like me, with the additional chutzpah of doing so from a place of ignorance. I think Vexman has clarified my point for you (thanks, Vex!), so I won’t belabor it, other than to say that the assumption I pointed to was that MM’s scientific work can be compared to or criticized on the same basis as the guy to whom you referred.
Of course your criticism was implied not explicit, and despite being clear as day perhaps you did not intend what was implied. I’m willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. But if you go back and read it with an open mind, I think you’ll see clearly enough why it sounds like a rather disdainful dismissal. I won’t take you up on your kind offer to continue discussing this over e-mail. Not because I’m upset — just lack of time.
CONTACT MILES MATHIS milesmathis@protonmail.com
Telephone: 551 775-7940 This is for art or other business clients only. Those who wish to comment on my science, art, or history papers should do so via email. I do not like to chat with readers on the phone.
Sorry, no FAX
Address on request
It is common today to deny the existence of God, by using Science. In fact, Science is so secure in its primacy that Religion has had to be content with just the "God of the Gaps." Religion still tries to convince their dwindling followers that because God can fill these unexplained gaps of Science, that God still exists. Since Science believes that it can write Math formulas for everything, these gaps are getting fewer. Only certain orthodox Religions like Islam still deny Science outright. If God wanted to keep his flock from questioning Him, He should have given them smart phones!
Inexplicably, Science already knows that the whole universe was created 13.82 billion years from a point which they name a "Singularity." This word is just a disguise to explain how an impossibly massive point, with no dimensions, could create the whole universe in a matter of micro seconds. Clearly, the Judeo-Christian Church has had to back off from its unsupportable 6000 year old Genesis because of this and many other reasons such as evolution, but there was still the problem of quantum particles lacking their proper mass. Thus it was the perennial problem of "how something could come from nothing." Not willing to concede to God, Science was open to any imaginary solution.
In 1964 Peter Higgs rides into the fray with his God Particle theory. Due to the mistakes of QED and QCD, there needed to be a field and a particle that would give matter to other particles. In that same year, Murray Gell-Mann had supplied the other patch to account for the ever increasing particle zoo of the Quantum world by inventing still smaller particles that are purely theoretical, using the name "quark" from Finnegan's Wake which itself is a neologism.
The Cern LHC had to justify its expensive existence, and the God Particle needed to be found. This deus ex machina, the God Particle, saved the day! The God Particle has no charge or spin; and it is not the last of more weird particles that are needed to fill up the Standard Model. The still elusive graviton, which imparts gravity, is still expected to be another God-like particle that keeps us from floating into space like the Rapture.
Then enters Miles Mathis with his first published book in 2003 who shows us the Math mistakes of Euclid, Newton, Einstein, Bohr, and Heisenberg. It turns out that all these smug Masters of Science could not do simple Math! They never took the time out from pontificating about the power of Science to review their own Math or those before them. Their erroneous Math has caused rockets to miss their expected orbits and created an absurd Quantum world that is like Alice through the Looking Glass. They made up myths to make the world conform to the Math errors and then when the Math rules needed to be violated, they used "renormalization" to cover up the mistakes and conform with their misguided experiments, like "double slit."
In Miles Mathis' papers, he shown that our highschool-level physics books are riddled with basic errors. Velocity and acceleration equations (*) are false or incomplete, the calculus is misdefined (*) and misused (*), orbital equations are wrong (*), angular momentum equations (*) are false, charge is undefined (*) and unmechanical, and so on.
MM has have also shown that Relativity is incomplete: gamma is false (*), trajectory is ignored (*), and the field equations of General Relativity are off by 4% across the board (*), even in our own solar system. QED and QCD are also compromised in multiple places, since the quark and neutrino (*) are both misdefined and misunderstood. The photon is also misdefined (*) as a point particle, and this jeopardizes the entire superstructure of Quantum Mechanics. Renormalization is a massive fudge, and quantization (*) is fundamentally misunderstood as well. All the symmetries are manufactured (*), and the symmetry-breaking is illegal (*). Physics has been swallowed by modern math (*), and no one can get into the belly of the fish to make the corrections.
Physicists have skipped too many steps, and they are attempting to put on the roof before they have built the walls. How can they know about the universe when they know almost nothing about the solar system? They cannot explain Bode's Law (*), but they try to explain the Grand Unification Epoch? Sacrilege.
They cannot unwind Newton's equation (*), but they try to unwind the robe of eternity? Sacrilege. They have not been able to penetrate Coulomb's equation (*), but they try to call particles from the void with sloppy incantations. Sacrilege. They do not know how to accelerate a velocity (*), but they try to stand in the sacred primordial grove and inflate the cosmic balloon with their own pallid lips? Sacrilege.
The Latin under my title above means “the unknown always seems more grand.” In the same way, those who speak of the unknown also seem more grand. Those currently at the top of physics are not true scientists, they are rhetoricians, sophists skilled at impressing the less clever with big words and sexy topics. But it is always easier to airily expound on the unknown and unknowable than to solve real problems. It is easier by far to make up big empty words and string together groundless theories and hide behind endless equations than it is to answer present questions. The scientific community at all levels must become scientific again: it must lose its gullibility and learn to see through empty speech and empty equations. Just as the modern person must learn to stop being fooled by politicians and salesmen, he must learn to stop being fooled by grandstanding fake scientists, intent only upon their own greater glory. The modern physicists at the top of the field have become nearly indistinguishable from politicians and salesmen, because, like them, they have lost all reverence for the truth, and all ability to speak it. The modern physicists in the middle of the field have become like party hacks, because they have lost all ability to recognize the truth, or tell it from a lie.
For MM's own part, he does want to hear any more about the edges of the universe or wormholes or first seconds or backward causality or vacuum energy or any of the rest. When a physicist starts talking about those things, MM knows he or she is trying to sell me a car or win a prize or publish a bestseller or make the cover of TIME magazine. Those people should go to Hollywood and get an honest job.
Dylan Stephens has created this site with the permission of Miles Mathis, to help present his discussions and proofs in an organized and indexed way. If you are intrigued enough to be dumbfounded (smart-founded), then you will have the chance of returning again and again and becoming smarter than all the "scientists" and "mathematicians" in the world. Throw out your Physics books. Science does work if the Math is right! Find out where the correct "Math" "is".
I built this site as a learning tool for myself and as such could be very helpful to others as it follows a logical order that builds brick upon brick in his words only.
Introduction and site construction by Dylan Stephens
B.S. Physics Georgetown U.
Dylan's YouTube lectures as an introduction to his work: "The Mistakes of Modern Science"
For any inconsistencies or missing files, please go to Miles Mathis site and also to donate to him. (Note: that this site does many of his updates up to 2016 and some to 1/2019.)
Treatises
A Physical Point has No Dimensions
A Redefinition of the Derivative and the Integral
Trig Derivatives found without the old Calculus
The Derivatives of the Natural Log and of 1/x are Wrong
The Current Derivative for Exponents ax is Wrong
Why Non-Euclidean Geometry is a Cheat
A Revaluation of Time and Velocity and the Concept of Relativity
A Correction to Newton's Equation a=v2/r & Refutation of Lemmae 6-8
G is the Key to the Secret of Gravity
Newton's law is a Unified Field of Gravity and E/M
Coulomb's equation is a Unified Field equation in disguise
How MM discovered the charge field
Maxwell's equations are disguised Unified Field equations
Gauss' Electrical and Gravity Law are Unified Field Equations
Proof that the Lagrangian and the Hamiltonian are false
Relativity Demystified
An Algebraic Correction to Special Relativity
and Refutation of Gamma
E ≠ mc2 (Gamma is Kappa)
Einstein's famous 1905 paper
Problems with General Relativity: Curved Space is Unnecessary and the Inertial System is Ignored
Solving and Arguing General Relativity Problems without the Tensor Calculus (In about 1/100th the time)
The Aberration of Starlight is an Expanding Earth
A Revaluation of Ether
Perihelion Precession of Mercury Explained and the Saturn Anomaly
The Time Dilation of the Muon is just Bad Math
Derivation of the Inverse Square Law.
The Secrets of the E/M field are revealed at the Moon's surface
Why does the Kinetic Energy Equation have a squared Velocity
GR solves the Metonic Cycle of the Moon
Tides are caused by E/M field not Gravity
Spring and neap tides are caused by the Solar Wind
Why doesn't Atmospheric Pressure squash me?
Solution to the Ellipse problem
π (pi) is 4 not 3.14....
The Stefan-Boltzmann Law proves E/M theory and pi=4
The Probability Wave of QM is not reality
Superposition is not Mystical
Entanglement: "Spooky action at a distance" is not real
Double Slit is a Chimera
The Error of the M/M Interferometer
Bohr's Three Mistakes
Rewriting the Schrӧdinger Equation
A Reworking of Quantum Chromodynamics and dismissal of the Quark
The Atomic World is 100 Times Larger Than We Thought
The Unification of the Proton and Electron & Finding the Electron Radius & The Fallacy of the Electron Orbit
Mesons without Quarks
Planck's Constant and the Fine Structure Constant
Unifying the Photon with other Quanta, How they Travel and why they go c
Light is not a Sine Wave but a Particle with Spin
Neutrinos are Undulations in the Charge Field also the Solar Neutrino Problem
How Elements are Built - A Mechanical Explanation of the Periodic Table
The Nucleus is kept together by Gravity; there is no Strong Force
The Weak force is not a Force but a set of Collisions
The Cosmological Constant is a fudge & Hubble Redshift is just curvature also the Vacuum Catastrophe
The Galactic Rotation Problem & How Dark Matter Fudged
Critique of String Theory: the inelegant universe
The Myth of the Black Hole
The Mechanical Cause of the Golden Ratio
Matter from Light
Additive Color Theory and Antiphotons
Using the Charge Field to Inflate Evolution Theory
The Cause of Gravity
Miles Mathis Site map
Books Available
Click here to order any book
The Top Proofs and more
(An overview of the the work of Miles Mathis)
nullius addictus iurare in verba magistri
"MM is not required to accept the word of any master." [Blat.]
(This is the motto of the Royal Society of Science in England, meant to assert the independence of science from various authorities; but ironically we must now apply it to them, the various academic societies in the US, and to the standard model worldwide, which has taken over the dictatorial powers of the old Church and Monarch that Galileo and Newton had to resist. Mainstream science has itself become the authoritative and tyrannical magister or master. )
It is no longer common for mathematicians or scientists to publish entire books full of new information or theories. Due to specialization, the normal procedure is to publish experimental findings augmented by very limited theoretical suggestions. By and large, theory is left to a select and limited number of specialists. Those in the center of the field would claim that this is a sign of their maturity, humility, or other positive quality, suggesting that those on the margin who are rash enough to have their own ideas must be immature, immodest, or otherwise deluded. In doing this they neglect to notice that the entire history of science has proceeded along other lines, and that the contemporary hierarchy would be seen as abnormal, inefficient, and ridiculously regimented by anyone from the past, even by those from the recent past like Einstein and Planck and Maxwell. Thus to write books that cover many related subjects must seem an anomaly as well as an anachronism and both its form and its content will seem strange to a modern reader and needless to say unbelievably arrogant.
Although Miles Mathis (MM) may be known (or attacked!) for his correction to Einstein's Special Relativity (SR), MM has since found many more logical and math mistakes by other well respected physicists such as Newton, therefore, it makes sense to present a summary of these findings in a logical order. This is also true especially because these mistakes, beginning with the Ancient Greeks such as Euclid, are causing anomalies today in space exploration and Quantum Electrodynamics (QED).
The List (these items are also contained in the left column)
"A Physical Point has No Dimensions" shows that you can't assign a cardinal number to a point, which begins the revolution in both physics and mathematics. The point and the instant are jettisoned from physics, and all math and science since Euclid must be redefined. Leading to the next item.
"A Redefinition of the Derivative and the Integral" redefines calculus on the finite differential. This will revolutionize the teaching of calculus as well as QED and Relativity. In fact, the fields of all higher math must be redefined. This discovery ultimately bypasses renormalization, making it unnecessary. In the last section of this paper A Study of Variable Acceleration, it is shown how the textbook solution of variable acceleration uses the integral incorrectly and gets the wrong answer.
Getting more deeply into calculus and finding The Derivatives of the Natural Log and of 1/x are Wrong
Trig Derivatives found without the old Calculus
And then applying MM's Calculus Applied To Exponential Functions
Why Non-Euclidean Geometry is a Cheat and also a critique of the complex number plane
"A Revaluation of Time and Velocity and the Concept of Relativity" shows that time is really a distance whether it is a pendulum swing or cesium atom. It is chosen as a distance that is constant. Light also defines a second in every local frame because the speed of light is constant.
"A Disproof of Newton's Fundamental Lemmae" shows that many of Newton's important lemmae are false, including his basic trig lemmae. His proof of a = v2/r is compromised by this, which forces us to re-analyze circular motion. The mechanics of his orbit also falls, which requires us to hypothesize a third motion to stabilize the orbit in real time. MM has shown that this motion must be caused by the E/M field.
"A Correction to Newton's Equation a=v2/r" redraws the line between tangential velocity and orbital velocity, showing that the orbital velocity must be an acceleration. This requires a rewriting of many basic equations and cleans up many errors and mysteries, including a few of those in renormalization.
"G is the Key to the Secret of Gravity", shows that G acts as a transform between these two fields contained in Newton's law of Gravity.
In "Newton's law is a Unified Field of Gravity and E/M" MM shows that Newton's gravitational equation is a compound equation, then separates out the foundational E/M field, and then reunifies, and includes Relativity transforms.
Following that lead, showing that "Coulomb's equation is Unified Field equation in disguise" and
"Maxwell's equations are disguised Unified Field equations which provides a study of Maxwell's lesser known displacement current and failure to describe physical lines of force".
Finally in Gauss' Electrical and Gravity Law are Unified Field Equations, Gauss' gravity equation is shown to be equivalent to Newton's gravity equation and that it can also be linked up Coulomb's equation with Newton's equation, meaning that one can go from one to the other directly, with straight variable substitutions. This what science has been trying to do for centuries!
In "Proof that the Lagrangian and the Hamiltonian are false. Lagrange's equations are corrected by using the charge field from Newton's equation yielding 3-body stability.
Relativity Demystified is a concise and excellent introduction to Special and General Relativity
Getting into the nuts and bolts of Relativity is "An Algebraic Correction to Special Relativity and Refutation of Gamma" which fixes the problem of Special Relativity by finding the simple and basic algebraic errors created at their inception. Corrected transforms for time, length, velocity, mass, and momentum are given. The twin paradox is exploded by showing incontrovertibly that relative motion toward causes time contraction, not dilation. The Pioneer Anomaly is solved. Also it is shown that Newton's kinetic energy equation is not an approximation, but an exact equation.
"E ≠ mc2" reviews Einstein's famous 1905 paper showing that Gamma is Kappa by a complete re-derivation of E=mc2. Also how corrected transforms in Special Relativity affect mass, momentum and energy equations.
"Problems with General Relativity: Curved Space is Unnecessary and the Inertial System is Ignored" shows that General Relativity (GR) is falsely grounded on the same misunderstandings as the calculus, which is one reason it can't be joined to QED. MM proves that curved space is an unnecessary abstraction and that the tensor calculus is a mathematical diversion, a hiding in esoterica. MM proves this by expressing the field with simple algebra, taking five equations to do what Einstein did in 44 pages. "Minkowski's Four-Vector Field is False" shows its fallacy not only because it uses Einstein's false postulates and axioms, but because its own new axiom: "that time may travel orthogonally to x,y,z" is also false.
Solving and Arguing General Relativity Problems without the Tensor Calculus (In about 1/100th the time)" reveals an easy method to calculate using the famous equivalence postulate, which states that gravity and acceleration are mathematically equivalent.
"The Aberration of Starlight is an Expanding Earth" shows that either the sun was still and the light moved to the left after it passed the sun, or the light traveled in a straight line and the sun moved to the right after the light passed it. Contrary to the consensus opinion the latter is a better explanation.
In "A Revaluation of Ether", the views of Tesla and Einstein are compared, including analysis of Airy's water-filled telescope, the Sagnac Effect, and the Hammar experiment". It it is shown that although Tesla and Einstein had different opinions on ether, they were both correct because ether is not present in a material form as was previously believed. And yet there must be some sort of field and it maybe related to E/M.
"Perihelion Precession of Mercury Explained and the Saturn Anomaly" corrects all the numbers involved, proving that Einstein's analysis was very incomplete.
The supposed proof of the failure of Relativity shows that The Time Dilation of the Muon is just Bad Math
The Derivation of the Inverse Square Law using the concepts of Relativity
This helps to discover the Secrets of the E/M field that are revealed at the Moon's surface,
As an aside we ask Why does the Kinetic Energy Equation have a squared Velocity which appears to be similar to the c squared of Einstein's famous equation.
The Secrets of the E/M field are revealed at the Moon's surface, proving Newton's law is a Unified Field of Gravity and E/M. Also the Derivation of the Inverse Square Law.
"General Relativity solves the Metonic Cycle of the Moon"
In "Tides are caused by E/M field not Gravity" it is shown that current tidal theory has huge fatal holes in it, holes that can only be filled by the previously failed theory of barycenter solution combined with the E/M field.
In connection with this it can be seen that "Spring and neap tides are caused by the Solar Wind"
Asking the question Why doesn't Atmospheric Pressure squash me? will show that atmospheric pressure is misinterpreted and that atmospheric weight is a myth. The charge field explains why the atmosphere in fact weighs nothing. In addition, it will be shown why the ionosphere exists as a separate layer, and precisely why it is above the stratosphere. Thus this is another example of how the standard model has covered up problems on purpose.
While exploring the problems of Celestial Mechanics, "Solution to the Ellipse" solves the problem of the phantom point that is opposite the Sun.
In a controversial finding, "π (pi) is 4 not 3.14...." but 4 when applied to circular motion.
The Stefan-Boltzmann Law, which is an equation that relates the temperature of a black body to its total radiation, proves E/M theory and pi=4
In Quantum Physics a simple logical and mathematical solution is created to replace the non-determinate mysticism of the Copenhagen interpretation. any quantum experiments are show not be based on faulty premises and statistical mysteries. Starting with "The Probability Wave of Quantum Mechanics is not reality, but just mathematical"
In "Superposition is not Mystical" shows how it can be explained mechanically and visually, in a rather simple manner. Using the gyroscope, one can physically create x and y spins and draw the physical waves created. This explains the wave motion, it dispels many statistical mysteries.
Likewise it can be shown that "Entanglement: 'Spooky action at a distance' is not real",
In "Double Slit is a Chimera", it can be shown that this foundational E/M field is emitted by the central wall in the double slit experiment, creating the interference pattern before a single photon moves through the apparatus.
And "The Error of the M/M Interferometer" proves that no fringe effect should have been expected.
This uncovers Bohr's math mistakes in "Bohr's Three Mistakes". Also the cause is shown for the mass limit of the proton in accelerator.
"Planck's Constant and the Fine Structure Constant" a mechanical explanation is given for the quantum limit and that Planck's constant is hiding the mass of the photon and shows the origin of the fine structure constant.
Since Schrodinger Equation is based on the Hamiltonian, which is basically just another name for the Lagrangian means it must fall also. This Rewriting the Schrodinger Equation shows once again that the quantum world can be explained mechanically and by simple math.
By importing the concept that Newton's law is a Unified Field of both Gravity and E/M into Rutherford's scattering equations it can be shown that the diameter of the nucleus has been underestimated and thus "The Atomic World is 100 Times Larger Than We Thought" and that the Proton Mass just its Radius Squared.
In "A Reworking of Quantum Chromodynamics and dismissal of the Quark" , it is shown that it is possible to define all quantum particle using a common spin model to show the make-up of all fundamental particles, including the electron and proton, without quarks using science, not just abstract math.
"The Unification of the Proton and Electron" by using a simple spin equation. Also the electron radius is found.
"Mesons without Quarks" are explained by using four stacked spins by which all known particles and effects can be produced.
Having shown that all quanta are aspects of one quantum, the Photon is unified with other quanta and it is shown how they travel.
Light is still being diagramed as a sine wave like sound, which is a field wave, rather than explaining how the actual spin motion of the photon mimics a wave: Light is not a Sine Wave but a Particle with Spin
In Neutrinos are Undulations in the Charge Field also the Solar Neutrino Problem MM shows that neutrinos are field waves like sound, caused by magnetic or spin change to the surrounding charge field
Using purely mechanical means, the nucleus being in the standard view a grouping of marbles is reconstructed into protons and neutrons suspended like disks with proton disks being propped up by neutron disks. Using this concept this is "How Elements are Built in the Periodic Table"
Having built all the elements it is clear that The Nucleus is kept together by Gravity; there is no Strong Force
And also that The Weak force is not a Force but a set of Collisions
The theories of the Big Bang and the expanding universe are questioned by relooking at the The Cosmological Constant is a fudge & Hubble Redshift is just curvature & the Vacuum Catastrophe
In The Galactic Rotation Problem & How Dark Matter Fudged it is shown how the Unified Field Equation fills in the holes in the Modified Newtonian dynamics (MOND) and then shows how this velocity form from this paper and the the relativistic unified field equation can be derived one from another in the Addendum to "Newton's law is a Unified Field of Gravity"
"Critique of String Theory: the inelegant universe" shows that String Theory is an example of abstract math at its most absurd.
Einstein had tried to express GR in terms of the motion of mass points in four dimensional space, but since mass points cannot exist physically, his math imploded at the foundational level (just as the math of QED did soon after). "The Myth of the Black Hole".
The Mechanical Cause of the Golden Ratio shows how the charge field physically constrains two bodies to seek golden ratio.
Matter from Light Matter is not being created, it is simply changing forms, from photon to electron to baryon. (Hint: quantum spin)
Additive Color Theory and Antiphotons
Using the Charge Field to Inflate Evolution Theory to explain stick bugs, amoebas, and caterpillars.
The Cause of Gravity The conclusion that Gravity comes binding from the Charge Field
Note from Miles Mathis
It has been known for millennia that the Earth rests upon the back of a giant turtle. Only in recent centuries has this knowledge been added to. In 1794, in one of the high valleys of the Himalayas, one of the wise was asked, "Master, what does the turtle rest upon?" The Master answered: "It is turtles all the way down, my son." But now that scientists have finally succeeded in mapping the universe, a turtle controversy has arisen. It turns out that level 7,484,912 is occupied not by a turtle, but by a man dressed as a turtle. It is not known how this will affect our other equations.
You probably aren't used to having a book on science and math open with a joke. But a sense of humor is crucial to existing in a world where even our greatest accomplishments contain large elements of the absurd. Some contemporary thinkers are of the opinion that we are very near to a complete understanding of the universe. I am far from agreeing with them. We have made some wonderful discoveries and are due a small dose of pride, I suppose. But the things we don't know so overwhelm the things we do that any talk of a full understanding is just bombast. Worse, it is hubris. It may even be a scientific sacrilege, with real curses attached to it. When we become too secure in our knowledge, we stop questioning. Failure to question is the ultimate scientific failure. Answers quit coming precisely when they aren't sought, and they aren't sought precisely when they are (erroneously) thought to be in hand. We are like the dog who discovers how to use the little flap-door and now considers himself master of the house. He lies in front of the fire and congratulates himself for his cleverness. He would be better outside chasing rabbits.
In this book I propose solutions for several of the greatest errors currently existing in physics and mathematics. I do not propose to solve all the greatest errors, of course, or even to know what they are. I only present the ones that have become known to me in my years of research. Many may find my list surprising or even shocking, since I do not seem to choose problems that are commonly acknowledged to exist. Rather I choose problems that are believed to have been solved. This, I realize, can have the appearance of caprice or insolence, but I have simply gone where my nose leads me. I suspect that the whole history of science has moved in much the same way, so I will not apologize for seeing problems where I see them.
Lest I be dismissed as a crank before my first equation hits the page (and this sort of dismissal has become pandemic in the field), I rush to add that I am not a so-called classicist, bent on refuting Relativity and Quantum Mechanics simply because they disturb my sense of balance or my love of Newton.* I attack Newton as well, long and—I like to think—shockingly. Beyond that, I am convinced of time dilation and length contraction and the necessity of transforms. I simply do not believe that Einstein provided the correct transforms. Likewise, I believe in the accuracy and usefulness of many of the equations of QED. But QED is still in large part a heuristic math posing as a theory. Even Feynman admitted this before he died, to the chagrin of most in the field. QED is not “the final solution” until it is fleshed out with a coherent theory. I believe, contra current wisdom, that QED will be provided with a coherent theory, one that makes sense even in the macro-world.
I am not a classicist, nor am I in any of the other dissenting groups that are opposed to the standard interpretation of Einstein. That is to say, I am not proposing supra-luminal theories or any other theories that go beyond the math and theory of Einstein. I am not proposing any new particles, forces, fields, or maths. All the major chapters and findings in this book deal with straightforward mathematical analysis of famous historical papers and theories. For the most part, this analysis is high-school level algebra applied to these papers. In critiquing the calculus, some rather subtle number theory is used, but no higher math at all. This means that this book is unlike anything you have read or heard of before. It is not allied to the status quo, but it is also not allied to any of the dissenting groups. It is completely outside the 20th century argument, since it cannot be said to be ultimately pro-Einstein or contra-Einstein, pro-Newton or contra-Newton. It is pro-Einstein in that his theory (and Lorentz's and Poincare's, etc.) is shown to be correct in many important ways. However, it is contra-Einstein in that my algebraic corrections falsify some fundamental assumptions and equations. How you would classify my correction is therefore more a matter of your own allegiances than mine, since I have none.
This book differs from all the other critiques I have seen of current theory in that my arguments are not mainly philosophical or even theoretical. They are mathematical. I rerun the original equations in the original papers and show where the specific mathematical errors are. In this I believe I may be the first. Especially as regards Relativity, there has been a massive amount of criticism and absolutely no mathematical proof to back it up. A few mathematical variants have been put forward, some with a certain amount of validity; but no one has shown where Einstein’s math is wrong in itself. Herbert Dingle, perhaps the most famous critic of Einstein in the 20th century, said in the 60’s that he was astute enough not to search for mathematical errors in the theory. Whether his astuteness was based upon the recognition of his own mathematical limitations or upon some other factor is less clear. I suppose current wisdom is that because they are assumed to have been combed by everyone from Bohr to Feynman, the equations must now be unassailable. But nothing in this world is unassailable, as Einstein’s refutation of Newton was supposed to have proved. Newton survived two hundred years of geniuses before Einstein appeared. If Einstein had been cowed by genius, I would now have nothing to critique. But Einstein did not see problem-solving as an attack upon genius or upon the status-quo, or as the solution to his career aspirations; he saw it simply as problem solving, let the cards fall where they may.
*I am also not any sort of conspiracy theorist. I do not believe that Einstein plagiarized anyone, not even his own wife. I have no special regard for German philosophy or special disregard for Jewish scientists. I am not here to bury Einstein or to praise him. I am here to mathematically evaluate his equations. I find it a shame that the field has already been so muddied by politics and other petty misunderstandings that an objective critique has become a near-impossibility.
My critique of Relativity was begun to solve a problem—that of the Pioneer Anomaly. I therefore approached the problem as both mathematician and physicist. I saw the final equations of Einstein as applied mathematics. Not esoteric theory, but physical equations. They therefore must be made to make sense not only as abstractions but as predictors of motion. In this they were failing. The physical community had finally been forced to admit this in 1999, when, after almost 30 years of fiddling, they had still been unable to solve the Pioneer Anomaly. So the Jet Propulsion Lab allowed Newsweek to report on the anomaly. Unfortunately, from the point of view of theoretical physics, this only brought the final cranks out of the closet. Physicists were inundated with new theories but none of them were seen to be at all promising. A good percentage were apparently written on the back of paper napkins, if the horror stories we hear are to be believed. So the walls went back up, and this time they were forbiddingly high and reinforced. The physical community wanted to waste no more time with paper napkins.
In some ways this was understandable. In other ways it was tragic. It has become a common feature of modern life in almost all fields—publishing, art, science, airport security, etc. The presumptions and unmannerly behavior and outright sociopathy of some have restricted the communications and movements of all. We all of us have had so many bad experiences that we begin to doubt the possibility of a good one. And there are other factors, ones which the physical community must take responsibility for. Closed doors and closed minds are not found only in town councils and corporate meetings.
For this reason and many others, Relativity is now the strangest sub-field in all of physics. In the universities, it barely exists. As a living field, it does not exist at all. What I mean by that is there is no sub-department of Relativity at most universities. It is not taught as a sub-field that you can enter and hope to make a contribution to, like all other sub-fields in physics. Relativity is taught as dogma—as a finished field. You learn it only to use in other fields. At the university and research level, Relativity is only a defensive field. Most of the work now done in the field is in keeping away pests. Look at Physical Review Letters or ArXiv, and their positions regarding Relativity. No research papers are published. None. None are even considered. In the past two decades, the editors of most journals have fortified all means of approach, in order to fend off invaders. These invaders, rather than give up, have instead multiplied. The internet has allowed for the mutual support of a vast sub-culture of doubters, nay-sayers and theorists. As would be expected of any large group, most are deluded. But the sheer size and persistence of this group has forced the status quo to extreme measures, including blacklisting. The major journals have blacklisted not only pesky outsiders, but also marginal characters from within the field. As part of this blacklisting, the field of physics has quite simply shut the sub-field of Relativity.
This all goes to say that it is a very different world intellectually than the world Einstein entered when he began publishing with Annalen der Physik in 1901. The field of physics had not yet closed itself off from “amateurs.” It was remembered then that Newton was an amateur—a self-taught mathematician and physicist—as were many of the greatest scientists and mathematicians of history. Einstein was a bit of an amateur himself, as the stories of his patent office imaginings confirm. The “university professional” was still a thing of the future. Forty years later amateurs still existed, though in fewer numbers. Karl Popper was resented maybe, but he was respected by most. Einstein himself understood the necessity of philosophy in the intellectual sciences, and he tied his theory early on to various epistemologies and metaphysics. He found it just as important to learn to speak of Kant and Hume as to learn the equations of Riemann. He was the last to do so.
The next two generations of physicists would lose all respect for the past. First Relativity and then Quantum Mechanics were seen to supercede all the theories of the past, and history became a clean slate. Richard Feynman could speak of philosophers with open disdain, and even Einstein was given only lip service. Einstein’s “regression” into philosophy and his quarrel with the Copenhagen interpretation of QED made him a dinosaur in his own lifetime. TIME magazine may have voted him the most important person of the 20th century, but physicists considered him a befuddled old classicist by the 1940’s.
My mathematical critique of Special Relativity therefore arrives at a rather inauspicious time. It could not be less welcome. This is ironic considering the mixed respect that Einstein has in the field of physics. He is believed to have been mistaken about almost everything important, in the grand scheme of things; and yet the equations of Relativity are sacrosanct. They are sacrosanct not because they are understood and admired—they are sacrosanct because they are the foundation of so much current research. Relativity theory is a miniscule part of modern physics. Very few people know anything about it. The few that do are working on billion-dollar projects—to discover the graviton or launch the next satellite. The last thing they want is some theoretical controversy to get in the way of funding. Even these scientists know very little about the theory. Most are glorified engineers. Theoretical physicists do not work in Relativity, since there is believed to be nothing left to do. The big names are in QED, especially in string theory and other esoteric modeling. They are also not interested in Relativity. It is no longer sexy. It is a settled question. It is not up for discussion.
So you can see that the field, despite seeming to be at a very creative time historically—due to the theoretical freedom that the top physicists would seem to have—is actually quite rigid and dogmatic. There are certain things you do and certain things you do not do. Superstring theory is prestigious. Looking at basic algebra is not. Looking into the distant future is progressive. Looking at old dusty papers is not. Tying esoteric theory to time travel and science fiction and Star Trek and the Dalai Lama is au courant and cool. Tinkering with ancient history is not. Stephen Hawking can claim that physics will be over in ten years, since ten years is still in the future (and apparently always will be, by some paradox), and not break any unstated laws. But a scientist who claims that Einstein or Newton or Feynman may have made a verifiable mathematical error is seen as monomaniacal and anti-social.
Despite all that, I am confident that my math will speak for itself with those who have eyes to read. It is to be hoped that I have left very little room for argument in my equations. Metaphysics may allow for endless bickering, but algebra was invented to finalize the argument. Even the tensor calculus may allow for some movement: there are places to hide amongst the matrices. With algebra there is no shelter as large as a shrub to huddle beneath.
Concerning my critique of the calculus itself, my argument there is likewise unobstructed. A chart that lists differentials is not open to much interpretation or misinterpretation. I do not open myself up to deconstruction. Even if you don’t like my comments regarding the historical method, or my explanation of graphing, it is hard to deny that I have solved the calculus “without the calculus”. This, by itself, is news on a grand scale.
I began this book when I stumbled across the first great error many years ago, in reading Einstein’s Relativity. Although it soon became apparent that the error was both elementary and profound, I thought at the time that it was an isolated error. But my naivete evaporated as I subsequently reread other important theoretical papers, and my awe of the past evaporated with it. What I came to realize, with rising disbelief (as well as some excitement), is that my faith—the faith of all scientists—in the basic theory and math of physics has been unfounded. It became apparent that the theory and math of many famous and influential papers, both classical and modern, had never been checked closely—or not closely enough for my taste at any rate. Buried in these papers were algebraic and geometric errors of the most basic kind. Suffocating beneath dense, often impenetrable theories and unnecessarily difficult equations of so-called higher math were errors that a high school student could understand, were he or she presented with them in a straightforward manner.
My goal became to do just that. To strip physics of its mystifying math, its unnecessary proliferation of variables and abstract concepts, its stilted language and dry jargon, and to speak in clear everyday sentences and simple equations. Einstein is famous for stating that a theorist should be able to explain his theory to an eighth grader, but he did not practice what he preached. Like his precursors, he could not explain his theory even to his peers. Relativity has remained uncorrected for a century not because it is flawless but because, as written, it has been impervious to understanding. Nor was this imperviousness an accident. Some might argue that Einstein simply fell a little short in places—no theory is born in complete and perfect form. But this belief cannot hold: Einstein imported the tensor calculus into Special Relativity himself, though it was completely unnecessary and ill-advised. He did this mainly as a public relations move, to impress the mathematical elite, to dress his theory up for the trip to Princeton. But this move has been disastrous, since it buried the math of the 1905 paper, making any correction almost impossible, especially by those who had taken the time to learn the new math. Those most likely to be able to correct the initial mistakes—the brightest minds in the field—had been diverted. They have been diverted ever since. No one who had spent five years learning General Relativity and its math would want to waste any time looking at basic algebra. It would be like Mozart stooping to think about scales. The math of Minkowski was another unfortunate addition to the mess, as I show in my paper on him. The false symmetry he gave to the time variable, and then the loss of that variable altogether, further cloaked the theory and algebra of Relativity. Very early in its history Relativity had already become the most esoteric of esoterica, and, despite its inherent mathematical simplicity, it was sold to the world as if this were its strong point. Bohr said that by the ‘20’s only six people understood it. I now know that he overstated the case by six. Anyone who had understood its theory would have corrected its math, since the mathematical errors are so simple.
As incredible as it may seem that errors have remained uncorrected in Relativity for a century, that time period is actually quite small compared to other errors I will relate here. The errors of Newton have persisted untouched since he made them, traveling unnoticed beneath the noses of the greatest mathematicians in history. And the errors embedded in the calculus are older still. We have to go back to ancient Greece to find the theoretical underpinning of Newton’s and Leibniz’s calculi. This theoretical underpinning was often improved upon in the 2000 years between Archimedes and Cauchy—which makes it all the more amazing that it is false. Mathematicians spent two millennia refining an error. The calculus is true, but its theory is false. It does not work the way anyone has ever thought it does, or for the reason anyone has ever thought it does. It has nothing to do with infinitesimals or limits. But I am giving away the ending of a great story.
It was fortunate that I discovered early on the soft underbelly of modern math, for it allowed me the rare privilege of transcending it. I saw almost from the beginning that esoteric maths such as the tensor calculus had become obstructions to true understanding. If the tensor calculus could build its greatest structure on the false math of Relativity, then it must be an overrated tool. An architect who knows his job does not build a palace on a sand pit, and the mathematician is a fool who spends his college years diddling with a math better done on computers, when he does not understand algebra or geometry.
As a tonic to this chaos, I have tried at each point in my proofs to use the simplest math possible. This runs counter to current dogma, which tells us to impress each other with the most difficult math imaginable at all times. Simple math is considered neither sexy nor imposing. It also cannot be used as ballast, as misdirection, or as obfuscation. It is therefore not of much use to the modern theorist. Careers are advanced by advanced math; nothing is propelled by simple algebra, it is thought. Despite this, I have found that algebra is the first and most useful tool for unraveling the mathematical mystifications of the past. In the beginning, Special Relativity was proved by Einstein with algebra. The 1905 paper has only one line of calculus in the proofs of the transforms, which line is redundant padding. These transforms are exactly the same ones proved today with the tensor calculus. But the obvious tool to critique algebra is better algebra.
In correcting the foundation of the calculus I did not need calculus or any math evolved from it. I only needed basic number theory, which basic theory is now so elementary as to be forgotten. The modern mathematical method for solving any problem is to come at it from above, with more and more abstract math. My method is to come at it from below, questioning the fundamental postulates and often simple math that have been lost to view over time. As an example, the problem of gravity is being attacked now with superstring theory, which preens itself on its mathematical complexity and its theoretical density. But I believe that gravity will be solved by unlocking simple algebraic relations among classical variables. There is very much in the existing theories of Einstein, Lagrange, Hamilton, Newton, Kepler, Galileo, and even Euclid that has not been resolved. Leaving these mysteries in the trash in order to concentrate on new mathematical paradoxes is a grave error in judgment.
Descartes (who also missed seeing the fundamental error of the calculus, by the way) said in his Meditations that he had reached a point of absolute doubt. He felt he could rely on nothing around him. He must start over from the beginning, taking as true only what he could prove himself. Most philosophers now believe that Descartes was only using a convenient method of argumentation, one that did not seem so unique, or so egotistical, in the 17th century. But I believe he was in earnest. I find his doubt highly plausible, even beyond its usefulness in critiquing the unsupported beliefs around him. As more and more of the pillars of my certitude fell, I too reached a point of near-infinite doubt. I found that I could no longer look at any theory or equation, no matter how self-evident it seemed, without checking the math from top to bottom. No more would I take any proof on faith, assuming, as an example, that a short series of equations by Richard Feynman must be correct, simply because I knew that he was famous for being a great mathematical physicist. I have since found absurdly simple mistakes everywhere I looked. In fact, it has been rare that I have checked anyone’s math and found it correct. I have gone through textbooks, finding algebraic errors on nearly every page. The calculus is almost universally misused, even beyond its cardinal error in claiming to find instantaneous values. The newer maths, many of them offshoots of calculus, are likewise flawed in many fundamental ways, from set theory to topology to Cantor’s theory of infinities.
I know that most will be shocked at my presumption, and the rest will question my credentials. But I can only answer that physics has never, in the whole history of science, had anything to do with credentials or false humility. It has to do only with truth. If my equations are faulty, then I am abashed. If my theory is incomplete, I am vulnerable. But no one should have to apologize for having the courage to question, or to present his findings. The overly socialized and pressurized milieu we live in, where intelligent and earnest people are dismissed for the flimsiest of reasons, or for no reason, and where most people are cowed into permanent silence, has more to answer for to history, or to the gods of physics and math, than I ever will for my boldness.
GodParticle.xyz (v.gd/particle)
dedicated to the proofs of Miles Mathis https://www.godparticle.xyz/Essays.html
© 2000-2020 Miles Mathis (refer to his site for permissions to use)
Miles Mathis
(Note Miles Mathis is abbreviated as "MM" to remove "I"s)
It is common today to deny the existence of God, by using Science. In fact, Science is so secure in its primacy that Religion has had to be content with just the "God of the Gaps." Religion still tries to convince their dwindling followers that because God can fill these unexplained gaps of Science, that God still exists. Since Science believes that it can write Math formulas for everything, these gaps are getting fewer. Only certain orthodox Religions like Islam still deny Science outright. If God wanted to keep his flock from questioning Him, He should have given them smart phones!
Inexplicably, Science already knows that the whole universe was created 13.82 billion years from a point which they name a "Singularity." This word is just a disguise to explain how an impossibly massive point, with no dimensions, could create the whole universe in a matter of micro seconds. Clearly, the Judeo-Christian Church has had to back off from its unsupportable 6000 year old Genesis because of this and many other reasons such as evolution, but there was still the problem of quantum particles lacking their proper mass. Thus it was the perennial problem of "how something could come from nothing." Not willing to concede to God, Science was open to any imaginary solution.
In 1964 Peter Higgs rides into the fray with his God Particle theory. Due to the mistakes of QED and QCD, there needed to be a field and a particle that would give matter to other particles. In that same year, Murray Gell-Mann had supplied the other patch to account for the ever increasing particle zoo of the Quantum world by inventing still smaller particles that are purely theoretical, using the name "quark" from Finnegan's Wake which itself is a neologism.
The Cern LHC had to justify its expensive existence, and the God Particle needed to be found. This deus ex machina, the God Particle, saved the day! The God Particle has no charge or spin; and it is not the last of more weird particles that are needed to fill up the Standard Model. The still elusive graviton, which imparts gravity, is still expected to be another God-like particle that keeps us from floating into space like the Rapture.
Then enters Miles Mathis with his first published book in 2003 who shows us the Math mistakes of Euclid, Newton, Einstein, Bohr, and Heisenberg. It turns out that all these smug Masters of Science could not do simple Math! They never took the time out from pontificating about the power of Science to review their own Math or those before them. Their erroneous Math has caused rockets to miss their expected orbits and created an absurd Quantum world that is like Alice through the Looking Glass. They made up myths to make the world conform to the Math errors and then when the Math rules needed to be violated, they used "renormalization" to cover up the mistakes and conform with their misguided experiments, like "double slit."
In Miles Mathis' papers, he shown that our highschool-level physics books are riddled with basic errors. Velocity and acceleration equations (*) are false or incomplete, the calculus is misdefined (*) and misused (*), orbital equations are wrong (*), angular momentum equations (*) are false, charge is undefined (*) and unmechanical, and so on.
MM has have also shown that Relativity is incomplete: gamma is false (*), trajectory is ignored (*), and the field equations of General Relativity are off by 4% across the board (*), even in our own solar system. QED and QCD are also compromised in multiple places, since the quark and neutrino (*) are both misdefined and misunderstood. The photon is also misdefined (*) as a point particle, and this jeopardizes the entire superstructure of Quantum Mechanics. Renormalization is a massive fudge, and quantization (*) is fundamentally misunderstood as well. All the symmetries are manufactured (*), and the symmetry-breaking is illegal (*). Physics has been swallowed by modern math (*), and no one can get into the belly of the fish to make the corrections.
Physicists have skipped too many steps, and they are attempting to put on the roof before they have built the walls. How can they know about the universe when they know almost nothing about the solar system? They cannot explain Bode's Law (*), but they try to explain the Grand Unification Epoch? Sacrilege.
They cannot unwind Newton's equation (*), but they try to unwind the robe of eternity? Sacrilege. They have not been able to penetrate Coulomb's equation (*), but they try to call particles from the void with sloppy incantations. Sacrilege. They do not know how to accelerate a velocity (*), but they try to stand in the sacred primordial grove and inflate the cosmic balloon with their own pallid lips? Sacrilege.
The Latin under my title above means “the unknown always seems more grand.” In the same way, those who speak of the unknown also seem more grand. Those currently at the top of physics are not true scientists, they are rhetoricians, sophists skilled at impressing the less clever with big words and sexy topics. But it is always easier to airily expound on the unknown and unknowable than to solve real problems. It is easier by far to make up big empty words and string together groundless theories and hide behind endless equations than it is to answer present questions. The scientific community at all levels must become scientific again: it must lose its gullibility and learn to see through empty speech and empty equations. Just as the modern person must learn to stop being fooled by politicians and salesmen, he must learn to stop being fooled by grandstanding fake scientists, intent only upon their own greater glory. The modern physicists at the top of the field have become nearly indistinguishable from politicians and salesmen, because, like them, they have lost all reverence for the truth, and all ability to speak it. The modern physicists in the middle of the field have become like party hacks, because they have lost all ability to recognize the truth, or tell it from a lie.
For MM's own part, he does want to hear any more about the edges of the universe or wormholes or first seconds or backward causality or vacuum energy or any of the rest. When a physicist starts talking about those things, MM knows he or she is trying to sell me a car or win a prize or publish a bestseller or make the cover of TIME magazine. Those people should go to Hollywood and get an honest job.
Dylan Stephens has created this site with the permission of Miles Mathis, to help present his discussions and proofs in an organized and indexed way. If you are intrigued enough to be dumbfounded (smart-founded), then you will have the chance of returning again and again and becoming smarter than all the "scientists" and "mathematicians" in the world. Throw out your Physics books. Science does work if the Math is right! Find out where the correct "Math" "is".
I built this site as a learning tool for myself and as such could be very helpful to others as it follows a logical order that builds brick upon brick in his words only.
Introduction and site construction by Dylan Stephens
B.S. Physics Georgetown U.
Dylan's YouTube lectures as an introduction to his work: "The Mistakes of Modern Science"
For any inconsistencies or missing files, please go to Miles Mathis site and also to donate to him. (Note: that this site does many of his updates up to 2016 and some to 1/2019.)
Also See his list of top 50 out of 600!
Treatises
A Physical Point has No Dimensions
A Redefinition of the Derivative and the Integral
Trig Derivatives found without the old Calculus
The Derivatives of the Natural Log and of 1/x are Wrong
The Current Derivative for Exponents ax is Wrong
Why Non-Euclidean Geometry is a Cheat
A Revaluation of Time and Velocity and the Concept of Relativity
A Correction to Newton's Equation a=v2/r & Refutation of Lemmae 6-8
G is the Key to the Secret of Gravity
Newton's law is a Unified Field of Gravity and E/M
Coulomb's equation is a Unified Field equation in disguise
How MM discovered the charge field
Maxwell's equations are disguised Unified Field equations
Gauss' Electrical and Gravity Law are Unified Field Equations
Proof that the Lagrangian and the Hamiltonian are false
Relativity Demystified
An Algebraic Correction to Special Relativity
and Refutation of Gamma
E ≠ mc2 (Gamma is Kappa)
Einstein's famous 1905 paper
Problems with General Relativity: Curved Space is Unnecessary and the Inertial System is Ignored
Solving and Arguing General Relativity Problems without the Tensor Calculus (In about 1/100th the time)
The Aberration of Starlight is an Expanding Earth
A Revaluation of Ether
Perihelion Precession of Mercury Explained and the Saturn Anomaly
The Time Dilation of the Muon is just Bad Math
Derivation of the Inverse Square Law.
The Secrets of the E/M field are revealed at the Moon's surface
Why does the Kinetic Energy Equation have a squared Velocity
GR solves the Metonic Cycle of the Moon
Tides are caused by E/M field not Gravity
Spring and neap tides are caused by the Solar Wind
Why doesn't Atmospheric Pressure squash me?
Solution to the Ellipse problem
π (pi) is 4 not 3.14....
The Stefan-Boltzmann Law proves E/M theory and pi=4
The Probability Wave of QM is not reality
Superposition is not Mystical
Entanglement: "Spooky action at a distance" is not real
Double Slit is a Chimera
The Error of the M/M Interferometer
Bohr's Three Mistakes
Rewriting the Schrӧdinger Equation
A Reworking of Quantum Chromodynamics and dismissal of the Quark
The Atomic World is 100 Times Larger Than We Thought
The Unification of the Proton and Electron & Finding the Electron Radius & The Fallacy of the Electron Orbit
Mesons without Quarks
Planck's Constant and the Fine Structure Constant
Unifying the Photon with other Quanta, How they Travel and why they go c
Light is not a Sine Wave but a Particle with Spin
Neutrinos are Undulations in the Charge Field also the Solar Neutrino Problem
How Elements are Built - A Mechanical Explanation of the Periodic Table
The Nucleus is kept together by Gravity; there is no Strong Force
The Weak force is not a Force but a set of Collisions
The Cosmological Constant is a fudge & Hubble Redshift is just curvature also the Vacuum Catastrophe
The Galactic Rotation Problem & How Dark Matter Fudged
Critique of String Theory: the inelegant universe
The Myth of the Black Hole
The Mechanical Cause of the Golden Ratio
Matter from Light
Additive Color Theory and Antiphotons
Using the Charge Field to Inflate Evolution Theory
The Cause of Gravity
Miles Mathis Site map
Books Available
Click here to order any book
The Top Proofs and more
(An overview of the the work of Miles Mathis)
nullius addictus iurare in verba magistri
"MM is not required to accept the word of any master." [Blat.]
(This is the motto of the Royal Society of Science in England, meant to assert the independence of science from various authorities; but ironically we must now apply it to them, the various academic societies in the US, and to the standard model worldwide, which has taken over the dictatorial powers of the old Church and Monarch that Galileo and Newton had to resist. Mainstream science has itself become the authoritative and tyrannical magister or master. )
It is no longer common for mathematicians or scientists to publish entire books full of new information or theories. Due to specialization, the normal procedure is to publish experimental findings augmented by very limited theoretical suggestions. By and large, theory is left to a select and limited number of specialists. Those in the center of the field would claim that this is a sign of their maturity, humility, or other positive quality, suggesting that those on the margin who are rash enough to have their own ideas must be immature, immodest, or otherwise deluded. In doing this they neglect to notice that the entire history of science has proceeded along other lines, and that the contemporary hierarchy would be seen as abnormal, inefficient, and ridiculously regimented by anyone from the past, even by those from the recent past like Einstein and Planck and Maxwell. Thus to write books that cover many related subjects must seem an anomaly as well as an anachronism and both its form and its content will seem strange to a modern reader and needless to say unbelievably arrogant.
Although Miles Mathis (MM) may be known (or attacked!) for his correction to Einstein's Special Relativity (SR), MM has since found many more logical and math mistakes by other well respected physicists such as Newton, therefore, it makes sense to present a summary of these findings in a logical order. This is also true especially because these mistakes, beginning with the Ancient Greeks such as Euclid, are causing anomalies today in space exploration and Quantum Electrodynamics (QED).
The List (these items are also contained in the left column)
"A Physical Point has No Dimensions" shows that you can't assign a cardinal number to a point, which begins the revolution in both physics and mathematics. The point and the instant are jettisoned from physics, and all math and science since Euclid must be redefined. Leading to the next item.
"A Redefinition of the Derivative and the Integral" redefines calculus on the finite differential. This will revolutionize the teaching of calculus as well as QED and Relativity. In fact, the fields of all higher math must be redefined. This discovery ultimately bypasses renormalization, making it unnecessary. In the last section of this paper A Study of Variable Acceleration, it is shown how the textbook solution of variable acceleration uses the integral incorrectly and gets the wrong answer.
Getting more deeply into calculus and finding The Derivatives of the Natural Log and of 1/x are Wrong
Trig Derivatives found without the old Calculus
And then applying MM's Calculus Applied To Exponential Functions
Why Non-Euclidean Geometry is a Cheat and also a critique of the complex number plane
"A Revaluation of Time and Velocity and the Concept of Relativity" shows that time is really a distance whether it is a pendulum swing or cesium atom. It is chosen as a distance that is constant. Light also defines a second in every local frame because the speed of light is constant.
"A Disproof of Newton's Fundamental Lemmae" shows that many of Newton's important lemmae are false, including his basic trig lemmae. His proof of a = v2/r is compromised by this, which forces us to re-analyze circular motion. The mechanics of his orbit also falls, which requires us to hypothesize a third motion to stabilize the orbit in real time. MM has shown that this motion must be caused by the E/M field.
"A Correction to Newton's Equation a=v2/r" redraws the line between tangential velocity and orbital velocity, showing that the orbital velocity must be an acceleration. This requires a rewriting of many basic equations and cleans up many errors and mysteries, including a few of those in renormalization.
"G is the Key to the Secret of Gravity", shows that G acts as a transform between these two fields contained in Newton's law of Gravity.
In "Newton's law is a Unified Field of Gravity and E/M" MM shows that Newton's gravitational equation is a compound equation, then separates out the foundational E/M field, and then reunifies, and includes Relativity transforms.
Following that lead, showing that "Coulomb's equation is Unified Field equation in disguise" and
"Maxwell's equations are disguised Unified Field equations which provides a study of Maxwell's lesser known displacement current and failure to describe physical lines of force".
Finally in Gauss' Electrical and Gravity Law are Unified Field Equations, Gauss' gravity equation is shown to be equivalent to Newton's gravity equation and that it can also be linked up Coulomb's equation with Newton's equation, meaning that one can go from one to the other directly, with straight variable substitutions. This what science has been trying to do for centuries!
In "Proof that the Lagrangian and the Hamiltonian are false. Lagrange's equations are corrected by using the charge field from Newton's equation yielding 3-body stability.
Relativity Demystified is a concise and excellent introduction to Special and General Relativity
Getting into the nuts and bolts of Relativity is "An Algebraic Correction to Special Relativity and Refutation of Gamma" which fixes the problem of Special Relativity by finding the simple and basic algebraic errors created at their inception. Corrected transforms for time, length, velocity, mass, and momentum are given. The twin paradox is exploded by showing incontrovertibly that relative motion toward causes time contraction, not dilation. The Pioneer Anomaly is solved. Also it is shown that Newton's kinetic energy equation is not an approximation, but an exact equation.
"E ≠ mc2" reviews Einstein's famous 1905 paper showing that Gamma is Kappa by a complete re-derivation of E=mc2. Also how corrected transforms in Special Relativity affect mass, momentum and energy equations.
"Problems with General Relativity: Curved Space is Unnecessary and the Inertial System is Ignored" shows that General Relativity (GR) is falsely grounded on the same misunderstandings as the calculus, which is one reason it can't be joined to QED. MM proves that curved space is an unnecessary abstraction and that the tensor calculus is a mathematical diversion, a hiding in esoterica. MM proves this by expressing the field with simple algebra, taking five equations to do what Einstein did in 44 pages. "Minkowski's Four-Vector Field is False" shows its fallacy not only because it uses Einstein's false postulates and axioms, but because its own new axiom: "that time may travel orthogonally to x,y,z" is also false.
Solving and Arguing General Relativity Problems without the Tensor Calculus (In about 1/100th the time)" reveals an easy method to calculate using the famous equivalence postulate, which states that gravity and acceleration are mathematically equivalent.
"The Aberration of Starlight is an Expanding Earth" shows that either the sun was still and the light moved to the left after it passed the sun, or the light traveled in a straight line and the sun moved to the right after the light passed it. Contrary to the consensus opinion the latter is a better explanation.
In "A Revaluation of Ether", the views of Tesla and Einstein are compared, including analysis of Airy's water-filled telescope, the Sagnac Effect, and the Hammar experiment". It it is shown that although Tesla and Einstein had different opinions on ether, they were both correct because ether is not present in a material form as was previously believed. And yet there must be some sort of field and it maybe related to E/M.
"Perihelion Precession of Mercury Explained and the Saturn Anomaly" corrects all the numbers involved, proving that Einstein's analysis was very incomplete.
The supposed proof of the failure of Relativity shows that The Time Dilation of the Muon is just Bad Math
The Derivation of the Inverse Square Law using the concepts of Relativity
This helps to discover the Secrets of the E/M field that are revealed at the Moon's surface,
As an aside we ask Why does the Kinetic Energy Equation have a squared Velocity which appears to be similar to the c squared of Einstein's famous equation.
The Secrets of the E/M field are revealed at the Moon's surface, proving Newton's law is a Unified Field of Gravity and E/M. Also the Derivation of the Inverse Square Law.
"General Relativity solves the Metonic Cycle of the Moon"
In "Tides are caused by E/M field not Gravity" it is shown that current tidal theory has huge fatal holes in it, holes that can only be filled by the previously failed theory of barycenter solution combined with the E/M field.
In connection with this it can be seen that "Spring and neap tides are caused by the Solar Wind"
Asking the question Why doesn't Atmospheric Pressure squash me? will show that atmospheric pressure is misinterpreted and that atmospheric weight is a myth. The charge field explains why the atmosphere in fact weighs nothing. In addition, it will be shown why the ionosphere exists as a separate layer, and precisely why it is above the stratosphere. Thus this is another example of how the standard model has covered up problems on purpose.
While exploring the problems of Celestial Mechanics, "Solution to the Ellipse" solves the problem of the phantom point that is opposite the Sun.
In a controversial finding, "π (pi) is 4 not 3.14...." but 4 when applied to circular motion.
The Stefan-Boltzmann Law, which is an equation that relates the temperature of a black body to its total radiation, proves E/M theory and pi=4
In Quantum Physics a simple logical and mathematical solution is created to replace the non-determinate mysticism of the Copenhagen interpretation. any quantum experiments are show not be based on faulty premises and statistical mysteries. Starting with "The Probability Wave of Quantum Mechanics is not reality, but just mathematical"
In "Superposition is not Mystical" shows how it can be explained mechanically and visually, in a rather simple manner. Using the gyroscope, one can physically create x and y spins and draw the physical waves created. This explains the wave motion, it dispels many statistical mysteries.
Likewise it can be shown that "Entanglement: 'Spooky action at a distance' is not real",
In "Double Slit is a Chimera", it can be shown that this foundational E/M field is emitted by the central wall in the double slit experiment, creating the interference pattern before a single photon moves through the apparatus.
And "The Error of the M/M Interferometer" proves that no fringe effect should have been expected.
This uncovers Bohr's math mistakes in "Bohr's Three Mistakes". Also the cause is shown for the mass limit of the proton in accelerator.
"Planck's Constant and the Fine Structure Constant" a mechanical explanation is given for the quantum limit and that Planck's constant is hiding the mass of the photon and shows the origin of the fine structure constant.
Since Schrodinger Equation is based on the Hamiltonian, which is basically just another name for the Lagrangian means it must fall also. This Rewriting the Schrodinger Equation shows once again that the quantum world can be explained mechanically and by simple math.
By importing the concept that Newton's law is a Unified Field of both Gravity and E/M into Rutherford's scattering equations it can be shown that the diameter of the nucleus has been underestimated and thus "The Atomic World is 100 Times Larger Than We Thought" and that the Proton Mass just its Radius Squared.
In "A Reworking of Quantum Chromodynamics and dismissal of the Quark" , it is shown that it is possible to define all quantum particle using a common spin model to show the make-up of all fundamental particles, including the electron and proton, without quarks using science, not just abstract math.
"The Unification of the Proton and Electron" by using a simple spin equation. Also the electron radius is found.
"Mesons without Quarks" are explained by using four stacked spins by which all known particles and effects can be produced.
Having shown that all quanta are aspects of one quantum, the Photon is unified with other quanta and it is shown how they travel.
Light is still being diagramed as a sine wave like sound, which is a field wave, rather than explaining how the actual spin motion of the photon mimics a wave: Light is not a Sine Wave but a Particle with Spin
In Neutrinos are Undulations in the Charge Field also the Solar Neutrino Problem MM shows that neutrinos are field waves like sound, caused by magnetic or spin change to the surrounding charge field
Using purely mechanical means, the nucleus being in the standard view a grouping of marbles is reconstructed into protons and neutrons suspended like disks with proton disks being propped up by neutron disks. Using this concept this is "How Elements are Built in the Periodic Table"
Having built all the elements it is clear that The Nucleus is kept together by Gravity; there is no Strong Force
And also that The Weak force is not a Force but a set of Collisions
The theories of the Big Bang and the expanding universe are questioned by relooking at the The Cosmological Constant is a fudge & Hubble Redshift is just curvature & the Vacuum Catastrophe
In The Galactic Rotation Problem & How Dark Matter Fudged it is shown how the Unified Field Equation fills in the holes in the Modified Newtonian dynamics (MOND) and then shows how this velocity form from this paper and the the relativistic unified field equation can be derived one from another in the Addendum to "Newton's law is a Unified Field of Gravity"
"Critique of String Theory: the inelegant universe" shows that String Theory is an example of abstract math at its most absurd.
Einstein had tried to express GR in terms of the motion of mass points in four dimensional space, but since mass points cannot exist physically, his math imploded at the foundational level (just as the math of QED did soon after). "The Myth of the Black Hole".
The Mechanical Cause of the Golden Ratio shows how the charge field physically constrains two bodies to seek golden ratio.
Matter from Light Matter is not being created, it is simply changing forms, from photon to electron to baryon. (Hint: quantum spin)
Additive Color Theory and Antiphotons
Using the Charge Field to Inflate Evolution Theory to explain stick bugs, amoebas, and caterpillars.
The Cause of Gravity The conclusion that Gravity comes binding from the Charge Field
Note from Miles Mathis
It has been known for millennia that the Earth rests upon the back of a giant turtle. Only in recent centuries has this knowledge been added to. In 1794, in one of the high valleys of the Himalayas, one of the wise was asked, "Master, what does the turtle rest upon?" The Master answered: "It is turtles all the way down, my son." But now that scientists have finally succeeded in mapping the universe, a turtle controversy has arisen. It turns out that level 7,484,912 is occupied not by a turtle, but by a man dressed as a turtle. It is not known how this will affect our other equations.
You probably aren't used to having a book on science and math open with a joke. But a sense of humor is crucial to existing in a world where even our greatest accomplishments contain large elements of the absurd. Some contemporary thinkers are of the opinion that we are very near to a complete understanding of the universe. I am far from agreeing with them. We have made some wonderful discoveries and are due a small dose of pride, I suppose. But the things we don't know so overwhelm the things we do that any talk of a full understanding is just bombast. Worse, it is hubris. It may even be a scientific sacrilege, with real curses attached to it. When we become too secure in our knowledge, we stop questioning. Failure to question is the ultimate scientific failure. Answers quit coming precisely when they aren't sought, and they aren't sought precisely when they are (erroneously) thought to be in hand. We are like the dog who discovers how to use the little flap-door and now considers himself master of the house. He lies in front of the fire and congratulates himself for his cleverness. He would be better outside chasing rabbits.
In this book I propose solutions for several of the greatest errors currently existing in physics and mathematics. I do not propose to solve all the greatest errors, of course, or even to know what they are. I only present the ones that have become known to me in my years of research. Many may find my list surprising or even shocking, since I do not seem to choose problems that are commonly acknowledged to exist. Rather I choose problems that are believed to have been solved. This, I realize, can have the appearance of caprice or insolence, but I have simply gone where my nose leads me. I suspect that the whole history of science has moved in much the same way, so I will not apologize for seeing problems where I see them.
Lest I be dismissed as a crank before my first equation hits the page (and this sort of dismissal has become pandemic in the field), I rush to add that I am not a so-called classicist, bent on refuting Relativity and Quantum Mechanics simply because they disturb my sense of balance or my love of Newton.* I attack Newton as well, long and—I like to think—shockingly. Beyond that, I am convinced of time dilation and length contraction and the necessity of transforms. I simply do not believe that Einstein provided the correct transforms. Likewise, I believe in the accuracy and usefulness of many of the equations of QED. But QED is still in large part a heuristic math posing as a theory. Even Feynman admitted this before he died, to the chagrin of most in the field. QED is not “the final solution” until it is fleshed out with a coherent theory. I believe, contra current wisdom, that QED will be provided with a coherent theory, one that makes sense even in the macro-world.
I am not a classicist, nor am I in any of the other dissenting groups that are opposed to the standard interpretation of Einstein. That is to say, I am not proposing supra-luminal theories or any other theories that go beyond the math and theory of Einstein. I am not proposing any new particles, forces, fields, or maths. All the major chapters and findings in this book deal with straightforward mathematical analysis of famous historical papers and theories. For the most part, this analysis is high-school level algebra applied to these papers. In critiquing the calculus, some rather subtle number theory is used, but no higher math at all. This means that this book is unlike anything you have read or heard of before. It is not allied to the status quo, but it is also not allied to any of the dissenting groups. It is completely outside the 20th century argument, since it cannot be said to be ultimately pro-Einstein or contra-Einstein, pro-Newton or contra-Newton. It is pro-Einstein in that his theory (and Lorentz's and Poincare's, etc.) is shown to be correct in many important ways. However, it is contra-Einstein in that my algebraic corrections falsify some fundamental assumptions and equations. How you would classify my correction is therefore more a matter of your own allegiances than mine, since I have none.
This book differs from all the other critiques I have seen of current theory in that my arguments are not mainly philosophical or even theoretical. They are mathematical. I rerun the original equations in the original papers and show where the specific mathematical errors are. In this I believe I may be the first. Especially as regards Relativity, there has been a massive amount of criticism and absolutely no mathematical proof to back it up. A few mathematical variants have been put forward, some with a certain amount of validity; but no one has shown where Einstein’s math is wrong in itself. Herbert Dingle, perhaps the most famous critic of Einstein in the 20th century, said in the 60’s that he was astute enough not to search for mathematical errors in the theory. Whether his astuteness was based upon the recognition of his own mathematical limitations or upon some other factor is less clear. I suppose current wisdom is that because they are assumed to have been combed by everyone from Bohr to Feynman, the equations must now be unassailable. But nothing in this world is unassailable, as Einstein’s refutation of Newton was supposed to have proved. Newton survived two hundred years of geniuses before Einstein appeared. If Einstein had been cowed by genius, I would now have nothing to critique. But Einstein did not see problem-solving as an attack upon genius or upon the status-quo, or as the solution to his career aspirations; he saw it simply as problem solving, let the cards fall where they may.
*I am also not any sort of conspiracy theorist. I do not believe that Einstein plagiarized anyone, not even his own wife. I have no special regard for German philosophy or special disregard for Jewish scientists. I am not here to bury Einstein or to praise him. I am here to mathematically evaluate his equations. I find it a shame that the field has already been so muddied by politics and other petty misunderstandings that an objective critique has become a near-impossibility.
My critique of Relativity was begun to solve a problem—that of the Pioneer Anomaly. I therefore approached the problem as both mathematician and physicist. I saw the final equations of Einstein as applied mathematics. Not esoteric theory, but physical equations. They therefore must be made to make sense not only as abstractions but as predictors of motion. In this they were failing. The physical community had finally been forced to admit this in 1999, when, after almost 30 years of fiddling, they had still been unable to solve the Pioneer Anomaly. So the Jet Propulsion Lab allowed Newsweek to report on the anomaly. Unfortunately, from the point of view of theoretical physics, this only brought the final cranks out of the closet. Physicists were inundated with new theories but none of them were seen to be at all promising. A good percentage were apparently written on the back of paper napkins, if the horror stories we hear are to be believed. So the walls went back up, and this time they were forbiddingly high and reinforced. The physical community wanted to waste no more time with paper napkins.
In some ways this was understandable. In other ways it was tragic. It has become a common feature of modern life in almost all fields—publishing, art, science, airport security, etc. The presumptions and unmannerly behavior and outright sociopathy of some have restricted the communications and movements of all. We all of us have had so many bad experiences that we begin to doubt the possibility of a good one. And there are other factors, ones which the physical community must take responsibility for. Closed doors and closed minds are not found only in town councils and corporate meetings.
For this reason and many others, Relativity is now the strangest sub-field in all of physics. In the universities, it barely exists. As a living field, it does not exist at all. What I mean by that is there is no sub-department of Relativity at most universities. It is not taught as a sub-field that you can enter and hope to make a contribution to, like all other sub-fields in physics. Relativity is taught as dogma—as a finished field. You learn it only to use in other fields. At the university and research level, Relativity is only a defensive field. Most of the work now done in the field is in keeping away pests. Look at Physical Review Letters or ArXiv, and their positions regarding Relativity. No research papers are published. None. None are even considered. In the past two decades, the editors of most journals have fortified all means of approach, in order to fend off invaders. These invaders, rather than give up, have instead multiplied. The internet has allowed for the mutual support of a vast sub-culture of doubters, nay-sayers and theorists. As would be expected of any large group, most are deluded. But the sheer size and persistence of this group has forced the status quo to extreme measures, including blacklisting. The major journals have blacklisted not only pesky outsiders, but also marginal characters from within the field. As part of this blacklisting, the field of physics has quite simply shut the sub-field of Relativity.
This all goes to say that it is a very different world intellectually than the world Einstein entered when he began publishing with Annalen der Physik in 1901. The field of physics had not yet closed itself off from “amateurs.” It was remembered then that Newton was an amateur—a self-taught mathematician and physicist—as were many of the greatest scientists and mathematicians of history. Einstein was a bit of an amateur himself, as the stories of his patent office imaginings confirm. The “university professional” was still a thing of the future. Forty years later amateurs still existed, though in fewer numbers. Karl Popper was resented maybe, but he was respected by most. Einstein himself understood the necessity of philosophy in the intellectual sciences, and he tied his theory early on to various epistemologies and metaphysics. He found it just as important to learn to speak of Kant and Hume as to learn the equations of Riemann. He was the last to do so.
The next two generations of physicists would lose all respect for the past. First Relativity and then Quantum Mechanics were seen to supercede all the theories of the past, and history became a clean slate. Richard Feynman could speak of philosophers with open disdain, and even Einstein was given only lip service. Einstein’s “regression” into philosophy and his quarrel with the Copenhagen interpretation of QED made him a dinosaur in his own lifetime. TIME magazine may have voted him the most important person of the 20th century, but physicists considered him a befuddled old classicist by the 1940’s.
My mathematical critique of Special Relativity therefore arrives at a rather inauspicious time. It could not be less welcome. This is ironic considering the mixed respect that Einstein has in the field of physics. He is believed to have been mistaken about almost everything important, in the grand scheme of things; and yet the equations of Relativity are sacrosanct. They are sacrosanct not because they are understood and admired—they are sacrosanct because they are the foundation of so much current research. Relativity theory is a miniscule part of modern physics. Very few people know anything about it. The few that do are working on billion-dollar projects—to discover the graviton or launch the next satellite. The last thing they want is some theoretical controversy to get in the way of funding. Even these scientists know very little about the theory. Most are glorified engineers. Theoretical physicists do not work in Relativity, since there is believed to be nothing left to do. The big names are in QED, especially in string theory and other esoteric modeling. They are also not interested in Relativity. It is no longer sexy. It is a settled question. It is not up for discussion.
So you can see that the field, despite seeming to be at a very creative time historically—due to the theoretical freedom that the top physicists would seem to have—is actually quite rigid and dogmatic. There are certain things you do and certain things you do not do. Superstring theory is prestigious. Looking at basic algebra is not. Looking into the distant future is progressive. Looking at old dusty papers is not. Tying esoteric theory to time travel and science fiction and Star Trek and the Dalai Lama is au courant and cool. Tinkering with ancient history is not. Stephen Hawking can claim that physics will be over in ten years, since ten years is still in the future (and apparently always will be, by some paradox), and not break any unstated laws. But a scientist who claims that Einstein or Newton or Feynman may have made a verifiable mathematical error is seen as monomaniacal and anti-social.
Despite all that, I am confident that my math will speak for itself with those who have eyes to read. It is to be hoped that I have left very little room for argument in my equations. Metaphysics may allow for endless bickering, but algebra was invented to finalize the argument. Even the tensor calculus may allow for some movement: there are places to hide amongst the matrices. With algebra there is no shelter as large as a shrub to huddle beneath.
Concerning my critique of the calculus itself, my argument there is likewise unobstructed. A chart that lists differentials is not open to much interpretation or misinterpretation. I do not open myself up to deconstruction. Even if you don’t like my comments regarding the historical method, or my explanation of graphing, it is hard to deny that I have solved the calculus “without the calculus”. This, by itself, is news on a grand scale.
I began this book when I stumbled across the first great error many years ago, in reading Einstein’s Relativity. Although it soon became apparent that the error was both elementary and profound, I thought at the time that it was an isolated error. But my naivete evaporated as I subsequently reread other important theoretical papers, and my awe of the past evaporated with it. What I came to realize, with rising disbelief (as well as some excitement), is that my faith—the faith of all scientists—in the basic theory and math of physics has been unfounded. It became apparent that the theory and math of many famous and influential papers, both classical and modern, had never been checked closely—or not closely enough for my taste at any rate. Buried in these papers were algebraic and geometric errors of the most basic kind. Suffocating beneath dense, often impenetrable theories and unnecessarily difficult equations of so-called higher math were errors that a high school student could understand, were he or she presented with them in a straightforward manner.
My goal became to do just that. To strip physics of its mystifying math, its unnecessary proliferation of variables and abstract concepts, its stilted language and dry jargon, and to speak in clear everyday sentences and simple equations. Einstein is famous for stating that a theorist should be able to explain his theory to an eighth grader, but he did not practice what he preached. Like his precursors, he could not explain his theory even to his peers. Relativity has remained uncorrected for a century not because it is flawless but because, as written, it has been impervious to understanding. Nor was this imperviousness an accident. Some might argue that Einstein simply fell a little short in places—no theory is born in complete and perfect form. But this belief cannot hold: Einstein imported the tensor calculus into Special Relativity himself, though it was completely unnecessary and ill-advised. He did this mainly as a public relations move, to impress the mathematical elite, to dress his theory up for the trip to Princeton. But this move has been disastrous, since it buried the math of the 1905 paper, making any correction almost impossible, especially by those who had taken the time to learn the new math. Those most likely to be able to correct the initial mistakes—the brightest minds in the field—had been diverted. They have been diverted ever since. No one who had spent five years learning General Relativity and its math would want to waste any time looking at basic algebra. It would be like Mozart stooping to think about scales. The math of Minkowski was another unfortunate addition to the mess, as I show in my paper on him. The false symmetry he gave to the time variable, and then the loss of that variable altogether, further cloaked the theory and algebra of Relativity. Very early in its history Relativity had already become the most esoteric of esoterica, and, despite its inherent mathematical simplicity, it was sold to the world as if this were its strong point. Bohr said that by the ‘20’s only six people understood it. I now know that he overstated the case by six. Anyone who had understood its theory would have corrected its math, since the mathematical errors are so simple.
As incredible as it may seem that errors have remained uncorrected in Relativity for a century, that time period is actually quite small compared to other errors I will relate here. The errors of Newton have persisted untouched since he made them, traveling unnoticed beneath the noses of the greatest mathematicians in history. And the errors embedded in the calculus are older still. We have to go back to ancient Greece to find the theoretical underpinning of Newton’s and Leibniz’s calculi. This theoretical underpinning was often improved upon in the 2000 years between Archimedes and Cauchy—which makes it all the more amazing that it is false. Mathematicians spent two millennia refining an error. The calculus is true, but its theory is false. It does not work the way anyone has ever thought it does, or for the reason anyone has ever thought it does. It has nothing to do with infinitesimals or limits. But I am giving away the ending of a great story.
It was fortunate that I discovered early on the soft underbelly of modern math, for it allowed me the rare privilege of transcending it. I saw almost from the beginning that esoteric maths such as the tensor calculus had become obstructions to true understanding. If the tensor calculus could build its greatest structure on the false math of Relativity, then it must be an overrated tool. An architect who knows his job does not build a palace on a sand pit, and the mathematician is a fool who spends his college years diddling with a math better done on computers, when he does not understand algebra or geometry.
As a tonic to this chaos, I have tried at each point in my proofs to use the simplest math possible. This runs counter to current dogma, which tells us to impress each other with the most difficult math imaginable at all times. Simple math is considered neither sexy nor imposing. It also cannot be used as ballast, as misdirection, or as obfuscation. It is therefore not of much use to the modern theorist. Careers are advanced by advanced math; nothing is propelled by simple algebra, it is thought. Despite this, I have found that algebra is the first and most useful tool for unraveling the mathematical mystifications of the past. In the beginning, Special Relativity was proved by Einstein with algebra. The 1905 paper has only one line of calculus in the proofs of the transforms, which line is redundant padding. These transforms are exactly the same ones proved today with the tensor calculus. But the obvious tool to critique algebra is better algebra.
In correcting the foundation of the calculus I did not need calculus or any math evolved from it. I only needed basic number theory, which basic theory is now so elementary as to be forgotten. The modern mathematical method for solving any problem is to come at it from above, with more and more abstract math. My method is to come at it from below, questioning the fundamental postulates and often simple math that have been lost to view over time. As an example, the problem of gravity is being attacked now with superstring theory, which preens itself on its mathematical complexity and its theoretical density. But I believe that gravity will be solved by unlocking simple algebraic relations among classical variables. There is very much in the existing theories of Einstein, Lagrange, Hamilton, Newton, Kepler, Galileo, and even Euclid that has not been resolved. Leaving these mysteries in the trash in order to concentrate on new mathematical paradoxes is a grave error in judgment.
Descartes (who also missed seeing the fundamental error of the calculus, by the way) said in his Meditations that he had reached a point of absolute doubt. He felt he could rely on nothing around him. He must start over from the beginning, taking as true only what he could prove himself. Most philosophers now believe that Descartes was only using a convenient method of argumentation, one that did not seem so unique, or so egotistical, in the 17th century. But I believe he was in earnest. I find his doubt highly plausible, even beyond its usefulness in critiquing the unsupported beliefs around him. As more and more of the pillars of my certitude fell, I too reached a point of near-infinite doubt. I found that I could no longer look at any theory or equation, no matter how self-evident it seemed, without checking the math from top to bottom. No more would I take any proof on faith, assuming, as an example, that a short series of equations by Richard Feynman must be correct, simply because I knew that he was famous for being a great mathematical physicist. I have since found absurdly simple mistakes everywhere I looked. In fact, it has been rare that I have checked anyone’s math and found it correct. I have gone through textbooks, finding algebraic errors on nearly every page. The calculus is almost universally misused, even beyond its cardinal error in claiming to find instantaneous values. The newer maths, many of them offshoots of calculus, are likewise flawed in many fundamental ways, from set theory to topology to Cantor’s theory of infinities.
I know that most will be shocked at my presumption, and the rest will question my credentials. But I can only answer that physics has never, in the whole history of science, had anything to do with credentials or false humility. It has to do only with truth. If my equations are faulty, then I am abashed. If my theory is incomplete, I am vulnerable. But no one should have to apologize for having the courage to question, or to present his findings. The overly socialized and pressurized milieu we live in, where intelligent and earnest people are dismissed for the flimsiest of reasons, or for no reason, and where most people are cowed into permanent silence, has more to answer for to history, or to the gods of physics and math, than I ever will for my boldness.
If the essays and discoveries of Miles Mathis are useful to you in any way, please go to Miles Mathis web site and consider donating a dollar (or more) to the SAVE THE ARTISTS FOUNDATION.