Below is a rebuttal and response to a recent attack on Miles Mathis, titled “Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Clowns.” Note that from the first word there is already an ad hominem attack in the form of childish name-calling. Apparently Miles is a clown, and the picture of him at the top of the post is supposed to prove it, I guess. Also note that the paper was first published on Mark Tokarski’s (now defunct) “Miles Mathis discussion site,” which is apparently just New Speak for a place where discussion is forbidden. The “About” section of the site no longer exists, but it originally stated that: “As always there are ground rules. No personal attacks. I have met him, he is a human being, even as some think he is a front for a committee. Be respectful of one another.” So much for that. I guess the next post he publishes will be a hit piece titled “Miles ‘Pantsload’ Mathis.” Oh wait, they’ve already used that one
[Update May 13, 2018: The link at the top to the commentary on Miles has been deleted from that site, which is now also vacant with a “for rent” sign hanging on the front window. I have re-linked to an archived copy of that page, which I made using the wayback machine before it was erased. That site was a spin-off blog started by Mark Tokarski, who has a regular blog called Piece of Mindful (PoM or POM or now lovingly referred to as POS). I was a contributor there for about 6 months in 2016-2017 before I parted ways and opened up shop here. Mark has now re-published that hit piece on his regular blog under the title ‘Down the Rabbit Hole’ and also added some scurrilous and libelous accusations against Miles. I will not link to the new piece, though you can easily find it yourself. I will have an update in the coming days responding to the new accusations but others have responded to it in comments.]
Two things I want to say before I continue. First: this response is long, and if you think I am trying to Waste Your Time™, then by all means don’t read it. Nobody’s forcing you to. If you think this is part of some manufactured fracas to further split the truther ‘community,’ you will be relieved to hear that the gambit cannot work if you close this browser tab now and ignore it. I sincerely wish I had done both of those things when I first saw the post authored by the pseudonymous “Robert Zherunkel.” But I didn’t and now here I am, unable to ignore it and allowing myself to be hoisted on somebody’s petard—maybe even my own. It is my hamartia. Or one of them, anyway.
Second: I think it’s perfectly legitimate to be skeptical of Miles and question whether or not he his genuine. My intention is not one of “how dare you!” and my response here is not a knee-jerk defense. It comes after having spent a long time wrangling with some of the same questions raised by “Robert.” But unlike him, I did not seek answers to my questions in rhetorical gimmicks. I prefer substance. So in responding to his accusations, I will also be offering some insight into how I came to believe, and still do, that Miles is a genuine person who is genuine in his intentions. That doesn’t mean I think he is perfect or that I agree with everything he writes or every conclusion he reaches. But it does mean that when I think he’s wrong, I don’t think he’s being wrong on purpose. In other words, I don’t think he’s trying to deliberately mislead or act as some kind of limited hangout.
Whoever wrote this pathetic attack piece wants you to dismiss the scientific work of Miles Mathis based on sophistry, since he is unable to show how it is wrong. I don’t think you can reach conclusions about the work (including deciding whether it could be the work of a single person) unless you have read it. And if you haven’t, then it would be best to remain agnostic rather than fall for the sophistry—and sophistry it is, starting from the ad hominem in the title.
Extraordinary Claims…
I think I might know who “Robert Zherunkel” is: the ghost of Carl Sagan. Who else would start out by admonishing that “Extraordinary claims, it is said, require extraordinary evidence.” Yes, that is often said. But remind yourself who says it. You always hear it from the (paid) guardians of the mainstream who try to discredit all evidence that contradicts the status quo. The fact that this writer’s first move is to pull out one of the go-to talking points of paid shills and mainstream gatekeepers is, in my mind, a dead giveaway. In my opinion the whole thing sounds like it was written by a fairly experienced JTRIG operative who has underestimated or utterly failed to understand his target audience. He thinks he can trigger the desired response in Miles’ readers using ad hominems, appeals to authority, and low-level stuff like dragging out this tired mantra. He flatters you as someone who is too sophisticated to believe what you read in newspapers, but treats you like someone who has just begun to question their daily dose of propaganda. His ploy is patently transparent and simply won’t work. Not on us. Can we please speak with your supervisor, “Robert”?
Look, I agree that it is hard to believe that a person like Miles exists. The sheer genius of his insights, the scope of his work, and the scale of his productivity are admittedly hard to believe. They are extraordinary. But that doesn’t mean they’re impossible. In the world our governors have molded, they have tried to marginalize and quash people like Miles, rob them of any incentive to do what they do. They want us to believe that it is no longer possible to achieve so much, especially without the promise of monetary reward and especially if it goes against the matrix of lies they have constructed. “Robert” cannot even fathom that Miles hasn’t copyrighted his work, it is so outside his corrupted vision of conceivable human action. And then he wants you to believe it is a sign that something is amiss. Sorry, but I’m not buying the vision of humanity and human potential that he’s selling.
‘Pataphysicist Extraordinaire?
“Robert” mentions how inconceivable it is that someone who lacks a laboratory, graduate student assistants, a high-powered computer, and an advanced degree could have achieved what Miles has. (I believe he errs in thinking that Miles has never had access to a research library, since much of his earlier work was completed while living near Amherst. And anyway, hasn’t he heard of the internet?) But it actually makes sense when you read his science work, because it is bears the hallmarks of an autodidact who started from square one and questioned everything as he went along. Do you think that most people with advanced degrees in physics these days have actually read the original works accredited to Newton or Einstein? No, they are taught glosses of their work in textbooks. People like that have the tendency to humblebrag that they stand on the shoulders of giants. But the problem is that they are not taught to question the work of those giants. They are taught to accept it as dogma.
Miles also stands on the shoulders of giants, but before trying to look further, he first peered over their shoulders and checked their work. And guess what? Turns out they weren’t as giant as we are taught, since he found a lot of mistakes. He explains these mistakes very clearly. They are not hard to understand and usually involve simple errors of algebra, variable assignment, or logical contradictions. Of course Miles’ work is not just a simple correction to this work: he brings to the table many deep yet straightforward conceptual insights and expands far beyond the work he corrects.
The suggestion that his physics work is a pastiche of different theories is only something that someone who hadn’t read his work could argue without being disingenuous, and it could only resonate with people who haven’t read it. The reason is that it is coherent. It is of a piece. Not only that, you can see how one idea or paper leads another, how later papers build on earlier ones (and plus his physics papers are chock-a-block with interconnecting hyperlinks). For example, his work on Pi follows from the work he did dissecting and correcting Newton’s Lemmae, as well as his work on deriving a calculus that was appropriate for describing the physical world, along with others. He then uses his reworking of Pi to correct many mainstream equations. It’s also worth noting that his argument about kinematic Pi differs from other “tired old math paradoxes” since it is derived from different postulates and is brought to bear only in some circumstances (to describe the path of moving objects). Thus although it may appear superficially to be simply a variant of the diagonal paradox, it is not.
To give you a point of comparison, consider Miles’ conspiracy opus. Imagine someone suggested to you that he had simply cobbled together a bunch of disparate conspiracies and alternative histories from all over the place and claimed intellectual ownership. I don’t think you’d buy it. First you wouldn’t buy it because you won’t find anything anywhere about many of the things he has (un)covered, and the way he approaches the things that have been covered elsewhere are always unique and usually far more decisive and illuminating. Is there anybody else out there, for example, who has ever said that major historical figures like Hitler, Mussolini and JFK were gay Jewish actors who faked their deaths. No, there isn’t. Now imagine someone suggested to you that each of Miles’ papers on those historical figures were all written by different ‘oddballs’ and Miles just revised their work to make it sound like one person wrote them. Would you buy it? Of course not. So to suggest he cobbled his work together from different sources is an obvious non-starter. And for anyone who has followed the progression of Miles’ work and seen how he built up to these and other conclusions and how intertwined his various papers are, stiff with interconnected hyperlinks, you would have to think that anyone claiming that his work was a pastiche had in fact never read it and/or was deliberately trying to mislead you. For those of us who have read and digested his work in physics, “Robert’s” insinuation is equally absurd. Either “Robert” has not read the work (and is therefore in no position to judge it) or he has read it and is deliberately mischaracterizing it in order to mislead you.
Oddball Comparisons and Appeals to Authority
Here we go with more ad hominems when “Robert” compares Miles to other “oddballs.” But just because the mainstream has discredited these people’s work, how can we be sure they’re wrong? Because the ‘experts’ say so? Whoever this “Robert” is he sure seems to put an awful lot of faith in mainstream knowledge and expertise, wouldn’t you say? There are many implicit and explicit appeals to authority throughout the piece, such as when he says that “any time that Mathis has written on a topic that I have direct, personal knowledge of, he has gotten it wrong. Dead wrong.” Yet he fails to offer any examples, so I guess we’re just supposed to take his word for it.
He makes a lot of claims about what characterizes oddball work (it “bends terminology to make [an] argument”) and charges Miles with the same misdeed without being able to point to a single example. His argument in a nutshell is this: “The mainstream has dismissed others because their work is ‘not even wrong’ and can be trivially falsified. And if that’s true of these others, then it must be true of Miles.” Frankly I’m surprised anybody would think this kind of sophistry would work on this audience, and I’m even more surprised that Mark agreed to publish it. I have defended and made excuses for him until now, but no longer.
Now, if “Robert” will only be satisfied when “experts in the field” are willing to confirm the value or validity of Miles’ physics work, I can point to at least three I know of:
One of them is Tahir Yaqoob, a PhD in Astrophysics who has held positions at many prestigious universities and now works at the University of Maryland and the Goddard Space Flight Center, NASA. Yaqoob was the one who encouraged Miles to publish his first science book and also wrote the forward and a blurb on the back cover. Of course “Robert” might object that the support of a NASA-affiliated scientist is a hug red flag. For that matter, one might argue that the endorsement of any mainstream physicist is a red flag. But in that case he has put Miles in a no-win situation. Also, to immediately dismiss Yaqoob on that affiliation alone would be a symptom of what Emerson called “the hobgoblin of little minds.”
Another supporter introduced himself on Clues Forum in 2015 as Gopi Krishna, who earned his PhD in physics at the University of Houston. In a thread on Miles at CF he wrote:
“I came across Mathis’ work at the end of 2012/beginning of 2013, for a completely different reason: his physics. Now, my background has been in studying physics, both conventional (as a graduate student) and alternative (as a hobby), and due to a reference given by a friend, I checked out the physics theories. Now, I do not know if you guys have checked it out, and that would probably have to be a separate topic to examine it in detail, but the long and short of it is that the theory was intriguing, and very effective in explaining most of the puzzling phenomena in modern physics without enormous amount of tensor theories and so on. Since I already knew from my research that the justification for many mathematical assumptions were on a very shaky foundation, I proceeded to examine his idea of a “charge field” … and it cleared up a lot. I emailed back and forth for about 6 months, trying to hash out my questions regarding the physics, and thereafter, I have visited him two times. Once for nearly 5 days for a Physics conference, at which time everything other than physics was restricted to over-the-table conversations. The second time was around the first week of this year.”
Gopi also says there that he got his degree from the University of Houston, and I have verified his credentials through a web search. So here we have someone with a PhD in physics consulting Miles in person to help improve his understanding of physics. If Miles was a front for a committee whose main task was to mark their work with a consistent style like some kind of ghost writer, would he be able to discuss such issues with Gopi one-on-one like that? Would he be able to host a conference to discuss physics? Would his minders allow him to do that? What if one of the conference participants asked a tough question or if Miles forgot something in the over 6,000 pages written by his committee and published on his science site? Seems risky and implausible. Remember these annual conferences were capped at 8 participants. So there doesn’t seem to be much upside, while the risks run pretty high.
And finally we have Steve Oostdijk who has a degree in electrical engineering, electronics and avionics from Delft University of Technology. Steve has been one of Miles’ most steadfast and vocal supporters. What’s funny is that many have accused Steve of being a Miles Mathis sock puppet. See for example the accusations by Kevin Bos in his review of Miles’ first book on Amazon, where he writes “Steven Oostdijk is a known Mathis alias.” Which is kind of weird since Steve has an extensive LinkedIn page and other presence on social media. Any doubts were put to rest of course after Steve posted a youtube video with an experiment confirming Miles’ work on Pi. Come to think of it, “Robert” also accuses some “Team Mathis” supporters of just being “Mathis himself under an alias.” I guess that’s another line he took straight from the playbook.
(There is also an e-mail exchange that Miles published on his site with a physicist working in private industry who seems very satisfied with the guidance Miles provided and the theories that informed it. And another e-mail with a different scientist who lauds his work. You could argue that those e-mail exchanges are just fabricated. I suppose they could be, but if not that counts as two more “experts in the field” who validate his work. They could all be wrong, I suppose, but it would be lying to say his work is appreciated only by dilettantes.)
Of course it would be hypocritical of me to condemn “Robert’s” appeal to authority and then suggest to you that you should believe in the validity of Miles’ work due to the support of these experts. I only list these examples as a rebuttal to “Robert’s” argument that Miles has no support from experts. It simply isn’t true. But here, as with anything else concerned with matters of truth, you ultimately have to trust your own judgment. (Although I admit that when I was struggling to trust my own judgment about his work, this support from people with training in the field helped me make up my mind. That and the shills coming out of the woodwork to attack and ridicule him in the most dishonest and childish ways.)
In light of “Robert’s” comparison to other “oddball” scientists, we also have to consider the very real possibility that some or much of anti-mainstream science is created by the mainstream in order to be easily debunked. The obvious example is Flat Earth. Another example can be found with some of the worst arguments about 9/11—arguments which seem to have been planted deliberately as low-hanging fruit for the debunkers to pick in order to discredit all skepticism about 9/11. In the case of the planted alternative scientific theories, the conclusion is, “See there is nothing wrong with mainstream science; oh and look what will happen to your career and credibility if you dare to question it. Really now, how could you have listened to someone with such a poorly designed website?” Here I’ll quote from Miles’ recent outing of the Electric Universe project (aka Thunderbolts):
“It now looks to me like the Thunderbolts are just a continuation of the old Velikovsky con. They hook you by admitting what you already know: the upper levels of the mainstream are composed of a bunch of liars and frauds, and textbook physics is little more than an embarrassing edifice of fudged math and bad theory. Using real plasma physics as ballast, they then cobble together an electric universe replacement for the old tinkertoy gravity model, and you feel like you have made some progress. But your progress is illusory, because the Thunderbolts were created to fail. Not only are their theories shallow and extremely limited, but they are purposely created to self-destruct upon any serious reading. Compared to me, these guys are one-trick ponies, who keep publishing the same ten sentences over and over. In 40 years, they haven’t solved a single actual problem. Conversely, in less than half the time, I have solved hundreds of major problems in physics back to the time of Euclid. While these bozos are wasting their time in conferences and chatrooms and Youtube videos, I am solving new problems, doing all the math and theory from the ground up.” [I should point out that Miles also offered a substantive critique of Thunderbolts several years ago.]
Then “Robert” links to a cluesforum thread on the Stephen Hawking hoax along with the accusation that Miles cribbed it – meaning he simply stole their work and passed it off as his own. I encourage you to go to that link. You will see some vague (and also unoriginal) discussion about Stephen Hawking being a hoax, along with almost zero evidence — just a lot of speculation. In fact, the two videos the original poster linked to are completely ridiculed by the forum members. And then on the 3rd page someone links to Miles’s work and the thread suddenly starts to take off with a lot of people presenting additional evidence, etc. Someone even posts the picture with Hawking’s big front bottom teeth sticking out, which appeared in Miles’ paper though they give no credit (if anything, they are the ones cribbing his work). Notice too that Shack tries to spin it to one of his ridiculous over-the-top theories by saying that Stephen Hawking is some kind of animatronic puppet. [By the way, for some reason people find it spooky that Miles Mathis is MM and Simon Shack is SS. But recall that Simon Shack is a pseudonym for Simon Hytten, so his initials aren’t SS.]
In any event, I don’t recall Miles ever saying the idea of Hawking being some kind of a hoax was original to him. But he does claim to have offered a decisive analysis, and in that I agree, especially if you compare his paper to that thread. On top of that, you also get from Miles what you don’t get from anybody at cluesforum: a very penetrating insight into why the hoax was perpetrated – an explanation that follows the conclusions he reached from over a decade of picking apart mainstream scientific bullshit (but then also reconstructs it without simply throwing up his hands and declaring that all science is bullshit).
Go, Team Mathis, Go!
People like “Robert” always try to sell you an inverted version of reality where white is black and up is down. In his telling, “Miles Mathis” is surrounded by a posse of flunkies who place their made-up hero on a pedestal and are always standing at the ready to shout down criticism and close ranks: a “web-brigade of friends [who] can shove [his work] down people’s throats in comment-threads far and wide;” “cyber-friends [who] charge into any forum and defend their guy tooth and nail.”
In “Robert’s” topsy-turvy version of reality, criticism of Miles on comment threads “far and wide” will be quickly shut down. My experience has actually been the opposite. Outside the realm of PoM, whenever I bring up Miles’ work, it almost always brings people out of nowhere immediately who try to discredit or dismiss him and his work. Even on a forum like Reddit’s conspiracy subreddit or fakeologist (just look at the comments on the black frosting post). And this is especially true with his scientific work. In fact, it was this experience I had on several occasions that helped to convince me that he was legit: If random, anonymous people were appearing out of nowhere trying to convince me that he was wrong using pathetic arguments without any substance, then to my mind it was a good indication that he was really on to something.
Here’s a personal example: when I posted my paper that tries to apply his theories to LENR (Low Energy Nuclear Reactions AKA ‘cold fusion’) at a LENR discussion forum, the reaction was most curious. Within minutes, someone replied with “Pi=4?” The paper I posted made no mention of Pi, and Miles’ papers on Pi are way down at the bottom of his website. So how did he so quickly find, read, digest and refer to it? A few minutes later, somebody posted “Does he really believe that Stephen Hawking died in 1985 and has been played by an impostor since then?” While it’s true that his paper about Hawking does appear on his science site, it is also down towards the bottom. How could somebody so quickly have found and read that paper? It was clear that people were almost immediately chiming in with things that seemed purposefully designed to discredit him; and it was clear they were using ammunition they had at the ready. The other thing about that thread is that many of the people commenting were first-time posters, most of whom would never be heard from again. Now go ahead and look at the commenters on the thread about Miles’ genealogy. How many are first-time posters? A lot.
I quickly came to suspect that the site where I had posted that LENR paper was itself carefully monitored and that shills were being sent in to secure the breach. My first clue actually came when I e-mailed the site owner my paper for submission and he didn’t reply. I then wrote to him in a different comment thread, and he said he never got my e-mail. So I sent him again. He looked for it and said he found both e-mails had been diverted to his trash folder. Not his spam folder. His trash folder. When was the last time somebody sent an e-mail to you that found its way mysteriously to your trash folder? I have never had that happen before or since. That was the first time weird e-mail anomalies happened to me in connection with Miles, especially his physics work, but it would not be the last, and our correspondence has been repeatedly stymied. I know I’m not the only one who has had that problem corresponding with him. He didn’t change his e-mail address for nothing, you know.
I had a somewhat similar experience over at cluesforum when someone started a discussion of his work on Pi. It was just me and Vexman explaining and then defending Miles against an onslaught of substance-free and repetitive criticism, much of it from people who said they joined cluesforum just to chime in to that debate. (I’m not imagining things: to become a cluesforum member you have to submit a statement about why you’re joining, and IIRC at least two people stated that was their reason for joining.)
I’ll give you another example. Here is an entry on what appears to be a very obscure blog from July 31, 2013. A scarce 3 hours after the post went up, the “criticism” starts and just keeps rolling in. People appearing out of the woodwork to bash Miles and his work. Some of it really puerile, like: “Miles is out of his mind. He might think that there is a god but he is just a child. If this artist ever sees a 25 feet tall man walking to his house he would think that this 25 feet tall man was a real thing. So do people who take L.S.D. think. So we now know that this Miles Mathis is just a drug taker. Hey Miles. You could just smoke some pot and get high and see what is not real.” Um, okay…
Yes, there are supporters in the comments, but most of them arrived quite late to the party, probably after doing a web search for Miles Mathis, which is how I found that blog (on the 3rd page of google results). But supporters are still heavily outnumbered by denouncers.
This Quora post is another example. To my eyes the question seems to have been posed simply a set-up for them to post a derogatory response. And then there is his entry in Rational Wiki, to which Miles replied, with typically perspicacious logic: “If they are right and I am just a deluded crank … why the obvious and pathetic smear campaign? Do you really need to smear deluded cranks? No, logically and rationally, you can ignore deluded cranks, because they are no threat to any real science. Therefore, logically and rationally, the fact that they feel it necessary to slander me with this prominent transparent project is another sign they are threatened.” Ditto for “Robert.”
And no matter where you go on the web, the criticism sounds the same; it has the same form and tone. It rarely addresses substance, or when it does it frames his arguments in a disingenuous way in order to dismiss them or make them sound totally absurd. I have been told on multiple occasions from different commenters that they are in graduate school in math or physics and that they print out his papers and pass them around the department for a laugh. When I first heard that, it made me pause and question myself. But knowing what I do of graduate school life, I found it far fetched. Grad students usually don’t have time for that, and that doesn’t sound like how they unwind. But when I heard it a second time in another place, I realized it’s one of their scripted talking points designed to make you feel like you yourself are a laughingstock for giving his work any credence.
What’s the Point?
One of the things that is clearly lacking from “Robert’s” hatchet job is what he thinks is the point of this physics psy-op. (The same can be said for Kevin’s piece on Miles’ genealogy.) Is it merely a Waste Our Time™ strategy as “Robert” suggests? If it is, I’d say it’s failing badly. First of all, most people don’t even bother trying to read it because they feel it is ‘above their pay grade.’ So right off the top it wastes exactly zero time for most people. Some people start reading it but find they either don’t understand it or disagree with it, so they stop reading. So it doesn’t waste much of their time. And then there are those of us like myself, Vexman, Jared and many others who feel that the profound and penetrating insights into the physical world we have gained are well worth the time we invested. Do you feel you’ve wasted your time reading Miles’ conspiracy work, or do you, like me, feel you have gained profound and penetrating insights into history and politics and strategies of rule?
You might counter by saying the putative “Miles Mathis project” is the same as the Electric Universe gambit, a way to steer critics of mainstream science down a dead-end alley. Well if that’s the case, then Miles certainly doesn’t act like someone who is trying to build a following. “Robert” finds it inexplicable that Miles never joins the discussion on a physics forum devoted to him in order to have his “huge” ego stroked. But he fails to point out what is really inexplicable: if Miles was the face of some larger project aimed to divert these people into a dead end, wouldn’t he (or someone on the committee pretending to be him) get down in the trenches to rally the troops? I think the answer is obviously yes. And yet, Miles certainly doesn’t seem eager to rally the troops or recruit as many people as possible into his camp. Remember that the Electric Universe folks spend their time in conferences and chatrooms and Youtube videos. If this was a committee running a project, you’d at least think that someone would be assigned to hob nob with the hoi polloi as Miles’ internet persona. But he doesn’t seem to be trying to make friends or enlist allies, as anybody who has e-mailed him is keenly aware. He ran a few physics conferences, capped at 8 guests, but has discontinued those as far as I know. That’s about the extent of it.
And speaking of those conferences, didn’t Mark attend the last one in 2016? That’s actually how I was first drawn to PoM. As somebody whose thinking has been profoundly influence by Miles’ work (both physics and history) I had been feeling ‘alone in the wilderness’ because I could find nowhere to discuss his work in a friendly environment. Everywhere I turned was a shill-fest. Then I stumbled on Mark’s comments in the fakeologist comments on ‘black frosting’ that I linked to above. Aha! Here was someone defending Mathis against charges (which were absurd to my mind) that he was just a fabricated identity fronting a committee. A quick google search on Mark’s name brought me to PoM. (There was someone else on that thread, Brandon, who had also attended and later sent me some pictures from the conference. He also defended Miles against charges of spookhood.)
I won’t rehash my brief history with PoM here. I will say that at first I was delighted to find a group of like-minded people who seemed to admire Miles’ work and take it seriously. So I find it very surprising to see Mark publishing this latest piece. He was there for four days at a conference where people were discussing Miles’ work in physics. Did Miles seem like he was working from prepared notes? Did it seem like the questions he got were planted or that he hemmed and hawed or found it difficult to answer them? Or did it instead seem like he was spontaneously relating knowledge he understood at a deep level, as if he himself had come up with those ideas himself? Was there any hint or indication that the physics work was not of his own creation? And again, if you were fronting this psyop, why would you open your house up to a bunch of strangers to ask you questions about an immense corpus of physics papers unless you felt you could answer them and discuss the work competently and confidently? That doesn’t sound like something a clown would do. Maybe a high-wire trapeze artist, but not a clown.
And speaking of artists, let’s not forget that before Miles started writing on physics, he was writing scathing critiques of modern art and artists and art critics. That the CIA has exclusively promoted modern art during the 20th century (and that their plutocrat masters have profited handsomely from that promotion) is well known. It is not even ‘conspiracy theory’ anymore, since the CIA has admitted their promotion. So are they also behind his critiques of modern art? Why? And if not, why would they choose Miles of all people as a vehicle for their scientific pastiche?
And so again I ask: if Miles’ work on science is the product of an elaborate psyop, what is the point of it? All I hear are crickets.
Coda
I have been corresponding with Miles by e-mail for a little over two years now. Part of my conclusion that he is genuine comes from the texture of those e-mails, which is something that is inherently difficult to relate. One thing that stands out was that when I sent him my paper on Gandhi, he wrote back saying that he had sent it to a friend of his who was from India, and conveyed to me his friend’s reactions. Later when I posted the work on cluesforum, I would learn that the friend he was referring to was none other than Gopi (who commented on my post, identifying himself as Miles’ “Indian friend”). You will remember that Gopi is the guy with the PhD in physics who had sought out Miles’ scientific advice and traveled to Taos on at least two occasions. Does that sounds like the way a big psyop is run? You may say it’s all part of an elaborate charade. Fine. But I don’t think so. There are many other things I could detail from our e-mail conversations, but this rebuttal is already getting long enough, and anyway I do respect Miles’ right to confidentiality when it comes to our e-mail correspondence.
I should add that Miles knows who I am and where I live, and that is part of the reason he does not entirely trust me. In fact, early on in our correspondence he said he thought I was running a project on him and nearly cut off contact. At some point I asked myself, if he himself was running a project, why would he be so suspicious of me? Wouldn’t he try to enlist any and all possible allies to misdirect them down a dead-end limited hangout? Of course you might think that I’m making all this up and that I’m in cahoots with him and a ranking member of the Miles Mathis committee. And I guess writing this defense will only serve as confirmation of that. I don’t know what I can say to change your mind, but I will point out that it doesn’t make a lot of sense to have Miles discover a worldwide conspiracy controlled by Jews who promote Zionism, and then assign him a sidekick who is Jewish and lives in Israel. It doesn’t exactly add to his credibility, now does it? And he has told me he has lost supporters for publishing my work. (For the record: I grew up in the US in a non-Zionist reform Jewish household and am decidedly not a Zionist nor do I believe in Judaism. I live in Israel because my wife was born here. And no, I’m not his sidekick).
Frankly, I cannot say that I begrudge him his mistrust. From his perspective, I can see how the red flags stack around me (though I don’t come from wealth and nobody in my family has been involved in intelligence work or anything like that). But as Miles wrote in his paper on PoM:
“It would be unfair to ditch [Josh] just because he is Jewish. Some people have claimed I jump to conclusions, but I don’t. I require a high level of evidence in everything I look at. Once I get to that level, I can make a fast decision, but I don’t proceed on hunches. Like anyone else, I start with hunches, but I don’t travel on them. I travel on a compilation of facts. Honestly, Josh is the toughest call I have had to make in my short career as a Truther. He admitted from the start he was in Israel, and my gut reaction was to dump him based only on that. Given what I have been discovering, the odds were very high he was trying to run some sort of confidence trick on me. However, odds don’t always pan out. Odds can give you a hunch, but they can’t provide a final decision. In Josh’s favor he has written two long and well researched papers on Gandhi and Dreyfus, in neither of which could I find any spin. They were good enough to publish, and I published them.”
So ask yourself: do you have enough facts at hand to conclude Miles is a limited hangout or the front for some kind of intelligence psyop? I myself have a lot of facts and evidence to suggest the opposite. Just because he has reached a different conclusion than you on the subject of the occult, or elite pedophilia, or transvestites, or chemtrails, or whatever doesn’t mean he is trying to direct people’s attention away from that. It just means he has a different opinion. To quote again from his paper on PoM: “Not everyone I disagree with is perforce an agent.” Plus, it’s not as if there isn’t a ton of other people covering those other topics, right? So why would Intelligence want to (mis)direct people away from those theories, which they appear in fact to be so heavily promoting? I believe he deserves the benefit of the doubt.
And if Miles is misdirecting or is a limited hangout, does that mean we should dismiss his entire corpus of work? That’s the implication we get, where “Robert” tells us it means that we can get some of our heroes back, even transparent propagandists like George Orwell. What? First of all, if Miles is a limited hangout, that means he has offered much good material along with false or misleading stuff. That’s how LH’s work, remember? So it’s quite a leap of logic there. You would want, I think, to go through and state exactly where you think he’s right and where you think he’s misdirecting so you don’t make the mistake of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. But “Robert” would have you believe that if Miles is a false guru, then the other gurus he has outed as false are actually real. Again, what? Look, if you want to reclaim a hero, you don’t have to prove to yourself that Miles is misdirecting. Just go back to whatever paper they appear in and figure out if and how Miles was wrong. You’d have to do that even if you think Miles is intentionally leading us astray.
In closing, I want to point out that “Robert” also claims that Kevin Starr’s recent piece on Miles’ genealogy shows us that “Mathis lies.” That’s funny, I don’t remember Kevin showing that in his paper at all. He asserts a couple of times that Miles has been disingenuous in hiding things he “must have known” about his ancestors, but has nothing to substantiate it with. In other words, Kevin doesn’t show that Mathis lies, he claims it. But through “Robert’s” alchemical sophistry, empty claims have somehow turned into convincing demonstrations. I for one, am not falling for it.
Update: Miles has a few cutting remarks to add in the latest addendum to his earlier response about his genealogy. And Vexman has now chimed in as well.
Later update: Mark Tokarski promises that more hit pieces are on the way. And I promise not to respond to them. This one took way too much time to compose as it is. I refuse to be baited into losing any more time on this subject. And anyway, judging from what I’ve seen so far I can already tell that whatever they have to say will be “not even wrong.” Just a lot of jealous bluster and disingenuous patter.
One thing I will say: I have never complained about not being able to comment over there. I simply pointed to the absurd hypocrisy of starting a blog whose purpose is “discussion” (it’s in the name of the blog for crying out loud!) and yet to forbid discussion. I believe this is the same point Miles is making, where he has seen on more than one occasion where discussion about his work has been shut down on forums that were created for discussion. But if your site was never created to allow discussion in the first place (see e.g., www.mileswmathis.com), then there is no hypocrisy, is there?
Also note the reason Mark gives for closing down discussion: “Team Mathis sits outside the gate waiting to be let in, and once that happens this blog will become a moonscape littered with debris.” Why is that? First off note the topsy-turvy depiction of reality. He gives you the impression that the site is being circled by Team Mathis jackals who will flood the gates once comments are enabled. But if you look at the comments of the genealogy post at the “discussion” site before they were shut down, it runs very much in favor of Kevin. Roughly 3 to 1 if not more, depending on whether you count posters or posts. No, the reason it would become a moonscape is because “Team Mathis” has the better of it and would continue to tear apart the “arguments” of the other side, littering the comments section with the debris of demolished sophistry, obliterated fallacies and dismembered straw men. Like in every other case where a discussion board has shut down discussion of Miles’ work, it is an act of desperation.
I could care less if Mark doesn’t allow discussion at any of his sites. I certainly won’t be commenting at any of them in the future even if he does open the gates. In fact it would be better if he didn’t allow comments, since he has allowed a once disciplined comment section at PoM to turn into a complete shill fest.
I turned off comments on this particular post since I did not want to be baited into wasting more of my time on it. I know my weaknesses. One of them is the urge to respond to disingenuous, poorly reasoned criticism about things I care deeply about, like, you know, the truth. So the only way to protect myself from that weakness is to close comments. It’s the same reason why I don’t keep any sweets in the house, either, since I know I won’t be able to resist. Will power is not my strong suit, and this second update is a testament to that. However, the comments on all the other entries in this blog are still active. And as always you can contact me directly via the contact page if you wish to pick up the gauntlet.
Further update: I woke up this morning with the realization that it was a mistake to close comments here. I knew that it might give the impression that I, too, am afraid of criticism and counter-arguments, whereas in fact I simply didn’t want to be bothered swatting flies. But the realization I had this morning is that the arguments on the other side are so bad that they defeat themselves. I don’t even need to respond. So I’m taking this as an exercise in self-control. Maybe it will even help me kick-start my diet. So I’ve opened comments — have at it! But keep it civil.
Update May 22: I’ve been meaning to get to this for awhile. Apparently after seeing that their attack on Miles (the one I responded to above) failed to land any punches or be taken seriously be all thinking people, they followed up by doubling down on some even more ridiculous, illogical and libelous accusations. These include the accusation that Miles is either a pedophile or a pederast who agreed to act as a front for TPTB in exchange for an easier sentence, namely house arrest. On top of that Miles is accused of having taken naked pictures of a young girl and put them in a book that he keeps in his house. At the same time they also accuse him of being homosexual, so go figure. The whole thing is beyond ridiculous. It is easy to look up people who have been convicted of sex crimes. I’ve done it. Miles isn’t on the list. Nor does he have a criminal record. That is also easy to confirm. You would have thought the snakes at PoM would have done that before posting such accusations and opening themselves to a libel suit, but as Miles has lamented, “How do you sue Intelligence?” I remember somebody once insinuated to Mark that his brother had probably been a pedophile since he was a Catholic priest. He was fit to be tied. But apparently it’s OK to accuse others of that based on zero evidence. The whole thing is really sickening.
And as for the book, well, of course they don’t let convicted sex offenders keep naked pictures of little girls around, do they? On top of that we have heard from Brandon, who attended the last conference that Miles hosted in 2016. Miles showed the “Tess Book” to Brandon on the last day of the conference, and Brandon says the pictures and paintings in the book are innocent and fully clothed. You can find many of them on Miles’ website and judge for yourself if they look sexualized in any way. How do we know Brandon was really at the conference, you ask? Because he sent a pictures he took of Miles sitting around a table at a restaurant flanked by conference attendees, including none other than Mark Tokarski.
With respect to house arrest, Mark was at the conference and left the house with Miles to go out to lunch on several occasions. If anybody should know that Miles isn’t on house arrest, it’s Mark. If anybody should know that Miles isn’t wearing an electronic monitoring ankle bracelet, it’s Mark. Why he would allow these absurd accusations to appear on his site is something I can’t explain. Maybe he’s still out to lunch.
I won’t bother responding to the rest of the stupidity with which they’ve padded their attack, but I will counter the whole thing with an equally plausible theory: I believe John Candy faked his death, lost some weight, dyed his hair, and re-emerged a few years later as the persona known as “Mark Tokarski.” They’re about the same age. And it would explain the Zamboni parked in front of his house on Google Earth satellite photos. Also note their striking resemblance and the way their ears, teeth, chin and nose match up. It’s a million-to-one shot, doc, million-to-one! Remember folks, face-chops don’t lie, only people do:
[Edit: It has come to my attention that some people aren’t getting the joke. They think I’m actually arguing that John Candy faked his death and was reassigned to the persona of Mark Tokarski. I am not. I am trying to make a point about the absurdity of the attacks against Miles by making an equally absurd argument about Mark. The inside joke here is that Mark used to use this same method where would take two famous people and line up their faces in this way. His hypothesis was that many of the old rockers and famous people from the 60’s or later faked their deaths and then were later re-assigned to a different role. So Janis Joplin became Amy Goodman, Jimmy Hendrix became Cornell West, Freddie Mercury became Dr. Phil, etc. etc. It says something about Mark’s discernment, which in turn tells us something about the merits of his recent decision to turn against Miles. The Candy-Tokarski “face chop” is a parody. It isn’t even original to me; I took it from here.]
Update May 26: In a separate post, I have collated information on the amount of people who visited and viewed this post in the first two weeks, as well as their countries of origin. I have also collated the supportive comments from this post and put them together here.
Update June 13: I am reprinting here a slightly edited version of my response to Allan Weispecker’s “open letter,” which he published on his blog in March 2017. I am also including some additional material from comments I have made here and elsewhere. He does not allow comments there, so I posted this originally in the comments at fakeologist (which devoted a post to the open letter), and also e-mailed to Allan, following which we had a brief back-and-forth over e-mail. Allan said he would correct the obvious errors that I pointed out in his original open letter, but since Allan is not a man of his word nor someone to be trusted, he of course never did. I am not going to link to his original letter nor to my response, but they can easily be found with google.
Allan showed up at some point in comments on this post, claiming that nobody had ever responded to his open letter, which of course was a lie. So why am I posting this now? Well the blog was just hit with a tsunami of trollish comments that refer back to some of Weispecker’s arguments. Although I don’t take these trolls seriously, I am adding this as a way of showing that they are full of shit. They claim nobody has ever responded to their points, but that’s false. They are deliberately lying. I am also adding this so that nobody can come to the comments section making the claims that they do. So without further ado, here is my original letter with some minor edits plus additional material:
I find your crusade against Miles to be misguided. And frankly many of your arguments just don’t wash. Now if I wanted to follow your method I’d say that because I find many of your arguments specious, it means you’re trying to use NLP to convince me that Miles is an LH when he’s really not. But I chalk it up to sour grapes. You wanted to come to Miles’s conference and he slammed the door in your face, so to speak. He said you’d ask questions no one would want to hear and be disruptive. So in the first case he doesn’t find what you do very interesting, which has got to sting. And as for being disruptive, well, you did write a book about yourself called “Can’t You Get Along with Anyone?” Is it any wonder he might think you’d be hard to get along with?
So let’s take a look at your arguments against him, starting with the weakest one, which appears in Part 2 of your open letter:
As background, it should be noted that you boasted that you don’t post much but when you do “it’s on the money.” You said that his “Paper Updates” are identical to the previous drafts. “In other words, his boasting on new information is totally bogus.” I literally did a face palm when I read that. The reason they are identical is that both the original links and the updated links point to the same document. You see, he doesn’t put up a new document with a new name for each update. He simply updates the paper, saves it with the same name, and uploads the new document as a replacement for the old one. So when you click on the original document, it links you to the updated one. You do understand how these things work, don’t you? Yes, you should. You seem to be pretty computer savvy. Plus, if you’ve ever read through one of his papers before the update (as I have on many occasions), then after the update, you can very clearly see the new information (which he always puts in [brackets] with the date of the update).
Now, if I were to use your “method” of deduction, I would say something like this: there is no possible way that this Allan character (or whoever the jokers are on the Weisbecker committee) could have made this mistake. He’s (they’re?) always telling us how careful he is and how it takes him forever to post because he waits until he’s absolutely sure and “on the money.” Plus he’s obviously very savvy with computers, having edited many videos on his own computer. He has his own website! This can’t possibly be an honest mistake. There is no way he could be that completely and utterly stupid. He’s clearly using deceit and NLP to make us think that Miles is deceiving us on that. No, it’s obvious to me now (although it took me awhile to suck in my gut and admit it to myself), that he’s LH. But why? Why the bald-faced lies?
Almost all of your other criticism chalks up to: I don’t agree with him or I think his argument is specious, therefore he is using NLP and trying to misdirect. Can you see how the conclusion doesn’t really follow from the premises? What a non sequitur it is? (Miles tried to show you that in his “beautiful logic” response to you [“Because I don’t know everything I am a limited hangout? Beautiful logic.”], but it obviously didn’t sink in.)
See, I just caught you lying to your readers, didn’t I? You seem to think Miles is infallible and therefore any sign of fallibility is clearly a sign of misdirection. That’s a pretty high bar and one that you’ve just hit your head on in an unforced error, ya dingus! Or rather I should say, you lying hypocrite!
You say that he must know why the JFK assassination was hoaxed, and is just misdirecting on the reasons why. Again, it’s a non sequitur. Why should he know? You might disagree with his argument about the motives for it (as I do), but that doesn’t mean he’s trying to misdirect. In all your flailing and finger-pointing, did you offer us a better idea of what the motive is? Instead of just saying: “I disagree, here’s why, and here’s a better hypothesis” all you can do is shout “NLP!” and dance around pointing fingers.
The real irony, though, is that you take his inability to provide a convincing motive for the JFK assassination as evidence of misdirection, while you yourself offer up not a single argument about what Miles’s motives are in his misdirection. You say his genealogy work is bunk and his focus on Jews is unimportant. So if you think he’s pointing us in the wrong direction, can you tell us what he’s misdirecting us away from? Or, as you did with Corbett, what lies he is trying to get us to unthinkingly accept? If you’re so far ahead of us, why don’t you tell us what his motive is? And if you can’t or if I disagree with you, then by your standards that means you must be a LH.
Same thing with your arguments about what you call his “guilt by association” tactics, his “faulty” inferences about genealogy, and most of your other criticisms as well. You’re grasping at straws, which you take as “big clues,” and then have the temerity to say that Miles is a LH because he does the same. It would be far more constructive, and in my view, to engage in a substantive critique. It is actually possible to disagree with someone and tell them “I think you’re wrong about this” without saying “therefore you’re obviously an LH engaged in NLP.” That would actually be far more interesting. And mature.
As for your assetion that Clues Forum is in cahoots with Miles: I agree with you that CF is a limited hangout and part of what I call “operation fantasy land.” Flat Earth is part of operation fantasy land. So is the CF position that rockets don’t work in a vacuum. But your attacks on them are completely irrelevant to Miles. What, because you don’t agree with their criticism of Miles it’s evidence that they are colluding with him? Come on! They have trashed him and his work every which way and left. By the way, your time would be better spent reading Miles’s work on physics than coming up with a hatful of specious and tenuous (and disingenuous?) arguments for why he’s an LH.
Your pinpointing of his British-isms is very tenuous. Yes, it’s true that you wouldn’t expect someone from Texas to use those colloquialisms, but the words “nobody from Texas would” could be used to describe most other things about Miles. He’s very unique, to say the least. And not just for a Texan. If you’ve read his poetry, you will see that he has a very broad vocabulary. So I don’t find it impossible to believe that he peppers his language with British slang. And if he has spent time with British people in the past, he might have picked up on a few expressions. It seems to me to be just as plausible that it is a quirk—even if he is from Texas.
[Here I’m going to add parts of my response to a troll named “Ricky” who brought up the Britishisms in a comment, which is also something the latest wave of trolls are coming back to:
“Alright folks, we’ve got a live one here. His IP address pins him to Arlington or Alexandra, VA, which is of course spitting distance from Langley. And he uses a non-existent e-mail address….
Miles later wrote to me about [the Britishisms] in an e-mail, which I will share here:
—-
“I don’t feel like I have to explain everything to trolls, and most times prefer not to answer them, but on the topic of my “Britishisms”, it is really no different than my occasional use of French or Latin. I know this stuff, so I sometimes insert it as color. I do that less than I used to, one because some readers see it as showing off and two because others see it as chaff. They don’t know these things and don’t want to look anything up. The Britishisms are somewhat different, because I use them for a slightly different reason. I usually use them to avoid American obscenities, since–being foreign–they seem slightly less raw. Some of my readers complain any time I use the word shit or fuck, and shite just seems to me to be a one-step tone down, for example. To my ear, it is a little less raw and a little more funny, just because it is British. Maybe that is just me.
“I did live in Europe and hang with Brits, so these words did jump in my bag, so to speak. The other thing is that I have read a lot, as anyone can tell, and that reading has been heavy with British novels, going back centuries. Also, I wrote the Lord of the Rings sequel, putting it as far as possible into British English, down to the spellings, in order to match the feel of Tolkien. Some of that rubbed off, like the way I usually put final quotation marks inside the period, for instance. In some cases, the British usage makes more sense to me, and I have never understood why American final quotes are hanging outside the period. But since I am not anal about this stuff, it can vary depending on my mood. I get emails from people bothered by this, but I just ignore it. If, given all my content, they wish to talk about that, I can’t be bothered.”
—
Well, to his credit he can’t be baited into wasting his time responding to these idiotic “arguments,” but I can unfortunately. What he said rings true to me, because I can relate: I had an advisor in grad school who was Australian, and some of his expressions have rubbed off on me. I still find myself using them some 15 years after graduating. Words like “reckon,” “wombat,” “get stuffed,” and “dingus,” As in: “I reckon you’re a right dingus, ‘Ricky.’ Get stuffed, you wombat.”]
<Back to my original response:>
One more thing: you repeat again and again in the Part II post that nobody on the Clues Forum thread addressed your argument about the microphone shadow. (Frankly I’m still confused about what your argument is as to why he didn’t point that out.) But that’s also a lie. In that thread I responded to your specious argument about his “impossible” word count, and in this comment I specifically responded to your shadow argument:
“And as for the microphone shadow, I’m not convinced you’re right, mainly because it’s a bit difficult to say exactly what position the mic is in. If you look at the shadow cast by Jack Ruby, it goes behind him and to the right. Well the shadow is also behind the mic and to the right. The angle looks a little off, but it’s hard to say for sure given that the location of the mic vis-a-vis the lights is hard to triangulate. But if it’s off, it’s only a little bit off. Maybe MM didn’t answer you because he also didn’t think you were right.
“If you’re right, then it’s hard to say why someone would have added that in there. Your conclusion is that it is a sign that the clues pointing towards a hoax were placed deliberately for us to think the event was hoaxed when in fact it was real. In other words, you’re saying the hoax is a hoax. I suppose it’s possible, but I doubt it. If it was indeed pasted in, I would guess it’s one of those little details they’ve added to troll us. They love trolling us.”
Do you realize how badly you’ve torpedoed your credibility with these demonstrably false accusations? Why should anybody believe any claim you make if you can’t get basic facts straight? Or as you would say: Your claim that nobody ever addressed the microphone shadow is another lie. But why, Allan, why the bald-faced lie?
I could go on and enumerate other problems with your argument and provide you will all the other evidence I have and reasons I believe that he is NOT an LH. (Though of course I cannot rule out the possibility). I could also go on and dissect your arguments to expose the “hidden” workings of your NLP. But I think I’ve made my point, and I’ve got better things to do.
[That’s the end of my response, but I want to add something else. If you look at the video coverage of the Oswald ‘assassination,’ you’ll see that there are bright flood lights in front of the scene from different angles. This means that the camera flash was not the only thing lighting this scene. I just went back to the JFK paper to look again at the picture in question and found this addendum Miles added to the JFK paper in February: More indication of that was found by other researchers after I published this paper. Although I used very little of the research of others in compiling this paper originally, a small amount of good research has come out afterwards, possibly in response to my findings. A YouTube video posted by Amy Joyce in 2017 compares the still photos to the films, tracking the camera flashes. She finds flashes for the photos of Jack Beers and others, but none for the iconic Bob Jackson photo above. I will be told he shot without a flash, but we can see that isn’t true. The shadows we see are from a flash, since they are cast directly backwards. If he had been relying on the lights above, the shadows would cast down. This means the event was run at least twice, which explains the discontinuities I find just below.]
Now nobody can come a callin’ parroting Weispecker and claiming in good faith that his points haven’t been addressed. They may not find it satisfactory, but if so they should say why. Therefore it is with a clean consciences I can say that henceforth, ANY comment that repeats Allan’s specious arguments without substantively addressing my response or Miles’ addendum–and especially any claims that Allan’s points haven’t been addressed–will be deleted. It’s that simple.
Super cool thread discussions y’all , how about Soul = Sol = Sun , my question : is the charge field we experience coming exclusively from our sun and does it then move away or is more stationary and lasting ?
LikeLiked by 1 person
As Miles has outlined in many papers, perhaps ten, the ambient charge field we feel on Earth is a combination of (in order of intensity) the Sun’s emissions (insolation), the moon’s, Jupiter’s, the other Jovians, and the galaxy itself. Charge isn’t stationary since it is moving at light speed, but those variables of course have variations, minima and maxima. Jupiter for example isn’t always on our side of the sun, and our position relative to the galactic core changes over time as well. One strong maxima would be if the moon and all the outer planets were aligned, but such conjunctions are quite rare obviously. But they do happen.
As a heliotheist myself, I find Soul ~ Sol to work just fine within my non-pantheon. The sun’s charge trumps all the others in most cases. And it is of course the giver of life here.
LikeLike
Sorry, that “perhaps ten” part was inaccurate and uncalled for. You were genuinely asking. I apologize for the snidery. 🙂
LikeLike
No sniderity taken , Jared , as science is not a subject I’ve invested a lot of my time in but I do appreciate what I’m learning here , I’ve read a few of Miles’ science papers and am about half way through Josh’s synopsis post , so forgive any questions that would seem to be already covered . Do you ever start to get interested in something and then other new things you come across , or things you studied in the past , look like they could be related to your new interest ?
I used to have one of these ghost-knife fish in my aquarium , a very curious sort he was . He is a low-charge ‘ electric ‘ fresh water fish . I’m now seeing that science people throw around that electric word and I’m wondering how the mechanics of the ghost-knife fish actually relate to a charge field . Does being under water change the dynamics of the charge field ? What the commentators in this vid do not tell you is the ghost-knife has no eyeballs , only empty sockets so his ability to see with ‘ electricity ‘ is so important . Also notice the squiggley white marking on his face , other fish will see it as a worm and it’s like the ghost-knife is calling for food delivery .
LikeLike
Gday all,
A quick note on Blackrock – seems they maybe getting into Bitcoin :
https://www.coindesk.com/report-worlds-biggest-asset-manager-blackrock-exploring-bitcoin/
“Global investment management company BlackRock is reportedly mulling a move into bitcoin.
According to a Financial News London report on Monday, the New York-based asset manager has now set up a working group to look into ways it can “take advantage” of cryptocurrencies and blockchain technology, as well as to monitor what rivals are doing in the space.”
LikeLike
I heard an ad for this while driving home from work , had an LOL moment , it was on sports-talk radio btw , showing the gullibility threshold of listeners ?
!!!! Bitcoin IRA !!!! Inc is an American company that combines various cryptocurrencies with Individual retirement accounts. Contrary to some reports, no investment – including Bitcoin – is approved by the IRS as an IRA investment. Wikipedia
Founded: 2015
Headquarters: Sherman Oaks, California, USA
LikeLiked by 1 person
California eh? I guess the only more shady place would be Langley Virginia, but I guess that would be too obvious.
LikeLike
LikeLiked by 1 person
like 🙂 . for some reason I can’t click on the star to “like” something
LikeLike
Well, I can think of an explanation of how your wakefulness before the alarm could be a result of the charge field. Remember, the charge field is a real field of photons from the sun and other celestial bodies. Your brain may be able to pick up signals based on the location and activity of the sun that lets it know what time it is. In this way, your brain has kind of mapped out a photon-field signature to a certain time (the time of your alarm), and has learned that when it experiences that exact signature in the field, that it is time to wake up. (Read Miles’ paper on sleep for more on that. That’s where I got the ideas from.)
As for the dog? Well, I can’t think of anything right now. I think they just have extremely great hearing, but who knows, really? We all have our own fields, maybe our fields are very unique and dogs are very good at detecting these fields? I couldn’t begin to guess, would take someone like Miles to answer that in a convincing manner.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I remember watching this mathematician guy – the human calculator I think he was called – and he highlighted that our Gregorian calendar system is crap at all levels and I think MM has pointed that out too in one of his papers (Oct=8 but its the 10th month etc) so I wonder if this goes back that far.
If we had 13 months there would be 28 days in every month and the human cycle would fall naturally into that circadian rhythm. Same with menstrual cycle, full moons, werewolf madness etc
So I think you are right. our bodies are “tuned to the moon” and everything else
As for dogs and animals – they just go by their masters’ habits but I wonder if on closer examination we found them to align to the 28 day circadian rhythm too
Maybe the Gregorian calendar has a lot more to answer for than just poorly mismatched month names??
LikeLike
Dave Gorman had an episode in his Modern Life is Goodish comedy show about 13 months’ being more practical than 12:
LikeLike
lol but joking aside…what are we missing?
LikeLike
13 is supposedly an unlucky number, TPTB must be very superstitious or 13 has another meaning for them.
Blur had an album called 13 which was basically a badly drawn capital B. (Should that be bee?)
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Should that be bee?”
That was a fly move; I’m not lion — it was a fly move.
LikeLike
13 was the lucky number together with 7 before the catholic church came along. Well – if its lucky for us, then its unlucky for them.
LikeLike
Like. [Like button does not work any more for some reason.]
Someone made a converter for Gormantime:
http://www.nick-taylor.co.uk/hosted/gorman.php
LikeLike
By naming the pdf phoen, is Miles’ guest writer giving the game away by alluding to the Phoenicians?

King Louis XII in the ‘Hive’ mind:
LikeLike
Well, to answer your question with certainty you’d need to be sure it was actually his guest writer saving the draft document into the pdf with that particular name. I don’t think it was the case here, So you should ask Miles instead. I may be wrong, of course.
LikeLike
Yeah definitely. He’s pretty much admitting it.
It’s already starting to make sense.They were first true maritime empire apparently and wiki page leaves a few clues:
“Greeks, Etruscans, and Romans freely admitted what they owed to the Phoenicians, and Phoenician influence can be traced in the Iberian and Celtic worlds from the 8th century BC onwards.”
“Hiram (also spelled Huran), the king of Tyre, is associated with the building of Solomon’s temple. .. This is the architect of the Temple, Hiram Abiff of Masonic lore. ”
“The word Bible itself derives from Greek biblion, which means “book” and either derives from, or is the (perhaps ultimately Egyptian) origin of Byblos, the Greek name of the Phoenician city Gebal”
Also I’m excited for the next parts on classical antiquity. I’ve been finding hint after hint of Ancient Spookia in the Roman Empire, Byzantine, Ottomans, etc. One aspect that becomes readily apparent is that the Emperors are almost never (or perhaps never) the true power. See Lucian of Samosata, who reads like an ancient agent of some sort undermining the pagan religions/philosophies of the time. See the Severan dynasty, particularly Julia Maesa and her family. She was a daugher of a High Priest from the Temple of the Sun in Emesa, or modern day Homs. What did they worship in the temple? A black stone. Hmmm.. Blackstone. Black rock..
LikeLiked by 1 person
Whenever i hear Black rock mentioned, i can only think of the Kaaba, the black rock at Mecca.
But there is always a sanctified stone in these ancient temples most Holy quarters, black or not, its called the Naos. The obvious reason for using stones as the central point is that they created a long term charge, which could be felt even without haven done any rituals.
LikeLike
The Black Rock was also the name of the slave ship that crashed, in LOST. The ship Richard came in on, and it had all that old dynamite in it.
LikeLike
Just wait til Dwayne Johnson runs for president – boom !
LikeLike
I just realized Burning Man is held every year in Black Rock City, Nevada.
Maybe the “black rock” that all these financial companies and religions reference is the crashed and burned out space-ship that carried our ancestors here? heh
I’m also reminded of the black obelisk in 2001: A Space Odyssey
It makes me think of “the dark arts” or in other words the spooks. ie. the stuff that is hidden from the public, the forbidden fruit
This video shows where much of the black budget money goes:
1970s & 80s Childrens TV shows Part 1 of 5
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_budget
An aside; I always wondered if marijuana was the tree of knowledge of good and evil spoken of in the bible.
Psychedelic drugs promote neural plasticity in rats and flies
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/06/180612185207.htm
LikeLike
May the Schwartz be with you .
LikeLike
The tree of knowledge is our own cerebrospinal system. It is not the marijuana plant nor does it represent the branches of spook families through millennia.
And it’s a spook project to promote psychedelics for psychiatric treatments such as depression. Of course the controllers’ science rag is going to say good things about
psychedelic studies on the brains of rats. Will
the governors stop at nothing? No.
As Miles has said
repeatedly in
his papers, the
controllers like
nothing better than to push mind altering drugs, whether it’s a plant from the earth or a synthetic from the lab. Miles says and I paraphrase: “want to know why I am still lucid —I’m not on any of that stuff.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Check out what’s going on at the very bottom of this medal , see the lion taking down the bird ( phoenix ) , I’ve seen Greek art with a human between a fighting lion and bird . Not sure what it means .
http://www.jackclegg.com/RNDplaquesI-K.htm
LikeLike
I remember when this was released there were The Tribe / bee hive comparisons .
Spoiler alert – the bees save the day .
https://www.ebay.com/itm/PRISTINE-Bee-Movie-DREAMWORKS-WIDESCREEN-DVD-2-DISC-JERRY-SEINFELD-EDITION-/151185774338
LikeLike
Hey everybody, I’ve just made a new short post for the new paper up at Miles’ site on ‘Ancient Spooks.’ Please let’s move the discussion of this paper and its follow-ups to that thread. Thanks!
LikeLike
Crazy Days and Nights is a gossip site that seems to have some street cred. I take it that they talked about some Hollywood scandals–like Harvey Weinstein–years before the stories broke onto the public. For what it’s worth, I found this recent item interesting: a claim that James Dean did not die in that car crash but instead faked his death to get away from Hollywood forever. The item said he lived in Canada afterward. I’m imagining Mark Staycer as his neighbor. 🙂
http://www.crazydaysandnights.net/2018/07/blind-items-revealed-2_4.html
LikeLike
LikeLike
‘Rebel with a Casket’
LikeLike
” Rebel Without a Cause of Death “
LikeLike
We’ve got a winner!
LikeLike
Remember this bloke
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Francis_(actor)
LikeLike
Yes i have also thought of these hidden parallel universes. Those very fenced castles where John Lennon keeps his concerts for 5 ungrateful guests, where Marilyn Monroe strips for comments like “Dear – its too much, you really shouldn’t.”
Nah i think they have had publishers for ages who only distribute their stuff inside this cousinhood who never go bankrupt. Where they know all things will be taken care of upon death.
Also there is some freemasonic style initiation/education order which never have been exposed, an imperial warrom where 40-50 year old successful bankers are invited to join in the hate of the rest of the world. For how do they maintain this hate and this war? There have to be means.
Health issues should today be one of their main advantages as they have fought and suppressed all good things for ages. Yes one of first things to be banned as the “catholic ” church took over here about 1000 yrs ago was healing chants. And slowly it died out, together with the knowledge of herbs.
But Karl Marx was not saved by the family. He died 64 yrs old by horrible pains, armpits and groin rotting away. I have seen similar things on tv, and guess it is happening because of food intolerance, and diary products are one of those things which can flare up so badly.
LikeLike
I’m wondering whether Miles would consider being a creator on Patreon.com ,
Does anyone here use Patreon ?
I patronize a guy who analyzes Bigfoot vids etc. ( he just did a teardown of high priced
Jesse James original photos , big money being spent on fakes ) .
On Patreon site , a creator puts forth exclusive content for their patrons to view , patrons pay a predetermined monthly payment as low as $1.00 . if anything not intel. related is allowed to exist on the webs , this is a good model .
He could do physics insights , painting tutorials , cat training or whatever , I would sign on .
check out this non-sentient soul-less dog risking his life for a comrade .
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jesse James was my great grandfather! But he wasn’t a gun-slinger, just a famous local billiards champion hehehe…
LikeLike
At famouskin.com, Jesse James has forbears called Poor and Marshal, as well as the usual suspects, Henry II of England, Thomas I of Savoy, Eleanor of Aquitaine, etc, as does Nelson Rockefeller and more, here:
https://famouskin.com/ahnentafel.php?name=14634+nelson+rockefeller
LikeLike
I read some of the offending article which paves hot asphalt all over Miles Mathis as though he were an old brick street in desperate need of being covered up. While the rhetoric was loud and distracting, facts were few and far between.
I first ran into MM work about 3-4 years ago. My first taste of MM was his Manson hoax article. I had just spent the last few years of my life before, being immersed in uncovering and unraveling the Hollow Towers and the Hoax of 9/11.
I found his style forthright and refreshing. I found his content to be rather addictive. I had a thread at my forum which showed basically Manson gore pictures and it had gotten 7-800,000 views. I thought so much of his Manson paper I put a link to it at the top of that thread and implored people to make sure they read it.
I was equally impressed with his paper on Abraham Lincolns assassination. It could easily be described as a paper out of time. As well as his John Lennon paper.
I cannot really vouch for his math as I spent most of my 10th grade Algebra class blowing saliva bubbles from my mouth and watching all of the other amused kids wonder how I could make perfect little round bubbles out of saliva and blow them off my tongue intact. I eventually was kicked out of Miss Jepsens class, yet I digress.
But this silly notion MM is a committee is as laughable as it is stupid. Honestly, this sounds like Sept Clues strategy. It fits their MO. Regardless of who, the article is simply pedantic, shallow & hollow. Rather then attack particular points or truths they circle the bush while calling names and drawing rather impossible conclusions based on their evidence presented. I had the honor of speaking to MM on the phone and from what I remember Miles doesn’t really give a rats ass what people think of him. He seemed to do what he does because of him and personal satisfaction. I also remember when speaking to him that I had the feeling he had his last emotion surgically removed when he was 9 years old. Thus the trolls will really have to work hard to get under his skin. Those are good qualities for anyone who seeks to find and expose truth, especially on the net.
As I read the offending article about MM in the archive I got the distinct impression the entire article was written out of jealousy. How could MM figure out this, this and that all by himself? I must admit I am not sure he has, as in my mind pi/4 means I get 4 pieces of the pie and you get the rest. Perhaps you all know now why I spent 10th grade math blowing saliva bubbles off my tongue.
Perhaps those people don’t understand the concept of a good foundation. Without it whatever is built on a faulty foundation is by nature unsound. I did also notice that apart from ad hominem attacks and silly conjecture, they offered nothing. Perhaps they need to spend more time researching things, new things which need to be uncovered rather then spending their precious time attacking Miles for some rather insightful work.
Good work Miles!
Cheers-
Phil Jayhan
Admin of letsrollforums
LikeLike
I appreciate the support from Phil, and most of his comments are on the mark here. However, I am the opposite of emotionless. I suppose that in telephone conversations with strangers I can come off as distant or stoic, but that is just one of many faces. By those who know me better, I have been called mercurial or volatile, although no one would call me fickle. I keep myself in better control than I used to, but mercurial is still more descriptive than emotionless. Even I find myself a bit of an enigma, since I would describe myself as both raging and supercalm. I never miss a night’s sleep, my resting heartrate is about 48 (dropping into the 30s at night), and most locals have no idea who I am–they mistake me for a happy go lucky nonentity cruising around without a care in the world. But while I am that, too, in a way, I am also a boiling cauldron of high emotion. Fortunately I have learned to channel that energy into a variety of disciplined actions, so that it doesn’t burn me up or those around me. I think my best readers can intuit that, since the impetus for all I do has to come from somewhere. Everyone would agree that I am driven, and it is the emotions that drive us.
PHil is correct, however, that I am pretty much unherdable. All my drive comes from within, and any prodding from without just pisses me off.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Well said, Mathis. Thank you for sharing all of this. If you didn’t have emotions, I would be quite worried; all your varied attributes which criss cross the spectrum make you delightfully human and real! No robot here 👍👏👍
LikeLike
In reference to Miles’ latest article, “The Post,” I thought he might appreciate that the name Rockafellow appears in the Urban Dictionary here:
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=rockafellow
LikeLike
He’ll be cock-a-hoop!
LikeLike
I have really enjoyed Miles’s latest posts.
FYI, Jeremy Clyde, of Chad and Jeremy fame (British Invasion era), is a direct descendant of the first Duke of Wellington.
LikeLike
You don’t suppose Lindsey Buckingham (of Fleetwood Mac) has any highfalutin’ family ties, do you? 🙂
LikeLike
You missed my comments on Lindsey, where I did indeed connect him to the peerage, as well as to many British rock groups.
LikeLiked by 1 person
No, I didn’t miss those comments. If I’d missed them then I probably wouldn’t have mentioned it. I only wrote what I wrote because it seemed to apply to an earlier post by another. I didn’t mean to imply that I, all on my own, made the connection of Buckingham to the peerage.
LikeLike
Fleetwood Mac did make three or four really great Lps before Peter Greens meltdown , also great is the John Mayall group that had Mick and John as the rhythm section ( my fave is with Larry Taylor in the BluesBreakers , he may be from the families but he plays his ass off ) .
Anyhow Miles mentioned Kevin Kline , and I really found this recent film outstanding , love the ending , Hollywood did not thrown him in the trash like they do so often with white male leads .
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/my_old_lady/
and screw you rotty tomatos – 60 % , really , no superhero-leotards or explosions to satisfy your perpetual childhood ….
LikeLike
Early Fleetwood Mac also included a Jeremy SPENCER.
LikeLike
DF …. I find it interesting that so many top artists are shall we say, of the Jewish persuasion, and I’m not just talking about people like Donald Fagen of Steely Dan. Thing is, there are shed loads of these people are great singers, musicians and song writers. So you think about the 10,000hr rule which states that you cannot hit the top echelons of musicianship until you have racked up around 10k/hrs of practise. For those who aren’t aware, to achieve this means you have to have the time available, which means you can’t have a weekend or evening job as a teenager and can’t take a paid job using any of your spare time while at Uni’. Because 10k/hrs takes some accruing. What this means is that your parents have to have enough income to pay you a healthy allowance, so you don’t have to work, and can put all your efforts into becoming a world class musician.
So money is important. Jews have approximately a 15 IQ points advantage over the rest of us. Probably due to rejecting outside DNA unless it comes with a 15,000 acre estate and mansion house. Wasn’t that supposed to be Hitler’s stance about breeding a pure race? Well it works with dogs and race horses so why not with Jews?
So you have a high IQ race of people who see wealth as being a deciding factor in shaping the rest of their lives, who are desperate for their children to succeed, many of whom will have been introduced to music in their very early years as I believe it is almost mandatory that a Jew is able to play an instrument of some sort proficiently and sing and dance.
So we end up with a highly disproportionate number of successful, highly paid, world class musicians all hailing from a Jewish background.
I don’t doubt for one second that there’s a huge and powerful bias working to reject others and promote their own interests but I see that in every walk of life.
You see, after reading ALL of Miles’ papers, I’m having trouble enjoying listening to my favourite music. I feel such a strong urge to uncover the truth about who the musicians really are and not believe the Wikimisleadia version of their biography’s, only to find that almost every single one is either Jewish or a crypto’, which puts a bit of a nasty bias on the whole music industry for me. It’s the deliberate exclusion principle that’s the icing on an already lopsided cake that stumps me.
I’m having to keep reassuring myself that if I want to listen to awesome music, then I’m going to have to accept the way things are because it aint gonna change. But learning that all the great musicians who I thought were uniquely skilled and fought from the gutter to reach super-stardom are nothing of the sort is very disheartening.
And every time I see a famous name mentioned on here or in Miles’ papers I have a little cringe as another favourite is pigeon-holed as yet another hidden pretender.
The hand over one eye (Illuminati style) celebrity, peeping through the OK, the 666 symbol?
I don’t think it means they sold their soul to the devil or that they sold themselves to the Hollywood elite. I think it simply means that they are from the families and is a hive sign, from one Bumble to another! I bet there’s a huge number of bee references in song lyrics.
Oh look….. >> https://www.lyrics.com/lyrics/bees <<
Research needed for possible connections between the military / CIA and lyricists or band members? Stewart Copeland outed his own father so that's a good start.
2mins 30secs for the meat about his dad but the whole interview is very interesting especially when he talks about that huge Bumble bee Sting, who is portrayed as a mere school teacher from a very humble (bumble?) background. Not according to Miles! Stewart also talks about the band writing lyrics which have the power to change society.
LikeLike
He (Stewart C) must mean Da Da Da Do Do Do, or whatever it ‘s called, re: lyric-power.
According to one IQ test, Israelis had an average score of 94, which was below the 100 plus scores for Germans, British, French, Dutch, Italians and Japanese/Koreans. However, IQ tests are conducted — like marketing — on a limited number of case studies, and how thoroughly are the tests carried out? A School was in the papers recently for fixing its test results.
I read a long time ago that Goering had an IQ of 148, and Doenitz 152, it was a book about the Nuremberg Trials if I remember correctly, and Julius Streicher had 100 or below. I can’t believe Hiller’s IQ would be more than Goering’s, or any rock stars’/actors’/politicians’. George W Bush, for instance, genius or lunatic?
Can’t wait for Part 3 – Monday by any chance?
LikeLike
I’ve also heard that Jews as an ethnic group have a higher IQ. I am not sure I trust the numbers or the people saying this as normally if you have a genetic pressure to marry within a limited ethnic group, IQ is not going to increase and you’re going to end up with all sorts of hereditary diseases. It could also be another way of legitimizing a disproportionately high number of members of the Jewish faith in positions of power. What I do think though, is that if Jews as a group were prosecuted and prevented from owning land, they had to get creative about how to retrieve resources from the landowners. They would have had to organize and work undercover. There is nothing like war or conflict to create organized networks of people fighting a common enemy (the Catholic church in this case). And once these organized secret networks have been formed, they take on a life of their own. Even if they manage to conquer their enemy, they won’t just stop and go back to tend their gardens, they’ll continue, because there is a lot of power in organized groups of people. To me they’re an expression of a clan-organized society, and I wonder if they won because Christianity had (on purpose) crushed the clans in Europe to create nation states. Facing the highly centralized power structure of European nation states whose populations were atomized by the Christian faith, the “only” thing they had to do was undermine the power of the Catholic Church, infiltrate some thrones, and the land and the people were in their power. One could argue that it takes a high IQ to retrieve (or trick) resources from landowners, but I think it is more an art of deception, the art of the con. I haven’t yet read Gerry’s papers yet, but expect I will learn many interesting things about the history of covert operations from them.
LikeLike
Smug git Stephen Fry said on his QI show that good liars have higher IQs, then another week, they showed a chimp that could read sign language which then blamed a cat for breaking something…..even though cameras caught the chimp doing the damage! I suspect most people have a greater IQ than chimps, but are easily conned by thinking the best of people’s motives.
LikeLike
Well….IQ 115 isn’t particularly high so I’m happy with that figure. It’s an average too which makes it more believable. But you have to add up all the different attributes to make it work. The Jewish social structure is very strong, whereby families help each other especially financially. I dare say this isn’t 100% guaranteed but it’s a generally accepted norm.
As for hereditary diseases and illnesses, I’m not happy with blaming my ancestors DNA at all. Flat feet, brown skin or blue eyes yes but I draw the line at arthritis and diabetes and other problems that can mostly be caused by external factors such as diet and immune system weakening toxins. A friend was over 70 and overweight, liked his pies and beer and was stressed out caring for his disabled wife for 40 years having very little freedom. She died, he changed his diet, stopped drinking alcohol and started walking 20 miles a week and his diabetes disappeared. My uncle suddenly got insulin dependent diabetes after a serious car crash. Doctor said shock. My mum and her brother had thyroid problems in later life post 60 years. Her doctor said, “not to worry, it runs in families”, the usual prognosis. I did a little research and apparently if you eat iodine rich foods when you are young, your thyroid can go haywire when you are older. After a Q&A session it transpired that my grandmother used to add iodine enriched salt to their food. Something to do with rationing during WWII. A thyroid specialist later told her this was the probable cause of her problems. So DNA 0 – shock and chemicals 3.
I have researched so many health problems over the past 15 or more years and come to the same conclusion. The health service are protecting the food industry by blaming everything on your maternal/paternal DNA, and these days they are doing that more and more with every illness imaginable.
They can’t blame DNA for a sudden increase in autism but they’re doing their best!
LikeLike
I think the problem of hereditary diseases resulting from marrying within a limited population mostly applies to groups of people either limited by geographical constraints, cultural practices or by having to marry within an aristocracy/upper class where in the end everyone is related. For the general population, this isn’t a significant problem. I couldn’t agree more that they have overstated the effect of genes on many modern ailments.There has been a lot of excitement within genetic research about the possibility of finding the genes responsible for various conditions that have since faded as the show-stopping results have failed to emerge. Now they’re leaning towards the interplay within genes and environment, but I some times think it’s like saying that people are genetically disposed to dying if shot in the heart and that the interaction of ones genes (i.e. being human..) and the gunshot was lethal. If you’re eating and drinking poison while also not getting enough nutrients, chances are you’re not going to feel too well.That isn’t to say risk isn’t modified by genes, but even genes are affected by the environment through epigenetic mechanisms and so I think everything is a lot more flexible than one may think. With autism I think they’re just desperate, everyone knows it isn’t genes as genetic diseases don’t have that kind of evolution. I am astonished that the fraud just keeps on going in spite of all the studies and the recent testimony from a whistle-blower from the CDC.
Even though I question that Jews as a group have a higher IQ, I by no means think people adhering to the Jewish faith are less intelligent and I have also heard very plausible explanations for why they might actually have an IQ that is above average. I have generally thought of them as more intelligent based on what people reported from studies, but I can also see why it may be beneficial to give this impression even if it wasn’t true. In any case, I think one of the reasons why they were so successful has a lot to do with what you mention, the social structure in addition to fighting a common enemy, the Catholic Church.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Many readers commented on the IQ issue. I would like to point out some aspects.
There is a test, prepared by psychologists, that „asserts“ to be able to measure intelligence. Stated this way, which is totally correct, I hope you start laughing…
Now, the benchmark is also „defined“ and most of the test can be trained. People that are familiar with logic, math and typical text problems can solve the test pretty good. If you never saw the test before, it is difficult.
When I was young, I changed school. The new school, after a few month, tested all the pupils in my year. The psychologist told my parent that I was likely retarded. I make the story very short, because otherwise the story is very embarrassing for the experts.
A few years later I finished the same school , say in the top 3% (or better, it is not important here).
My IQ? I have no idea and I don’t care.
So a certain part of society has a very good education in everything, because they have the money, the time, the dedication. And of corse they would test better according to a benchmark that a „relative“ (uncle, aunt, cousin, etc.) has developed.
Any questions?
LikeLike
There’s a big difference between knowledge and intelligence Andrea.and most people mistakenly think they are the same thing.
Knowledge is remembering what you’ve learned.
Intelligence is being faced with a complex problem and being able to solve it quickly and effectively.
Knowledge is remembering what’s inside the box whereas intelligence is exploratively thinking outside the box.
A Phd doesn’t make someone intelligent, it makes them knowledgeable.
Very few people are gifted with both abilities.
I would suggest Miles is one of the lucky few.
LikeLike
I like to say that getting a PhD is the process of learning more and more about less and less until you know absolutely everything about nothing. (-;
LikeLiked by 4 people
Sorry, I did not explain myself very clearly. You are right and I agree with you.
The famous „iq test“ is a knowledge test.
Animals are „very bad“ at it, therefore we consider them stupid. Look at an octopus trying to get to food. I consider that as very intelligent. Sometimes I wish my kids would have that much of intelligence!
Miles is obviously very intelligent, regardless of what a knowledge test would measure. I refer especially to the physics papers, to the correction of relativity and other standard formulas.
It requires a lot of intelligence to see the mistakes, because they contadict Standard Knowledge.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Octopuses are amazing. Don’t forget crows. They can show remarkable intelligence.
But not smart enough to realise the bubbles aren’t a threat.
Does it think that it is making the water angry?
>> https://youtu.be/ZerUbHmuY04 <<
LikeLiked by 1 person
Just to comment on the IQ issue: Someone told me once that the guy with the highest IQ in the local Mensa society was a car radio repairman. They ran a story on him in the local papers too, trying to understand why such an intelligent guy had chosen to repair car radios for a living when clearly, in their minds, they guy should have become something much more intellectual. I found it a little amusing. Not everyone feels comfortable in schools and academia, and some times it may be because they are too smart.
IQ is just one parameter of people’s abilities, there are so many others which may be equally or more useful to one’s life. Personally, I appreciate more my ability to feel joy over beautiful flowers, cute kittens or eating a piece of a tasty chocolate cake than being able to solve a differential equation (which I have probably forgotten by now anyways). And I am, like others here, equally impressed with the abilities of animals and the intelligent designs of nature. That is not to undermine the value of human intelligence though, which in itself is a great work of nature and something to be nurtured and guarded.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’ll be brief, regarding the whole “IQ” thing. It doesn’t matter how allegedly intelligent someone is at all on paper. Mine was 147 when I was 16 – and yet guess who discovered the charge field, fixed and revived physics, and tore down the curtains of secrecy on all these social issues and fiascos? NOT ME. Not anyone else with a higher IQ, either. Just Miles. All the intelligent people in the world combined couldn’t do the work of just one guy. His “IQ” may very well be higher than mine or theirs, but that’s not the point.
I find IQ to be about as reliable as horoscopes or ouija boards, but with nowhere near their predictive power – which is almost zero.
LikeLike
Ugh, I even stated, “I’ll be brief.” I’ll try not to ever say that again. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
“I believe it is almost mandatory that a Jew is able to play an instrument of some sort proficiently and sing and dance.”
That’s not true by a long shot. Unless I missed the memo along with most everyone in my extended family. Though my kids are quite talented cello players.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well, Bruno Mars does sing about “dancing Jews” or is it “dancing Juice”? And then you have the “Jumping Jews of Jerusalem” in that Black Adder episode. The plot thickens…not really.
LikeLike
Josh….. Just going by a couple of documentary’s I’ve seen and the few Jewish families I’ve befriended. Similar culture with Turkish people and it doesn’t change when they come to live in a western country. They have a penchant for song and dance that us westerners lack. We would rather just go and see someone else sing and dance. Jewish weddings are amazing, with real Jewish musicians not a bought in DJ and a pair of battered speakers. Again, I’m just going by what I’ve seen Josh. Maybe it’s just the more orthodox Jewish families who are like this? Maybe you have become too westernised? I am interested to know if this solidarity is what has held the Jews together and made them so strong for so many millennia. I’m hoping Gerry will answer this for me in the next instalment because another thing that the documentary’s taught me is that if something happens to an individual in the Jewish community, everyone knows about it almost instantly. The most efficient grapevine of any culture. Isn’t this like having a built in secret service? Is this one of the strong properties which has made them so successful?
Chomsky wrote about the persecution complex of the Jews but I see this as a cultural protection mechanism, not a fault.
I could be wrong on all points but I only tell it how I see it, and the documentary’s could simply be a propaganda exercise.
LikeLike
Isn’t it so that most cultures that managed to preserve some of their traditions have more music and dance than what us modern western people are used to? One could perhaps say the same for Scottish people or the Greeks. In college, I always envied these people as they had all these nice dance groups dancing their traditional dances and what seemed like a really bonded community. I don’t think I ever had as much fun as when we were having Ceilidh evenings and live Scottish music dancing the nights away. I guess fun and bonding have been banned by our governors.
LikeLike
I mean it’s not imperative or mandatory, and I wouldn’t consider it remotely a categoric assessment. But it’s highly promoted or one might say “pushed” in Mormon culture in what I imagine a very similar way. Music is one of God’s languages after all, to them. My parents taught me young, piano then violin, though I’m only a mediocre singer at best. But guitar, bass, and drums are easy after you learn piano and violin. It’s promoted as an act of reverence, and songs are sung at every opportunity. It’s not really spooky at all, to me. It’s just what you do when you’re religious and bored. It’s not like the Mormons were busy solving physics or unearthing history, despite having the absolute best geneaological tools in the world.
It’s also the reason the Mormon Tabernacle Choir is the best in the world. They’ve got nothin’ better to do, except bake cookies and play board games I guess. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
So inspiration is the key .
LikeLike
Come on. You’re being blinded by the pseudo science. IQ was coined by William STERN , taken up with enthusiasm by EYSENCK and a special club ,Mensa, formerly directed by ASIMOV. Whilst I don’t doubt that IQ means something , I don’t for one minute think it means ‘ cleverer.’ After all as a sorry member of MENSA myself I have never found it easy to slide into those top jobs. Maybe circumcision would be a better indicator of so called success.
LikeLike
All traditional Muslims are circumcised as well,
Khitan or Khatna is the term for male circumcision carried out as an Islamic rite. So if you’re be looking for an indicator of so called success, circumcision is not the one.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I know but it’s a start. Don’t want anyone accusing me of being anti Semitic do I ?
LikeLike
If you intended to point to a certain pattern, that can’t be about being anti-anybody. So why worry about it at all? All of us who occasionally talk about the markers of any particular group of people, regardless of their nationality, should worry only about being honest while reporting on them. Antisemitism is an invented term used by PTB (to hide their true identity). If they belonged to some other group, they’d invent another term accordingly. They can run, but cannot hide. As in the case of their genetically typical schnozes. It’s a better marker than circumcision, in my opinion, if we’re discussing physical appearance.
LikeLiked by 1 person
No, noses can easily be changed these days should it be necessary. Not such a good indicator actually.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Wasn’t the large nose typical of the Hittites? Isn’t that where it originated? I may have got my ‘ites mixed up…
LikeLike
…which then leaves us only with genealogy to be really certain. Right?
LikeLike
Anna, if ever go to Munich, go to see the Residenz Palace. It is in the city center but not on the very top of TripAdvisor. I think wrongly. Beside the dining room (still used today by politicians for important dinners, look at the pictures in internet, it is unbelievable), there is a gallary with nobility. And when you look at the noses, you will realize, you cannot operate THAT.
LikeLike
Is it just me or is there something weird about the term for male circumcision being almost identical to the Japanese word for “sword”? Is there a link to Islam and Japan there, verbally?
Katana.
Khitan.
Khatna.
LikeLiked by 1 person
>katana
Information for lexeme ‘ktn) – ܟܬܢܐ’
ktn noun sg. emphatic
ktn, ktnˀ (kettān, kettānā) n.f./m. linen; flax
1 linen Com.
2 flax JLAtg, Gal, PTA, Syr, JBA, Man, LJLA.
3 a garment (but see also s.vv. ktwn, ktnh) OfA-Egypt, OfA-Pers.
http://www.dukhrana.com/lexicon/word.php?adr=2:10794&font=Serto+Batnan&size=125%25
LikeLike
I really don’t have a clue, Jared, but it seems plausible. I’m currently struggling with my own research about the nations of relatively recent past. What I was able to figure out is that there is no satisfactorily explanation about the origins of European nations. For instance, I was taught in school that all Slavs originate from somewhere beyond the Carpathian mountains, deep within modern day Russian territory. Well, according to 19th century author and researcher Yuriy Venelin, the story is turned upside-down – with all Slavic languages having roots in Slovenian ethnic territory. I was lucky though to read it, since that particular book was translated into Slovenian language. You may be interested in finding the translation of yet another book written by the same author, “SCANDINAVOMANIA AND ITS FANS, OR CENTENNIAL RESEARCH ABOUT THE VARANGIANS”. I was able to find only the original, published in Russian cyrillic, with no translations here: https://www.prlib.ru/en/node/365896
LikeLike
Did Belushi do a mohel (“circumciser”) Sumurai on SNL
LikeLike
@Russell Taylor
“Knowledge is remembering what’s inside the box whereas intelligence is exploratively thinking outside the box. A Phd doesn’t make someone intelligent, it makes them knowledgeable.”
Nice. So, the implication is that it’s possible for a person to have limited knowledge yet be highly intelligent. Figures. I’ve heard of creative intelligence but never creative knowledge. Maybe I won’t need that life preserver, after all.
LikeLike
Interesting portrait of the Duke, hidden hand like Napoleon:

LikeLike
Welly even had Napoleon’s missus, like one big happy family.
LikeLike
Miles mentioned that the Mafia were fake, well, a cousin of mine, George Harrison (not related to the Beatle, he did say I could namecheck him), said he was at a site by Martyn Turnbull about the garden of allah hotel — we were in the pub, so I couldn’t look it up — which was a hangout for celebrities, mostly gay. Mafia lapdog Frank Sinatra stayed there with his press agent, a bloke, and did it his way.
LikeLike
Bono covered a Sinatra song, ‘I got you under my skin’, which is funny as it got right up my nose. He also said something else like “the best bands in the world were Irish” and mentioned The Beatles and The Smiths, did he really mean Jewish?
LikeLike
Cole Porter song , hmmm ? birds of a feather ?
‘Cause I’ve got you under my skin
I would sacrifice anything come what might
For the sake of having you near
In spite of a warning voice comes in the night
And repeats how it yells in my ear
LikeLike
If things do change , NASA may be able to find honest work .
https://www.zillow.com/blog/lunar-lander-tiny-home-226261/?utm_source=email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=emm_g_0718_buzzuniquehomes&utm_content=lunarlanderimg
LikeLike
Cosmic! Out of this world!
LikeLike
If Hugh FitzAlan and Alan Fitzhugh and they had a BIG kid , that would be Tom Hanks ?
LikeLike
If Adele married Richard Fidler, would she call herself Adele Fidler? Say it fast.
LikeLike
And if you shorten Richard Fidler you get…….Dick Fidler….. Errrm!
LikeLike
Spike Milligan had a character called Dick Scratcher!
When I started learning guitar, one of the books I had was writ by an Arthur Dick!
But hey, Depp in German means idiot. Been listening to this years Hellfest concert with the Hollywood Vampires, who were formed by: Alice Cooper, Johnny DEPP and Joe Perry.
LikeLike
Looks like the Spooks are about to censor social media in a big way.
Censorship of free speech and the truth….
So it’s going to be illegal to tell the truth right?
>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-44995490 <<
LikeLiked by 1 person
They have already been doing this, the entire time. And now they outright ban you on Facebook for a month if you say anything “offensive” or that goes against the mainstream narratives. I’ve been banned twice on my own “Really Fake Science” page, where we point out fakeries (Musk, Tyson, etc.) and generally just make fun of shit science, and where I post Miles’ work to attempt to reach out to a few new readers or heaven forbid, “colleagues” we can work with. Found a few. Made a few. Helped a few.
But I still got banned there just for posting a Stalin meme. And another ban this year for commenting, “Fucking Americans.” on my own page, to a friend who lives in Norway no less. It’s retarded.
And there’s another word you cannot use on social media – “retarded”.
LikeLike
To clarify, I am NOT bitching about social media’s draconian policies. Merely reporting on the sad state of affairs. Of course I don’t have to use Facebook, but to me it’s worth it for the laughs and connections I wouldn’t otherwise make. Of course it’s a spook site.
LikeLike
The BBC News article linked above starts with this line:
“The volume of disinformation on the internet is growing so big that it is starting to crowd out real news …”
I see this as a positive sign since, of course, what the BBC calls “disinformation” would have to really mean the truth and what they call “real news” would, in reality, be lies.
So, what they are really saying is:
“The volume of truth on the internet is growing so big that it is starting to crowd out the propaganda and lies.”
So, that’s a good thing, no?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I have some painful truth.
A poster made a reference to wind farms being a very useful idea. I made references to the inefficiency curve being off the scale and not fit for purpose. So to bolster my claims I give you this >> http://prismsuk.blogspot.com/2018/07/13-days-of-low-levels-of-uk-wind-power.html <<
I reiterate, they seemed like a great idea at first but in the real world things are never black & white, mother nature will see to that…
LikeLike
Someone once told me a few years since that Nuclear Power Stations generate enough electricity to illuminate a light bulb! I have no way of checking that statement myself, but if we follow the money trail, nuclear power stations/wind farms are making someone very rich no doubt.
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE Russell Taylor – I may have mentioned that I’d like to have both a small windmill and some solar panels. I agree that all intermittent sources are problematic, just as you are pointing out. Batteries as your sole storage buffer are also not so great. So there is a need to develop other energy storage systems, and a good small home system could have several charge sources. I am all in favor of having a small windmill to run an alternator, but you don’t want the tower attached to the house due to vibration noise, and thinking it would be adequate as the sole electric source would of course be a mistake.
LikeLike
I totally agree that smaller individual systems are a much better idea Alan.
Having a half dozen solar panels on each and every roof is a great idea because it reduces the energy requirements of each individual household, reducing their reliance on the grid but not by much. At least they are more discreet than wind-turbines.
Back up batteries and solar panels would charge phones, laptops, LED emergency lighting and even jump start your vehicle, so black-outs really could be a thing of the past with a little planning.
LikeLike
RE: Russel Taylor – Your example uses a large utility system with the assumption of 24 hour on demand power. A single homeowner would have the option of not running the washing machine on low wind days. If you also had a standby generator you could top off your batteries once in a while if there were an emergency, or at least just to keep the refrigerator running.
So, some of the fault you find with wind power is built into the assumption that you need to feed some constant uncontrollable or insatiable consumer demand.
LikeLike
I don’t get the criticism here. Wind has advantages and disadvantages. It is obviously cleaner then coal and after initial investment the running costs are constant.
The storage of excess capacity during daytime is not a new issue: nuclear and coal run 24 hours a day and need storage. The classic way in Europe is transferring the excess to Switzerland and Austria during the night, where they pump water up, and buying back the same energy a few hours later.
Since Germany pushed solar it compansated the daily peak, so that a lot of excess capacity could be retired – even though Germany is not the best location for solar.
Switzerland and Austria are not happy about it.
Previosly I had already mentioned the example of the isand of Madeira. A very successful implementation of wind and water combination (I will not repeat it, but look it up if interested).
Hawaii could learn a lot from it.
In the discussion I see a lot of irrelevant comments and links to websites that talk bs. It really hurts my mind. Or maybe someone of you explains me what the problem is.
LikeLike
“I don’t get the criticism here. Wind has advantages and disadvantages”.
We have just had an unusually long hot and windless couple of months here in the UK and I have hardly seen any wind turbines turning through the entire period. This is what the criticism in the article is about Andrea. When the wind is blowing the turbines are great. When the wind stops they become useless.
“after initial investment the running costs are constant”
When you average out the energy they produce over the whole year, the cost per unit becomes ridiculously expensive.
The actual power generated annually is a tiny amount compared to the figures that were given to investors. I wouldn’t like to foot the bill for a generator replacement every 25 years…that’s if they last that long.
Alan pointed out the usefulness of smaller local turbines, as we see used on farms.
These can be better positioned and take far less wind energy to produce power for local use.
There are far cheaper and more efficient ways to produce energy, and I believe there is a rather dark and sinister agenda behind the growing prohibition of nuclear generated power, which over the past 60 years, has a much better safety record than coal, oil or gas generated power.
Plenty of proof that nuclear isn’t the big bad boy that governments keep telling us it is.
https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/a19871/fukushima-five-years-later/
People fear nuclear power stations but not the powerful new 5G phone mast 50 yards from their bedroom window…why? .Because they’ve been told they’re safe.
Plus the turbines are ugly and spoil the beautiful natural landscape.
Sorry Andrea but wind farms get my hackles up as I was an amateur landscape photographer and I see the turbines as a hideous, unnecessary and expensive mistake.
One more point.
“The classic way in Europe is transferring the excess to Switzerland and Austria during the night”
What is it that is being transferred over that great distance?
They are conning you Andrea.
LikeLike
Of course another wind generator downside is that the blades kill a lot of birds. The big ones look like they are turning slow but the blade tips are really moving fast. I saw a cool micro design that used a wire of tiny model airplane propellers to spin the wire and a small generator at the end of the wire. But the wire has to be located in a fixed area where there is something like a wind tunnel directing the air flow in a constant direction. The smaller ones present much less hazard to the birds, because the blades are visibly spinning at higher RPM and easier for the birds to see and avoid.
LikeLike
We were members of the RSPB (Royal Society for the Protection of Birds) for many years. The RSPB back then were totally against the building and more especially the siting of wind farms because their surveys proved that thousands of birds were being killed. Larger slower flying ones were particularly vulnerable such as Eagles, Gulls, Buzzards and Harriers. Then suddenly, after some sort of conference connected to Global Warming, they changed their mind stating that the wind farms were not killing thousands of birds. We cancelled our membership immediately. It was obvious they were lying big time because we talk to wardens, game keepers and rangers all over the UK and they all have reports of finding dozens of dead Buzzards, Harriers, Eagles and even Owls near near the wind turbines. You would think Owls would have both the hearing and eyesight to avoid the blades but as Alan said, it’s the speed of the tips that catches them out. But in typical Attenborough style the RSPB went against their own knowledge. Where Anthropogenic Global Warming is concerned, no lie is too big or disingenuous.
Smaller turbines would be an improvement simply due to the smaller profile.
To catch a fish do you use a small net or a large one?
A wind farm has been erected near Sherringham off the Norfolk coast in England. It has 88 huge turbines. My gripe is that it sits right on the flight path of hundreds of thousands of migrating waders and other sea birds as they follow the coast down to the feeding grounds on The Wash mudflats near Sherringham. The RSPB no longer sees this as a problem. Any evidence of killed birds will be washed out to sea and eaten by fish and Gulls.
I don’t see anything mentioned about the migration route on the environmental link on the web page. Look the other way….see no evil – hear no evil!
LikeLike
https://www.power-technology.com/projects/sheringham-shoal/
This would help hehehehe!
LikeLike
Russell, we all are being conned, one way or another. So that’s ok.
We kown that certain things work, even if the theoretical explanation is mostly wrong. So we can produce „electrical energy“ and tranfer it over cables for short or long distances.
All, I repeat, ALL generators have the problem that the energy is not consumed when you need it. So I did not like the undertone in various comments that only one kind of generators has this problem.
You can try to solve with:
1) averaging: when the local company delivers the energy, it hopes that on average it will be almost constant. If you have an individual installation you incrase the slack.
2) buffering: all solutions require some sort of buffering. Batteries being one (good for individual homes, but you should think of truck batteries – cheap, reliable, and weight is not an issue in the basement). Pumping water up has been a reliable store of energy for centuries. So if you have a big garden I would try that.
About nuclear I don’t need to read some internet article from unknown authors. I know that nuclear is not as dangerous as advertised. But is it efficient? By the way, I visited a small nuclear plant, so I know first hand how it looks like from inside.
It is true that wind mills are not beautiful, but what about coal plants? A refinery? A nuclear plant? So beauty itself cannot be an argument.
In Germany they are installing the third generation of wind mills. They are tall, big, rotate very slowly (for the birds and the noise), the generator has no machanical contact to the rotor, that means less friction, less parts, less cost).
Also because of Miles insights I guess that there is still a lot to develop in the wind industries.
LikeLike
I’m only here to discuss Andrea and learn along the way.
“So we can produce „electrical energy“ and tranfer it over cables for short or long distances”.
The electrical energy is all around us, all the time. We use vast amounts of so called ‘fossil fuels’ (and nuclear fuel), to create steam, to drive turbines, who’s only purpose is to jiggle electrons in metal circuits, back and forth, as violently as possible. This turns the metal circuit into an antenna. Think of the tiny electrical current applied to a radio or TV aerial. This in turn attracts the EM radio waves that would pass by normally. It’s all such a long time ago but I think it adds gain to the signal too. The electrified circuit attracts charge to it in the same way. It is wrong to think that we produce a stuff called electricity and send it along a wire, like water through a pipe. This is completely wrong but what 99% of people are taught. That free energy is already here, all around us. What the power companies charge us for is making it available to use. One country can apply spare/excess voltage (jiggling electrons), to another countries grid, but absolutely nothing passes from one grid to the other, nothing flows from one country to the other. The electrical energy the receiving country uses is already there and the extra voltage applied to their grid makes more of it available to use. I’ll have to think up some useful analogy’s to explain this because after a lifetime of being told the wrong physics, it’s very difficult for people to believe or grasp the concept. As soon as you say free energy you are in trouble because that’s already been blackwashed to death by the spooks who are protecting the power companies credibility.
Truck batteries are a great idea and already on my to-do list.
As far as ugly is concerned, coal, oil and gas are localised, often in clusters and partly hidden, or way out to sea.
The wind turbines, of which there are tens of thousands, are scattered all over the place. Its almost impossible to look out over a beautiful landscape and not see one.
I like the idea of smaller, more localised ones, easier to access and so maintain, cheaper to build, easier and cheaper to transport, less of a threat to wildlife and cheaper to replace when the need arises. It’s these giant behemoths that I detest. Surely while we continue to develop them, would it be best not to go ahead and cover the country in something which, when superceded, will need difficult and costly dismantling, transporting over large distances due to often remote siting then recycling.
They need far more R&D. At present, the cost of your power is only going to spiral upward by using these inefficient and expensive monsters.
Nuclear is expensive but it works 24/7. Japanese scientists have found a way to recycle fuel rods and we now have enough supply for around 3,000 years.
The story gets out and is read but then it’s buried as all useful information is.
The only help is going to be, as you say, from backup (buffering) but the battery technology, although available, is being held back for some reason. I believe it’s so they can hike up the price of electrical power before giving us the clean electric world they promise us. The oil & gas barons and electric companies have always been made out to seem as though they are competing with each other. This has been in a world where oil and gas were and still are kings. To swap everything around and make electricity the new king, prices are going to have to be reassessed.
Enter ‘the nudge factor’. Change things overnight you would have civil war. But do it in small steps and use lots of contradictory confusion until the public openly accept what you have to offer them as though it’s a great idea.
The perfect solution would be geothermal. Free heat. A few countries already use this method but most nations often blame cost as the biggest hurdle. Once in place the costs plummet. It can’t be that expensive otherwise why do we have boring scientists simply trying to find out what’s down there? You could even use the heat to keep roads ice free in winter.
LikeLike
Russell, thank you for your long reply. Let me assure you that I agree with plenty of what you say. I disagree here and there, not in substance but in form, or for practical reasons.
We have a system that works, but that also is build to extract a lot of money from the population. I, like you, wonder why geothermal energy is disregarded to this day. The romans knew how to build themal baths over 2000 years ago! (the historical reference connects a little to Gerry‘s work). Many of them are still working today (as an example see „terme di saturnia“ in the south of Tuscany, Italy).
I forgot the exact year, but I guess sometimes around 1913 (?) in Larderello (also in Tuscany, more north), for the first time worldwide they produced electricity from geothermal source. The nearby city got a substantial part of electricity from this source, so it was not just an experiment, it works!
Over 100 years later we have great technologys to drill horizontally, vertically, wherever, but no development in this direction. Unfortunately, for private persons, this technology is not viable.
Also not viable for individuals, is nuclear. Or maybe not. I read that in the US a company wanted to sell small reactors, for a home. Nuclear submarines work in similar fashion, so it could be worth investigating. The price could be steep and the potential liability could be dangerous.
If you or other readers own a house and think of becoming energy independent, I would recommend to install only appliances that run on 12 or 24 volts. You will find refrigerators, stoves and basically everything. For campers they have this voltage. TVs and computers run internally with low voltage and a transformer bring the 110 volts down. Solar can be made to produce 12 volts, so you see, the high voltage is probabily to get the „resonances“ over a long distance. Transforming current up and down serves only to produce needless heat.
Led lights work fine with low voltage as well, like air conditioning.
As a teenager I build my first radio. It was small and primitive. I could hear the music through an ear plug. The thing was, it had no battery or energy source whatsoever!!!
At an early age I realized that the battery was an add on and was fascinated by the numerous stations I could listen to. Unfortunately free energy is not a business model. Yet.
LikeLike
“I read that in the US a company wanted to sell small reactors, for a home”.
I saw an article many years ago where a group of engineers were trying to persuade power companies to use small nuclear generators in each town and city, maybe each one serving 10,000 homes. Seemed like a brilliant idea.
If the idea doesn’t make the rich wealthier, then it’s put on a shelf and forgotten about.
LikeLike
First, I just want to say I really enjoy reading all your comments and insights, not just Rusell, but all of you.
Second, I think the problem with some geothermal energy setups is that the underground rock that contains the heat that is extracted (or the cool that is stored) gradually increases or decreases in temperature over time, because of the thermal transfer and so it becomes less effective unless a new well is drilled into other rock.
I don’t know if this could be ameliorated with a deeper well or with several wells that could be used alternately in order to allow one to always lie “fallow”.
LikeLike
Jake… Maybe if they were to embrace Miles’ charge field theory they might be able to map out exactly where the most productive heat zones would be. Roughly 30° north or south of the equator would be ideal but in places where the Earth’s magnetic field is – erm…let me try and get this right first time – strongest? Weaker field running from east of Iceland down past the UK virtually cutting it in half, then down across the Bay of Biscay and up across Western Europe into Scandinavia. Just west of this weaker field, the field strengthens across the rest of Europe and what do we see on an almost daily basis? Thousands of lightning strikes across the whole region. Whereas the UK and Scandinavia hardly ever see lightning compared to say, the Ukraine or Bavaria. So I would postulate that most Central European countries ‘should’ be able to use geothermal energy. My reasoning is that Miles’ charge is exiting at a higher concentration across Central Europe and is causing more lightning as the charge is exiting from ground into space. Miles has already written about the planet recycling charge causing heating, especially in the Mantle. So it makes sense to concentrate on the zones where the most charge is exiting.
Also Jake, the charge exiting zones may change in output over several months due to seasonal tilting of the planet (and Jovian planetary alignment), and the fact that magnetic weaknesses in the crust seem to strengthen and weaken over time, which could guide the charge, or could actually be caused by the changing charge output.
Atmospheric voltage near ground potential as well as magnetic field strength differ as you move from sandstone to carboniferous to granite zones, which all cause small but significant localised effects, lightning being just one. Refer to Miles paper about the different types of rock used in the construction of the pyramids, and how they guide charge flow.
Could explain why the heat available changes over time.
LikeLike
I know very little about the science of windmills, but I have to say that I think beauty is a central point when it comes to windmills.They’re placing these windmills all over my beloved country at the moment, and I cannot do anything to stop it. We don’t even need the power from these windmills, but still we have already built hundreds of them and adding more by the day. Since power is relatively cheap in Norway due to all our waterfalls, windmills won’t become profitable until we “harmonize” our prices with the rest of Europe by exporting our power, which is undoubtedly their plan.
Examples of how windmills disrupt the landscape: https://www.dnt.no/artikler/nyheter/1475-krever-midlertidig-stans-i-vindkraftkonsesjoner/ and http://energiteknikk.net/2018/02/eu-skal-undersoke-aksept-vindkraft
LikeLiked by 1 person
There’s quite a few here in Washington, but they’re mostly on the eastern side of the Cascade Mountains, in the grasslands and “desert”, and along the Columbia River Gorge. They are unsightly, and have caused a few fires as well in the dry grasslands.
Also, it’s a lot more work in Photoshop to get ’em out when taking pictures of skies! ANNOYING.
LikeLike
Yes. Good observation.
LikeLike
A new paper from Vexman , bravo .
https://vexmansthoughts.wordpress.com/2018/07/28/about-degrading-the-art-and-all-in-between/
Rage Against the Machine ( s ) that signed their paychecks , used the monks setting themselves on fire , any thoughts as to any fakery going on with that .
LikeLike
No surprise RATM are a bunch of fakes. Hate rap-crap but hate their pseudo-revolutionary posturing even more.
LikeLiked by 1 person
If I was on fire, I don’t think I would sit there like that Monk did, not unless I was heavily sedated, with nothin’ to do, nowhere to go…
More pictures here: https://rarehistoricalphotos.com/the-burning-monk-1963/
LikeLike
http://100photos.time.com/photos/malcolm-browne-burning-monk
LikeLike
When you click on the right arrow at 100photos, the next slide is ‘JFK’ being hit by a tomato.
LikeLike
Thank you, DF.
I looked at all the links you left at my blog. There are so many suspicious details about that monk in all the videos and pics available for analysis, all suggesting at least heavy editing or picture overlay / composition.
I don’t think any monk died burnt alive in that picture/video. No human being is able to endure such extreme pain and remain motionless, not trying to save his or her life. Show me one real case and I may reconsider my stance about it. But I think you may loose tons of time before realizing it was all in vain.
LikeLiked by 1 person
There are so many fakes on this, and the only footage I could find is garbage as well.
This is an obvious ‘Shop, for example:

It’s really bad. Look at the chrome wheel cap on the blue car, or any of the metal on the car, or it’s windows.The bumper. Even the gas can. There is no light source upon them, no orange or yellow, and certainly no reflections of fire.
LikeLiked by 2 people
That picture has been colourised.
LikeLike
Indeed, but do you think the colorizers simply forgot to add orange/yellow in the reflections? I don’t see any reflections of fire shapes at all, nor any indication that the brightness of the fire is evidence on the environment. I don’t believe the fire was there in the original photo.
LikeLike
I posted a 2 video links at Vexmans site , Spooky camera work , I’d say , he moves his view during most of the footage .
” Self immolation , you could learn a lot from a dummy ” would be a good title for this .
https://vexmansthoughts.wordpress.com/2018/07/28/about-degrading-the-art-and-all-in-between/
LikeLike
One of the effects of Global Warming no doubt.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Good job of bringing it around full circle from the no-name art lover ( art lowerer ) back forward to the un-known revolutionary – Subcomandante Marcos .
LikeLike
New Facebook advertising poster says ‘BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU’ oops I meant ‘FAKE NEWS IS NOT YOUR FRIEND’. Does the ‘f’ stand for fascists and not facebook?
LikeLike
Worse than Janis Joplin calling her band BIG BROTHER AND THE HOLDING COMPANY , duh hippies couldn’t figure that one out .
LikeLike
Apparently, Mr Magoo is still whining about Miles and CTTF over at pieceofmucus… Received an email from my deartháir Rory today saying he’s calling now us fairweather friends and plants! Hoe Hoe Hoe. Only the weeds left there now.
LikeLike
three words – rear view mirror –
it’s getting smaller every day .
LikeLike
Haha, I find Tokarsky’s logic endlessly amusing for a short while, it always made me wonder how was he able to survive or provide depending on it. Wonders of mother Nature are true, I reckon. But beware…
I figured out his role in the world of gatekeepers – to stop, divert or temporarily turn off anybody from going after the most obvious patterns. Such as jewish connection to the elite PTB or their continuous oligarchy and nepotism or intertwined genealogies going back for millenia. As well, he claims PTB are merely “a shade of evil, but not murderers”, which is the most disturbing version of gatekeeping out there, in my opinion.
Not everything is fake about PoM though – the average IQ there has dropped below a 3-digit value. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
for Miles :
LikeLike
Yeah! Been on repeat the whole afternoon.
I’ll also put one on, for here it’s getting late.
LikeLike
Looks like they botched another fake shooting at the AFB near me on Thursday and they’ve been in damage control mode since.
https://www.whio.com/news/local/police-activity-reported-wpafb-near-medical-center/zbwqtemrZ2Vb1tasmndpyN/
LikeLiked by 1 person
https://famouskin.com/ahnentafel.php?name=91801+james+taylor
James Taylor has all these folks in his family tree, funny (punny) and spooky names: Desire Hall, Bathsheba Blake, Solomon Pratt, Susanna Langley, Samuel Puffer, Sarah Trickey, Uriah Wheeler, Experience King (what a name!), Ebeneezer Rider (Ebezy Rider?), James Eno, Anne Spycer, along with the usual suspects Henry II, King John, King Louis VIII of France, the Bacons, Allens (Wood you believe it?), Townsends, Fishers, Hinckleys, Chandlers, Cheneys, Hawkins, Chaplins, Greys, Nevilles, et al.
LikeLike
(Ebezy Rider?) , nice one .
Have any thoughts as to hidden meanings in this Cover-Art :
hint , some of it is on the b side
https://www.google.com/search?q=jumpin+jack+flash+single+sleeve&client=firefox-b-1&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj8xLaJ293cAhUjnuAKHSEGCzwQ_AUICigB&biw=975&bih=573
LikeLike
Child of the moon = Moonchild? Like the Aleister Crowley novel?
Brian Jones has a glass of wine and a hand fork to hand, he’s a fork ‘n drunk?
LikeLike
Not the B-side song , but the pic on the back of the sleeve .
Who is Wyman pretending to be ? Watts’s Guy Fawkes mask is clue as well .
J.J.F. lyric : ” I was crowned with a spike right though my head “
LikeLike
Watts has the bandana, Wyman the Guido Fawkes mask, Keith Richard is after the Barbarella part [only Jane Fonda to beat…], Mick is being a prick, and Brian fancies doing a bit of gardening. Regicide?
LikeLike
I thought that was Wyman with the red nail polish , who ( famous lady ) is that Stone pretending to be ? Sunglasses and scarf are the clues .
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guy_Fawkes
LikeLike
Keith has funny looking marks on his face under his bottom lip and a mole-

Jumpin’ sleeve, picture’s reversed-
Scarf and sunglasses- Jackie O?


Or
Marianne Faithfull?-
LikeLike
That’s Marianne Faithfull trying to be Brian Jones.
LikeLike
Ding ding ding on the Jackie-O , in that case who is Jones pretending to be ?
The back sleeve is the give away .
The trident , I now see ( sea ) , may refer to Pheonecia , a pun within a pun within …
I believe Operation Rolling Stone is tipping their dirty hands to :
Click to access barindex2.pdf
He’s alright now , in fact it’s a gas .
LikeLike
Keith said the song was about his gardener Jack Dyer. Was he Stoned?
Is Brian trying to be Sharon Tate? Glass of red wine = blood?
LikeLike
He’s making his exit , turning his back on the band , but how could the camera be positioned to get that shot ?
But like JFK , he’s not really going to die .
LikeLike
I’m sure Jack the gardener was born in a cross-fire hurricane .
Very many tropical storms or gunfire in London ?
LikeLike
The knife in Mick’s mouth ( maybe not for the first time ) , is it a real knife ?
LikeLike
Too hot ‘n humid to continue for me , leaving you with this :
LikeLike
If you want to comment on my newer papers like Lawrence or Woody Allen or whatever, this would be a good place to do it. I will check in occasionally and hit this spot.
LikeLike
Well you certainly joined a lot of dots for me in the Woody Allen paper Miles.
I must say though, that after reading your papers on genealogy, when confronted with the question, ‘where did these power hungry Jewish families originate?’, I automatically assumed it must be the same families stretching back across the ages (just a wild stab in the dark for me). Thanks to you and Gerry, I can now confirm this. The only question that remains is, ‘how far back?’.
The first 5,000 years after the last glaciation ended is very sparse as far as any kind of history is concerned, written, artifactual or otherwise. Could it be that the strongest, smartest, wealthiest families managed to survive the last ice age? And could it be the reason why the majority of these peoples went on to control and rule the whole world? It would take smarter than normal people to invent tools, weapons, farming practices, defend effectively against animal or human attacks, as there were probably thousands of nomadic tribes wandering around looking for an easier existence. So were there perhaps an ‘us & them’ all the way back to the beginning of this epoch? Not just strong leaders/individuals but strong and knowledgeable families, a superior race? Because at that time they really would be superior, and perhaps saw that this was a good thing, to be superior, because it gave you control and helped you survive in a hostile world.
LikeLike
I think nobody can tell whether actual better survival was due to inherent superiority or environmental luck. (As laid out exemplary in “Guns,Germs and Steel” by Jared Diamond). To many times in Evolution large former apex predator species, for example, have been relegated to tiny vermin in a relatively short span.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/phenomena/2016/04/15/paleo-profile-the-giant-bone-crushing-weasel/
“(…) as if bears suddenly became weasel-sized and weasels became bear-sized in their place”:
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2018-06/ncmo-nr060618.php
There’s also AFAIK no absolute advantage in adaptability to every environment discernible between human genetic & civilisatory & cultural groups in that time frame (that would be the only all-round superiority definable).
If I were given the task of finding out where Phoenicians & Co. came from further on in pre-history, I would surely have to resort to ancient population genomics, linguistics and archeology, but those tools are limited in cases of “elite dominance”, “elite isolation”, “cultural diffusion”, and matrilineal scenarios, that often leave little trace, e.g. if a small new elite (or just their ideas) moves in to rule, but doesn’t transform the civilisatory products or genomic make-up of the wider population very much.
LikeLike
That’s the opposite of what my papers show. The Jews are not a superior race in any way. Superior races don’t survive on lies and hiding, do they? Would a superior race create the kind of culture we now have, where art, science, and honest governance are all dead? The ruling class has always been shallow and vulgar, and it is getting moreso by the decade.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That’s what I tried to express.
LikeLike
Concur wholeheartedly. That’s exactly the impression these families want to give. That in some obscure way , THEY are superior to us but of course that’s just rubbish. The majority of these high flying entrepreneurs , media ‘stars’ , scientists etc. etc. have had the benefit of insider help by virtue of WHO they are not WHAT they are. I doubt if some of them could tie their own shoe laces without help.
They certainly share the ‘greed gene’ and once the ‘pact ‘was made to control , the ‘nomadic tribe’ didn’t stand a chance. Further I would disagree that these bloodline families are any further up the evolutionary tree than a primitive native. Less in fact. A primitive native will generally have respect for his/her environment and family.
LikeLike
Perhaps they can’t help lying and cheating. They’re done it so long that they can’t act normally in any situation.
EG: I was at pal’s house in Newport one Sunday and he had on some UK cookery program Sunday Brunch on the TV. Comedy actor Tom A.S. Rosenthal was on it with some other minor celebs tasting cocktails. One of the cocktails was a Bloody Mary with a rasher of bacon in it (for real). Rosenthal not only didn’t drink it but when asked what cocktail was his favorite, he said the Bloody Mary! The glass was still full.
LikeLike
In the last few years it is common for companies to poll employees and ask different questions about the management. Typically employees assess that mostly the “wrong people” get promoted.
Well, we now know that being competent is not enough, you need to come from the right family, too.
The fact that insiders rate the top management as not always competent doesn’t speak for outstanding intelligence or other superior qualities.
Also, I believe that if someone has great wealth and power, this someone should carry great responsibility towards the people and the planet. I observe a rather decadent behavior and that is quite disappointing, to say the least!
LikeLike
Here in the UK we have a prime example of ‘ the helping hand’ in action. Prince Andrew’s ex wife, Sarah Ferguson managed to get her ridiculous children’s book, ” Budgie the Little Helicopter’ published with no difficulty whilst her two barely literate daughters have held lucrative jobs with top firms. They are known here as ( not affectionately ) as the ‘Royal Paper Clip Collectors’ with a certain amount of derision. Great holidays are included. In fact more holiday than work! If they ………………and this goes for so many of the over privileged parasites ……………………had to compete for their jobs on a level playing field like the rest of us, they’d be out of work for the duration.
LikeLike
It’s a very powerful idea, Russell!
The idea that these people in ships carried forward the antediluvian knowledge (and, like Noah, animals?) that they depended on.
They could have rescued libraries and (antikythera?) mechanisms from the flooding cities destroyed by the end of the ice age.
Of course they would feel superior because they alone were able to witness the awesome power of nature and survive.
They must have felt chosen by God.
And then their language and technical skills enabled them to readily compete with any ignorant savages they encountered down the line.
Perhaps they purposely hid evidence of themselves so as to not incur the wrath or envy of the desolate bunch of humans being forced by rising sea levels into ever smaller and less productive lands.
Perhaps they sailed around looting and pillaging, while finding distant shores along which to hide.
Perhaps they got their start transporting goods to cities starving due to the destruction of their adjoining farmlands or perhaps the inundation of their freshwater sources by seawater.
Perhaps these seafarers recognized the advantage they had in controlling the knowledge of ship building, and other esoterica, and perhaps keeping their enemies ignorant was an effective survival mechanism.
Perhaps, as some have already conjectured, pre-Phoenician libraries exist that are hidden from the public at large. Perhaps these books include information that would give their owners an advantage; knowledge of usury schemes, for example.
Or agriculture.
Or metalwork.
Or shipbuilding. etc.
Certainly, the fact that Phoenician is the first alphabet makes it clear that they had some kind of advantage, whether it was superior genetic intelligence – unlikely – or carefully guarded knowledge of prior civilization(s).
Offtopic:
Does anyone else think of Jeff Bezos when they hear “Amazigh?”
http://hull-awe.org.uk/index.php/Amazon
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numidians
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_the_Berber_people#Amazigh
Does anyone else hear Craig/Crag (Scottish Gaelic and Irish:creag, Welsh:craig) or Craic when they hear “QEREACH?”
“Craic” (/kræk/ KRAK) or “crack” is a term for news. The word has an unusual history; the English crack was borrowed into Irish as craic in the mid-20th century and the Irish spelling was then reborrowed into English.[1]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craic
A steep rugged mass of rock projecting upward or outward, especially a cliff or vertical rock exposure
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crag
LikeLike
I recently just read a short story by Orson Scott Card, the Mormon science-fiction writer we’ve discussed (and outed in a way) who wrote “Ender’s Game” and “The Worthing Saga”, both really good reads. The Worthing Saga is among the masterpieces of modern sci-fi in my opinion, spin or no spin. But he writes another few books and short stories about a future fictional “Pastwatch” device, which allows people to look into the past and see what happened. The first one was “The Redemption of Christopher Columbus”, and it was damn good. The latest short story however is about the Flood and Atlantis, and a short, easy read.
If anyone’s interested, here you go:
http://hatrack.com/osc/stories/atlantis.shtml
I didn’t sense any spin and of course it’s just fiction, but I thought it a very interesting angle on the Flood and Atlantis. Possibly not much to help us unravel things here but a really thoughtful story in my opinion, though I tend to loathe the guy for being Mormon in the first place. Sometimes we must toss aside prejudice and just battle on, though.
LikeLike
Thanks Jake but It seems my point was missed by others. I’m suggesting the same bloodlines that were successful 10,000 -20,000 years ago, might well be the same bloodlines we see in power today. While Canada and much of the US and Europe was covered in mile deep ice, the whole of Alaska was free. But we can’t assume that all the ice free places were habitable. It wasn’t just colder and harsher. There were dips in temperature which drove weather extremes we can’t imagine. The last ‘little ice age’ finished around 1860 and there were 9 inch lumps of ice in hailstorms killing cattle stone dead and destroying orchards and homes. That was just a fraction (average 2C drop) of the severe weather you could expect toward the end of the last full blown ice age. In such extreme conditions, only the smartest people, able to work out the best survival strategy would make it through. It is thought that a sudden -and that’s the rub – drop in temperature killed the Mammoth. A very sudden warming followed by severe cooling over a short period of just a few months caused cataclysmic snowfall, dumping maybe 4 metres per day, day after day, for weeks. The Mammoth virtually suffocated under the snow. The layout of the bones from dead animals herding near the end show this as a very probable cause of them dying en mass, with the strongest climbing on dead bodies to try and escape the deepening snow. These severe changes in weather extremes also devastated the human population. Not just through the extreme cold and heavy snowfall but famine. Food would be plentiful as the climate warmed then pow! A few sudden cold wet summers wiping out crops, bird nests meaning no seasonal eggs, and a reduced bird population. Any grass for livestock being buried under snow or waterlogged so no growth. The chances of survival were extremely limited. In such conditions, only the very strongest, fittest and smartest would survive, especially so if they lived near the coast.
The vast majority of survivors, protecting themselves from invaders, lived in Africa we are told (we came out of Africa), and at the time, the two main land bridges out of Africa were into Europe through Spain and guess where else? Right where Israel is today. The Semites could be found across Northern Africa and the Middle East. Isn’t that where we still tend to find the old texts languages etc? Do Egyptians look anything like native Africans? At the worst times most Middle Eastern tribes would be driven to migrate into Africa (bread basket of the world) and as the world warmed again, they migrated back out of Africa into the Middle Eastern regions again. First port of call, smack bang where Israel is today.
Did they think that the Gods had given them life and killed everyone else? Did they assume that the Gods thought they were special and worth preserving? I’m wondering where these ancient thoughts and texts originated. The holy land. The promised land. They not only survived but survived in their thousands, whereas across the world, the human population was in pockets and concentrated near the main food source, the sea. South America with it’s jungles and forests also kept a good population and had it’s own civilisation surges (pyramids etc), but wasn’t exempt from weather extremes like devastating floods and cold snaps killing off their livestock through drowning or starvation.
Isn’t that what we see today in human diversity? Some of the oldest knowledge and most successful societal infrastructure being across the Middle Eastern regions and to some extent South America? Everywhere else ancient tribes were always struggling due to weather extremes which, soon after the ice age ended, were much more stable across the equatorial region again. People in Northern Europe were thousands of years behind in their development and the historians seem unable to come up with any reasonable explanation other than, we were all vicious Neanderthal types, always raping, pillaging and at constant war with one another. I believe that we just had a damned hard time surviving farther north where the weather still bit you in the ass if you ignored it.
So I’m not saying that any race is superior to any other, the data may be deliberately skewed. But back then it was a very different story, forced into being by natural forces.
Anyway….I thought we were looking for origins?
Gerry….go for it…..you have another 5,000 years to cover hehehe. I can’t wait for part V…..
Come to think of it, part V being an inverted pyramid and those ancient civilisations came before the biblical stories….how appropriate!
LikeLike
New discovery’s all the time…
https://bit.ly/2nGU7Ko
LikeLike
Russell, I’m all for speculation, but I think you’re making a logical error here. You are inferring that the people who survived the ice age did so on the basis of intelligence. But there could be many things that enabled their survival. For example they may have been exceedingly cunning. They may have been extremely well organized (some hypothesize that the ability of homo sapiens to organize into large groups is what gave us the advantage over the neanderthals). They may have been psychopaths who would stop at nothing to survive. Or they may have gotten lucky somehow.
For example maybe they lived on a pocket of Earth that was comparatively warm or that was cold for a shorter period. I don’t know if there was such an area during that period, but according to Miles’s scientific work we would expect there to be pockets of higher and lower charge emission (in the form of heat), and we would expect the warmest areas to be about 30 degrees North and South latitude. Well it just so happens that the latitude of the ancient city of Jericho (which was mentioned in passing in part 3 of Gerry’s work as “the City of Palms” and is located near the modern city of Eilat) is nearly exactly at 30 degrees North. It is one of the oldest continually inhabited cities in the world going back to (at least) 9,000 BC, which Wikipedia notes was almost to the very beginning of the Holocene epoch.
There may be other possible explanations. Even if you try to vastly expand the definition of what it means to be smart or intelligent, you still wouldn’t cover all the possible explanations.
LikeLiked by 2 people
When I read amazigh (or whatever you spell it) I think Madonna! For her 60. Birthday she is wearing something described as amazingh. Look it up. What is that? What is she trying to signal us?
LikeLike
Andrea….are you referring to the spiky head-dress she wore, plus lots of other bright and sparkly things? Typical Madonna style, lots of pyramid shaped spikes.
And what if the old Pharaohs had sussed out immortality, and Madonna is really someone like Aphrodite. What if Aphrodite wasn’t a fictitious God but a real and powerful female overlord. Maybe it’s just a celebrity pretending to be someone like Aphrodite but maybe, just maybe……..let your imagination run wild for a moment….
LikeLike
I have a vivid recollection of Madonna. I went to her concert True Blue in NY. It was an impressive show. Afterward I had a ticket to her after-show party. She was on the dance floor basically all the time! Sean Penn was playing along, a little tired (but she did the show!! Not him).
And as I heard her true voice the first time, it was very different! Back then I could not even imagine what they could do with electronics.
So she has a lot of physical power but was fake from the start…
LikeLike
Wonderful production on her later songs.
LikeLike
Miles, Woody Allen played the clarinet every Monday’s night for 25 years at Michael‘s pub on the upper east side in NY and since it closed I understand at a new location.
You don’t even mention it, but I assume it is a big part in Woody‘s life. It was not a couple of times. It was not for money. Who are the other music players? Any thoughts?
LikeLike
Heywood ‘Woody’ Allen:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woody_Allen
What about his Heywood name? Or is it Haywood like David Bowie’s grandfather and father? Bowie wed Imam who used to be with Spencer Hayward. Wood/ward?
Found a Leon Cherrie/Cherry born between 1853 to 1893!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And the father of Paul Cherry Gilbert and Nettie Cherrie (Woody’s mum).
LikeLike
Was it this Leon Cherry?:
https://www.geni.com/people/Leon-Cherrie-Cherry/6000000051391210908
Woody Allen’s ex Mia Farrow has De Lourdes Villiers as her middle names, and she’s descended from the Peytons. Mia Farrow was in TV soap opera Peyton Place.
At ethnicelebs.com under Celebs With Similar Background:
Susanna Hoffs is listed as the daughter of TAMAR Simon Hoffs. http://ethnicelebs.com/susanna-hoffs
William Shatner is related to Leonard ‘Field Commander?’ Cohen. Beam me up, Scotty.
LikeLike
Well, 2½ months after my thoughts regarding the falsity of Beatles’ songs authorship were posted on this very thread a Harvard/Princeton mathematician named Glickman announces he has mathematically “proven” that John Lennon wrote a particular Beatles song and, of course, strongly implying that such a thing could be proven by mathematics and, more importantly, pushing the now-authoritative assumption that the Beatles did write all their own music.
According to Glickman’s website …
http://www.glicko.net/
… the paper on this topic has not yet been finalized and will be posted there at the end of August.
Here is a picture of Glickman with a bunch of books and a chessboard so you know he must be really, really smart:

But, despite the paper not being finished or published, the press has gone ahead and run a number of stories about this “proof” such as this:
https://tinyurl.com/y7eyjq9v
and
https://tinyurl.com/ydef2lqg
Of course, I interpret this as official support for the idea that the Beatles did NOT write their own songs. 🙂
LikeLike
Methinks George Martin wrote them and John and Paul/Mike pitched in a couple of ideas. Why else would Macca release such dross as the Frog Chorus after the rbeakup, like Dylan singing Froggy went a-courting. I think George helped Oasis also, Noel was always saying he borrowed/stole this riff/leitmotif (like Kurt Cobain did) and never got sued.
Black Sabbath have different versions of who wrote what and why. ‘Sing Elvis’ was on the other day, artists covering Elvis’ songs as if HE wrote them.
(Question on The Chase: which gangster died a recluse in 1947? Answer: Al Capone, spooky year.)
LikeLiked by 1 person
Talking of Oasis’ Noel, he resembles Bob Dylan in this picture:

I think George Martin and other composers formed a songwriting committee (a British Tin Pan Alley), the best songs went to, say, The Beatles, and the duff ones they gave away to other artists. John and Paul must have decided between them which ones were more them. There’s a version of ‘Come together’ – now credited to John – sung by Paul (Faul) from the Abbey Road sessions, pre-decision?
LikeLike
Have you seen this? Paul/Faul allegedly confesses that “Hey Jude” was actually written by another group and was stolen by The Beatles.
This is all brushed off as a joke done by a Paul-impersonator but I’m not so sure. It sounds an awful lot like the real thing to me. I’ve heard a number of impersonators but never one that sounded so much like Paul.
Funny thing is, the confession mentions the group who supposedly wrote the song, The Zephyrs. There really was such a group with that name.
wikipedia has an entry for The Zephyrs but it’s NOT that group.
It’s this group:
https://www.allmusic.com/artist/the-zephyrs-mn0002293914
They were a British Invasion band in the early-mid 1960s with some modest success and even played with Jimmy Page at one point. So, it is quite plausible that they could have submitted material to Apple during that period.
So, I’m wondering: was this statement a real slip of the tongue by Paul/Faul that is being whitewashed as a practical joke for damage control?
LikeLike
I have a mate and colleague who’s a big massive beatles/macca fan and he says he’s heard it before, years ago, it was an April Fools joke by some radio station, and he should know, he’s got over 300 beatles bootlegs so he claims. The Macca or impersonator sounds as if he has a cold to me.
Would macca admit their ripping off that song, and not some minor hit or a ‘John ‘ song? He’d rather eat a beefburger for sure.
I have Jimmy Page LP, of his session work, and there’s a Zephyrs song and the singer sounds different and it’s closer to very early Yardbirds stuff than doo-wop. Wouldn’t one of the Zephyrs have spilt the beans by now?
LikeLike
Strange though that George Harrison should have been found guilty of plagiarism with his self penned song, ” Here Comes the Sun.”
LikeLike
Wasn’t that ‘My Sweet Lord’? George claimed to have used the out-of-copyright “Oh Happy Day”, a Christian hymn, as his inspiration for the song’s melody.
Would he have been sued if it was on a Beatles album, that is the question?
I do recall my early adolescence wondering why all those Hits of the sixties albums never had a Beatles song on them. Then there was the Apple iTunes availability issue…
LikeLike
Yes you’re absolutely right, of course it was. My bad. Sun on the brain.
LikeLike
My brother has always been a big Beatles fan but told me he would rather not know the truth and prefers to keep the blindfold on.
LikeLike
All famous bands are compromised I reckon, so you either accept that and buy their stuff, make your own music or find some obscure band that no one’s heard of. Me, I either like it or I don’t, and as long it’s not too in the face with the propaganda, I’ll play it belike as not.
LikeLike
As a Beatles/60s rock fan, I don’t think it’s Paul/Faul/Mike, he’s too nasal in my opinion, a guy at work does a better impression tho’ he looks more like Ringo or a bag of spanners. If you click on the link to watch it on youtube, underneath it states: “this was an April Fools joke”.
Just for fun, I listened to The Zephyrs on youtube while I was there, there’s about a dozen. They sound just like any generic mid 60s r&b/mod combo, tho’ there’s also a Scottish indie band with the same name.
LikeLike
The Knickerbockers’ “Lies” from Nuggets – sounds alot like….
LikeLike
Paul & co. surely nicked a bunch of this Nat Cole song for his/their ‘ Yesterday ‘ .
LikeLiked by 1 person
The original was in German called Muetterlein (little mother), written by Gerhard Winkler and Fred Rauch; English lyric by Carl Sigman. Frankie Laine’s version in 1953 was even banned by the BBC after complaints:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Answer_Me#cite_note-The_music_the_BBC_banned-1
LikeLike
“Yesterday (Beatles song)
In July 2003, British musicologists stumbled upon superficial similarities between the lyric and rhyming schemes of “Yesterday” and Nat King Cole’s and Frankie Laine’s “Answer Me, My Love” (originally a German song….. “Mütterlein”, it was a No.1 hit for Laine on the UK charts in 1953 as “Answer Me, O Lord”), leading to speculation that McCartney had been influenced by the song. McCartney’s publicists denied any resemblance between “Answer Me, My Love” and “Yesterday”. “Yesterday” begins with the lines: “Yesterday, all my troubles seemed so far away. Now it looks as though they’re here to stay.” In its second stanza, “Answer Me, My Love” has the lines: “You were mine yesterday. I believed that love was here to stay. Won’t you tell me where I’ve gone astray”.”
This is all the more f—edup considering what we are told about Paul’s mum .
LikeLike
Here’s a song Donald Fagen wrote after his mum died , Fagen wants to find God and kill him .
LikeLike
@Liew Reid
I read that there were agents at the Tavistock Institute who wrote some songs for the Beatles but I don’t know if that is true.
LikeLike
Yeah I think it’s becoming a lot easier for even the very naive to question the legitimacy of The Beatles supposedly writing their own material and this trend will only continue with the latest song released by “Sir Paul”. It was suggested by youtube for me to watch recently (it’s only been up a few days). The song is titled, and I kid you not “Fuh You” seriously that’s the song’s title. It is as soulless, idiotic and disposable as every other generic promoted modern pop “song” . It sounds like all the music and melodies were generated by the same programs that cranks out the sounds for use in cellphone and pharmaceutical commercials. Interesting to hear lyrics like “trying to crack your code” and “Try to tell the truth” * while Ad-logo style text displays the lyrics in the animated video. The video is also rife with symbolism like pyramids, crescent moons etc (the upcoming album is “Egypt Station”) but I don’t know what he’s trying to say with it all, nor do I particularly care.
After a full life of things to reflect on, the insight we get from the good sir’s journey at this point is “I Just Wanna Fu** You”. I don’t even know if I can believe the guy wrote THIS song either, as base as it is you could only imagine that a preteen would think it’s somehow clever or worthy of setting to music. In the song, it’s clear that he’s meant to be saying “I just wanna fuck you” but the sound is clipped before the hard C, so I guess it can be played on the radio or perhaps in Cialis ads, and as a result the title is instead “Fuh You”. As if getting this septuagenarian known for his supposed boyish charm and squeaky clean image to utter this phrase is somehow edgy. Was Paul (or whoever the hell this guy is) in a coma during the punk, metal or hip hop eras where any remaining shock value of using such lyrics in the main chorus were exhausted? What planet do these people think they live on? Who is the target audience for such a song? I suppose they are either hoping to stir up controversy with the lyrics in an attempt to make the man appear relevant, or someone is intentionally trying to run his reputation straight through the shitter.
Some years ago there was a Britney Spears song called “If You Seek Amy” (say those nonesense lyrics fast for the “vulgar” message). Various media outlets debated the merits of the “controversial” song that few would have known about otherwise. That’s the sort of wordplay one would expect from people working on “Team Britney Spears”, or perhaps even Britney herself. But this latest steaming coil from “Macca” makes that seem extremely clever by comparison. Simply changing “Fuck You” to “Fuh You” isn’t exactly impressive. Who thought this was a good move on any level? Who is going to want this single? Old school Beatles fans will scoff at it, his fellow seniors would probably only be offended by it. Young people certainly aren’t gonna want to go into the clubs and dance to a 76 year old man singing that he wants to “Fuh Them”…ew. Good gravy they really did it this time! Creepazoid Inc.are apparently way too overconfident in their successes in dumbing down and medicating the populous into a zombified state. So much so that even the supposed “respected legendary songwriters” are now responsible for the same level of lyricism as one of Will Smith’s little brats. They’ve reached the point where it seems even occasionally promoting some new scrap of non-transparently-idiotic media is strictly out of the question, it would be a step too far back from the direction they wish us to travel. If someone were tasked with the job of doing as much damage as possible to the MacCartney/BeatleCo brands, it would be hard to top this effort.,
It was funny to read a few of the comments from perplexed listeners who mostly exhibited reactions of OMGWTF as some were trying to defend Sir Paul insisting there was some clever meaning behind teh “fuh” and he wasn’t trying to be dirty. Maybe he was just singing about how much he loves Pho and wants to share his bowl. :D.
warning: proceed with caution you may want to have earplugs and a barf bag
LikeLike
All the subtilties of a belching walrus .
What was that other title ” If You See Kay “
LikeLike
Dementia at his age is not a laughing matter. Or he’s punch drunk, too many parties with mixed drinks in a bowl.
Is there a checklist for getting famous? as in REM, for example, years in the wilderness playing inoffensive olky pop songs (I knew a girl who loved them till they went big).
1. Write an anti-religious song. Check
2. Add expletives to songlyrics. Check
3. Come out gay. Check
4. Risque pop video. Check
Etc
LikeLike
LikeLike
I loved Miles’ article on Woody Allen. I was such a fan of Woody for many years (back in the days when I was a fan of such people). As Miles points out, Woody IS funny and can write brilliantly but … well, you know.
I wasn’t aware of Ronan Farrow before reading Miles’ article. I took one look at his photo and I believe Miles is spot on in suspecting he is not Woody’s son. I see Sinatra written all over that face:
To my eye he looks more like Sinatra than Frank Junior does.
LikeLike
I agree R:

Same eyes and same smile as Frank.
LikeLike
Frank Sinatra is also a spooky guy. The father from Palermo (some link say Catania, that is also Sicily, but not close), the mother from Genova (a small town close by) very unusual! She came to NY as two months old, families very poor (did we hear that already?), she politically engaged, could translate, the father became a fireman captain, without education or whatever, Frank started singing at 17 in the parents bar (run by… a firefighter and the mom?) and with 18 gets his first car… during the worst recession, of course… You look up the rest, call me if you need help with the bullshit.
LikeLike
He did it his way. 🙂
LikeLike
He had a few regrets, mind.
LikeLike
Yes and Ronan also looks like Bowie – who i sometimes think looked like Sinatra.
Ronan has been busy pretending anti-war lately. What a fine sp p p okk.
LikeLike
Odd that although I’ve shown very little interest in science , I keep getting fed links like this everyday on my Mozilla page .
New debate , hahaha .
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/theoretical-physics-is-pointless-without-experimental-tests/
LikeLike
Do you mean the stock, default “New Tab” page? Like this one?
My homepage is set to DuckDuckGo, instead of Google, and I never see any links to anything there. Not that DuckDuckGo is the answer to all browser security, but it sure is better than NSA-sponsored Google in just about every way.
LikeLike
@Jared Magneson
We are told DuckDuckGo and StartPage are not compromised. But since you’re not on the back end, you don’t know if they are as private as they claim to be. Over time anyone can be bought out. But in their case maybe they were a honeypot from the get go.
LikeLike
I think it’s a matter of degrees. HOW compromised is DuckDuckGo, compared to say Google or Bing? I would say less compromised. Having full control over my browser and what goes in/out shows me a lot of what’s happening, and Google searches trip many of the scanners while DDG does not. That and using a VPN lets me control my data a lot more than most people would be willing to spend time/money on, but I find it worthwhile. I’ve always done this.
But that doesn’t mean for one second my data is safe. Just, a little more safe perhaps. Also I don’t have anything that needs to be hidden, but just the same I enjoy messing with the Powers That Be, even in my small way.
LikeLike
I got the same link on my Firefox “new tab” page
LikeLike
Yeah that’s the one , are we being targeted ?
Because I mostly laugh at the headlines , may as well look at FARK.com .
LikeLike
Oddly enough, it’s a fairly sensible article which, coming from Scientific American, surprises me no end. It asserts that we shouldn’t accept new theories only because they sound good but rather demand experimental confirmation.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Kind of the crow calling the raven black there, huh? Someone at SciAm must be feeling the heat from Mathis’s camp, finally.
LikeLike
At the beginning of the SciAm article it”sounds” good, but then they tell you that Einstein “was proven wrong” and that gravitational waves and black holes exist!!
They cite LIGO, as proof. So, no, it is not a sensible article, just misdirection.
And one funny thing: the autocorrect function of my iPad, most of the time useless, suggested immediately “gravitational”!
LikeLike
True Andrea….the mainstream are always misquoting Einstein.
The only real black hole is the one in NASA’s bank account…..
LikeLiked by 1 person
Miles said this about black holes:
“Now that I have shown the mathematical errors contained in both Special and General Relativity, I am in a position to comment on the theoretical work done on the cosmological beast now termed the “black hole”. By titling this paper The Myth of the Black Hole, I am not suggesting that the idea of a black hole is a myth in toto. I am suggesting, and will show, that the current theory of black holes is in large part either false, experimentally unsupported, or scientifically suspect. I leave open the possibility that black holes do exist in some form, and that a part of the astronomical data has been read correctly. But the greater part of current speculation could be called wild, and a significant part is demonstrably illogical.”
From this article:
http://milesmathis.com/black.html
(Emphasis mine.)
And, Miles refers to gravity as “the third wave” here:
http://milesmathis.com/third.html
LikeLike
That was an early Miles. We could ask him today, what he thinks about it.
I have a clear opinion about black holes: they do not exist.
Coincidentally I also have an opinion about gravitational waves: they do not exist (or only in the sick mind of certain people I don’t want to connect to anyway).
LikeLiked by 1 person
Not one teensy-weensy black hole in the whole universe? And, not one itsy-bitsy gravity wave anywhere?
LikeLike
Nope. Sorry.
LikeLiked by 1 person
No, black holes don’t exist. No, gravity does not propagate in waves. Both are just more salesmanship by the mainstream to justify huge-budget projects that produce nothing, save a shiny story.
The Large Hadron Collider and most of NASA and the NSF (National Science Foundation) are also such projects. Money bits. Or as Russell Taylor stated, money black holes.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jared’s answer was pretty complete, but I’ll just add a couple of things: Crothers shows that the math currently used to support the notion that black holes exist is not only wrong but totally fudged. There are many videos of him on-line discussing it, and it’s surprisingly straightforward (see here for a non-mathematical treatment). I have tried to find a cogent rebuttal but haven’t found one. Mostly name-calling and lazy dismissals. Crothers addresses substantive criticism at his website. So no, our universe does not contain even a teensy-weensy one (actually they’re teensy by definition).
But then what do we make of all the data pointing to the existence of black holes? Is that all made up? Could be. But Miles has an interesting paper theorizing what it is that the data are actually pointing to. Or in other words, he theorizes what could exist out in space that would produce data that would look like a black hole. Same for quasars. And guess what? The charge field plays an important role. It’s worth a read: http://milesmathis.com/black2.html
A side note: Crothers locates the key fudging of the black hole math back to Hilbert. Guess where Hilbert is from? Koenigsberg (aka Kaliningrad). That spooky city just came up in Miles’ paper on the Teutonic Knights. Guess who else is from there? If you said “Yitzhak Rabin’s wife, Leah” then you win the prize. Other spook notables from there include Hannah Arendt and Immanuel Kant/Quandt.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Crothers shows and proves black holes are a bad theory and he does so without / before looking into the math. Here’s his first slide from the EU 2015 conference:
By definition, black holes and big bang universe(s) can not exist at the same time. In the current theory, one excludes the other. Moreover, not even two individual black holes can exist at the same time.
I’d encourage everybody still sceptic about it to watch the whole explanation by Crothers, He’s easy to follow (even when he dives deep into the math) and very amusing guy.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Crothers is rather snidely funny too, not unlike our dear pal Miles. I like the guy. He seems like a jerk and in this business, that’s often a good thing. If he wasn’t a jerk, and was faking his bitterness towards the mainstream, he’d seem not much better than the EU crowd he got stuck with initially. Not that personality really matters when it comes to science (either he’s right or he’s wrong), but it does keep me going back to re-read his work and watch his vids occasionally.
I simply can’t stomach the Electric Universe folks otherwise, anymore.
LikeLike
Neither can I. Few years ago, when I didn’t know everything I know today, EU seemed like an anti-mainstream. But even then Crothers was an exception among them in my opinion, next to Pierre-Marie Robitaille, who refuted 170 year old dogma about the Kirchhoff’s law of thermal emission.
“The author has previously stated that Kirchhoff’s law was not valid (see [4, 7, 12] and references therein), as it has no proper theoretical [28] or experimental proof. Planck’s equation [13, 14] remained unlinked to a physical mechanism [4] because of Kirchhoff’s law [1, 2]. As a result, physics was prevented from accounting for the production of a thermal photon from a simple cavity made from a block of graphite.”
Excerpt from here: http://www.ptep-online.com/2018/PP-54-08.PDF
Anybody with solid arguments against the mainstream physics gets my attention. Notice he mentions thermal photon – which made me think about the charge. It would be interesting to hear Robitaille’s opinion about the charge field and de-unification after all he’s discovered while researching about the thermal emissions.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Since Crothers abject demolition of black holes, they should not be considered viable, real, or actual in any way. This is an older paper of Miles from before Crothers’ analysis – which Miles himself linked us to as soon as he was aware of it, too. I found Crothers via the Electric Universe (fraud) before I ever found Miles, so seeing Miles link to him increased both their credibilities. Not that they needed cred – their logic and math were correct enough anyway.
http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/papers.html
As for the Third Wave, Miles at no point claims gravity waves exist or that it’s even possible:
“In this paper I will redefine gravity, introducing a Third Wave in gravitational mechanics. Newton provided the First Wave and Einstein the Second. My theory will revolutionize physics not by introducing a new metaphysics or a more avant garde math or any other esoterica. I will proceed by building a strictly mechanistic5 universe from the ground up, using the simplest math and concepts that I can at all times. In addition, I will strive to keep my language as clear and concise as possible. This will prevent any unnecessary obfuscation or complexity.”
http://milesmathis.com/third.html
The “third wave” isn’t a gravity wave, it’s a new derivation of the mechanics. Miles is incorporating charge mechanics into the classical ones to correct and update them, in short.
He further demolishes gravity waves absolutely in the BICEP and LIe-Go papers:
Click to access guth.pdf
Click to access ligocroth.pdf
Click to access liego.pdf
LikeLike
I use Epic privacy browser now after vex’s recommendation. It has its own vpn, ad blocker and downloader (youtube, etc). Well worth a try for sure. I use it all the time now, although some proxies are quicker than others for downloading vids when they’re ‘banned in your region”.
LikeLike
Epic is really good. Once can quite easily configure Firefox to be clean as well, though it doesn’t come that way out of the box. Palemoon, which is a 64-bit variant of older Firefox, is also pretty clean.
LikeLike
All Night Stand (Raymond Douglas Davies) by The Thoughts, Nuggets II
LikeLike
In reference to the black hole discussion (posted here to bypass the annoying Worpress indent thing):
Is our galaxy rotating and, if so, what is it rotating around?
LikeLike
It certainly appears to be rotating, given our records of the motion of other stars. We have every evidence that it is. What is it rotating around? The galactic core, of course. So the story goes, and I have no beef with that. We see what other galaxies look like and can see the density gradients in our own as well, though we’ve never sent a probe far enough up or down (relative to the galactic planes) to actually see our own galactic core.
We have many photographs of other galaxies and many plotted pseudo-distances of local star clusters as well. ALL of those distances are suspect, thus my usage of pseudo. Sirius and Centauri and Bernard’s Star can’t even be calced up very cleanly, and Miles has shown that the mainstream equations are off at least 4% for the Solar System, so we can assume MOST of the mainstream measurements are probably horse shit. And any measurement of distance via “redshift” is about as accurate as an asshole on one’s elbow.
But that’s not to say our galaxy doesn’t have a core.We have lots of real photos of the Milky Way, and can take our own:

LikeLike
We are lied to about almost everything. The sky looks blue, and water is definitely wet but beyond that, after reading Miles’ work, I don’t know what to believe any more.
LikeLike
So what IS the galactic core?
We have no real idea. Lots of speculation, but almost no real data. Nobody has imaged it at all, though we have lots of pics of other spiral galaxies – most of those really bad CGI however, so be wary when searching these topics.
However, there are several things we DO know about the galactic core:
1. It is not a giraffe. Giraffes are cool and stuff, but not that cool.
2. It is not an idea. A physical core is a physical thing, not something metaphysical, fictional, or preposterously the opposite of what it’s claimed to be.
3. It is not a super-massive black hole, by any definition. Nor is it black. Nor is it a hole. And by the same field equations that led to Hilbert’s derivation in the first place, a universe with a black hole cannot contain any other matter, nor another black hole.
A “black hole” is said to have its mass compressed to an infinitely small volume – a point. So its density becomes infinite, no matter how much mass. How then can one black hole be more massive (“super” massive?) than any other would be?
ρ = m /V
If we let V = -∞, what happense?
LikeLiked by 1 person
ρ = 0
There seems to be no problem with defining 1 / ∞ = 0 . Unless some silly mind starts from this equation, and deduces that 1 = 0 ⋅ ∞ , by moving the infinity to the right. 😀
LikeLike
So, this galactic core, whatever it is, would have to have an enormous amount of gravity, wouldn’t it? For an entire galaxy to orbit around it?
I mean, stars and such don’t move in circles all by themselves, do they? There has to be a force that causes them to circle around a point, right?
LikeLike
The whole mass of the galaxy rotates as one solid object. The stars at the outside edge rotate at the same rate as the ones near the centre. So the whole thing goes around like a huge merry-go-round. The outside stars must be travelling much faster than the inner ones to achieve this. Seems illogical as gravity is supposed to play such an important role but that is what seems to be the case. Gravity and magnetism….I think Miles is much closer to the truth than most.
Feynman was being interviewed and was asked why two magnets repel each other.
He looked nervous and almost like a kid who was caught with his hand in the cookie jar.
He beat about the bush for a while, then tried to explain that you had to be a super smart physicist to be able to understand the real physics behind it.
But this is the man who stated that, ‘if you can’t explain something to an 8 year old so they can understand it, then you don’t fully understand it yourself’. Kind of contradicted himself there methinks!
He wasn’t a very good liar…..body language was all over the place.
LikeLike
@ RT
“The whole mass of the galaxy rotates as one solid object. … So the whole thing goes around like a huge merry-go-round.
But, a galaxy ISN’T one sold object. It’s a group of smaller objects while a merry-g-round IS one sold object. I don’t see that both would move or behave the same way when forces are applied. For example, a rotating wheel doesn’t behave the same as a bunch of pebbles when rotated.
“The whole mass of the galaxy rotates as one solid object. The stars at the outside edge rotate at the same rate as the ones near the centre. So the whole thing goes around like a huge merry-go-round. The outside stars must be travelling much faster than the inner ones to achieve this.”
Huh? The stars at the outside edge rotate at the same rate as the ones near the center but the outside ones are traveling much faster than the inner ones? Say what?
LikeLike
The same rate but different velocities. They keep up instead of lagging behind. Lots of drifting and localised wobbles and it’s not black & white. But the outside ones are being carried around by something we can’t see.. The effect is to make the whole spiral galaxy, face on, look like an almost solid disc. The spiral shape made us think that it was swirling around with stars near the centre completing a revolution more quickly that the outer stars. This has been proven not to be the case. Optical illusion time!
LikeLike
Maybe not.
In the same way a photon or electron can spin around an axis, a galaxy appears to have the same ability but without requiring an extra-massive pivotal point. The whole galaxy IS the mass. Dark matter/energy, whatever they are – charge I think Miles said – make up the glue that holds the whole galaxy together. Large ellipticals are supposed to develop into spirals eventually. I believe the opposite is the case. That would explain the large halo around most spiral galaxy centres. It would also explain why galaxies don’t seem to fly apart, spread, dissolve etc. If they coalesce and continue to do so, then the only outcome can be an extremely large elliptical or halo type of galaxy, irregular or otherwise. They may take many trillions of years to achieve this final state after which they may lose mass and energy and revert back to being a spiral.
The only thing preventing this occurring is time. If you restrict everything to a big-bang solution, then nothing seems to work. Given infinite time, just about anything is possible, except the impossible, like black holes…..or big-bangs.
LikeLike
Not necessarily. Gravity doesn’t work the way we have been taught. But regardless, we have no direct evidence that there is a black hole at the center of the galaxy. That is just an inference scientists make from their (rather limited) data. And it’s a bad inference, built on lots of fudged math and logically contradictory theory. You can see this just by going to the wikipedia entry on ‘galactic center.’
Even their data isn’t very good. If you look on the Wikipedia page, it says we don’t even know how far we are from the galactic core. Which means we don’t know where it is exactly. But we’re sure there’s a supermassive black hole there!! In Miles’ paper that I linked to above, he theorizes the existence of very dense objects that do not reflect any light. So if we needed a massive object at the center of the galaxy that doesn’t give off light (which we don’t), we needn’t require it to be a black hole.
LikeLike
@ Josh
” … we have no direct evidence that there is a black hole at the center of the galaxy.”
Moons orbit planets. Planets orbit stars. Stars orbit ______ (fill in the blank).
Wouldn’t it seem likely that there is something at the center of spinning galaxies exerting its gravity on those stars just as planets exert gravity on their moons and stars exert gravity on their system planets? And, wouldn’t it seem likely that that something at the galactic center would have to exert an enormous amount of gravity?
Maybe it isn’t black and maybe it isn’t a hole and maybe it doesn’t completely fit the descriptions we are given of black holes. Maybe it’s a pink depression or a chartreuse hollyhock. But, is it really so outlandish to think there is also an object at the center of galaxies whose gravity accounts for their spinning motion around a point? Just like with solar systems and planet/moon systems?
LikeLike
“Moons orbit planets. Planets orbit stars. Stars orbit ______ (fill in the blank).”
The way you’ve set up this analogy, you would have to think that stars have to be orbiting something different — a black hole perhaps? But planets are just larger moons, and suns are just larger planets that got large enough and had the right properties to “ignite.” They are more different in degree or size than in kind. Likewise, stars could orbit some other kinds of massive object. There is no reason it has to be a black hole. In fact, if the analogy is about size, then we would simply suppose that stars orbit some kind of huge, massive object. This is wholly consistent with the theory that Miles put forth in his paper on exotics that I linked to.
“Wouldn’t it seem likely that there is something at the center of spinning galaxies exerting its gravity on those stars just as planets exert gravity on their moons and stars exert gravity on their system planets?”
Yes, it does seem likely that there is something massive at the center of spinning galaxies. Though it doesn’t have to be just one thing. It could be just an area of space that is especially dense with stars, planets, nebulae, etc. It could be a single huge, massive object that causes the kind of radio wave emission that scientists are observing coming from the direction of the galactic core. But in Mathisian physics ‘gravity’ doesn’t exert a pulling force on anything. Actually, in the mainstream model, gravity also doesn’t “exert” a pulling force; it bends space. Remember that gravity doesn’t actually cause any object to spin around another. The idea is that there is an object travelling along in a particular direction that gets ‘caught’ by gravity. If the tangential vector and the ‘inward’ vector of gravity “balance” then the object will orbit. If the gravity vector overwhelms the tangential vector, the objects will crash into each other. And if the tangential vector is too large, it will not get caught in an orbit. That is a simplified version of the mainstream view, which is unable to account for elliptical orbits and has to make very heroic assumptions about how often the trajectories of two objects would have to intersect at the right “sweet spot” in order to account for all the orbiting objects we see.
“Huh? The stars at the outside edge rotate at the same rate as the ones near the center but the outside ones are traveling much faster than the inner ones? Say what?”
Imagine you are a standing mile south of the north pole. How long will it take you to make a full rotation? 24 hours. How far will you have traveled during that time? Not much. Now imagine you’re at the equator. It will also take you 24 hours to make a full rotation, but you will have traveled much further than when you were near the North pole. So in fact you are actually moving much faster in order to make the full rotation “at the same rate.” (Where the “rate” here is one rotation every 24 hours). If you extend this logic to inner and outer parts of the galaxy (both of which presumably take the same amount of time to make a full rotation), then I think you’ll grok Russell’s point.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@ Josh
“… stars could orbit some other kinds of massive object. There is no reason it has to be a black hole.”
Thank you! That’s all I was trying to say. Glad you agree. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Gravity never accounts for orbits or rotations, on its own. That’s one of the huge holes Miles has filled for us, using his charge field of real photons that spin, have mass, and underlie both magnetism and electricity.
If it were gravity alone, objects would either never orbit or simply spiral into each other. Gravity causes an apparent attraction, not a spin or an orbit. An orbit is a tangential velocity, not an attraction TOWARDS the object being orbited. Gravity doesn’t cause sideways motion perpendicular to its own attraction.
ALL natural orbits are elliptical to some extent. None are circular, except man-made orbits with consistent adjustments. The reason is that as a larger, denser body (say, the sun) “pulls” in a smaller one, there’s a distance where charge emitting from the sun is pushing OUT with more force than the gravity is pulling IN. That causes the planet to slowly move outward, until it reaches the distance where gravity is stronger again. Gravity and charge have different falloffs due to distance, you see.
So as the planet gets too close, it kind of “bounces” out, much like (as Miles has said) when you push a ping-pong ball underwater and then let go. Not with a pop or snap really, but it’s the same type of effect. The moon does this with the Earth – when it gets too close, the Earth’s charge repels it just enough to keep the moon from colliding with us and ruining everything.
Gravity doesn’t cause rotations, charge does. It’s the magnetic component of spinning photons that cause rotations in orbiting bodies.
LikeLike
You can see how spinning charge photons create a torque on larger bodies with Nevyn’s latest Photon Spin simulator. This is the proton level, but photons are the same size at all levels:
https://www.nevyns-lab.com/mathis/app/ProtonViewer/ProtonViewer.html
(this is a WebGL app, and thus likely won’t work too well on our shitty phones. Most desktops/laptops should be able to handle it though)
For a planet, the torque causing planetary rotation wouldn’t be immediate of course but over any timespan that would be the torque the planet feels, perpendicular to the emission vector (out from the sun) AND the gravity vector (in towards the sun). Most photons won’t strike the planet directly, that is to say 100% head-on, and as they are spinning when they do collide they impart that spin to the much larger body. It all adds up.
As an average, most photons emitted from the sun are spinning one way and not the other (2/3 photons, 1/3 anti-photons). This is why all the planets but Venus rotate the same direction, as far as I recall. And Venus’s rotation has been shown to be slowing down over time, and at some point it will reverse completely and spin the same as the other planets, again via this same mechanism. Miles’ prediction, so if/when this occurs he should get the credit of course.
DISCLAIMER: these are Miles’ theories and not mine, though I do as much work as I can to help out and advance the cause. ANY errors I’ve made are mine alone, and not his or Nevyn’s or anyone else’s. My understanding of Miles’ work is far from complete but I hope these explanations help answer some questions here.
LikeLike
The galactic core exhibits an enormous amount of gravity, yes, but that’s because it has an enormous radius and density. Gravity is a function of radius, chiefly.
In his second paper on black holes, Miles shows us that if we fuck with the radius and density of any body, we can achieve all kinds of results. None of which have anything to do with a “black hole”. We can even achieve a balance of charge and gravity where light doesn’t reflect at all, or where light is effectively absorbed and spun-up into electrons or even neutrons.
No matter is destroyed in these thought/math experiments, no singularity is needed, no infinities are called upon, and no fudges at all anywhere. Purely mechanical.
What do we see when we look at other galactic cores? That’s what we assume the Milky Way’s core to look like, based on the motions and measurements we do have – a spiral galaxy increasing in density as we move towards the center. Density of stars and density of charge.
Miles has already replaced dark matter/dark energy as well. All that extra mass the mainstream couldn’t account for was simply the mass of charge itself. The proton emits 19x its own mass PER SECOND in charge photons, and that ratio is no coincidence. 19x is 95%, you see, of the total mass.
LikeLike
We have no data or evidence that the core is anything but a cluster of stars and other matter, heavily charged and much closer together than the star systems out here in the periphery. And absolutely no evidence there’s a “super-massive” black hole there, which contradicts every black hole theory as well. It’s tripe. It’s science fiction, at best.
LikeLike
“a spiral galaxy increasing in density as we move towards the center.”
Unless the astronomical community has changed their minds again, a galaxy starts off with an irregular shape like the Large Magellanic Cloud, then as it gains mass it becomes elliptical, then when much older seems to spread out into the spiral fried egg shape which is so common. But I have always questioned why most of the really big, high mass galaxies are elliptical. At the end of the day, I don’t think they know the first thing about galaxy formation. It’s just finger in the wind guesswork.
High mass is often associated with massive radio lobes, which I can agree with but then they blame the existence of radio lobes on black holes. Can’t get rid of that circular reasoning can they? Lets just blame the whole universes existence on a black hole shall we? Oops! Too late…..
Like Jared says, the mass increases near the centre, or so it seems. High res’ pictures have shown some galactic centres having just stars at the very centre but very close together being forced to revolve around the centre faster than the stars further out, and a very localised phenomenon. Often a magnetic torus is seen, which the EU folk jumped on as proof of their theory. This is also used as proof of the existence of a black hole. In reality, it is only proof that no one knows.
All this talk of electrical charge makes me thing that the EU is much closer to reality than the mainstream and closer to Miles way of thinking, even though I can’t agree with all they say. Electrical the Sun may be but it’s composition, it’s internal distribution of mass, I think is radically different from that which we are told.
LikeLike
I was supposed to point out the obvious that as galaxies gain mass (gravity attracts) the central halo increases in radius…or at least that’s what observation suggests. Hence very high mass ones being elliptical.
LikeLike
The ellipses are a function of gravity meeting charge, not gravity simply attracting. All natural orbits are elliptical to some magnitude or other. It takes an outside, manual force to create a circular orbit at all, being a fabrication of human desires.
Explaining the Ellipse
http://milesmathis.com/ellip.html
LikeLike
I seriously urge you all to study Miles’ physics papers, since they answer almost every uncertainty expressed here. And anyone else who hasn’t, and only reads his socio-political papers too. Miles is great and while nobody can solve EVERY mystery he certainly solves hundreds of them, most of them so far-reaching that we can solve a hundred more with a single paper.
The Myth of the Black Hole:
http://milesmathis.com/black.html
Black Holes & Quasars:
http://milesmathis.com/black2.html
Black Hole Signatures Called into Question:
Click to access black4.pdf
If you’ve read them already, do it again. It’s some really good stuff and I can’t urge strongly enough that everyone here on a Miles thread should have read them by now, five times if not ten.
This is why it’s pretty easy for me to put stock in Miles’ genealogy work. He’s very focused and goes all the way in on these topics; barring Crother’s mathematical exposition Miles writes some damning stuff here and it’s an easy read.
LikeLike
I agree entirely that “the astronomical community” knows fuck-all about galaxy formation, star formation, or even planet formation. We can acquire data from them (under scrutiny) but they’ve shown time and time again that their theories are horse shit.
Do not jettison everything you think you know, however. Just give it extra scrutiny. Pretend you’re Miles, if it helps. Be a dick about it, to yourself. Be Gordon fucking Ramsey about it on Hell’s Kitchen. Be harsh. Ask the questions that won’t get answered. And at every turn, if an answer is non-mechanical or seems magical in any way, it is WRONG.
LikeLike
Agreed Jared.
Letting go is the hardest part, and my natural reaction is to first try to reconcile old school theory with Miles revelations. Eventually I have to admit to Miles superior vision and delete the old theories one by one. There can’t be much left to delete but it’s an ongoing subject of importance. After wasting 40 years learning fairytale rubbish, to have to forget it all is harsh on the psyche.
I have to admit I haven’t re-read those papers for a long time. I shall endeavour to persevere in the re-absorption of Miles wisdom.
So many papers….so little time…..
One of the greatest positives to come from reading Miles’ work is that when I study a photo of a galaxy, it takes on a new and complex character that no old school theory could achieve.
It’s a bit like the theist/atheist argument about the beauty of nature.
The theist will be amazed that their God could have designed such complexity and strike awe and wonder into those who study it.
The atheist is just as gob-smacked by thinking that it all came about by trillions of tiny changes over immense amounts of time.
If only those old physicists hadn’t thrown the aether out with the bathwater, they may have held a better understanding of the cosmos by now….. The aether was an arrow pointing them in the right direction but they dismissed it….
LikeLike
What matter (dark or not) do we find in the eye of the galaxy?
In my opinion, nada, nix, nothing at all!
Therefore, if you expected to find a huge black hole, you are now disappointed…
Let me elaborate.
First, you might have heard about fractal geometry. With very simple mathematical expressions, we are able to model extremely complex structures. The longer you let run the computer, the bigger and the more complicated you can draw a “picture”. The small shapes repeat with the medium structures, which repeat with the big structure. With fractals, we can produce patterns that are common in nature, in flowers, plants, etc.
Second, Miles tells us that at the beginning there is light (the photon). When the photon start stacking spins, it becomes more energetic and bigger.
Third, when scientists observe an atom with a microscope they capture a few milliseconds of light while the quick moving parts (the electrons) will show up mostly in particular areas. It will look like as if the electrons build a cloud on one side or on the other of the atom. This way you generate an optical illusion.
Now, the photon has a spin, besides velocity and direction. On a small scale, we observe many weird effects of these interfering spins (for instance, light through a split). When we increase the scale, I would expect to see a bigger effect of these spins. Like, on a planetary level, we observe planets and stars in “orbits”.
Why do planets orbit each other? I know, you are yelling “gravity”, I can hear you.
But what is gravity? We do not know the cause of it. Actually, from a mechanical point of view, it is very unlikely that objects attract.
That is a long-standing dilemma in conventional physics. Scientists not only accept gravity, they invent stuff like “gravitons” or “gravitational waves” with the capability to interact at huge distances, but they do not explain how that should work.
In addition, I remind you, Miles solved many cosmological problems by inverting the gravity vector. Mathematically and physically, it is a smart step; we get elegant solutions with simple math.
Nevertheless, we should realize that the math implies that the cause of the gravity could be permanent expansion. No repulsion, just an apparent attraction.
I will agree that a huge universe with an accelerating expansion is difficult to accept. However, the math would fit.
Alternatively, I remember reading a comment by Miles that it would be possible that the acceleration comes from the rotating universe, from the spin of the galaxy. I do not recall Miles writing a paper on that or elaborating further, I just remember a short comment in reply to a reader.
So let me elaborate on that: I imagine that the spin of the moon and planets, and on a bigger scale, the spin of the galaxy, comes from the small spins of the photons. Billions of them bombard all the objects, but statistically, “more on one side than on the other”. The spin will impart a rotating movement to the bigger objects.
Like in fractals, the small scale repeats in the medium and in the large scale. The spin stacks in the electron, in the atom, and on bigger scale on the moon, planets and stars. It imparts them a spiraling impulse that is continuous and that depends by bombardment.
Let me show you a similarity. We observe a cyclone (the clouds formation). In the center, in the eye of the storm, the air is quiet and the sky is blue. Then, in circular motion, winds start rotating and clouds form. The further out you go, the faster the winds, the more intense the clouds and the rain. Further out, at the fringe, winds decrease, the rain stops, clouds disappear.
So there is a circular area, not in the eye, not too far outside, where the energy and the spin find a maximum, an optimum. An area where the energies reinforce each other.
There is a center, where no spin takes place.
There is an outside, too far away to feel the influence.
So, basically, I would suggest that, similar to a meteorological storm, a galaxy has an empty core.
It is a rational thing to assume, if you –like me – cannot accept force at distance, an attractive force at that.
One last comment, regarding optical illusions, to finish: I believe that we are monitoring the circular movement of the planets and galaxies from the “wrong perspective”.
The movement only looks like circular, but is actually a spiral in space. Imagine the movement of a screw: from above it will look like it is turning in circles, but it actually performs a spiral in space.
We do not notice, because we do not have a proper reference system. However, that kind of movement can be produced by repulsive, spinning photons.
It would be an interaction of the spin on a macro scale.
In my opinion, that would fit with Miles math and would be consistent with his physics. The orbits would be mechanical, so the rotation of the galaxy.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Much of this may be true, but an “empty core” wouldn’t explain the mass and gravity involved AT ALL. It has to have a certain density at that radius to cause such gravity, to hold a galaxy together. A spiraling motion alone would cast off all matter, by simple centrifugal force.
But I do agree that everything is spiraling through space, if we track it relative to a resting, unmoving body. Very quickly too. However, that doesn’t help us deal with astrological phenomenon very well usually, since we’re working with Relativity. We need to know what’s happening relative to US, to the Earth or our point of observation, not what’s happening relative to a rest frame. I mean sometimes that could be helpful, but in general it’s not. Neither viewpoint is “wrong”. They are just different points of observation, different frames of an observer.
We can see this spiraling with a single photon however, if we track its motion through space. Look for the fainter purple trail, which is not actual particles but the position of the photon as it spins and stacks more spins:
LikeLike
Here are the two short papers he has written about the idea that “gravity” (as an ‘outward’ acceleration vector) is created by the universe spinning:
Click to access gravitycause.pdf
Click to access mach.pdf
LikeLike
I tend to disagree, about the aether. If they had pushed it harder, Tesla or Newton (corpuscles) or Maxwell (displacement field), they might have made some progress towards the charge field prior to Miles. Tesla’s aether and Maxwell’s displacement field ARE the charge field, essentially. Newton’s corpuscles ARE photons, he just didn’t get that far. Stepping stones and building blocks, but yes, Miles has torn up the entire structure and added a new, stronger foundation for us.
LikeLike
“Tesla’s aether and Maxwell’s displacement field ARE the charge field”……Yes that’s what I was implying. But the science world gave up on that and married the big-bang goddess instead!
Andrea….. If the universe is infinite in extent then it could be expanding as it could expand forever. Another concept impossible for us to comprehend. Could an infinite universe rotate? That hurts my brain to even try to contemplate so I will need to visit that idea some more. I’m sure Miles came up with that idea a long time ago but it hurt my brain then too….
LikeLike
Perhaps this will help.
Stand up. Do a full spin about, and come to rest. You just caused a stacked spin, of a sort.
The Earth was (is) spinning below you, and it’s rotating about the sun – which is also spinning, on a different axis and outside the influence of you or the Earth. The entire solar system is spinning, outside the influence of you, the Earth, OR the sun, but rather a general center of gravity (which happens to be somewhere inside the sun, but bear with me a moment). The solar system is ALSO rotating around the galactic core, bound by its greater influence. So we have at least four spins already, with you just standing there!
Now spin again, and then spin and do a somersault. Don’t hurt yourself, but you just added two more spins to the situation. It’s that simple – only the CAUSES of the stacked spins differ. All those external ones are natural, just functions of gravity (in) and charge (out). But your muscles created two more stacked spins (if you actually did the somersault while spinning) simply via your own willpower and exertion. Different causes behind the forces, but it’s not different to the physical outcome.
Stacked spins and nested spins are the RULE, not the exception. The Universe is almost certainly spinning one way and not the other – everything else we’ve ever encountered is doing so, already. It should be no surprise.
LikeLike
I can understand stacked spins, especially so after seeing your animations..I’m sure Miles already went over this ages ago…. Hang about! I’m trying to remember. Something about the universe itself having stacked spins. It allows it to spin but without the need for a single rotation point or axis. Is that what you are trying to explain Jared? I certainly like that idea! Mind numbing but I like it…..It would also go some way toward explaining the cosmic red shift/apparent expansion. Localised expansion and compression. Is that what the mainstream see as the big bang/big crunch hypothesis? Maybe it’s a local pulsing caused by the spins interacting with one another. Could this be a reaction to charge concentration? I can’t see charge remaining uniform throughout space, it gets messed around every time it encounters a galaxy…. Could Birkeland Currents be conduits of concentrated charge connecting galaxies, not just electrical in the EU sense of the term?
If this sounds nutty professor, I’m off to catch a train in a few minutes…..so rushing my thoughts.
LikeLike
In Miles’ guest paper, the Hapsburg Jaw made me think on this bloke, Jimmy ‘Chinny’ Hill, footballer, director, union leader, TV football pundit –


Duckduckgo search on ‘Hapsburg Jaw’ threw up Jay Leno aka James DOUGLAS Muir Leno [along with some really weird painted portraits]-
LikeLike
Mr Punch (as in Punch & Judy) spring to mind!
LikeLike
Looking at many chins, I saw that someone found a strong similarity between Mark Zuckerberg and Philipp IV of Spain. Without further elaborating, the similarities are there and it is funny! Have a look!
LikeLiked by 1 person
The eyes have it! To paraphrase a saying.
And the schnoz, and the long face.
LikeLike
He looks also a wee bit like Mark Williams (born August 22, 1959) who plays Father Brown:

LikeLike
About those “Habsburg jaw” portraits of the emperor: They exaggerated the chin there, but made him look blonde & European otherwise. On other paintings, Ferdinand I appears as the very archetype of the “Jewish merchant” stereotype.
LikeLike
I was watching Psychedelia at the BBC, and it mentioned that Keith Relf of the Yardbirds [born 22 March 1943] died age 33 (similar numerology as Donald Pollock’s who looks a bit like Himmler in the wiki picture with kepi), then found this out – Aretha Franklin, Elvis Presley, Idi Amin, Robert Johnson, Bela Lugosi, Babe Ruth, all died on the 16 August.
https://www.onthisday.com/deaths/august/16
LikeLike
Never Mind The Pollocks, Here’s The Yardbirds:
LikeLike
LikeLike
LIKE!
Like button does work in Epic either.
LikeLike
Do you think the mechanical arm that brings forth cups of tea has any meaning here ?
LikeLike
Well, it’s handy! Pythonesque? Is it Paul/Faul/Mike?
Did George throttle Yoko for nicking his digestives? It would explain her singing technique.
LikeLike
” Another cuppa here , Mrs. Tavistock if you will ”
or the EMI machine .
LikeLike
Spooky Ramones’ cartoon, gabby gabby, see them go:
LikeLike
Like!
LikeLike
I’ve read much Stephen King , pre- IT , and not much after that , some of his early work set at fabric mills , The Nightshift – The Mangler – hmmm , now I get it .
“..After King outed
Bachman as himself, he selected a new pen name, Jason Wilch, which we are told was the name
of a childhood friend of King’s “who never properly went through puberty.” That last bit is
supposed be true, but it reads as fake as the fake stuff. ….”
This just screamed INBREEDING to me and then that Pic on page 12 , Jason Wilch is probably one of King’s cousins’ .
Then you get something like
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_V,_Holy_Roman_Emperor
LikeLike
‘In an act designed to “merit the favor of heaven”, about six months before his death Charles (V) staged his own funeral, complete with shroud and coffin, after which he “rose out of the coffin, and withdrew to his apartment, full of those awful sentiments, which such a singular solemnity was calculated to inspire.” ‘ (Wiki)
They admit this one!
LikeLike
Solemn who – what – when?
He would be practising for his real fake death….(sic)
LikeLike
After re-reading Miles’ Lenin paper, I found this unfamiliar photo of Rasputin:


Compare it to this one:
Not at all like this Rasputin:


Here’s one that resembles the guy in the colorized photo Miles called out:
How many different Rasputins?
LikeLike
It’s tricky because the angles and lighting change a lot. To my eye they could all be the same person.
LikeLike
The first Rasputin’s eyes look very dark and the lips look fuller than the rest IMO.
The File on the Tsar was the first book I read about conspiracies, still worth a read today.
LikeLike
To me, they could all be the same person.
LikeLike