Miles Williams Mathis: On Chemtrails & Other Topics
First published by Miles Mathis on April 15, 2015
Since my works have now been republished on the big sites like Rense, Veteran’s Today, and other places, I now get many emails from readers comparing me to:
- Dave McGowan
- Donald Jeffries
- Ed Chiarini
and others. I am writing this (in part) to tell you what I tell them.
I have nothing in common with any of these people.
Although we “research” many of the same subjects, my methods and conclusions are just the opposite of theirs.
So why does anyone think we have anything in common?
For example, McGowan has researched many serial killers.
Does he conclude they were all faked?
Miles Williams Mathis: Fake Serial Killers – Library of Rickandria
No.
He has studied Laurel Canyon and the Zodiac Killer.
Miles Williams Mathis: The Zodiac Murders & others were Faked – Library of Rickandria
Does he conclude that both the Zodiac and Manson murders were faked?
No.
Kevin Barrett from Veteran’s Today emailed to ask me for an interview on my Zodiac paper.
He said he had interviewed Dave McGowan and sent me a link.
The entire interview is misdirection from both sides, so why would I wish to be included in something like that?
In that interview, Barrett actually takes the mainstream position several times, trying to push the audience even further back than McGowan is pushing them.
You see, McGowan admits a lot of nasty stuff, seeming to take his reader way out into the wilderness with him.
He then leads that reader off on the wrong track:
a sexy track, but still the wrong one.
He is playing the part Mae Brussell played in previous decades.
But we can see that Barrett isn’t comfortable with that kind of misdirection, and he pulls McGowan back to the mainstream misdirection.
For instance, Barrett brings up Jim Morrison, who McGowan is partially exposing as a fake.
Miles Williams Mathis: OPENING DOORS – Library of Rickandria
McGowan admits Morrison was the son of the Navy admiral at the Gulf of Tonkin false flag event.
That should lead you to the right answer about the Morrisons, but McGowan doesn’t take you there.
He takes you halfway and diverts you.
But instead of pushing beyond McGowan to the obvious truth, Barrett instead pulls you back even further, saying something to the effect that he had always thought Morrison was a conflicted poet, reacting against his father and the whole career Navy thing.
As soon as Barrett said that, I knew the last thing I wanted to do is be interviewed by him, so that he could spin all my research back to the mainstream pabulum we have been fed.
So, what I did was, I asked Barrett what this meant at the top of the Veteran’s Today homepage:
The true voice of the clandestine community.
This was as much as to admit they were CIA themselves.
And Barrett did admit it himself, telling me some of the folks at VT were ex-CIA who were not happy with the way the country was going
Curiously, they re-did their homepage soon afterwards, and that text is no longer there.
But my thought was,
“Maybe these guys are spooks, maybe not, but do I want to trust these ‘ex-CIA’ people while I am exposing old Intelligence ops?”
Obviously not.
If Barrett was poking pins in McGowan’s conclusions, what was he likely to do to mine?
In my experience, the jobs of many of these people is to immediately surround any truth with a lot of noise, so that no one could distinguish it from background chatter.
We have already seen that from DallasGoldBug, who I have shown was hired to create noise on the subject of face recognition.
I consider all these people like Dave McGowan, Donald Jeffries, and the rest as just more noise makers.
They are creators of confusion and misdirection.
They do a lot of research, some of it seemingly groundbreaking on a first look, but they nonetheless never get near any truth.
All their “alternative” research only ends up solidifying the mainstream conclusions.
You will ask how their research solidifies mainstream conclusions, when they seem to conclude the mainstream has lied about everything.
In this way:
they take a subject, say the Manson murders.
They show you many anomalies in the mainstream story and then give you a new reading.
So, they seem to be presenting an alternative history.
But if they accept that the Manson murders were real, they have just solidified the mainstream story, while seeming to undercut it.
In most of these stories, the mainstream doesn’t care if you see anomalies, or if you think there are conspiracies.
They don’t care who you think might be involved.
All they care about is that you believe it happened.
The details are superfluous.
They don’t matter.
What matters is the bottom line:
that you believe the event happened.
All these alternative histories sell the events at least as strongly as the mainstream ever did.
I will be told Ed Chiarini [WellAware1, DallasGoldBug] doesn’t do that.
He can’t be accused of solidifying mainstream conclusions, can he?
No, certainly not (in most cases).
His paid assignment is to create confusion.
He posts a lot of ridiculously bad evidence—especially concerning facial matches and photo analysis—to purposely muddy the waters.
His job is to make your average person think that all photo analysis and facial analysis is done by crazy people.
So that when you see analysis like mine, you think of Chiarini and your stomach turns sour.
But in reverse, Ed Chiarini has ended up exposing Kevin Barrett’s old partner Jim Fetzer.
Barrett and Fetzer worked together for years as the dynamic duo, and both now work at Veteran’s Today.
I actually worked with Fetzer very briefly on a couple of 9/11 topics many years ago, though I never met him.
He was at 911Studies.org [I think that was the site, they went through several names], in a flame war with a writer at American Thinker.
I sent him some ammunition to use to defeat his opponent in that war of words. *
Well, many years later Fetzer promoted the work of Chiarini on his radio show, which is when I finally knew Fetzer was a mole.
Fetzer comes off as kind of dense sometimes, but no one is dense enough to believe Chiarini’s schtick.
Fetzer is ex-military and ex-academia, so he simply can’t be foolish enough to think Chiarini is onto something—especially when Chiarini is claiming JFK is the same person as Jimmy Carter, etc.
You would have to be either legally blind or clinically insane to accept any of Chiarini’s analysis as earnest, much less true.
I don’t believe Fetzer is either one, so the only other alternative is that he is misdirecting his audience on purpose.
Chiarini recently emailed me, saying this:
“Are you going to credit me, or just steal my stuff outright?”
After a good chuckle, I decided to reply.
I assume he had just read my Kennedy paper, but it might have been my Lennon paper.
Miles Williams Mathis: Proof that John Lennon Faked his Death – Library of Rickandria
Rather than take his bait, I counterattacked.
In several papers on my science site, I have schooled my readers on how to deal with these people, and rule number one is don’t let them control the argument.
Never let yourself be put on the defensive.
I answered,
“How’s the weather in Langley?”
That froze him, because he could only reply,
“I live in Dallas.”
He then gave me his address.
Not believing a word of it, I said,
“Ah, your home away from Langley.
Look DullesBoldPest, Why don’t you try your schtick on someone who might believe it?
Do they really pay you to write that stuff?
Oooo, I know, tell your audience of 100,000 sock puppets and 12 real people that you and I are the same person, based on your latest biometric reading.
Tell them that you have discovered an exact match between your face and my ass.”
That riled him and he started threatening me with attorneys, but he is all bluff.
His assignment is clearly misdirection, not filing lawsuits.
What would he sue me for, after all?
Not believing him?
Not respecting him?
I don’t think that is illegal, last time I looked.
By the way, my guess is that the picture he has posted isn’t even him.
My intuition tells me that his bluff extends to his posted photos.
But back to the interview requests I have been fielding.
I got a similar request for interview from GaiamTV, which wanted to interview me on my Theosophy/Beat Poets paper.
I knew nothing about Gaiam (except its yoga stuff), so I did some quick research.
I found they were linked to the History and Discovery channels, promoting many of the same talking heads.
Since I knew those channels were Intelligence fronts, I assumed the same of GaiamTV.
So, I said no thanks.
Another thing is very different about me and the rest of these people, and it is the first thing you should have looked at when you read their stuff and mine.
Transparency.
Always look up a bio on any new author you come across.
I have an extensive bio and tons of personal information up on my site, probably more than most people wish to see.
Some of it is intended for family and friends.
I have baby pics up, for crying out loud.
I have magazine articles written by old girlfriends.
I have stories from high school and college.
Go do a search on Dave McGowan or Donald Jeffries or any of these other people and see what you find.
Most of them are ghosts.
In fact, my papers of the past couple of years have made me suspicious of everyone, including two of my favorite old sites Infowars and Natural News.
I have been linking to them for years from my links page.
What did it there is their coverage of the recent Ebola scare, which they pushed at least as hard as the mainstream sources.
Since it was clear to me at a glance that the whole Ebola thing was faked from the first word, I knew something fishy was going on at these sites.
Both sites even admitted in early stories that the scare looked manufactured, but for some reason they buried that line and went gung-ho for the Ebola-is-real line.
Both sites did the same thing with Fukushima, selling it with bold scare tactics and very little real research.
For this reason, I no longer trust these sources.
I still link to them because I think both sites still contain some good information, as long as you have the right filter on it.
In order to spin information, they have to give you some, and you often get information on both sites you don’t get from the mainstream.
For instance, I like Mike Adams’ stance against GMOs.
I do not like his analysis of political events, since it changes year to year.
As one example, Adams has begun purging his site of older articles, like this one on the Boston Marathon and the Craft.
Article updated with new message from the Health Ranger – NaturalNews.com
Adams originally outed US Intelligence as a probable manufacturer of the Boston Marathon hoax.
Boston Marathon Attack on 15th of April in 2013 – Library of Rickandria
But now he is cleansing his own site of that information, and labeling that cleanse a “page update”.
Another thing that finally clued me into the true state of Infowars was its republication of mainstream science stories, with no effort to de-spin them or question them in any way.
Alex Jones would appear to be in an “info war” against mainstream news, except when it is science news.
When it is science news, he just reprints it with no comment.
For this reason, I now treat both sites like I treat Veteran’s Today:
they are good sources of information, but you have to de-spin that information with your own filters about half the time.
On some topics, these guys appear to be on the right side.
They are exposing some things that need to be exposed.
But as Gordon Duff at VT has admitted, a fair percentage of the time they are hedging or misdirecting.
They may be doing this under threat from above, or for other reasons, but it is happening one way or the other.
Even someone like Paul Watson (at Infowars), who is on the right side of a lot of things, mysteriously comes down on the wrong side of some things, for no apparent reason.
As just one example, we saw him claiming that the Sandy Hook conspiracy had been debunked.
Miles Williams Mathis: The Alleged Sandy Hook Tragedy – Library of Rickandria
This after he had spent many segments showing it was a manufactured event.
We see these mysterious flip-flops from all the guys at Infowars.
Maybe they are bowing to pressure from above, or maybe they are sowing lies and truths together for their own purposes.
Whatever the reason, I have to admit I don’t go to Infowars as often as I used to.
I do my research from a wide variety of sources and sift it many times.
I said above that I had been republished by Rense and other places, so I want to make sure you understand how that works.
I do not submit my papers to anyone, on the internet or off it.
Under internet rules, these news compilers can re-publish anything they like, unless they get a take-down notice from the original author.
That author has to show some good cause, otherwise the notice is ignored.
I do not bother threatening anyone with take-down notices, since I am quite happy to be republished anywhere by anyone.
That does not mean I endorse their other content, or like it in any way.
In fact, I assume that most of these places are again publishing my work to surround it with noise.
I consider a large part of the content at most places to be noise, or worse.
But my assumption is that some few people will be able to sift my work out nonetheless, and that is all I can hope for.
In fact, that is what I have seen.
I get many emails from readers who confirm that.
The spooks assume that enough noise can drown out anything, but I have found by long experience that the truth tends to rise above the din by a music all its own.
Somehow the truth just sounds different than a lie.
It is in a different key, so that no amount of noise can cover it.
With that still ringing in your ear, I will conclude by giving you a taste of future research.
I have been looking briefly into Chemtrails, and it looks to me like the whole “bioengineering” line is a ruse.
There are some bioengineering tests going on—cloud seeding and the like—but most trails have nothing to do with that.
It appears to me that we simply have an increased amount of air-dumping of pollutants that can’t be dumped on the ground.
To see what I mean, remember that they have been doing a similar thing with fluoride since the 1940’s.
With increased aluminum, fertilizer, and weapons manufacturing, they had a lot of fluoride waste that they couldn’t just dump in rivers or in the oceans.
Laws were already on the books forbidding it.
So, someone had the “brilliant” idea of putting it into the drinking water in small amounts.
This would effectively dilute it on a nationwide level.
The toxicity would be low enough to go unnoticed in most people in the short term, and a profit could even be made by selling it to municipalities as a dentifrice.
Well, they are doing the same thing in the air now.
Due to increased manufacturing of all things toxic (think computer industry, for a start), they now have a whole smorgasbord of noxious chemicals that can’t legally be dumped on land or at sea.
So, someone had the “brilliant” idea of diluting this toxicity by mixing these chemicals into the worldwide air.
It would then rain down on the land in such small quantities per square foot we would see little short-term effects.
The stirring of the atmosphere would naturally dissipate the initial release, and the ground would soak up the rest.
Unfortunately, this plan was even more foolhardy than the fluoride plan, for many reasons.
One, because they have to use existing plane routes as dump routes, they cannot dump only over uninhabited regions.
It is simply not cost effective to hire special dump planes, so they use planes already in the air for other reasons—including commercial jets.
Since there are not enough commercial jets on paths over the oceans (international flights) to dump all that needs to be dumped, many dumps are over inhabited areas.
The dissipation from winds is not enough to spread the chemicals over a wide enough area, so the concentrations hitting the ground are way too high.
The planes would have to be flying many miles higher than they are to do that, and again that is not cost effective.
It would delay commercial flights and require an explanation, so it is not done.
And finally, the ground does not “soak up” this contamination.
It goes immediately into surface and ground water, into crops, gardens, and lawns, and into the oceans.
Even in the oceans it is not harmless, since the given flight paths ensure it goes into coastal areas, where it is driven back on beaches.
In short, it is a disaster.
This is the cause of many of the problems on the California coast, for instance, not Fukushima.
And there are many other cover stories for this contamination, which will come to your mind without much effort.
In fact, this interpretation of chemtrails is confirmed by the first site that come up on a search for “chemical composition of chemtrails.”
Mayan Majix – Mayan Calendar – Mayan Astrology
There we are told,
Laboratory examination of those chemicals found that they were manufacturing wastes from:
- military
- industry
- biowarfare substances
The first two components are Aluminum and Barium.
In bioengineering circles, they tell us Aluminum is used to reflect light back toward the Sun, but that is a cover story.
They are counting on you thinking of the reflectivity of Aluminum in sheets, which is admittedly high.
But the reflectivity of Aluminum released as dust from an airplane is minimal.
In the concentrations given, it wouldn’t even be as reflective as natural clouds.
You will tell me they are using the chemicals to seed the clouds, but Aluminum and Barium aren’t used for that.
Silver Iodide, Potassium Iodide, and dry ice are.
For this reason and many others, my first assumption is that “global warming mitigation” is more misdirection.
The dumping isn’t being done to reflect heat away from the Earth, it is being done to get around existing dumping laws, which (mainly) haven’t yet extended to the atmosphere or space.
This isn’t to say that the military isn’t also trying to control and militarize the weather.
In fact, they have admitted they are doing that.
But in my opinion, in the majority of cases, the chemtrails have nothing to do with that.
In the majority of cases, they are just dumping their garbage on your head because it is cost-effective to do so.
They prefer you think it has something to do with weather modification, because that at least has some similarity to a scientific excuse.
But the truth is even uglier:
it is just flat-out pollution.
And if it makes you sick, so much the better: these people also own all the pharmaceutical companies, major hospitals, “healthcare” plans, and so on.
The sicker you are, the richer they are.
In closing, I would like to point you to several other strange things I noticed recently.
Since I published my paper exposing the Lincoln assassination as another manufactured event, we have seen a curious uptick in books and cover stories promoting the old stories.
Smithsonian magazine recently had a cover story on the assassination, driving home all the old nails.
Lincoln is also on the cover of this month’s National Geographic, for no good reason.
And Bill O’Reilly was hired to write (or more likely front) a book on the assassination.
This book is currently being heavily promoted in all the mainstream bookshops, including airport bookstalls.
That is interesting, since O’Reilly has been proved to be a liar in a court of law.
Remember how he sued Al Franken for defamation after Franken put his picture on the cover of his book Lies and the Lying Liars who Tell Them?
Well, he lost.
Which means Franken was able to prove in court that O’Reilly was a liar.
So, who thought it was a good idea to have O’Reilly as the latest salesman of the Lincoln assassination story?
Actually, as we have seen, it fits rather well.
Since the Lincoln assassination was a big lie, it is appropriate to have a convicted liar writing the newest book on it.
Another strange thing is the new promotion of Pi Day.
Pi Day has been around for years, but it hasn’t been promoted heavily in the mainstream press until very recently.
So why the new promotion?
Could it have anything to do with my 2008 paper showing that Pi is actually wrong in a majority of physical and mathematical cases, including orbits and quantum mechanics?
the extinction of pi by Miles Mathis
Could it have anything to do with the fact that that paper is gaining more traction every year, despite great efforts to surround it with noise and disinfo?
Could it be because the “direct” assaults on that paper have been such miserable failures, convincing no rational person I am on the wrong track, and in fact confirming that I must be onto something?
Why else bother responding to me, if I am just “a deluded crank.”
Does the mainstream hire hundreds of people to respond to other deluded cranks, slandering them viciously all over the internet and trying to destroy their reputations and business contacts?
No, because it isn’t necessary.
I would suggest that because these attacks on me have failed so miserably, they gave up and moved to gambit B:
simply promote Pi in “fun and casual ways” that appeal to non-scientists.
They were talking about Pi Day in yoga class today, which surprised me mightily.
But that is the reach of the MATRIX:
if they can’t out-argue you they just out-promote you.
They will link Pi to apple pie and mother and the flag and babies and kittens, so that when I try to take it away from you, you will react like a kid losing a school holiday.
IN THE FUTURE, EVERY DAY WILL BE A HOLIDAY.
That is to say, every day will be used as an unsubtle psychological cue to some great lie.
Every party you attend will have as its theme some specific item of your manufactured confusion.
In this way, you will be taught to celebrate your own miseducation, and revel in it.
No, wait, that future is already here.
*
I now suspect that entire flame war may have been manufactured.
SAUCE
Miles Williams Mathis: On Chemtrails & other topics
Miles Williams Mathis: On Chemtrails & Other Topics – Library of Rickandria