Miles Mathis - Are most historical events and celebrity deaths faked and staged? This will make you wonder...

[Winston]

Guys,
Someone referred me to this guy named Miles Mathis who claims that nearly every historical event, celebrity and celebrity death is staged, faked or hoaxed. For example:

- Did you know that the OJ Simpson case was a theatrical stage, and his alleged murders were faked? Nicole Brown Simpson lived on as her sister, Denise Brown, who incredibly didn't exist before the murders took place. But this isn't the first time such a thing happened. See below. Also, Marcia Clark was not a real attorney but an actress. She got roles in movies and TV shows after the OJ trial was over, and no record of her in law school or in legal firms existed prior to the OJ trial.

- Did you know the Manson murders and the murder of Sharon Tate was hoaxed too? Sharon Tate may have lived on as her younger sister Patti Tate, who again, had no record of her existence prior to 1970 it seems. So famous women have faked their death before and lived out the rest of their lives as their sisters, who were invented after their alleged death. lol

Sounds crazy? Of course it does. But when you actually read his papers and see his evidence and arguments, you do begin to wonder. At first I thought he would sound like a total loon and crackpot, but when you actually sit down and read his papers, you are instead impressed. He is highly intelligent and his research and analytical skills are very meticulous and sharp. And he seems to have an encyclopedia of knowledge, data and facts about everything, as though he were a computer database or human library. He is even a bigger human encyclopedia than momopi is. lol. And he writes like a very intelligent scholar who makes some sense and shows you a lot of data to support his case.

Now, most of his evidence is kind of speculative and has to do with anomalies that have more than one interpretation. However, cumulatively, when you add up all his evidence of fakery, fake photos, anomalies, suspicious circumstances that don't add up, etc. his case does become somewhat plausible. I'm not saying I believe he is right about all this. Maybe he's not. But he does make a strong plausible case for hoax and fakery in his papers. And he is not as crazy or loony as you might expect. Just read his papers and analysis below, and you'll see what I mean. lol. Either way, you will learn a lot of things you didn't know about these cases that will surprise you. Here's the links: (these are PDF files and can be read online or downloaded offline)

The OJ Simpson murders and trials were faked:
http://mileswmathis.com/oj.pdf

The Manson Murders and Sharon Tate Murder were faked:
http://mileswmathis.com/tate.pdf

Some examples: When you look at the photos of the dead Sharon Tate for example, she is laughing and her skin looks alive and warm, not like she's been dead for 12 hours. That is very freaky. See the Tate paper above. Also the rich Hollywood mansion that she and the other victims were in, was full of old furniture from a garage sale, not something that wealthy people would have in their homes, which you can see in the photos. Mathis explains why in his paper.

More of Miles Mathis' papers on faked events and staged history.

http://mileswmathis.com/bestfake.html

http://www.mileswmathis.com/writings.html

[Winston]

Here are Miles Mathis' papers on how the Lincoln assassination and JFK assassination were faked as well. Sounds far fetched and crazy I know. But the evidence, anomalies and inconsistencies he points out in his papers about them are interesting and make you think twice. He also has good analysis skills and is a lot brighter than you imagine and his knowledge is very encyclopedic too, as though he were a human library. Whether he's right or wrong, his papers are very interesting to consider and ponder. And he points out a lot of unusual things about these cases and the photos related to them, that you never knew and never realized or saw. Right or wrong, there are a lot of things about these cases that don't make sense. Check them out below.

Lincoln assassination hoax paper
http://mileswmathis.com/lincoln.pdf

JFK assassination hoax paper
http://mileswmathis.com/barindex2.pdf

Here also is his paper on why the Marilyn Monroe death was faked too:
http://mileswmathis.com/monroe.pdf

[Winston]

@gsjackson what do you think of all this? Is it pretty wild or what? Check out the papers. They are interesting and very intelligently written, and not as nutty as you would imagine them to be, which is very surprising.

[TruthSeeker]

There is a guy who ascribes to these views to an extreme level - Ed Chiarini aka Dallasgoldbug. He says that Adolf Hitler was actually Walt Disney who was actually Kermit Rosevelt the son of Theodore Roosevelt.





He says that many of these political figures are actors playing roles. For instance he says the current Pope Francis is actually played by the actor Jonathan Pryce. Check out the similarity:



Dallasgoldbug had a YT channel but it got shut down. This is his current channel:

https://www.youtube.com/user/wellaware1boss/

[Winston]

LOL. I've heard of that guy. But he isn't as convincing as Miles Mathis. Walt Disney didn't look anything like Hitler. lol.

Was Walt Disney missing during the time of World War 2? lol. If not, then how can such a theory have any credence? lol

Plus I think the animation films Snow White and Bambi were created in the early 1940's, which Walt Disney and his team were working night and day on. So he couldn't have been supervising those projects and been in Nazi Germany commanding the battles at the same time. lol

But we all know that many faces look similar. The variety of faces out there is not unlimited. When you see a few hundred faces you will notice that a lot of them look similar and have similar patterns. The odds guarantee it because the variety of faces is not unlimited. After a while you see repeating patterns of faces. I'm sure you've seen people outside who look like someone you know. Everyone has.

And doppelgangers are pretty common too.

However, this isn't just about similar faces and doppelgangers. Mile Mathis has a lot of other evidence in his papers too, that are interesting.

[TruthSeeker]

Check this out

[gsjackson]

Guys,
Someone referred me to this guy named Miles Mathis who claims that nearly every historical event, celebrity and celebrity death is staged, faked or hoaxed. For example:

- Did you know that the OJ Simpson case was a theatrical stage, and his alleged murders were faked? Nicole Brown Simpson lived on as her sister, Denise Brown, who incredibly didn't exist before the murders took place. But this isn't the first time such a thing happened. See below. Also, Marcia Clark was not a real attorney but an actress. She got roles in movies and TV shows after the OJ trial was over, and no record of her in law school or in legal firms existed prior to the OJ trial.

- Did you know the Manson murders and the murder of Sharon Tate was hoaxed too? Sharon Tate may have lived on as her younger sister Patti Tate, who again, had no record of her existence prior to 1970 it seems. So famous women have faked their death before and lived out the rest of their lives as their sisters, who were invented after their alleged death. lol

Sounds crazy? Of course it does. But when you actually read his papers and see his evidence and arguments, you do begin to wonder. At first I thought he would sound like a total loon and crackpot, but when you actually sit down and read his papers, you are instead impressed. He is highly intelligent and his research and analytical skills are very meticulous and sharp. And he seems to have an encyclopedia of knowledge, data and facts about everything, as though he were a computer database or human library. He is even a bigger human encyclopedia than momopi is. lol. And he writes like a very intelligent scholar who makes some sense and shows you a lot of data to support his case.

Now, most of his evidence is kind of speculative and has to do with anomalies that have more than one interpretation. However, cumulatively, when you add up all his evidence of fakery, fake photos, anomalies, suspicious circumstances that don't add up, etc. his case does become somewhat plausible. I'm not saying I believe he is right about all this. Maybe he's not. But he does make a strong plausible case for hoax and fakery in his papers. And he is not as crazy or loony as you might expect. Just read his papers and analysis below, and you'll see what I mean. lol. Either way, you will learn a lot of things you didn't know about these cases that will surprise you. Here's the links: (these are PDF files and can be read online or downloaded offline)

The OJ Simpson murders and trials were faked:
http://mileswmathis.com/oj.pdf

The Manson Murders and Sharon Tate Murder were faked:
http://mileswmathis.com/tate.pdf

Some examples: When you look at the photos of the dead Sharon Tate for example, she is laughing and her skin looks alive and warm, not like she's been dead for 12 hours. That is very freaky. See the Tate paper above. Also the rich Hollywood mansion that she and the other victims were in, was full of old furniture from a garage sale, not something that wealthy people would have in their homes, which you can see in the photos. Mathis explains why in his paper.

More of Miles Mathis' papers on faked events and staged history.

http://mileswmathis.com/bestfake.html

I got through the preliminary hearing in the piece about the Simpson trial, a subject I happen to know a lot about. It is complete nonsense. This guy may be what Alex Jones and David Icke are often accused of -- someone who collects conspiracy theorist types with a bit of truth, then sends them completely down the rabbit hole to the point that they begin to doubt any of the theories.

[Winston]

Check this out

I watched about a third of that. There was no use to continue. It basically claimed that "little similarities = identical matches" which is totally false of course. I can see similarities everywhere in everything, but that doesn't create any identical matches. So the video has no basis or credible arguments.

It is true that Walt Disney was contracted to do WW2 films by the US government in the early 1940's. So he did make war propaganda films. But that doesn't mean he made films of Hitler in Germany. Aren't there real videos of Hitler and the Nazis? Why would they need to be faked? Did they fake some Nazi atrocities? Films are faked all the time though. Even that photo of all the American soldiers lifting the US flag on Iwo Jima was faked and admitted to. And some footage from the USS Maine was faked too.

[Winston]

I got through the preliminary hearing in the piece about the Simpson trial, a subject I happen to know a lot about. It is complete nonsense. This guy may be what Alex Jones and David Icke are often accused of -- someone who collects conspiracy theorist types with a bit of truth, then sends them completely down the rabbit hole to the point that they begin to doubt any of the theories.

Why is it nonsense? Continue reading and look at the photos analysis. I'd like to hear your take on that one. There are suspicious things about the photos that make no sense.

I don't think Miles Mathis is a shill. If he was, the media would be giving him a lot of attention, but they don't give him any attention and don't even acknowledge his existence. But the media gives Alex Jones and David Icke a lot of attention. Even truthers do not know about Miles Mathis. He's relatively unknown.

[TruthSeeker]

It's was OJ's son Jason who killed Ron and Nicole. However, OJ was at the murder scene and in California that makes you an accessory. OJ took the fall for his son and ultimately was acquitted.

I don't see any sense of the theory that this was staged or a hoax or anything like that. Why would they do that? To boost television ratings?

[Winston]

It's was OJ's son Jason who killed Ron and Nicole. However, OJ was at the murder scene and in California that makes you an accessory. OJ took the fall for his son and ultimately was acquitted.

I don't see any sense of the theory that this was staged or a hoax or anything like that. Why would they do that? To boost television ratings?

Why would OJ's son kill them? Wasn't Nicole his mom? What's the evidence for that?

Read the PDF paper above by Miles Mathis. He explains why the media would stage such an event. He also shows you photographic evidence of fakery too. Step by step. Go through it please and you will see his evidence and theory.

I'm not saying he's right necessarily. But when you add up all the anomalies and suspicious things, it does make a somewhat plausible theory. Especially when you look at the background of all those who were involved. Just read the paper. It explains a lot more than I can and in a lot better ways than I can explain it. I can't give you a short explanation because the whole case and theory involves a lot of details and background info that I can't cover in a short paragraph. You gotta read it all and look at the context and big picture to understand the theory fully.

http://mileswmathis.com/oj.pdf

Btw his paper on the Sharon Tate murders is even more convincing and mind blowing. The photo analysis sections will shock you and horrify you and take you down the rabbit hole to places you didn't know existed. lol

http://mileswmathis.com/tate.pdf

[TruthSeeker]

[Winston]

Well if that's true, then OJ must be a saint. I doubt it though. No man, even if he loved his son, would take the fall for a murder he didn't commit and tarnish his name in the history books for all eternity. It just isn't worth it. Better to let the real culprit take the blame.

[gsjackson]

I got through the preliminary hearing in the piece about the Simpson trial, a subject I happen to know a lot about. It is complete nonsense. This guy may be what Alex Jones and David Icke are often accused of -- someone who collects conspiracy theorist types with a bit of truth, then sends them completely down the rabbit hole to the point that they begin to doubt any of the theories.

Why is it nonsense? Continue reading and look at the photos analysis. I'd like to hear your take on that one. There are suspicious things about the photos that make no sense.

I don't think Miles Mathis is a shill. If he was, the media would be giving him a lot of attention, but they don't give him any attention and don't even acknowledge his existence. But the media gives Alex Jones and David Icke a lot of attention. Even truthers do not know about Miles Mathis. He's relatively unknown.

If he's going to say stuff like grand juries are required for 1st degree murder indictments, or grand juries are vetted by defense and prosecution, the preliminary hearing took place one week after the murders, etc -- stuff that's flatly untrue -- I'm not going to read further.

I did not find the William Deer book persuasive, and do not believe Jason did it, but that theory makes more sense than what the prosecution and plaintiff attorneys threw out there against O.J. It was what it looked like -- a drug hit.

[gsjackson]

It's was OJ's son Jason who killed Ron and Nicole. However, OJ was at the murder scene and in California that makes you an accessory. OJ took the fall for his son and ultimately was acquitted.

I don't see any sense of the theory that this was staged or a hoax or anything like that. Why would they do that? To boost television ratings?

Why would OJ's son kill them? Wasn't Nicole his mom? What's the evidence for that?

Read the PDF paper above by Miles Mathis. He explains why the media would stage such an event. He also shows you photographic evidence of fakery too. Step by step. Go through it please and you will see his evidence and theory.

I'm not saying he's right necessarily. But when you add up all the anomalies and suspicious things, it does make a somewhat plausible theory. Especially when you look at the background of all those who were involved. Just read the paper. It explains a lot more than I can and in a lot better ways than I can explain it. I can't give you a short explanation because the whole case and theory involves a lot of details and background info that I can't cover in a short paragraph. You gotta read it all and look at the context and big picture to understand the theory fully.

http://mileswmathis.com/oj.pdf

Btw his paper on the Sharon Tate murders is even more convincing and mind blowing. The photo analysis sections will shock you and horrify you and take you down the rabbit hole to places you didn't know existed. lol

http://mileswmathis.com/tate.pdf

To answer your first question: Deer's theory was that Jason was a violence-prone whack job off his meds. The night of the killing he became enraged at Nicole because he thought she was going to bring her dinner party to the restaurant where he had recently become employed as a chef, but instead they went to Mezzaluna (which was apparently a front for a drug, prostitution and porn scene; others who worked there besides Goldman were murdered around the same time). So after work Jason took his brand new set of cooking knives to carve up Nicole. it is unclear whether or not he had an alibi. He may have been with a friend until 11:00 p.m., which would have made it impossible.

At least it's some reasonable stab at a motive, unlike what the prosecution tried to cook up against O.J. But as I said above, I thought there were lots of holes in Deer's theory, and ultimately found it unpersuasive.