Index for Miles' Conspiracy Website

His conspiracy site is at http://mileswmathis.com .
I just saw Miles' new paper on Hawking in which he said his images file of Hawking photos has been hacked and the sources where he originally got them from online have been taken down. At least his articles still have the images. A couple days ago I finished posting a reorganized index of his conspiracy-related papers starting at https://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?topic=27566.msg300484#msg300484

And this is why one shouldn't use Macs.

For better or for worse... Miles has a pretty strong imagination. He probably gets more people interested in his work overall via his conspiracy papers...but they are his unique perspective and occasionally others too. It is what it is. I just hope Miles knows how to use Photoshop really really well on a Mac and Windows. He has an eye for detail in the photos which is good IMHO.

Alas, he is terrible at Photoshop. Mostly because he's an actual painter and doesn't waste (spend) time on digital stuff, other than to scan his paintings for online presentation.

But he doesn't really need it for anything he does - his analysis of photography stands really strong without any editing at all, in most cases. I've yet to find a big hole in one of his theories there, but I find them all the time on other conspiracy sites being written by people pretending to be as good as him. Those guys are worse than terrible.

He definitely comes up with some original perspectives so I give him credit for his finds. "Conspiracy theory" to intentionally mislead about history or current events is truly harder than it looks because it is so easy to produce trash that manipulates common sense and then people disbelieve it straight away -- there has to be an operational sequence to events - things cannot happen out of order given a situation. Most "conspiracy theories" mess up on the timeline as it gets "bigger, more interconnected and wilder".  Nevertheless, they are often fun to read like a good mystery novel.

I rather consider him a historian, as opposed to a theorist, in this regard. I've read all his papers many times, and tend to agree with him on most topics. That said, it's hard not to be biased when someone consistently makes sense to me. I readily admit my bias.

The physics stuff is far more interesting and "workable" however. Knowing more about history is cool and all but it doesn't really help solve the problems we try to address here.