Jay Dyer Bans JLB For Nuke Skepticism

Jay Dyer broadcast a live google hangout to discuss ‘end times’ prophecy and its use in social engineering. JLB decided to ask the live chat about the possibility that we are lied to about nukes. Jay responded by banning JLB from the chat. Why is Jay avoiding the Nuclear Question?

 

JLB1814 – Jay Dyer Bans JLB For Nuke Skepticism (11-Feb-2018)

Presentation about nuke hoax: here.
Jay’s hangout: here.

 

3 thoughts on “Jay Dyer Bans JLB For Nuke Skepticism

    • 17-February-2018 at 3:56 pm
      Permalink

      Interesting, thanks for the link.

      One day I will get around to going through enough of a sample size of Mathis’ material to come to firm conclusions about the general quality/usefulness of his work.

      The only Mathis’ paper I have studied in-depth is the one on the Cavendish experiment. The tl;dr is that Mathis did a fantastic job finding and then scrutinising the various ‘repetitions’ of the heavy-balls-in-shed experiment, but somehow he came to the conclusion that it is ultimately possible to determine the mass of the earth (and therefore the mass of every other ‘planet’ in the solar system) with heavy balls in a shed. Bizarre stuff.

      Mathis is — clearly — very intelligent. This particular paper in Jan Irvin could have been structured much, much better than it was. How hard is it to implement some sub-headings? And I take it that Mathis still believes in ‘ancient history’:

      “Historically, Gnosticism as it is now known arose from Alexandrian Jews in the second century, among whom was Valentinus. It arose after the fall of Jerusalem, which disappointed those who were awaiting the coming of God’s kingdom.”

      Can anybody link me to any Mathis papers in which he debunks or otherwise scrutinises the fundamental notion of reliable history? Or does Mathis appear to take ‘history’ for granted as a general foundation of his work?

      I notice that Mathis mentions how he ‘dated hundreds of girls’ while living in Austin. He is a handsome guy, so it seems plausible to me. Is this a common thread in his work? Something about it strikes me as odd. This may be entirely due to my own biases: in my experience, the more a man talks about his sexual conquests, and the higher the number of women he claims to have been with, the more likely he is engaged in fabrication. This is a purely anecdotal observation, and not intended to be interpreted as a commentary on Mathis specifically.

      • 17-February-2018 at 5:16 pm
        Permalink

        i think considering at least a couple points from Mathis’ own papers (one from this most recent full paper and one from an earlier one) could help answer your questions regarding his general approach toward “history”:

        1) “My job, as I see it, is to hit the biggest topics of recent history, and I am making pretty fair progress in that.” (p. 4 of Mathis’ paper on Jan Irvin, cited above^)

        2) “We have seen in previous papers that most of history is a fraud, made up or rewritten by the ruling families for their own purposes. In most cases I have been able to show that rather than being a total fiction, it is a palimpsest: an overwrite of the real history, with small or large parts of the actual story existing beneath the current version. For this reason, with some amount of work we can recreate the real history by paring away the later lies and accretions. To a good eye, the truth can be seen through the layers of deception. Think of the Princess and the Pea. Just as she could feel the pea through any number of mattresses, I can spot the truth through any number of lies.

        Admittedly, the further back in time we go the more difficult this is. There are fewer clues and therefore less truth to latch onto. However, because the overall form of the deception has remained pretty much the same over the centuries, we can use our knowledge of newer deceptions to decode older ones. The puzzle pieces are fewer, that is, but they fit together in the same general way. The same people are telling the same basic lies, so an investigator can build the same case with fewer and fewer clues. ” (p. 1, http://mileswmathis.com/phillip.pdf)

        fwiw, my own assessment – as one familiar with Mathis’ work, but not intending to endorse it – is that he would be pretty comfortable with the Daddy level of the Hoax Hierarchy. but who knows?

        i should also state that i have not read much at all from the “science” side of his output. as for your final paragraph, i can say that Mathis often makes mention of items he observes to be part of an agenda/op to drive men and women apart.

Leave a Reply