Title edit: MILES W. Mathis The guy has written (in his own estimation) over 300,000 pages exposing every level of conspiracy that I have come to to know about on voat.co! I just found out about him from a random comment in a post here the other day. Anybody else read his stuff?
Mileswmathis.com All about how everything is a Jewish hoax.
milesmathis.com (no w) All his science papers. Corrects a bunch of glaring fundamental errors in physics that have led to all the modern day bullshit science - quantum mechanics, dark matter etc Absolute must read stuff for anyone intersted in science. Read this stuff and instantly know more about how the world works than literally everybody else, except the top jews who've been surpressing this stuff for their own evil ends and personal use.
I have, though I probably wrote the random comment you found.
Most of his stuff regarding factual bits is dead on, sometimes his conclusions aren't entirely complete though. Since he originally was a leftist, his earlier works actually are apologetic towards jews and feminism, which has completely changed in his later works, where he outright names jews he finds.
His science works are a bit more dicey, though he definitely hit the nail on the head regarding kinematic pi = 4, amongst some of the other phenomenological works (as contrasted with the purely theoretical ones).
I can point you in the direction of a number of researchers like him as well, if you are interested.
The original conspiracy researcher, that I'd argue largely inspired Mathis, was the late Dave McGowan, who was offed with sudden late-stage lung cancer in Nov of a few years back. Aside from his general comments on current events, he has done the definitive treatise on 9/11, Abraham Lincoln's assassination, the Boston Marathon Bombing Fraud, and Sandy Hook. In general, his work is far more thorough than Mathis, but much more limited in scope. Mathis' knowledge is certainly far more broad.
His work on Lincoln, and his work digging up the hippie 'counterculture' as the product of Naval Intelligence are entirely original - he was the first to discover this. His work on 9/11 and the 'moon landing' are the most comprehensive - it covered all existing research at the time of writing (there is nothing new since then).
Everything else is in 'Features', and his biggest was the 'Laurel Canyon' series. I've personally extended his work both forward and backward in time, and answered a few questions he couldn't (e.g. why was music taken over - Mathis assumes it is profit, McGowan assumes just because).
(Just so you know, the answer: at some point early last century, jews learned that music was the root of social cohesion, making it upstream of culture. Control the music and you control the culture.) Citation is an interview with (((Stuart Copeland))), who is yet-another son of a career CIA family who started a popular band for no reason [the Police, also made the music for Spyro]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-oaulPhgTA @ 2:13 He admits to being the son of CIA, and glosses over what his dad did, etc. Then skip forward to: @ 14:32 He states music's primary function is to control social cohesion, which we can take as an admission of why music was taken over in the first place.
Regarding the science works, there is so many I could list on so many topics. Topics on Chronology / we don't know what year it really is / etc, look to Anotoly Fomenko, or to Newton, as even Newton tackled the problems of Chronology, and came to the conclusion that the only way we could construct a valid historical record was by omitting jewish sources (see: Chronology of Ancient Kingdoms, Amended by Newton). Topics on the intentional destruction of math date back to the 16th century and are partially original to me and partially to unnamed French writers of the time period. Topics on Black Holes and Cosmology errors, whose roots actually lie deeper in physics and thermodynamics, are Stephen Crothers and Robotaille. I've posted my paper a few times that shows we have no understanding of flight, though Claes Johnson and Johan Jansson may have figured out the secret of heavier-than-air flight. There are tons of smaller errors all over too, like radioactive decay isn't a stochastic process - it isn't even random (see Falkenberg, and Jere Jenkins + Ephraim Fischbach), which has also been rediscovered a number of times due to being buried.
I didn't mention previously (in the thread) the cranium - we've proven recently that human brain size is temperature-control limited, meaning that it will continue to expand until the body cannot cool it further, then its growth stops (there is a chapter on this in McCarthy's series on human origins). We also know that African brains grow at the same rate as ours, with their cognition matching, until they hit 12 or so and begin to fall behind (good luck finding this - think the researchers were unpersoned). McCarthy actually discovered the mechanism - pig skulls have small holes where blood from the brain is circulated directly to the scalp, without passing through the heart first. Chimps don't have this. Better cooling mechanism = larger brain capacity, and more stamina before brain function begins to decrease when brain sizes are equal.
P.S. Mathis tackled our lack of understanding of flight and claims the charge field is what's missing. Thoughts?
I wrote a ton here and lost it all. Short version - Mathis expects his readers to test his model for him, he even states he has no interest in doing his own experimentation. Since none of his readers have done experiments on the core tenets of his charge field, nor can they, I personally suspect it is invalid on Popperian grounds.
As it relates to flight, the problem is that his model says lift results from a wing cutting his charge field, and he predicts conductive wings produce more lift than nonconductive ones (he says a reader confirmed this WRT copper used in wings). Although this sounds actionable, it apparently isn't - it doesn't predict the performance of a wing, and worse, can't compare the relative performance of two wings.
Contrast it to Claes et. al., whose background is in computational modeling of flight (which is quantitative by nature), and whose model was immediately implemented into simulations that proved more accurate than standard curve-fit models. It's been a while since I looked into them - they were tiny nobodies way back when: https://secretofflight.wordpress.com/
They are apparently making waves now - their models are now used by the big companies and they partnered with someone who is supplying computing power for these models: http://icarusmath.com/
Proof in the pudding, basically.
EDIT: Regarding StolenHistory, don't forget that Mathis has a competing model (the Phoenicians/Carthaginians etc, which is very compelling - more so than the work I've seen on SH) which may lead him to throw the baby out with the bathwater. In any case, I didn't bother sorting out who was more right in their spat.
His model is more of a notion - it doesn't have enough information to generate a metric that can be compared in the first place.
I would think one wing fashioned from conductive material and one from non conductive material, all other things being equal, would be valid test case.
I would agree, but can't find any evidence this has ever been done, even amongst the RC aircraft group, who has to have data on something like this. Lack of evidence isn't evidence of lack, of course.
But then SH brings up so many anomalies and holes in the mainstream narrative, I tend to give them more weight
Maybe you can share something with me then - I found SH when researching the Napoleonic Wars, which led to Tartary and related, which was fascinating. I haven't seen anything else there even reasonably close to that in terms of either quality or magnitude - what other 'big things' broke on SH / what else should I be looking for?
[ - ] chrimony 1 point 2.8 yearsJul 3, 2021 06:08:21 ago (+1/-0)
His science works are a bit more dicey, though he definitely hit the nail on the head regarding kinematic pi = 4
Really? It's the pi = 4 that you DON'T find dicey? He's a crank. I'll give him credit for being smart and asking good questions, but where he fails is in latching on to an idea and then never being critical of it. He fancies himself the new Leonardo, and his hyperinflated ego causes him to spout all kinds of bullshit. Waste of a mind.
I am aware of it being duplicated 4 times, the first test unpublished by Jeff Cosman, the second in the form of this video (youtube warning - one of his followers, Steven Oostdijk, conducted the test): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QhuvUSS3KAE
And then the experiment I did in shop way back when (my personal anecdote) - we also used a CNC machined billet of aluminum and ball bearing to control for variances. Our ultimate goal was to put it in a vacuum chamber to see if air resistance had anything to do with it (many back then, both proponents and detractors, claimed it did) but we never got the opportunity.
One of the fundamental critiques that came up in the comments over and over again is friction. In particular, rolling friction, and complications with angular momentum.
Did you actually read the page? Because it comes to the OPPOSITE conclusion, that pi is the standard value. In other words, a high precision steel track which reduces the problems in the backyard experiment comes to the expected answer. Done and done.
And I've read Mathis's attempted explanation for the result, and it's just typical Mathis when he tries to explain away why one of his ideas doesn't work in practice. Muddled thinking and non-sequiturs that don't explain anything: http://milesmathis.com/pi9.pdf
And I haven't even talked about launching a ball into the air that eliminates the need for worrying about rolling friction, or experiments with pendulums. The whole thing is ridiculous. But kudos for that Oostdijk guy for giving Mathis some hopium to smoke.
And then the experiment I did in shop way back when (my personal anecdote)
So doesn't count. Final tally is 1 for pi = 4, with confounding factors, one for standard pi = 3.14, with more precision and fewer confounding factors.
One of the fundamental critiques that came up in the comments over and over again is friction. In particular, rolling friction, and complications with angular momentum.
Air friction, first, and rolling friction second, hence the drive for tighter precision. Unfortunately, this led to the problem with the next guy's work:
Did you actually read the page? Because it comes to the OPPOSITE conclusion
Farther than you apparently - he used dual contact in the track design. Because the ball (6 DOF) was constrained by two points, it forces the ball to roll along the medial line (leaving 2 DOF, which is common in radial bearing design, but not useful for this test).
In any case, this one is dead easy to test. You should consider conducting your own.
No, you, WITHOUT ANY INDICATIONS OTHERWISE, referenced this as an example that CONFIRMED the kinematic pi = 4 hypothesis, with less room for error, when in actuality it was presented as a REFUTATION. That's shit, dude. Don't try and pretend that you actually looked deeper or more critically than me, because now you're just compounding your error, pissing me off, and proving that you have no integrity -- which is typical for people that believe and promote cranks on the Internet. If you wanna talk science, take your lumps and admit when you fuck up. Otherwise just piss off to the Flat Earth Society.
he used dual contact in the track design. Because the ball (6 DOF) was constrained by two points, it forces the ball to roll along the medial line (leaving 2 DOF, which is common in radial bearing design, but not useful for this test).
I told you, I read Mathis's explanation (which I linked in the comment). It's nonsensical. How does constraining the ball make it MOVE FASTER than the predicted kinematic pi = 4 says it should? The ball was given an initial velocity due to gravity. It gains nothing further by being constrained. The only way this test could cheat is if the inner circle was substantially smaller than the outer circle. But the diameter was given as 3/8", nowhere near large enough to get to pi = 4.
In any case, this one is dead easy to test. You should consider conducting your own.
Why would I? As you saw, the high-precision test has already been done. Less friction, no soft, bendy tubes. And as I already mentioned, you don't need tracks -- just launch a ball into the air. Or look at orbits of planets. Or look at experiments with pendulums. Kinematic pi = 4 is crank bullshit.
Miles Mathis is a crank. He thinks everything is a false flag. He thinks pi = 4. He's smart enough to ask interesting questions, but too full of himself to realize when his ideas are going nowhere.
[ + ] Arthur_everest
[ - ] Arthur_everest 7 points 2.8 yearsJul 3, 2021 01:02:06 ago (+7/-0)
milesmathis.com (no w) All his science papers. Corrects a bunch of glaring fundamental errors in physics that have led to all the modern day bullshit science - quantum mechanics, dark matter etc Absolute must read stuff for anyone intersted in science. Read this stuff and instantly know more about how the world works than literally everybody else, except the top jews who've been surpressing this stuff for their own evil ends and personal use.
Highly recommend!
[ + ] account deleted by user
[ - ] account deleted by user 1 point 2.8 yearsJul 3, 2021 05:32:32 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] Native
[ - ] Native 0 points 2.2 yearsMar 2, 2022 06:02:18 ago (+0/-0)
“Science” can’t explain why ice is slippery nor why planes fly.
Seriously m.
Engineering is the truth. Science is all politics and fake hypothesis.
[ + ] aleleopathic
[ - ] aleleopathic 4 points 2.8 yearsJul 3, 2021 00:56:49 ago (+4/-0)
Most of his stuff regarding factual bits is dead on, sometimes his conclusions aren't entirely complete though. Since he originally was a leftist, his earlier works actually are apologetic towards jews and feminism, which has completely changed in his later works, where he outright names jews he finds.
His science works are a bit more dicey, though he definitely hit the nail on the head regarding kinematic pi = 4, amongst some of the other phenomenological works (as contrasted with the purely theoretical ones).
I can point you in the direction of a number of researchers like him as well, if you are interested.
[ + ] Thisisallstupid
[ - ] Thisisallstupid [op] 2 points 2.8 yearsJul 3, 2021 01:07:51 ago (+2/-0)
[ + ] aleleopathic
[ - ] aleleopathic 5 points 2.8 yearsJul 3, 2021 04:05:27 ago (+5/-0)*
That was my comment, from a couple days ago, in my thread about body doubles: https://www.voat.xyz/viewpost.php?postid=60dc730397f09#comment_60dcc5e77b8ab
The original conspiracy researcher, that I'd argue largely inspired Mathis, was the late Dave McGowan, who was offed with sudden late-stage lung cancer in Nov of a few years back. Aside from his general comments on current events, he has done the definitive treatise on 9/11, Abraham Lincoln's assassination, the Boston Marathon Bombing Fraud, and Sandy Hook. In general, his work is far more thorough than Mathis, but much more limited in scope. Mathis' knowledge is certainly far more broad.
His work on Lincoln, and his work digging up the hippie 'counterculture' as the product of Naval Intelligence are entirely original - he was the first to discover this. His work on 9/11 and the 'moon landing' are the most comprehensive - it covered all existing research at the time of writing (there is nothing new since then).
His comments on current events are in 'Newsletters', and don't have titles visible before you open them: https://centerforaninformedamerica.com/newsletters/
Everything else is in 'Features', and his biggest was the 'Laurel Canyon' series. I've personally extended his work both forward and backward in time, and answered a few questions he couldn't (e.g. why was music taken over - Mathis assumes it is profit, McGowan assumes just because).
(Just so you know, the answer: at some point early last century, jews learned that music was the root of social cohesion, making it upstream of culture. Control the music and you control the culture.) Citation is an interview with (((Stuart Copeland))), who is yet-another son of a career CIA family who started a popular band for no reason [the Police, also made the music for Spyro]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-oaulPhgTA
@ 2:13 He admits to being the son of CIA, and glosses over what his dad did, etc. Then skip forward to:
@ 14:32 He states music's primary function is to control social cohesion, which we can take as an admission of why music was taken over in the first place.
Regarding the science works, there is so many I could list on so many topics. Topics on Chronology / we don't know what year it really is / etc, look to Anotoly Fomenko, or to Newton, as even Newton tackled the problems of Chronology, and came to the conclusion that the only way we could construct a valid historical record was by omitting jewish sources (see:
Chronology of Ancient Kingdoms, Amended by Newton). Topics on the intentional destruction of math date back to the 16th century and are partially original to me and partially to unnamed French writers of the time period. Topics on Black Holes and Cosmology errors, whose roots actually lie deeper in physics and thermodynamics, are Stephen Crothers and Robotaille. I've posted my paper a few times that shows we have no understanding of flight, though Claes Johnson and Johan Jansson may have figured out the secret of heavier-than-air flight. There are tons of smaller errors all over too, like radioactive decay isn't a stochastic process - it isn't even random (see Falkenberg, and Jere Jenkins + Ephraim Fischbach), which has also been rediscovered a number of times due to being buried.
My old unfinished article on flight, which crops out the section on clouds: https://files.catbox.moe/7rpb01.png
I can virtually go on endlessly. Everything you know is wrong, basically. Just ask on any topic and I'll point you to the source material.
[ + ] account deleted by user
[ - ] account deleted by user 3 points 2.8 yearsJul 3, 2021 05:34:12 ago (+3/-0)
[ + ] aleleopathic
[ - ] aleleopathic 1 point 2.8 yearsJul 3, 2021 15:29:13 ago (+1/-0)
Here is a link to my previous comment chain, which has a lot of info: https://www.voat.xyz/viewpost.php?postid=60dbf107f37bd&commentid=60dc3475b6f53
Here is a link to his (very comprehensive) website: http://www.macroevolution.net/
I didn't mention previously (in the thread) the cranium - we've proven recently that human brain size is temperature-control limited, meaning that it will continue to expand until the body cannot cool it further, then its growth stops (there is a chapter on this in McCarthy's series on human origins). We also know that African brains grow at the same rate as ours, with their cognition matching, until they hit 12 or so and begin to fall behind (good luck finding this - think the researchers were unpersoned). McCarthy actually discovered the mechanism - pig skulls have small holes where blood from the brain is circulated directly to the scalp, without passing through the heart first. Chimps don't have this. Better cooling mechanism = larger brain capacity, and more stamina before brain function begins to decrease when brain sizes are equal.
[ + ] account deleted by user
[ - ] account deleted by user 2 points 2.8 yearsJul 3, 2021 07:57:03 ago (+2/-0)*
[ + ] aleleopathic
[ - ] aleleopathic 0 points 2.8 yearsJul 3, 2021 16:03:27 ago (+0/-0)*
I wrote a ton here and lost it all. Short version - Mathis expects his readers to test his model for him, he even states he has no interest in doing his own experimentation. Since none of his readers have done experiments on the core tenets of his charge field, nor can they, I personally suspect it is invalid on Popperian grounds.
As it relates to flight, the problem is that his model says lift results from a wing cutting his charge field, and he predicts conductive wings produce more lift than nonconductive ones (he says a reader confirmed this WRT copper used in wings). Although this sounds actionable, it apparently isn't - it doesn't predict the performance of a wing, and worse, can't compare the relative performance of two wings.
Contrast it to Claes et. al., whose background is in computational modeling of flight (which is quantitative by nature), and whose model was immediately implemented into simulations that proved more accurate than standard curve-fit models. It's been a while since I looked into them - they were tiny nobodies way back when: https://secretofflight.wordpress.com/
They are apparently making waves now - their models are now used by the big companies and they partnered with someone who is supplying computing power for these models: http://icarusmath.com/
Proof in the pudding, basically.
EDIT: Regarding StolenHistory, don't forget that Mathis has a competing model (the Phoenicians/Carthaginians etc, which is very compelling - more so than the work I've seen on SH) which may lead him to throw the baby out with the bathwater. In any case, I didn't bother sorting out who was more right in their spat.
[ + ] account deleted by user
[ - ] account deleted by user 0 points 2.8 yearsJul 3, 2021 16:47:01 ago (+0/-0)*
[ + ] aleleopathic
[ - ] aleleopathic 0 points 2.8 yearsJul 4, 2021 01:50:24 ago (+0/-0)
His model is more of a notion - it doesn't have enough information to generate a metric that can be compared in the first place.
I would agree, but can't find any evidence this has ever been done, even amongst the RC aircraft group, who has to have data on something like this. Lack of evidence isn't evidence of lack, of course.
Maybe you can share something with me then - I found SH when researching the Napoleonic Wars, which led to Tartary and related, which was fascinating. I haven't seen anything else there even reasonably close to that in terms of either quality or magnitude - what other 'big things' broke on SH / what else should I be looking for?
[ + ] account deleted by user
[ - ] account deleted by user 0 points 2.8 yearsJul 4, 2021 09:28:11 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] aleleopathic
[ - ] aleleopathic 1 point 2.8 yearsJul 4, 2021 14:28:29 ago (+1/-0)
Thank you much!
[ + ] account deleted by user
[ - ] account deleted by user 0 points 2.8 yearsJul 4, 2021 20:25:02 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] deleted
[ - ] deleted 0 points 2.8 yearsJul 3, 2021 01:31:37 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] chrimony
[ - ] chrimony 1 point 2.8 yearsJul 3, 2021 06:08:21 ago (+1/-0)
Really? It's the pi = 4 that you DON'T find dicey? He's a crank. I'll give him credit for being smart and asking good questions, but where he fails is in latching on to an idea and then never being critical of it. He fancies himself the new Leonardo, and his hyperinflated ego causes him to spout all kinds of bullshit. Waste of a mind.
[ + ] aleleopathic
[ - ] aleleopathic 0 points 2.8 yearsJul 3, 2021 16:20:30 ago (+0/-0)
It was proven by experiment, a number of times. You can't refute reality, only theories, and generally you use reality to refute theory.
Agreed with this part, especially where he calls himself 'the last great Romantic'.
Disagree here. He misses the mark sometimes, but has made huge advances to our knowledge, including a number of original discoveries.
[ + ] chrimony
[ - ] chrimony 0 points 2.8 yearsJul 3, 2021 16:55:48 ago (+0/-0)
Links.
[ + ] aleleopathic
[ - ] aleleopathic 0 points 2.8 yearsJul 3, 2021 22:39:51 ago (+0/-0)
Fair enough.
I am aware of it being duplicated 4 times, the first test unpublished by Jeff Cosman, the second in the form of this video (youtube warning - one of his followers, Steven Oostdijk, conducted the test): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QhuvUSS3KAE
The third was CNC machined to remove possible variance and mismatch from the crude plastic tubes used in the 'backyard variant' of this test: https://milesmathis.forumotion.com/t638-pi-nine-pi-experiment-with-two-edge-track?highlight=experiment
And then the experiment I did in shop way back when (my personal anecdote) - we also used a CNC machined billet of aluminum and ball bearing to control for variances. Our ultimate goal was to put it in a vacuum chamber to see if air resistance had anything to do with it (many back then, both proponents and detractors, claimed it did) but we never got the opportunity.
[ + ] chrimony
[ - ] chrimony 0 points 2.8 yearsJul 4, 2021 02:07:49 ago (+0/-0)
So doesn't count.
One of the fundamental critiques that came up in the comments over and over again is friction. In particular, rolling friction, and complications with angular momentum.
Did you actually read the page? Because it comes to the OPPOSITE conclusion, that pi is the standard value. In other words, a high precision steel track which reduces the problems in the backyard experiment comes to the expected answer. Done and done.
And I've read Mathis's attempted explanation for the result, and it's just typical Mathis when he tries to explain away why one of his ideas doesn't work in practice. Muddled thinking and non-sequiturs that don't explain anything: http://milesmathis.com/pi9.pdf
And I haven't even talked about launching a ball into the air that eliminates the need for worrying about rolling friction, or experiments with pendulums. The whole thing is ridiculous. But kudos for that Oostdijk guy for giving Mathis some hopium to smoke.
So doesn't count. Final tally is 1 for pi = 4, with confounding factors, one for standard pi = 3.14, with more precision and fewer confounding factors.
[ + ] aleleopathic
[ - ] aleleopathic 0 points 2.8 yearsJul 4, 2021 12:40:42 ago (+0/-0)
Air friction, first, and rolling friction second, hence the drive for tighter precision. Unfortunately, this led to the problem with the next guy's work:
Farther than you apparently - he used dual contact in the track design. Because the ball (6 DOF) was constrained by two points, it forces the ball to roll along the medial line (leaving 2 DOF, which is common in radial bearing design, but not useful for this test).
In any case, this one is dead easy to test. You should consider conducting your own.
[ + ] chrimony
[ - ] chrimony 0 points 2.8 yearsJul 4, 2021 13:04:14 ago (+0/-0)
No, you, WITHOUT ANY INDICATIONS OTHERWISE, referenced this as an example that CONFIRMED the kinematic pi = 4 hypothesis, with less room for error, when in actuality it was presented as a REFUTATION. That's shit, dude. Don't try and pretend that you actually looked deeper or more critically than me, because now you're just compounding your error, pissing me off, and proving that you have no integrity -- which is typical for people that believe and promote cranks on the Internet. If you wanna talk science, take your lumps and admit when you fuck up. Otherwise just piss off to the Flat Earth Society.
I told you, I read Mathis's explanation (which I linked in the comment). It's nonsensical. How does constraining the ball make it MOVE FASTER than the predicted kinematic pi = 4 says it should? The ball was given an initial velocity due to gravity. It gains nothing further by being constrained. The only way this test could cheat is if the inner circle was substantially smaller than the outer circle. But the diameter was given as 3/8", nowhere near large enough to get to pi = 4.
Why would I? As you saw, the high-precision test has already been done. Less friction, no soft, bendy tubes. And as I already mentioned, you don't need tracks -- just launch a ball into the air. Or look at orbits of planets. Or look at experiments with pendulums. Kinematic pi = 4 is crank bullshit.
[ + ] MartinTimothy
[ - ] MartinTimothy 0 points 2.8 yearsJul 3, 2021 18:37:47 ago (+0/-0)
Lee Harvey Oswald Innocent - https://i.postimg.cc/pVnXp06Z/LHO.jpg.
Ohhhhh Coretta March 22, 2009 - https://i.postimg.cc/tCX452D7/Ohhhhh-Coretta.jpg.
* The MLK's & Warhol on the Grassy Knoll - https://i.postimg.cc/151kHP98/Moorman-Large.jpg.
Until he takes up with this stuff he is no better that the rest of the controlled oppositioners. The Assassination of John F Kennedy - http://dockersunion.net/vb/forum/the-kennedy-assassinations/92-the-assassination-of-john-f-kennedy.
[ + ]deleted
[ - ] deleted 0 points 2.8 yearsJul 3, 2021 08:42:07 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] account deleted by user
[ - ] account deleted by user 0 points 2.8 yearsJul 3, 2021 07:56:55 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] chrimony
[ - ] chrimony 0 points 2.8 yearsJul 3, 2021 06:10:53 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] MartinTimothy
[ - ] MartinTimothy 0 points 2.8 yearsJul 3, 2021 02:08:30 ago (+0/-0)
Miles Mathis is more than just a pretty face ..
https://i.postimg.cc/bwwM9dMR/Charles-Umlauf-by-Miles-Mathis.jpg
Portrait of Sculptor Charles Umlauf, by Miles Mathis.
I have been aware of MM's political works for quite some time without ever suspecting he is such an accomplished artist.
[ + ] account deleted by user
[ - ] account deleted by user 0 points 2.8 yearsJul 3, 2021 07:58:37 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] MartinTimothy
[ - ] MartinTimothy 0 points 2.8 yearsJul 3, 2021 18:34:24 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] account deleted by user
[ - ] account deleted by user 0 points 2.8 yearsJul 3, 2021 21:25:08 ago (+0/-0)