What will happen to Trump after November?Mon 12:02 pm +01:00, 20 Jul 2020
They will keep Trump on until November as the Republicans can’t win the election without him. But once he’s won the election, what will happen to him after that? He’s not young. He can’t go on forever. Is the Abraham Lincoln story any indication of the calculations being made by the military and the bankers? Miles Mathis brilliantly assembles the arguments that Lincoln’s assassination was faked. You can see how easy it is to make a faked death once you read this fascinating analysis. You can start thinking back through history to wonder who else took this pathway of faked assassination to get clear of the load of heavy responsibilities and give the money power that runs wars, faked epidemics and the like what they want when they need it.
was also a manufactured event
by Miles Mathis
I dedicate this paper to the memory of my uncle, Russell Mathis, a scholar of the Civil War.
Disclaimer: This paper, like all my papers, is an opinion piece. That is, it is based on my own personal knowledge and research, and reflects my limited expertise in a limited number of fields. Who else could say more? Although it may seem to be revolutionary, it is not intended to be so. I seek only the truth; but unfortunately, the truth has become revolutionary itself.
You should read this essay as a murder investigation, not as an attempt at revisionist history or as a species of conspiracy theory. Were I attempting either one, this essay would have to be much longer than it is. I will not try to be either scholarly or exhaustive, since although a historian might be expected to be both, a murder investigator is not held to those standards. It is enough to solve the case. I will discuss only the issues that have greatest bearing on the immediate question, leaving tangential issues for others to haggle over. As usual, I am more interested in efficiency than anything else. I do not like to waste your time or my own. If I seem to some to rush to a conclusion, it is only because I cannot be bothered to be misdirected or diverted. Once I have a scent, I prefer to run along it like a hound, since I have learned to trust my nose. I will therefore make every effort to pass through this created bog by the shortest and straightest series of stepping stones and patches of firmest ground.
This was the last of the major events I unraveled, and I couldn’t unravel it until I had unraveled the more recent events. I needed to resolve those events first, since they were nearer in time to the present: the evidence was fresher, broader, and nearer to home. Once I understood the methods of the newer events, I could look at the Lincoln assassination with a new and educated eye. Therefore, if you
haven’t also studied 911, Sandy Hook, and other manufactured events, you may not follow my reasoning here. If you have trouble swallowing my conclusions in this paper, I recommend you study more closely the history of controlled and manufactured events—especially the history of Intelligence operations, both here and abroad. As an example of a foreign operation which is now partly declassified and about which much has been leaked, I send you to Operation Gladio.
As usual, I will lead you in on the path I traveled, so that you can see my method. The first red flag that really put me on the right trail was the fact that John Wilkes Booth was an actor. As you probably know, much of the controversy of the Lincoln assassination has centered on Booth from the beginning. Those who have offered alternative theories have almost always started with Booth. We will see that they were not wrong to do so, but we will also see that they never went far enough. Even the most creative and “outlandish” theories didn’t go far enough—in the right direction. We have seen this over and over in the other more recent manufactured events, where researchers get halfway in and then seem to get lost—sometimes, it would appear, on purpose. We saw this in the Kennedy assassinations, where “alternate” researchers found some of the first major clues, but then wandered off into left field for no obvious reason. We saw it in the Tate murders, where Mae Brussell—considered the bravest of the researchers—boldly discovered the first layer of clues, only to drift off into a fog, getting nowhere near the right answer. You will see it from Pat Shannan, who initially makes a strong charge at all these events, only to end up with theories that don’t really challenge the central parts of any of them. I don’t know if all these researchers divert themselves or if their jobs were to create diversion from the beginning. I don’t really care. I spend my time researching the events, not researching the other researchers. You will have to come to your own conclusions there.
But back to Booth. The fact that Booth was an actor is the primary clue here, but I have never seen anyone lead with it. It is admitted but passed over as unimportant. But if you have read my other papers or studied recent events, you now understand how important it is. We have seen that all these events featured actors, from 911 to Aurora to Sandy Hook. They had to, because they were all manufactured events. In manufactured events, you want actors involved because actors are trained to manufacture events. That is the job of an actor. As in any other job, you hire professionals.
The second red flag I found is that the assassination took place in a theater. No one ever looks closely at that. It is a red flag because this is all theater. As with Booth being an actor, I have known about Ford’s Theater since I was a child, but—like the rest of you—I have never let the fact really enter my consciousness. I have seen the fact, but I have not observed it. I have memorized it like a bit of history I might need to regurgitate for a test, but have never looked closely at it. We should have always found both facts highly curious. No researcher that I know of has ever tripped over Lincoln’s assassination being in a theater. The big clues are missed from the very beginning, which should tell us we have been in the presence of poor researchers from day one. From my vantage, I can tell you that this seems to be caused by the fact that the others are approaching this problem as either history or conspiracy, rather than as a murder investigation. History and conspiracy tend to be very complex, while murder is usually surprisingly simple. Without exception, these other investigators allow themselves to be buried under an excess of information. They soon get lost in the bog. Since the bog was created just for that purpose, we should not be surprised to find them sinking in it; but I will show you a way to pass through without even getting your shoes dirty.
The third red flag was this kind of statement, which I found over and over in my research: “Very few academic historians have studied Lincoln’s assassination in any depth.” I think you will agree that is astonishing. It is the indication of a successful cover-up, and a cover-up is of course indication that what we have been told is not true. Why would historians avoid studying or writing about the
assassination? Isn’t that what historians are supposed to do? Apparently not. My research has solidified an impression I have long had, that being that historians are mainly paid to tell the accepted story, to flesh it out, and—if they are really creative—to add somewhat to the lie. I have not found that historians are especially interested in the truth, and the most famous ones seem the least interested. Of course, this isn’t limited to historians. It applies to everyone in all fields. There is an incredible amount of top-down control, and there appear to be standing orders to avoid all truths at all times. How else to explain the current state of history, science, education, art, literature, and so on?
The fourth red flag I found was the amount of current propaganda in support of this very old event. There is lot of new misdirection on the assassination on the internet, and not just at history or encyclopedia sites. If you type in just about any question regarding the event, you get pages and pages of new lies and new fake debunking, as if this event just happened. This leads an investigator to ask several questions: why are living people spending so much time and effort re-telling the old story? Why is it so important to keep the propaganda fresh and up-to-date on the Lincoln assassination? Why are historians still being shushed away from the event? I will not necessarily answer those questions in this paper, but they are a red flag simply because they indicate there is still something worth hiding. As I have said in previous papers, the more someone tries to convince you of A, the more seriously you should look at B. When that person is telling you things that don’t make sense, double down. When that person has any connection to the government, immediately invest heavily in B.
The fifth red flag was the description of the assassination by Walt Whitman. Not many people know that Whitman gave a series of lectures in 1879-81 called The Death of Abraham Lincoln. Here are some excerpts:
I read from my memoranda, written at the time, and revised frequently and finally since. . . .
Through the general hum following the stage pause, with the change of positions, came the muffled sound of a pistol-shot, which not one-hundredth part of the audience heard at the time—and yet a moment’s hush— somehow, surely, a vague startled thrill—and then, through the ornamented, draperied, starr’d and striped space- way of the President’s box, a sudden figure, a man, raises himself with hands and feet, stands a moment on the railing, leaps below to the stage, (a distance of perhaps fourteen or fifteen feet,) falls out of position, catching his boot-heel in the copious drapery, (the American flag,) falls on one knee, quickly recovers himself, rises as if nothing had happen’d, (he really sprains his ankle, but unfelt then)—and so the figure, Booth, the murderer, dress’d in plain black broadcloth, bare-headed, with full, glossy, raven hair, and his eyes like some mad animal’s flashing with light and resolution, yet with a certain strange calmness, holds aloft in one hand a large knife—walks along not much back from the footlights—turns fully toward the audience his face of statuesque beauty, lit by those basilisk eyes, flashing with desperation, perhaps insanity—launches out in a firm and steady voice the words Sic semper tyrannis—and then walks with neither slow nor very rapid pace diagonally across to the back of the stage, and disappears. (Had not all this terrible scene—making the mimic ones preposterous—had it not all been rehears’d, in blank, by Booth, beforehand?)
Very strange, as I think you will admit. Although Whitman tries to put this into poetic language—as you would expect from a famous poet—this is in fact the standard story, or very close to it. Whitman misses that Booth was said to have broken his fibula in the jump, not just twisted his ankle, but that isn’t what we should be looking at here anyway. What you should be asking is,
1. Why would the pistol shot be muffled? This was a theater: it should have echoed. Theaters are not built to muffle sound, are they? Everyone in the audience would have heard a gunshot from the President’s box. Booth should have had ten men upon him in an instant. We are told in
other variations of the story that Booth fired during loud laughter from the audience, after a joke on-stage. But in 1879, Whitman doesn’t have it that way, despite being a writer, living through the event, making notes, and revising them often. As with current manufactured events, they can’t get their stories straight, even 14 years after the fact. That part of the story should have been very easy to confirm, since they are supposed to have had a theater full of witnesses. And if it was the standard story in 1879, why didn’t the paid propagandist Whitman3 have it in his revised notes?
- Why would Booth jump down to the stage? Surely, to avoid capture, it would have been far easier and wiser to retreat behind the curtain of the box and to flee down the back corridor. On- stage, with a twisted ankle or broken leg, Booth should have been a sitting duck, both for men from the audience and for men on-stage or back-stage. But, unworried by that fact, Booth pauses to address the audience and hold up a knife!
- He just killed the President with a gun, not a knife. Where did the knife come from? We are expected to believe he just jumped fifteen feet down with a large knife in his hand or pocket? You will say the knife was in a sheath. No, the story is Booth fought with Major Henry Rathbone, who was also in the box with the Lincolns, wounding him with the knife. Two problems there. One, try jumping down 15 feet with a large knife in your hand. I have jumped down from that height, and it is very difficult to land without injuring an ankle or a knee, even without a knife. You have to roll forward and catch yourself with your arms as well, to take force off your legs. More importantly, struggling with Rathbone should have taken some time. With the shot fired, the women screaming, and the fight with Rathbone, everyone in the theater should have been alerted to the President’s box. There would have been at least a dozen men at the base of the box, just waiting for Booth. He would have leaped right into their arms, not onto a deserted stage.
- Booth was also said to have had a stick, with which he jammed the door to the Presidential box, keeping anyone from coming into the box from that direction. He is said by a famous witness to have passed a note to an usher, to be let into the box. So, speaking to the usher, Booth was carrying a large stick, a gun, and a large knife? In order to get into the Presidential box with at least three weapons, all you need to do is pass a note to an usher? The President travels with no security, during the Civil War? More on this below.
- We are told in the mainstream stories that Booth was a well-known Rebel sympathizer. No, we are told he was a rabid Confederate supporter, making no effort to hide it. And yet he lived in the North. He was born in Maryland and acted mostly in Union and border states, spending a lot of time in Boston and New York and almost no time in the South. The rest of his family was Blue to the core. Booth was engaged to a New Hampshire Senator’s daughter, and this Senator was not a Democrat, much less a Rebel. I will be told that wasn’t so rare, but the problem is it conflicts with another part of the story, which we see here. We are told Booth was let into the box because he was a famous actor. But even so, according to the mainstream story he was a famous actor known to be a raving enemy of the Union. If Lincoln’s Secret Service had a no-fly list, Booth would be at the top of it. So the standard story makes no sense. It contradicts itself in a hundred places.*
- Once on-stage, Booth is now holding off every man in the theater with a knife? Not one man in the theater has a gun or sword, during the Civil War? Not one man knows how to confront a single man with a knife? Remember, Booth was known as an actor, not as a decorated soldier. In other words, he was not a fighter. I ask any soldiers in the audience, are you afraid to take on an actor? My soldier will say, “No, actors are known to be fairies or milktoasts.” Just so.
- In this situation, Booth stops to make a speech? You have to be kidding me! He stops to speak Latin, quoting Brutus from Julius Caesar? You have to be kidding me! And where were Lincoln’s guards—in the lobby getting Milk Duds? Do you really think the President traveled
in public during the Civil War without guards? C’mon! No one but an idiot would buy this story. This reads like a bad script, not like real history. Things happen like this only when they are staged.
Here’s another problem:
That’s the Presidential box at Ford’s Theater. As you can see, the box is actually on-stage itself. Most of the 1,700 people in the auditorium would be able to see right into the box. They would have seen any struggle in that box immediately. So the idea that Booth could jump down on-stage before anyone in the audience realized what was happening is absurd. Another problem is that the theater has been renovated many times, and that the stage is actually higher now than it was then.
See how the stage is well above the first level of seating? This should look odd, since the highest paying viewers would have to look up at the performance. For those in the front rows, any performance near the rear of the deep stage would be partially blocked. This was caused by the raising of the stage. But why was the stage raised? Because it lessened the height from which Booth appeared to jump.