The Kent State Massacre Never Happened
Mainstream historians claim that students were protesting the Vietnam War at Kent State University in Kent, Ohio, on May 4, 1970, at 12:24 pm when 29 National Guardsmen shot 67 rounds over 13 seconds in response to sniper fire. This allegedly killed four and wounded nine students, some of whom were simply walking to class or observing from a distance.
A popular conspiracy theory claims that the National Guard was tricked into shooting, or was ordered to shoot, by the FBI, as a part of its secret COINTELPRO program against the student anti-war movement. The massacre became a focal point for the anti-war movement in the following years and continues to attract opponents of government mischief today. I believe instead that the Kent State Massacre was a hoax run by Intelligence. In this paper, I will attempt to explain how I reached this conclusion.
After reading many of Miles Mathis’ hoaxed event papers, I went back to read his excellent Sharon Tate/Charles Manson paper again. If you haven’t read it, parts of this paper may not make any sense to you. Please read it before proceeding.I’m going to lead with something that may seem small, but which brings the unreality of the event into sharp focus. See that photo of victim Allison Krause, second from left, above? It’s fake. It doesn‘t look like Krause, and looks more like a painting than a photograph. I work in the visual arts, and this jumped out at first glance. If you can’t spot the fake, show it to a visual arts person you trust, and ask them what they think. Maybe they’ll tell you. [Miles: I confirm this analysis. It’s either a painting from a photo or over a photo.
In 1970 these photos were seen in print by millions of people worldwide, among them thousands of visual arts professionals. They, and every technician who handled this photo, also saw instantly that the photo is an outrageous fake. But there exists no record of anyone, anywhere, mentioning this fact. I may be the first.
“So what,” you say? Well, the Kent State Massacre is sold to us as a real event that featured many independent parties. If that is so, then there is no explanation for why the photo of Krause looks like a painting of someone else. A genuine grieving family wouldn’t stand by as the press promoted a fake photo, or have the desire or resources to manufacture the fake themselves. A competitive and independent press wouldn’t conspire to deface a real photo, print this phony without explanation, or ignore reaction to it from experts.
If any of these parties were independent, this fake would have been corrected or explained decades ago by somebody. This fake photo only makes sense if you believe that the aforementioned parties were in a chain of command, someone high up ordered the fake, and everyone below them merely followed orders. This does not match what we’re supposed to believe about the Kent State Massacre or other such events.
After some years, a second form of this painting entered rotation (above), and is sometimes used instead of the first. But the first has continued to be passed off as real, without comment from any side, for almost fifty years. During which time, many words were printed and videos shot about the massacre. The first fake appeared in that media, too. The people who produced it and many who consumed it could probably tell it was fake. And nobody thought to mention this?
It has I guess more of a photographic feel, and less of a painterly one. But it’s clearly meant to be the same photo. It’s a little harder to tell this one is a fake. I don’t know when it was made, but I haven’t seen it in articles from the 70s or 80s. I guess they needed something that passes for the original fake, but doesn’t look as amateurish. If that was the assignment, this looks like pretty good work to me. So why did no one blow the whistle?
Most likely, many did. But technicians are low on the totem pole, and questions they raise are ignored. Everyone in media has a boss who gives orders, and the top slots in media have been filled by Intelligence since at least the 1950s, as they freely admit. I assume this fake photo issue was raised from the trenches and quashed from above, dozens of times. I am now sliding it sideways to you, bypassing our respective chains of command.
“Aha,” you say, “What if the family submitted a cherished painting by an inept artist?” or “That was 1970, standards were low for photos.” To that I reply, please explain how the only photo on Krause’s Wikipedia page in 2017 is a different version of the same fake. If the first fake was a bad painting submitted by the family, why not identify it as a painting, and why later try to make it look like a photo?
The simplest explanations I have for why the photos are fake, are:
1. Intelligence needed Krause to be the darling of the event (as you will see later), but a bigwig decided she was too homely for that role. So they fabricated a more attractive face for her.
2. Krause has a distinctive face, which I will show you. They didn’t want to blow her cover for decades to come by showing millions of people a memorable face in 1970.
Perhaps you have a simpler explanation. If so, I’d love to hear it.
Here is Krause, who parts her hair in the center. This is what real photos of people look like:
Please go to this PDF file read the entire essay.
Doesn’t it seem as though the entire edifice of the American experience has been the creation of someone else and now this “fake” artificial existence is falling apart? If this is the case, and it is looking to be the case with every post here, what will this current system be replaced with and by who?
Russians to Investigate Whether America Really Landed on the Moon