No way! (Way.)

Some time ago we did some work here with the help of commenter Richard Juckes. It had to do with a visit to the grave of Eva Peron in Buenos, Argentina by my wife and I in 2018. I noticed that she was supposedly 30 when she died, but later learned that she was 33. I immediately suspected a fake death. I started work on the piece in 2018 – as I recall now, we were in Patagonia, and then Argentina, and that it was summer there while winter here. Here’s the original piece.


That would have been the end of the project, just another fake death. But Juckes had more to offer – guess who was Evita’s daughter later in life? Madonna, the singer. And, by no coincidence, it was Madonna that played Eva in the 1996 movie Evita. Here is the follow-up piece.

Later still, we would learn that Isabel Peron, President of Argentina from 1974 to 1976, was Eva’s sister, and that she too was said to be married to Juan Peron. There is no point now in linking to that piece, as the photos are all gone, removed by that mysterious hand. But trust, me, we had a photo of post-death Eva sitting on a couch with Isabel, and they were dead ringers.

The reason I am writing this is because of an astounding piece of photo sleuthing by Miles Mathis. (See addendum on page 11 of this piece concerning the fake death of Natalie Wood.)

I am going to leave you hanging. Go to the piece, read for yourself, judge for yourself. Then we can discuss.

And the beat goes on: Inés Zorreguieta, younger sister of the Netherlands Queen Máxima, was found dead in her Buenos Aires apartment back in 2018. The photo below … I am seeing a family resemblance, perhaps to Madonna.

Dead Princess

Her age at death? Need I say?

79 thoughts on “No way! (Way.)

  1. I can’t agree with Miles’ thinking that Maria is Anastasia Romanova, Natalie’s mother was 11 years younger, was 5ft 0″ (Anastasia was 5ft 9″) with brown hair (Anastasia’s hair was auburn).-

    Maria and her mother –


    1. Natalie’s mother was 11 years younger, was 5ft 0″ (Anastasia was 5ft 9″) with brown hair (Anastasia’s hair was auburn).

      The dates and measures can be fabricated. Since we have never seen Anastasia and Maria Gurdin together in real life, it is really hard to say. Plus, they can change hair color with dyes, which is a no-brainer.

      I also suspect that Anastasia may have ended up in the Philippines as a Russian emigre, later known as Lola Tasia (“Grandmama Tasia” by her family).From what I’ve heard, Tasia is an abbreviation of Anastasia, which is very telling. It has been said this mysterious lady came from Russian nobility.


      1. The Philippines historically has been one of the hiding-places of Russian emigres. The Romanovs owned hunting lodges there. It’s a very compelling theory.

        Here’s the Facebook page of Tasia’s granddaughter, Caty Peterson:


        1. I see a similarity in how the lowercase “a” is drawn in both signatures. It looks like the signatory (or signatories) drew the “a” starting from the middle and then spiraled outward. Could it be a coincidence? Or is it a solid match? I’m no graphologist. Now I’m wondering how different people write the letter “a”.


        1. Is it possible that Maria Gurdin, if she was Anastasia, was disguising her writing style? Lots of people do that.

          As for eye color, since most photos we have of the two are in black-and-white, it is really hard to say what their actual eye pigmentations were. The few that are in color probably had the eyes shaded differently to deflect attention from the truth.

          Maybe you’re right, but who knows…


          1. There’s a whole lot of books been written about Anastasia and the rest of the Imperial family, and in some of them physical descriptions are given based on testimonies of people who knew them, relatives, servants, etc.


            1. There’s a whole lot of books been written about Anastasia and the rest of the Imperial family….

              So what? That still doesn’t prove that they were two different people or the same person.

              ….in some of them physical descriptions are given based on testimonies of people who knew them, relatives, servants, etc.

              Regarding testimonies, people can (and do) lie. How do you know what they said were true and not falsehoods concerning the physical descriptions of these people if you never knew them personally? How is someone’s word of mouth proof that Anastasia’s eye color was blue, for example?


  2. Harry,

    Just wanted to say thanks for your material so far. Please keep it coming, I’m liking it quite a bit 🙂


  3. Finally have a chance to offer my two rubles worth.
    The most compelling aspect about the Mathis post is the parallel boasts of Maria Gurdin which is wholly consistent with the tradition of royal biographies being rewritten as more palatable narratives for mass consumption (ie, rags to riches) yet offering for those eyes that can see, the true history of the Royal in question.

    The most insidious example of this is the narrative of Julius Caesar being overwritten as the narrative of Jesus in the Ur Marcus gospel. (The nom de plume, Marcus, gives a huge clue as to which Royal line sponsored that transposition of the story of the most powerful man on earth to the humblest man on earth, but with cosmic powers)

    The other key point to make is that Natalie Wood was an actor. By my reckoning that makes her a Royal bastard. IMO, the famous in all fields are just that: illegitimate but of the blood. This is the celebrity blind that the hidden hands of the upper echelon hide behind while their bastard whelps distract us.

    This begs a question, though: Was Anastasia a bastard? My guess is yes, and that’s why her persona was used for the ongoing mystery. If found out, there could be some plausible deniability. But the mystery was sponsored by the media over the years to keep eyes off the true movements of the real Romanov’s while selling the hoax of the family being executed.

    Another clue is the hemophiliac son. It is conceded that viability through the Romanov males was an issue because of hemophilia extending from Queen Victoria and Prince Albert and, IMO, had to be addressed by mating the Tsar with a more viable royal womb. Given that Natalie looks Spanish enough to play a Puerto Rican*, I would suggest a Spanish mother gave birth to Anastasia/Maria. This would align with the Russian presence in the former Spanish holdings in the Philippines being a possible place of refuge.

    (The most beautiful sound I ever heard: Maria, Maria, Maria, Maria . . .All the beautiful sounds of the world in a single word . .Maria, Maria, Maria, Maria . . .Maria!)

    *It goes without saying that some will suggest that Spanish should be read as Jewish. You pick ‘em.


    1. Was the Tsarevich really a haemophiliac?

      Many years ago, I read that Alexei would bleed after a fall WEEKS after the event, whereas true haemophiliacs bleed as soon as the injury occurs. The author also poured scorn on the notion that haemophilia was in Victoria’s son Leopold who bled to death after his hitting his head against a stone staircase. Unfortunately, I can’t recall either the book title nor the writer.


    2. This is the second time (by my knowledge) that you have invoked Spanish intercession in the royal lines to overcome the problems of inbreeding, the other with Juan Carlos and Princess Diana, odd duck Charles obviously odd man out.

      It floats … it makes sense. Are you aware of a short-lived TV series on the Romanov’s on Amazon Prime … I think it has disappeared. It operated on the assumption that the family died and that the more distant remainders had westernized, and then did little vignettes, like a poisoning on a train, to show how they were coping in modern days. I liked the Rachmaninov opening, complete with a violin concerto as they are all massacred.

      I thought it odd, that’s all. They focused on a family said to have been extinguished by the Bolsheviks, and drew our attention to many modern day descendants. Maybe had it been allowed to continue, they would have gotten to Tasia?

      According to Wiki, a Romanov TV series does jot exist. Guess I was watching baseball and fantasizing,


      1. Mark- What makes the Spanish compelling is the usurpation of the Hapsburg dynasty by the Bourbon line in the early 1700’s. For me this represents a relatively fresh line of white and red corpuscles injected into the main bloodlines. Natch’, I find that concept redolent of the white and red armies that carved up Russia in the reset of the agrarian east in prep for that end of the map’s introduction to industrialization. That is the armature of official history and Phoney* wars, et al. Moving subsistence resources into industrial overdrive.

        *Forgive the ref but those guys have something, but haven’t really put it in a plausible context. I’m working on a better e’splaination but, brother, do I have a full plate right now.


        1. Don’t know where else to put this but what an insufferable bore MM has become. Absolutely full of himself and the wonders of his magical brain!! The more he praises himself , the more his groupies clap him with open mouths and dulled brains, the more I doubt him.
          I just want YOU to know Mark that of the two of you, YOU are the one I trust. You have extended the hand of friendship but all he does is mock. What does THAT tell us about him? The more he writes the more I doubt.
          Maybe he should just get a job on a genealogy site . That should pay for his paints. Obviously he hasn’t been painting his chocolate box pictures lately . There ARE only 24 hours in the day aren’t there or has Mr. 1% confounded science yet again and discovered there are actually 45?
          Even if this isn’t printed I want you to know that there a lot of us out here who appreciate this site . Keep up the good work.


          1. Just so people know, Steph is not Stephers.

            You must have read his most recent essay, Steph. All I can say is that this is a lonely occupation, and compliments are rare. But I still have high regard for his work, no matter what.


  4. While refreshing my memory on this subject, I was looking into Anna Anderson and I realized that photographs of her at different ages clearly show different women playing the same character. Look at the ears, they change completely in each different photograph.

    Anna Anderson (young):

    Anna Anderson (old):

    Anastasia Romanov (this is the best I can find, sorry):

    Very strange, indeed.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I think it’s likely that the 1st Anna Anderson (played by Franciska Schanscowska) was replaced by the 2nd Anna Anderson, played by an elderly Anastasia Romanov. So yes, IMO, Anastasia did play Anna Anderson for a little while as she was playing other characters simultaneously.


        1. Yes, I’ve heard of her before. She claimed to be the secret fifth daughter of Nicholas II, the last Tsar of Russia. Apparently, her claim was accepted by Anna Anderson, who I now suspect was played by more than one woman, one of whom was indeed the real Anastasia. Thanks for the reminder.

          Here’s a picture of Suzanna. She looks a little bit like Tatiana Romanov, don’t you agree?

          And here’s additional information on de Graaff, if you’re interested. It’s been said that Tsarina Alexandra suffered from either a phantom pregnancy or a miscarriage, as mentioned in some of the personal writings of the Romanovs. If Suzanna’s claims were true, that could mean that the explanations provided in private letters and diaries about this episode were cover stories for this unwanted fifth pregnancy.



          1. I’m sure you are aware that there was a 2007 expedition done by Dr. Anthony Falsetti and co., which is said to have finally solved the puzzle of what happened to the Romanovs. Falsetti was also recently involved in the Gabby Petito hoax. Knowing all of that, it appears that his surname is definitely appropriate for such a man.


            He also has an IMBD page, so he’s an actor.


            To this end, with the assistance of Dr. Anthony Falsetti, the director of the C.A. Pound Human Id Lab., SEARCH brought the US Armed Forces DNA Identification Laboratory (AFDIL) and the University of Innsbruck Institute of Legal Medicine (ILM) Laboratory onboard to conduct DNA studies on the remains of Romanov family. Dr. Michael Coble, Chief of the AFDIL Research Section, was the lead scientist of the American team and Dr. Walther Parson leading ILM.

            Dr. Falsetti came onboard as the 12th. Forensic Anthropologist to examine the newly found remains. In November 2007 Drs. Coble and Falsetti as well as Capt. Sarandinaki traveled to Ekaterinburg to meet the Russian team and to plan the work ahead.


            Considering the fact that the bones were subject to such extreme weather conditions for almost a century, I’m surprised they got any genetic material at all out of them (assuming any of this is true, of course). But ultimately, you decide that for yourself.

            And toppled with the fact that the bones also suffered sulfuric burns, the story seems more implausible than imagined. It all smells of a fake.

            But what do you think? Ultimately, you have to decide this for yourself.


          2. Thanks Harry, I’ve read numerous books on the Romanovs, including some about Ann Anderson (her lips are full compared with Anastasia’s thin lips), and one of my favourite’s (along with Mangold and Summer’s ‘The File on The Tsar’) is Edvard Radzinsky’s ‘The Last Tsar’ in which the author asks the question did Alix have another daughter.
            He also mentions how the gun that ‘killed’ the Tsar was a US Colt pistol which according to the US army quartermaster files was still in the US in 1918.
            Boris Yeltsin’s ordering the bulldozing of the Ipatiev House is a huge red flag IMO.


            1. You’re welcome, as always. Another question that comes to mind is why weren’t their alleged murderers caught in the act as their bodies were being transferred and destroyed? History says that the White Army was just a few days short of capturing Yekaterinburg, so they didn’t have much time left to wrap-up this huge operation of disposing the corpses of 11 people before the counter-revolutionaries would seize the city and perhaps apprehend them in the process.

              Also, the destruction and burial of the bodies wasn’t swift and effective, nor did all the participants make sure to keep quiet of what happened. In fact, as the above documentary aptly described, it was a terrible “fiasco”. The disintegration of the bodies was disastrous and they had to resort to chopping up the corpses into smaller pieces in order to hasten the process.

              They had to change burial spots periodically, and there were third-party witnesses to the entire thing. Some of the killers would later spill the tea on the entire debacle to people close by shortly afterwards, causing many to be suspicious of the Bolshevik government’s claim that most of the family and their staff were still alive bar the Tsar. I’m surprised it didn’t go any further than that.

              Oh, and here’s a bonus article you can read about the questionable nature of the bones revealed more 70 years after the events of 1918. It was first published in 2004, so it’s pretty old, but it does provide some valid questions about the veracity of the alleged Romanov remains officially discovered in 1991 (they were actually first discovered in 1978, but that had to be kept secret until the fall of the U.S.S.R.)

              A team led by Alec Knight, a senior scientist in the Stanford lab of anthropological sciences Assistant Professor Joanna Mountain, argues that previous DNA analyses of the purported Romanov remains — nine skeletons unearthed near Ekaterinburg in central Russia — are invalid. Knight and his colleagues base their claim on molecular and forensic inconsistencies they see in the original genetic tests, as well as their independent DNA analysis of the preserved finger of the late Grand Duchess Elisabeth — sister of Tsarina Alexandra, one of the 1918 victims — which failed to match the tsarina’s own DNA. The Stanford team’s findings are reported in the January/February issue of the Annals of Human Biology.



              1. The article continues to add that:

                “Knight argues these results are too good to be true. In particular, he doubts the researchers could have obtained such long stretches of DNA sequence (a string of 1,223 bases, DNA’s chemical building blocks) from old bones. Citing standards for ancient DNA analysis that were established several years after the 1994 publication, Knight contends that DNA from skeletal remains that spent over 70 years in a shallow, earthen grave would have degraded so severely that sequences longer than 250 bases would have been nearly impossible to recover in lab experiments.

                “Based on what we know now, those bones were contaminated,” Knight said. He considers the successful amplification of a 1,223-base sequence from all nine skeletons in the original study as “certain evidence” that the bone samples were tarnished with fresh, less-degraded DNA — perhaps from an individual who handled the samples.”


            2. He also mentions how the gun that ‘killed’ the Tsar was a US Colt pistol which according to the US army quartermaster files was still in the US in 1918.

              That’s a huge red-flag, if true. A gun cannot be in two places simultaneously, at least not in 1918. There’s no way it could’ve happened that way at the time. It reminds me of the scandal surrounding Oswald’s gun, alleged to have been used in the JFK “assassination”, occurring decades after the Romanovs were allegedly executed.


              1. ‘Colt no. 71905 with a cartridge clip and seven bullets, and Mauser no. 167177 with a wooden gunstock and a cartridge clip with ten bullets.’

                Same gun?:

                Liked by 1 person

                1. Thanks for the find. I gladly appreciate it. From reading the document, it seems plausible to me that we’re looking at the same pistol based on this particular gun’s descriptions. Nothing is out of the question at this point.


                    1. Wouldn’t surprise me, Tyrone. Irony at its finest. And it’s not just Big Capital that funded the Bolsheviks, but also Marxism itself (Marx, of course, was a scion of the capitalist elite).


            3. Boris Yeltsin’s ordering the bulldozing of the Ipatiev House is a huge red flag IMO.

              Indeed. We often see them demolish their sets to destroy any on-sight evidence of hoaxing. They did that with the Ford Theater. They did the same with Sandy Hook. The list goes on and on.

              Speaking of which, there are many photos that exist of the infamous Ipatiev House cellar. I’ll show you three here, as well as provide a link to a slideshow of photographs from the crime scene.


              Ipatiev Cellar Slideshow Pics:


              If you notice, there’s really no distributed blood spray all over the cellar. You only see what looks to be bullet holes and a damaged wall next to a two-door entrance to a storage place. They claim that it was a bloody massacre and bullets ricocheted from surface-to-surface, causing more damage and bloodshed in the process, yet we don’t see any real indicators of such things in the photographic evidence. You also see no blood-stains on the floor, although it’s possible that it was cleaned before additional damage was done to the wall panel opposite the entrance to the cellar. Nonetheless, it’s terribly suspicious, to say the least.

              Before I wrap this up, one thing needs to be said: DYK that the mansion where the Romanovs spent their “last days” was named after a monastery where the imperial family trace their roots back? I’m not making this up.

              During the Time of Troubles in Russia, the Ipatiev Monastery was occupied by the supporters of False Dmitriy II in the spring of 1609. In September of that same year, the monastery was captured by the Muscovite army after a long siege. On March 14, 1613, the Zemsky Sobor announced that Mikhail Romanov, who was in this monastery at the time, would be the Russian tsar.


              What goes around, comes around.


                1. No blood anywhere besides what’s on the doors (which is very little). We see a couple bullet holes, but no serious indication that anyone was murdered here. And considering the fact that they claim 11 people were slaughtered in that cellar, blood and different bodily pieces should’ve covered every part of the room, including the floor. Yet we don’t see nearly as much of any in all the pictures taken in the crime scene. It reminds me of the lack of blood-stains on Jackie’s iconic pink suit, just after JFK was “shot” three times on Elm St.

                  Also, why was the wall panel damaged? This was taken right after Yekaterinburg was captured by the White Army, and the “House of Special Purpose” was in the city. They would’ve tried to preserve evidence of what happened to their imperial royal family, including preserving the Ipatiev cellar for posterity. Unless the Bolsheviks damaged the room further to cover-up their crime before pro-Tsarist forces captured Yekaterinburg, this doesn’t make any sense.


                  1. In ‘The File on The Tsar’ book by Mangold and Summers, if I remember correctly, the damage to the room was done by the White troops looking for evidence!
                    There was a programme about the book, however there are only two parts of the 4(?) part documentary –


                    1. Ironic, isn’t it? You’d think that they would’ve preserved what they found in the cellar as precious relics of the Romanovs’ “martyrdom” at the hands of Bolshevik “vandals” 😉. Instead, they just simply destroy them like it’s nothing of value. Perhaps this was done to hide the fact that there were no blood-stains and/or additional bullet holes in damaged parts of the wall panel? Reminds me of how Oswald conveniently wore a warm black shirt to hide the lack of blood on his person after Ruby feigned shooting him shortly after the JFK hoax.

                      BTW, thanks for including those invaluable videos documenting the possibility that the ci-devant (former) imperial royal family didn’t really die inside that cellar in the summer of 1918. I suspect that the scriptwriters were already catching on to the persistent rumors that they (or at least of some) were still alive. If the Romanovs’ execution in Yekaterinburg was a hoax, and if they wanted to not let that be confirmed, it’s likely they probably staged fake burial sites in Koptyaki forest to mislead future diggers and the public from finding out the real truth. After all, that Stanford article seems to indicate that something was awry about the retrieval and identification of the alleged Romanov remains.


          3. I find it hard to believe the Queen of any country would have an unwanted child. Given that matrilineal descent may be the prime factor in succession of power, even if the males appear to rule, then the Tsarina was having someone else’s child as part of the viability project of the inbred royals.


            1. Well, considering the fact that they were desperate for a son to shore up the Romanov line of succession, it wouldn’t be too farfetched to believe that they would’ve hidden an “unwanted” child (be it a fifth daughter or a bastard) somewhere else far away from public scrutiny.


            2. Is it possible that Maria Romanov was actually the bastard and not Anastasia? Of all the Romanov girls, she bore the least resemblance to any member of her immediate family. Anastasia looked too much like Nicholas II to not be his biological daughter. That may also explain why Maria/Anna Anderson’s DNA didn’t match the Romanovs’ or Prince Philip’s DNA samples.


              1. Marie (2nd right) in this picture looks similar to Alexei (in the middle) –

                Anna Anderson’s DNA doesn’t match up as she wasn’t Anastasia, and her English isn’t fluent. The Tsarina, who lost her mother when she was 6 years old, was raised by her British relatives in Britain. Nicholas spoke perfect English, it became the default private language of their family. For example, their letters to each other were written in English.


                1. To be honest, she doesn’t look a lot like Alexei, nor does she strongly resemble anyone else in that photograph.

                  As for Anna Anderson’s lack of fleuncy in English, I cannot say one way or another about that. Maybe she really had nothing to do with the Romanovs prior to her discovery in the early 20s. It could also be that she might’ve lost her proficiency in the language overtime.


                  1. To be honest, she is similar, I even did a ‘half n half’ a la Mark and they matched up.

                    Anna Anderson’s lack of English fluency is clearly evident in her interviews.


                    1. For your claim that Maria resembled her immediate family, let’s agree to disagree. Frankly, to my eyes, Alexei looks more like Anastasia in that photograph than he does Maria.

                      I don’t doubt that “Fräulein Unbekannt’s” (Anna Anderson) lackluster English skills are apparent in the recorded interviews she gave. I’m simply suggesting that there could be more than one reason to explain that.

                      Anyways, I wish you luck! Peace & love.


        2. Nice, thanks for that link. She could have been my grandma (year and birthplace only, no royal ties for me).

          Daughter of Lena Corona (Kroon), funny minisync)


    2. It’s also possible that Anna Anderson was actually played by Maria Romanov, the older sister of Anastasia. They looked pretty similar to each other. Anna was simply the emaciated, prematurely aged version of Maria.

      Anna Anderson, ca. 1922:

      Maria Romanov, ca. 1915:

      Their ears also match. Here are more comparisons.

      Maria Romanov:

      Anna Anderson:


        1. Maybe, maybe not. It’s been said that the 1916 photograph of Franciska Shanskowska was tampered with or had been completely forged using Anna Anderson’s face as a base. The photograph to our left doesn’t look or feel particularly real, whereas the photo to our right has no such problems.


  5. Another story that’s built on a faulty foundation is the Russian Revolution of 1905. Studying its contents with a discerning eye, there are certain elements which makes no sense, just like the events of 1917 in Russia.

    Starting with the fact that they admit it actually wasn’t a revolution at all. The leader of the movement, Father Georgy Gapon, discouraged any effective civil disobedience against the Tsarist regime, even going so far as to encourage his following to “tear up leaflets that supported revolutionary aims.”

    “The march on the Winter Palace was not a revolutionary or rebellious act, though it was done against the permission of public authorities. Political groups, such as the Bolsheviks, Mensheviks, and the Social Revolutionaries disapproved of the procession due to its lack of political demands.[14] Father Gapon even encouraged his followers to tear up leaflets that supported revolutionary aims.[15] The majority of Russian workers retained their traditional conservative values of Orthodoxy, faith in the autocracy, and indifference to political life.[16] The workers of St. Petersburg wished to receive fair treatment and better working conditions; they decided, therefore, to petition the tsar in hopes he would act on it.”

    Gapon was also an admitted double-agent, and he was close to other agents like Lenin and Trotsky. Meaning, he was controlled opposition, which is indicator that the revolution was manufactured – or at least manipulated – by the usual suspects. To quote the Wikipedia entry on another double-agent, who went by the name of Pinhas Rutenberg (and was Jewish):

    “The plant was a center of the Assembly of Russian Factory and Plant Workers, founded in 1903 by a popular working class leader, Father George Gapon. Gapon collaborated in secret with the Police Department (the Okhrana), which believed this to be the way to control the workers’ movement. Rutenberg became Gapon’s friend, which made him a noticeable figure in the S.R. party.”

    For more information on double-agent and monk Georgy Gapon, read:

    To be continued…


    1. They admit that one of the causes of the 1905 “revolution” was the negative impact “European finance” had on the Russian economy. As we all know, that simply translates to Jewish finance, as ultra-rich Jewish banking houses like the Rothschilds and the Schiffs already owned and managed huge swaths of wealth in Europe through their control of private & public monetary vessels such as banks and national treasuries.

      “Because the Russian economy was tied to European finances, the contraction of Western money markets in 1899–1900 plunged Russian industry into a deep and prolonged crisis; it outlasted the dip in European industrial production. This setback aggravated social unrest during the five years preceding the revolution of 1905.[5]”

      “For one thing, the processes of financing rapid industrialization tied the Russian state and economy more closely to Western Europe. To supplement the weak capacities of the native bourgeoisie, foreign private investors were officially encouraged to invest in industries behind the tariff wall. Foreign capital invested in (mostly heavy-industrial) firms in Russia grew from 215 million rubles in 1890 to 911 million in 1900, to over 2 billion by 1914.”

      So closely, therefore, was the Russian economy tied to European finance that when, in 1899—1900, the Western money markets contracted, Russian industry, which had grown so rapidly in the 1890s, plunged into a crisis deeper and more prolonged than the recession that concurrently struck Western European industry. This setback “aggravated the discontent throughout society in the five years or so preceding the Revolution of 1905.””

      Considering the fact that those same mercantile interests bankrolled the Russian Revolutions of 1917, it’s starting to look like they also played some role in manufacturing this uprising against Tsarist rule.


    2. But that’s not all. Like so many mass casualty events, the number of people involved fluctuate. No one seems to know exactly how many were there, which is pretty suspicious to me, nor is anyone certain of how many died. IMO, they’re indicators that we’re looking at a fake.

      “Holding religious icons and singing hymns and patriotic songs (particularly “God Save the Tsar!”), a crowd of “more than 3,000″[20] proceeded without police interference towards the Winter Palace, the Tsar’s official residence. …. Estimates of the total numbers involved range wildly from police figures of 3,000 to organizers’ claims of 50,000.”

      That’s quite a huge variation. Normally, numerical variations aren’t so stretched out, but here it’s a different story. One must ask where the organizers behind the march got their number of 50,000 from. Did they count every single participant of the event? And if what they said was true, that forces us to ask why did the Tsarist police severely underestimate the number of protesters in St. Petersburg. What’s the point of underestimating the numbers if they were going to be blamed inevitably for their involvement in the massacre that followed?

      Wikipedia goes on to say that:

      “The total number killed in the day’s clashes is uncertain. The Tsar’s officials recorded 96 dead and 333 injured; anti-government sources claimed more than 4,000 dead; moderate estimates still average around 1,000 killed or wounded, both from shots and being trampled during the panic.[24] Another source noted that the official estimate was 132 people killed.[25] Leon Trotsky did not put forward a precise figure but claimed that hundreds were killed and that many of the dead were secretly buried by the authorities.[26]”

      Again, we see the same dilemma here. No one can give us a concise number backed by real data. It changes drastically from source to source. Trotsky’s claim that “many of the dead were secretly buried by the authorities” is also odd. Where did he get that source from? And seems like this was make-up to explain the lack of actual dead bodies, thus making it a form of misdirection. Plus, note the use of spook numbers in the excerpt. That alone says everything to me.


    3. Another thing that doesn’t make any sense is this claim from Wikipedia about how the Russian government dealt with populist opposition. To quote:

      “The Russian term for strike, stachka, was derived from an old colloquial term, stakat’sia- to conspire for a criminal act.”[4] As such, Russian laws viewed strikes as criminal acts of conspiracy and potential catalysts for rebellion. The governmental response to strikes, however, supported the efforts of the workers and promoted strikes as an effective tool that could be used by the workers to help improve their working conditions.”

      Why would a government (especially an autocratic one) that views striking as a criminal offense support the very thing that its laws penalize? That makes no sense whatsoever. It’s like saying that the U.S. supports Islamic terrorism despite previously outlawing it in the country (and reportedly launching a “war on terror” against it). There was no reason for the Tsarist regime to support something they perceived to be illegal and disruptive to their status quo. Unless, of course, it was all faked or staged by the usual suspects.

      And speaking of fakery, there’s visual evidence to support my hypothesis that it was a hoax. The pictures from or relating to the event are clearly anything but genuine pieces of history. They remind me of the Dresden fakes.

      Pinhas Rutenberg:


      1. Rutenberg was also a Zionist. That makes his a Jewish mole for the bankers 100%.

        “Rutenberg set the goal to create a Jewish armed force to fight for the Land of Israel. He visited European capitals, met prominent politicians and Zionist leaders, and finally joined the efforts of Jabotinsky and Trumpeldor to set up the Jewish Legion. In May 1915, on Jabotinsky’s approval, Rutenberg travelled to the United States to promote this idea among the American Jewry.”*

        And here’s more info on his spooky friendship with his partner-in-crime Father Gapon:

        Gapon soon revealed to Rutenberg his contacts with the police and tried to recruit him, too, reasoning that double loyalty is helpful to the workers’ cause. However, Rutenberg betrayed his trust and reported this provocation to his party leaders, Yevno Azef and Boris Savinkov. Azef demanded that the traitor be put to death. Ironically, he was in fact an agent provocateur himself, exposed by Vladimir Burtsev in 1908.

        Once an agent, always an agent.


    4. Rutenberg was also a Zionist. That makes his a Jewish mole for the bankers 100%. As quoted below:

      “Rutenberg set the goal to create a Jewish armed force to fight for the Land of Israel. He visited European capitals, met prominent politicians and Zionist leaders, and finally joined the efforts of Jabotinsky and Trumpeldor to set up the Jewish Legion. In May 1915, on Jabotinsky’s approval, Rutenberg travelled to the United States to promote this idea among the American Jewry.”

      And here’s more info on his spooky friendship with his partner-in-crime Father Gapon:

      “Gapon soon revealed to Rutenberg his contacts with the police and tried to recruit him, too, …. However, Rutenberg betrayed his trust and reported this provocation to his party leaders, Yevno Azef and Boris Savinkov. Azef demanded that the traitor be put to death. Ironically, he was in fact an agent provocateur himself, exposed by Vladimir Burtsev in 1908.”

      Once an agent, always an agent.


    1. yes, as far as I know, Catherine “the great” was the first to implement (test & normalize, see today) mass vaccinations.

      Also in the Kingdom of Naples at that (faking; Pompeii !) time.

      That’s why they push those empires so much in the schoolbooks. Psychos praise psychos.

      Seneca (Belgian forester and oldbie Cluesforum commenter) did the most work in our unraveling of Pompeii, quite the research I am thankful for he jumped onto and inspired me too.

      You find my photos of the sea-Vesuvio hike (in 2.5 hours, as the only hiker that day) and the Pompeii visit and seneca’s and mine comments about them in the Eye am Eye Radio Discord.


        1. Despite the uproar over Gatti’s mistake, the smallpox inoculation eventually became more accepted in France. It happened after Louis XV died from the disease and Louis XVI and his brothers got a smallpox inoculation, partly because Marie Antoinette encouraged it. Their bravery created a fad or a craze among nobility. Moreover, Marie Antoinette celebrated the King’s inoculation by commissioning a special towering headdress that became known as the coiffure à l’inoculation and included a serpent wrapped around an olive tree.”



      1. I must say that for such an event as huge as Pompeii, it’s very suspicious that there’s only one surviving eyewitness account of what happened. As this was a very public catastrophe, I’d expect dozens of first-hand accounts popping up about the event had this been real.


        1. If you follow the Roman Piso/Abelard Reuchlin arguments, Rome’s publishing was very tightly controlled. Literacy was a weapon and you needed a license to carry it, so to speak. Such an approach would certainly keep the official narrative securely guarded. Other versions that did not meet the needs of the dominant agenda would not survive. That and storage space concerns could kill any account if need be.


          1. That may partially explain why there weren’t as many accounts about what happened coming out of the Roman empire. Those who were Roman citizens that wanted to publish their own version of what happened clearly had no chance of publicity if intend to express themselves in a Roman press that was tightly controlled by the state.

            On the other hand, I find it odd that there aren’t accounts coming from outside sources (non-Roman accounts published in non-Roman chronicles of the time) that give us different stories. Definitely the Greeks or the Egyptians who were there would’ve mentioned it in their own writings, as there were not only Romans near or in Pompeii during the alleged Mt. Vesuvius eruption in 79 A.D.


            1. I may have to refrain on the Greeks and the Egyptians. Since I realized they were also under Roman rule in 79 A.D., that means they didn’t have it any better either when it came to disseminating information to the masses, as naturally their press would’ve been controlled by the same people, too.

              But still, I’m sure there would’ve been accounts found in personal letters and chronicles from the period (outside Pompeii, of course) that would’ve resurfaced, accounts that were never meant to be published. Unless the Romans also managed to get hold of such accounts and destroyed or hidden them away, it all seems pretty suspicious that nothing of that sort has came to light, besides one dubious account of what happened.


    1. Summers and Mangold’s ‘The file on the Tsar’ revealed that Sokolov’s investigation was seriously flawed, and still worth a read. The DNA findings in the updated versions shouldn’t detract from the original book.


      1. Yes, indeed. The whole “investigation” had been a fiasco from the start. I’m surprised anyone would fully rely on it as a definitive source of what happened to the Romanovs. There are too many plot holes in Sokolov’s version that seriously undermine his report’s veracity.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s