Post by Scatterdome on Oct 30, 2003 23:43:29 GMT
It appears that Faul wasn’t the first imposter to fool the world!
For some time, I have been aware of the theory that George Washington was replaced by Adam Weishaupt, the founder of the Bavarian Illuminati (an offshoot of the Illuminati), in 1785, before he began his first term as president in 1789. But, I never examined the theory until now:
Inspired by the Faul evidence, I downloaded some portraits of Weishaupt, young Washington and the older “Washington,” to see if there's anything out there to back this theory up. To my surprise, the evidence seemed pretty strong! Here we go:
First, here are some portraits of young George Washington. Notice how consistent they are with each other, and note the general shape of his face, especially the small, deep eye-sockets and straight nose.
Now here’s the only portraits of a young Adam Weishaupt that I was able to find. At first glance, it looks like the three Weishaupt portraits don't look too much like each other (due to Illuminati-commissioned artists trying to paint a scary and ugly man in a flattering manner?) but after viewing these, notice how each portrait of the older "Washington" seems to have facial features that have much in common with one or the other of these three Weishaupt portraits:
Now here are some portraits of "President Washington." Note the huge eyesockets, bent nose, and the shape of the hairline. (The latter factor may be nothing if there were wigs involved.) Also, notice how widely each portrayal of "President Washington" differs from the next! Could these artists have each been painting their own take on a composite between Weishaupt and Washington, while Weishaupt posed?
It is true that the nose of Weishaupt in his official portraits (as Adam Weishaupt) appears smaller than post-1785 Washington's, but there may be several reasons for this: 1) Noses grow with age, which is why some elderly people have huge noses; 2) The aforementioned possible intended flattery of young Weishaupt by intimidated artists; 3) Post-1785 Washington portraits, if Weishaupt was indeed his imposter, would have probably been commissioned by the Illuminati to be purposely painted as composites between the man posing for the portrait (Weishaupt) and features taken from portraits of the real Washington, factoring in that the real Washington's prominent Roman nose was his most memorable facial feature. If there's one consistent feature between post-1785 Washington portraits, it seems to be that the nose has Weishaupt's bent shape but Washington's size.
If different artists in the know were given said instructions by the Illuminati when painting post-1785 "Washington," it would certainly explain those portraits' inconsistencies with themselves! Paintings designed to combine features of the two men would have been one of the only illusions necessary to keep up such a major fact covered up over the years, since there were no cameras in 1785, and the majority of the relatively few people who knew George Washington before 1785 were either soldiers, Illuminati "founding fathers," or government/military people unknowingly working for Illuminati superiors. Maybe those who notice how different each portrait post-1785 Washington is from the last were expected to explain that by different artists with different styles, but portraits of a president really should be more consistent with each other. For example, look at the consistency within the portraits of pre-1785 Washington! If pre-1785 General Washington had the clout to get such consistently realistic artists, President Washington should have had even more clout, enough to find even more realistic artists.
Finally, consider this: maybe the reason the portrait below this paragraph was chosen for the one dollar bill is that it was one of the most convincing composites of the two Washingtons painted to be precisely that! (Remember that the picture of “Paul” on the cover of “Let It Be” is a composite of Paul and Faul; my guess is that this concept also applies here!)
For some time, I have been aware of the theory that George Washington was replaced by Adam Weishaupt, the founder of the Bavarian Illuminati (an offshoot of the Illuminati), in 1785, before he began his first term as president in 1789. But, I never examined the theory until now:
Inspired by the Faul evidence, I downloaded some portraits of Weishaupt, young Washington and the older “Washington,” to see if there's anything out there to back this theory up. To my surprise, the evidence seemed pretty strong! Here we go:
First, here are some portraits of young George Washington. Notice how consistent they are with each other, and note the general shape of his face, especially the small, deep eye-sockets and straight nose.
Now here’s the only portraits of a young Adam Weishaupt that I was able to find. At first glance, it looks like the three Weishaupt portraits don't look too much like each other (due to Illuminati-commissioned artists trying to paint a scary and ugly man in a flattering manner?) but after viewing these, notice how each portrait of the older "Washington" seems to have facial features that have much in common with one or the other of these three Weishaupt portraits:
Now here are some portraits of "President Washington." Note the huge eyesockets, bent nose, and the shape of the hairline. (The latter factor may be nothing if there were wigs involved.) Also, notice how widely each portrayal of "President Washington" differs from the next! Could these artists have each been painting their own take on a composite between Weishaupt and Washington, while Weishaupt posed?
It is true that the nose of Weishaupt in his official portraits (as Adam Weishaupt) appears smaller than post-1785 Washington's, but there may be several reasons for this: 1) Noses grow with age, which is why some elderly people have huge noses; 2) The aforementioned possible intended flattery of young Weishaupt by intimidated artists; 3) Post-1785 Washington portraits, if Weishaupt was indeed his imposter, would have probably been commissioned by the Illuminati to be purposely painted as composites between the man posing for the portrait (Weishaupt) and features taken from portraits of the real Washington, factoring in that the real Washington's prominent Roman nose was his most memorable facial feature. If there's one consistent feature between post-1785 Washington portraits, it seems to be that the nose has Weishaupt's bent shape but Washington's size.
If different artists in the know were given said instructions by the Illuminati when painting post-1785 "Washington," it would certainly explain those portraits' inconsistencies with themselves! Paintings designed to combine features of the two men would have been one of the only illusions necessary to keep up such a major fact covered up over the years, since there were no cameras in 1785, and the majority of the relatively few people who knew George Washington before 1785 were either soldiers, Illuminati "founding fathers," or government/military people unknowingly working for Illuminati superiors. Maybe those who notice how different each portrait post-1785 Washington is from the last were expected to explain that by different artists with different styles, but portraits of a president really should be more consistent with each other. For example, look at the consistency within the portraits of pre-1785 Washington! If pre-1785 General Washington had the clout to get such consistently realistic artists, President Washington should have had even more clout, enough to find even more realistic artists.
Finally, consider this: maybe the reason the portrait below this paragraph was chosen for the one dollar bill is that it was one of the most convincing composites of the two Washingtons painted to be precisely that! (Remember that the picture of “Paul” on the cover of “Let It Be” is a composite of Paul and Faul; my guess is that this concept also applies here!)
Except that the peons can pool their bits and pieces of information into a whole that has a lot of power, hey whose bright idea was this internet anyway!? 