Is General Robert E. Lee dead in this 1865 photo?


Well-known member
Why do so many important figures, such as generals, have clothes that are too tight? Looks like clothes have been taken from wardrobe department and female dummies have been dressed in them. The sleeves are too big on many of them. In battle, seems like they would not want a bunch of extra material around their arms that could get caught on something.
The proportions are all off. Some look as though their shoulders and arms have been padded or stuffed. Those whose shoulders haven't been padded - the shoulders are way to small for their heads.
Yes, once you see it, they are all obvious ladies. American Civil War a Photographic History
Tiny feet and hands, wide hips, shoulders too narrow. Ladies arms too short for men's coats.
If you look closely , you can often see where the breast were taped down.


I recommend everyone study this. It is ego crushing.


This guy has buttons on top of the beard?

Last edited:


Well-known member
Yes, once you see it, they are all obvious ladies. American Civil War a Photographic History
Tiny feet and hands, wide hips, shoulders too narrow. Ladies arms too short for men's coats.
If you look closely , you can often see where the breast were taped down.

I recommend everyone study this. It is ego crushing.

This guy has buttons on top of the beard?

I have delved deeply into the transgender rabbit hole. Every rabbit hole I go down is beyond disturbing. What disturbs me the most is that every "conspiracy" was pointed out to me, and only then could I see it. I would like to think that I have ideas of my own, but honestly, I cannot say I have any original insights. That is to say, I am not sure any of my thoughts originate from me.
Everything I am is a conglomeration of external stimuli. Dave J pointed out the Civil War pictures being a farce. Only then could I see it. John Humanity pointed out the transgenders, only then could I see it. Jon Humanity then led me to Nik Research who pointed out falsified history, and only then could I see it.
My point is: We are on the conspiracy program. Everyone else is on the television program. Everything here is a program based on belief. Do I see what I see because it is the truth, or do I see what I see because I am under a new program?
I am not saying we are mistaken in seeing through this illusion. I am merely questioning where our ideas come from and why.
Everybody sees what they want to believe. Ignorance is truly bliss in this realm. The root of ignorance is ignore. If we ignore what displeases us, then we have an opportunity at some semblence of happiness.
We live in a realm that rewards ignorance and slaps the moniker of crazy on those who try to think for themselves, and I use the word "try" because I am very doubtful I have succeeded.
This leads me back to The Kybalion. The principle of mentalism is "All is Mind". If all is mind, then mind creates matter. There is no matter. Nothing matters. Our thoughts create our reality, but have our thoughts been hijacked?
Is that how this place works? Consensus thought creates reality. Perhaps the more people there are that invest their belief in something, the more real an event is. Take the moon landing for example. As people have quit investing their belief, their energy into it, it has less energy to sustain itself. Perhaps that is why I can see the edge of the moon through Buzz now. Maybe we did land on the moon, but only because the vast majority of people believed we did. As people quit "paying attention" to an event, investing their energy into it, the event has a harder time sustaning itself.
Maybe that is why Civil War pictures now fall apart under such scrutiny. The further in the past an event is, the less people pay attention to it. The event is not being fed enough energy to sustain itself, so it begins to fade away.
The only reason the Kardashians are well-known is because so many people "pay attention" to them. If people were to suddenly lose interest, they would fade away into obscurity. How is history any different?
The more we question "reality", the more it falls apart. We are no longer investing our energy into it, and eveything is energy. Nothing can exist without energy.
We search for truth, but we have to filter the information we receive through less-than-perfect distilleries - our five senses, and these senses have been corrupted. We believe we are thinking for ourselves, but are we?
I can't say for sure that everyone on tv is a transgender individual. I can't say for sure what shape this realm is. I have ideas, but where did those ideas come from?
Everyone in this place has their own peception. Though like-minded people have gathered here, we all still exist in our own "reality bubble", a prison of the mind created by one program or another.
Hell, what I just typed above is probably some mishmash of ideas presented to me by others.
Perhaps this is not the place to share such thoughts, but I will leave you with this: we are products of our environment. Since our environment is a lie, what does that make us?
Last edited:


Well-known member
There is an old saying 'The Camera Never Lies' and it doesn't, but humans do.

A camera only collects light from whatever it is pointed at. Humans invent the narrative.

I would say in the OP image of General Lee, that I would expect some softness, blur around the edges of the subject, even with a few seconds of exposure, this appears too sharp to be a picture of an animate object, even with just a few seconds of exposure.

The truth is you cannot trust any image, ever, and this is only going to get worse and harder to detect real from unreal.

Here's one reason why, none of these people ever existed



Active member
Most of the 'photographs' in the OP are actually drawings. I haven't looked into it much, but the 'photos' of Lincoln you posted are not photos.

Also, the first two images I looked at in the thread show men and boys, not women. (This deception is a kind of ritual for the cult to which these figures belong.)

Nearly all of the first ladies have been men, too.

Since many of the historical figures in the US were created long after their supposed historical dates, I would venture to guess that at least a few of the people above never existed, but were characters played by others.

For example:

Stephen Phelps played Abraham Lincoln.
His brother, William, played his 'wife' Mary Todd Lincoln (and, later, Governor of Georgia)
Another brother, Stephen, played Jefferson Davis (pro-slavery) and John Brown (anti-slavery)
Another brother played Frederick Douglass and Stephen Douglas (his political opponent)

I've provided some info about this deception here: Q Metaphysics: Beyond Reality – The End of Deception and the Rebirth of Humanity but almost none of US history is real. Much of 17th, 18th, and 19th century history was made up in the 20th century to fit a particular narrative.
Last edited:


Well-known member
I do not entertain the possibility of them being dead any longer. Too much work when you have Madam Tussaud, and the British Crown for masterminds.

I think it’s a full scale operation to either fake the entire war, or to substitute the true meaning/causes of that war.
dunno man. this was certainly done heres an example of a really badly done one. why go to the expense of building a million of these things when you could just find a fresh dead guy.


Jim Duyer

Well-known member
The Victorian Era was a pretty morbid time in human history. One of the most unsettling traditions of the era was the practice of post-mortem photography.

Some weird things were happening around the US Civil War times (1861-1865). Is General Lee dead (or made out of wax) in the below photograph taken 5 years before his official death in 1870? Note the stand visible in between his feet.

Officially - On September 28, 1870, Lee suffered a stroke. He died two weeks later, shortly after 9 a.m. on October 12, 1870, in Lexington, Virginia, from the effects of pneumonia. According to one account, his last words on the day of his death, were "Tell Hill he must come up. Strike the tent", but this is debatable because of conflicting accounts and because Lee's stroke had resulted in aphasia, possibly rendering him unable to speak.

View attachment 5185

Exposure requirement - a few seconds after 1845.
(pictures in question are post Civil War)
Exposure Info: The truth is that very early daguerreotypes (those from 1839-1845) did take 60-90 seconds of sitting still to capture an image, but the majority of daguerreotypes we see today are from post-1845, when new technology (the addition of bromine fumes to the process) reduced exposure times to a few seconds. - source

There is a dead person in each of the below photographs - source
You can see in many of these photographs how these methods were used; some photographers managed through clothes and furniture to make them less evident, almost invisible. Some families preferred to have their deceased loved ones photographed as if they were asleep; others wanted a more “alive” feel. Photographers achieved this feeling by using glass eyes and other tricks. - A Brief History Of Post-Mortem Photography

View attachment 5188View attachment 5189View attachment 5190View attachment 5191View attachment 5192View attachment 5193View attachment 5194View attachment 5195View attachment 5196View attachment 5197View attachment 5198View attachment 5199View attachment 5200View attachment 5201

Post-mortem "standing dead" technique

View attachment 5156
View attachment 5157View attachment 5187

* * * * *

What if they are dead?

(or some of them are)

Third guy from the right even has a thumb support lanyard.
They have those support stands. Why?

L to R: 1st-Arthur Boreman; 3rd-Andrew Wilson; 4th D.D.T. Farnsworth; 5th- Henry Dering; 6th- Gibson Cranmer.

View attachment 5211
Larger File

Who looks alive in the below photo? I can see only one.
(back then people did not look at the camera?) - source
General Lee and his Confederate officers in their first meeting since Appomattox, August 1869.
This is the only from life photograph of Lee with his Generals in existence, during the war or after.
View attachment 5213

US Political Establishment - post 1865
(same New-York "chair" photographs) - do these guys look alive?
Can you imagine if none of the below guys including
the first colored senators and representatives ever existed?
View attachment 5210View attachment 5208View attachment 5206View attachment 5212View attachment 5207View attachment 5215View attachment 5214View attachment 5209
View attachment 5227View attachment 5228View attachment 5229View attachment 5230View attachment 5231View attachment 5232View attachment 5233View attachment 5234
For the most of the above, this is the only photo in existence.
As a matter of fact, try to find a different photo of these HUGE political figures.

Abraham Lincoln
1809 – 1865
The only one with multiple photographs is Abraham Lincoln. But I was unable to find a clear photo where you can see his feet unobstructed. He is always either standing or sitting. Unsurprisingly, he sat in that chair as well. And then the Government refused to pay Mathew Brady?

Was the ear reconstructed after Lincoln was shot behind it?
View attachment 5242View attachment 5241

Thank Mathew Brady
(responsible for the above chair photographs)
Mathew B. Brady (May 18, 1822 – January 15, 1896) was one of the earliest photographers in American history, best known for his scenes of the Civil War.

View attachment 5216
1875 photo

Tell tale sign: During the war, Brady spent over $100,000 to create over 10,000 plates. He expected the US government to buy the photographs when the war ended. When the government refused to do so he was forced to sell his New York City studio and go into bankruptcy. Congress granted Brady $25,000 in 1875, but he remained deeply in debt.

- If You Ever See A Photo Like This In A Book, There's Something You Should Know
- A Brief History Of Post-Mortem Photography
- Mathew B. Brady
- Daguerreotype Q&A
- Why people never smiled in old photographs
- A Proximate Violence: Madame Tussaud's Chamber of Horrors

* * * * *​

KD hypothesis: We have seen too many unexplainable, from the traditional historical point of view, things. I understand that this topic is questioning ones's sanity, but somehow, I feel fairly confident suggesting the following.

There was a project meant to falsify a specific period in the history of the world. May be to substitute one meaning of the events with a totally different one. In this case, it is the Civil War, and post Civil War period in the United States. In a short period of time there were multiple photographs taken. Whether those were real dead people, or Madame Tussauds type wax sculptures, I do not know. But I do ask you to pay closer attention to what you are seeing, and try to rationalize certain facts, and occurrences.

Madame Tussauds
By 1835, Marie had settled down in Baker Street, London and opened a museum. One of the main attractions of her museum was the Chamber of Horrors. The name is often credited to a contributor to Punch in 1845, but Marie appears to have originated it herself, using it in advertising as early as 1843.This part of the exhibition included victims of the French Revolution and newly created figures of murderers and other criminals. Other famous people were added, including Lord Nelson and Sir Walter Scott.

Her first wax figure was created in 1777 and was the figure of Voltaire. Some of the figures she made herself still exist. The London gallery originally contained some 400 different figures, but fire damage in 1925 coupled with German bombs in 1941 has rendered most of these older models defunct.

I consider a possibility where none of the people in the photographs in question are alive. Meaning they are either dead, or made out of wax.

The stability support stand: Even for pre-1845 time frame this support stand sounds lame. You can still twitch and twist with it. For the post-1845 technology, requiring only a few seconds to take a photo, I do not see any reasons to use this support stand. Who here can not stand still for 5-10 seconds? So why did they use it? I think this "immobilization technique" story is a cover up for a cover up.

1865 group photo - no support required
(somehow these 1865 guys need no stabilizer support)
View attachment 5244
View attachment 5236View attachment 5237View attachment 5238

KD Opinion: Is this how a part of our fake history was made? I, personally, lean towards these "historical individuals" being made out of wax, for the stand does not appear to be strong enough to support a human body weight. But then again, may be it could.

The photographer died broke. The original Madam Tussauds figures got destroyed. What else is new?

Wonder what that would mean for our history, if such a fakery was indeed carried out.

What if those people never existed?
That said, try to find a photograph of General Lee, where he is not supported by either his saber, a chair, or a support stand.

Note: Reddit's CulturalLayer provided an idea for this article.
Why is his hair puffed up on both sides of his head, when he obviously was recently wearing his hat? When I wear one, the opposite happens - my hair gets crunched down. Very strange. Unless the hair puffed up equally on both sides was something they did to make him look alive.


New member
General Lee's face really doesn't change at all - Even the hair is mostly in the same place, the angle is slightly different and I can't quite tell if his left eye pupil is moving to face the camera :/



Thought provoking information in this thread, thanks to those who commented.

I do wonder about the head stands. Clearly they could support the living and deceased subjects.

I could see where they would be useful to set the framing of the photo before the image was taken, so the person(s) being photographed would be precisely where they were intended in the finished image.

The gif of Lee is fascinating - I do not see how anyone can remain as exact in posture and position after being moved a few feet to the side.