lusi

Here’s a summary of the text with the requested annotations:

This article argues that the sinking of the RMS Lusitania on May 7, 1915, was faked, similar to the author’s claims about the Titanic. The author points to inconsistencies and implausibilities in the official narrative, suggesting numerology and deliberate misdirection. Key arguments include:

• Numerology and Inconsistent Details: The author highlights the repeated use of numbers like “aces and eights” (represented by the number 8) in reports and statistics related to the sinking, suggesting deliberate symbolic messaging. Details about cargo, passenger numbers, sinking time, and the number of survivors are questioned for their plausibility and consistency.
• Lack of Naval Protection: Despite the British Admiralty knowing about German U-boats in the area and even tracking U-20, the Lusitania was allegedly sailing with no escort, which the author finds highly suspicious, especially considering the presence of numerous British and US submarines.
• Proximity to Shore and Unrealistic Survival Claims: The author argues that the close proximity of the sinking to the Irish coast makes the high death toll and failure to recover bodies implausible, given ocean currents and the availability of lifeboats. The quick sinking time and supposed difficulty in rescue efforts are also deemed absurd.
• Questionable Burial Sites and Identity: The locations and capacity of cemeteries where victims were allegedly buried are disputed, with claims of mass burials in tiny cemeteries, some on naval bases, raising further doubts. The author also questions the existence of Queenstown, Ireland as a named town in 1915.
• Conflicting Information and Admiralty Actions: The author cites contradictions in the narrative, such as the British navy tracking submarines but failing to protect the Lusitania, or admiralty orders for battleships to stay far from the Irish coast while the Lusitania sailed close.
• Alleged “False Flag” Operation and German Complicity: The article suggests the Lusitania was deliberately put in harm’s way, possibly to draw America into World War I. The author posits that Germany was complicit in the hoax, pointing to their purported warnings to passengers and subsequent reparations as evidence of management by “criminal families” who controlled all sides.
• Involvement of Prominent Figures and Families: The author extensively details the alleged connections of prominent passengers and individuals involved in the event to a network of aristocratic and wealthy families, often tracing lineage back to John of Gaunt. This includes:
  • Alfred Booth (head of Cunard Lines) and his family connections.
  • Alfred Gwynne Vanderbilt, whose body was never recovered, and his alleged role.
  • Actress Rita Jolivet and producer Charles Frohman, whose purported deaths are questioned.
  • Lord Mersey (John Bigham, Viscount Mersey), who presided over the Lusitania inquiry and previously the Titanic and RMS Empress of Ireland inquiries, suggesting his involvement in multiple faked events.
  • Judge Julius Mayer, who also heard Titanic claims, is highlighted as a Jewish figure overseeing the US claims.
  • William Thomas Turner (captain of the Lusitania), whose career and knighthood are scrutinized.
  • Frederick Stark Pearson, an engineer with extensive family ties to the owners.
  • William Brodrick Cloete, an industrialist with prominent family connections.
  • Elbert Green Hubbard, a writer whose alleged death and pardon are questioned, linking him to L. Ron Hubbard.
  • Alice Moore (Hubbard’s second wife).
  • Gardiner Greene Hubbard, founder of AT&T.
  • Frances Ramsey McIntosh Stephens, a socialite whose body was allegedly lost twice.
• Destruction of the Wreck: The author claims the Royal Navy intentionally destroyed the wreck of the Lusitania after World War II with depth charges and mines to prevent verification that it was not the actual ship, suggesting an old ship was sunk there and then disguised. The sale of the wreck to a US diver and subsequent restrictions on exploration are also noted.

The overall argument is that the RMS Lusitania incident was a staged event, a “hoax” or “con job” orchestrated by powerful families and governments for financial gain and political manipulation.