This is another story that completely falls apart with any research.

Here are the first clues that got me in:

at the sailing of the Bounty, William Bligh was 33 and only a lieutenant.

Vice-Admiral William Bligh, FRS (9 September 1754 – 7 December 1817) was a Royal Navy officer and colonial administrator who served as the governor of New South Wales from 1806 to 1808. He is best known for his role in the mutiny on HMS Bounty, which occurred in 1789 when the ship was under his command. The reasons behind the mutiny continue to be debated. After being set adrift in Bounty's launch by the mutineers, Bligh and those loyal to him stopped for supplies on Tofua, losing one man to native attacks. Bligh and his men reached Timor alive, after a journey of 3,618 nautical miles (6,700 km; 4,160 mi).

That makes no sense because they wouldn't have given command to someone that young, with so little experience, and with such low rank.

Ship captains are usually actual captains, or at least commanders, and some are admirals.

Long and important expeditions around the world are not led by 33-year-old non-gentleman lieutenants.

In the movies they fudge this fact by having older actors play the part.

Trevor Wallace Howard-Smith (29 September 1913 – 7 January 1988) was an English stage and screen actor. After varied work in the theatre, he achieved leading man star status in the film Brief Encounter (1945), followed by The Third Man (1949), portraying what BFI Screenonline called “a new kind of male lead in British films: steady, middle-class, reassuring…. but also capable of suggesting neurosis under the tweedy demeanour.”

Trevor Howard was almost 50 when he played Bligh in 1962 and Anthony Hopkins was 46 in 1984's The Bounty.

Sir Philip Anthony Hopkins (born 31 December 1937) is a Welsh actor. One of Britain's most recognizable and prolific actors, he is known for his performances on the screen and stage. Hopkins has received numerous accolades, including two Academy Awards, four BAFTA Awards, two Primetime Emmy Awards, and a Laurence Olivier Award. He has also received the Cecil B. DeMille Award in 2005 and the BAFTA Fellowship for lifetime achievement in 2008. He was knighted by Queen Elizabeth II for his services to drama in 1993.

This was allegedly an expensive and important expedition, one that was given permission to attempt to go round the Horn, and there is no chance that would be assigned to a lieutenant.

Marlon Brando Jr. (April 3, 1924 – July 1, 2004) was an American actor. Widely regarded as one of the greatest cinema actors of the 20th century, Brando received numerous accolades throughout his career, which spanned six decades, including two Academy Awards, two Golden Globe Awards, a Cannes Film Festival Award, three British Academy Film Awards, and an Emmy Award. Brando is credited with being one of the first actors to bring the Stanislavski system of acting and method acting to mainstream audiences.

In the 1962 film, Marlon Brando as Fletcher Christian admits that only Admiral Anson had succeeded in rounding the Horn before them, and that if they did so in winter in a boat the size of the Bounty, they would go down in history, setting several records.

Fletcher Christian (25 September 1764 – 20 September 1793) was an English sailor who led the mutiny on the Bounty in 1789, during which he seized command of the Royal Navy vessel HMS Bounty from Lieutenant William Bligh.

Anson hadn't done it in winter, hadn't done it in a ship like the Bounty, and had nonetheless lost half his ships and 2/3rds of his crew—some of them mutinying (see the HMS Wager).

A further problem is that very little is known of this Captain Bligh.

No place of birth is given, and we are supposed to believe his mother was past 40 at his birth.

She was a Balsam, and his father was allegedly not a gentleman.

Bligh allegedly signed on with the Navy at age seven, another ridiculous story, the purpose of which I was not able to discover.

Probably to again hide his true roots or age.

At age 21 Bligh was selected by Captain Cook as sailing master for the Resolution, which again seems very unlikely, since we are supposed to believe Bligh was one of the top officers on the ship after the death of Cook.

What they appear to be covering with all this fudging of:

and relationships, is that Bligh was actually closely related to the Blighs, Earls of Darnley, and was therefore working with British Intelligence from the beginning.

So, the claim he wasn't a gentleman is just the usual lie.

He was probably a hidden brother or close cousin of the 4th Earl, whose sister Lady Catherine married Charles Vane ne Stewart, Marquess of Londonderry and later a general and Privy Counsellor.

This also linked him to the:

and O'Briens.

This is pretty much admitted in that the Earls of Darnley of County Meath, Ireland, were recently descended from John Bligh of Plymouth, a Commissioner of Customs and Excise.

In Captain Bligh's bio they admit his great-grandfather was indeed a John Bligh, and that he himself was born in Plymouth, not Cornwall.

Captain Bligh's father Francis was also a Customs Officer:

it was in the family.

So, they hide the truth, but as usual not very well.

They just figure you won't look very hard.

In fact, all you have to do is look for our William Bligh in the peerage.

He is there.

Proving he was indeed a gentleman, and a high-ranking one.

All Lundy does is stop the line at Richard, the grandfather, failing to link him to John, the great-grandfather.

This is enough to break the link to the Earls of Darnley.

They then admit Captain Bligh married Elizabeth Betham, whose family was also in the Custom's office.

She linked him to the Isle of Man, since her father worked Customs there.

That name is also probably fudged, since it should be Bentham.

Whatever the spelling, this linked them directly to the Campbells, Dukes and Earls of Argyll.

Bligh's mother-in-law Mary Campbell was the granddaughter of Archibald Campbell, 9th Earl of Argyll, and they admit that at thepeerage.com.

His wife was Mary Stuart, daughter of the 4th Earl of Moray.

This links us to several dukes, including the:

and Douglases.

Also, to the:

and Murrays.

The Murrays are the same as Stanleys, so we are looking at the Kings of Mann here, the Lords of the Isles and kingmakers of England and Scotland.

This proves Bligh was of the Earls of Darnley, since no one else would have been allowed to marry into this family of Stuarts and Stanleys.

It also links him closely to Fletcher Christian, who I proved in my paper on Mel Gibson was also related to the Stanleys of the Isle of Man.

Miles Williams Mathis: WHY I THINK MEL GIBSON IS JEWISH – Library of Rickandria

Christian is also found in the peerage, and he was an ancestor of both Gibson and Errol Flynn.

My assumption now would be that Brando and Clark Gable were also descendants of Christian, since they played him on film.

See my paper on Howard Hughes (footnote), where I do indeed link Brando to the Isle of Man through the Villaneuves.

Miles Williams Mathis: Howard Hughes – Library of Rickandria

I haven't done Gable yet.

They admit Fletcher Christian was from Isle of Man in the common histories, since Bligh is quoted in his letter to his wife complaining of the Manx men Christian and Heywood.

This letter is also very suspect, since it is admitted in other places that Bligh and Fletcher Christian had been close friends before the sailing of the Bounty.

They even admit it at Wiki:

Bligh served on three of the same ships on which Fletcher Christian also served simultaneously in his naval career.

You can now see that they were both Manx men and were in fact close cousins.

So, this whole thing is already stinking of another Stanley project.

Bligh and Christian look like fellow agents staging a play.

You know who else was playing an ancestor?

The actor Trevor Howard, real name Trevor Wallace Howard-Smith, who played Bligh in the 1962 film.

His father was a top man at Lloyds of London, which we studied in the Titanic hoax.

Miles Williams Mathis: The Titanic – The Fraud that Keeps on Giving – Library of Rickandria

Although Trevor was great in the part of Captain Bligh, he wasn't chosen because he nailed the audition.
He was chosen because he is also from the peerage, being a close cousin of Captain Morfryn Howard-Smith, whose father-in-law was Leonard Percy Lord, Baron Lambury.

Trevor's uncle may be Charles Howard-Smith, Ambassador to Denmark between the wars.

At any rate, these Howard-Smiths link us to the Nicols, who then link us directly to the Campbell-Prestons.

We just saw the Campbells, didn't we?

That is because these Campbell-Prestons are the Campbells of Ardchattan, Argyll, linking us to the same people.

Through these Campbells Trevor Howard is closely related to his character Bligh.

So, odds are Anthony Hopkins is also related to Howard and Bligh, since he played him in the 1984 film.

His real first name is Philip, and there is a Philip Hopkins in the peerage of the right period, related to a Howard-Mercer.

We also find the Hopkins baronets related to the Thompsons, which would explain why Anthony Hopkins and Emma Thompson like to appear together in films (Remains of the Day, Howard's End).

Dame Emma Thompson (born 15 April 1959) is a British actress and screenwriter. Her work spans over four decades of screen and stage, and her accolades include two Academy Awards, three BAFTA Awards, two Golden Globe Awards and a Primetime Emmy Award. In 2018, she was made a dame (DBE) by Queen Elizabeth II for her contributions to drama.

We also find the Hopkins related to the Nicolls, which may be a link.

Anthony Hopkins' family were originally Hopkin, perhaps linking him to Melvilles.

Hopkins is also a:

and Phillips.

So, we have a lot of possible red flags there, but nothing certain.

Rees may link him to the Diana faked death.

Miles Williams Mathis: Yes, Diana Faked Her Death – Library of Rickandria

Yeates may link him to W. B. Yeats.

Cook may link him to Captain Cook.

Phillips may link him to the Queen or to Karl Marx, but we don't know.

Miles Williams Mathis: Reading the Signs – Today’s Lesson: Karl Marx – Library of Rickandria

He is pretty well scrubbed online, and so are the Hopkins of the peerage.

But given what we do know here, I would say we can be fairly certain he is from peerage lines, and that he is related to Bligh and the Earls of Darnley.

Probably also to the Campbells.

But back to Bligh.

That is an alleged early portrait of him, but it isn't very convincing.

The date puts him at age 20, and he is depicted as a navigator.

But navigators were normally older than that, for obvious reasons.

The artist is given as John Webber, but no location for the painting is given.

John Webber RA (6 October 1751 – 29 May 1793) was an English artist who accompanied Captain Cook on his third Pacific expedition. He is best known for his images of Australasia, Hawaii and Alaska.

Because it is in black and white, I assume it no longer exists.

But it can't be by Webber since it isn't in his style.

Just look at all the images on his Wiki page.

So, they are lying again.

Besides, the image has been tampered with.

The head doesn't fit right on the shoulders, and the line between head and body is unnatural.

Just another clue this whole story is fabricated from the ground up.

By age 26 Bligh was allegedly a lieutenant, so he was on the fast track for someone who had come in as an able seaman.

So why did he fail to get promoted over the next six years, despite supposedly serving as captain of many merchant ships?

More clues come after the mutiny.

Almost as soon as Bligh left the courtroom after being exonerated, he published A Narrative of the Mutiny.

And here's the thing:

he was acquitted in that court in October 1790, and the book is listed as being published 1790.

A pretty quick turnaround for publishing a book, isn't it?

As if it was already written.

Written when, while he was on the little dingy?

This book was published by G. Nichol, publisher for the King.

We already saw that name here, didn't we?

In fact, twice, once related to actor Trevor Howard, and one related to Anthony Hopkins.

Even stranger:

despite supposedly losing this expensive vessel of His Royal Majesty, Bligh was promoted that November to Commander and one month later to Captain.

Almost as if he was being rewarded for a highly successful mission.

We are told he made the exact same voyage again in 1791 as a true Captain.

Despite the two mutinies (or because of them?) he ended up Vice Admiral of the Blue in 1814, which put him number seven in the entire navy.

In the 1984 film, they admit they were trying to rehabilitate Bligh.

Why?

The previous story had worked for almost 200 years, and the high point of the two previous films was the meanness of Bligh.

Bligh's meanness was confirmed by later history, where he was removed from his post in Australia, also by force.

Well, they have been rehabilitating a lot of people since 1980, including John Reed, John Forbes Nash, and even Gibson himself (after the anti-Semitic period).

Miles Williams Mathis: JOHN REED Faked both his Life & Death – Library of Rickandria

These living people apparently don't like their ancestors suffering this continuing blackwash, when they know the stories are fictional to start with.

I guess Benedict Arnold is up next for rehabilitation.

The film was a huge flop, even bigger than the 1962 disaster, where Brando had been laughed out of the theater.

The 1984 film didn't even earn back its cost, taking in $18 million worldwide against a budget of over $20 million.

Hopkins himself called it a:

and a waste of his time and energy.

The 1962 film had many redeeming qualities, starting with the cinematography, but The Bounty didn't even have that.

Except for all the tits on display, there is little to recommend it. *

In months of filming, Gibson somehow avoided getting a tan in Polynesia.

But he did have time to get his haired coifed every day, even while onboard in storms.

I guess they had blow-dryers on the Bounty.

Now let's look at Fletcher Christian, whose bio is the same sort of garbage that we have seen with Bligh.

Though they admit his family was from Isle of Man and that his mother died there in 1819, we are supposed to believe Fletcher was born in Cumberland, that his father died when he was four, and that his mother faced debtor's prison.

All absolute hogwash.

We are supposed to believe he entered the navy as a cabin boy at age 17, but since Christian was a gentleman (see the 1962 film, which at least admits this), this is absurd.

Three years later, as a midshipman, Fletcher joined Bligh's ship Britannia.

But get this:

Bligh accepted Christian on the ship's books as an able seaman but granted him all the rights of a ship's officer including dining and berthing in the officer quarters.

On a second voyage to Jamaica with Bligh, Christian was rated as the ship's Second Mate.

Real navy men should know that is all bilge. Midshipmen don't get officer's quarters or miraculously end up as second mate in just a few months.

In 1787 he again joined Bligh on the Bounty, coming in as master's mate, and soon being promoted by Bligh to lieutenant, making him senior to the ship's master.

He was just 22.

So, more poppycock.

I don't know why they don't even try to tell a believable story, as long as they are making it up.

In the mutiny, eighteen mutineers set Bligh afloat in a small boat with him.

You see what they did there:

aces and eights twice, Chai Chai.

The Admiralty allegedly never discovered Pitcairn or Fletcher Christian and his men, so the story just sort of fades out, as usual, with no conclusion.

We are supposed to believe the British had Pitcairn on the wrong coordinates, explaining this, but that is absurd.

In searching for Christian, they would have searched for Pitcairn and not finding it where it was supposed to be, they would have scanned nearby areas.

As I say, they had been there just a decade earlier, so that story is not believable either.

To manufacture a sort of conclusion, they tell us the American seal ship Topaz hit Pitcairn in what year?

You only get one guess.

1808, aces and eights.

Plus, this is absurd like the rest, since the seals weren't in Pitcairn or that area:

they were much further south, or way north.

Seals like it cold.

We saw the same sort of misdirection in the Jack London story, if you remember.

Miles Williams Mathis: Outing Jack London in all ways – Library of Rickandria

In 1808 none of the mutineers were alive except John Adams, who told them everyone else had been murdered years ago.

One problem:

there was no John Adams on the Bounty manifest.

They tell us he been known as Alexander Smith then.

Right.

John Adams gave conflicting accounts of Christian's death to visitors on ships that subsequently visited Pitcairn.

He was variously said to have died of natural causes, committed suicide, become insane or been murdered.

In other words, it was another fiction.

Does Fletcher have a grave there?

Of course not.

Rumors have persisted for more than two hundred years that Christian's murder was faked, that he had left the island and that he made his way back to England. [8]

Many scholars believe that the rumors of Christian returning to England helped to inspire Samuel Taylor Coleridge's The Rime of the Ancient Mariner. [9]

Have any scholars done the simple work I have done here?

No.

Why not?

Because mainstream “scholars” are paid by the Phoenician navy.

All Christian had to do is change his name, wear a different wig, or wear a beard for a year or two.

It is done all the time, nothing easier.

He had been on ships his whole life anyway, so very few people knew what he looked like.

And if he had hidden on Isle of Man for a couple of years, all those people are insiders.

They weren't going to blow his cover.

Besides, since the mutiny story was fake, the Admiralty wasn't really looking for him, so he didn't need to hide from anyone except the newspapers, which were also owned by the Stanleys, you see.

Next let's tear apart the whole breadfruit story.

The Bounty was supposed to be going to Tahiti to get breadfruit trees to transplant in the Caribbean, but that is a ridiculous story.

Breadfruit came from the East Indies, which was closer than Tahiti, so they didn't need to go to the trouble.

The British and French had already been there prior to the Bounty, and it is admitted that breadfruit had already been distributed widely outside the East Indies by that time.

So, there was no need to go out into the middle of the Pacific for it, and especially no need to round Cape Horn for it.

In the historical story they turned back after trying the Horn and then went to Tahiti on the eastern route, below Africa and Australia.

But if they were looking for crops to transplant in the Caribbean to feed slaves, they would have been even better advised to get them from India, which was even closer and had an abundance of species.

So, we know the entire tale is fiction, used to cover up something else.

And as I said in my previous paper on Mel Gibson, it looks like their original destination was Pitcairn, not Tahiti.

They had reconned in Pitcairn just a decade earlier, and we may assume they found something there that is still classified.

The voyage of Bligh after the mutiny is even more ridiculous than what came before.

After being set adrift in a small open boat with no sails, a 23 ft launch with 18+1=19 onboard, Bligh allegedly drifted 3500 miles for six weeks, which is not believable.

It is admitted they only had five days food and water, so how did they survive 44 days on five days of fresh water?

It is never explained.

This brings us to Bligh's previous expedition with Captain James Cook from 1777-80, on the Resolution.

Captain James Cook FRS (7 November [O.S. 27 October] 1728 – 14 February 1779) was a British explorer, cartographer, and naval officer famous for his three voyages between 1768 and 1779 to the Pacific and Southern Oceans. He completed the first recorded circumnavigation of the main islands of New Zealand and was the first known European to visit the eastern coastline of Australia and the Hawaiian Islands.

You can't understand the mission of the Bounty without understanding the mission of the Resolution.

It is now admitted that this expedition was secret at the time, hiding behind a ridiculous cover story that they were returning a native to Tahiti.

But they were really spying, as well as seeking the Northwest Passage.

In fact, they took the same route as the later Bounty, but then continued on northward to: 

So, I would say it is quite possible the Bounty was sent out to re-explore something Cook had discovered on his voyage, but with even higher secrecy and a much more elaborate cover, which was never blown until now.

The route given for the Resolution indicates it passed Pitcairn, though this is not admitted explicitly in the mainstream stories.

Cook's bio is the same usual lie:

Wiki tells us his father was a farm laborer in Ednam and his mother was a nobody Pace.

One problem:

thepeerage.com lists him as a peer and admits his mother was a Page.

She is then scrubbed, but this probably links us to the Page baronets, including the later Jimmy Page we looked at in a previous paper.

They come from rich merchant and brewer Sir Gregory Page, raised to the baronetage in 1714.

His father Greg, Sr., just happened to be the director of the East India Company, so I think you see how that ties in here.

Greg, Jr., also became director of the BEIC, gaining an “immense fortune”.

His son Thomas married Judith, daughter of the 1st Viscount Howe.

Judith's mother was a Manners, of the Dukes of Rutland, and her grandmother was a Montagu, of those barons.

This also immediately linked them to the Pierreponts and Cavendishes, and through them to the Scudamores.

Page's daughter married Lewis Way of the Inner Temple, director of the South Seas Company.

His granddaughter married the baronet Turner, who took the name Page-Turner.

They were also closely related to the:

and we saw the Lords above, related to actor Trevor Howard.

These Page-Turners also became the Dryden baronets.

We just saw that Anthony Hopkins is a Gardner.

We also link to the:

However, after studying all this for a while, I now think the main point of the Bounty expedition was to return to Hawaii and avenge the death of Cook and to conquer the island outright.

This would explain why the ship was called an “armed vessel”.

That isn't usual terminology and is a red flag by itself.

On Bligh's list of assignments at Wiki, they list his other vessels with number of guns, but mysteriously skip that with the Bounty, which is just called an “armed vessel”.

Why do you need an armed vessel to pick up fruit?

We are told it was equipped with four cannons and ten swivel guns, but they list the cannon as four-pounders.

I was not even aware they had cannons that small, so they seem to be doing the usual fooling.

Four four-pounders makes no sense.

The listed sizes for ship cannon are 6 to 42 pounders, so my guess is the Bounty was much more heavily armed than we are told.

The timing of the Bounty expedition leads us directly to this conclusion, since this is precisely when Hawaii was being conquered, though when we are told anything about it, we are told it was peaceful, with the British just working with the local rulers to consolidate the rule of the islands.

How believable is that?

For them to make up all this stuff about the Bounty and hide these early years in Hawaii completely, the slaughter must have been ghastly indeed.

Just study the Wiki page for history of Hawaii, where the years between Cook's death in 1779 and the establishment of the Kingdom of Hawaii in 1795 are passed over without comment.

The Bounty would have arrived there in 1790.

See this page at Wiki, which in the sidebar has a picture of Cook with the subtext British explorer James Cook was the first European to establish formal ties with the island in 1778.

History of Hawaii - Wikipedia

I don't know about you, but I wouldn't call getting murdered by the natives for trying to kidnap their chief:

Remember, up to that time, Hawaii was the most remote place on Earth, shielded from the Navies and East India Companies by the Americas.

There was no Panama Canal and the passage south of South America was almost impossible, due to very high winds and cold.

So, to get to Hawaii from Europe you had to sail 2/3rds of the way around the Earth, around both Africa and Asia, then sail right out into the middle of the vast Pacific Ocean.

This protected the natives there until 1779, when Cook showed up.

He was one of the last British brigands who got what he deserved at the hands of the natives, but we can be sure the Admiralty didn't let his death go unavenged.

I keep scanning these pages online for information on who next visited Hawaii and on what ship in what year.

Nothing.

Finally, on Kamehameha's page, we get another cocknbull story about the 1790 brig Fair American, captained by the British-born American explorer and fur trader Thomas Metcalfe, probably East India Company but not British Navy.

It supposedly got captured by the Hawaiians, who used its weapons to conquer surrounding islands.

But there are so many problems with this story it is laughable. Metcalfe was allegedly murdered on the ship in this raid, though his father Simon was nearby in a second brig the Eleanora.

Eleanora waited several days before sailing off, apparently without knowledge of what had happened to Fair American or Metcalfe's son.

Right.

That just reads like a lie, doesn't it?

Simon would sail off without his son or his second ship?

The story ends there, and Simon apparently never wondered what had happened to his son.

He left for China.

That is supposed to be Metcalfe's boatswain John Young, who was captured by Kamehameha and became his military advisor.

He later became the Royal Governor of Hawaii in 1802.

His bio is also a big fudge and looks manufactured.

But the point is, even on Kamehameha's page, they absolutely refuse to tell us how Hawaii was conquered by the British, wanting us to believe it never was.

We are supposed to believe Cook's death was never avenged, and that no one ever looked for Thomas Metcalfe or tried to avenge him either.

The East India Company was as lenient as the Admiralty, just ignoring the capture of a ship and murder of a commander by natives.

By now you can likely see what all this is covering: the Admiralty was one of the most vengeful and bloody bodies ever convened, and we would expect them to avenge the death of Cook in the most horrible way imaginable.

So, I propose that this is precisely what the Bounty was.

Even the name is a clue, isn't it.

The Admiralty had put a Bounty on the head of the Hawaiian king.

The Bounty was renamed just for the trip, having previously been called the Bethia.

But the slaughter ended up being so incredibly violent, the British historians could not admit it and still can't.

So, they came up with this cover story about a mutiny, and the burning of the ship in Pitcairn harbor, and the miraculous voyage home of its captain, and the death on the island of its first mate Fletcher Christian.

All fiction, since the Bounty, and both Bligh and Christian, continued on to Hawaii after Tahiti, following the charts laid down by Cook just ten years earlier.

There they led the brutal subjugation of Hawaii, probably murdering thousands of innocent islanders.

Same thing they later did with the natives in the US, see the various massacres like Washita, Sand Creek, Wounded Knee, and many others.

They denied and fudged those massacres for decades and in most ways still are.

We are told that the wreckage of the Bounty was found in Pitcairn harbor in 1957 by Luis Marden, with relics miraculously being raised just in time for the 1962 film, which Marden just happened to work on,

You have to laugh.

We are told Marden made cufflinks out of the nails of the Bounty.

Sure, he did.

We will believe anything.

One of the cannons was allegedly raised (why only one of four?) and put in the community hall in Pitcairn.

To explain why it looks so new, we are told it was conserved over a period of 3.5 years by an archaeological team from Queensland Museum in Townsville.

That is supposed to be the ship's bell, sitting in someone's garden I guess.

No point conserving that and making it all shiny:

no museum in the world would be interested in the bell from the Bounty, right?

In 1793, Captain Vancouver of the British Navy visited Hawaii, but again they refuse to give us any details of his dealings with the king or other royals.

About all we know is that he offered to take John Young back with him, but Young refused, indicating the islands had already been conquered by that time.

Was John Young actually Fletcher Christian under another name?

We don't know since there are no portraits of Christian.

My feeling is that he may be.

Young married the niece of the King, and his granddaughter of that marriage married Kamehameha IV.

This put Young's blood in the line of all future kings.

This would make him an ancestor of Keanu Reeves.

Miles Williams Mathis: What They Don’t Tell You About Keanu Reeves – Library of Rickandria

As more indication of that, we find that John Young was instrumental in helping Kamehameha overthrow and kill King Kiwala'o, son of King Kalani'opu'u.

This would have been the first target of the Admiralty and the Bounty.

As usual, there is a lot of controversy and mixed stories about where Kamehameha came from.

This should not be, since that royal line would be the very first thing kept in oral tradition in Hawaii.

Without the British planting false narratives, the natives would have known exactly what happened in that transition, and where Kamehameha came from.

Kamehameha is sold to us as a cousin of the royal line who overthrew it, but to me he just looks like a front and cover for the British.

After the massacre he was chosen as a puppet and all this history was manufactured, including the genealogy of Kamehameha and the Mutiny on the Bounty.

There have been hints of that from Hawaiian historians, but it has all been covered up as “scandalous”.

Is it possible that, like the death of Custer, the death of Cook was faked expressly to give excuse for returning and taking over Hawaii?

I ask because I caught myself saying Cook got what he deserved, and I had said the same thing about Custer before unwinding that fake.

Miles Williams Mathis: Custer’s Last Stand was a False Flag – Library of Rickandria

It is certainly possible, but I have found no hard evidence of it, and it would seem very inefficient.

These treks around the world were:

and you wouldn't want to outfit two where one would do.

If you were going to wipe out the natives, you would just do it the first time.

Except that, outfitting these expeditions was used to drain the treasuries and make these people wealthy, so in that sense two trips would be better than one.

Who knows.

To show what incredible liars and thieves these people still are, let's look at the replica of the Bounty used in the 1962 film.

The pic under title is the replica, of course.

Fifty years later, the ship was aging poorly after many repairs, so it was scuttled for insurance money in Hurricane Sandy in 2012, with a cover story of accidental sinking.

The Captain Robin Walbridge supposedly went down with the ship, but since his body was never found I assume he faked his death.

Bounty (1960 ship) - Wikipedia

Tending to confirm that is the ridiculous story that Claudene Christian, a descendant of Fletcher Christian, was also killed in the storm.

This picture of the replica sinking looks like a fake.

Looks to me like a model spliced into ocean waves.

We saw the same sort of photo faking in the Titanic story, so we are well used to it by now.

As we know, these people also own the insurance companies and media, so it is easy for them to fake these disasters and profit from them

Studying this replica reminds us that they admit it was built much larger than the real Bounty, giving us our last clue.

We have already seen that the Bounty was probably much more heavily armed than they admit, being not a garden ship but a ship of war.

In the same way, we may assume they have faked her dimensions as well.

The ship in the 1962 film was twice as long and twice the tonnage, and they tell us this was to allow for camera crews.

But it was also done to fool audiences into continuing to believe the old story.

If we had been presented with a ship half that size and told it attempted to sail around the Horn in winter, we would laugh.

The con would become obvious.

They wouldn't have sent a 90-foot ship 2/3rds of the way round the world, since there wouldn't even have been room for crew and trees, among many other reasons.

In both the 1962 and 1984 films they call 90 ft a “chamber pot”.

Plus, it would be difficult to fit three masts on a 90-ft schooner.

I don't think it was done.

The ship used in the 1984 film is said to be 90 ft with three masts, but it looks bigger than 90 ft.

They spent $4 million on it, and you wouldn't have spent $4 million on 90 ft. in 1978 (the ship was built six years before the screening of the movie, due to delays) when you spent $750,000 on 180 ft in 1960.

There wasn't that much inflation between the two years.

That would be inflation of almost 11 times, and the actual inflation in that period was only about 2.5x.

This is a 90 ft. schooner:

Barely room for two masts, as you see.

Did you really think the Bounty was that size?

No.

But they just hope you don't do any math or ask any questions.

When they first made up this story, they wanted the world to think the Bounty was just a small garden ship, with hardly any guns.

But when they started making these movies and realized they were giving people strong visuals, they had to flip the story, filming the Bounty as much larger than the given 90 ft.

No one would believe they had tried to sail an 18th century version of that around the Horn in the winter.

This confirms my theory the Bounty, or whatever ship they actually sailed over there, was a large warship, the size of the replica or even larger, stiff with cannons and other guns.

And it explains why they couldn't have it sailing home under that name, where people could see what it really was.

Therefore, we may assume they retagged it before bringing it back to English port.

---

*

The old Tahitian king crying at the loss of his daughter is quite affecting, especially now that we know he was crying for the future of Tahiti itself, which—like Hawaii. . . and the rest of the world—would never be the same.

bounty.pdf

---

Miles Williams Mathis: Mutiny on the Bounty

---

Miles Williams Mathis: Mutiny on the Bounty – Library of Rickandria