The Truth Of Abraham Lincoln's Assassination Finally Revealed… And It's MUCH Worse Than We Thought

Unbelievable Tales ^ | 19/6/25

[sphinx]

Travelling now. I’ll see if I can locate it when I get home.

[cgbg]

Goodwin was an LBJ mistress—the ultimate conflict of interest.

[Antoninus]

Seems to be available on YouTube:

Listen to an 1890 recording of Edwin Booth playing Iago in Othello

[Eleutheria5]

I must have missed that part. I just noticed eerie parallels with the JFK conspiracy.

[Ancesthntr]

My comment was totally tongue-in-cheek. I honestly didn’t read the article, I really hate these (mis)leading “articles“ where they don’t give you the answer at all until the very end, and everyone ends up wasting a lot of their time for a big nothing burger. I strongly suspect that if there actually was something new and substantial about the Lincoln assassination, it would’ve been all over every kind of news media out there, not just this one site.

[Eleutheria5]

MSM would not be interested in history from over 100 years ago. I listened to the entire video. Plenty of reveals throughout the length of it.

[Glinda Whatsit]

Bookmark

[Albion Wilde]

Agree — massive wars are always ultimately about commodities and money. Lincoln was a Christan American, concerned with restoration and mercy towards the common people of the South, most of whom were not slaveholders. The upper level of European financiers were neither Christian nor concerned about social aftermaths in America. The Civil War is still being fought today as a result of their machinations behind the scenes.

[Albion Wilde]

A great story is the sad and tragic life of Sergeant Boston Corbett after he killed JWB at the Garrett Farm in Virginia. Recommended reading

And here is Wikipedia's write-up:

Boston Corbett

[sphinx]

One of the interesting twists when talkies suddenly made voice acting important in movies was the reaction of many viewers who -- having grown up with traditional stage performances with the emphasis on enunciation and unaided projection and then silent films where voices were irrelevant -- were shocked at naturalism when talkies took over. "That isn't acting" and "Anybody could do that" were common reactions. "Acting" meant feet firmly planted, an unaided, unamplified oratorical voice projected to the cheap seats, and clear enunciation because otherwise an actor couldn't hope to be understood.

Of course, everyone can't convey emotion through facial expression and subtleties of voice in closeup shots. Go ahead. Try it. Make a fool of yourself. It's an art form, as is oratorical declamation, and they are different art forms. Which is why so many of the iconic screen actors of the silent stage could not manage the transition to talkies, despite the new ability to do multiple shoots and extensive sound editing in post-production.

We often remark at how often the great actors of the Golden Age of Hollywood are far superior to modern movie and tv actors in enunciation and phrasing. Yes; they often speak far better than 99 percent of people speak in real life. These were classically trained actors who still reflected stage conventions. And that, of course, is extremely artificial. Most modern films and shows are striving for naturalism.

The CD of great Shakespearian actors of the pre-talkie era is doubly fascinating when one pauses to realize that most of those presentations by legends of live theater would be laughed off the stage today, except in a campy, parody movie where they are played for laughs.