Evidence #1
The name of George Washington's estate has nothing to do with George Washington himself. In fact, after some research I discovered that the estate was actually named after a British naval officer, Admiral Edward Vernon. It is highly unlikely that Washington would have named his own estate after a military officer employed by a country who Washington was at war with. Why would he not name the estate after himself? And even if he had chosen to name his estate after someone else it certainly would not have been named after someone who he had fought to keep ownership of the estate in the first place!
Evidence #2
Washington did not sign the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration of Independence was, and is still, one of the greatest of all documents ever written, and it is quiet suspicious that the greatest of all our founding fathers did not sign this document. I believe that the absence of his signature cast serious doubt on his existence.
Evidence #3
The inconsistencies in the paintings of Washington. This is perhaps the most compelling piece of evidence that suggests George Washington did not exist. During my time at Mount Vernon I was able to examine many of these paintings in great detail and stumbled upon some troubling findings. Lets take a look at just a few of them:
This one of the most famous paintings. The artist was French, and due to my strong dislike of the French I will not mention his name. There is nothing out of the ordinary about this painting, but we will use it for comparing other paintings of Washington...
This is by far one of the most ridiculous paintings of the mythological figure, George Washington. Notice that in the painting above Washington's head is proportionate to the rest of his body while in this work his head is drastically smaller. His general appearance is more that of a mythological creature than a 18th century man. And in case one might attribute this to merely poorly artistic ability on the side of the artist (the supposed artist's name is Charles Wilson Peale... though I have serious doubts concerning the historical accounts of him as well), it is important to note that all other objects in the painting are of reasonable proportions. Lets continue...
In this much more detailed painting there are several notable differences in Washington's facial appearances than in the previous paintings. In this painting George has a much rounder face and a long pointed nose (not at all true with the other paintings). I find it hard to believe that these artists (the most notable of that time period) could possibly have painted one man so differently...
Finally, we have this much less publicized "painting" (which after close examination I discovered to actually be a photograph [most likely taken during the 20th century, given the appearance of the subject on the left]). This is obviously not the same man as in the other paintings. Also, given that there is not a single other known photograph from that time period there is much reason to doubt the historical reliability of this man.Evidence #4
The unreliable stories concerning George Washington. These include stories of Washington cutting down a cherry tree, possessing wooden teeth, and his coming out of battle with bullets in his clothes and hair (I hardly think this one even needs explaining). Concerning the first two: I challenge anyone to produce any records of there ever being cherry trees grown on the Mount Vernon Estate, and in regards to the set of teeth considered to be owned by George Washington (which I have actually seen with my own eyes), I can tell you in full confidence that they are not wooden. After close examination I think it is most likely that whosoever teeth this set belonged to, they are made of ivory (or a similar material). Note: These are on display at Mount Vernon, and this fact (along with the others) can, with little difficulty, be verified by touring the estate with an open mind.
Conclusion: George Washington did not exist. The man we know today is most likely a mythical hero composed of inaccurate stories, disputed paintings, unreliable documents, and 18th century ideals. Though some of the historical accounts may be accurate, they are most likely combined accounts concerning many different historical figures in our countries early stages of existence. Though I realize that this conclusion will most likely face much resistance, I would only ask that the reader consider these findings with an open mind and let the facts speak for themselves.
