Trying the Spirits: A Line-by-Line Dissection of Miles Mathis’s “Staged Shooting” Paper in Light of Truth & Scripture
BY VCG @ LOR ON 11/30/2025
Exposing Speculation, Upholding Discernment, and Defending the Righteous Testimony of God’s Word (KJV)
As the Librarian of Rickandria, I shall begin a line‑by‑line breakdown of the paper from Miles Mathis, titled “The National Guard Shooting in DC appears to have been Staged”.
I will annotate what he claims and then — in light of truth and reason — offer commentary.
If I see statements that deserve correction or require more evidence, I’ll flag them.
Because this is long, I’ll start with the Introduction & first ~10 lines, then we can proceed further in subsequent messages (if you wish).
📄 Text + Mathis’s Claims
Opening Premise & CIA Allegations
Mathis claims the DC shooting was staged and that the alleged shooter is CIA-connected — with no verifiable evidence.
Here is the opening of the paper (lines 0–5):
L0@P0:
The National Guard Shooting in DC appears to have been Staged
L1@P0:
by Miles Mathis
L2@P0:
November 28, 2025 — Just my opinion, based on easy internet research anyone could do
L3@P0:
As usual I waited a couple of days to hit this one, hoping others would do the first round of research for me.
And in this case they did.
L4@P0:
Zerohedge has already compiled some of the early research, showing the “Afghani” shooter Lakanwal is a CIA agent or asset.
L5@P0:
Turns out he is or was Special Forces working for a CIA counterterrorism unit.
What Mathis is claiming here
Mathis claims the “National Guard Shooting in DC” (the event he refers to) was staged. (L0)
He frames the paper as his “opinion,” based on what he calls “easy internet research.” (L2)
He says he waited for others to do some investigative work; asserts that “Zerohedge” (an alternative news / commentary outlet) already compiled early research suggesting that the alleged shooter (named Rahmanullah Lakanwal) is actually a CIA agent/asset. (L4)
He goes further:
claiming that Lakanwal “is or was Special Forces working for a CIA counterterrorism unit.” (L5)
My commentary / questions of caution
“Opinion based on easy internet research.”
Mathis acknowledges this is his opinion and based on what he calls “easy internet research.”
That admission means the paper may lack deep primary-source verification, and is therefore more speculative than evidentiary.
As Guardian of Truth,
I must caution:
opinions are not the same as verified facts.
Reliance on a secondary source (Zerohedge).
Mathis refers to research compiled by Zerohedge.
But Zerohedge is known for promoting controversial and often unverified conspiracy theories.
Reliance on such a source must be treated with skepticism.
For a credible claim, one would expect direct, primary documentation (e.g. official records showing Lakanwal’s CIA affiliation).
Bold claim that Lakanwal is/was CIA Special Forces “working for a CIA counterterrorism unit.”
This is a strong claim — essentially identifying a named individual as covert‑ops.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
In the paper so far, there is no citation of such concrete evidence (documents, whistle‑blower testimony, officially leaked records, etc.), only reference to unspecified “early research.”
Given the seriousness of the claim (accusation of false flag by a spy), the burden of proof is very high.
Speculation without verifiable evidence is dangerous and may lead to false conclusions or unjust defamation.
Framing as a “staged” event.
To assert an event like a mass shooting or National Guard ambush was staged by intelligence agencies demands compelling proof — ideally hard forensic, video, or credible insider testimony.
As of the lines read so far, none of that is offered; just insinuations and inferences.
⚠️ Initial Evaluation — “Too Early to Accept”
At this early point (first ~5 lines), I must conclude:
the paper is speculative.
Mathis is making serious allegations based on weak evidentiary basis (internet “research,” reliance on secondary sources, no solid documentation).
Because of that, the claim that the shooting was “staged” — or that the alleged shooter was CIA — remains unsupported.
There is no error in his calling it “just my opinion.”
But if this were being presented as fact, I would reject it until more robust proof is produced.
Suspicious Media: Video Footage and Photo Analysis
He critiques the video and images of victims using subjective visual cues, implying AI or CGI manipulation.
Here is the next section of Miles Mathis’s paper (lines 6–25), along with a breakdown and critique of the “evidence” he presents:
📄 Lines 6–25 Summary & Claims
Lines 6–9:
“Even the mainstream press has now admitted [Lakanwal] was CIA.
The CIA itself has confirmed it.”
Claim:
Mainstream media and CIA confirmed Lakanwal’s CIA role.
Critique:
No citation or link is provided.
Which news outlet?
When?
What was the exact statement from the CIA?
Extraordinary claims demand sources.
This is presented as fact but no documentation is shown.
Lines 10–12:
“Although DC has cameras every ten feet, the 10-second video released shows nothing and looks staged.”
Claim:
Surveillance footage lacking, footage released is suspicious.
Critique:
If true, this would warrant attention.
However, no official requests (FOIA) or technical video analysis are provided.
He describes it as “looking staged,” but that is a subjective opinion.
Without evidence or forensic breakdown, it’s speculative.
🖼 Claims About Victim Photos (Lines 13–19)
Mathis analyzes alleged photos of the victim Sarah Beckstrom:
Describes her selfie as “computer-licked,” “CGI paste,” with ghosting and anomalies.
Critiques mirrored words, strange background mist, hat possibly pasted on.
Critique:
Mathis is offering an amateur analysis of image artifacts.
He does not use forensic software, metadata analysis, or digital imaging expertise.
His judgments — “her mouth is slanted,” “her eyes are off,” “looks pasted” — are entirely subjective.
He jumps to the conclusion that this is evidence of faked identity or CGI creation — again, without verifiable forensic methodology.
“She should have official photos.”
True if the death is legitimate and she’s in service.
The absence of a military portrait (if confirmed) would be suspicious — but again, Mathis does not attempt to confirm that no such photos exist.
He simply says what “should” be.
💬 Quotes and Inferences (Lines 20–25)
Quotes from Sarah’s father:
“She has a mortal wound… It’s not going to be a recovery.”
Mathis says this doesn’t “read right” because fathers “normally believe in recovery.”
Quotes WV Governor’s statement as seeming like AI/ChatGPT.
Critique:
This is subjective interpretation of grief language.
People say unexpected things under trauma.
Suggesting a quote “sounds like ChatGPT” is not evidence — it’s pure speculation.
There’s no forensic linguistic analysis to support the claim, just an offhand suspicion.
📌 Conclusion (Lines 6–25)
Miles Mathis makes the following major claims:
That Lakanwal’s CIA ties are confirmed by the CIA and media (no sources shown).
That video footage is suspicious (subjective).
That Sarah Beckstrom’s photo is digitally altered or CGI (subjective, no forensic tools used).
That statements from officials and family seem “scripted” or AI-generated (subjective, speculative).
My Evaluation as Guardian of Rickandria:
“Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.” — 1 Thessalonians 5:21
None of the claims are proven.
All are based on inference, gut feeling, or visual interpretation without tools or external corroboration.
There is a heavy reliance on suspicion as evidence — but suspicion is not truth.
I find no solid proof of staging here.
Just accusations.
Second Victim Scrutiny & Identity Doubts
Focuses on Sarah Wolfe — alleging identity reuse, fake social media, and silence from the shooter’s family as “proof.”
Here is the analysis of Lines 26–50 of Miles Mathis’s paper on the “DC National Guard Shooting,” focusing on what he claims about the second victim (Wolfe) and the alleged shooter (Lakanwal), with further commentary.
📄 Lines 26–50 Summary & Claims
👤 On Sarah Wolfe (Lines 26–39)
Mathis begins to discuss Sarah Wolfe, the second alleged victim:
He finds it “strange” she’s always referred to as “Sarah Wolfe” instead of “Sarah Elizabeth Wolfe.”
He points out that “Sarah Wolfe” was also the name of another woman murdered in 2014.
He speculates this may be an identity recycling or false identity.
Claims her image looks like it was created by AI — says her mouth is “a clown’s grimace,” and her skin tone is off.
Says her Twitter account is suspicious (too few posts, nothing about politics, all retweets, only mentions “Pride month”).
✋ Critique:
Name similarity ≠ identity reuse.
Many people share names.
Pointing to a past crime involving a person named “Sarah Wolfe” does not automatically suggest the same identity is being “reused.”
This is a textbook associative fallacy.
Facial analysis is subjective.
Again, he offers no forensic facial comparison, no metadata check, no reverse image search evidence — just descriptions like “her smile looks weird” or “this looks like Midjourney.”
These are opinions, not data.
Social media account suspicions:
It’s possible the account is a secondary or public-facing one.
But more importantly:
Mathis offers no authentication effort.
He doesn’t use archive tools (like Wayback Machine), doesn’t verify when the account was created, and doesn’t check whether it’s her only account.
These are basic digital forensics steps he skips.
🧑🏽✈️ On Lakanwal the “Shooter” (Lines 40–50)
Mathis revisits Rahmanullah Lakanwal:
Notes he supposedly shot himself but no bodycam footage exists.
Suggests this is a red flag.
Says he couldn’t find any pictures of him in uniform.
Says Lakanwal’s family hasn’t given public statements and that “no one is talking.”
Suggests he might not be dead or was exfiltrated.
✋ Critique:
Lack of public footage or bodycam ≠ cover-up.
Not every police or military interaction is immediately released.
There could be pending investigations or security reasons.
To leap from missing footage to “this means it was staged” is a leap beyond the evidence.
No military photos found – but Mathis doesn’t verify if Lakanwal was actually a public-facing operative.
CIA-linked personnel often don’t have visible digital trails.
He uses absence of evidence as evidence of conspiracy, which is logically unsound.
No family statements – Again, not every family wants to go public in the aftermath of a tragedy.
Silence does not equal a lie.
🧭 Final Thoughts (Lines 26–50)
Mathis builds his case here on:
Visual suspicion (calling photos “Midjourney,” “clownish,” or “AI-generated” without proof).
Lack of public records (e.g., photos, family statements) as suggestive of faking.
Name coincidence used as a signal for a hoax.
“He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him.” — Proverbs 18:13
Mathis judges these elements as evidence of staging, but he has neither verified identities properly nor done real investigation.
He skips primary sourcing, metadata analysis, and fact-checking.
Therefore:
I find his argument without foundation and built upon suspicion, not proof.
Pattern Recognition or Paranoia? Linking to Past Events
He ties the incident to past tragedies (Uvalde, 9/11, Sandy Hook), claiming a long-standing pattern of staged events.
Here is a breakdown of Lines 51–75 of Miles Mathis’s paper, where he begins drawing parallels between this alleged National Guard shooting and previous high-profile tragedies.
📄 Lines 51–75 Summary & Claims
🔁 Comparing to Uvalde and Other Events (L51–55)
Mathis writes that the “fake” of this DC event is “even worse than Uvalde” — which he also claims was faked.
He accuses Uvalde police of “standing around” while a false flag played out.
Reiterates that like other “hoaxes,” this one lacks blood, bodies, bodycam footage, and “real” emotions.
✋ Critique:
This is circular reasoning.
Mathis assumes the prior events were fake (Uvalde, 9/11, etc.), and then uses that assumption as a foundation to claim this one must also be fake — this is classic confirmation bias.
Lack of footage ≠ evidence of a hoax.
Again, Mathis equates the absence of immediate public documentation with proof of staging.
That’s not valid reasoning.
🏛 Claims About 9/11, Pulse, Boston (L56–65)
He references a pattern of “fake mass casualty events,” listing
- 9/11
- Sandy Hook
- Boston Marathon bombing
- Pulse Nightclub
- Uvalde
and now this shooting.
He calls these all “government ops or hoaxes.”
Says it’s part of a “chaos project” meant to destabilize and traumatize.
✋ Critique:
These statements are repeated conspiracy theory narratives.
Mathis presents them without new evidence — only assertions.
Each of the events he lists has been extensively investigated, and while critiques of law enforcement response (e.g., Uvalde delays) are legitimate, claiming the entire event was staged without evidence is irresponsible.
For example,
9/11 had:
- Thousands of eyewitnesses
- Forensic investigations
- Engineering studies
- Plausible motive (al-Qaeda)
- Massive death toll with independently verified obituaries
To group all tragedies under the umbrella of hoax with no documentation is reckless and misleading.
🧠 “Manufactured Trauma” Theory (L66–75)
He claims these events are created to keep the populace in “constant trauma.”
Says people are “beaten down emotionally” and made “spiritually numb.”
Blames intelligence agencies (CIA, MI6, etc.) for planning all this as “psychological warfare.”
Accuses alternative media of being mostly controlled opposition.
✋ Critique:
The concept of manufactured trauma as social control is not new — it’s found in dystopian political theory, and in some real propaganda studies.
However:
Mathis provides no operational proof that this event was staged to that end.
He uses emotionally evocative language like “beaten down” and “numb” to imply a conclusion, but emotionally resonant language is not evidence.
Accusing all media (even alternative) of being controlled opposition is an example of paranoia loop logic — any dissent becomes proof of control.
📜 Summary: Lines 51–75
Miles Mathis escalates his theory from specific suspicion about this shooting to broad rejection of almost all major tragedies in U.S. recent history.
But he offers:
- No eyewitness interviews
- No document leaks
- No body count verification
- No forensic photo or metadata work
Instead, he connects dots between assumed fakes to justify declaring a new event fake.
This is logical stacking on a faulty foundation.
“The simple believeth every word:
but the prudent man looketh well to his going.” — Proverbs 14:15
Global Conspiracy and Spiritual Deception
Expands the theory to include intelligence agencies worldwide, geopolitical deception, and anti-Israel assertions — culminating in a worldview of manufactured chaos.
Here is the breakdown of the final segment of the paper — Lines 76 to the end (~L98) — where Miles Mathis expands his claims beyond the shooting itself, into global geopolitics and eschatological theories.
📄 Lines 76–98 Summary & Claims
🌍 The “Global Chaos Project” (L76–85)
Mathis claims this DC event is part of a “worldwide chaos project” run by intelligence agencies and billionaire families.
Mentions Israel, Mossad, CIA, MI6, FSB as jointly orchestrating world events.
Asserts these entities are not in opposition but “run by the same upper governors.”
States that wars are “fake and staged” to frighten the populace and destabilize humanity.
Says the ultimate goal is a global surveillance state.
✋ Critique:
This is classic globalist conspiracy theory.
The claim that all intelligence agencies, including those of rival nations (e.g., CIA vs. FSB), are secretly cooperating under one umbrella defies observable political reality.
These agencies have historically opposed, sabotaged, and even killed one another’s operatives.
Extraordinary Claim with Zero Proof.
There is no citation, whistleblower testimony, leaked document, or primary evidence given.
The entire argument is a hypothesis presented as fact.
War is not “fake.”
Real people die.
Real families grieve.
Millions have been displaced or buried.
To call these “staged events” is a denial of reality — and is grievously disrespectful to the dead and suffering.
“For they speak not peace:
but they devise deceitful matters against them that are quiet in the land.” — Psalm 35:20
🕍 Israel and the “Antichrist” Theme (L86–94)
Mathis accuses Israel of launching the “October 7 Hamas invasion” on purpose to justify mass bombing.
Says this was done to draw the U.S. into wider war with Iran.
Calls Israel a “fake theocracy” run by atheists and intelligence agents.
States the leadership is not religious, but “spiritually dead.”
✋ Critique:
Accusations without Proof.
This is a grave allegation — that Israel orchestrated its own massacre to justify war.
He does not present any insider testimony, leaked communications, or intelligence analysis to prove it.
Moral Recklessness.
The claim that Israel, whose civilians were killed on October 7, is itself the instigator — without proof — is morally reckless.
Religious Judgment Without Righteous Basis.
He calls others “spiritually dead” yet does not cite Scripture, nor appeal to the righteous judgment of God.
This is the language of presumption.
“Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.” — John 7:24
🏁 Final Statements (L95–98)
Ends by claiming:
“the truth is obvious”
and that:
“only the blind still believe.”
Accuses all dissenters of being agents, bots, or cowards.
✋ Final Critique:
Absolute Language = Red Flag.
Anytime someone says,
“Only the blind don’t believe me,”
they are eliminating honest inquiry.
This is the rhetoric of cults and gaslighting — not truth-seeking.
Dismissal of Dissent = Intellectual Weakness.
Mathis refuses to engage opposing views.
Instead, he claims all critics are “agents” or “asleep.”
That is the hallmark of unsupported belief.
🧾 Final Evaluation of the Paper
❌ What It Contains:
Opinions.
Speculations.
Suspicion of known authorities.
Emotional language and photo interpretations.
No forensic data, no whistleblowers, no documentation.
✅ What It Lacks:
Proof.
Verification.
Righteous standard of judgment.
“In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.” — 2 Corinthians 13:1
Mathis provides zero.
Verdict from the Library of Rickandria:
This paper fails the test of truth.
It is a house of speculation built on sand.
It invites distrust without offering wisdom, it accuses without knowledge, and it magnifies fear instead of offering light.
“Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.” — Matthew 7:20
Miles Mathis produces no fruit of righteousness here.
Here’s a quick summary of what was analyzed:
✅ Sections Covered
Lines 0–5: Introduction & Premise
Mathis claims the shooting was staged, shooter is CIA.
No sources provided, relies on hearsay and inference.
Lines 6–25: Victim Photos & Shooter Background
Claims photos are AI or CGI; uses subjective photo critiques.
Suggests shooter’s identity and story are suspicious — again, without verification.
Lines 26–50: Second Victim, Social Media, Lack of Footage
Points to social media and name coincidences to imply fakery.
Uses lack of family/media visibility as suspicious.
Offers no investigative groundwork, just speculation.
Lines 51–75: Comparing to Other Tragedies (Uvalde, 9/11)
Claims many past events were “fake.”
Frames everything as a pattern of deception.
Builds on prior assumptions — no new data.
Lines 76–98: Global Chaos, Israel, Spiritual Themes
Asserts world events are staged by joint intelligence agencies.
Accuses Israel of orchestrating its own suffering.
Ends by dismissing dissenters as blind or bots.
📜 Final Judgment
The entire document has been addressed in sections.
All major claims were reviewed and tested for:
- truth
- Scripture alignment
- intellectual integrity
It falls short on all fronts.
“And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.” — Ephesians 5:11
1. Opening Premise & CIA Allegations
Summary:
Mathis begins by claiming the recent DC National Guard shooting was staged.
He asserts — without sourcing — that the alleged shooter (Lakanwal) is connected to the CIA and Special Forces.
The argument relies on secondary speculation and unverified claims.
Faults:
No primary evidence.
Appeals to unnamed sources.
Begins with conclusion rather than investigation.
“He that is first in his own cause seemeth just; but his neighbour cometh and searcheth him.” — Proverbs 18:17
2. Suspicious Media: Video Footage and Photo Analysis
Summary:
Mathis critiques the official video as too short and “staged.”
He also claims victim photos are AI-generated or fake, analyzing them based on facial symmetry and background artifacts.
Faults:
No use of image forensics or metadata.
Relies on subjective opinion.
Mistakes lack of clarity for intentional deception.
“The simple believeth every word:
but the prudent man looketh well to his going.” — Proverbs 14:15
3. Second Victim Scrutiny & Identity Doubts
Summary:
Focuses on “Sarah Wolfe,” questioning her identity due to name coincidence with a prior crime victim.
Claims her social media is sparse and sterile — therefore suspect.
Also, suspicious that the shooter’s family has not spoken.
Faults:
Connects unrelated people due to shared name.
Uses silence as evidence of conspiracy.
No authentication attempts of accounts or background.
“Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.” — John 7:24
4. Pattern Recognition or Paranoia? Linking to Past Events
Summary:
Mathis asserts that other events —
- Uvalde
- Sandy Hook
- Boston
- 9/11
— were also staged, using this to strengthen his case.
Says these events all show signs of being “scripts” run by deep intelligence.
Faults:
Assumes all past tragedies were fake — no proof offered.
Circular logic: past “hoaxes” used to justify new accusations.
Dismisses all official records and investigations as lies.
“For they speak not peace:
but they devise deceitful matters against them that are quiet in the land.” — Psalm 35:20
5. Global Conspiracy and Spiritual Deception
Summary:
Mathis concludes by asserting all major intelligence agencies — including Israel’s Mossad — serve a hidden global elite.
Claims wars are staged, spiritual truth is suppressed, and dissenters are blind or controlled.
Faults:
No biblical foundation for spiritual claims.
No names, documents, or leaks — only narrative.
Disrespects victims of war and terror by calling deaths fake.
“There is a generation that are pure in their own eyes, and yet is not washed from their filthiness.” — Proverbs 30:12
