Girl discovers royal blood runs deep with U.S. presidents

page: 2
10
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 08:05 AM
link   
Quoting myself--

In the end, I learned that the ruling entity is The Vatican! And that is one sicko place! That 33 day-ruling Pope was murdered because he was going to blow the whistle on the pedophilia.
====

Murder in the Vatican

www.crc-internet.org...




posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 08:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wise Man
None of the Presidents are related to anyone of Royalty before the Renaissance (1400's) through the fathers side (the only side that counts.)


I'd like to know why this statement is always taken as truth (the part about the fathers side being the only side that counts). Is it tradition only or is there a real reason? Is this just what you've been taught?

Edit: Additionally, in defense of the video, they do state that


It started as an assigned to research her own lineage. She started with George Washington but unlike other professional genealogists that only looked at the male family lines, Brigann was able to link the presidents together using both male and female ancestry. Before this, historians were only able to link 22 family trees.


Why do genealogists only look at the male side? Seems like they're (you're) only doing half the research to me.

[edit on 6/8/2010 by Iamonlyhuman]



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by PatriotsPride


I found this video today and wanted to share it with ATS,I thought that it would spark some great conversation!!! I think that it is amazing this young girl discovered this link between the presidents,makes me wonder how we managed to keep voting for the same bloodline all of these years...I will be looking forward to your feedback on this...Thanks

blacklistednews.com
(visit the link for the full news article)


It is easy, they controll who is voted on and even if you voted and that person won they have ways to make who they want to be pres... like in 2001 with Gore vr Bush.



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 12:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Iamonlyhuman

I'd like to know why this statement is always taken as truth (the part about the fathers side being the only side that counts). Is it tradition only or is there a real reason? Is this just what you've been taught?

Edit: Additionally, in defense of the video, they do state that


It started as an assigned to research her own lineage. She started with George Washington but unlike other professional genealogists that only looked at the male family lines, Brigann was able to link the presidents together using both male and female ancestry. Before this, historians were only able to link 22 family trees.


Why do genealogists only look at the male side? Seems like they're (you're) only doing half the research to me.


There is a reason, its called 12 year old girls don't know anything, neither do the people that wrote that news report.

First of all the "unlike other professional genealogists that only looked at the male family lines"

Do you even know what genealogy means?
The root meaning of the word gene is seed or sperm, coming from the Greek.
(seed means sperm in Greek go look it up.)

Only men have sperm, they carry the seed, also known as the Y chromosome which carries everyone's tribal heritage.

This is how bloodlines are dealt with in the Bible, through out history, plants, and science ect.
It's only the men that matter when it comes to race, there is no such thing as a half breed. Skin color, land and physical appearance do not determine someones race.

The woman do not pass down any Y chromosome or tribal race at all, the children only take up the fathers Y chromosome, and tribal heritage.

So to be a "professional genealogist" tracing the mothers sides is ass backwards and defeats the whole purpose of the word gene.

The so called Jews are also ass backwards using the mothers side as that is completely contradicting the Bible and natural science,but they are not actually Israelites anyways.

Tracing women genealogy is a big mess, do you have any idea how many women have been spoils of war for rape through out the past 5000 years?

www.youtube.com...

[edit on 6-8-2010 by Wise Man]



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 09:59 PM
link   
It's been said before on this thread, and in the past. Rich people marry other rich people, thus creating a bloodline that is dictated by how rich and how much stuff you own. Even if you are not of a certain bloodline you can be by being rich, and getting into that elite lifestyle. All positions that pay lots of moneys you have to know someone to get in it, it's just the way it is. Because we all have more cousins then friends.



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 10:21 PM
link   
One should research the origins of the Plantagenet family...... I think you will find something interesting.............



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 10:38 PM
link   
Reply to post by Wise Man
 


Wrong.

Matthew 1 includes 4 women in the genealogy of Christ.

Also look at Genesis 11:29, Genesis 22:20-24, and 1 Chronicles 2:18-21 and 24.

Deuteronomy 7 says that any child born to a Jewish mother and non-jewish father is considered Jewish. The opposite does not apply.

It is not common, but there is precedent, going all the way back to the Torah.

It is also scientifically feasible using mtDNA.

Do some research before you decide to go on an anti-jewish tirade.



 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Aug, 9 2010 @ 12:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh

Wrong.

Matthew 1 includes 4 women in the genealogy of Christ.

Also look at Genesis 11:29, Genesis 22:20-24, and 1 Chronicles 2:18-21 and 24.

Deuteronomy 7 says that any child born to a Jewish mother and non-jewish father is considered Jewish. The opposite does not apply.

It is not common, but there is precedent, going all the way back to the Torah.

It is also scientifically feasible using mtDNA.

Do some research before you decide to go on an anti-jewish tirade.


See people this is what happens when people stright up lie or can't read properly.
Everything you said here is garbage.

How about quoting exact scriptures instead of just making up stuff.

Where in the Bible does it ever say a nation will be born starting from a Woman? What nation in the Bible is named after a woman? None.

Every single nation is named after a man, its called tribal linage, the woman doesn't carry the seed period.

Lets start with your first claim on Matthew 1.
There is only 1 woman. Mary.

The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham. Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judas and his brethren; And Judas begat Phares and Zara of Thamar; and Phares begat Esrom; and Esrom begat Aram; And Aram begat Aminadab; and Aminadab begat Naasson; and Naasson begat Salmon; And Salmon begat Booz of Rachab; and Booz begat Obed of Ruth; and Obed begat Jesse; And Jesse begat David the king; and David the king begat Solomon of her [that had been the wife] of Urias; And Solomon begat Roboam; and Roboam begat Abia; and Abia begat Asa; Mat 1:8 KJV - And Asa begat Josaphat; and Josaphat begat Joram; and Joram begat Ozias; And Ozias begat Joatham; and Joatham begat Achaz; and Achaz begat Ezekias; And Ezekias begat Manasses; and Manasses begat Amon; and Amon begat Josias; And Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren, about the time they were carried away to Babylon: And after they were brought to Babylon, Jechonias begat Salathiel; and Salathiel begat Zorobabel; And Zorobabel begat Abiud; and Abiud begat Eliakim; and Eliakim begat Azor; And Azor begat Sadoc; and Sadoc begat Achim; and Achim begat Eliud; And Eliud begat Eleazar; and Eleazar begat Matthan; and Matthan begat Jacob; And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

These are all men.

Next claim.

Genesis 11:29
And Abram and Nahor took them wives: the name of Abram's wife was Sarai; and the name of Nahor's wife, Milcah, the daughter of Haran, the father of Milcah, and the father of Iscah. But Sarai was barren; she had no child.


This is not a gemology list, however everything above that verse in the chapter is the gemology of men.

Your next claim: Genesis 22:20-24.

And it came to pass after these things, that it was told Abraham, saying, Behold, Milcah, she hath also born children unto thy brother Nahor; 21Huz his firstborn, and Buz his brother, and Kemuel the father of Aram, 22And Chesed, and Hazo, and Pildash, and Jidlaph, and Bethuel. 23And Bethuel begat Rebekah: these eight Milcah did bear to Nahor, Abraham's brother. And his concubine, whose name was Reumah, she bare also Tebah, and Gaham, and Thahash, and Maachah.

This simply states one woman, a concubine.
Thats not genealogy.

Next claim : 1st Chronicles 2:18-21 Thats also simply stating a woman, not any genealogy like the rest of the verses you claim.

Also Deuteronomy 7 says absolutely nothing about a" child born to a Jewish mother and non-jewish father is considered Jewish."

You just made that up because you thought I don't know the scripture.

However the Chapter does say: "Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son."

Go learn what genealogy means and stop making up stuff.
When the Bible states the name of a woman that doesn't mean genealogy.



posted on Aug, 9 2010 @ 12:23 PM
link   
So am I.

Where's my money?



posted on Aug, 9 2010 @ 12:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Wise Man
 


Hi

I disagree.

Although men have always been the ones in power... Women have influenced men and have even acted like them, actively acted like one and so on. There is a reason for the saying that behind every great leader stands a good woman.

There is no way to know how much and when the woman has been responsible for anything, but it's safe to say that without women, the world as we know it would be very different.



posted on Aug, 9 2010 @ 04:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Wise Man
 



Do you even know what genealogy means?
The root meaning of the word gene is seed or sperm, coming from the Greek.
(seed means sperm in Greek go look it up.)

Only men have sperm, they carry the seed, also known as the Y chromosome which carries everyone's tribal heritage.


This is the most ridiculous argument I've heard to anything for a long time.

Thanks for



posted on Aug, 9 2010 @ 04:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Wise Man
 



This is how bloodlines are dealt with in the Bible, through out history, plants, and science ect.
It's only the men that matter when it comes to race, there is no such thing as a half breed. Skin color, land and physical appearance do not determine someones race.


Wrong, wrong, wrong

Race:


Race refers to the classification of humans into populations or groups based on various factors such as culture, language, social practice or heritable characteristics.[1]

Conceptions and groupings of races vary over time and reflect societal customs [2][3][4] in defining essential types of individuals based on perceived sets of traits.

As a biological term, race describes genetically divergent populations of humans that can be marked by common phenotypic and genotypic traits.[5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12] This sense of race is often used in forensic anthropology analyzing skeletal remains, biomedical research, and race-based medicine.[13][14][15][16].

Race, however, has no official biological taxonomic significance — all humans belong to the same hominid subspecies, Homo sapiens sapiens[17][18]. Nor is there scientific basis for any racial or ethnic hierarchy[19][20].

The study of shared traits among peoples is also conducted along ethnic lines, involving the endogamic history of groups.


Source: Wikipedia



posted on Aug, 9 2010 @ 04:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Wise Man
 


You are so far off base with your analysis of Genealogy it is amazing. You even don't have the full root described properly

Genealogy:


Genealogy (from Greek: γενεά, genea, "generation"; and λόγος, logos, "knowledge") is the study of families and the tracing of their lineages and history. Genealogists use oral traditions, historical records, genetic analysis, and other records to obtain information about a family and to demonstrate kinship and pedigrees of its members. The results are often displayed in charts or written as narratives.

The pursuit of family history tends to be shaped by several motivations, including the desire to carve out a place for one's family in the larger historical picture, a sense of responsibility to preserve the past for future generations, and a sense of self-satisfaction in accurate storytelling.[1]

Some scholars[who?] differentiate between genealogy and family history, limiting genealogy to an account of kinship, while using "family history" to denote the provision of additional details about lives and historical context.


Source

[edit to add: Notice how it doesn't say squat about the father's bloodline- Rather its FAMILIES bloodlines - Families consisting of mother, father, offspring]

[edit on 9-8-2010 by misinformational]



posted on Aug, 9 2010 @ 05:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Wise Man
 


Here is a proper family tree:



Notice all the women

[edit: typo]


[edit on 9-8-2010 by misinformational]



posted on Aug, 9 2010 @ 07:45 PM
link   
reply to post by misinformational
 


Hey.

Did you seriously just compare genealogy to a family tree?

I don't have time to teach or debate with mentally challenged people but there is a reason the article says professional genealogists that only looked at the male family lines.
Since the dawn of time the man carries the seed, this is also how your Masonic and Illuminati elite deal with their bloodlines. The women don't pass any Y chromosome period.

You can side with the 12 year old girl all you want.
Maybe you should ask her for history lessons also.



posted on Aug, 9 2010 @ 08:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Wise Man
 


Did you seriously just compare genealogy to a family tree?


Family Tree
noun
1. A genealogical diagram of a family's ancestry.
2. The ancestors and descendants of a family considered as a group.

Go argue with a dictionary.

The personal insults are uncalled for

[edit on 9-8-2010 by misinformational]



posted on Aug, 9 2010 @ 08:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Wise Man
 

Wise man you say that before 1400 none of the european royals were white people. Pray tell, what were they then?



posted on Aug, 9 2010 @ 10:38 PM
link   
Y carries almost nothing on it, but it is a sex chromosome obviously. X contains more information, and is also a gender chromosome.

Chromosome 1-22 completely recombine for every person equally from male and female parents. Most of what you are is there.

Anything you would really want to track as an important heritable trait to watch would almost certainly be in 1-22. Where this silly male-female argument wouldn't make any sense.

You can trace lines of people via Y-DNA and mtDNA. The "seed" concept fails to deliver on a logical basis. Doesn't mean you are wrong - I can totally see people actually believing this "seed" thing. Its horse#, but that doesn't mean someone doesn't believe it.



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 01:05 AM
link   
reply to post by pavil
 

So what's with the Plantagenets? We could google them for hours and not find anything shocking, so what did you find? Pray tell.



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 06:54 AM
link   
reply to post by christianpatrick
 


The only thing i've been able to find of note is that King John, the Lackland was of the House of Anjou who originated in what would become the Kingdom of France and who following the first crusade till after King Johns death, this family had close ties with the knights templar, and ruled the Kingdom of Jerusalem; or modern day Israel, Lebanon, and Palestine. This is the same King John who, due to his assumed treacherous nature would be immortalized as Prince John from the tales of Robin the Hood.

King John the Lackland, also known as the Softsword, who having assigned much authority to the catholic church, and under pressure from the english barons, was forced to seal the magna carta, which for those unaware is the direct predecessor to the united states constitution. At least, this is the official story as we have it.

Now there may or may not be any conspiracy here, but I would like to ask: In a "free" society that "elects" it's officials, what are the odds that all united States presidents save one, Martin Van Buren, would be related to this man, and not just any man.....but this man?

*ETA* Now admittedly I'm the type that has no problem rocking the boat, and I know the implications here are staggering. But think about it for a moment - What really are the odds that We the People would elect one of this man's family line not just a few times, but 55 out of 56 times!


[edit on 10-8-2010 by blood0fheroes]





new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join