Amazing Bloodline - Mitt Romney Is Related To Obama & Bush

page: 6
44
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 10:52 PM
link   
Text BlackText Greenreply to post by seabag
 


So does this mean (if it's completely true) that no matter who we vote for there will still be a blood tie some where? And if so what does that mean? Could it be that since the beginning we have had no choice but to vote for someone who is related to someone back in history and that it will always be that way? I mean if we really dug back maybe we would all be related somehow......




posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 02:27 AM
link   
reply to post by HUMBLEONE
 


Taking into consideration you're serious, I must honestly say I too feel the same some days although I hate to say it. Many times I've returned to similar conclusions but given their odd nature, I find ways to easily distract myself. One day when the truth is discovered, I am convinced it will be so outrageously insane, that it will be met with immediate denial by all present parties. Why else would they be trying so damn hard to keep us trapped here on this rotting rock while pumping us full of false hope and crap media to keep us busy. Not to mention constant surveillance like lab-rats.

The real truth will be a damn bitter pill to swallow I fear not many will be up to the challenge. Some people will want everything to stay wonderful the way it is with ponies and rainbows like always, while continuing to entrust their hopes and dreams to what can presently only be described as scum of the Earth.



posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 03:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by schuyler
Wait a second here. You and I are cousins, too. Do the math. With 4 generations per century, which is being a bit miserly since it could easily be five, by the time you get back a mere 1,000 years, you have over a TRILLION ancestors. 2-3-8-16-32-1 trillion. Obviously, 1,000 years ago there were way less than a billion people on Earth. In fact, it was somewhere between 300 and 400 million. Given how genes disseminate, you're just as related to Emperor Ching in China s you are an African potentate because all it takes is ONE guy to kind of get lost, get married, and spread his genes.

In other words, we're all related to William the Conqueror, even though few of us can prove it. I can through the Montague line, but so can you if you worked at it. Everyone here is related to Chalamagne. Absolutely staistically guaranteed.

SO, everyone reading this except, perhaps a genuine Native American with ancestry on this continent back 12,000 years pure, is a cousin to Bush, a cousin to Blair, a cousin to Romney, and a cousin to Obama.

A child could do the math. This is no big deal. "Bloodlines" be damned. It's a false issue. Get over it.


Hang on, isn't there a huge difference between 'related' and 'descended from'?

Sure, if we are all descended from African Eve or whoever, then we are all related, but bring it forward a few tens of thousands of years and we aren't all descended from the same dude at that point.

So if there were 300 million people around 1,000 years ago, we have a 1 in 300 million chance of being descended from one particular couple living 1000 years ago.

Isn't this what the hoo haa is all about, that the presidents all descend from one English king?

Chalamagne lived 1200 odd years ago, so we may all be related (obviously), but we sure as hell cannot be all descended!



posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 03:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by jude11
6 degrees of separation law connects us all.

en.wikipedia.org...

Six degrees of separation refers to the idea that everyone is on average approximately six steps away, by way of introduction, from any other person on Earth, so that a chain of "a friend of a friend" statements can be made, on average, to connect any two people in six steps or fewer. It was originally set out by Frigyes Karinthy and popularized by a play written by John Guare.


Peace

edit on 9-9-2012 by jude11 because: (no reason given)


This isn't about a casual interconnection based on "friends" or "friends of friends"

We're talking about RELATION BY BLOOD



posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 03:48 AM
link   
I always knew Brad Pitt would be related to Barack Obama



posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 06:02 AM
link   
We've seen a number of these "elite" family trees (that have even gone mainstream) linking British royalty with US presidents, and US presidents related to each other. However, I have NEVER seen a family tree linking a rank-and-file "commoner" to British royalty and to successions of US presidents. So, it's one thing to brush it off and say "We're all related!" but it's another thing to actually prove it.

If there's nothing unusual about these bloodline relationships, there's an easy way for skeptics to debunk it. Research your own commoner bloodline and show us your blue-blood credentials.



posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 06:04 AM
link   
Because we must believe everything we see and hear on YouTube.




posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 06:53 AM
link   
When this nonsense will stop?

When people will finally understand that EVERYONE is related, that EVERYONE is cousin of everyone?

If I do some research, I can easily prove that RON PAUL is also a "distant cousin" of Mitt Romney and Barack Obama.

Don't you know that the pilgrims of the Mayflower have over 50 million descendants alive today?



EDIT: after doing some research, I just discovered that Ron Paul doesn't have any British ancestry at all. His ancestors are all from Germany, Austria and Ireland. But if he had British ancestry, he would SURELY be a cousin of Obama and Romney...
edit on 11-9-2012 by GLontra because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 06:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by MeTarzan
We've seen a number of these "elite" family trees (that have even gone mainstream) linking British royalty with US presidents, and US presidents related to each other. However, I have NEVER seen a family tree linking a rank-and-file "commoner" to British royalty and to successions of US presidents. So, it's one thing to brush it off and say "We're all related!" but it's another thing to actually prove it.

If there's nothing unusual about these bloodline relationships, there's an easy way for skeptics to debunk it. Research your own commoner bloodline and show us your blue-blood credentials.



The reason for that is very simple: nobody ever researches the ancestry of some rank-and-file "commoner"... Nobody is interested in researching that.



posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 07:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by GLontra

Originally posted by MeTarzan
We've seen a number of these "elite" family trees (that have even gone mainstream) linking British royalty with US presidents, and US presidents related to each other. However, I have NEVER seen a family tree linking a rank-and-file "commoner" to British royalty and to successions of US presidents. So, it's one thing to brush it off and say "We're all related!" but it's another thing to actually prove it.

If there's nothing unusual about these bloodline relationships, there's an easy way for skeptics to debunk it. Research your own commoner bloodline and show us your blue-blood credentials.



The reason for that is very simple: nobody ever researches the ancestry of some rank-and-file "commoner"... Nobody is interested in researching that.


Not so simple. MILLIONS of "commoners" research their own family trees every day. If we're all related to royalty, as some are suggesting, research your family tree and prove it.



posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 09:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by GLontra
When this nonsense will stop?

When people will finally understand that EVERYONE is related, that EVERYONE is cousin of everyone?

If I do some research, I can easily prove that RON PAUL is also a "distant cousin" of Mitt Romney and Barack Obama.

Don't you know that the pilgrims of the Mayflower have over 50 million descendants alive today?



EDIT: after doing some research, I just discovered that Ron Paul doesn't have any British ancestry at all. His ancestors are all from Germany, Austria and Ireland. But if he had British ancestry, he would SURELY be a cousin of Obama and Romney...
edit on 11-9-2012 by GLontra because: (no reason given)


Okay, so first you "can easily prove that RON PAUL is also a "distant cousin" of Mitt Romney and Brack Obama," but in your edit you admit that you cannot prove it.



posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 12:11 PM
link   
reply to post by GLontra
 



EDIT: after doing some research, I just discovered that Ron Paul doesn't have any British ancestry at all. His ancestors are all from Germany, Austria and Ireland. But if he had British ancestry, he would SURELY be a cousin of Obama and Romney...


Maybe that's why he's never going to be POTUS!


That's why I'm looking into the significance of this bloodline issue. We may not be witnessing mere cronyism within our government but actual nepotism. 



posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 12:23 PM
link   
reply to post by SeventhSeal
 



Because we must believe everything we see and hear on YouTube.


It's always easy to spot the people who haven't read the thread.


There have been numerous sources provided to back up the findings. I would link them in this post for you but I'll just let you continue thinking your fallacious argument made sense. 



posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 12:25 PM
link   
All I want to know is the one president that isnt related....who is that?



posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 12:30 PM
link   
reply to post by MeTarzan
 


My grandmother has a VERY extensive family tree done on our family, and we are directly (not 9th cousin twice removed B.S., but directly) related to Mary Queen of Scots. My grandmothers family name is Hamilton, and she has a ton of data on our relationship to this bloodline.

Also, I know I'm not really proving anything right now, but its not something I can do in a thread. It is nearly 5 CDs full of data from records, .pdf birth/death certificates, etc...basically, my family history on a series of CDs.

Havent seen any Bush's or Romney's in my line tho =P



posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 02:13 PM
link   
This could be worth looking into more. The lady who did the research `proving` that so many presidents and other notable Americans are blood related needs to be fact checked and her methods open for other people to test. It is important to allow other people to attempt to do the same thing she did, using the exact same methods, to see if the exact same results are gotten. It often frustrates me when evidence is presented with no peer review. Without peer review, or documents explaining the methods used, it is hard to add the evidence to known fact.



posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by SeventhSeal
 



Because we must believe everything we see and hear on YouTube.


It's always easy to spot the people who haven't read the thread.


There have been numerous sources provided to back up the findings. I would link them in this post for you but I'll just let you continue thinking your fallacious argument made sense. 


This entire thread is fallacious.



posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 08:51 PM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 

lol,like i told someone before on this site,you follow the presidents,you wil find out that



posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 10:53 PM
link   
News Flash: Everyone is actually related to everyone else. Even with just 4-5 generations, those of European descent (and Obama) connect to everyone else within that ethnic-culture group. When you go further back in generations, we all emerged from the same place.

The "that powerful person is related to this powerful person" claim is an irrelevant non sequitur that is nothing more than a thinly veiled ad hominem attack. I'm tired of it. Real issues are much more interesting and useful for discourse.



posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 10:59 PM
link   
reply to post by twoandthree
 


News Flash: Everyone is actually related to everyone else.


News Flash – That’s ridiculous!!


Are we related? Are you related to your current BFF?


COME ON, MAN! THINK!





new topics

top topics



 
44
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join