Underground Knowledge — A discussion group discussion

73 views
PUPPET MASTERS AND SECRET OATHS > All The U.S Presidents Are Related?

Comments Showing 1-45 of 45 (45 new)    post a comment »
dateDown arrow    newest »

message 1: by Harry (last edited Aug 23, 2015 10:45AM) (new)

Harry Whitewolf | 1745 comments It's been mentioned elsewhere in this group that all, bar one, of the U.S presidents are related, but I thought it deserved it's own thread.

It's something that's long been 'known' in 'conspiracy circles', but genealogy is such a complicated business, it's perhaps difficult to trust people who claim such things without going through boring family trees oneself.

So I was pleased to come across this article from the Daily Mail (a major U.K newspaper) from 2012 which proclaims a 12 year old girl had just made the connection. (And the article seems to presume that no one else has ever spotted this... as is the way for news that's reported as 'conspiracy theory'.)

"12-year-old girl created family tree linking 42 of 43 U.S. presidents to King John of England, who signed Magna Carta in 1215
Only eighth president, Martin Van Buren, was not related to John."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/artic...

Here's another article: http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/20...

Not to mention Prime Minister David Cameron being related to Queen Elizabeth II and plenty more examples.

And if you want to go deeper down the rabbit hole, then you might want to look at how 13 families have perhaps always been the ones in control:

Bloodlines of the Illuminati Bloodlines of the Illuminati by Fritz Springmeier


message 2: by Faith (new)

Faith (faymorrow) | 309 comments Harry wrote: "It's been mentioned elsewhere in this group that all, bar one, of the U.S presidents are related, but I thought it deserved it's own thread.

It's something that's long been 'known' in 'conspiracy ..."


Cool beans. :)


message 3: by James, Group Founder (new)

James Morcan | 11100 comments So that list includes Obama also?

Kinda weird the US presidents were all related...Sounds like a real elitist Old Boy Network to me ;)

It's also odd how apart from the Daily Mail and maybe one or two other major outlets, the Presidential bloodline (so to speak) has never been reported in the mainstream media...Even tho I would wager most of the public have at least heard of this theory...


message 4: by Harry (new)

Harry Whitewolf | 1745 comments Yep, even a peanut farmer and Obama too. In fact, the 12 year old girl in that article found that she herself is the eighteenth cousin of Obama... she wrote to the White House... no response...


message 5: by James, Group Founder (new)

James Morcan | 11100 comments Harry wrote: "Yep, even a peanut farmer and Obama too. In fact, the 12 year old girl in that article found that she herself is the eighteenth cousin of Obama... she wrote to the White House... no response..."

Well, on that note, and just to play the Devil's Advocate for a moment, would it be a case that if you trace back most powerful/successful/wealthy families back far enough that they would all be somehow related somewhere along the line if only distantly? Or not?

I think not, but just wanted to check as I've never studied family trees or how related we all are...But if someone can indicate that highly improbable that these presidents would all be related, then I think I'm almost ready to fully buy into the "Presidential Bloodline" conspiracy :)


message 6: by Harry (new)

Harry Whitewolf | 1745 comments James Morcan wrote: "Harry wrote: "Yep, even a peanut farmer and Obama too. In fact, the 12 year old girl in that article found that she herself is the eighteenth cousin of Obama... she wrote to the White House... no r..."

I'm no genealogist, but it seems clear that something weird's going on.

Look into the 13 Bloodlines book above and stuff about the Merovingians and other families to see how deep it all goes!

Oh- hold on- we're all related to Adam! Sorry, I'd forgotten!


message 7: by James, Group Founder (new)

James Morcan | 11100 comments Harry wrote: "Oh- hold on- we're all related to Adam! Sorry, I'd forgotten!
..."


Damn Harry, you know how such jokes set off Christian Fundamentalists...Next thing you know one of them will be replying with detailed essays on how we definitely are all related to Adam and "evidence" to prove it...

Getting back on topic...
If Donald Trump becomes the next President, I wonder if he's related to all the others? And is that the way to find out who'll win the 2016 election - Just check all the family trees?
Also, how many British PMs are related, I wonder? I'd guess most.


message 8: by Harry (new)

Harry Whitewolf | 1745 comments I think the thing that's most important from the 'all presidents are related' is that they are DIRECT DESCENDANTS of King John.

Donald Trump? No idea. But David Cameron's a cousin of the Queen...which also never gets reported...


message 9: by James, Group Founder (new)

James Morcan | 11100 comments None of the other Presidents had Trump's hair...
So that makes me suspect he ain't related to the others ;)


message 10: by Harry (new)

Harry Whitewolf | 1745 comments 'Trump' means to fart in the U.K. Heeheeheehee.


message 11: by James, Group Founder (new)

James Morcan | 11100 comments Yup.
Playing the trump card...
Or blow your trumpet...


message 12: by Elisabet (new)

Elisabet Norris | 486 comments in order to exclude the theory of that we are all somehow linked or if there truly is a good argument about a presidential bloodline, could we not do genealogy on all the candidates and see if they are all related to the Royals? if only one of them is related and is elected to be president, then the theory will be interesting. And in the past have not the two remaining candidates ever both been from the bloodline? how accurate are these records used in the genealogical studies?


message 13: by Harry (new)

Harry Whitewolf | 1745 comments Lisa wrote: "in order to exclude the theory of that we are all somehow linked or if there truly is a good argument about a presidential bloodline, could we not do genealogy on all the candidates and see if they..."

Yep, absolutely Lisa. We could also just pick 43 members of this group and see if we're related to King John and all!

I think the statistics already win out on this topic though.


message 14: by James, Group Founder (new)

James Morcan | 11100 comments These two are distant cousins, so the power will be "staying in the family" :)

Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton are related, genealogy experts say http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2...


message 15: by Harry (new)

Harry Whitewolf | 1745 comments James wrote: "These two are distant cousins, so the power will be "staying in the family" :)

Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton are related, genealogy experts say http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2......"


I'd been wondering whether Trump would be included in the family tree.


message 16: by James, Group Founder (new)

James Morcan | 11100 comments All roads lead back to your beloved Queen, mate.
America has royal rulers...they just don't know it.


message 17: by Harry (new)

Harry Whitewolf | 1745 comments All roads lead to King John more specifically in this case! But, yeah, "the royal family" still rules the world...


message 18: by Harry (new)

Harry Whitewolf | 1745 comments "...both Trump and Hillary Clinton are related to John of Gaunt, a 14th century royal. Gaunt, who was the 1st Duke of Lancaster, was the son of King Edward III. According to MyHeritage, Trump is related through his mother, Mary Anne Macleod, back to his 17th great-grandfather, John Beaufort, while Clinton is related through her father and the Rodham family, back to her 17th great-grandmother, Joan Beaufort. The two candidates are 19th cousins."

http://victuruslibertas.com/2016/06/i...

And also from that same article (This gives more detail than I have posted above before):

"34 of the 44 previous presidents have been direct genetic descendants from just one person, Charlemagne- the brutal eighth century King of the Franks and 19 of them directly descended from King Edward III of England. In fact, the presidential candidate with the most royal genes has won every single American election."

and

“This information comes from Burke’s Peerage, which is the Bible of aristocratic genealogy, based in London. Every presidential election in America, since and including George Washington in 1789, to Bill Clinton, has been won by the candidate with the most British and French royal genes. Of the 42 presidents to Clinton, 33 have been related to two people: Alfred the Great, King of England, and Charlemagne, the most famous monarch of France. So it goes on: 19 of them are related to England’s Edward III, who has 2000 blood connections to Prince Charles. The same goes with the banking families in America. George Bush and Barbara Bush are from the same bloodline – the Pierce bloodline, which changed its name from Percy, when it crossed the Atlantic. Percy is one of the aristocratic families of Britain, to this day. They were involved in the Gunpowder Plot to blow up Parliament at the time of Guy Fawkes” –Researcher/Author David Icke."


message 19: by James, Group Founder (new)

James Morcan | 11100 comments What about British Prime Ministers, Harry?
Are they all related too?


message 20: by Harry (new)

Harry Whitewolf | 1745 comments Not sure about that offhand, but I know Cameron is a cousin of the queen for starters.


message 21: by ☘Misericordia☘ (last edited Nov 11, 2016 01:02PM) (new)

☘Misericordia☘ ⚡ϟ⚡⛈⚡☁ ❇️❤❣ (misericordia) Harry wrote: "Yep, even a peanut farmer and Obama too. In fact, the 12 year old girl in that article found that she herself is the eighteenth cousin of Obama... she wrote to the White House... no response..."

People just underestimate the power of the geometric progression.
2 = you,
2^1 = 2 people are your parents (mom+dad)
2^2 = 4 people are your grandparents (2 grandpas + 2 grandmas)
2^3 = 8 people are your great-grandparents (8 great-grandpamas)
...
2^14 = 16 384 people are your 12 times great-grandparents,
...
2^32 = 4 294 967 296 = 4+bln people would have been your 30 times great-grandparents, had there been any point in time before 20th century, when this many people lived on this planet. Someone could even turn out to be related to all the Kings and Queens and tribal Chiefs and everyone else at once.

For comparison, currently there are on Earth about 7.3 bln people living. Ultimately, we are all rather heavily interrelated.

Once again, say King John had 2 children, and all his children had each 2 children and so on and on. Average age for each gal/guy's life was 30 years. Basically, only 30 average life years * 33 generations later, (which equals 30*33=990 years) King John's progenity would have been higher than the current Earth's population: 2^33 = 8 589 934 592 = 8+bln people.

And, once again, the time difference between Magna Carta 1215 and today, as of 2016, is 801 years, which after divided by the average life of, say, 30 years, is 26.7 generations. Which would give us, under 1) the same assumption as above, that each of the King John of England's children, great-grandchildren and so on had an average of 2 children, and 2) that he had not the historically known 5 but only 2 children (all before the 1215), that there currently could be comfortably living somewhere between
2^(26+1) = 134 217 728 ==> 134+ mln
and
2^(27+1) = 268 435 456 ==> 268+ mln
of people (about 1 person in each 100 people who live today) who could boast of being the direct descendants of the late King John, God bless his soul.

Of course it's all rather heavily laden with assumptions and there easily could have been a situation where any number of the said King's descendants are in current attendance of this sorry Earth, between 0 and all the 7.3 bln people. Still, the assumptions used are rather conservative-ish as, for instance, had we considered that each generation had 3 children in 30 years, then the population of earch would have been exceeded in 21st generation already, only 600 to 630 years after Magna Carta (1815-1845 years):
3^20 = 3 486 784 401 ==> 3+ bln
3^21 = 10 460 353 203 ==> 10+ bln

But still, there would be nothing strange at all if there are really lots of related to him people walking.


That girl had better done her maths before the genealogy lesson :)


message 22: by James, Group Founder (new)

James Morcan | 11100 comments Maths was never my strong suit, but to my eyes it looks like you just debunked this theory!
What about the idea tho that royalty doesn't generally propagate with commoners?


message 23: by Jim (new)

Jim (jimliedeka) They do when the commoners have money they need.


☘Misericordia☘ ⚡ϟ⚡⛈⚡☁ ❇️❤❣ (misericordia) James wrote: "Maths was never my strong suit, but to my eyes it looks like you just debunked this theory!
What about the idea tho that royalty doesn't generally propagate with commoners?"


I guess we will never know exactly, especially if we dare to consider children born out of wedlock.
And, of course if we consider eliticism, there will be no wonder that elites elect their own and that they are extremely interbred and as a result of both we might find a lot of common threads for the said elected people belonging to elites. Really, if we can without much ado establish that there is a possibility of about anyone in this thread having a 1 in 100 chance of being the descendant of some line on King Johns (out of wedlock or not), we definitely can find a lot of common denominators for pure royalty lines on which information can be easier found than on common people. And basically these ideas are not mutually exclusive.


message 25: by James, Group Founder (new)

James Morcan | 11100 comments Okay thanks for info.
And yes I agree royals and elitists do all they can to breed amongst themselves - the original inbreds!


message 26: by Jim (new)

Jim (jimliedeka) There's a rumor that one of the royal families of Europe has tails from all the inbreeding. We probably all know about the Hapsburg jaw.


message 27: by Harry (new)

Harry Whitewolf | 1745 comments I'd love to see someone do a study of, say, 40 random people to test the mathematics here. Still seems bloody odd to me. I'll believe the maths when I see it in action of real people.

I think this statement from the last article I linked is the most important: "In fact, the presidential candidate with the MOST royal genes has won every single American election." So, not just anybody with weak ties, but always someone with the most ties.


message 28: by James, Group Founder (new)

James Morcan | 11100 comments Harry wrote: "I think this statement from the last article I linked is the most important: "In fact, the presidential candidate with the MOST royal genes has won every single American election." So, not just anybody with weak ties, but always someone with the most ties. ..."

The Whitewolf returns...And apparently has debunked the debunked, or challenged the debunked, or unbunked the attempted debunk...
Yeah, I'm confused!


message 29: by Harry (new)

Harry Whitewolf | 1745 comments James wrote: "Harry wrote: "I think this statement from the last article I linked is the most important: "In fact, the presidential candidate with the MOST royal genes has won every single American election." So..."

We can start on Laurence Gardner's descendants of Christ next if you want... ;)


message 30: by ☘Misericordia☘ (last edited Nov 12, 2016 06:55PM) (new)

☘Misericordia☘ ⚡ϟ⚡⛈⚡☁ ❇️❤❣ (misericordia) Harry wrote: "I'd love to see someone do a study of, say, 40 random people to test the mathematics here. Still seems bloody odd to me. I'll believe the maths when I see it in action of real people.

I think this..."


The finest point would be that most of randomly chosen people would be unable to provide meaningful data on their ancestry, no matter who they might be descended from. Say you, how many generations can you go back? 3? 6? 10? Myself, I would only be able to go 3 to 8 generations back and that not naming 100% of relations in those generations. And I'm sure most people would have no info on their predecessors 15-20 generations back. Which would in no way mean that they have no royal bloods in their genetic makeup. It would only mean that they don't know about it.

Statistically, there are a lot more people related to various historically famous personalities than one should conservatively expect there to be. The most beautiful thing about all of this is that most of them could be completely unaware of such familial ties.


message 31: by Harry (new)

Harry Whitewolf | 1745 comments Fair point, but I'd still like to see the maths tested on people whose ancestry we can follow back! :)


message 32: by ☘Misericordia☘ (last edited Nov 13, 2016 08:20AM) (new)

☘Misericordia☘ ⚡ϟ⚡⛈⚡☁ ❇️❤❣ (misericordia) Harry wrote: "Fair point, but I'd still like to see the maths tested on people whose ancestry we can follow back! :)"

In order to understand what you are saying you'll have to have a fair grasp of statisctics as well as to be able to perform representative sampling for that. I expect the main problem with that would be that there simply aren't enough people who know their ancestry for 28 generations back. And if you select your interviewees only from people who actually do have such info that might make your selection non-representative. So the actual number of currently living people who are relations of King John is likely to remain a mystery as no matter what we do we won't have the info that had been lost with ages. But it's only fair to expect basing on our simple calsulations above, that the number of such cases is likely to be high.


message 33: by Harry (new)

Harry Whitewolf | 1745 comments Statistically speaking, ain't it funny that we CAN trace back all 45 presidents then? ;)


message 34: by ☘Misericordia☘ (last edited Nov 13, 2016 11:44AM) (new)

☘Misericordia☘ ⚡ϟ⚡⛈⚡☁ ❇️❤❣ (misericordia) Harry wrote: "Statistically speaking, ain't it funny that we CAN trace back all 45 presidents then? ;)"
I'm not sure we can trace them. There is not a shred of proof of it. All I have seen in that article is a nice pic of some girl who SUPPOSEDLY was able to trace the 45 presidents back. There is not a single word of the resources she used, not one single lineage has actually been presented for us to review, along with references to sources... This is what we DON'T see in the article.

Now let's review what we SEE in it:
1)
In the article I saw a pic with ROUND scheme of very bad qualiity (I can't read what's written in there) which may or may not be the genealogical tree the girl is alleged to have researched. Let's note that genealogical trees are generally not round as it's easier to present such info in hierarchical way. Basically who issued who.
2)
Another thing which is bothering me about that scheme is that there is nucleus and 2 rings. There definitrely are more generations in play than 3 if we are trying to establish a connection between the King John and the US presidents.
3)
Yet another thing is that if the nucleus represents King John, then one could expect to find on the border ring a presentation of all the presidents. There are only 28 round points on the outward ring which begs a question of how exactly these correspond to the 45 presidents the scheme would be expected to represent.

Therefore the article is worthless in terms of science. True historical science would have been followed with proof of whichever claims there have been issued forward so that anyone bothering to go in detail could see for themselves if the girl was or wasn't right, if she misinterpreted something or if she used trustworthy sources of information. This way there would have been something to actually talk about. And the way I see this info it's cheap journalism instigated by all the US elections controversy.

We can even generalise the morale of this situation. Basically people shouldn't just trust some obcure claims that someone has done something, no matter what. People lie a lot, even on craziest stuff. People like publicity and will say any crasy shit only to bask in attention. And it's so not because people are bad - they aren't. They are just prone to making mistakes, being gullible and expressing fallible views. So asking questions is ok. Questioning whether something is true is ok as well. In many cases it will help debunk all the claims altogether, with just the simplest of questions.

PS I'm not trying to be difficult here. I am just a bit overboard with scheptical worldview, I guess.


message 35: by Harry (new)

Harry Whitewolf | 1745 comments Well that Daily Mail article was from a long time ago, so it has nothing to do with 'election controversy' and I only posted that story as I thought people might take note of something which had been reported by and corroborated by mainstream media, but the idea of all the presidents being related (and other high ranking officials) was discovered some time ago (circa '70s/'80s/'90s I believe).

The last article I posted gives more specifics and reports that David Icke did a lot of research on it, which he he gathered from the famous Burke's Peerage.

http://victuruslibertas.com/2016/06/i...

Some of Icke's books give a lot more detail about this, but he's by no means the first to discover such genealogical links. Specifically: Bloodlines of the Illuminati by Fritz Springmeier.

- as well as books like Bloodline of the Holy Grail: The Hidden Lineage of Jesus Revealed which traces lineages all the way back to the King David line. Both of those books meticulously list family trees and have photographs of them, so there seems little doubt about the authenticity of those and the U.S presidents' lineage to Charlemagne and King John. I didn't think the family trees themselves were up for debate at all, as much as debates about their coincidence which you originally brought up. (And, incidentally, I knew the publisher of Laurence Gardner's Bloodline of the Holy Grail on a personal basis so I know all possible reputable checks had been made on that lineage, even if I disagree with a lot of Gardner's sweeping statements in the book.)


message 36: by Grace (new)

Grace (themadmangoavenger) | 10 comments Harry wrote: "I'd love to see someone do a study of, say, 40 random people to test the mathematics here. Still seems bloody odd to me. I'll believe the maths when I see it in action of real people.

I think this..."


Hence why this is most definitely NOT a theory, but rather a hypothesis. There is plenty of room for experimentation before it can become even a fact.


message 37: by Harry (new)

Harry Whitewolf | 1745 comments Quite simply: I don't think the lineages themselves are up for debate, but the coincidence is. :)


message 38: by ☘Misericordia☘ (last edited Nov 13, 2016 11:52AM) (new)

☘Misericordia☘ ⚡ϟ⚡⛈⚡☁ ❇️❤❣ (misericordia) Harry wrote: "Well that Daily Mail article was from a long time ago, so it has nothing to do with 'election controversy' and I only posted that story as I thought people might take note of something which had be..."

Okay, if you advise me to look into D.Icke's works I'll do it at some point in the future. :) I really hope I'll find the actual trees and proof of this info in those books as 1) it would be a worthwile read and 2) I definitely won't believe that some publisher did checks on something and then didn't publish the particulars. :)

What I said above refers to the article from the Daily Mail. And, I am still at a loss, if there are established genealogical trees in Icke's books, then why did some girl feel the need to further research this stuff. And if I won't find the DETAILED gen.trees in Icke's books, the same questions will apply to his works as well.

Harry wrote: "Quite simply: I don't think the lineages themselves are up for debate, but the coincidence is. :)"

No, wait a sec: if there aren't confirmed lineages there is no debate. You can't debate something that doesn't exist. Or rather you can but it's pointless.


message 39: by Harry (new)

Harry Whitewolf | 1745 comments Cheers Misericordia. I'm not completely opposed to what you've been saying - mathematically, you know more than I do, so it would genuinely be interesting to test out your theory and see if what seems like an incredible coincidence can actually be attributed more to statistics, but at this point I still find it incredible that all (but one) presidents are related to royalty.

Do check out some of Icke's earlier books - but I didn't mean to say that he had pictures of the lineages in his books. I don't think he has, but he does cite the renowned Burke's Peerage for his main resource, so it can be corroborated, and, as far as I know, no one's disputing the actual lineage links he's made.

I'm pretty sure Bloodlines of the Illuminati by Fritz Springmeier does include illustrations of the lineages, but it's been ages since I've read it. Laurence Gardner's book, tracing the line of David, is packed full of family tree pictures, and it crosses over with the other books in that it mentions lines like the Merovingians and Charlemagne.

And I agree with 'why did some girl feel the need to research this stuff when Icke/others had', which just goes to show how such information that's been around in 'conspiracy circles' for years is ignored because it's only reported in 'conspiracy circles'! (i.e - a lot of threads in this group report pure facts but they're still not publicised by mainstream media.)


message 40: by Harry (new)

Harry Whitewolf | 1745 comments Misericordia wrote: "No, wait a sec: if there aren't confirmed lineages there is no debate. You can't debate something that doesn't exist. Or rather you can but it's pointless."

Eh? You've lost me here. I agree with that. I was simply stating that I'm pretty sure the lineages themselves are true, and that's therefore not up for debate. Whereas the coincidence of such a finding is.


message 41: by ☘Misericordia☘ (last edited Nov 13, 2016 12:19PM) (new)

☘Misericordia☘ ⚡ϟ⚡⛈⚡☁ ❇️❤❣ (misericordia) Harry wrote: "Misericordia wrote: "No, wait a sec: if there aren't confirmed lineages there is no debate. You can't debate something that doesn't exist. Or rather you can but it's pointless."

Eh? You've lost me..."


I must have misunderstood you. I thought you were saying that even though there aren't detailed lineages, the debate is on. :) Which surprised me %)

What I meant is that I haven't seen a single lineage of the sort yet, anywhere, beyond the mere statement that there must be some. How are you so sure they are true? Have you seen them? Reviewed the sources of information? Or is it something intuitive? I do believe in the benefits of intuition, occassionally. Basically I believe in things that can be proven :)

PS Just saw your earlier message. Ok, Gardner, Icke & Springmeier it is. It'll be fun to look into the sources of all this info. Cheers! :)
That's quite a fun topic you unearthed here ;)


message 42: by Harry (new)

Harry Whitewolf | 1745 comments Misericordia wrote: "Harry wrote: "Misericordia wrote: "No, wait a sec: if there aren't confirmed lineages there is no debate. You can't debate something that doesn't exist. Or rather you can but it's pointless."

Eh? ..."


I simply believe the researchers who have researched this and which I have read. I trust that the likes of Laurence Gardner, who, to quote from his biography, is "an internationally known sovereign and chivalric genealogist. Distinguished as the Chevalier Labhran de Saint Germain, he is presidential Attache to the European Council of Princes. He is formally attached to the Noble Household Guard at the Royal House of Stewart...and is the Jacobite Historiographer Royal," and who is published by a renowned publisher, isn't making shit up. :)


message 43: by ☘Misericordia☘ (last edited Nov 13, 2016 01:01PM) (new)

☘Misericordia☘ ⚡ϟ⚡⛈⚡☁ ❇️❤❣ (misericordia) Harry wrote: I simply believe the researchers who have researched this and which I have read. I trust that the likes of Laurence Gardner, who, to quote from his biography, is "an internationally known sovereign and chivalric genealogist. Distinguished as the Chevalier Labhran de Saint Germain, he is presidential Attache to the European Council of Princes. He is formally attached to the Noble Household Guard at the Royal House of Stewart...and is the Jacobite Historiographer Royal," and who is published by a renowned publisher, isn't making shit up. :) "

Harry, I'm sorry to say it but I tend to be a professional sceptic, I don't get impressed with regalia. I believe that you believe that this researcher is a very trustworthy one and therefore I'll definitely give his books a try.
But I have seen lots of people who are distinguished in various things but still do either genuine mistakes or outright irresponsible stuff in the very things that they are supposed to be distinguished in. :) So I'll just have to see for myself the worth of the research in question.
Basically I just am not prone to believe that what some Laurence/Bill/Mary said is true because they are good people. :) Things rarely get done just for the hell of it. And if we see a lot of references that all the US presidents are interrelated and we don't see how exactly they are related (via who, when, how we established that) then this information is presented in this particular way because of some reason.
This reason may be that someone doesn't want these claims to look trustworthy and is looking to discredit perfectly valid info. Or, the case may be that the researcher did not establish all the ties and is not looking to reveal this to public. Or, the whole info may be based on hearsay and may be lacking crucial detail. Or, ... whatever else may be wrong or right with this... It's usually the minor details analysis that gives the most interesting results.


message 44: by Harry (new)

Harry Whitewolf | 1745 comments Misericordia wrote: "Harry wrote: I simply believe the researchers who have researched this and which I have read. I trust that the likes of Laurence Gardner, who, to quote from his biography, is "an internationally kn..."

I concur with all you say there. Titles and accolades don't impress me either actually. But I believe in vigorous research which is what I believe has been conducted in this case.

But obviously only by fact checking oneself and coming to one's own conclusions is the only way to ascertain what one believes oneself, and I haven't gone through Burke's Peerage myself - like I said in my original post here: "(The presidents being related is) something that's long been 'known' in 'conspiracy circles', but genealogy is such a complicated business, it's perhaps difficult to trust people who claim such things without going through boring family trees oneself."

But by the same logic, we might as well throw out known facts like the moon is in the sky (I've seen it, but I've not been there), that John Lennon is dead (I didn't see him die or corroborate the death certificate) or that there is a war happening in Syria (I've not been there).

;)


message 45: by ☘Misericordia☘ (last edited Nov 13, 2016 04:24PM) (new)

☘Misericordia☘ ⚡ϟ⚡⛈⚡☁ ❇️❤❣ (misericordia) Harry wrote: "Misericordia wrote: "Harry wrote: I simply believe the researchers who have researched this and which I have read. I trust that the likes of Laurence Gardner, who, to quote from his biography, is "..."

- Syria one can look on Youtube and make their conclusions basing on the sheer volume of materials (you can fake 5 articles not 25 000 of entirely different materials as it would take time and money to stage all of that),
- one can look up the sightings of John Lennon this year and the court hearings of that Chapman pal who did him in one can find online as well,
- the moon can be seen in the telescope (btw today's supermoon is a great opportunity to do just that, the next one supposedly will happen in 70+- years), one also can refer to all the research done on the moon starting from ancient Egypt and up to today, so it probably exists :).

And this is illustrating why I'm looking to see some detailed results of other people's research and am not insisting on going to all the libraries and archives and doing some time-travelling myself. :)


back to top