Icke's royal bloodline theory

Moderators: DrVolin, Wombaticus Rex, Jeff

Re: 7 sisters

Postby Iroquois » Tue Jul 04, 2006 4:23 pm

I find the Seven Sisters eminently interesting myself. Important enough to me at least that when seven young birch at the edge of my property line suddenly died I got more than a little concerned. Then I saved the lives of seven signets, so "no worries". I just haven't gotten around to doing any thorough research on the topic.<br><br>As for mDNA corresponding to race, I don't think the two can be linked as mDNA only applies to the little intracellular power plants called mitochondria that are inherited from one's mother. It has nothing to do with the physical characteristics used to categorize people into races.<br><br>If there are indeed 36 maternal sources for all of humanity, there may just as well happen to be 7 matrons that are ultimately the source of those 36. Regardless, according to this hypothesis, all of humanity is descended from a single "mitochondrial Eve" that lived some 100 to 250 thousand years ago. Though, I suppose one could accept the first part of the theory and still reject the single Eve part. Still, these do not at all conform to conventional races. For example, a child with a typical European ancestor in its matrilinial line, regardless of how remote, will be a descendent of one of Oxford Ancestor's "Seven Daughters of Eve" even if every other parent in that child's ancestry are Masayan of Africa and has a very Masayan appearance.<br><br>It should be noted that the mitochondrial Eve theory is well, but not universally, supported.<br><br>This article looks like a fair treatment of the subject: <!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.sciencenews.org/pages/sn_arc99/2_6_99/bob1.htm">www.sciencenews.org/pages...9/bob1.htm</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>Excerpt:<br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr><br>Genetic studies collide with the mystery of human evolution<br><br>By Bruce Bower<br><br>Just a few years ago, genetic researchers assumed the status of a scientific Supreme Court in the debate over humanity's prehistoric roots. The coils of human DNA appeared to have hardened into a molecular gavel with which these scientists could issue a final ruling on how best to explain the evolution of modern Homo sapiens.<br><br>During the late 1980s, initial studies of global DNA diversity encouraged a vigorous bout of gavel pounding. One after another, investigators concluded that modern humans probably arose in Africa around 200,000 years ago and then spread elsewhere, replacing Neandertals and any other species in our evolutionary past. Analyses of mitochondrial DNA—inherited only through the maternal line—in people from different parts of the world traced the origin of these genes back to one or a few African women dubbed "mitochondrial Eve."<br><br>Decades of anthropological debate over modern human origins that was based on interpretations of measurements and a host of bumps and grooves on ancient fossils teetered on the verge of irrelevance.<br><br>However, even some admirers of mitochondrial Eve now say that the jury is out on whether state-of-the-art DNA studies can live up to their early billing. Accumulating data prove compatible with either of the two main theories of how H. sapiens came about.<br><br>The recent African-origin model championed by many genetic researchers relies on genetic findings that fit just as easily into a contrasting multiregional model. That is, populations of H. sapiens living in different parts of Africa, Asia, and Europe interbred enough over at least the past 1 million years to evolve collectively as a single species. The various populations around the world derived from even older ancestors of H. sapiens in this scenario.<br><br>Practitioners of what has been dubbed anthropological genetics now operate with a sense of caution and a hunger for better explanations of how evolutionary forces produce genetic diversity among individuals and groups.<br><br>"A lot of us have been too eager to assume that a strict out-of-Africa model is correct because it's compatible with the genetic data, without considering that the data also fit with the multiregional theory," says anthropologist John H. Relethford of the State University of New York at Oneonta. "It's time to go back to the drawing board on this issue."<br><hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br> <p></p><i></i>
Iroquois
 
Posts: 660
Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2005 1:47 pm
Location: Michigan
Blog: View Blog (0)

Mitochondrial eve

Postby jingofever » Tue Jul 04, 2006 6:51 pm

"Regardless, according to this hypothesis, all of humanity is descended from a single "mitochondrial Eve" that lived some 100 to 250 thousand years ago."<br><br>It has been updated.<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060701/ap_on_sc/brotherhood_of_man">news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060...ood_of_man</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>"a few thousand years ago". This article was also written by Matt Crenson. I guess he probably wrote the two articles from the same sources. <p></p><i></i>
User avatar
jingofever
 
Posts: 2805
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2005 6:24 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Mitochondrial eve

Postby Dreams End » Tue Jul 04, 2006 7:27 pm

Try some math. You have two parents. Each of them has two parents. Keep doubling every, say 40 years, which is pretty standard idea of a "generation."<br><br>How many years do you have to go back before your DIRECT ancestors (I don' t mean cousins, I mean parents of parents of parents) outnumber the current population of the earth.) Just grab a calculator and keep hitting X2. When you get to 6 billion or so (nothing special about that number...just to make the point) then take how many times you multiplied and multiply THAT by 40. <br><br>I get between about 31 and 32 doublings. That's just over 1000 years ago. This suggests that the amount of overlap is very high (obviously, you can't have more forebears than there were people at the time). <br><br>So the recent model says that maybe as recently as 2000 years ago there was the famous "Most Recent Common Ancestor")...a single person from whom we ALL descended. <br><br>That doesn't rule out people thinking they need to keep the bloodline "pure" and maybe even having SOME success...but unless you ascribe to literal millenia old conspiracies about reptilians who simply NEVER intermarry with "humans" your forced to assume that we are all mutts.<br><br>That certainly, of course, also <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>does not rule out</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--> elite and class pressures and plots to marry within the "right" circles, arranged marriages, political marriages, royal marriages, etc. <br><br>Just means that the actual DNA that they are "preserving" is probably already so compromised that theories about literal maintenance of bloodlines for DNA purposes are...unlikely.<br><br> <p></p><i></i>
Dreams End
 

Re

Postby Quentin Quire » Tue Jul 04, 2006 8:41 pm

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Just means that the actual DNA that they are "preserving" is probably already so compromised that theories about literal maintenance of bloodlines for DNA purposes are...unlikely.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>Absolutely. This reminds me of the comic book/graphic novels 'Preacher' which features 'The Grail' - a fictional Christian organisation which has protected and interbred the bloodline of Christ for centuries so they can reveal a 'messiah' from the bloodline when the time is right.<br><br>When the 'Messiah' and his parents are revealed they are simian-like inbred mutants in a cage flinging shit at each other.<br><br>Personally I find the Icke and Laurence Gardner et al research into 'Bloodlines' to be riddled with disinformation and fallacy. <p></p><i></i>
Quentin Quire
 
Posts: 117
Joined: Sat Oct 15, 2005 6:48 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Disinformation and fallacy.

Postby slimmouse » Tue Jul 04, 2006 8:46 pm

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Personally I find the Icke and Laurence Gardner et al research into 'Bloodlines' to be riddled with disinformation and fallacy.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br> Funnily enough, I have the same opinion of certain posters on here.<br><br> Why did Eddy abdicate ? Im desperate for an answer, and yet the silence is deafening. <p></p><i></i>
slimmouse
 
Posts: 6129
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 7:41 am
Location: Just outside of you.
Blog: View Blog (3)

RE

Postby Quentin Quire » Tue Jul 04, 2006 8:54 pm

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Personally I find the Icke and Laurence Gardner et al research into 'Bloodlines' to be riddled with disinformation and fallacy.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Funnily enough, I have the same opinion of certain posters on here.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Suggesting a poster is purposefully spreading disinformation is not permitted. The charge or insinuation of "disinfo agent" can almost never be proven, and it poisons and often ends the discourse. If you have evidence that a poster is a disinfo agent, IM me with it.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>Grow up, Slim. <p></p><i></i>
Quentin Quire
 
Posts: 117
Joined: Sat Oct 15, 2005 6:48 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Peruke in a pickle ?

Postby slimmouse » Tue Jul 04, 2006 9:00 pm

<br> Aw c'mon man, were both grown ups here.<br><br> You have your opinion and I have mine.<br><br> I know Im some kind of Bovi, or is that Goyim, but hell, I still shit the same as you do. <p></p><i></i>
slimmouse
 
Posts: 6129
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 7:41 am
Location: Just outside of you.
Blog: View Blog (3)

Re: Bloodlines

Postby LilyPatToo » Tue Jul 04, 2006 10:46 pm

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Ask yourself what happened to Edward VIII, when he fell in love with a commoner.<br><br>That was less than 80 years ago.<br><br>Then GET with the programme<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>I apologize if I'm interfering in a private discussion--I'm new here. I'm also an American and less familiar with British royalty than many folk, but I thought Edward VIII abdicated because the woman he loved was divorced. Is that correct? And if so, will Charles ever be able to assume the throne with Camilla in tow?<br><br>But more to the point, what program? (serious question--I'm interested)<br><br>I've heard from historians that Icke and Gardner's bloodline research is inacccurate and that Gardner's, specifically, is slanted to provide a more impressive pedigree for whoever happens to be his patron of the moment. They said that to do so is nothing new--genealogists have been doing it for thousands of years.<br><br>LilyPat <p></p><i></i>
User avatar
LilyPatToo
 
Posts: 1473
Joined: Sun Jul 02, 2006 3:08 pm
Location: Oakland, CA USA
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Peruke in a pickle ?

Postby Joe Hillshoist » Tue Jul 04, 2006 11:00 pm

The truth of the bloodline thing is probably closer to Focault's Pendulum than to the Da Vinci Code.<br><br>As far as gardener goes, reading him is an exercise in discernment and meme recognition. He's full of shit on anything to do with royalty and its "divine" right to govern.<br><br>And probably lots of other stuff.<br><br>I imagine it suits the aristocratic mindset to believe some bullshit about being descended from a superior race of aliens responsible for all religions.<br><br>After all aristocrats are the descendants of the medieval thugs who were more effective at using violence and intimidation to get their way than anyone else. Well maybe not thugs, as I am descended from among others real Thugee people.<br><br>I don't like the way that term has devolved.<br><br>Anyway I can see how any legitamacy no matter how piss poor would be jumped on by people with that particular heritage. <p></p><i></i>
Joe Hillshoist
 
Posts: 9314
Joined: Mon Jun 12, 2006 10:45 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: just Eve not Eve and Steve

Postby Iroquois » Tue Jul 04, 2006 11:01 pm

The most recent common ancestor stuff is interesting. Thanks for posting that, jingofever. But, the mitochondrial Eve hypothesis has not really changed much. And, we each just have one mom. The math used to estimate when she lived is based on the estimated rate of genetic change of mDNA. In other words, it is an estimate of how long it would take to get the total known range of genetic variation in human mDNA.<br><br>wikipedia, of course, offers a better explanation:<br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr><br>Mitochondrial Eve ('mt-mrca) is the name given by researchers to the woman who is the matrilineal most recent common ancestor for all living humans, from whom all mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) in living humans is descended. Mitochondrial Eve is the female counterpart of the Y-chromosomal Adam, the patrilinear most recent common ancestor.<br><br>She is believed by some to have lived about 150,000 years ago in what is now Ethiopia, Kenya or Tanzania. Her age is calculated based on the molecular clock technique of correlating elapsed time with observed genetic drift.<br><br>...<br><br>Mitochondrial Eve is the most recent common matrilineal (female-lineage) ancestor for mtDNA, not the most recent common ancestor (MRCA) of all humans. The MRCA's offspring have led to all living humans, but Mitochondrial Eve must be traced only through female lineage, so she is estimated to have lived much longer ago than the MRCA. While Mitochondrial Eve is thought to have been living around 150,000 years ago, the MRCA is estimated to have been living only a couple of thousand years ago.<br><hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br>URL: <!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve">en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>As for Icke, other than the Credu Mutwa interviews, I can't say I see much there of value to me. I suppose that in-between the lines of my posts I was making a subtle point on the reptillian thing. Lots of research is going on, but no one mentions finding reptillian DNA sequences in some segments of the population. On the other hand, an Icke fan I met recently knew 9/11 was an inside job on day 1. It took me something like two years. <p></p><i></i>
Iroquois
 
Posts: 660
Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2005 1:47 pm
Location: Michigan
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: just Eve not Eve and Steve

Postby Joe Hillshoist » Tue Jul 04, 2006 11:18 pm

I am no Icke fan but I "knew" 911 was an inside job from day one. I remember thinking Your republic dies today when dubya got elected the first time...<br><br>Being sus on 911 doesn't mean anything special IMO.<br><br>The Credo stuff is interesting. Tho I get the feeling Icke "used" Mutwa for his own purposes.<br><br>The reptillian DNA thing just doesn't add up with me.<br><br>But the metaphor it could be makes alot more sense.<br><br>Thinking with your reptillian brain and all that.<br><br>Cold blooded, that persons a snake, etc etc <p></p><i></i>
Joe Hillshoist
 
Posts: 9314
Joined: Mon Jun 12, 2006 10:45 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Edward viii a nazi sympathizer?

Postby Chiaroscuro » Wed Jul 05, 2006 8:24 pm

I had read one theory that the true reason Edward abdicated was to get the government out from under the taint of his nazi sympathies.<br><br>Charles will be allowed to become king even though he married camilla. I can't remember what reasoning they used for allowing this, sorry. <p></p><i></i>
Chiaroscuro
 
Posts: 49
Joined: Thu Apr 20, 2006 3:48 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Edward viii a nazi sympathizer?

Postby bkkexile » Wed Jul 05, 2006 9:14 pm

Joe said:<br><br>"After all aristocrats are the descendants of the medieval thugs who were more effective at using violence and intimidation to get their way than anyone else. Well maybe not thugs, as I am descended from among others real Thugee people."<br><br>That's well put Joe. Being a fellow Ostrayan don't you find it strange that we've been led for so long by a man who is the antithesis of 'Alpha' in my humble opinion. The guy is physically, socially and spiritually stunted. In fact, that whole party is full of creepy fuckers (not saying the other mob is any better).<br> <p></p><i></i>
bkkexile
 
Posts: 32
Joined: Thu Mar 23, 2006 10:03 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Edward viii a nazi sympathizer?

Postby Joe Hillshoist » Thu Jul 06, 2006 12:31 pm

What about the rest of em. (The royals and UK govt pre ww2.)<br><br>The other mob probably are better, if better means less worse.<br><br>Ever seen that bumper sticker "John Hunt is a Coward"<br><br>Little johnnie, that nickname says it all.<br><br>See how he cowered at the thought of offending yiduyono.<br><br>He was at a pacific leaders meeting in the late 90s, and all these big islanders who probably all played on a rugby front row, were all standing around drinking beer and laughing and "bonding". The way blokes do in a pub when there is no aggro.<br><br>And there Johnnie sitting in a corner hunched into his shoulders drinking tea like a scared kid who can't fight, but more to the point is to scared to stand his ground despite the fact he can't fight.<br><br>Physical cowardice.<br><br>he's scared of copping a flogging. As if that pain actually really hurts. (OK it does, especially if you get bashed by 5 coppers, or put in hospital by thugs. (There's that word again.)) But there are other kinds of pain that hurt more...<br><br>Then there was thew fact that he was at the Pentagon on sept 11th 2001. or due there but somehow wasn't there when the plane hit.<br><br>I actually think he believes all that crap about 911 and Osama and the war on terror.<br><br>Hes gutless. so here comes a chance to a be in a (symbolic) fight but it feels real to him cos he could have been hit by that pentagon plane.<br><br>And he has a chance to relieve his childhood fantasies about defending the free world with his strong and powerful freedom loving bigger brother (who will protect him from all those working class bullies). I know thats a fair bit of speculation, but I reckon its fairly accurate too.<br><br>But the whole lot are craven. Beasley, what a joke... The only impression I ever get from him is that he doesn't want to win the election, and that if it wasn't for the old man he would have joined the libs...<br><br>Packer was the major alpha male in australia over the last 10 years, at least in power circles. So naturally all those that want to be successful (via good media) in politics bent over backwards to support him, or maybe not backwards. Either way hard to see an alpha male appear and compete with packer in that particular arena. Not many have challenged the old Goanna and won. I bet alot of people are glad he's dead.<br><br>I always wondered if David Icke had ever heard of or seen (more to the point) old kerry.<br><br>I can see Icke going, "...and this one doesn't even bother to shapeshift." <p></p><i></i>
Joe Hillshoist
 
Posts: 9314
Joined: Mon Jun 12, 2006 10:45 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Edward viii a nazi sympathizer?

Postby bkkexile » Thu Jul 06, 2006 9:44 pm

Thanks Joe, you've articulated that pretty well. I've always found it hard to describe how despicable he appears to me. There's a bit of a myth in Australia in the working-middle class about his 'decency'. And I think this simply means he is sexually and physically unthreatening. He seems to embody attributes that I hate when I catch them in myself (which is probably why I dislike him so much)- cowardice, meanness, frigidity, and worst of all begrudgment. <br><br><br><br> <p></p><i></i>
bkkexile
 
Posts: 32
Joined: Thu Mar 23, 2006 10:03 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to Secret Societies

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest