Chemtrail Central
Login
Member List
Image Database
Chemtrail Forum
Active Topics
Who's Online
Search
Research
Flight Explorer
Unidentifiable
FAQs
Phenomena
Disinformation
Silver Orbs
Transcripts
News Archive
Channelings
Etcetera
PSAs
Media
Vote


Chemtrail Central
Search   FAQs   Messages   Members   Profile
Kerry...like Bush, descended from ROYAL EUROPEAN (Illuminati

Post new topic Reply to topic
Chemtrail Central > Conspiracy

Author Thread
msu94





Joined: 16 Feb 2002
Posts: 207
Location: Tucson, AZ
PostThu Jun 03, 2004 4:03 am  Reply with quote  

Doesnt Ickes also say we are being controlled by shape shifting reptilian aliens?
 View user's profile Send private message
JerseyBluEyz





Joined: 09 Jul 2003
Posts: 1257
Location: Northeast
PostThu Jun 03, 2004 4:07 am  Reply with quote  

quote:
Originally posted by msu94:
Doesnt Ickes also say we are being controlled by shape shifting reptilian aliens?


Yes he does.
 View user's profile Send private message
fortis





Joined: 05 May 2004
Posts: 56
PostFri Jun 04, 2004 2:46 pm  Reply with quote  

Now that we've returned to normal, I'll hopefully have better luck posting this.

quote:
Originally posted by JerseyBluEyz:
Fortis: In case you’re still lurking about…


Still here.

quote:

Like I’ve said here before, 34 of the 43 U.S. Presidents are descendants of Charlemagne! What are the chances of THAT happening? LOL!


I've been having a bit of a think about this. To determine the chances of that happening, you need to know how many members of the general population are descendants of Charlemagne. I've attempted a "back of the envelope" estimation below.

Charlemagne died back in 814, and 1190 years have passed since then. If we assume that a generation is 30-40 years then that corresponds to ~30-40 generations. It seems not unreasonable to assume that each descendent produces two children. (i.e. two children for two parents, which only keeps the global population stable. It may, in fact, be somewhat higher than this.)

This very simple analysis suggests that at the present time roughly 1,073,741,824 to
1,099,511,627,776 people are likely to be direct descendents of Charlemagne.

You've probably noticed that the higher figure is greater than the current global population. The analysis above assumed that there would always be "fresh blood" for the descendents to have children with. Clearly, at some point this assumption will be invalid. There would be geographical limits on growth, as well as a tendency to "keep it in the extended family". (Then again, I believe that I was conservative in the number of children produced per descendent.)

(You can also do an equivalent "top-down" analysis, where you look at the number of anscestors. So you have 2 parents, 4 grand parents, 8 great-grand parents, etc. Again, going 40 generations back you end off with over a trillion great^N parents. As the population of Europe at the time was ~ 15 million, there's not only been a lot of "keep it in the family", but there's also a reasonable chance that one of those grand^N parents is Charlemagne.)

Interestingly, after doing the above calculation I discovered that among geneologists there appears to be the general belief that pretty much every European (and those of European origin) are descendents of Charlemagne! (There's a lot of anecdotal evidence that pretty much everyone with European ancestry, who's traced their line far enough has hit Charlemagne as an ancestor. Try googling on "descended from Charlemagne".) There is a short article here, http://www.ancestry.com/library/view/columns/eastman/5921.asp

All of a sudden, the 34 out of 43 presidents statistic doesn't seem at all unusual.

Wouldn't also be tremendously ironic if David Icke was also descended from Charlemagne.

By the way, thanks for the links.

quote:

BTW, you sound (and feel to me) EXACTLY like someone that used to post here.


I can't possibly think who you mean. (Honestly I can't. I've only ever posted here as Fortis. )

[Edited 2 times, lastly by fortis on 06-06-2004]
 View user's profile Send private message
fortis





Joined: 05 May 2004
Posts: 56
PostMon Jun 07, 2004 12:16 am  Reply with quote  

Another couple of interesting pages on descent from Charlemagne. http://members.aol.com/thetoofish/joelines/tchtch.htm
quote:

In my case, I am descended from Edward III three times that I know of, and
also from Edward I, Henry III, John, and Henry II, through separate lines,
several times over each. Edward III was supposed to have been descended from
Charlemagne 1002 times (if I remember the number correctly). That would mean I
am descended from Charlemagne no less than 3006 times, just through him.



http://www.oz.net/~lee/Genealogy/charlemagne.html
quote:

As I was researching my Lee ancestral line back into the middle ages, I was excited to find that I am apparently a direct descendant of Charlemagne, the first Holy Roman Emperor. As I dug deeper, I found at least three separate lines of descent from him to me, and I saw more and more genealogical sites on the Web that claimed similar descent. This started me thinking about how likely it is that I, or anyone for that matter, might be descended from a particular person that far back. As a mathematician (though not by any means a probabilist), I figured I ought to be able to come up with at least a rough estimate of the probability. My conclusion, which was surprising (to me at least), is that
there is virtually no chance that anyone of European ancestry is not directly descended from Charlemagne.



I still haven't seen anything that would serve as absolute proof of the notion that "All people of European descent, are descended from Charlemagne", but I am really surprised that researchers/theorists like Icke, etc., don't appear to have even considered the possibility that the presidential statistic really is just by chance.


[Edited 1 times, lastly by fortis on 06-06-2004]
 View user's profile Send private message
JerseyBluEyz





Joined: 09 Jul 2003
Posts: 1257
Location: Northeast
PostMon Jun 07, 2004 5:27 am  Reply with quote  

quote:
Originally posted by fortis:
I can't possibly think who you mean. (Honestly I can't. I've only ever posted here as Fortis.


Whatever you say Fortis! When I said you felt exactly like someone that used to post here, man oh man did I ever mean it! I can’t even begin to imagine that there are two of you that feel exactly alike!


quote:
Originally posted by fortis:
http://www.oz.net/~lee/Genealogy/charlemagne.html
As I was researching my Lee ancestral line back into the middle ages, I was excited to find that I am apparently a direct descendant of Charlemagne, the first Holy Roman Emperor. As I dug deeper, I found at least three separate lines of descent from him to me, and I saw more and more genealogical sites on the Web that claimed similar descent. This started me thinking about how likely it is that I, or anyone for that matter, might be descended from a particular person that far back. As a mathematician (though not by any means a probabilist), I figured I ought to be able to come up with at least a rough estimate of the probability. My conclusion, which was surprising (to me at least), is that
there is virtually no chance that anyone of European ancestry is not directly descended from Charlemagne.



According to this site, the 9 presidents that are NOT descendants of Charlemagne were NOT of European descent. So…were they Native American, Russian, Japanese, Aborigines, or something else? You must have known SOMEONE would pick up on that itsy bitsy discrepancy.

If you believe that the references you posted are actually related to genealogy and explain the process you are mistaken. Those articles are EXCELLENT examples of those claiming to make sense of a subject they obviously know NOTHING about. Like I said earlier in the thread, pick your butt up and go to the library. I did my own work MANY years ago and did not count on Icke or anyone else to convince me of what was true or false. I never even learned of Icke until about 2 years ago and have not read much of his work anyway. Although what I have read or listened to sure is quite eye opening! Yes, I did read about the Charlemagne connection in Tales from the Time Loop but it happens to be my first Icke book and I STILL have not read past the third chapter. Anyway, that has absolutely nothing to do with my blue blood belief system.

quote:
Originally posted by fortis:
I still haven't seen anything that would serve as absolute proof of the notion that "All people of European descent, are descended from Charlemagne", but I am really surprised that researchers/theorists like Icke, etc., don't appear to have even considered the possibility that the presidential statistic really is just by chance. [/B]


Wow! You didn’t call Icke a conspiracy theorist? Since you did label him a researcher/theorist, you should realize that he would have verified the presidential statistic. Sorry to tell you, but Icke is not behind that FACT anyway – it is backed up by true blue genealogy groups.

Carry on with your skepticism. At this point I am not interested in getting further involved. Sorry!

[Edited 3 times, lastly by JerseyBluEyz on 06-06-2004]
 View user's profile Send private message
fortis





Joined: 05 May 2004
Posts: 56
PostWed Jun 09, 2004 1:14 am  Reply with quote  

quote:
Originally posted by JerseyBluEyz:
Whatever you say Fortis! When I said you felt exactly like someone that used to post here, man oh man did I ever mean it! I can’t even begin to imagine that there are two of you that feel exactly alike!


I'm curious as to who you thought my Doppelganger was. It would truly be scary if I had a twin.

quote:

According to this site, the 9 presidents that are NOT descendants of Charlemagne were NOT of European descent. So…were they Native American, Russian, Japanese, Aborigines, or something else? You must have known SOMEONE would pick up on that itsy bitsy discrepancy.


I did wonder if someone would pick up on that point. What you're missing is that the more accurate version of the statistic that you originally quoted is, "At the present time, 34 out of 43 presidents have had there line traced back to Charlemagne," and hence "At the present time, there are 9 presidents who have not had their line traced back to Charlemagne." This is very different to your deduction above. In order to prove that they don't have Charlemagne in their roots, you would have to show that none of their billions or more great^N grand parent lines do not trace back to Charlemagne. I'm not sure if you or I know of anyone who has actually done that.

So, those nine may still be descended from Charlemagne. (I'm sure that you realise that the genealogical record linking everyone in the Western world to 800 A.D. is hardly intact.) Also, in my post I say that the analysis carried out by others proves absolutely that the "everyone of European descent is descended from Charlemagne" theory is correct, but it's a far better grounded estimate than I've seen from anyone who thinks that the "34 out of 43 presidents" statistic is anything to worry about.

quote:

If you believe that the references you posted are actually related to genealogy and explain the process you are mistaken. Those articles are EXCELLENT examples of those claiming to make sense of a subject they obviously know NOTHING about.


Have you tried working out what 2 to the power 40 is. It's very big. As a first order indicator of the likelihood of the presidential statistic it's pretty good.

quote:

I never even learned of Icke until about 2 years ago and have not read much of his work anyway. Although what I have read or listened to sure is quite eye opening!


I own all of his books apart from the last couple, and I have found that they contain information that is demonstrably false. A few years ago I e-mailed him to point out that in a hollow shell-like earth, gravity would not keep the "inner-world" inhabitants glued to the inside shell. I was polite,(honestly), and showed how it wouldn't work. This was a number of years ago. I received no reply, and the last time I looked, he hasn't made any corrections.

quote:

Yes, I did read about the Charlemagne connection in Tales from the Time Loop but it happens to be my first Icke book and I STILL have not read past the third chapter. Anyway, that has absolutely nothing to do with my blue blood belief system.


That's good. I've generally found Icke to be like a stopped clock. He may be right twice a day, but he's no use for telling the time.

quote:

Wow! You didn’t call Icke a conspiracy theorist?


Well, I normally would have done, but I know that it is a phrase with a lot of emotional baggage. (Though, as these folk are theorising about conspiracies it is probably appropriate. Perhaps it is a phrase that the community should reclaim?)


[Edited 1 times, lastly by fortis on 06-08-2004]
 View user's profile Send private message
fortis





Joined: 05 May 2004
Posts: 56
PostWed Jun 09, 2004 1:20 am  Reply with quote  

quote:
Originally posted by JerseyBluEyz:

Since you did label him a researcher/theorist, you should realize that he would have verified the presidential statistic.


I'm not convinced that Icke would have done. If you look at the references in his books, an awful lot of them are to books such as "Behold a Pale Horse", etc. which are not primary sources. (Looking at these primary sources is what would be entailed by verifying the statistic.)

quote:

Sorry to tell you, but Icke is not behind that FACT anyway – it is backed up by true blue genealogy groups.


I believe you. Though I have "a downer" on Icke, I'm happy to believe that 34 out of 43 presidents are descended from Charlemagne. Where we part company is that some folk seem to think that this is astonishing and further evidence of a conspiracy, whereas I (after some thought on the statistics behind it) don't find it at all amazing that it
a) is true, and
b) just happened by chance.

Think about what people would think when they were first told that a Fakir was going to lie on a bed of nails. Astonished disbelief? When they saw it performed, might they have thought, "No normal man could do such a thing, therefore he must possess strange powers and abilities." If you allow yourself to go beyond the astonishment and think about what is actually happening, you would see that there is nothing at all unusual about this ability. (It's merely that his weight is spread out among an awful lot of nails, so the pressure due to each one is quite manageable.) I view the "Charlemagne's presidents" statistic in exactly the same light.

quote:

Carry on with your skepticism. At this point I am not interested in getting further involved. Sorry!


I hope that people can see why you should question these sorts of things.

Too many people, upon hearing the "Charlemagne's presidents" statistic just ask "What are the chances of that?!"

Well, what are the chances of that?

Do you know?
 View user's profile Send private message
CrackBabyJesus





Joined: 06 Sep 2004
Posts: 1
Location: Oakland, CA
The main point PostMon Sep 06, 2004 7:32 am  Reply with quote  

I appreciate the many good posts thus far but i feel that the most explosive fact has not been discussed. According to the director of Burkes peerage EVERY US president ever elected has had more royal blood than his opponent. You may say "hmm wierd coincidense...". Think for a second about how much of a "coincidense" it is. Statistically it is 1 in over 4 trillion 396 billion. Thats like you and me each having a list of every person on earth and on 700+ planets with the same population, and we both randomly pick names and both pick the same name. Shocked Seem likely? Not to me. So it's not coincidense. And in case you think the source is unreliable this is the director of hands down the worlds most respected lineage research group, making him effectively the worlds foremost expert on the subject.

The alternative seems equally ridiculous given the lives of Lincoln, Clinton and others (who hardly seem to have been born into aristocracy) but a 1 in 4.4 trillion coincidense DOES NOT HAPPEN, especially when the events have a plausible link. I would never have beleived these accounts of secret societies rigging every election but when you look at the simple statistical facts there is little else you can beleive. Sad
_________________
Please don't respond to me with anything involving any of the following: UFO's, aliens, psychics, ghosts/spirits or biblical miracles. Thanks.
 View user's profile Send private message

Post new topic Reply to topic
Forum Jump:
Jump to:  
Goto page Previous  
1, 2

All times are GMT.
The time now is Tue Oct 21, 2014 2:12 am


  Display posts from previous:      



Conspiracy List | Arcade Webmaster | Escape Games


© 21st Century Thermonuclear Productions
All Rights Reserved, All Wrongs Revenged, Novus Ordo Seclorum