What Does This Tell You ?

[Cap-Z-ro]

Here is a link from a clone thread, showing the familial connections referred to in the above linked video.

To me the connections are too close for coincidence given the population of the US.

Would it be safe to guess that 90% of americans are not connected to that exclusive group ?

That link was originally posted here, but got deleted because of its counterproductive presentation.

As I stated earlier, all opinions respectfully expressed will be received in kind...even those of past transgressors.

Every day is a new start.

Regards...

[utilitarian]

Here is a link from a clone thread, showing the familial connections referred to in the above linked video.

To me the connections are too close for coincidence given the population of the US.

Would it be safe to guess that 90% of americans are not connected to that exclusive group ?

That link was originally posted here, but got deleted because of its counterproductive presentation.

As I stated earlier, all opinions respectfully expressed will be received in kind...even those of past transgressors.

Every day is a new start.

Regards...

This thread is a question - "what does this tell you?".  The answer - many presidents are related.  Some are direct descendants.  Some are distant relatives.  Some are very distant relatives.

Here is a more complete chart, without the doomsday music:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Presidents_by_genealogical_relationship

The most common relationships are fifth, sixth, seventh cousins - not very close relatives.  Do you even know any of your sixth cousins?  Seventh?  Eight?  Would you be inclined to promote your seventh cousin to a powerful post on basis that you shared a great-great-great-greatfather?

So, alone, this tells us nothing special.  I would be curious to pluck out 42 random Americans, from 1776 until today, and see how many of them are related.  That would be a good control.

USA population was only about 4 million in 1790, so you have to figure there are a lot of common ancestors involved, and when you are dealing with the upper class (a minority group), who tend to marry other members of the upper class, you get more closer relationships.

What the video infers is that there is some kind of nepotist conspiracy to select presidents who are related to past presidents.  However, that is all it is, an inference.  It is begging us to connect some dots, but it is a propaganda piece.

One thing I will add is that I find your position interesting, that you are not ready to regard this piece as inaccurate.  You appear to have already committed to the message in the piece, and now declare that you will not be swayed by insufficient evidence to discard that commitment.  What does this tell us?  It tells us that you stand ready to accept as factual those things that agree with your worldview, regardless of corroborating evidence, and put the burden on others to disprove the validity of that information.  That's fine as a personal choice, but you are not going to convert anyone like that.

[1quasar1]

Very well said Utilitarian. I will have to read more of your analytical writing.

Dave

[Cap-Z-ro]

I'm afraid it becomes critically relevant when those relatives are involved in secret societies and making slaves out of us all.

Other than that I couldn't care less who related or who connected to or who knows whom.

When there is a conspiracy against humanity afoot, if you're smart you'll start looking for who's all connected.

To offhandedly dismiss connections between suspects as a stand alone issue without considering all the relevant evidence is a rather narrow minded approach to any inquiry.

I must say it is refreshing to have dialogue without personal remarks.

Regards...

[newbie123]

Very well said Utilitarian. I will have to read more of your analytical writing.

Dave

Yes. Good post.

I'm afraid it becomes critically relevant when those relatives are involved in secret societies and making slaves out of us all.

This comment seems like  speculation to me....     But I guess you could say the wealthy have the poor working for them.. But that isn't slavery.