Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 20

Thread: Greg Hallett: Finding Jesus' Grave and more Royal Family Secrets

  1. #1
    Retired Member
    Join Date
    13th September 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,985
    Thanks
    13,502
    Thanked 9,646 Times in 1,889 Posts

    Greg Hallett: Finding Jesus' Grave and more Royal Family Secrets

    Greg Hallett: Finding Jesus’ Graves … challenges the Flat Lie Royals

    Published on Feb 7, 2015Jim Fetzer interviews Gregory Hallett
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Ao2K6rIC_1o
    The Show exposes the entity called Queen Elizabeth II as a fake, a Flat Lie Royal,
    a usurper, rendered Greg Hallett's Charge in October 2011 …
    Prince William (UK) as the illegitimate son of King Juan Carlos of Spain and Princess Diana (UK),
    which is why King Juan Carlos of Spain abdicated,
    as a direct result of Greg Hallett's exposure and near-identical photographic analysis of
    Prince William (UK) and King Juan Carlos (Spain).
    The proposed Laws of Succession in the UK are 'Queen' Elizabeth II's confirmation of
    her and her family's illegitimacy, where Elizabeth is the illegitimate Artificial Insemination daughter
    of Winston Churchill and Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon’s Maid …
    where Winston Churchill is the illegitimate son of King Edward VII …
    and King George V (UK) is the illegitimate son of Tsar Alexander III of Russia …
    and Princess Diana sabotaged the breeding of Prince William and Prince Harry
    to ensure that neither were born in auspicious months …
    and that Queen Victoria and her psychics predicted that all of this
    would be written up by a Lemurian (New Zealander) …
    where Greg Hallett was directed by Queen Elizabeth II's doctor to King George VI's
    Natural son in New Zealand, who is/was a superior Royal to Queen Elizabeth II.


    Watch the video and read the transcript
    http://www.hallettreport.com/No8.html


    Last edited by Tribe, 24th February 2015 at 12:59.

  2. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Ria For This Useful Post:

    Chickadee (25th February 2015), Frances (25th February 2015), norman (24th February 2015), Sooz (25th February 2015), Wolf Khan (25th February 2015), Woody (24th February 2015)

  3. #2
    Retired Member
    Join Date
    8th November 2013
    Posts
    1,424
    Thanks
    1,803
    Thanked 7,683 Times in 1,382 Posts
    Absolutely stunning !





    never mind the bit about Jesus A and Jesus B........... The stuff about the Windsor family will floor you !

    i.e. Elizabeth II's real father is Winston Churchill ! she was born above a pub.
    Last edited by norman, 24th February 2015 at 23:36.

  4. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to norman For This Useful Post:

    Chickadee (25th February 2015), Ria (25th February 2015), Sooz (25th February 2015), Wolf Khan (25th February 2015)

  5. #3
    Retired Member
    Join Date
    8th November 2013
    Posts
    1,424
    Thanks
    1,803
    Thanked 7,683 Times in 1,382 Posts
    This thread badly needs a fresh title that draws attention to the British royal family aspect of it.

    1) Prince William's real father is King Juan Carlos ( of Spain )

    2) The Queen is a fake imposter.

    3) Winston Churchill's sperm was used to sire queen elizabeth because her so called father was an idiot they didn't want to breed from.

    [ if you look hard at her scowl now she's getting old, you really can see Winston Churchill in her ]

    4) Charles and Camila have a son from when they were teenagers.

  6. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to norman For This Useful Post:

    Chickadee (25th February 2015), Ria (25th February 2015), Sooz (25th February 2015), Wolf Khan (25th February 2015)

  7. #4
    Retired Member Canada
    Join Date
    16th September 2013
    Posts
    225
    Thanks
    2,158
    Thanked 1,254 Times in 220 Posts
    But king Juan Carlos is SO old!! Uck
    Lol..
    But, definitely a step up from Charles.
    Eeegadz!!

  8. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Chickadee For This Useful Post:

    Ria (25th February 2015), Sooz (25th February 2015), Wolf Khan (25th February 2015)

  9. #5
    Senior Member Australia
    Join Date
    12th September 2013
    Location
    Near Byron Bay Australia
    Posts
    3,232
    Thanks
    14,019
    Thanked 19,400 Times in 3,153 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by Chickadee View Post
    But king Juan Carlos is SO old!! Uck
    Lol..
    But, definitely a step up from Charles.
    Eeegadz!!
    Only need the sperm and the old turkey baster method. That's the pleb method anyway.

    Drug her, (Scopalomine, no memory - btw the prescription anti-anxiety drug Aprazolam is a deritive of Scopalamine). Take her into hospital and do a 'procedure'. That's the 'civilised royal way' apparently.

    And are not the Rothschild's the main lineage of the british royal family? But then perhaps Churchill and Hitler were Rothschild's? Dunno - my head is starting to hurt. Only they know.

  10. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Sooz For This Useful Post:

    Chickadee (25th February 2015), Ria (25th February 2015)

  11. #6
    Retired Member
    Join Date
    12th September 2013
    Posts
    3,590
    Thanks
    14,867
    Thanked 15,900 Times in 3,304 Posts
    1) Prince William's real father is King Juan Carlos ( of Spain )
    Not Pindar ?





  12. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Spiral For This Useful Post:

    Chickadee (25th February 2015), Ria (25th February 2015), Sooz (25th February 2015)

  13. #7
    Senior Member Australia
    Join Date
    12th September 2013
    Location
    Near Byron Bay Australia
    Posts
    3,232
    Thanks
    14,019
    Thanked 19,400 Times in 3,153 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by Spiral View Post
    Not Pindar ?




    Well according to James Casbolt, his ex wife's (Hayley Meier's), father is the real Pindar* (which I doubt). This is where is all gets very kooky and laughable. And yet there is a splinter of truth in there somewhere.

    Let's face it, like my late Father said, 'they are all in-breds'. Who knows who's Father or Mother is real? (In the royal family that is, lol).

    But you can't tell me that Prince Harry is not the son of James Hewitt. THAT is a no brainer.

    *Mind you, there are pictures of James Casbolt and Hayey Meier at Royal gatherings, so who knows?
    Last edited by Sooz, 25th February 2015 at 13:08.

  14. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Sooz For This Useful Post:

    Chickadee (25th February 2015), Ria (25th February 2015), Spiral (25th February 2015)

  15. #8
    Senior Member Australia
    Join Date
    12th September 2013
    Location
    Near Byron Bay Australia
    Posts
    3,232
    Thanks
    14,019
    Thanked 19,400 Times in 3,153 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by norman View Post
    This thread badly needs a fresh title that draws attention to the British royal family aspect of it.


    Part Quote from Norman:

    4) Charles and Camila have a son from when they were teenagers.
    I have written of this before. There is much compelling evidence their son lives near me in Lismore, NSW Australia working as an engineer. He has a website which I've posted. You can do a search. Can't rightly remember his name - Charles Day I think. But now he includes his wife's surname as well. I tried to contact him several years go, but no success.

    A general google/startpage search should find it.

    Edit: His name is Simon Charles Dorante Day, see next post #9 - My post on it in general plus Simon Dorante Day's personal website.
    Last edited by Sooz, 25th February 2015 at 13:09.

  16. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Sooz For This Useful Post:

    Chickadee (25th February 2015), Ria (25th February 2015), Seikou-Kishi (10th April 2015)

  17. #9
    Senior Member Australia
    Join Date
    12th September 2013
    Location
    Near Byron Bay Australia
    Posts
    3,232
    Thanks
    14,019
    Thanked 19,400 Times in 3,153 Posts
    Here ya go:

    http://jandeane81.com/threads/3756-P...es+camilla%27s

    Edit:

    Here is Simon Dorante Day's website:

    http://simondoranteday.com/

  18. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Sooz For This Useful Post:

    Chickadee (25th February 2015), Ria (25th February 2015), Seikou-Kishi (10th April 2015), yobear (12th April 2015)

  19. #10
    Retired Member
    Join Date
    12th September 2013
    Location
    None of your business
    Posts
    1,228
    Thanks
    4,319
    Thanked 8,563 Times in 1,218 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by Sooz View Post
    Well according to James Casbolt, his ex wife's (Hayley Meier's), father is the real Pindar* (which I doubt). This is where is all gets very kooky and laughable. And yet there is a splinter of truth in there somewhere.

    Let's face it, like my late Father said, 'they are all in-breds'. Who knows who's Father or Mother is real? (In the royal family that is, lol).

    But you can't tell me that Prince Harry is not the son of James Hewitt. THAT is a no brainer.

    *Mind you, there are pictures of James Casbolt and Hayey Meier at Royal gatherings, so who knows?

    We're all inbred. I know I am :P. Lol. The number of people in a person's ancestry, by generation, is equal to the 2 to the power of that generation. 20 is the person themselves, 21 their parents, 22 their grandparents, 23 great grandparents.

    If we go back 30 generations, we have 230 ancestors, or 1, 073, 741, 824. Just under 1.1 billion ancestors. If we assume a generation gap of a meager 15 years, that takes us back to the 16th century, when there were only about 440 million people. So for the most general and cosmopolitan spread, we'd have to be descended from every single person of that time just under three times each. Assuming in the 16th century population groups were separated by geography without commonplace global travel, you can imagine we're descended from the same ancestors many times over.

    The problem is as we go backwards through time the population gets smaller but the number of ancestors in the generation get bigger. Even if we say the population has always been around this level, we're only pushing back the "point of obligatory incest" lol.

    So chin up my fellow inbred :P

  20. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Seikou-Kishi For This Useful Post:

    InCiDeR (11th April 2015), john parslow (10th April 2015), Ria (10th April 2015), samos (10th April 2015), Sooz (10th April 2015)

  21. #11
    Senior Member Australia
    Join Date
    12th September 2013
    Location
    Near Byron Bay Australia
    Posts
    3,232
    Thanks
    14,019
    Thanked 19,400 Times in 3,153 Posts
    Jeez SK, you are digging into the archives here, lol....

    Well, you do make a very logical summation there. Hadn't thought of it that way. Thanks.

    The numbers are very interesting.

    Fellow inbred, Sooz. (You never know SK, we may be related.)

  22. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Sooz For This Useful Post:

    Ria (10th April 2015), samos (10th April 2015), Seikou-Kishi (10th April 2015)

  23. #12
    Retired Member
    Join Date
    12th September 2013
    Location
    None of your business
    Posts
    1,228
    Thanks
    4,319
    Thanked 8,563 Times in 1,218 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by Sooz View Post
    Jeez SK, you are digging into the archives here, lol....

    Well, you do make a very logical summation there. Hadn't thought of it that way. Thanks.

    The numbers are very interesting.

    Fellow inbred, Sooz. (You never know SK, we may be related.)
    Not sure how I ended up on this thread actually lol.

    Well, Y-chromosomal Adam and mitochondrial Eve imply all humans are related, however distantly. I once saw the number (I'm not sure how accurate) that based on the genetic data used to determine the existence of these universal ancestors, the two most unrelated humans on Earth are no more distantly related than 52nd cousins. Considering anatomically modern humans appeared at least 200, 000 years ago, that's a relatively close relation

    We can only determine a male most recent common ancestor by the Y chromosome and the female through the mitochondria because the Y chromosome is inherited solely from the father (mother's don't have one, so can't pass one along) and the mitochondrial DNA is inherited solely from the mother as they're part of the ovum but outside the nucleus, so unaffected by the sperm.

    This means these ancestors are only ancestors in unbroken lines of fathers and mothers respectively. On the balance of probability, we have other ancestors in common but one son interrupting a long line of mothers and daughters or one daughter interrupting a long line of fathers and sons means we're pretty much blind to them. This means that the figure of 52nd cousins is probably inaccurate in the sense that the two most distantly related humans are probably more closely related, just not in the watched-for lines.

    I love ideas like that because it adds another item to the list of reasons racism is so stupid.

    Still, I wouldn't want to arrange a family reunion for 7 billion people lol

  24. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Seikou-Kishi For This Useful Post:

    InCiDeR (11th April 2015), john parslow (10th April 2015), Melidae (11th April 2015), Ria (10th April 2015), samos (10th April 2015), Sooz (10th April 2015)

  25. #13
    Retired Member
    Join Date
    9th January 2014
    Location
    Florida, USA
    Posts
    795
    Thanks
    2,652
    Thanked 2,781 Times in 482 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by Seikou-Kishi View Post
    We're all inbred. I know I am :P. Lol. The number of people in a person's ancestry, by generation, is equal to the 2 to the power of generation. 20 is the person themselves, 21 their parents, 22 their grandparents, 23 great grandparents.

    If we go back 30 generations, we have 230 ancestors, or 1, 073, 741, 824. Just under 1.1 billion ancestors. If we assume a generation gap of a meager 15 years, that takes us back to the 16th century, when there were only about 440 million people. So for the most general and cosmopolitan spread, we'd have to be descended from every single person of that time just under three times each. Assuming in the 16th century population groups were separated by geography without commonplace global travel, you can imagine we're descended from the same ancestors many times over.

    The problem is as we go backwards through time the population gets smaller but the number of ancestors in the generation get bigger. Even if we say the population has always been around this level, we're only pushing back the "point of obligatory incest" lol.

    So chin up my fellow inbred :P
    SK, your posts always make me smile ( at my own expense) for lack of understanding on given topics.

    it's amusing in America to hear how quick someone will give you their heritage ( as if being an American has no bearing). " I'm Irish, or Italian... the more exotic, the better! of course, there are certain indelible features which lend to their claims.

    I have such a mixture of Welsh, Germanic, American Indian and a few other nondescript nationalities... it's hard to tell? depending on the conversation, you might find I'm a direct lineage of Sir Robert Lawrence of Ashton hall, knighted on the field of Acre. of course you might also find I am a descendant of Chief Red Cloud of the Sioux Nations (hmmm, tough choice.....lol). I have attributes of both... and more.

    we're really in this great melting pot, together.
    thanks for your post, SK. sorry to go of topic.

  26. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to samos For This Useful Post:

    john parslow (10th April 2015), Melidae (11th April 2015), Ria (10th April 2015), Seikou-Kishi (10th April 2015), Sooz (11th April 2015)

  27. #14
    Retired Member
    Join Date
    12th September 2013
    Location
    None of your business
    Posts
    1,228
    Thanks
    4,319
    Thanked 8,563 Times in 1,218 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by samos View Post
    SK, your posts always make me smile ( at my own expense) for lack of understanding on given topics.

    it's amusing in America to hear how quick someone will give you their heritage ( as if being an American has no bearing). " I'm Irish, or Italian... the more exotic, the better! of course, there are certain indelible features which lend to their claims.

    I have such a mixture of Welsh, Germanic, American Indian and a few other nondescript nationalities... it's hard to tell? depending on the conversation, you might find I'm a direct lineage of Sir Robert Lawrence of Ashton hall, knighted on the field of Acre. of course you might also find I am a descendant of Chief Red Cloud of the Sioux Nations (hmmm, tough choice.....lol). I have attributes of both... and more.

    we're really in this great melting pot, together.
    thanks for your post, SK. sorry to go of topic.
    I look at things through the lens of phylogeny. A lot of people have a very crude understanding of evolution that holds the view that one organism evolves from another in the sense that because birds evolved from dinosaurs, there was a time when a dinosaur laid an egg and a bird hatched from it. This of course is thankfully only the view of the very ignorant (in the technical rather than judgemental sense). A wider group of people hold the view that species are... well, I suppose we could consider it the biological equivalent of segregation: that species are wholly separate from each other and only breed amongst themselves.

    That is, they have the view that genetics are only ever inherited vertically, passing from parent to child within a species. But actually, the very essence of evolution is in speciation. This is when a new species arises. It is a period of transition during which a population of creatures becomes isolated from others of their kind (hindering the large-scale exchange of genetics through breeding) and begins to develop features which are divergent. Over time these divergent features become entrenched. As the group undergoes this process, it will still receive genetic input from groups related to it, but these will be small and absorbed into the overall genetics. Eventually, the two fully compatible species will have spent so long apart and their genomes will have changed shape to such an extent that if they are capable of producing offspring at all, the offspring will probably be sterile for what amounts, essentially, to a mechanical failure on the part of the chromosomes.

    This relates to humans in the sense that geographically separated human groups developed their own traits through a combination of aesthetics and features of adaptation. As an example of aesthetics, a gap between the teeth is an attractive feature in parts of Uganda but not in other places, thus it appears more frequently (because those with it are preferentially selected mates). Another example is the skin and hair differences between Africans and Europeans. Where the sun is strong, the skin is dark to protect the body from increased radiation and the hair maximises volume to shade the shoulders and insulate the head from heat. Where the sun is weaker, the skin is pale to make the most efficient use of the scanter light and the hair is sleek so that it falls about the neck as a sort of "natural scarf".

    The difference between race and subspecies is not evident except to say that calling human races "subspecies" would provoke an emotional reaction. But the same dyamics hold. The races if isolated from each other would, over an evolutionary timescale, have "speciated" and become separate species. This is the same process that resulted humans being separate from their closest relatives.

    People say "use it or lose it" — well we can say the same thing about human genetic compatibility. It would take a longer time than we have memory for for the different human races to lose the ability to breed together, but people with mixed heritage are performing a vital service in pursuit of human unity just by existing. Not only do they keep the human genome at a healthy level of diversity (rather than creating a stagnating genepool through xenophobic bottlenecks), and furthermore such people promote harmony because a mixed-race child makes different races family (and thus brings the "out group" in) — but even more fundamentally they preserve human unity in the sense that they preserve human oneness. By weaving together our more distant threads the whole thing is held together and speciation won't divide us while we're using our oneness.

    But there is no person on Earth who is "pure Celt" or "pure Bantu". If their knowledge doesn't go back far enough to identify somebody who wasn't a Celt or who wasn't Bantu, the fault is in their knowledge. "Anglo-Saxonness" for example isn't an archetype from which specific Anglo-Saxons deviate in varying degree. Anglo-Saxonness is a concentration of certain features. If the human race were a lake, Anglo-Saxonness would be a deep spot in the lake that gets deeper the closer you get to the centre. Other races would be other deep-spots in the lake. Those on the edges of such deepspots would be those mixing traits of different races, or those just not fully demonstrating the archetypal traits (a brown-haired German like Hitler lol). The broader, open stretches of water in the lake would be the cosmopolitan humans who have a bit of everything.

    You can imagine if a drought evaporated most of the water, all of those deep pits in the bottom of the lake would become separate pools, disconnected from each other. Well in this metaphor, such a drought is the speciation that would eventually result from genetic isolationism, and by carrying in themselves heritage from different places people with more obviously mixed heritage are keeping humanity as one species. I think it's a very good thing. That's not to say the others aren't doing their bit as well; by retaining these differences (skin colour, bone structure, lactose tolerance etc.) less-mixed people are keeping diversity alive by providing different ingredients that the more-mixed people stop from separating out.

    That's how I see it anyway. Both the more mixed and the less mixed keep the human race going. One is the accelerator and the other is the break, both are necessary for controlled movement.

    But this is connected to where humans came from, too. There can't be a person "purely" of one race because there isn't even a "pure" human race. Anatomically modern humans didn't spring up from nowhere. Those who would become us (provide the genetic material) were a subset of a different group. These different groups may have died out, or they may have also evolved into sister lineages (which in the end also died out). In the beginning, when there was no difference between us, the proto-humans were mixing their genetic with people who wouldn't be considered human by today's standards. These then either died out as members of a different race or else were the ancestors of a separate race (which died out later). There's absolutely no reason to assume that these various genetic contributions from humanish groups were evenly spread throughout the population. So even today there might be people with a greater proportion of one type of proto-human DNA and another with a different proportion. We tend to think of all the other non-anatomically-modern humans (other Homo sapiens subspecies and other species in the genus Homo) as being extinct because you can't find a single instance of a human that isn't our kind of human, but insofar as their DNA is passed down, in whatever mixes, in our DNA they continue to exist and always will. As long as we exist, they'll exist too.

    Sorry, I've blathered on for far too long I just find it so interesting. Socially and politically race is a pain in the arse because humans are at present too immature. But biologically, it's pretty awesome both those who provide contrast in the species (those who are "all black" or "all white", etc.,) and then for those who keep all the human threads woven together. Contrast and unity together. Infinite diversity in infinite combinations

    (It gives me a sense of numinous wonder and awe. I feel the same thing when I look at the wholphin. It seems a being even more beautiful than its bottlenose dolphin and false killer whale grandparents)

  28. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Seikou-Kishi For This Useful Post:

    InCiDeR (11th April 2015), jimmer (11th April 2015), john parslow (10th April 2015), Melidae (11th April 2015), Ria (10th April 2015), samos (10th April 2015), Sooz (11th April 2015)

  29. #15
    Retired Member
    Join Date
    9th January 2014
    Location
    Florida, USA
    Posts
    795
    Thanks
    2,652
    Thanked 2,781 Times in 482 Posts
    That's far from blathering SK, thank you!


    Edit: just to clarify from my previous post.. it is 'my' lack of understanding that I find amusing at times, not yours..
    Ok, now I'm blathering. Lol
    Last edited by samos, 10th April 2015 at 19:49.

  30. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to samos For This Useful Post:

    jimmer (11th April 2015), Ria (13th April 2015), Seikou-Kishi (10th April 2015), Sooz (11th April 2015)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •