Ashtar Command Crew - The Awakening Movement

Comments

• 

  Eagle May 22, 2025 at 1:01am

  https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wFl23oS3-pU&pp=0gcJCdgAo7VqN5tD

  

  He needs his mask to sleep Harlious!!!
• 

  Ara May 21, 2025 at 9:49pm

  Roaring so good to see you back.
• 

  Roaring Lovely May 21, 2025 at 6:13pm

  

  So there is no need for 'genetic studies' for this issue at all! It is much simpler than that! Egypt lies in between Mediterranean climate and the equator. The natives to such area are 'black', all the way from China to America! This is an area conducive for melanated skin. See Andamanese, Dravidians, native Australians etc.
  
  It is biased to ask how 'black' people got into an area that is their native lands (such as Egypt)!!! What we should be asking is how these indegenious people disappeared from the regions!
  
  Furthermore, Egyptians were AFRO-ASIATIC S. Majority of afro Asiatics are 'black' in Ethiopia. If all indo Europeans, Nilo-Saharans, Bantus, Austronesians etc are seen as 'one race', why is it Afro Asiatics alone that we must categorise them into two races?? How can we categorise people into two races who obviously must have been living in the same region in not more too distant past as Nilo-Saharans, Indo Europeans etc??
  
  If Egyptians were AFRO-ASIATIC, then they absolutely must have a gene tic connection with Afro Asiatics in 'sub-saharan Africa' ergo the research that reveals 'no genetic connection between ancient Egyptians and sub-saharan African' is obviously false!! What they did is heep together 'sub-saharan Africans' and collect ed genes random my instead of reasoning which gene group in Sub Sahara is most closely connected to Egyptians!
  
  If these genetic researches rather study African ethnic groups individualy, seeing how each might be connected to Egyptian s, they would arrive at more meaningful results than talking of a 'sub-saharan Africans' gene. 'sab-, Saharan Africa' is not an ethnic group (that intermarries etc) for there to be a gene for that group!
• 

  Roaring Lovely May 21, 2025 at 5:54pm

  But to put it clearly, nobody really said the GENE of Egyptians are those of 'sub-saharan Africans'. This is a straw man they created themselves!! To say that east Africans are 'black' like west Africans does not mean the gene of east African is connected to that of west. In fact it is NOT!! neither is the gene of Africans connect ed to negritas, Andamanese, Melanesians etc. But they are all 'black'!! Genetic studies is irrelevant here!!
• 

  Roaring Lovely May 21, 2025 at 5:49pm

  

  So divide Africa into 'East Africa' and 'north Africa' and you find as much a gene variation as in when you divide it into 'central Africa' Vs 'North Africa'. In fact there are endless ways of dividing Africa. In all those divisions, you will always find as much variations.
  
  So what does it mean when you don't find a gene connection between 'sub-saharan Africa' and North Africa?? It means absolutely nothing!! Neither is there a gene connection between east and west. We don't think there is 'race' difference between west and east for POLITICAL, not GENETIC reasons!
• 

  Roaring Lovely May 21, 2025 at 5:40pm

  

  I can explain epigenetics, I can explain what is going on in DNA and RNA during the gene expression and the manufacture of the flagella of e coli bacteria. I can explain how DNA manufacturers the so called 'white' gene. I understand that the gene that makes a skin 'white' is that which makes a Zebra's skin white, an egg white etc etc.
  
  I know and understands biology, and especially DNA and proteins up to a level that may be well beyond what you can know!!
• 

  Roaring Lovely May 21, 2025 at 5:33pm

  Drekx,
  My knowledge of biology exceed yours!! Just because I know physics doesn't mean I am ignorant of biology!!! I can explain DNA up to a point you may not imagine. In fact, I predicted EPIGENETICS here before it was discovered!! So don't put me down!
• 

  Roaring Lovely May 21, 2025 at 5:28pm

  Let me further explain it this way: the very seeing of Africa as 'subsaharan' Vs 'nothern Africa' is already misguided and begs the question. We are out to scientifically determine whether Africa can be scientifically (not politicaly) divided this way. The assumption is obviously that all the people to the south of Saharan belong to a single group distinct from the people of the north. The reality, however, is that if you divide Africa into East and West, you will find a similar or even greater variation etc.
• 

  Drekx Omega May 21, 2025 at 5:25pm

  

  Maybe the science of biology eludes you, as it's not your field.....?? The problem for people in denial about genetic science and forensics mapping, is that it reveals sometimes, an uncomfortable TRUTH......There are agendas in science, of course, but what about your own eyes...👀
  
  Do you trust your own vision...?? And your own ears...? That beaky-nosed guy, somewhat aquiline, high forehead, with thin lips and blond hair, looks remarkably non-sub-Saharan African, does he not...?? See, listen, think....It's on a plate, so accept the truth..You are going around and around in circles....maybe time to stop and reflect on what motivates you...🤔.....As for this chat, it finishes NOW....
  I dare say that other readers are finding this ongoing chat between us, boring........Hang loose and enjoy a break...some D-Train......Have fun....Selamat ja.......!! Life is precious and so is fun and truth...
  
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ct9VTP3P6yk
• 

  Roaring Lovely May 21, 2025 at 5:15pm

  

  Drekx,
  Actually, there is really no need for genetic studies in this issue. First, we don't know the people who do these researches, we don't know their agendas, nor can we (ordinary people) INDEPENDENTLY CONFIRM their findings.
  
  There are obvious loopholes in these genetic studies. There is no such a gene as 'Sub-Saharan African' gene. 'Sub-Sahara' is a GEOGRAPHICAL REGION, not an ETHNIC GROUP'. It is a geographical region with a variation in genes that exceeds the rest of the world combined!! So saying that 'there was no sub-saharan African gene' is like saying 'there was no Asian gene'! The 'research' is obviously done by someone who has already concluded that people of 'sub-saharan Africa' are of one group, as in a single 'race'. In fact talking of 'sub-saharan African gene' is like talking of a 'classroom gene' in a classroom composed of Chinese, Nigerians, native Australians, Europeans etc'. Can there be a gene that can be identified as belonging to such a classroom??
  
  Can you, via genetic studies, determine that 'there was no one from Harvard university who was found in Oxford university'?? Is there a 'gene' for such a group of people as 'people of havard university'?? The study of the question as to whether there were 'sub Saharan Africans' in Egypt via genetic studies is as ridiculous as that!