I do not understand what you are trying to convey, but I would like to.
What is the significance of a long bloodline to this story?
Who scrubbed ancestry info?
Who told whom that bloodlines are key?
What fakery is pointed to, by what?
What is the significance of a long bloodline to this story?
- The farther bloodlines go back the greater chance they are privileged, aristocratic. Historically only the privileged and wealthy had access to keeping family histories, births, deaths, etc. Of course the peerage/nobility justifiably kept track of itself because it was….the peerage and nobility!
In this specific instance, Lee Harvey Oswald was mentioned in the article and by several posters. Obviously a key figure, I think it’s fascinating that the multitude of narratives about the JFK assassination completely omit any mention of his relevant pedigree. “He is related to several U.S. Presidents, signers of the Declaration of Independence, U.S. Army Generals, and U.S. Supreme Court Justices, among other famous people.” As it happens with other murderers and serial killers, he comes from aristocratic bloodlines and, a very likely privileged background. So his personal history narrative presented in the mainstream for sixty years - is at the very least questionable, and perhaps even fiction.
Who told whom that bloodlines are key? What fakery is pointed to, by what?
When the truth is intentionally hidden, as it relates to genealogy/ancestry/bloodlines, then I believe we’re being told that in fact they do matter, that the ancestry of famous people - even (especially) criminals - is of key importance. The most interesting thing about Oswald, (and the others described below), isn’t what we’re told about them; it’s what the mainstream “authoritative sources” don’t tell us about them.
Regarding the fakery comment, I’ll use Oswald, Henry Lee Lucas, James Earl Ray (who assassinated Martin Luther King), and Charles Manson. Four dangerous killers, all from aristocratic bloodlines, and any mention of these aristocratic lines is completely absent in their mainstream narratives. That's pure fakery! And how strange. 60 years for Oswald; Lucas is alleged to have started his murderous rampages in 1960, so 63 years for him; MLK’s assassination was in 1968, so 55 years for him; and Charles Manson’s evil deed was in 1969, so 54 years for him. Decades of articles, books, movies, interviews in the mainstream, and no one mentions that any of these men are from upper upper-class lineages - even nobility?
When "authoritative sources" lie about such important facts, what else are they lying about? How can we trust any of their information? When one begins to delve deeper into these events, we can find a lot of things that are not what the mainstream narrative tells us. It's often not difficult to find evidence of a deception.