RH Negative blood type And the Book of Enoch

Some say the Rh negative blood type is a sign of alien blood, or the blood of god. some say it is the lack thereof.This makes one believe  Rh negative indicates the “presence of something rare in one’s blood”. But, Rh negative indicates the “absence of the Rh D antigen” which otherwise is quite abundant in most (85%) humans. So what could be the contribution of alien blood here? Obviously, there is nothing alien here, because there is no alien genes present here, its actually the “absence” of our own genes which produce the Rh D antigen in most humans.
A theory states  "If all mankind evolved from the same ancestor their blood would be compatible. Where did the Rh negatives come from? If they are not the descendants of prehistoric man, could they be the descendants of the ancient astronauts?" 
In the book of Enoch it describes the Nephilim, aka sons of god, falling to earth and seducing the daughters of men. The book is widely regarded as fictional, or a satanic work that shouldn't even be associated with the bible. My theory is that it is true, and the RH negative blood type proves it.

In fact here is a quote from the Bible that states: 1And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,

2That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

3And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.

4There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

5And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

6And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.  [Genesis 6]

Not to burst anyones bubble but we all know the Bible today has been extremely altered by the Catholic Church. Why would they wish to keep the Book of Enoch as far away from the bible as possible? Simply because the book explains indefinitely that a bloodline exists, whether it be alien blood, or the direct descendants of Jesus Christ.

Would you believe that Jesus had a fairly familiar human life while he was here on earth ? that he found love with Mary, and did exactly what he was supposed to do, create life within the sacred feminine.. Or would you rather believe the church, who made Jesus out to be a god, something completely unattainable, someone you could only reach through them? Instead Jesus is now completely unreachable through your own soul, rather you must pay money, treat sacred love and sex as something nasty and forbidden, and visit them every Sunday, confessing everything you believe to be a sin to them,  to make sure your close with him. I believe we all can reach him through our souls, as we are all connected.  And we DONT need a church to tell us that. 


What is your opinion? What do you think? 

Madonna on The Rocks

Da Vinci's Painting of The Virgin on the Rocks has been extremely controversial. 

There were two versions painted of it, the first being considered the prime version hangs in The Louvre in Paris. The second, is in the National Gallery in London

both show the Madonna and the Child Jesus with the infant John the Baptist and an angel in a rocky setting which gives the paintings their usual name. The significant compositional differences are in the gaze and right hand of the angel. There are many minor ways in which the works differ, including the colours, the lighting, the flora, and the way in which sfumato has been used. Although the date of an associated commission is documented, the complete histories of the two paintings are unknown, and lead to speculation about which of the two is earlier. Why did he paint a second version? My theory is that the Roman catholic church was not too happy when they laid their eyes on the first painting, because what it had depicted was a dark and disturbing vision of what they had asked for. Not only that but it is not a depiction of mary and her son jesus, rather Jesus's Bloodline.  The child in the Louvre Version next to mary looks like a female. When the second version was commissioned both children were made to look more "Masculine" And i believe the Catholic church didnt want it to be known that in the first painting he had painted Mary, and her child Sara. With the angel and John the baptist both acknowledging Sara, not the other way around. What do you think?

                                 First Version                                                        Second Version

Welcome

My name is A . Welcome to my blog. This blog is about my many Theories, on different subjects, historical subjects of course. These theories will range from The Knights Templar to Portals conjured by the dead. Of course you must remember these theories are just that.. THEORIES. Based on facts..yes. Have they been proved to be true? no. As for the hidden treasure, well.. you'll just have to read and find out ;)