In grand Mathisian style, he takes 'bloodlines' back to Julius Caesar, back through Troy, back to Phoenicians, and back to the mythology of Gods from the sea. He considers the Ark was perhaps a box, which held documents of ancestries, like Burke's peerage, but far earlier, more direct and more extensive. I'd guess such documents would have had to be copied, with guesses, and translated. And distracted from, lied about, and false trailed for those not privy to them.
phoenper.pdf (Roman New Year's Day, 2020) is another Mathis pdf, commenting on Gore Vidal and Jorge Luis Borges writing on Lydia, Babylon, and Media, all one empire by blood and marriage, so when it later became Persia with Cyrus, nothing much had changed. ... Why would famous Jews be writing about such obscure stuff 2,500 years later? Because this is what they do: they have to continue to misdirect century after century, or someone like me might catch on. ... the Phoenicians were more relatives of the Persians by marriage. ...
So Miles finds an intricate network of 'bloodlines', from which, incidentally, females seem more-or-less excluded. He has built up a fascinating possibility, to the puzzlement and baffled annoyance of official experts.
Just as an digression, let's look at the meaning of 'blood'. Assuming the previous few century's science is correct, before the discoverers nobody knew oxygen in any accurate sense. The bright redness of human blood, and the bluish colour when not oxygenated, must have been observed. They probably noticed iron in blood, but they could not have had much idea of haemoglobin, and less of oxygen-carrying vitamin C. Even the heart as a pump causing blood to circulate was not known: dead animals' hearts do not beat, so the blood doesn't move; and meat is infused with red, maybe suggesting some penetrating and suffusing liquid. It's only relatively recently that blood types allowed transfusion. Some sea creatures have (I think, from memory) vanadium-based oxygenators, with blue blood. Perhaps purple from some shellfish is connected here; I don't know. Anyway; our unconscious and conscious understanding of 'blood' must now be very deeply changed.
[These seem to be very Jewish beliefs. See my review of Hoffman's Judaism's Strange Gods]
The idea that a child is of his father's 'blood' has the same superstitious origin. So far as actual blood is concerned, the mother's enters into the child, but not the father's. If blood were as important as is supposed, matriarchy would be the only proper way of tracing descent. ...
I can't resist quoting a bit from Bertrand Russell's An Outline of Intellectual Rubbish (1948 is my best guess at the date): ... The fallacies about 'race' and 'blood,' which have always been popular, and which the Nazis embodied in their official creed, have no objective justification; they are believed solely because they minister to self-esteem and to the impulse towards cruelty. In one form or another, these beliefs are as old as civilization; their forms change, but their essence remains. Herodotus tells how Cyrus was brought up by peasants, in complete ignorance of his royal blood; at the age of 12, his kingly bearing toward other peasant boys revealed the truth. This is a variant of an old story which is found in all Indo-European countries. Even quite modern people say that 'blood will tell.' It is no use for scientific physiologists to assure the world that there is no difference between the blood of a Negro and the blood of a white man. The American Red Cross, in obedience to popular prejudice, at first, when America became involved in the last war, decreed that no Negro blood should be used for blood transfusion. As a result of an agitation, it was conceded that Negro blood might be used, but only for Negro patients. Similarly, in Germany, the Aryan soldier who needed blood transfusion was carefully protected from the contamination of Jewish blood.
Superstitions about blood have many forms that have nothing to do with race.
... Superstitions about blood have many forms that have nothing to do with race. The objection to homicide seems to have been, originally, based on the ritual pollution caused by the blood of the victim. God said to Cain: 'The voice of thy brother's blood crieth unto me from the ground.' According to some anthropologists, the mark of Cain was a disguise to prevent Abel's blood from finding him; this appears also to be the original, reason for wearing mourning. In many ancient communities no difference was made between murder and accidental homicide:' in either case equally ritual ablution was necessary. The feeling that blood defiles still lingers, for example in the Churching of Women and in taboos connected with menstruation.
Monty Python and the Holy Grail came out in 1974. T. S. Eliot said he was 'indebted' to Miss Jessie L Weston for her book on the Grail legend, From Ritual to Romance (1910?). There had of course long been interest in such material. Remember—far back—that Caxton printed Malory's Morte Darthur as one of the first ever printed book in English. It was long, and conceivably a demonstration to show that a printed Bible was feasible. But the etymology—sangreal as blood royal, not 'san greal'—was viewed as improbable. An edition of Brewer's Phrase and Fable says sangreal is popular etymology 'used to' explain as 'real blood' of Christ.
Anyway... Miles Mathis cuts through much of this and simply asserts the relevant bloodline, that the fuss is about, is of the Phoenician navy, which seems to be Jews, or anyway the main families. Fascinating idea and fascinating simplification.
From then on, his paper becomes in my view fantastical. Maybe he wanted to counterpoint his paper with material so odd it sounded normal. He seemed to think they might have originated on Saturn.