With kind regards and respect,
would You accept an invitation to comment about
the issue of integrity of the data You receive?
This not not an argumentative question.
DNA process errors have made the news
quite a few times. DNA process sabotage
has also made the news quite a few times
(the rare but real instances of fraud by intention or negligence)
Please grant this question some place in the dialogue.
Persons with high IQs, open hearts, backgrounds in biology
and big organizations, and respect for You
are glad to have your response.
I reviewed the book by Susan Bailey (on Amazon) and I mentioned
the DNA process in passing. Seems to me Carkeet's a graceful writer
whose humor is engaging. I didn't see him claim to know about DNA
personally. His New England genealogy article's funny btw.
However this turns out, nobody has egg on their face unless they turn
renegade.
Warm regards,
Mike Pearson
P.S. I like the folks on this forum. You're awesome. Am I right?
________________________________
From: Mark Twain Forum <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of Jennifer Zinck <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, January 9, 2017 12:15 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Twain Relatives
I am the genealogist who completed the DNA research for Carkeet's project an=
d the results were conclusive. I do several of this type of case each week a=
s well as identify parents or grandparents for adoption cases and this case'=
s results were one of the most obvious. (The clusters were a genetic genealo=
gist's dream.) I didn't do my research based on any tree created by Susan or=
David. I created my own tree for Susan utilizing the actual genetic data as=
it related to matches and I was able to definitively identify all of her gr=
andparents. Although Susan did give me permission to share my conclusions, I=
am not inclined to do so, as I don't feel it would help anyone in any way. I=
didn't realize there is still discussion about the matter.
Kind Regards,
Jennifer Zinck
Professional Genealogist=20
Sent from my iPhone
> On Jan 9, 2017, at 10:46 AM, Shoshana Bailey <[log in to unmask]> w=
rote:
>=20
> I have never answered Carkeet's conclusions and I'm not now but=3D20
> I will say one thing. He based a lot of his conclusion on the assumption t=
ha=3D
> t I had put up a family tree and that is how I came up with the Clemens/La=
ng=3D
> donlinks. Now Barbara is addressing that same issue.=3D20
> I had NOT attached a tree to my DNA for the first several years. The DNA m=
at=3D
> ches I got with Clemens and Langdon were sent to me organically by Ancestr=
y a=3D
> nd FTDNA (who, at the time, didn't have trees.)
> It was only after getting over 100 matches that I attached a tree.=3D20
> Regards,
> Susan Bailey
>=20
> Sent from my iPhone
>=20
>> On Jan 9, 2017, at 10:26 AM, Barbara Schmidt <[log in to unmask]> wrote=
:=3D
>=20
>> =3D20
>> Hal --
>> =3D20
>> David Carkeet's research on the flawed methodology used to establish DNA
>> connections to Clemens via ancestry.com family trees was the game changer=
.=3D
>=20
>> His essay on his months long research and first hand experiences in worki=
n=3D
> g
>> with the DNA reports is online at:
>> =3D20
>> http://www.twainquotes.com/Carkeet/AncestryReport.html
[http://www.twainquotes.com/Carkeet/TSMCover2.jpg]<http://www.twainquotes.com/Carkeet/AncestryReport.html>
David Carkeet's Report on Susan Bailey's Ancestry<http://www.twainquotes.com/Carkeet/AncestryReport.html>
www.twainquotes.com
Nina was a problematic personality, likeable and pitiable. Her parents clearly loved her. Ossip nicknamed her "International Monkey" for her traveling life as ...
>> =3D20
>> In a nutshell, anyone can plug in a false or inaccurate family tree at
>> ancestry.com after submitting a DNA test, and the ancestry.com database
>> will generate a list of people who are also related to people in the tree=
>> one believes is their own tree. Just about anyone can be distantly relat=
e=3D
> d
>> to someone else who ties in to the Clemens family tree in some fashion if=
>> the family tree branches are traced back far enough. =3D46rom Carkeet's r=
ep=3D
> ort:
>> =3D20
>> "... 'What you are seeing is the result of endogamy, intermarriage within=
a=3D
>=20
>> population group. In the year 1700, the population of the United States w=
a=3D
> s
>> approximately 250,000 people.' In other words, it is a small world. Or,
>> more to the point, it was a small world, with so few people in the pocket=
>> of immigrant history that I share with my matches that if I select a
>> specific name from the past (in this case, with my false genealogy, an
>> ancestor of Samuel Clemens), some match of mine from among my more than
>> 6,000 matches will descend from that ancestor."
>> =3D20
>> Barb
|
