GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2004-01 > 1073221657


From: "Lucy Hubrich" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] DNAPrint Test Worked for Me
Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2004 07:18:40 -0600
References: <13624-3FF78341-967@storefull-3132.bay.webtv.net>


Raymond,

My uncle did not have the photos all his life--they had been recently given
to him by a cousin--an offspring of a different descendant of the couple in
question.

And, it is possible to have the results you claim--I've worked it out with a
matrix. However, at the request of some of the participants, I have decided
to terminate this particular discussion .

Lucy

----- Original Message -----
From: "Raymond Whritenour" <>
To: <>
Sent: Saturday, January 03, 2004 9:06 PM
Subject: [DNA] DNAPrint Test Worked for Me


> Lucy:
>
> As I said before: I tried my best to show you the light. You choose to
> "believe" in the accuracy of the DNAPrint 2.0 BGA test. Please let us
> all know when you have actually confirmed, through documentary evidence,
> that the woman in your photograph was really an American Indian. (I
> can't understand why your uncle, who's had this photograph, never
> noticed this before taking the DNAPrint test.) That will make you the
> first person, known to this list, who ever sought and found proof of NA
> ancestry after discovering NA minor ancestry with the DNAPrint test.
>
> Everyone has possible ancestry in all four categories, whether or not
> that ancestry was shown on the old triangle charts. (The new format
> does show all four.)
>
> Yes, it is "statistically possible" for siblings to be 20% NA and 0% NA,
> respectively. JUST BARELY POSSIBLE! Now tell us how "possible" is it
> for one sister to be 9% NA, 0% EA and the other sister 9% EA, 0% NA?
> We've seen this one, too.
>
> Ray Whritenour
>
> ______________________________

This thread: