GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2006-01 > 1136653599


From: "Phil Goff" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Genealogy Paper Trails vs. Y-DNA Testing
Date: Sat, 7 Jan 2006 11:06:39 -0600
References: <200601071620.k07GKNGZ028787@mail.rootsweb.com>


Roberta,

I have the reverse of your situation, but with the same result: the DNA
doesn't lie. Three men who have been in touch with each other through the
years through their research recently joined my study. One is a high profile
family historian who claimed a rock solid ancestry dating to the 1620s in
England. The other two men, descended from this same family, wrote to me
privately that there was a weaknesses in the family historian's lineage as
to the father of his great-grandfather. I privately emailed the family
historian and gently if he was comfortable with the paper trail back to the
1620s. I pointed out that understanding what is known versus what is
surmised is important in interpreting the DNA results. In his reply, he
about bit my head off. Well, when the results came back he did not match the
1620s family, the DNA signature of which is well-established.

Some people take great pride in having a certain ancestry. This pride can be
a hindrance to the truth which, in my opinion, is more interesting than the
made-up stories. Thanks,

Phil Goff

----- Original Message -----
From: "Roberta J. Estes" <>
To: <>
Sent: Saturday, January 07, 2006 10:19 AM
Subject: RE: [DNA] Genealogy Paper Trails vs. Y-DNA Testing


>I haven't done any percentage work, but between contemporary research,
> meaning going to court houses and extracting every possible record on that
> or any similar family name and mining the internet, plus DNA, several of
> the
> old family historys I've been working with have fallen.
>
> In the Estes line in particular, there was a book written in the late
> 1800s
> that took the line back to the mid 1600s. The gentleman claimed that one
> of
> the lines in SC, which he could not connect to the 1650s immigrant was a
> separate immigrant. DNA testing proved he descended from the same family
> line, and good traditional genealogy provided evidence (note I did not say
> proved) that he did in fact descend from the son of the son of the
> immigrant.

This thread: