GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2010-02 > 1266514679


From: Steven Bird <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] King Tutankhamun's Y-DNA - Eureka!
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2010 12:37:59 -0500
References: <e2f96c1b1002172203x6c1d467leb4704e90da74bcc@mail.gmail.com><000c01cab08a$46984480$d3c8cd80$@org><4351D390-54FE-44EF-9281-2F14AA134DD1@vizachero.com><4B7D5028.7000505@san.rr.com><BB2D8776CE024C35AB42F2372F121CE6@elizabethod>,<6AEE8391-8061-46EE-B5F6-ED1BF433587F@vizachero.com>,<8262F8CAA3954C0491B3E08FE6783077@elizabethod>
In-Reply-To: <8262F8CAA3954C0491B3E08FE6783077@elizabethod>


This raises the question, of course, as to why the STR's were not published with the study. The video indicated without question that 10 STR's matched. The narration certainly implied that these ten STR's were from the Y chromosome. If only two of those were Y-STR's and the rest were autosomal, then that should have been said, as it could also have had an impact on the security of the identification.



I can't imagine why the JAMA referees allowed the publication of this article without the full evidence for paternity being presented at least online.

Steven Bird, DMA





> Actually, I like Ann's hypothesis that the video was simply showing
> stock footage.
>
> If the peaks were actually so clear that you could read them from an
> online video clip I suspect they would have been published, so clear
> heads probably would conclude that the vide was not showing Tut's
> actual DNA.
>


_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail: Powerful Free email with security by Microsoft.
http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/201469230/direct/01/


This thread: