Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Just the facts

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Donald Locke
    replied
    Since some of your matches of your same surname have already upgraded to the 67 marker level, then that is what I would recommend for you to do, is to upgrade too. It is especially important for you to have confidence in your matches. If you have doubts at the lower marker levels, those doubts could go away and give you confidence of a good 67 marker match, and that confidence can go a long way for you by being better able to see good 67 marker matches to men of your surname.

    That confidence can help you better focus your attention only to those men you do match with and use that focus to work on those paper trail connections. For me that is a part of the upgrade issue, is to give the participants more confidence in their high level matches and use that energy to find that kinship in the paper records if possible.
    It may take years, even decades to figure out the kinship, but the answers are in the paper records that I am certain of.

    Think of your 67 marker matches as clues, with each new clue gives you a whole new branch of the tree to be exploring in the paper records to try to find that paper trail connection. With each new clue, gives you that many more oppertunities to identify the MRCA.
    It really is a big connect the dots puzzle and the more "dots" or rather DNA participants you have that you do match with, the better the odds are of figuring out who the MRCA was.

    Trust me when I say this, I know many 67 marker participants who have no matches to men of their surname to even be exploring a kinship, so feel lucky and blessed that you do already have lower matches to compare to, and view that information as clues and follow those clues.
    Yes it is a lot more paper trail research to do, but if and when the MRCA is identified will it all pay off in the end.

    Every close 67 marker match of your same surname should be explored in the paper records because those are all clues for you to be following in the paper records. By getting in contact with those potential cousins and exchanging family tree information with one another, you are increasing the odds of being able to identify a MRCA between both trees.

    And that is the ultimate goal, is to be able to identify the MRCA so the 2 trees can be connected.

    Leave a comment:


  • Donald Locke
    replied
    I find the MRCA predictions are reasonably close, but they are a prediction and with any predictions they can be off a bit, plus or minus a few generations.
    I have a 65/67 match to a man in England of my surname.

    The 65/67 match TiP report states:
    Generations Percentage
    4 - 46.92%
    8 - 85.95%
    12 - 97.23%
    16 - 99.53%
    20 - 99.93%
    24 - 99.99%
    28 - 100.00%

    I know for a fact that he and I could not have shared a common male ancestor with in the last 10 generations because my direct forefather was in Maryland USA by 1728. His direct ancestors have always lived in England, so I know through the paper trail research that who ever our common male ancestor is, must have been born prior to the immigration of my forefather to Maryland. But my immigrant forefather very well could be the grand father or great grand father of his ancestor.

    I predict our MRCA is between the 10th and 14th generation ago, but easily could have been more distanced then that. Knowing that mans ethnic ancestry and my ethnic ancestry, I have zero doubts we shared a common male ancestor some where back in both our trees, it is just a matter of finding the right paper records to be able to make the connection between the 2 trees. Everything I now know about that mans family who I match with, fits exactly with what I know of my own family in the USA.
    So it isn't a matter for me of acceptance "if" this is a kinship between us, I know it to be a kinship between us, we just need to prove out the paper trail connection if possible which is a daunting task because that kinship could easly be back in the mid to later 1600's in England.

    The MRCA prediction from the TiP report fits in with what I know of both family trees and I would say yes the prediction is reasonably close in my case anyway.

    Leave a comment:


  • 507
    replied
    Originally posted by Donald Locke View Post
    Your project Admin can see things you may not be able to see or understand yet, put a little trust in to their judgement yes, but do the paper trail research yourself so you can prove it to yourself if you are in fact related to those lineages of Pennsylvania or not.

    Exchange family tree information with the men of your surname who you do match with to see if the common male ancestor can be identified.
    And all of you who are a good 37 marker match really should be considering upgrading to the 67 marker level for no other reason then to prove to yourselves that you really are related to one another.

    The point of the 67 marker upgrade is to give you more confidence in your matches, high level marker matches can really help convince you there really is a kinship there after all. But keep digging in the paper records, the answers are in the paper records!
    Most of my matches are already 67 or 111 markers. The cost for me to upgrade is $100. Are the percentages that tell you the probability of MRCA really accurate ?

    Leave a comment:


  • Donald Locke
    replied
    Originally posted by 507 View Post
    Thats thing about it. My grandfather was born in 1908. The project has about 20 people in my " cluster", all of whom supposedly descend from 1 of 3 brothers who came to pennsylvania from england in 1682. The project coordinator says based on my YDNA 37 marker test, he is for certain i was descended from one of those 3 brothers like the other 19 people in my cluster. I have no idea if hes right or not . I wish i did.
    Your project Admin can see things you may not be able to see or understand yet, put a little trust in to their judgement yes, but do the paper trail research yourself so you can prove it to yourself if you are in fact related to those lineages of Pennsylvania or not.

    Exchange family tree information with the men of your surname who you do match with to see if the common male ancestor can be identified.
    And all of you who are a good 37 marker match really should be considering upgrading to the 67 marker level for no other reason then to prove to yourselves that you really are related to one another.

    The point of the 67 marker upgrade is to give you more confidence in your matches, high level marker matches can really help convince you there really is a kinship there after all. But keep digging in the paper records, the answers are in the paper records!
    Last edited by Donald Locke; 25 April 2012, 01:45 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • 507
    replied
    Originally posted by katerennie4 View Post
    507, the fact that you match others with your surname at 37 markers means it's doubtful you had an NPE too recently. Try to find your MRCA on paper with these ppl.

    Before, I was under the impression that you only matched men with other surnames. Now that I see that's not the case I'm now extremely uncertain as to why you feel embarrassed over your DNA. Some lines just don't mutate much. That's the way it is. Some of my cousins are in their surname project, and in addition to matching several men with their surname (MCRA pre-1600) exactly at 67 markers, they also match several men with another surname (MRCA pre-1600 also). Two even match exactly at 111 markers, one from each surname. Best we can figure though, their DNA just isn't mutating at the expected rates and our connection is likely pre-surnames.

    Thats thing about it. My grandfather was born in 1908. The project has about 20 people in my " cluster", all of whom supposedly descend from 1 of 3 brothers who came to pennsylvania from england in 1682. The project coordinator says based on my YDNA 37 marker test, he is for certain i was descended from one of those 3 brothers like the other 19 people in my cluster. I have no idea if hes right or not . I wish i did.

    Leave a comment:


  • katerennie4
    replied
    Originally posted by 507 View Post
    I appreciate your input and advice. I have death certificates and birth certificates of several ancestors. Pictures. Letters. Power bills. Land deeds. Bibles. Census records. But my point is that none of this proves anything. They are records that can be very very flawed. I am also somewhat dissapointed in the YDNA test I took because i wanted Concrete evidence. Facts. Not speculation. I have 2 exact matches on 37 markers and about 8 or 9 matches on 36 of 37 markers. Several have my last name but several don't. None are from anywhere around my part of the country either. I am from Georgia. All my matches are from Pennsylvania or the Pennsylvania area. But the project coordinator keeps insisting I belong in the project and he knows for certain who I am descended from based on the YDNA test results.
    507, the fact that you match others with your surname at 37 markers means it's doubtful you had an NPE too recently. Try to find your MRCA on paper with these ppl.

    Before, I was under the impression that you only matched men with other surnames. Now that I see that's not the case I'm now extremely uncertain as to why you feel embarrassed over your DNA. Some lines just don't mutate much. That's the way it is. Some of my cousins are in their surname project, and in addition to matching several men with their surname (MCRA pre-1600) exactly at 67 markers, they also match several men with another surname (MRCA pre-1600 also). Two even match exactly at 111 markers, one from each surname. Best we can figure though, their DNA just isn't mutating at the expected rates and our connection is likely pre-surnames.

    Leave a comment:


  • mixedkid
    replied
    Here are my thoughts about this latest discussion, in a nutshelll: I too don't always trust online genealogies, but they can point one in the right direction. Any genealogy, even those hard-copy published ones, long-accepted and done by professional genealogists, can be flawed. Most of these have no backup DNA evidence. Many people can be wonderful document collectors (I'm one of them by the way) but without even just the most basic DNA evidence, it becomes a task of really collecting information on long-dead people we might not actually be related to by blood.

    At some point, I think we all have to accept the possibility of a non-paternal event occurring somewhere in our family trees. Our ancestors were human. If they were anything other than what they were (or what they did or how they lived) none of us would be here, enjoying our own immediate family, enjoying our work or even enjoying our hobbies (including genealogy). NPE's can be hidden by very legal paper documents, even those in the most seriously researched of genealogies.

    Leave a comment:


  • 1_mke
    replied
    I have a dozen or so death certificates in hand and have looked through hundreds of digital copies of census forms and similar documents. That doesn't make me all that experienced actually but it does make me experienced enough to know that the paper records are far from perfect. For instance I have multiple records pointing tothe first husband of one of my great grandmothers being named Jack Finn. Family members recall him being named July Finn instead but I can find no record of him under either name.

    The only thing that doesn't lie is the DNA but even it can mislead.

    Leave a comment:


  • Donald Locke
    replied
    Originally posted by 507 View Post
    I appreciate your input and advice. I have death certificates and birth certificates of several ancestors. Pictures. Letters. Power bills. Land deeds. Bibles. Census records. But my point is that none of this proves anything. They are records that can be very very flawed.
    I guess I do not understand your reasoning, there is no better evidence then the vital records, birth, marriage, death records.

    Leave a comment:


  • 507
    replied
    Originally posted by Donald Locke View Post
    As a long time genealogist, single surname researcher, I would tell you to do the genealogical paper trail research yourself and not rely on any of the family trees that have been published online.

    When the paper trail research has been done correctly on your tree, does the
    DNA testing make so much more sense to you!
    I have 4th and 6th cousins Y DNA tested from my tree and proven to be a genetic match to me. When you do the paper trail research correctly on your family tree, then it does not matter which male cousin from any branch of the tree is being tested, and does not matter if he is a 1st cousin or 10th cousin, all the men of that surname from your tree should ALL be a Y DNA match to one another.

    And when I say the tree being done correctly means you have done the reseach and collected every possible paper record on every individual from that tree and have copies of those records in YOUR hands as your proof of kinship!

    Here is a little trick that I do. When I find trees online and I want to see if that tree author is a serious genealogist or a name collector, I will email that tree author and ask them for a random record from that tree.
    If that tree author replies that he / she does not have copies of that specific record, then they are a name collector not a genealogist / family tree historian.

    9 times out of 10 when I email any family tree author who has published or republished a tree online, I find they do not have copies of the records in their hands, telling me they are name collectors not genealogists / famliy tree historians.

    A good genealogist / family tree historian will have all their paper records scanned in to digital format and will be able to email you a copy of any specific record when asked of them. Most genealogists are willing to share, not all but most will if they have those records in hand.

    Let me put it this way, I have nearly 700 birth, marriage, death certificates on my Lock tree, and when I am asked for a copy I can in a moments notice send that individual a digital copy of any one of those records.
    When I email those family tree authors, 9 times out of 10 I am told they do not have such records, making them a name collector not a serious genealogist / family tree historian. They copy and steal from everyone else and are not a true genealogist in any sense of the term.

    Do the paper trail research yourself so you know it is being done right the first time.
    I appreciate your input and advice. I have death certificates and birth certificates of several ancestors. Pictures. Letters. Power bills. Land deeds. Bibles. Census records. But my point is that none of this proves anything. They are records that can be very very flawed. I am also somewhat dissapointed in the YDNA test I took because i wanted Concrete evidence. Facts. Not speculation. I have 2 exact matches on 37 markers and about 8 or 9 matches on 36 of 37 markers. Several have my last name but several don't. None are from anywhere around my part of the country either. I am from Georgia. All my matches are from Pennsylvania or the Pennsylvania area. But the project coordinator keeps insisting I belong in the project and he knows for certain who I am descended from based on the YDNA test results.

    Leave a comment:


  • LynCra
    replied
    Originally posted by Zaru View Post
    Yes, the vital records are helpful, however, the IGI records are just plain useless which are filed by the Mormon missionaries in haste to fulfill their obligations.
    In using familysearch you need to differentiate between the information uploaded from users' trees (dubious quality) and the scanned and transcribed vital records (high quality). They have a high volume of original records scanned and use reliable transcribers so there is a lot of useful information on there if you know how to find it. Their search engine can be irritating though.

    Leave a comment:


  • Zaru
    replied
    Be Careful With Family Search.

    Originally posted by Donald Locke View Post
    Here is a free web site that has millions of vital records databases and digital copies of the records that you can get started with.

    https://familysearch.org/

    Yes, the vital records are helpful, however, the IGI records are just plain useless which are filed by the Mormon missionaries in haste to fulfill their obligations.

    Leave a comment:


  • Donald Locke
    replied
    Here is a free web site that has millions of vital records databases and digital copies of the records that you can get started with.

    https://familysearch.org/

    Leave a comment:


  • Donald Locke
    replied
    Originally posted by 507 View Post
    I believe there are more inaccurate family trees floating around out there on the internet than accurate family trees. I have been tested at 37 markers, My predicted haplogroup is I2b1, and i have very few concrete facts to start a family tree on my paternal side. I'm fairly certain of my father and grandfather but not much past that. What is the best way to get started ? Not using speculation and guess work. Just facts. How much can DNA testing really do ?
    As a long time genealogist, single surname researcher, I would tell you to do the genealogical paper trail research yourself and not rely on any of the family trees that have been published online.

    When the paper trail research has been done correctly on your tree, does the
    DNA testing make so much more sense to you!
    I have 4th and 6th cousins Y DNA tested from my tree and proven to be a genetic match to me. When you do the paper trail research correctly on your family tree, then it does not matter which male cousin from any branch of the tree is being tested, and does not matter if he is a 1st cousin or 10th cousin, all the men of that surname from your tree should ALL be a Y DNA match to one another.

    And when I say the tree being done correctly means you have done the reseach and collected every possible paper record on every individual from that tree and have copies of those records in YOUR hands as your proof of kinship!

    Here is a little trick that I do. When I find trees online and I want to see if that tree author is a serious genealogist or a name collector, I will email that tree author and ask them for a random record from that tree.
    If that tree author replies that he / she does not have copies of that specific record, then they are a name collector not a genealogist / family tree historian.

    9 times out of 10 when I email any family tree author who has published or republished a tree online, I find they do not have copies of the records in their hands, telling me they are name collectors not genealogists / famliy tree historians.

    A good genealogist / family tree historian will have all their paper records scanned in to digital format and will be able to email you a copy of any specific record when asked of them. Most genealogists are willing to share, not all but most will if they have those records in hand.

    Let me put it this way, I have nearly 700 birth, marriage, death certificates on my Lock tree, and when I am asked for a copy I can in a moments notice send that individual a digital copy of any one of those records.
    When I email those family tree authors, 9 times out of 10 I am told they do not have such records, making them a name collector not a serious genealogist / family tree historian. They copy and steal from everyone else and are not a true genealogist in any sense of the term.

    Do the paper trail research yourself so you know it is being done right the first time.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jim Barrett
    replied
    Originally posted by 507 View Post
    I agree about the paper trail. The thing that makes it so difficult is that names are so common. There are likely 50 people with my grandfathers name in my state alone, not counting the whole US. But i feel like he is a good starting point since i am fairly confident he was my grandfather. If i suspected someone to be my second or third cousin , is there a test that could prove that ?
    I understand the problems, but knowing the year of birth will narrow that down a lot. Do you have copies of birth and death certificates for your father and his father?

    If you stay with all male lines the Y-DNA test will give you a very strong indication of a shared common ancestor but it will not tell you how far back.

    Family Finder doesn't require the "all male line". It will provide a probable degree of relationship, but will not tell you through which line.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X