Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Are the majority of Americans related?

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

  • #61
    Originally posted by georgian1950 View Post
    I'm not following your objection. If a person goes back eight generations, they have 256 possible lines (though some end with the same ancestor on account of cousins marrying). What I'm saying is that the majority of Americans who can trace back to earlier than 1900 have at least one line that has ancestry with this slavery and bride selling ring.

    It presents a problem with genealogical research. Time and time again on GEDmatch Forums, I see people who are related via this common ancestry, but they think they might be related by a common surname. A lot of wheel spinning is going on.
    If I may, I will readily admit I am new to the world of Genetics and how it is applied to Genealogy but not new by far to Genealogy itself. I have done a FF test (should, barring any delays, receive my results sometime on or before the 29th), but I would be surprised if I were a match or a connect for you as none of my recent ancestry comes out of North Carolina. (I will clarify; I do have an ancestress who died in South Carolina in 1845 but was Acadian French from Nova Scotia originally, and had married and bore her children in Canada; where as far as I know they all stayed; she did have two siblings who much earlier, had come down to stay with their paternal Uncle who had been sent down with most of [I]his[I] siblings and mother during the Acadian Expulsion; (two brothers managed to avoid capture, one was this particular ancestress's father.), so unless you have any LaNoue (Lanneau) ancestry, or any other Acadian French/Canadian French ancestry, I would doubt we would connect. I do however have Many lines to Early New England, but unless I am missing something; none of those lines were in North Carolina...at least the individual persons down the lines that I come from, so I am a bit confused on how you can empirically say that the majority of Americans who have Colonial ancestry or ancestry in America before 1900 has ancestry with this ring?

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by LadyAlaise View Post
      I do however have Many lines to Early New England, but unless I am missing something; none of those lines were in North Carolina...at least the individual persons down the lines that I come from, so I am a bit confused on how you can empirically say that the majority of Americans who have Colonial ancestry or ancestry in America before 1900 has ancestry with this ring?
      If you read my posts in this thread and the OP's response to my posts, you'll see that he's saying far more than that a majority of Americans with Colonial ancestry have ancestors in his theorized North Carolina slave ring.

      When I pointed out that I have multiple small segment matches with him at gedmatch, as part of a test he requested of his theory, but that all my ancestors before 1850 (all but one documented to the period of 1750-1800) were born in Italy, he claimed that an escapee from the slave ring got to Sicily or southern Italy and was one of my ancestors! I believe someone else with only Irish ancestors before the 20th century reported the same and he also claimed that an escapee made it to Ireland.

      It's obvious that he's very attached to his theory, which probably has a grain of truth to it, although not as widespread as he believes. In order to "prove" his theory, he has to rely on segments so short that none of the three commercial DNA testing companies rely on them to declare that two people received it from a common ancestor. And when I or anyone else show that the segments he relies on are too short to indicate a common ancestor, he comes up with a incredible scenario to explain how an escapee from a North Carolina slave ring made it to Sicily or southern Italy in the 1700s and connects someone with only Italian ancestry with Colonial Americans.

      Comment


      • #63


        Yeah I read those bits about your Italian ancestor; I agree with you; the chances of one of your documented-Italy born ancestors being from NC before 1800 or 1850 is very slim or that one of their ancestors was from there is very slim, unless documented by records and at best a passenger list, and from what I am aware of; Italian churches kept amazing records....
        I also can see where his theory can have merit and be plausable but not with the rest of Europe as a whole. Just because some one Lives in the USA now and their ancestors all have been documented as being from other countries but share very small snippets of dna pieces (from what I gather reading through the posts) does not mean they all trace back to NC. For starters NC was not an initial colony (aside from perhaps Roanoke???) The earliest I know of for North America is in Canada; then Jamestown, VA, then Plymouth, MA. I find it hard to apply the theory to a larger non Colonial American, no documented Native American ancestry or African American ancestry but documented as being from Europe (ie: England, Ireland, Italy, etc) between 1850 and 1900 group. And personally if someone's Italian ancestor shows as having whatever point zero 2 % native american dna that also could be asian; and be from a much further ancestor up the line with no association with North America. Same could be said with African DNA; could be a much older ancestor up the line, again with no connect to North America and the slave trade that happened there. (This is based on some of the comments I read that dealt with some % numbers and what looked like some DNA technobabble shall I say as I am not sure what it was all saying lol)
        Last edited by LadyAlaise; 23 April 2015, 10:45 PM.

        Comment


        • #64
          I did this out of curiosity, and so I could show that I had no connections with North Carolina as I am not American. But my 8th ggrandparents did go to America and died in Massachusetts, their son returned to Ireland. And I have connections with the West Indies. So anything is possible. See what you think of my results.

          GEDmatch.Com Autosomal Comparison
          Comparing Kit F239841 (*Jack Wyatt) and F279298 (*Geraldine)
          Minimum threshold size to be included in total = 250 SNPs
          Mismatch-bunching Limit = 125 SNPs
          Minimum segment cM to be included in total = 1.0 cM
          Largest segment = 7.0 cM
          Total of segments > 1 cM = 417.2 cM

          GEDmatch.Com X-DNA Comparison
          Comparing Kit F367106 (Mrs. Barbara Collip Wyatt)(F) and F279298 (*Geraldine)(F)
          Minimum threshold size to be included in total = 150 SNPs
          Mismatch-bunching Limit = 75 SNPs
          Minimum segment cM to be included in total = 1.0 cM
          Largest segment = 5.2 cM
          Total of segments > 1 cM = 68.4 cM Actual.

          Nicola

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by Nicola View Post
            I did this out of curiosity, and so I could show that I had no connections with North Carolina as I am not American. But my 8th ggrandparents did go to America and died in Massachusetts, their son returned to Ireland. And I have connections with the West Indies. So anything is possible. See what you think of my results....
            Nicola, thanks for sharing your data. You definitely fit in that category where you are likely connected more than one way to the NC human trafficking ring. Besides the high total of matching segments, we have the X-DNA match between my mother and you, many matching segments that I have found a meaning for, and your segments are triangulating with most everyone that has given their data on this or similar threads.

            Also my step-daughter's kit is on your one to many list. I have kept her out of the public discussion, but I'll send you a private message about how she fits in.

            I have said several times that most people are not aware that they have a North Carolina connection, since with this situation we have a lot of made up family trees to hide the circumstances of birth and childhood. I suspect that is the case with you, too. If you are interested in trying to figure out which line(s) of yours have the connection, I will be glad to help out.

            Comment


            • #66
              Hi,
              If you are interested in trying to figure out which line(s) of yours have the connection, I will be glad to help out.
              Yes, I would be, but I'm not sure I have the skills to do so. I could try, but I have no idea where I would start looking.
              Nicola

              Comment


              • #67
                So basicly what you seem to be saying is that ALL americans no matter what the paper record trail says; if their ancestors came to America before 1900; They ALL trace back to this NC ring? Because if so, that would imply a lot ofclose relationships within a very short period of time.....and a lot of incorrect records.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by LadyAlaise View Post
                  So basicly what you seem to be saying is that ALL americans no matter what the paper record trail says; if their ancestors came to America before 1900; They ALL trace back to this NC ring? Because if so, that would imply a lot ofclose relationships within a very short period of time.....and a lot of incorrect records.
                  Of course not everyone, but it is hard for me to find someone that I am not related to. That is a lot of relationships, say 7-10 generations back. Going back 7 generations, one has 128 different lines (though some end with the same person because of cousins marrying). You might have a verified Y-DNA paternal line going back to Ireland, but maybe one of your male ancestors picked up a wife along the way that has ancestry in this NC situation.

                  Many genetic genealogists see these apparent relationships that they cannot explain, so they have adopted this IBD-IBS sophistry to explain the relationships away. Small segments are really quite meaningful and reliable. I have been making significant and consistent finds as far back as the mid-1600s using them. Without small segments, I would still be spinning my wheels.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Ok, finding many people who are related to you or with whom you share a common ancestor is completely different than claiming all these possible relatives have Ancestry with the NC Ring. Just because someone may genetically be related to you does not mean they all connect to you via the same set of ancestors.
                    I meet distant cousins all the time in the real world and online. Having both Acadian French ancestry and Early New England ancestry and add in where I live I am hard pressed not to.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by LadyAlaise View Post
                      Ok, finding many people who are related to you or with whom you share a common ancestor is completely different than claiming all these possible relatives have Ancestry with the NC Ring. Just because someone may genetically be related to you does not mean they all connect to you via the same set of ancestors.
                      I meet distant cousins all the time in the real world and online. Having both Acadian French ancestry and Early New England ancestry and add in where I live I am hard pressed not to.
                      On your third post, I thought you finally had realized what I was saying. I guess not. Go back and reread my reply to Bohunk.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by LadyAlaise View Post
                        Ok, finding many people who are related to you or with whom you share a common ancestor is completely different than claiming all these possible relatives have Ancestry with the NC Ring. Just because someone may genetically be related to you does not mean they all connect to you via the same set of ancestors.
                        I meet distant cousins all the time in the real world and online. Having both Acadian French ancestry and Early New England ancestry and add in where I live I am hard pressed not to.
                        Thank you for writing those words that I've bolded!

                        The OP actually seems to believe that the only way he connects to others with whom he shares segments is through his alleged ancestors from a North Carolina slave ring of over 200 years ago. It's as if all his ancestors from 200 years ago were enslaved in North Carolina and all the ancestors from 200 years ago of those he shares segments with have the same situation.

                        Unless the entire population of the U.S. in the 1700s lived in North Carolina, this is impossible. (Not even mentioning people all of whose ancestors lived in Europe in the 1700s.) Surely some of his and our ancestors lived in other places. This is the problem with an agenda. Every piece of evidence is made to fit the agenda, no matter how ludicrous or implausible it is.

                        And I'm leaving aside the question of using tiny segments as "proof" that there's any relationship from a common ancestor at all. As I've pointed out in a previous post, none of the three commercial companies use the small segments he uses to establish IBD and declare a match based on that. Unless he knows of some scientific study which proves that even 50% of such tiny segments are IBD, this is a real fantasy.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          wow . . .

                          I don't know what surprises me the most, that this pseudo-science is still being presented, or that it is still being debated.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Any progress, Jack?

                            Ok, I'll bite. As I do in fact, have enslaved ancestors in my maternal family background, who appear suddenly in St. Croix, the Danish West Indies, but whom I believe may have originated in themselves, or, had parents coming from North Carolina; this is one of my "brick walls". I also have a strong Colonial connection on my paternal grandfather's mother's side: she was born a Jennings, and traces her lineage back to Thomas Jennings, husband of Anne Talby Jennings. Incidentally, Anne's mother was Dorothy Talby, (hanged as a witch in Salem, MA 1638) and her poor doomed little sister was Difficulty Talby.
                            My GEDMATCH (Kit A045340) results are as follows: (all parameters set at same threshold 250/1 cM for Jack and 150cM/1cM for Mom)

                            Jack One to One: Largest segment = 5.0 cM
                            Total of segments > 1 cM = 401.2 cM

                            Jack X One to One:Largest segment = 1.2 cM
                            Total of segments > 1 cM = 1.2 cM Actual.

                            Wyatt Mom One to One: Largest segment = 4.6 cM
                            Total of segments > 1 cM = 923.2 cM

                            Wyatt Mom X One to One: Largest segment = 4.2 cM
                            Total of segments > 1 cM = 49.0 cM Actual.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by VegasGem View Post
                              Ok, I'll bite. As I do in fact, have enslaved ancestors in my maternal family background, who appear suddenly in St. Croix, the Danish West Indies, but whom I believe may have originated in themselves, or, had parents coming from North Carolina; this is one of my "brick walls"....

                              Wyatt Mom One to One: Largest segment = 4.6 cM
                              Total of segments > 1 cM = 923.2 cM

                              ....
                              Thank you, VegasGem.

                              Looks like a great example of what I have been talking about.

                              One correction though. On the 'one to one' with my mother, you used the 150 SNP's that I had been using just for the X'one to one' comparisons. With 250 SNP's, the results are (417.8, 4.6). Still that puts you in with range of where you are likely to be connected more than one way.

                              I'll be looking forward to seeing what we can come up with.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by MMaddi View Post
                                The OP actually seems to believe that the only way he connects to others with whom he shares segments is through his alleged ancestors from a North Carolina slave ring of over 200 years ago. It's as if all his ancestors from 200 years ago were enslaved in North Carolina and all the ancestors from 200 years ago of those he shares segments with have the same situation.
                                The theory has been refined. It is more of a human breeding and trafficking operation where the females were sold as brides and the boys were sold into seaman apprenticeships. We are seeing people with connections popping up all over the world, probably from the sea faring boys being spread around.

                                MMaddi, here is a little analysis for you. I thought I'd see how everyone on this thread that has a connection to the North Carolina situation (just about everyone) triangulates with you. We will use as a starting point the "one to one' with my mother (F367106) because see does not have all the other potential common ancestors that I do with you. From your first post on this thread using my 250 SNP's and 1.0 cM minimum segment size matching you (M203724) showed 14 matching segments with her with a total of 38.1 cM for matching segments larger than 1.0 cM. Since two people can match on around 3400 cM, you and my mother only match on a little over one percent of the autosomal segments that we look at. For a single match seven generation back, that is about the right ball park.

                                Besides the kits gathered from this thread, I am using two kits, Gatty and 100% Finnish, from this thread;



                                Also I am using a kit from GEDmatch Forums from a person who believes himself to be 100% Sicilian.

                                Here are the kits:

                                M203724 (MMaddi) 38.1
                                8 F364959 (Duffy) 457.2
                                5 F372234 (Kern) 423.0
                                3 Lady A 146.7
                                6 Lady B 387.0
                                4 Jean Mauck 441.2
                                6 F216781 (Franklin) Marian 464.0
                                3 F231811 (Kingcade) 407.0
                                5 F195686 (Silly Sally) 438.9
                                9 F91757 (McCain) 507.9
                                4 F328982 (Crews) 404.4
                                6 FN30278 (Fry) 421.5
                                5 A515622 (Kenneth Wyatt) 446.6
                                7 FB5111 (Nicola Mitchell) 408.0
                                3 F381439 (MCarrasco) 426.2
                                9 F279298 (Geraldine) Nicola 439.2
                                4 A045340 VegasGem 417.8
                                7 FN49571 (Tim James Gatty) 466.1
                                7 100% Sicilian 345.1
                                7 100% Finnish 440.5

                                The numbers on the right are the total of matching segments at least 1.0 cM long with my mother. On the left is the
                                number of MMaddi and my mothers matching segments which the kit has matching segments with my mother that overlap with MMaddi's.

                                Looks like everyone in the list has a connection to MMaddi. Stuff like that does not just happen by chance. I'd say my theory is well on its way to be proven.

                                The supporting detail for each segment can be found in the attachments.
                                Attached Files

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X