\ > Did you ask him to explain his theory to you? > ----- Original Message ----- No. I felt like I better brush up on the subject with him, before I carried on. Sandra

Sorry, I didn't mean to upset you...I did not mean to attack anyone. ----- Original Message ----- From: <Scalawag1867@aol.com> To: <ARKANSAS-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2003 2:20 PM Subject: Re: [ARKANSAS] Related to our ancestors? > Glswings, > > No, he was giving his opinion on what he had studied, just as you and I are > giving our opinions. He might have read and studied this outside of FBI > Courses. When I gather more information I will approach him again on this subject. > First I need to know what I am talking about. This is one educated man. I know > he is wrong, (My opinion), but I will have to have more knowledg to whole a > conversation with him. This is why I have contacked the lists for help. He is > 47 years old, he is not a youngester out of College and wanting to tell us what > he knows. Prove him worng, but lets not attack him. > > Take Care. > > Sandra > > > ==== ARKANSAS Mailing List ==== > To unsubscribe, send the command "unsubscribe" to > ARKANSAS-L-request@rootsweb.com (if in mail mode) or > ARKANSAS-D-request@rootsweb.com (if in digest mode.) > > ============================== > To join Ancestry.com and access our 1.2 billion online genealogy records, go to: > http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=571&sourceid=1237 > >

> This guy reminds me of my mom's 2nd husband. That man > thought he knew everything. You could say the sky was > blue and he would disagree. My dad has told me that it's after 5 generations that we're only related in name. He probably got this out of a book. It's _probably_ true in large urban areas but, here in the South, we have such a web of connections, I don't think anyone with ancestors here before 1860 would be affected by this. Even in Medieval Europe, it was VERY hard to find someone who lived within a few miles of you who didn't share an ancestor within the last seven generations. (The Catholic Church tried to make it impossible for closely- related people to marry: the by-the-book cutoff on that was seven generations, but that was...by the book!) > BTW speaking of DNA testing did anyone see NIghtline > last night? I happened to catch it and it was about > racial idenitity. This african american man did this No, but I'm glad that's gotten some publicity. I get really upset about people who tell me that they're "pure" such-and-such. The standard anthropological assumption is that blacks in the U.S. average only 30% black African ancestry: I think, that between U.S. blacks who "look African" [I worked with a lady who had an eerie physical resemblance to one of the African extras in the second Romancing the Stone movie.] and U.S. blacks who would have "passed" 50 years ago, that's a reasonable assumption. I've also noticed regional differences in black appearance: for example, I had many black co-workers in the D.C. area who were very light -- they were always from families with long histories in the D.C. area -- and others who were very dark -- they were always either born in the Carolinas or Alabama or their parents had been. As for some of the rest of us -- there's a very good reason so many medical studies are done in Finland: that's the one area of Europe that has a virtually unmixed (ethnically) population. In this country, lots of medical studies are done on the Amish and the Orthodox Jews for basically the same reason: both groups are virtually unmixed ethnically -- at least for the past 200 years or so. Elizabeth Whitaker (If you're descended from a Travis Whitaker who married a Smith in the 1920s, please e-mail me. Travis was one of my great aunts.) --------------------------------------------- Check Your Email From Any Where in the World! http://www.myemail.com

I've seen this email on several lists - how many answers are there and how much list space is necessary to answer this question? It's annoying and I apologize in advance for complaining about it so I don't get any hate mail. Carol Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2003 10:03:36 EST From: Scalawag1867@aol.com To: ARKANSAS-L@rootsweb.com Message-ID: <44.384458b6.2cf0d4c8@aol.com> Subject: [ARKANSAS] Related to our ancestors????????????? Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" I help please. I talked at length this morning with my nephew who is with the FBI. He tells me that after three generations we are no longer related to our ancestors. we are linked by names but not by blood. He says no one is related to one another after third cousins. My line/ancestors: James Waldrop, Sr. Benjamin Waldrop Green Berry Waldrop 1794-1854 Joseph Ryan Waldrop 1827-1870 James Harry Waldrop 190601962 Me. So what he is saying I am only related to Green Berry Waldrop,Benjamin Waldrop his papa is not related to me, I am just in his name only line. We are only researching our names and not who wer are related to. So if James Waldrop, Sr. and Ann hadn't married in the 1700s, would I be here?? Does it not take one generation to make another. He said this was taught in the FBI and DNA. Help me please.....I am not educated in this and he is. Please tell me he is wrong. Sandra maiden Waldrop Georgia

Is this just another spam mail then? Dang. I fell for this one. I hate that. Thank you for letting me (us) know. I appreciate it! bj LittrellAncestry@aol.com wrote:I've seen this email on several lists - how many answers are there and how much list space is necessary to answer this question? It's annoying and I apologize in advance for complaining about it so I don't get any hate mail. Carol Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2003 10:03:36 EST From: Scalawag1867@aol.com To: ARKANSAS-L@rootsweb.com Message-ID: <44.384458b6.2cf0d4c8@aol.com> Subject: [ARKANSAS] Related to our ancestors????????????? Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" I help please. I talked at length this morning with my nephew who is with the FBI. He tells me that after three generations we are no longer related to our ancestors. we are linked by names but not by blood. He says no one is related to one another after third cousins. My line/ancestors: James Waldrop, Sr. Benjamin Waldrop Green Berry Waldrop 1794-1854 Joseph Ryan Waldrop 1827-1870 James Harry Waldrop 190601962 Me. So what he is saying I am only related to Green Berry Waldrop,Benjamin Waldrop his papa is not related to me, I am just in his name only line. We are only researching our names and not who wer are related to. So if James Waldrop, Sr. and Ann hadn't married in the 1700s, would I be here?? Does it not take one generation to make another. He said this was taught in the FBI and DNA. Help me please.....I am not educated in this and he is. Please tell me he is wrong. Sandra maiden Waldrop Georgia ==== ARKANSAS Mailing List ==== Check out other genealogy resources on the net at John Fuller's most helpful site http://www.rootsweb.com/~jfuller/gen_mail.html ============================== To join Ancestry.com and access our 1.2 billion online genealogy records, go to: http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=571&sourceid=1237 --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now

Also, it's good to keep in mind that African People are sort of like Native American People (and European People and Asian People too), in the respect that there are many different tribes and we all have a different look. For instance, to a Cherokee, there's no way that a Sioux "looks like us". A Navajo and a Yakima look completely different. I'm not talking about traditional clothing. I'm talking about bone structure, body build, coloring, even the way we walk and talk. It's pretty easy to spot an Italian or an Irish person by their skin coloring and build too. It's easy to say someone "looks" like they come from an entire continent of course, but if you look a little deeper, you'll see that within the continents, exists true herititary traits. African's (actually from Africa) come in many, many shades. bj whitaker@innova.net wrote: The standard anthropological assumption is that blacks in the U.S. average only 30% black African ancestry: I think, that between U.S. blacks who "look African" [I worked with a lady who had an eerie physical resemblance to one of the African extras in the second Romancing the Stone movie.] and U.S. blacks who would have "passed" 50 years ago, that's a reasonable assumption. I've also noticed regional differences in black appearance: for example, I had many black co-workers in the D.C. area who were very light -- they were always from families with long histories in the D.C. area -- and others who were very dark -- they were always either born in the Carolinas or Alabama or their parents had been. --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now

I agree, I feel I am related to my great grandmother's gr grandparents and so on back to their gr grandparents. I have found there are many people who believe like my nephew. My nephew is age 47, so he isn't some young whip-a-napper just out of College. He was out of the Country yesterday while I was talking to him. We'll continue this converstion when he gets back home. Sandra

A EMAIL i RECEIVED FROM ARKANSAS: Was this FBI fellow talking about "sideways" relationships" ? instead of "vertical" ones? I remember that there used to be a parlor game where kids sat in a circle and one would whisper a "fact" to the one on his right and the "fact" would be repeated around the circle until the point of origin was reached .. then spoken aloud .... usually bearing little resemblance to the original "fact".... Sometimes our lists remind me of that game. So if he was talking about situations of 4th or 5th cousins ... i. e. lateral relationships in the same general generation, how much WOULD we be related?? Would that be why Franklin was able to marry Eleanor? Guess I will have to do some more net surfing and see what's out there on the subject. ron in CA Searching AR for Ramsey, Smith, Stone and a few more. PS: HELLO ! : )********************************************* Sandra's reply: Ron, we used to call that game you called "Fact", we called it "Gossip". We played it at our Church Youth Parties. We would sit in a circle and the first one would whisper to the one on his right a rumor, then the one on the right would pass the rumor on to the person on their right. By the time the rumor completed the full circle, is sounded nothing like the rumor that was started to the first person. It was a funny game. My grandmother married my grandpapa her second chousins. Their grandmothers were sisters which made us double related.. I am related to my sisters as sisters and fifth cousins. Of course in Washington County Alabama, back in the mide to late 1800s this was done all the time. My Baxter married Baxters simply because there wasn't enough single males and females around that could marry. Never the less they were related and they married. I think, we are related to our gr granmother's great grandparents and so on. But this is my opinion and I can not prove it. This is why I sent out my message to the List members.

We are all researching our ancestors to see from who we descend and who are our kin folks. I know I am kin to my ancestors. So don't let anyone tell you different. Belva

You should tell your cousin that someday he will dance to a different tune. Our very existence is based on those who came before us, and logically speaking, if we came from them, then we gotta be releted. Can I get a HELLO! ----- Original Message ----- From: "bj berrykeeper" <bjberrykeeper@yahoo.com> To: <ARKANSAS-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2003 12:11 AM Subject: Re: [ARKANSAS] Related to our ancestors????????????? > That's one of the dumbest things that I've ever heard and you are welcome to tell him so. I can't imagine talking to one of my cousins and telling them that I'm related to their mother, but not them. > A cousin is a cousin. > He needs to go back to school. > bj > > Scalawag1867@aol.com wrote: > I help please. > > I talked at length this morning with my nephew who is with the FBI. > > He tells me that after three generations we are no longer related to our > ancestors. > > we are linked by names but not by blood. > > He says no one is related to one another after third cousins. > > My line/ancestors: > > James Waldrop, Sr. > Benjamin Waldrop > Green Berry Waldrop 1794-1854 > Joseph Ryan Waldrop 1827-1870 > James Harry Waldrop 190601962 > Me. > > So what he is saying I am only related to Green Berry Waldrop,Benjamin > Waldrop his papa is not related to me, I am just in his name only line. > We are only researching our names and not who wer are related to. > > So if James Waldrop, Sr. and Ann hadn't married in the 1700s, would I be > here?? Does it not take one generation to make another. > > He said this was taught in the FBI and DNA. > > Help me please.....I am not educated in this and he is. > > Please tell me he is wrong. > > Sandra > maiden Waldrop > Georgia > > > ==== ARKANSAS Mailing List ==== > To unsubscribe, send the command "unsubscribe" to > ARKANSAS-L-request@rootsweb.com (if in mail mode) or > ARKANSAS-D-request@rootsweb.com (if in digest mode.) > > ============================== > To join Ancestry.com and access our 1.2 billion online genealogy records, go to: > http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=571&sourceid=1237 > > > --------------------------------- > Do you Yahoo!? > Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now > > > ==== ARKANSAS Mailing List ==== > To unsubscribe, send the command "unsubscribe" to > ARKANSAS-L-request@rootsweb.com (if in mail mode) or > ARKANSAS-D-request@rootsweb.com (if in digest mode.) > > ============================== > To join Ancestry.com and access our 1.2 billion online genealogy records, go to: > http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=571&sourceid=1237 > >

Was this FBI fellow talking about "sideways" relationships" ? instead of "vertical" ones? I remember that there used to be a parlor game where kids sat in a circle and one would whisper a "fact" to the one on his right and the "fact" would be repeated around the circle until the point of origin was reached .. then spoken aloud .... usually bearing little resemblance to the original "fact".... Sometimes our lists remind me of that game. So if he was talking about situations of 4th or 5th cousins ... i. e. lateral relationships in the same general generation, how much WOULD we be related?? Would that be why Franklin was able to marry Eleanor? Guess I will have to do some more net surfing and see what's out there on the subject. ron in CA Searching AR for Ramsey, Smith, Stone and a few more. PS: HELLO ! : ) At 01:39 AM 11/23/03 -0600, you wrote: >You should tell your cousin that someday he will dance to a different tune. >Our very existence is based on those who came before us, and logically >speaking, if we came from them, then we gotta be releted. Can I get a HELLO! >----- Original Message ----- >From: "bj berrykeeper" <bjberrykeeper@yahoo.com> >To: <ARKANSAS-L@rootsweb.com> >Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2003 12:11 AM >Subject: Re: [ARKANSAS] Related to our ancestors????????????? > > >> That's one of the dumbest things that I've ever heard and you are welcome >to tell him so. I can't imagine talking to one of my cousins and telling >them that I'm related to their mother, but not them. >> A cousin is a cousin. >> He needs to go back to school. >> bj >> >> Scalawag1867@aol.com wrote: >> I help please. >> >> I talked at length this morning with my nephew who is with the FBI. >> >> He tells me that after three generations we are no longer related to our >> ancestors. >> >> we are linked by names but not by blood. >> >> He says no one is related to one another after third cousins. >> >> My line/ancestors: >> >> James Waldrop, Sr. >> Benjamin Waldrop >> Green Berry Waldrop 1794-1854 >> Joseph Ryan Waldrop 1827-1870 >> James Harry Waldrop 190601962 >> Me. >> >> So what he is saying I am only related to Green Berry Waldrop,Benjamin >> Waldrop his papa is not related to me, I am just in his name only line. >> We are only researching our names and not who wer are related to. >> >> So if James Waldrop, Sr. and Ann hadn't married in the 1700s, would I be >> here?? Does it not take one generation to make another. >> >> He said this was taught in the FBI and DNA. >> >> Help me please.....I am not educated in this and he is. >> >> Please tell me he is wrong. >> >> Sandra >> maiden Waldrop >> Georgia >> >> >> ==== ARKANSAS Mailing List ==== >> To unsubscribe, send the command "unsubscribe" to >> ARKANSAS-L-request@rootsweb.com (if in mail mode) or >> ARKANSAS-D-request@rootsweb.com (if in digest mode.) >> >> ============================== >> To join Ancestry.com and access our 1.2 billion online genealogy records, >go to: >> http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=571&sourceid=1237 >> >> >> --------------------------------- >> Do you Yahoo!? >> Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now >> >> >> ==== ARKANSAS Mailing List ==== >> To unsubscribe, send the command "unsubscribe" to >> ARKANSAS-L-request@rootsweb.com (if in mail mode) or >> ARKANSAS-D-request@rootsweb.com (if in digest mode.) >> >> ============================== >> To join Ancestry.com and access our 1.2 billion online genealogy records, >go to: >> http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=571&sourceid=1237 >> >> > > > >==== ARKANSAS Mailing List ==== >ListAdministrator of Arkansas-L >Diana Boothe philsbarbie1@arkansasfamilies.net > >============================== >To join Ancestry.com and access our 1.2 billion online genealogy records, go to: >http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=571&sourceid=1237 > >

I have a photo of my cousin Pam Berry and my cousin Pam Clark, who are five times removed and the are the spitting image of each other, right down to their strange flat spot on their nose and their extra lump on their ear. If they're not related, then have your nephew explain how they could pass as twins, cause' I'd sure like to hear this. bj ENC6@aol.com wrote: In a message dated 11/22/2003 9:30:15 AM Central Standard Time, Scalawag1867@aol.com writes: > I help please. > > I talked at length this morning with my nephew who is with the FBI. > > He tells me that after three generations we are no longer related to our > ancestors. > > we are linked by names but not by blood. > > He says no one is related to one another after third cousins. > > Hi Sandra, Well.... I'm sure not from the FBI but that doesn't make sense. If that were true it would seem to me that there would be no value in all this DNA genealogy that is going on right now and that seems to be growing in popularity and use. Also... Look at all the other work they are doing with DNA. Historically that is - The stuff they did with the Thomas Jefferson family, etc. There was certainly more than 3 generations involved in that study. Sure seems as if there are a lot of "experts" out there who seem to feel there is value in matching DNA and spanning several generations. Just a thought - take care - Emma ==== ARKANSAS Mailing List ==== Check out other genealogy resources on the net at John Fuller's most helpful site http://www.rootsweb.com/~jfuller/gen_mail.html ============================== To join Ancestry.com and access our 1.2 billion online genealogy records, go to: http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=571&sourceid=1237 --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now

That's one of the dumbest things that I've ever heard and you are welcome to tell him so. I can't imagine talking to one of my cousins and telling them that I'm related to their mother, but not them. A cousin is a cousin. He needs to go back to school. bj Scalawag1867@aol.com wrote: I help please. I talked at length this morning with my nephew who is with the FBI. He tells me that after three generations we are no longer related to our ancestors. we are linked by names but not by blood. He says no one is related to one another after third cousins. My line/ancestors: James Waldrop, Sr. Benjamin Waldrop Green Berry Waldrop 1794-1854 Joseph Ryan Waldrop 1827-1870 James Harry Waldrop 190601962 Me. So what he is saying I am only related to Green Berry Waldrop,Benjamin Waldrop his papa is not related to me, I am just in his name only line. We are only researching our names and not who wer are related to. So if James Waldrop, Sr. and Ann hadn't married in the 1700s, would I be here?? Does it not take one generation to make another. He said this was taught in the FBI and DNA. Help me please.....I am not educated in this and he is. Please tell me he is wrong. Sandra maiden Waldrop Georgia ==== ARKANSAS Mailing List ==== To unsubscribe, send the command "unsubscribe" to ARKANSAS-L-request@rootsweb.com (if in mail mode) or ARKANSAS-D-request@rootsweb.com (if in digest mode.) ============================== To join Ancestry.com and access our 1.2 billion online genealogy records, go to: http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=571&sourceid=1237 --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now

Maybe he is talking about from the legal standpoint. Legally, in most states, you can't marry your 1st cousins. But I know a couple of people who have married their 4 cousins. Just a thought. But I AM kin to all my folks. LOL Keitha in AL

In a message dated 11/22/2003 9:30:15 AM Central Standard Time, Scalawag1867@aol.com writes: > I help please. > > I talked at length this morning with my nephew who is with the FBI. > > He tells me that after three generations we are no longer related to our > ancestors. > > we are linked by names but not by blood. > > He says no one is related to one another after third cousins. > > Hi Sandra, Well.... I'm sure not from the FBI but that doesn't make sense. If that were true it would seem to me that there would be no value in all this DNA genealogy that is going on right now and that seems to be growing in popularity and use. Also... Look at all the other work they are doing with DNA. Historically that is - The stuff they did with the Thomas Jefferson family, etc. There was certainly more than 3 generations involved in that study. Sure seems as if there are a lot of "experts" out there who seem to feel there is value in matching DNA and spanning several generations. Just a thought - take care - Emma

I help please. I talked at length this morning with my nephew who is with the FBI. He tells me that after three generations we are no longer related to our ancestors. we are linked by names but not by blood. He says no one is related to one another after third cousins. My line/ancestors: James Waldrop, Sr. Benjamin Waldrop Green Berry Waldrop 1794-1854 Joseph Ryan Waldrop 1827-1870 James Harry Waldrop 190601962 Me. So what he is saying I am only related to Green Berry Waldrop,Benjamin Waldrop his papa is not related to me, I am just in his name only line. We are only researching our names and not who wer are related to. So if James Waldrop, Sr. and Ann hadn't married in the 1700s, would I be here?? Does it not take one generation to make another. He said this was taught in the FBI and DNA. Help me please.....I am not educated in this and he is. Please tell me he is wrong. Sandra maiden Waldrop Georgia

RE: no one is related to one another after third cousins. REALLY!!! If that is the case then the DAR and SAR and their long history of one being qualified to join if they can prove being descended by blood from a Revolutionary War Patriot is a scam! I think someone is trying to throw cold water on your appreciation and excitement for ancestor hunting! Countless DNA tests CONFIRM present day lineage back to early days [1600s], and that of course is more than 3 generations! I have not personally done the DNA, but several on the ARNOLD Mailing List have. I say FORGET HIM! He doesn't know what he is talking about. Happy Hunting, Lanita Families are like fudge. Mostly sweet with a few nuts!

This guy reminds me of my mom's 2nd husband. That man thought he knew everything. You could say the sky was blue and he would disagree. BTW speaking of DNA testing did anyone see NIghtline last night? I happened to catch it and it was about racial idenitity. This african american man did this ancestry dna testing and it came back he was 59 percent Indo-European, 39 percent Native American I think the rest hispanic and 0 percent African. He even went to his mother and told her Hey you can tell me if I am adopted. Really interesting. You might try going to the ABC website look for nightline and check it out. Best advice ignore what Mr FBI says I think he was talking more about from a legal standpoint because you still have Genetics, DNA etc after 3 generations!

Did you ask him to explain his theory to you? ----- Original Message ----- From: <Scalawag1867@aol.com> To: <ARKANSAS-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Saturday, November 22, 2003 7:03 AM Subject: [ARKANSAS] Related to our ancestors????????????? > I help please. > > I talked at length this morning with my nephew who is with the FBI. > > He tells me that after three generations we are no longer related to our > ancestors. > > we are linked by names but not by blood. > > He says no one is related to one another after third cousins. > > My line/ancestors: > > James Waldrop, Sr. > Benjamin Waldrop > Green Berry Waldrop 1794-1854 > Joseph Ryan Waldrop 1827-1870 > James Harry Waldrop 190601962 > Me. > > So what he is saying I am only related to Green Berry Waldrop,Benjamin > Waldrop his papa is not related to me, I am just in his name only line. > We are only researching our names and not who wer are related to. > > So if James Waldrop, Sr. and Ann hadn't married in the 1700s, would I be > here?? Does it not take one generation to make another. > > He said this was taught in the FBI and DNA. > > Help me please.....I am not educated in this and he is. > > Please tell me he is wrong. > > Sandra > maiden Waldrop > Georgia > > > ==== ARKANSAS Mailing List ==== > To unsubscribe, send the command "unsubscribe" to > ARKANSAS-L-request@rootsweb.com (if in mail mode) or > ARKANSAS-D-request@rootsweb.com (if in digest mode.) > > ============================== > To join Ancestry.com and access our 1.2 billion online genealogy records, go to: > http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=571&sourceid=1237 > >

Maybe this FBI guy knows more than the medical field..LOL orginal message > RE: no one is related to one another after third cousins. >