(George) Washington Johnson is not the son of James Johnson and Rebecca Farris, a fact proven by DNA testing. Copy of email to Harold Johnson and his response: Harold, I noticed that the pedigree of 42296 (James Granville Johnson) has as its first known ancestor, James Johnson (and his wife, Rebecca Farris). I have seen this a few times before and have mentioned to a few people that Washington Johnson was not a son of James and Rebecca Johnson. The family of James and Rebecca has been a known quantity for a great number of years thanks to the family researchers of the early and middle 20th century who actually lived in the research area (Wayne, Pulaski and Russell Counties in Kentucky). I have been ignored by those few individuals who continue to maintain the relationship between James and Washington but I am not adamant about changing their minds. They are free to believe whatever they like. But, my DNA test results are completely different than the "James Granville Johnson" tests and, in fact, I am completely isolated, genealogically speaking, from everyone else. Anyone viewing the two pedigrees and the test results are surely going to be puzzled. But, I don't want to create problems for anyone. I simply thought I should point out the differences. I see no point in taking the next DNA test stage until, if and when someone joins who has a better chance of matching me. I am certainly open to any suggestions you might have to offer. Hi Ron, Ah, you are observant!!!! One of the things that became obvious very early in our project was that too many people relied on existing posted lineages for their own sources. If it looked like it would fit, they used it! Some of our participants have made adjustments...others have ignored the obvious. And frankly, there's not much that can be done about what these people do. Hopefully, DNA research will become recognized as the "truth" that it is and when used in conjunction with a solid conventional research a "standard" will be generally accepted. For your own information, ISOGG has a committee working on a protocol for using DNA test results in establishing lineages. This protocol is in request to DAR, The Mayflower Society and others seeking a standard for their lineages requirements. I expect that the committee will be reporting their suggestions in a month or so. I'll certainly send out a group newsletter reporting their findings.

Ron, Hi. Thanks for the correction! I will add this info immediately. I appreciate any and all corrections. CarolynCarolyn S. Beard > From: ronjohnson@frontier.net> To: kywayne@rootsweb.com> Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 17:54:51 -0600> Subject: Re: [KYWAYNE] SEEKING CEMETRY INFO> > (George) Washington Johnson is not the son of James Johnson and Rebecca > Farris, a fact proven by DNA testing.> > Copy of email to Harold Johnson and his response:> > Harold,> > I noticed that the pedigree of 42296 (James Granville Johnson) has as > its first known ancestor, James Johnson (and his wife, Rebecca Farris). I > have seen this a few times before and have mentioned to a few people that > Washington Johnson was not a son of James and Rebecca Johnson. The family of > James and Rebecca has been a known quantity for a great number of years > thanks to the family researchers of the early and middle 20th century who > actually lived in the research area (Wayne, Pulaski and Russell Counties in > Kentucky).> > I have been ignored by those few individuals who continue to maintain > the relationship between James and Washington but I am not adamant about > changing their minds. They are free to believe whatever they like. But, my > DNA test results are completely different than the "James Granville Johnson" > tests and, in fact, I am completely isolated, genealogically speaking, from > everyone else.> > Anyone viewing the two pedigrees and the test results are surely going > to be puzzled. But, I don't want to create problems for anyone. I simply > thought I should point out the differences.> > I see no point in taking the next DNA test stage until, if and when > someone joins who has a better chance of matching me. I am certainly open to > any suggestions you might have to offer.> > Hi Ron,> Ah, you are observant!!!!> > One of the things that became obvious very early in our project was that too > many people relied on existing posted lineages for their own sources. If it > looked like it would fit, they used it! Some of our participants have made > adjustments...others have ignored the obvious. And frankly, there's not much > that can be done about what these people do.> > Hopefully, DNA research will become recognized as the "truth" that it is and > when used in conjunction with a solid conventional research a "standard" > will be generally accepted. For your own information, ISOGG has a committee > working on a protocol for using DNA test results in establishing lineages. > This protocol is in request to DAR, The Mayflower Society and others seeking > a standard for their lineages requirements. I expect that the committee will > be reporting their suggestions in a month or so. I'll certainly send out a > group newsletter reporting their findings. > > > > -------------------------------> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to KYWAYNE-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message _________________________________________________________________ The i’m Talkaton. Can 30-days of conversation change the world? http://www.imtalkathon.com/?source=EML_WLH_Talkathon_ChangeWorld