Rory, I am so sorry that you feel this way, but I can understand it. FTDNA is a very good company and you get the best information back from them - true it often causes more questions than it explains and can be very disappointing. It is a tool and a wise investment if you are a researcher. First you have the Genetic Signature at the highest level of your Thomas line and for another Thomas to be part of your line, they have to genetically match your results or be reasonable close. This is what you DNA looks line at 67 different places. Now, it may not match any one.........but with Haplogroup J2, I would think that you might be close to my line; however, same Haplogroups along with same surname does not mean a match. The DNA is deep ancestry that the modern world is using as a tool to help find connections for a time period that is within the say last 200 years to present. In the Cowan Surname Project, we have sorted a lot of men - we can't prove the paper trail but I can tell you that if your Genetic Signature does not match the line that you have been researching then you need to look else where. I have sawed off several branches off of well researched lines and taken their brothers with them since I could prove the brothers thanks to early court records. That doesn't mean that the line in question did not have a Samuel, Nathaniel or James BUT it was not this group of men with the same name. I have seen the answer as to why people can not connect their paper trail to other Cowan lines in the same area. The Wythe County, Virginia line looks like it should match the Russell County, Virgina group that were running around at the same time.What is worse is that the Russell County, Virginia group were living in Cowan's Fort and other areas around there while my personal Cooper line was getting themselves killed there. Then my husband's Wythe County, Virgina line was running around Russell County, Virginia at the same time but the genetic signature for both Cowan lines and both Cooper lines are not anywhere close as well as being different Haplogroups. All I managed to prove is that at the same period in time all four of these groups could have known each other and probably thought they were kin due to the common last names which is what started all the mixed up genealogies in the beginning. The other thing is that the testing told us why the paper trail can't be established in such a way that the researchers can get any where - they are not kin and we now know it genetically. Doesn't tell us much but it does tell us what Cowan lines not to try to connect together. Yes, the results are a little much and I am still missing a lot of pieces to the big picture so I accept that a lot of this is stuff that I have to accept that this is just the way it works and the way it works is why it is helpful in genealogy. To stop and think that your DNA sample is a representative sample of your father and your grandfather and his father all the way back until you run out of Thomas men is to me one of the neatest concepts around. When other Thomas men tested and were from my Thomas line it was the greatest gift that they could have given me. These Thomas men are last time I checked 3 in number and are close enough in my tree to make me happy. I have Thomas cousins that could be tested but these will work since I would rather have my Buchanan 1st cousin to be tested since he would be a representative sample of my mother's brother and my grandfather or I would rather have mt-DNA from my Aunt on my father's side since she would be a representative sample of the mt-DNA that my father carried since they are brother and sister. Suggestion to the Haplogroup does have some meaning since there are those that are not even suggested. I don't think that they suggest unless they are pretty sure that they are correct. I have just had a friend that is Italian get his results back and he knows his grandfather and grandmother immigrated from Italy but his Haplogroup was not anything I was expecting - he was Haplogroup Q and his mt-DNA was I. So what do we do now and he has no matches at all with his y-DNA. You now have a tool that says, you are my line this is the genetic signature you have to match. Do you have a male Thomas in your family that can be tested to see if we are kin since the paper trail points us in the right direction??? You really don't have to understand it to use it and no matter how much I study DNA, I find that I am missing the piece that will make all the hours I have devoted to trying to understand things turn on the light bulb. You genetically now know what the signature was for your male ancestors and all of your male descendents - we know that there are changes and there are sometime issues in our non-perfect world BUT in theory we know that your the DNA signature of Rory Thomas is a representative sample of the past, present and future of the Thomas men that are in a straight line in your family tree. I express it this way since I know that have other Thomas lines on my father's side that are probably not kin to the Thomas line on my mother's side. I don't think that you have wasted your money - you have lots of answers, we just don't understand all that we are being told and with more time, we will get more answers. The Thomas Project is a large active group and with more time and more testing we will get more answers along with more questions. Once again, I am sorry that you are disappointed, I know that my friend was beyond upset over his results and expressed very much what you have shared with the list. Thanks for taking the time to tell us your feelings on your testing. 67 markers is a large gift to us as researchers that have the Thomas surname in our heritage - Thomas is a more common name than some of the other surnames so you have to expect a lot of different non-related lines. Laura At 01:32 PM 3/26/2008, you wrote: >For general infomation. >I recently had a 67 marker test done through family tree DNA at some >expence.The results are disapointing in that they are totally >inconclusive,but mainly i found them to be written in scientific >jargon,which I found meaningless,despite buying a book on the subject in >an attempt to seek clarifycation on the whole report.I would suggest to >the authors that they produce future reports in what is called "Plain >English"(or American,obviosly).I gained nothing from it,even the >suggestion that I belong to"Haplogroup J2" was an unverified speculation.I >do not recomend this test. >R.Thomas >_________________________________________________________________ >News, entertainment and everything you care about at Live.com. Get it now! >http://www.live.com/getstarted.aspx > >------------------------------- >To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >THOMAS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes >in the subject and the body of the message Laura Cowan Cooper - Kodak, TN lauracowancooper@comcast.net

Thank you all for your replys to my last message.Can i ask advice from those of you that seem to understand this DNA thing.I followed advice & uploaded my family tree DNA to YSEARCH,com.After browsing it showed a link with another person,However I had a 67 point test done,& the other person only appeared to have a 12 point test which matched exactly the first 12 tests of my 67 points.Are these 12 matches significant?The other male has a diffent Surname.I have emailed him but would appreciate any advise on understanding the linc if any.Thank you. Rory Thomas> Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 02:36:28 -0400> To: thomas@rootsweb.com> From: lauracowancooper@comcast.net> Subject: Re: [THOMAS] DNA test> > Rory,> > I am so sorry that you feel this way, but I can understand it.> > FTDNA is a very good company and you get the best information back from > them - true it often causes more questions than it explains and can be very > disappointing. It is a tool and a wise investment if you are a researcher.> > First you have the Genetic Signature at the highest level of your Thomas > line and for another Thomas to be part of your line, they have to > genetically match your results or be reasonable close. This is what you DNA > looks line at 67 different places. Now, it may not match any > one.........but with Haplogroup J2, I would think that you might be close > to my line; however, same Haplogroups along with same surname does not mean > a match. The DNA is deep ancestry that the modern world is using as a tool > to help find connections for a time period that is within the say last 200 > years to present.> > In the Cowan Surname Project, we have sorted a lot of men - we can't prove > the paper trail but I can tell you that if your Genetic Signature does not > match the line that you have been researching then you need to look else > where. I have sawed off several branches off of well researched lines and > taken their brothers with them since I could prove the brothers thanks to > early court records. That doesn't mean that the line in question did not > have a Samuel, Nathaniel or James BUT it was not this group of men with the > same name. I have seen the answer as to why people can not connect their > paper trail to other Cowan lines in the same area. The Wythe County, > Virginia line looks like it should match the Russell County, Virgina group > that were running around at the same time.What is worse is that the Russell > County, Virginia group were living in Cowan's Fort and other areas around > there while my personal Cooper line was getting themselves killed there. > Then my husband's Wythe County, Virgina line was running around Russell > County, Virginia at the same time but the genetic signature for both Cowan > lines and both Cooper lines are not anywhere close as well as being > different Haplogroups. All I managed to prove is that at the same period in > time all four of these groups could have known each other and probably > thought they were kin due to the common last names which is what started > all the mixed up genealogies in the beginning. The other thing is that the > testing told us why the paper trail can't be established in such a way that > the researchers can get any where - they are not kin and we now know it > genetically. Doesn't tell us much but it does tell us what Cowan lines not > to try to connect together.> > Yes, the results are a little much and I am still missing a lot of pieces > to the big picture so I accept that a lot of this is stuff that I have to > accept that this is just the way it works and the way it works is why it is > helpful in genealogy. To stop and think that your DNA sample is a > representative sample of your father and your grandfather and his father > all the way back until you run out of Thomas men is to me one of the > neatest concepts around. When other Thomas men tested and were from my > Thomas line it was the greatest gift that they could have given me. These > Thomas men are last time I checked 3 in number and are close enough in my > tree to make me happy. I have Thomas cousins that could be tested but these > will work since I would rather have my Buchanan 1st cousin to be tested > since he would be a representative sample of my mother's brother and my > grandfather or I would rather have mt-DNA from my Aunt on my father's side > since she would be a representative sample of the mt-DNA that my father > carried since they are brother and sister.> > Suggestion to the Haplogroup does have some meaning since there are those > that are not even suggested. I don't think that they suggest unless they > are pretty sure that they are correct. I have just had a friend that is > Italian get his results back and he knows his grandfather and grandmother > immigrated from Italy but his Haplogroup was not anything I was expecting - > he was Haplogroup Q and his mt-DNA was I. So what do we do now and he has > no matches at all with his y-DNA.> > You now have a tool that says, you are my line this is the genetic > signature you have to match. Do you have a male Thomas in your family that > can be tested to see if we are kin since the paper trail points us in the > right direction??? You really don't have to understand it to use it and no > matter how much I study DNA, I find that I am missing the piece that will > make all the hours I have devoted to trying to understand things turn on > the light bulb.> > You genetically now know what the signature was for your male ancestors and > all of your male descendents - we know that there are changes and there are > sometime issues in our non-perfect world BUT in theory we know that your > the DNA signature of Rory Thomas is a representative sample of the past, > present and future of the Thomas men that are in a straight line in > your family tree. I express it this way since I know that have other > Thomas lines on my father's side that are probably not kin to the Thomas > line on my mother's side.> > I don't think that you have wasted your money - you have lots of answers, > we just don't understand all that we are being told and with more time, we > will get more answers. The Thomas Project is a large active group and with > more time and more testing we will get more answers along with more questions.> > Once again, I am sorry that you are disappointed, I know that my friend was > beyond upset over his results and expressed very much what you have shared > with the list. Thanks for taking the time to tell us your feelings on your > testing. 67 markers is a large gift to us as researchers that have the > Thomas surname in our heritage - Thomas is a more common name than some of > the other surnames so you have to expect a lot of different non-related lines.> > Laura> > At 01:32 PM 3/26/2008, you wrote:> > >For general infomation.> >I recently had a 67 marker test done through family tree DNA at some > >expence.The results are disapointing in that they are totally > >inconclusive,but mainly i found them to be written in scientific > >jargon,which I found meaningless,despite buying a book on the subject in > >an attempt to seek clarifycation on the whole report.I would suggest to > >the authors that they produce future reports in what is called "Plain > >English"(or American,obviosly).I gained nothing from it,even the > >suggestion that I belong to"Haplogroup J2" was an unverified speculation.I > >do not recomend this test.> >R.Thomas> >_________________________________________________________________> >News, entertainment and everything you care about at Live.com. Get it now!> >http://www.live.com/getstarted.aspx> >> >-------------------------------> >To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > >THOMAS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes > >in the subject and the body of the message> > Laura Cowan Cooper - Kodak, TN> lauracowancooper@comcast.net> > > -------------------------------> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to THOMAS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message _________________________________________________________________ Connect to the next generation of MSN Messenger  http://imagine-msn.com/messenger/launch80/default.aspx?locale=en-us&source=wlmailtagline