Wednesday, June 7, 2017

Don't Rush To Purchase A Scottish Kilt Wardrobe DNA "Ethnicity Estimates" Are Misleading; but, might be good for business. 

This post is meant to help new family genealogists with DNA result queries. No question TV ads, etc. go far to compound “newbie” genealogist confusion with their ethnicity estimate percentage calculations. That guy who switched to wearing Scottish kilts based on his Scottish Ancestry single figure DNA estimates, or that overweight black woman who evidently starts wearing African head-ware based on her African DNA estimate really slay me – a great disservice here by Ancestry DNA management. Nothing is certain in an Ancestry ethnicity estimate! The single figure percentage presented in Ancestry's "Ethnicity Estimate" is developed from a probable calculated range... it is an uncertain and somewhat likely ESTIMATE!  

For example, my personal Ancestry DNA geographical area "Scandinavia" is estimated at 9%, developed from an algorithm where my personal DNA actual range from Scandinavia is 0%-21%; whereas, my "Ireland" estimate at 26% is developed from a 15%-36% possible DNA range. All single figure estimates are developed from a range that can be viewed in your Ancestry DNA Ethnicity Estimate by clicking "View Your Genetic Estimate" button -- "Show 3 more Regions" -- then click the specific region to view the full range of possibility. Additionally, in this expanded view, one can easily see that "Great Britain" for example – actually expands possible DNA sources beyond Great Britain to include most of France, Germany, Switzerland, Belgium, Denmark, and The Netherlands. All Ancestry DNA specific geographical areas can be expanded in this way to include far greater surrounding lands than suggested by their single area estimate.

Also, when working back in your ancestry a half-dozen generations or more, the "DNA match" presented by these DNA ethnicity tests confirm little about your actual ancestry. These numbers as related to individuals in your distant past are not "DNA Verification" of true family connection -- such matches simply state there is a limited probability of DNA connection. At best, the Ancestry DNA geographic region can create a warm feeling that your genealogical paper research is on the right track. But perhaps this possible DNA region match actually originates from distant sources presently unknown to the tested person. Here again, an TV ad where a fifty-something woman claims discovery of her previously unknown 26% Native-American ancestry is highly suspect. How can this be?  First, as mentioned in the previous paragraph, this single figure geographic estimate percentage is likely developed from a far wider 10%-to-40% range of statistical probability. The most Christian answer is this new-found Native American lady was adopted and never knew her actual blood-related ancestors identity.  Or, a less Christian possibility... it might be one or more of her distant ancestors is actually Native American, where her paper ancestor(s) were not responsible for planting her pre-birth seeds. 

Oh, right... forgot... my bad... forgive me... all our distant ancestors were each pure as the fresh driven northern snows... nothing to see here... no funny business of a sexual nature ever happened in past times. Don't tell this to a parish priest with a locate Catholic Church in Herkimer, NY who refuses involvement in family genealogy research, this due to his experience where in a few past cases some hurtful nasty information about a researcher's actual documented ancestry was found written in his historical church records.         

Note: The kilted Scottish guy image displayed at the top of this post is based on an edited Internet-based image captured by simple Google search and displayed here in accordance with "free use" copyright provisions for non-profit educational purposes only. 

Friday, June 2, 2017

Open Letter To Sub-President Chuck Schumer On Russian Collusion

Byline: So Many Fools In The Swap

Dear Senator Schumer:

Looking for Russian collusion -- try these facts on for size:

Remember when Donald Trump was business partners with the Russian government and his company got $53,000,000 from the Russian government investment fund called Rusnano, that was started by Vladimir Putin, and is referred to as "Putin's Child?" Oh wait... that wasn't Donald Trump, it was John Podesta!
( Click To See: Rusnano )

Remember when Donald Trump received $500,000 for a speech in Moscow and paid for by Renaissance Capital, a company tied to Russian Intelligence Agencies? Oh wait... not The Donald... that was Bill Clinton, done when his wife Mrs. Clinton was Secretary of State!

Remember when Donald Trump approved the sale of 20% of U.S. uranium deposits to the Russians while he was Secretary of State which gave control of it to Rosatom the Russian State Atomic Energy Corporation? Oh wait... not The Donald... that was Hillary Clinton!

Remember when Donald Trump lied about that and said he wasn't a part of approving the deal that gave the Russians 20% of our uranium, but then his emails were leaked showing that he did lie about it? Oh wait... not The Donald... that was Hillary Clinton and John Podesta!

Remember when Donald Trump received hundreds of thousands of U.S. dollars from shareholders of the uranium company sold to the Russians? Oh wait... not The Donald... that was Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation!

Remember when Donald Trump accepted millions in donations from Russian Oligarchs like the chairman of a company that's part of the Russian Nuclear Research Cluster, the wife of the mayor of Moscow, and a close pal of Vladimir Putin? Oh wait... not The Donald... that was the Clinton Foundation!

Remember when Donald Trump failed to disclose all those donations before becoming the Secretary of State, and it was only discovered when a journalist went through Canadian tax records? Oh wait... right, not The Donald.. forgot that... it was Hillary Clinton!

Remember when Donald Trump told Mitt Romney that the 1980's called and it wanted its Russian policy back. The Cold War is over! Oh wait... again, not The Donald, that was former President Barack H. Obama!


Reference:  An unattributed email from unnamed reliable government and private sources... similar to sources used by NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN and The New York Times.  

DJ Paul of German Flatts, NY