VA-HIST Archives

Discussion of research and writing about Virginia history

VA-HIST@LISTLVA.LIB.VA.US

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Herbert Barger <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Discussion of research and writing about Virginia history <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Mon, 29 Sep 2008 18:58:58 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (55 lines)
Kevin, sorry I thought I had covered your questions and I will try to be
brief. 

What did the DNA prove? The DNA proved that Callender's Campaign Lies of
1802 were just that...LIES as there was NO Jefferson/Woodson DNA match.

The DNA proved that the Carr brothers claims to Sally parentage did not
show up in this test of ONLY ONE Hemings. Of course they may have been
referring to the earlier Sally children, one is available but the
Hemings refuse permission to test.

The DNA proves that if you arrange to test someone whom you know to have
a Jefferson DNA, John Weeks Jefferson, descendant of Eston Hemings, then
the chances are excellent that there will be a match, as there was, if
we are to believe the Eston family oral history. It is impossible to
state that it was Thomas and the circumstantial evidence points to
Randolph.  
 
That is about it in as a brief summary that I can conceive.

Herb--

Alas you have not answered my question, nor have you acceded to my
request that you answer it briefly, in just a few sentences.  

So once again--can you state, in one or two sentences, what you think
the DNA evidence proves?  What, in your opinion, can we say that we
know, on the basis of the DNA tests so far conducted?

Just in case there is any confusion about what I am asking, I will
expand and clarify.  For my purposes here, I don't care about the
history of the tests, who did them, or where they were published.  I do
not care what you think about Dan Jordon.  I don't care what you think
are the agendas of the people who produced and publicized the tests, or
how or why they have (in your view) made false inferences about them.
Those may all be interesting questions, but they are not what I am
asking here.

I just want to know what you think we can say we now know, on the basis
of these tests.  What does the science actually tell us, in your view?  

What has been proven?  On what can we agree?

Many thanks,
Kevin
Kevin R. Hardwick, Ph.D.
Department of History
James Madison University

______________________________________

______________________________________
To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the instructions at
http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html

ATOM RSS1 RSS2


LISTLVA.LIB.VA.US