Lyle I will reply to each statement as you did.

On Sep 25, 2008, at 4:21 PM, Herbert Barger wrote:

> (H) I am not familiar with TV shows regarding DNA. All I know that the
"Y"
> was used for the TJ study and there is absolutely (at that time,) not
> test to determine given names.
(L) Within the parameters of the test and the subject matter at the
time,  
that is correct. (H) Agreed.

> (H) I personally do not object to science
> obtaining Mr Jefferson's DNA,
(L) Excellent. I'm assuming you'd push for that? (H) Absolutely not, the
word of famous geneticists is good enough for me.

> (H) however I have enough faith in the
> geneticists that inform me that even if available it would still be
> matching DNA to the five Jefferson males selected for the study.
(L) Ideally, it would go after all the DNA it could get to definitively

prove the relationships or lack thereof. (H) and that is exactly the
reason I have requested the DNA of William Hemings, son of Madison, but
they refuse.

> (H) I do
> not believe the American public would "go along" with such amateurish
> digging.
(L) That doesn't follow. Any work done on TJ, or RJ or any of the others

would of necessity have to adhere to the highest archaeological and  
scientific standards to be accepted. (H) as reported above, TJ's male
relatives have the same DNA.
>
>
> (H) There is no "double standard" here but if the Madison Hemings
family  
> are
> so sure that they descend from ANY Jefferson why won't they promote  
> and
> approve this dig
(L) In this issue, there are double, triple and quadruple standards and

that is the crux of the problem. The St. Thomas brigade believes and  
wishes for there to be no definitive proof that TJ fathered a child or  
children with SH. (H) you are correct....NO proof.

(L) The Madison and Eston brigades seem to want to  
believe, no matter what, that there is a Jefferson in the family tree.
(H) Yes, there may possibly be "A" Jefferson as their family oral
history points out, but not Thomas. Madison's folks will not test their
ancestor's, son, William, WHY?
  
(L) Both sides are the extremes in this matter. It can be inferred that

there is more than a smattering of racism from both extremes. (H) I
cannot speak for "the other side" but racism doesn't enter the
controversy on my part BUT common decency and truth, not lying about
anyone is the point I am trying to inform the public of.

(L) Not allowing the full and unbiased DNA testing of all parties  
concerned will do nothing but cause problems. As Herb points out  
correctly, there are books that twist the DNA results way beyond the  
realm of possibility. That happens when you have non-scientific types  
writing about science and for that matter in lots of endeavors. And it  
happens when you have agenda driven writers, etc. And it is not  
limited to this argument either, but that's another flame war. (H) to be
so knowledgeable Lyle, are you a geneticist? 

> (H) ......there is NO DNA proof that Madison and Eston SHARE
> a common father. If they were to gain this valuable DNA then a  
> possible
> Madison/Carr brother match would occur just as the Carr boys claimed.
> When we tested ONLY ONE, then that only cleared the Carrs for that
> ONE,(Eston).
(L) That would be correct. (H) if agreed, how can a biased Monticello
Study "assume" from ONE tested that "possibly ALL were fathered by
TJ...do you see the bias oozing out here and see why I DEMAND another
study but Dan Jordan, retiring in Nov., but Monticello President,
refuses......WHY? All readers should ask him.....I have.

>(H) Monticello, using the biased and defective Monticello Study,
> still believe that not only TJ may have fathered one but ALL.
(L) That is a misinterpretation of the test results, yes.

> and that is
> preposterous BIAS.
And it is nearly as big (based on smaller numbers) a preposterous BIAS  
to argue that TJ cannot possibly have fathered a child with SH. (H) I am
happy to see that some agree that Monticello is definitely wrong and
DEMAND a more truthful study. I don't believe that anyone has said that
TJ could not have fathered a Sally child........just that there is NO
proof (read the Scholars Commission Report at www.tjheritage.org) and
remember the Eston claim that "a Jefferson uncle" was his ancestor...he
NEVER claimed Thomas BUT Madison did and we know he or Samuel Wetmore
lied in the Pike County, Ohio Republican article, therefore no one
should believe anything in this abolitionist article. The opposing
paper, the Waverly Watchman, was very critical of this article and went
into great detail of their reasons.  

>(H) I have called upon them to again conduct another
> study using balanced research not intentional maneuvering as discussed
> on earlier posts.
(L) Historical research is not going to solve it. DNA can do that and it

is the only test which has any possibility of so doing. (H) In my
opinion, DNA has not and cannot prove that TJ fathered Sally's children.
DNA collection was maneuvered, as detailed earlier, into the wrong
direction, without informing the media, Monticello and Nature Journal as
I had suggested.  

(L) An instructive aside: A small church in London called Spitalfields  
(derived from Hospital Fields) had a crypt full of folks in lead  
coffins. The church desired to turn the crypt into some form of  
community center. They contacted the descendants of the folks in the  
coffins and involved them in the move and those who were willing had  
their ancestors investigated by physical anthropologists using  
standard methods. And this was done by a good number of PA's as a test  
case. The results were amazing. One woman, as far as I remember, was  
determined by the PA's to have been in her late 30's when she died,  
childless. In actual fact, she was in her 80's and had had numerous  
children. Whoops. What that taught the PA's was that they needed to go  
back and examine the evidence firsthand to correlate it with the  
historic information. That was done and archaeology and physical  
anthropology are much the better off for it. This was made into a TV  
program called "The Skeletons at Spitalfields".

While it may have been embarrassing for the PA's at first, their  
adherence to academic and scientific principles superseded other  
considerations and they worked through the problems and arrived at a  
better level of knowledge than they formerly had. (H) a great story Lyle
and it points exactly what I have tried to convey to the
readers..........without excellent family genealogy, DNA cannot stand
alone.......science and history must share the same stage and NO family
history twisted or denied as some people connected to the study are
concerned. Dr. Foster (I have hundreds of shared e-mails), DENIED all my
recommendations until I and others demanded of Nature's Editor-In-Chief,
an explanation of this FALSE headline. The Jan 7, 1999 issue of Nature
did carry the FULL story of my input with an explanation by Dr. Foster
that the study DID NOT confirm that it was THOMAS Jefferson who fathered
the Hemings children.

(L) It is my opinion that both sides in the TJ issue need to do just
that  
and if they really wish to get at the truth, however embarrassing it  
may or may not be, then they will support additional and definitive  
testing. (H) I thoroughly agree and I am ready to cooperate in any
endeavor to gain more "correct" information and "our side" has proposed
a major televised debate but "the other side, AGR, etc)" will not
debate.  

(L) So, Herb, are you up for that? Chips fall where they may? Full  
disclosure, etc as a precondition? (H) I have always proposed this and
welcome your funds and those of our readers to support our further
research.......for details of donations click on www.tjheritage.org.
also while there please read the Scholars Commission Report (13 full
professors.)

Lyle Browning
>
>
> Herb Barger
>

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