Is it possible for GENI to hold onto records who have come into disfavor?

Thank you for the briefing: I'll use it when I get the results....The distance is unsettleing...I'l review in detail later. DCR

You don't need to wait to use it. The differences are cumulative. Your 67-marker test will look at 30 more markers. You'll still have these 21 differences on markers 1 through 37, plus any additional differences they find on 38 through 67.

Here is an interesting Perrott to Drake Via Elizabeth Barlow: You may recall that Eliz. Barlow was the Sister of Perrott ap Rhys 1598 who married into the Barlow family near Tenby 1620.

http://www.geni.com/path/Robert-Perrot+is+related+to+John-Barlow?fr...

Robert Perrott being the cousin of John Perratt II 1565 comes full circle with the Drake name and Barlow of Tenby, Wales. White DNA being what it is...I-1 and linking back to the oldest famlies in England is showing again and again in the Predominanty French R1b Perrott line. THE MYSTERY NPE...strikes again. Who did this I-1 DNA belong to?

I'll go back to Family tree records I have retained on Lawrence plug in the data you gave me today. DCR

http://www.geni.com/path/Robert-Perrot+is+related+to+John-Barlow?fr...

Justin: It is not coincidental that Samuel G. Rice named John Perratt II 1565 and it is not coincidental that a man named John Perrott of Parquito Pt. has a son named Robert Perrott of Matthews Parish Glouster Virginia1773. Beleved to be the father Of Lawrence Perrott I-1.

These are the people who should share the same DNA with some variation of one step change after marker 25. We should be able to agree that the markers for John Rice and Robert Perrott...son of John of Paraquito are identical up to marker DYS 447 & Dys 449 yes or No? The Variation is -2 and -2 on those two steps of the first 25 markers YES?(remember John RIce varies one step from me on dys 449).

Now what conditions apply to the first 25 markers? 2 steps at two sites on the first 25 is RELATED working from the DNA. My DNA is 1948 minus 1773 or 174 years difference between Robert Parrott of Paraquito Pt. Origen. The results after marker 25 will be weighed seperately thanks very much. DCR

Dale, it just doesn't work like that. With DNA you can't pick and choose which markers you like. It's all or nothing.

It's meaningless for the DNA to match up to a particular point if it doesn't continue to match when more markers are tested.

YES! It does!

The values you are using were developed without the information I brought to the table. Compare Robert Perrott and DAle C. Rice to the Values ESTIMATED by the people at Family tree. Then tell me the numbers do not change. I have no assurance that the Estimated values are still correct, and neither do you! At this point you have a vested interest in seeing this fail. You cannot rule out the story just because you don't like it. You have to do a retest on the estimated values bareing in mind the triangulation of Rice/scarfone/and Lawrence/Robert Perrott. Otherwise we wait.

Dale, no, it doesn't.

This isn't a case where the information you "brought to the table" changes anything. It's a simple tabulation. You look at your values. Look at the values for the descendants of Lawrence Parrott. You just compare them, item by item. Same? Or not the same?

There are 9 descendants. Most of them have one or two differences from the others. You have 21 differences, but you think that's close enough.

There are different ways of handling the info. You can derive an original for Lawrence himself by looking at the lowest values, or you can look at minimum, maximum, and mode. But, if you do any of these, you cannot do it with John Rice in the mix. In other words, you cannot create a valid comparison to John Rice by using numbers that include John Rice.

You say you have no assurance the estimated values are still correct. That's almost the silliest argument you could make. It doesn't matter. The actual values don't change. Use the real data and you won't have to worry about distortion.

Dale, you don't know how to use DNA. You never have. On one hand you really want to pull it in as your trump card to get around having no paper records, but when it turns out to disprove your theories you always fall back on the same argument -- scientists don't understand it, but you do.

It's time for you to give up on using DNA to prove a Parrott connection. You've been shot out of the water. You're not going to be able to recover.

See Group 17 Edmund Rice DNA family studies. Cousin Harry S. Rice is the down line descendant of Samuel Jr....we vary by two steps. There is no John Rice Value listed only Samuel and his values are not listed past 25 markers.

How can I check the values reconstructed for JOhn RIce? It's too much in the air...and distances after marker 25 to Perrott are single step. I want another opinion. Sorry.

So get another opinion. Everyone will tell you the same thing.

You can use MIN, MAX, and MODE to analyze results within a group already established by a paper trail. You cannot use them to decide that one group matches another group. That's just fundamental mathematics.

What you need to do is create a spreadsheet. Compare all 9 descendants of Lawrence Parrott to all 3 descendants of Edmund Rice.

Create a section for each of Edmund Rice's descendants, with all 9 of the Lawrence Parrott descendants under each one. For each cell, use a formula to display the number in red if it doesn't match, then create a column to count for all the numbers in red for each person.

I did it last night. It's not hard. If you do a lot of DNA work you probably already have the template set up.

Are any of the Rices within 5 or 6 steps of a Parrott? Nope. Not even close, so you're done. Next theory.

Dale, I need to amend my description just a bit. I'm realizing that what's obvious to me might not be obvious to you. The other two descendants of John Rice have only tested 25 markers, so their distance is less than yours. It will look as though they might still be in the running to be Perrotts even though you are not.

Don't fall for that. The standard measure is at 67 markers. You've tested 37 and flunked the Perrott match. At 25 markers they are very close to you. If they are ever tested at 37 markers they should continue to match you. That means they can also predicted to flunk the Perrott match.

Another thing -- you asked how you can check the predicted values for John Rice. It is "probably" the MIN values for the table of his descendants. You've left the Rice project at FTDNA because you didn't like what they were saying, so you can't see what the values would be without creating your own spreadsheet (or re-joining the project). However, it is pretty easy to create a spreadsheet and either manually or through a formula derive the MIN values for each column.

You could also get values for a 4th John Rice descendant at the Edmund Rice DNA project. To get the values there for 26-37 you have click on the red arrow on the right.

The FTDNA Rice project and the Edmund Rice project are administered by the same people so the groups are the same. Both are called Group 17. They used to call it John Rice, of Dedham, but everyone who has tested so far is a descendant of John's son Samuel, so they renamed it Samuel Rice. If they ever get a descendant of John Jr. to test and if he matches the rest of you, they'll change the name back.

Well wonder of wonders....there I am in group 17 of the Edmund Rice project after being told by you know who not to bother.

So I never left mad because I didn't like what I was told there....as far as I knew they did not want the information. So Dr. Chandler most likely said "he's In" I din't know until I went back today.

The Perrott contribution to Samuel Rice son of John Rice is as yet unknown...I've asked if there is data on estimated values. If not then the triangulation has to be between Lawrence Perrott, Scarfone, and Samuel Rice in my view. Charity is the unkown in the equation and may be the NPE to Williaim Rice sr. who may have changed the Rice DNA equation.

Understanding is everything. Now to plot the values.

Hold onto your hats boys: The Lawrence Perrott subset of 6 men of Virginia are in agreement with Edmund Rice after marker 37 Which says to me the father of my 4th ggrandfather William son of Charity was a descendant of Phillips in nearby Ma. which is 34/37 markers #17051.

With the break so clear at marker 38 going to Edmund Rice. He too is carrying Perrott DNA. The closest values to DCR 1948 is James Phillips1806 of North Carolina. The NPE is at Charity, last name unknown but likely this Phillips Family is the father of Wm Rice Sr. Explaining why I don't show the same markers after site 37 on Y. Ruminate on that for bit.

Dale, it sounds like you're revving up to make the same mistake again with a different set of families. It's irrelevant that the descendants of Lawrence Parrott "are in agreement" with Edmund Rice after marker 37.

You aren't close enough to the Edmund Rice descendants to be considering their results as a proxy for yours. And, if you did happen to be a bit closer to them after marker 37, you can't ignore markers 1 through 37. It doesn't work that way.

You do match a descendant of James Phillips at 34/37, but that Phillips is from North Carolina and his ancestry is unknown. It's a leap of imagination to think that he must be descended from a Phillips family in colonial Massachusetts. Philips is an extremely common surname. They're not all related. In fact, there are dozens of different Phillips families in their DNA project. At the very least, you would need to identify a Philips in Massachusetts and show that you are a close match to his descendants.

It's nonsensical to speculate that there's an NPE at William Rice. You have matches to men who are descended from his great grandfather on different lines.

Dale,

Yes, your results are still reported in the Edmund Rice project but not tn the Rice project at FTDNA.

You left the project at FTDNA. There is no way for a project there to display your results after you leave. But the Edmund Rice project is not hosted at FTDNA, so they were able to keep them.

At one point the Rice folks said they were not sure you are descended from John Rice. Partly because you were not an exact match for the other results they had, but mostly because you didn't leave the impression that you know anything about genealogy. The fact that you are now being reported there in the Edmund Rice project tells me that they looked at your genealogy and found no serious doubts about your line. Moreover, they now have more samples from this line and it's clear you do belong there.

The Vector line of the first 37 markers is a Phillips line vector...Im pretty sure that Dad's description of what happened with John Perratt II and Anne Phillips is being shown. Two years ago I checked on the Phillips connection and sure enough it leads back to Picton Castle, non inheritance line of Robert Phillips. But I've slept 700 times or more and I could certainly be wrong.

As to the agreement of the Edmund Rice Values after marker 37....That's for technical folk to examine. I simply point out that the vectors of two lines are at work in the John Rice Dedham and Samuel Rice of Con. which concur with Edmund. What you do with it is up to you. I'll stay with the story I inherited for now. DCR

Dale, there's no such thing as a vector line when plotting independent variables arranged in an arbitrary order and changing randomly.

At this point, DNA has disproven the idea that you share male line ancestry with Perrott, Dudley, or Drake. What you do with that is up to you, but I can't see anyone on Geni taking you seriously if you ignore the DNA evidence.

Thank you.

Here's a jump start on your Phillips theory.

http://www.worldfamilies.net/surnames/phillips-worldwide/pats

The guy you match is in "Family Group 12". Nine families, all from North Carolina or probably from North Carolina about the time of the Revolution. None have known ancestry further back. None that go back to Massachusetts.

This pattern points to a common ancestor who was a late immigrant probably to North Carolina. Not likely to have been a 1600s immigrant to Virginia. Not likely to have been a Massachusetts family wandering down through Virginia after the Revolution.

You match one guy in the project group, but you don't match the other 8. He matches the other 8 and also matches you. That's a very good indication that your match to him is just convergence (meaning random changes). If your Rices really had a close Phillips connection you would match most or all of the others too.

This article about the mistakes in the genealogies of various Phillips families and how they have been disproved by DNA testing might interest you:

http://phillipsdnaproject.com/web_documents/newsletters/Jan_2012_ne...

It says that Nicholas Phillips of Dedham, Essex, England, Rev. George Phillips of Watertown, Massachusetts, Michael Phillips of Rhode Island, and John Phillips of Richmond, Virginia have all been claimed as descendants of the Philipps family of Picton Castle, but none of them match each other. They can't all be descendants. Moreover, Nicholas Phillips and George Phillips both belong to Haplo R1b. John is I1 and Michael could be either R1b or I1, but neither of those I1s match the Phillips who matches you.

If it were me doing the research, I'd look at this and judge Phillips to be almost certainly a waste of time.

There are two lines that trace back to Picton Phillips....Robert is the I-1....The other's I can't tell you because I didn't look at them because they are R1b. Thankyou for the heads up...I appreciate that! DCR

How did you manage to do what no other Phillips genealogist or DNA expert has been able to do?

There is only one man in the Phillips DNA Project who traces his line to the Picton Castle family -- and he's R1b.

http://www.geni.com/path/William-Marshal-2nd-Earl-of-Pembroke+is+re...

Anne Phillips is then linked to Rice's via Crosby/Stevens/ reflecting the inside source of the Phillips incursion by Perratt II according to the Aural story. That's what I mean about a vector of Phillips/informed by Perratt II.

I see That Robert Phillips has been deleted from being a son of Anne Phillips born 7 years before the heir who was R1b. Every time we get to something that helps my cause it disappears. I've noted that now 7 or 8 times.

Presently, this is the Phillips vector to John Perratt II 1565 son of Sir John 1528. That's all I have presently. DCR
http://www.geni.com/path/Christopher-Phillips+is+related+to+John-Pe...

http://www.geni.com/path/John-Perratt+is+related+to+John-Rice?
from=6000000029743701726&to=6000000000664526123

It's my job to convey this story: It's the Expert's job to find how the linkages fit together. Since this is as close as Im likely to get...this is what I intend to leave to my family to decide if Sam G. Rice was telling the truth or a tall tail. Im done now. See ya down the road perhaps. DCR 1948

Yay Elvis Presley has left the building!

http://www.geni.com/path/Dale-C-Rice+is+related+to+William-Marshal?...

Sorry, this linkage got left out of the above notes: My Uncle is the 19th ggrandson of First Earl of Pembroke Wm. Marshall....They link to Anne Phillips by blood and this was most likely the source of insider information regarding the Perrott II to Phillips incursion resulting in two lines of Phillips: I-1 of Robert Phillips and R1b line of Picton Castle line.

The Lort Connection which is Anne's daughter Olive connects to the sister of Perrott ap Rice father of Margaret ap Rice 1618. It's all in the family so to speak. Too close for comfort in may ways. This is how I will leave it for my family to decide about the story: and the 9 Dopple ganger faces I noted while investigating this allegation of Samuel G. Rice. Enjoy. Im now done and can deliver the best Information I can to members of my CLAN Rice....the English Civil War Story leading to the American Revolution and the Davis/ Hughes Line in Virginia. That's the 2nd half or Redemption of the inauspicious beginnings of JOhn Rice of Dedham 1630. DCR 1948

Dale, you had a theory about how your dad's story could be true. It didn't pan out. It's not a case where the evidence is ambiguous or missing. The evidence on all sides disproves it.

The "experts" decided a long time ago that you and your dad were duped by the theories published in a 1911 genealogy that was half fraud and half fantasy. It's always been your job to show how the story could be true, not the job of the experts.

You gave it a good run, but now you have a choice between lying to your descendants in order to preserve an old story or facing up to the problem and using modern methods to find the truth. When I've faced similar dilemmas, I've chosen to be a champion for truth over fiction, even when it hurts.

I may be battered and bloody.... &I don't think it's as simple as you paint my defeat here Justin. But as I said, I have profound respect for you and the experts here at Geni...and my mode of expression lacks genealogical precision. The "VECTOR" of recurring DNA that I spotted in the men of Devon study led me to this core of recurring values........I don't have the skills to prove the story. Im not chagrined at all. However, It makes me sad to set this aside now: because the carnage includes the predictably dull remarks of some followers. It was a great session, and I learned a lot. So Im grateful for that. DCR 1948

Wow, I just read all 177 posts and my only comment is WOW...........smh

smh?

"A man convinced against his will / Is of the same opinion still".

We have a few of those around (and not all of them are men).

Maven, that applies to politics and religion, but I think most people are basically honest about facts. Dale is one of those.

You've had a string of bad luck lately with real fakers. There are certainly a few of those in the world but fortunately they're few and far between.

Between the fakers and the highly gullible, it's been some real interesting times....