Maguelonne

rain · **Posted:** 11 Apr 2012 7:37 am

Shasta wrote:

Oh MY....You are going to teach me Buddhism now?

If I was firstly I'd advise that Bhuddism is internal not external but your enlightment is for all to see. And Bhuddists believe everyone is a bhuddha - they just might not realise it yet - you don't seem to have that problem.

Shasta wrote:

Are you aware the Buddhists have begun raising the money to restore the Bamiyan Buddha?

Doesn't negate my point which I'll repeat for your edification rebuilding is only to rebuild the "ideology of peace" - the notion that there is always hope for the world. It's a peace prayer.

Quote:

Bhuddists weren't upset about the "pile of rocks being blown up" they don't worship idols... they focus on the underlying notion of compassion encapusulated by the Bhuddha.
There was only sadness and compassion that in the hearts of these people was such hate and violence that manifested in that act.
True Bhuddism does not desire the material.

Shasta wrote:

There is an entire chapter of my book devoted to Buddhism and its connections with Christianity...had you read the book you could have avoided making uneducated and uniformed guesses about where I am "coming from"...

I'm only concentrating on what you've written here - you keep referring to your book. (Not sure why? are you advertising?) Why don't you read my book then you can understand where I'm coming from ... just jokes haven't written one - does one need to write and have read a book in order to converse?

rain · **Posted:** 11 Apr 2012 8:02 am

Shasta wrote:

Oh well.........I'm sure you're a very nice person....

In real life I have very honest friends - sometimes it's hard on here because you can't see the tone with which people are talking with. In my world, critiscm is important - it makes me a better person, coming from friends. My friends tell me when I'm being wrong and more often then not when I'm being "f__g stupid" :lol:

we even argue about the way we speak to each other.

Just because I'm a little bit "foward" that doesn't mean I'm not here to challenge the incorrect notions you have.
It also means I fundamentally agree with the notion that culture should be protected and that the flaws in your logic should be held to account.
They are not mutually exclusive concepts.

If you don't want to be challenged then fine - but don't misinterpret the fundamental notion that it's the wrong thing to do to provide robust accuracy.
Psuedo historians are dime a dozen - if you want to be perceived as making a difference beyond a steven spielberg sobriquet then accept the challenge.

Shasta · **Joined:** 19 Nov 2008 11:01 am **Posts:** 1702

Rain, you are not "challenging" me at all..you are attacking ad hominem ...and demanding that you are right and I am wrong..
Your pompous "holier than thou" attitude is sad, and says nothing positive about you..

Suppose I demanded that you become a Bahai....or a Mormon...that anything else would be less than worthy of a true scholar..and tells me you are on the wrong path of knowledge and spirituality...

Now how do you feel about being told what you should believe and how you should believe and behave?

I wont respond to you again...This is a waste of my time and an insult to the kindness of ANDREW. It is not the intention of this forum..

Perhaps you would have more fun engaging Roger in such challenges. I am not interested because they are a silly waste of time and energy.... I might soon start blurting out words descriptive adjectives of the impressions you have left with me..and I dont want to do that and spoil such a beautiful day..

You would do best to stick with deciphering the mystical meanings of lines and colors in old paintings. One day that might be regarded as serious research too..hang in there! I'm sure you'll figure it out one day.

I do wish you all the best in whatever it is that you do...and I really don't have a clue who you are in the "real" world..

Have a nice day. Please dont take offense if I dont respond to you again....

rain · **Posted:** 11 Apr 2012 12:59 pm

Shasta wrote:

You would do best to stick with deciphering the mystical meanings of lines and colors in old paintings. One day that might be regarded as serious research too..hang in there! I'm sure you'll figure it out one day.

Kinda figured you'd resort to demeaning the tools of a bhuddist. Hang in there lov, you may get "it" one day.
Here's one of those mystical meanings of lines and colours found in old thangkas.

lovuian · **Posted:** 11 Apr 2012 1:11 pm

Father Silence wrote:

Thanks for your thoughts on the wood panels
but then you must see ALL of the panels to get the flow of the artist

Look at the bridegroom and what he looks like and think of your interpretation of it being John ...the young John
and then look at the Last Supper

The Medieval idea of the Holy Grail ...the golden cup which Christ drinks from at the Last Supper
but look at the suppose John...he is feminine now looking with golden reddish hair...joined hands with Jesus over the golden cup

I would argue that the Saint who sits at the table with Jesus is not the one who holds Jesus hand and he holds this Apostles hand ....if it was the they would look the same

this Apostle does not have a halo similar to the rest ....this Apostle is connected to the Golden Cup and closest to Jesus even over Peter

Father Silence
I'd be interested in your ideas

Thank you for posting this. The figure swooning on Jesus bosom is supposed to be John, but I'm not sure how he could have a halo without obscuring a big part of Jesus' face. I think we may be looking at the work of more than one artist working as a team. Notice how Jesus looks kind of like a Klingon in the Cana panel but in the Last Supper his hair is a lighter color, his hairstyle is different and his face more elongated. Some of the differences may also be the result of overpainting.

FS

"lovuianYour Welcome and thanks for your interest

lov,

In this Last Supper Judas has a halo. Did you notice? I think this probably indicates that the person who painted the halos didn't do the carving. Another reason the Beloved Disciple didn't get one (IMO) is that the halos aren't 3d but only painted on the "back wall" of every scene, since John isn't near the back wall he does without. I am happy to listen to other explanations.

Also I'm not seeing the "joined hands" thing you describe. It looks to me like Jesus has his right hand raised in benediction, BD has his hand over the chalice (or on Jesus' tummy). I can't see Jesus' left hand. The picture gets a little blurry when I blow it up so maybe I'm missing something.

I'm wondering how old these panels actually are. Does your photographer friend know anything of their history?

I have suspicions they are, compared to the cathedral itself, relatively new.

I think this Last Supper was created by someone familiar with Leonardo's. One of Leonardo's innovations was to create action by giving each disciples individual gestures of frustration, confusion, etc. I seems to me this artist is attempting to do the same thing but is limited by the medium. Judas is seated on the same side of the table with the others as in the Leonardo. And look at all those sandals. There's even a little door at the bottom (although that may be just part of the cathedral's trim).

If this is correct the wood relief can't be older than 1498.

Also, the servant in the Cana panel is black. African servants don't become stock characters in European paintings 'till the 1600s or thereabouts.

In the 1790s the interior of Notre Dame de Paris was damaged by thieves and vandals representing the Cult of Reason. NDP underwent a major
restoration in the 1850s and I'm wondering if any of these panels may have been repaired, replaced or repainted at that time.

lovuian wrote:

Well great observation Father Silence that Judas has a halo
you believe that this is an error by the artist ? I find that hard to believe
Perhaps the Artist thought Judas was a Saint? You know there is the Gospel of Judas
The Gospel of Judas consists of 16 chapters which document Jesus's teaching about spiritual matters and cosmology. Judas is the hero of this Gospel and the only one of Jesus's disciples who accurately understands the words of his master.
It is a fascinating wood panel and I don't know how old it is
And I would love to hear if you find out

The legend of the Holy Grail was known in the 1700's and it is interesting you compare it to Da Vinci because he died in France so the painter maybe influenced
ahh yes you saw the Red door and notice the trim looking like a castle tower

Any way kinda fascinating huh

A red door provides protection. In Biblical times, the Hebrew slaves were instructed to smear blood of a lamb on their front doors to protect their first born from the angel of death. In old Catholicism churches painted the doors of the church red to represent the blood of Christ. Passing through the door would mean that you were on holy ground. Some believe a red door protects the occupants from evil.

I was more impressed by its location than its color. Reminds me of the door cut into the lower part of Leonardo's mural.

FS

Yes that is the same spot
But do you see a tree/plant like symbol on the door on the door
Well look at Rosslyn chapel door

You remember Rosslyn chapel the legend says Home of the Grail

Shasta · **Joined:** 19 Nov 2008 11:01 am **Posts:** 1702

Attachment:

Lines.jpg [ 101.13 KiB | Viewed 681 times ]

Quote:

Shasta wrote:

You would do best to stick with deciphering the mystical meanings of lines and colors in old paintings. One day that might be regarded as serious research too..hang in there! I'm sure you'll figure it out one day.

Kinda figured you'd resort to demeaning the tools of a bhuddist. Hang in there lov, you may get "it" one day.
Here's one of those mystical meanings of lines and colours found in old thangkas.

Sorry, rain, you guessed all wrong again..and I certainly would never demean Buddhists ...Why would you deliberately try to mislead people about me? I have several Buddhist icons, including a very old Thanka, in my living room....brought back from Nepal, Tibet, and India...I cherish them and all I learned there about Buddhism.

I was referring to the "lines" imposed upon the art above..this is what you regard as "serious" research? Never mind...Don't answer that...I couldn't bear more of your wisdom and insights at this point....

You have a nice day...and a nice long cool glass of wine.. That might help..

TCP · **Posted:** 11 Apr 2012 5:00 pm

rain wrote:

You can do that without revising religio-historical context, surely. All you seem to be doing is trading on a highly politicised-religious state of affairs to redefine history which is not unusual or unique it's just not the right way to do things to provide true scientific records for posterity. It doesn't contribute to mankind's knowledge and it most certainly sounds machivellian in that you're trying to say "the ends justify the means" if I interpret your reasoning correctly.

Very succinctly put, Rain.

TCP

TCP · **Posted:** 11 Apr 2012 5:48 pm

Shasta wrote:

@Rain.....I perhaps did not make my point clearly enough, according to what you are reading into this..

Quote:

it's just not the right way to do things to provide true scientific records for posterity.

Really? What could be more scientific than DNA?

The ancient graves will not last forever..the concern is to get as much DNA as possible...rewrite history?
Perhaps. The DNA of the Egyptian King Tut established that he was Celtic.....surely that raises some historical questions..."Not the right way to gather historical evidence?" Hmmmm why not? It is but one of many tools available to modern historians...
And there is nothing Machiavellian about it!

And there we have a prime example of the inherent problems in allowing people to "creatively" interpret DNA signatures.

Y-DNA Haplogroup R1b1a2 (that of King Tut) is the most prevalent today (at 70%) of all Western European males, and most prevalent among those (at over 90% in some locales) identified as Celts, or of Celtic ancestry, and Basques. However, it exists at lower levels of frequency in other parts of Europe and the world, including the Balkans, Eastern Europe, Russia, Central Asia, Asia Minor, the Near East, the Middle East, and North Africa. The defining mutation occurred somewhere between 9,500 and 18,500 years ago in southwest Asia. There is nothing in Tut's DNA structure to suggest his ancestry is European - Caucasian, yes; European, no. Given that the haplogroup has been measured at approximate levels in Algeria (11.8%) and Tunisia (7.2%) it is no stranger to North Africa.

Shasta wrote:

Perhaps you know the story about Anastasia and Anna Anderson? It was only DNA that could establish the truth.....how many false claimants can we recall from the past thirty years? At least DNA offers some deterrent to many of these false claimants..

As I wrote previously, the only definitive answer DNA analysis can give you is "no".

TCP

TCP · **Posted:** 11 Apr 2012 6:08 pm

Shasta wrote:

I asked again and again in my book who is Yuz Asaf. It may one day be determined that he is/was a mere caretaker who got swept up into historical errors...As Tim pointed out, if just one is descended from Jesus Christ, or Clovis and Clothilde, then there may be millions of descendents in the world today.....It's all about the DNA.

Billions, actually, and the vast majority would not be able to use DNA to show a link even if someone did have Jesus' or Clovis' Y-DNA signature. I showed you over 300,000 genealogical links between Clovis and myself, and it is highly doubtful that even one of those links could be backed up with DNA results.

TCP

rain · **Posted:** 11 Apr 2012 9:40 pm

Shasta wrote:

Attachment:

Lines.jpg

Quote:

Shasta wrote:

You would do best to stick with deciphering the mystical meanings of lines and colors in old paintings. One day that might be regarded as serious research too..hang in there! I'm sure you'll figure it out one day.

Kinda figured you'd resort to demeaning the tools of a bhuddist. Hang in there lov, you may get "it" one day.
Here's one of those mystical meanings of lines and colours found in old thangkas.

Sorry, rain, you guessed all wrong again..and I certainly would never demean Buddhists ...Why would you deliberately try to mislead people about me? I have several Buddhist icons, including a very old Thanka, in my living room....brought back from Nepal, Tibet, and India...I cherish them and all I learned there about Buddhism.

I was referring to the "lines" imposed upon the art above..this is what you regard as "serious" research? Never mind...Don't answer that...I couldn't bear more of your wisdom and insights at this point....

You have a nice day...and a nice long cool glass of wine.. That might help..

Shasta, that's ROSCOE's picture. Go back and check your facts. It probably even has his copyright on it.
If you don't think it's serious research go back and talk to ROSCOE about it.
I'll assume your apology in advance.

TCP · **Posted:** 11 Apr 2012 10:44 pm

rain wrote:

Shasta, that's ROSCOE's picture. Go back and check your facts. It probably even has his copyright on it.
If you don't think it's serious research go back and talk to ROSCOE about it.
I'll assume your apology in advance.

I was gonna say, that kind of stuff isn't your bag, Rain.

TCP

Shasta · **Joined:** 19 Nov 2008 11:01 am **Posts:** 1702

Attachment:

Quote22.jpg [ 10.53 KiB | Viewed 603 times ]

TCP has been watching YouTube!!

King Tut and Romanov DNA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Vg2BMkEjR0

King Tut Ancient DNA-Identifying relatives..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_zBVrgwkb4&feature=related

the same Caucasians were the first inhabitants of western China, where they also built pyramids....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C76MafUXNec&feature=related

rain · **Posted:** 11 Apr 2012 11:32 pm

TCP wrote:

rain wrote:

Shasta, that's ROSCOE's picture. Go back and check your facts. It probably even has his copyright on it.
If you don't think it's serious research go back and talk to ROSCOE about it.
I'll assume your apology in advance.

I was gonna say, that kind of stuff isn't your bag, Rain.

TCP

It's probably giving Roscoe a laugh though. :lol:

TCP · **Posted:** 12 Apr 2012 12:48 am

Shasta wrote:

Attachment:

Quote22.jpg

TCP has been watching YouTube!!

No, can't say as I have. But the title "King Tut and Romanov DNA" sounds like a barrel of laughs, I'll have to check it out when I get home this evening. More conspiracy theories, no doubt.

TCP

Shasta · **Joined:** 19 Nov 2008 11:01 am **Posts:** 1702

TCP,
This entire forum is a barrel of laughs...
Dont work too hard, and get home safe....I just made another batch of Swedish Bread Pudding....Yum!
You would enjoy it...

TCP · **Posted:** 12 Apr 2012 2:53 am

Shasta wrote:

King Tut and Romanov DNA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Vg2BMkEjR0

King Tut Ancient DNA-Identifying relatives..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_zBVrgwkb4&feature=related

the same Caucasians were the first inhabitants of western China, where they also built pyramids....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C76MafUXNec&feature=related

Wow - never underestimate the capacity of white supremacists to make everything about Barack Obama...

TCP

TCP · **Posted:** 12 Apr 2012 3:55 am

Great blog post ("Gene Expression" by blogger Razib Khan) on the Discover Magazine site from last August:

The King Tut DNA Story

Last year some readers forwarded me a strange story about Hitler’s “Jewish genes”. I didn’t think much of it, but enough people asked that I thought I should at least address the story (or lack of one). Today something similar is happening with the Y chromosomal lineage of the boy pharaoh Tutankhamun. A Swiss company is claiming that by examining the set of markers divulged on a BBC special on Tut’s genetics they’ve established a high likelihood that he was of the R1b1a2 haplogroup. The firm making these claims has a history of sensationalism. That should tune our prior expectations a great deal. One of the researchers who did the original genetic analysis rejects the claims out of hand. On the basis of science then that’s where it ends.

But this actually is an interesting story of meta-science, of the media reaction to genetic results (or genetic inferences, tenuous though they may be), and their intersection with politics. One of the more ridiculous headlines I saw was this from CTV: King Tut may have been more European than Egyptian. I can see where they’re coming from, the haplogroup which Tut may have been a member of is present at over ~50% frequency in Western Europe, and ~1% in Egyptians. But this is just a single locus, a marker which traces the paternal lineage of an individual (assuming they’re male). To illustrate the obvious fallacy of this logic, recall that Dr. Daniel MacArthur is of the same haplogroup as I am, R1a1a. Does this imply that I am “more Scottish than Bengali”? Not really. In terms of total genome variation I’m South Asian, and Dr. MacArthur is Northwest European. Our paternal lineage is just one slice. Secondarily, why can’t we formulate it so that Dr. MacArthur is “more Bengali than Scottish”? There are more Bengalis than Scots by about 1 order of magnitude.

This is not a trivial issue in relation to whether being this particular type of R1b makes Tutankhamun more European, or Europeans more Egyptian. This area is unsettled, but as reported in some of the media some researchers are arguing that the origin of this haplogroup is in the eastern Mediterranean and later spread to the west. In other words, Egypt may be closer to the point of origin of this patrilineage, and so closer to the root. The argument is that the high fraction in Western Europe is a function of the replacement of hunter-gatherers with farmers, and serial bottlenecks resulted in genetic drift which increased the fraction of R1b1a2. Using the strange reasoning in some of the media this would make Western Europeans a West Asian population!

Finally there’s the racial-nationalist subtext. There are two groups which have really strong opinions about the racial identities of ancient Egyptians: Nordicists and Afrocentrists. It won’t surprise you that the valence of their opinions are inverted. The Nordicists assume that ancient Egyptians were a white European population which was racially debased through admixture, and is blacker today than it was in the past. The Afrocentrists make the opposite claim, and often imply that modern Egyptians are primarily the descendants of Arabs, who assimilated the black Egyptians of yore. Both positions seem to be wrong-headed, and attempt to interject Egyptians into arguments which they have no interest. I suspect that the Sub-Saharan African admixture in modern Egyptians is higher than in the ancient population, because in non-Egyptian populations in the Middle East there’s a clear difference between Muslims and non-Muslims, with the latter having far less Sub-Saharan African admixture than the former. With the rise of the Islamic world and the trans-Saharan camel trade slaves became a much larger export commodity from Africa than they had been in antiquity. That being said, there are clearly Nubians in ancient Egypt, and I wouldn’t be surprised if the original Egyptian population had a minority Sub-Saharan African component which was evenly distributed and so not particularly discernible (the Egyptians considered themselves racially distinct from the Nubians to their south, the Libyans to their west, and the Levantines to their east).

These particular questions about ancient ancient Egyptians could be answered relatively quickly. Simply survey a large number of Egyptians of Coptic and Muslim affiliation across various regions, and compare them to other populations. I would predict that the Muslims have more Sub-Saharan and West Asian affinities than the Copts, and there would be a larger imprint of Greek influence in the Delta. Additionally, Egypt is dry and mummification can preserve organic tissue. There will probably be some analyses of ancient Egyptian populations directly from extracted DNA.
This is a case where reality is going to be more interesting, and perhaps more controversial, than sensationalism.

I love the juxtaposition - should the Scotsman be considered "more Bengali" or the Bengali "more Scottish"...? That's the error of treating haplogroups as definite cultural markers based on where the greatest pools are located today, rather than looking at where they are thought to have originated and the migration patterns moving away from that locus.

TCP

Shasta · **Joined:** 19 Nov 2008 11:01 am **Posts:** 1702

Quote:

This is a case where reality is going to be more interesting, and perhaps more controversial, than sensationalism.

I love the juxtaposition - should the Scotsman be considered "more Bengali" or the Bengali "more Scottish"...? That's the error of treating haplogroups as definite cultural markers based on where the greatest pools are located today, rather than looking at where they are thought to have originated and the migration patterns moving away from that locus.

Well said! I agree totally. For example, my mother was RH negative, and so is my daughter...investigating its origins, it was from among the Basque, on the border with southern France. One can trace the decrease in circles away from the origins...

Quote:

(source: http://mathildasanthropologyblog.wordpress.com/2008/03/05/how-the-hell-did-rhesus-negative-blood-types-evolve/)

""It’s a real evolutionary disadvantage (RH negative), it causes miscarriages and infant deaths . Some notable biologists, including Haldane, have pointed out that it should have been selected out by now. In fact, it should have been selected out in the first few generations, to reside at the background level it has in Africa and the far East. But western Europeans carry it at a very high rate, Basques at about 40%.

the RH-negative blood group may have appeared about 35,000 years ago. And the appearance was regional and seemed to, originally, be connected with certain groups/tribes of people.

Northern Spain and Southern France is where you can find some of the highest concentration of the RH-negative factor in the Basque people. Another original group were the Eastern/Oriental Jews. In general, about 40 – 45% of Europeans have the RH-negative group. Only about 3% of African descendent and about 1% of Asian or Native American descendent has the RH-negative group. Due to the larger European numbers, it is a safe bet that was where it was introduced into the human genetic code. Could this also be where the Caucasian was introduced? Is the introduction of Caucasian related to the RH-blood factor.

There’s only two ways this could work. That the Rhesus positive blood type is a relatively recent mutation, probably from the horn of Africa, that has swept across a pre existing, global population of humans and replacing them. Or that there was a massive input of Rhesus negative blood types relatively recently, and mainly occurring in central Europe, and we are actively in the process of selecting it out.

The second idea supports the Neanderthal theory. It also fits with the increasing occurrence of occipital buns as you go back into the iron and bronze age. If you could work out some kind of convergence date for the two… has any body tried DNA testing iron age humans to see if they have a higher incidence of RH-? It would give a good way to work out how fast it is decreasing, and from that, when the trait entered our gene pool. It might be a good idea to do DNA analyses for all kinds of traits, to see if they are more common or less, and if they can work out a point/time of entry into the modern Sapiens gene pool.

DNA is fascinating stuff...and the technology and recovery gets better every year. .TCP seems well on top of it..Good for you, TCP!

lovuian · **Posted:** 12 Apr 2012 3:24 pm

Adding a interesting article

archaeologist Jeannine Davis-Kimball and her colleagues during the excavations featured in SECRETS OF THE DEAD: "Amazon Warrior Women."

To uncover the genetic link between nine-year-old Meiramgul, the blond child of the mountains of western Mongolia, and the long-dead women warriors of the Eurasian steppes, researchers examined snippets of a particular type of genetic information called mitochondrial DNA.

A crucial feature that sets mitochondrial DNA apart from nuclear DNA -- and that allows genetic studies like the comparison of the DNA from ancient bones to that of young Meiramgul -- is that the strands are only passed from mothers to their children. This is because the mitochondria present in a fertilized embryo come almost entirely from the egg and rarely from the sperm. The mtDNA strands would normally be passed from mother to child in perfect form, but occasionally one of the individual base pairs will change, or mutate, producing a slight deviation in the sequence. Molecular biologists have mapped the entire sequence of human mitochondrial DNA and also have measured the average rate at which these mutations occur, which allows them to use slight differences in the sequence as a way of determining how closely related individuals are through their maternal ancestors. For this reason, mitochondrial DNA has frequently been used to examine the genetic relationships of families, population groups, and even the entire human species.

Mitochondrial DNA studies revealed, for example, that Neanderthals were not direct ancestors of modern humans. Mitochondrial DNA analysis also showed that all groups of humans on Earth could be mapped back to a single woman, a "mitochondrial Eve" who lived in Africa 200,000 years ago. (That is not to say that every human on Earth descended from the same woman living 200,000 years ago; rather, she was the most recent common ancestor of all humans, through maternal lines of inheritance).

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/secrets/previous_seasons/case_amazon/clues.html

Shasta · **Joined:** 19 Nov 2008 11:01 am **Posts:** 1702

Quote:

Mitochondrial DNA studies revealed, for example, that Neanderthals were not direct ancestors of modern humans.

lovuian.....this contradicts some theories that RH negative may have come from Neanderthal.......or space men! Ho Ho I'm glad of that!

TCP · **Posted:** 12 Apr 2012 7:59 pm

Shasta wrote:

Quote:

Mitochondrial DNA studies revealed, for example, that Neanderthals were not direct ancestors of modern humans.

lovuian.....this contradicts some theories that RH negative may have come from Neanderthal.......or space men! Ho Ho I'm glad of that!

RH negative is a phenotype (i.e. blood type), it is not a DNA haplotype.

TCP

Shasta · **Joined:** 19 Nov 2008 11:01 am **Posts:** 1702

TCP I understand the difference...however several tests contributed to the profile and
dating of RH negative into the human gene pool...DNA types were just one part of the more inclusive studies...
I knew we were RH negative carriers.....and DNA established my Basque connections....but without the separate studies,
twas no way to understand the connection between the two.

Are you familiar with autosomal DNA? I have only read a little about it, but looks promising...

TCP · **Posted:** 12 Apr 2012 9:43 pm

Shasta wrote:

TCP I understand the difference...however several tests contributed to the profile and
dating of RH negative into the human gene pool...DNA types were just one part of the more inclusive studies...
I knew we were RH negative carriers.....and DNA established my Basque connections....but without the separate studies,
twas no way to understand the connection between the two.

Are you familiar with autosomal DNA? I have only read a little about it, but looks promising...

It's imprecise at this stage, who knows how they'll make it less so.

TCP.

rs2008 · **Posted:** 13 Apr 2012 1:48 am

TCP wrote:

Shasta wrote:

TCP I understand the difference...however several tests contributed to the profile and
dating of RH negative into the human gene pool...DNA types were just one part of the more inclusive studies...
I knew we were RH negative carriers.....and DNA established my Basque connections....but without the separate studies,
twas no way to understand the connection between the two.

Are you familiar with autosomal DNA? I have only read a little about it, but looks promising...

It's imprecise at this stage, who knows how they'll make it less so.

TCP.

Yep, I read somewhere error margins up to 20%.

Renne · **Posted:** 16 Apr 2012 11:55 pm

It is difficult to tell whether this is a spider or an octopus. Did Tertius say that the

grillade/grid code is "the key to translating the parchments"? Does that sound like Roger?

Arcadia Discussion Zone

Maguelonne

Who is online