Here's the same form for our group, CF01. I've rearranged the data
according to descent:
http://ancestraldata.com/ahnentafel/256/cf01.pl?Wm_H
I think I mentioned that the William Henry descendant is going to upgrade
to 67 markers. There's every reason to believe that it will remain pretty
consistent with the other results. If so, we're still stuck trying to
figure out the genealogy. :)
-Michael
> Hi Guys,
>
> I've been *extremely* busy with school. But there has been so much
> activity with the Cooley DNA project that I've had to keep up with it.
>
> I may have shred this with you already. It compares the first 12 markers
> with five people mentioned in Hamil "Dutch Cooleys." None were related to
> one another:
>
> http://ancestraldata.com/ahnentafel/256/hamil.pl?Joseph_Cooley
>
> Joseph, of course, was ours--John's son
> Joseph T was a descendant of Thadeus and related to Abraham
> Francis Cooley is of what I'm calling the "Pennsylvania cluster"
> John A was the son of William Cooley and Elizabeth Firmin
> Barent Cole was of the New York Dutch Kools
>
> I've said it before and I'll say it again: "John Cooley was not Dutch." In
> fact, there is absolutely no question about it.
>
> More later. The cafe I'm in is closing. :)
>
> --
> <a href="http://newsummer.com/distlist">distlist 0.9</a>
> See http://ancestraldata.com/listarchive/johncooleylist/ for list
> information.
>
--
Second VP, the Cooley Family Association of America
President, the Genealogy Club of Humboldt State University
Administrator, the Eldridge Family DNA Project
Administrator, the Ashenhurst Family DNA Project (in the works)
Administrator, the alt-McDowell DNA Project
Co-Administrator, the Cooley Family DNA Project
Instructor "Genealogy and Family History," the Osher Lifelong Learning
Institute (OLLI)
Received on Sat Apr 13 2013 - 21:15:13 MDT