For those who are concerned with my DNA for whatever reason here it is:
And here is my sisters
My Kit at gedmatch.com is A212914 it is listed at the Gibson Research Page on Facebook [found here] and has been for some time. I don't know where else I was supposed to post this but apparently some bloggers have reason to believe I am hiding something I would guess. My sister's Kit is A723804. Please let me know if either of us show up in your matches.
----------------------------------------------------
There is no other family I know of more misrepresented at ancestry.com than the Gibson family. Many of these fantastical ancestries are the flawed work of Paul Heinegg. Even though Heinegg uses qualifiers, question marks. etc., and has changed the Gibson genealogy numerous times it is easy to spot this flawed research in the online trees. There are thousands of Gibson trees at ancestry.com as well as online trees with ROTTEN LIMBS.
DNA is the best thing that has come along for genealogists since the Internet. The Y-Male testing that follows the male line back through father to father etc., is super for connecting families. Autosomal testing or the cousin finder has also broken down many walls in the family tree, both by matching cousins and also NOT matching people you thought were your cousins.
Take Thomas Gibson who died in 1734 in Hanover County, Virginia for instance. Researchers were positive he was the ancestor of Thomas Gibson who is found in Orange County, North Carolina and is ancestor of at least some of the Melungeon Gibsons. DNA of four of Valentine Gibson's descendants, the son of Thomas died 1734 Hanover DOES NOT MATCH the Melungeon Gibsons proving they are not related. Further testing of autosomal also shows no 'cousin finder' matches between these two families.
Still, there are those that insisted despite the Y DNA not matching they had to be related, perhaps an NPE [Non Parental Event] but one would think if they didn't have the same father but had the same mother, surely the 'cousin finder' would show all the descendants of Valentine matching the descendants of Thomas Gibson the Melungeon. But it does not, there are no matches. That doesn't seem to change anything, those who have sworn by the DNA matching for years, now discard it because it is proving something that they do not want to be proved, for whatever reasons.
And now this is spilling over into the DNA projects. After 27 years of researching the family of Valentine and his father Thomas I have not found one record that shows who the mother of Valentine was. Yet thousands of trees report it was Mary Allen.
Not one piece of evidence can be found as to the parents of Thomas Gibson who died in 1734 was, yet thousands of trees lists them as Nicholas and Deanna Martin Gibson. Where this comes from I have no clue. Most of these trees go on to claim Nicholas' parents as Thomas Gibson died 1652 in York with a wife Elizabeth BOUTH or SOUTH. Thomas who died in 1652 did indeed have a son Nicholas and a wife Elizabeth but I have written to half of the online trees asking for a source. Most don't answer and the ones that do simply reply they have no idea, they just copied it from someone else.
Now Elizabeth BOUTH, daughter of Robeth Bouth received gifts from Thomas Gibson in York County "for reasons known only to him" and this is the basis for Elizabeth BOUTH being the wife of Thomas Gibson. However the daughter Elizabeth of Robert Bouth married to Patrick Napier, of that there is no doubt and after this was pointed how number times in the past years Elizabeth BOUTH then became Elizabeth SOUTH, again with not one bit of evidence.
Along comes DNA and now we have a real mess. Instead of sawing off some of these ROTTEN LIMBS we are now GRAFTING more rotten ones on to this Gibson family tree.
At the Gibson DNA Project we have the four descendants of Valentine Gibson, Haplogroup I M-253 their genealogies I have posted can be found HERE. Researchers who have found these ROTTEN TREES with the father of Ezekiel Gibson who died in Floyd County, Kentucky as Valentine Gibson are now listing Valentine -- 'and his grandfather Nicholas' as matching the Melungeon Gibsons who are Haplogroup R M-269. Kit #341147 and Kit #319509
Now we know this is impossible as the Haplogroups do not match and one of them is obviously wrong, very wrong. I have posted the the documents showing Valentine's descendants here Valentine Gibson - His DNA & His Descendants, here Same Name Syndrome, and here Valentine Gibson . Where are the documents, the sources, the evidence, the webpages, etc., that show Valentine Gibson was related to the Melungeon Gibsons? I don't know. Even when these people are sent the above evidence they refuse to change their bloated, ROTTEN TREES or correct the unsubstantiated DNA results.
And now it has crept into the CORE MELUNGEON PROJECT, Kit #319509 - Nicholas Gibson, father of Thomas and grandson of Valentine is now an official Melungeon. I don't know who the person is overseeing the genealogies people submit to the CORE MELUNGEON PROJECT but assume it must be Janet Crain, Jack Goins, or Roberta Estes as I understand Kathy James has resigned.
Is this the bar these administrators set to be included as a CORE Melungeon? Nicholas Gibson who has not one single document to any sons but listed as grandfather of Valentine Gibson whose DNA does not match the Nicholas Gibson in the Core Melungeon project. Are there two Nicholas Gibsons? I think not, just more faulty research now ** proven ** by DNA.
Take Thomas Gibson who died in 1734 in Hanover County, Virginia for instance. Researchers were positive he was the ancestor of Thomas Gibson who is found in Orange County, North Carolina and is ancestor of at least some of the Melungeon Gibsons. DNA of four of Valentine Gibson's descendants, the son of Thomas died 1734 Hanover DOES NOT MATCH the Melungeon Gibsons proving they are not related. Further testing of autosomal also shows no 'cousin finder' matches between these two families.
Still, there are those that insisted despite the Y DNA not matching they had to be related, perhaps an NPE [Non Parental Event] but one would think if they didn't have the same father but had the same mother, surely the 'cousin finder' would show all the descendants of Valentine matching the descendants of Thomas Gibson the Melungeon. But it does not, there are no matches. That doesn't seem to change anything, those who have sworn by the DNA matching for years, now discard it because it is proving something that they do not want to be proved, for whatever reasons.
And now this is spilling over into the DNA projects. After 27 years of researching the family of Valentine and his father Thomas I have not found one record that shows who the mother of Valentine was. Yet thousands of trees report it was Mary Allen.
Not one piece of evidence can be found as to the parents of Thomas Gibson who died in 1734 was, yet thousands of trees lists them as Nicholas and Deanna Martin Gibson. Where this comes from I have no clue. Most of these trees go on to claim Nicholas' parents as Thomas Gibson died 1652 in York with a wife Elizabeth BOUTH or SOUTH. Thomas who died in 1652 did indeed have a son Nicholas and a wife Elizabeth but I have written to half of the online trees asking for a source. Most don't answer and the ones that do simply reply they have no idea, they just copied it from someone else.
Now Elizabeth BOUTH, daughter of Robeth Bouth received gifts from Thomas Gibson in York County "for reasons known only to him" and this is the basis for Elizabeth BOUTH being the wife of Thomas Gibson. However the daughter Elizabeth of Robert Bouth married to Patrick Napier, of that there is no doubt and after this was pointed how number times in the past years Elizabeth BOUTH then became Elizabeth SOUTH, again with not one bit of evidence.
Along comes DNA and now we have a real mess. Instead of sawing off some of these ROTTEN LIMBS we are now GRAFTING more rotten ones on to this Gibson family tree.
At the Gibson DNA Project we have the four descendants of Valentine Gibson, Haplogroup I M-253 their genealogies I have posted can be found HERE. Researchers who have found these ROTTEN TREES with the father of Ezekiel Gibson who died in Floyd County, Kentucky as Valentine Gibson are now listing Valentine -- 'and his grandfather Nicholas' as matching the Melungeon Gibsons who are Haplogroup R M-269. Kit #341147 and Kit #319509
Now we know this is impossible as the Haplogroups do not match and one of them is obviously wrong, very wrong. I have posted the the documents showing Valentine's descendants here Valentine Gibson - His DNA & His Descendants, here Same Name Syndrome, and here Valentine Gibson . Where are the documents, the sources, the evidence, the webpages, etc., that show Valentine Gibson was related to the Melungeon Gibsons? I don't know. Even when these people are sent the above evidence they refuse to change their bloated, ROTTEN TREES or correct the unsubstantiated DNA results.
And now it has crept into the CORE MELUNGEON PROJECT, Kit #319509 - Nicholas Gibson, father of Thomas and grandson of Valentine is now an official Melungeon. I don't know who the person is overseeing the genealogies people submit to the CORE MELUNGEON PROJECT but assume it must be Janet Crain, Jack Goins, or Roberta Estes as I understand Kathy James has resigned.
Is this the bar these administrators set to be included as a CORE Melungeon? Nicholas Gibson who has not one single document to any sons but listed as grandfather of Valentine Gibson whose DNA does not match the Nicholas Gibson in the Core Melungeon project. Are there two Nicholas Gibsons? I think not, just more faulty research now ** proven ** by DNA.
