Jeffery_LQ1W wrote:

---

Let me throw another bomb out there.  Edison was a thief and a liar.  Lets start a thread on how he ripped off Tesla, a genius whose equal was found only in Einstein (with whom he had a friendship, along with Mark Twain).

---

Tesla was a great band!  They really rocked!

Also, on my previous post I kind of left one of the views of Jefferson incomplete:

I think the argument on Jefferson comes down to three or four different positions:

 

1.  Jefferson was a hypocrit and I hate him.  (In the interest of full disclosure to my knowlege, Jeff does not hate Jefferson, the Jeffersons, or Jefferson Starship.)

 

2.  Jefferson was a great man and I love him.

 

3.  Jefferson had an Airplane and later a Starship that they built this city on RocknRoll with.

 

4.  Jefferson?   George or Weezie?

(In the interest of full disclosure: To my knowlege, Jeff does not hate Jefferson, the Jeffersons, or Jefferson Starship.)

 

Jeffery_LQ1W wrote:

---

Actually I do hate Jefferson Starship, but I enjoy Jefferson Airplane.

---

It doesn't mean that he didn't know slavery was wrong, that he committed adultry and he chose not to free all his slaves prior to his death.

So as they say in fencing "Where is your point?"  That the Lord can forgive people these sins?  Of course he can.  That they repented?  Of course they can.

That somehow these things discussed on this forum did not happen?  Of course not.

I think too many of you see an "either / or" when such a thing is not so in this case. 

A fact that went largely unreported was that the DNA test did rule out Thomas Jefferson as the father of Thomas Woodson, the eldest of Hemmings' sons, and shed no definitive light on the rest. Thus, we are left with the conjecture that his supposed relationship with Hemmings began when Jefferson was 65+ years old .

 

That point is irrelevant given that the other people actually do have the DNA ties.  It is an effort by Gowdy to take the focus away from all the other evidence for the various children.  And it is illogical.  Like have one child that is not yours and assuming then that all the children are not yours.  Lets look at it in context:

 

<<quote>>

The results of the 14 descendants are shown. Differences are highlighted with bold font. The five descendants of Field Jefferson (and proxies for Thomas Jefferson) have nearly identical Y-chromosome DNA alleles except there is a single difference at J50. It is a reasonable assumption that this is a point mutation.

The descendant of Eston Hemings has the same set of Y-chromosome DNA alleles as the descendants of Field Jefferson. This supports the claim that Thomas Jefferson could have been the father of Eston Hemings. It is impossible to prove absolutely that no other Jefferson fathered the child. (1) That would be proving a negative, and (2) any male who had the same Y-chromosome as Thomas Jefferson (other descendants of a common male ancestor) could have been the father, provided that this person was in the immediate vicinity of Sally Hemings nine months before the birth of Eston Hemings. Some have argued that historical evidence implicates Randolph Jefferson, Thomas' brother, as the more likely father of Eston Hemings. The Carr descendants have similar DNA among themselves but are clearly different from either the Jefferson or Hemings descendants. Four of the descendants of Thomas Woodson are quite similar among themselves but different from Jefferson and Hemings although they do have similarities to the descendants of the Carr line. One of the Woodson descendants is quite different from all of the other individuals which suggests that one of the genetic ancestors was not in the direct line from Thomas Woodson.

Family Pedigree Member Bi Allelic Markers Microsatellite STR Mini Satellite MSY1<<unquote>>

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_DNA_Data

 

<<quote>>Randolph Jefferson (1755-1815) Lived on his plantation, Snowden, about twenty miles south of Monticello in Buckingham County. First married in 1781; widowed some time between 1792 and 1807; remarried circa 1808.

A former Monticello slave, Isaac Jefferson, recalled in 1847 that Randolph Jefferson "used to come out among black people, play the fiddle and dance half the night." Since Isaac Jefferson left Monticello in 1797, his reference probably predates that year, and most likely refers to the 1780s, the period that is the subject of the majority of his recollections.

There is no surviving correspondence between the brothers from 1792 to 1807. Thomas Jefferson's two surviving letters of 1807, which express the hope that his brother would visit Monticello during his spring and late summer vacations, suggest that similar invitations were extended in the preceding years. The correspondence also suggests that Randolph Jefferson may not always have acted on these invitations. In his post-1807 letters, ill health, the poor state of the roads, and other circumstances were often cited as reasons to postpone his Monticello visits. In fact, his only recorded Monticello visits in this period were made on his own business and not at his brother's invitation.

Only four recorded visits to Monticello (in September 1802, September 1805, May 1808, and sometime in 1814) are known, none related to Sally Hemings's conceptions. In August 1807, a probable conception time for Eston Hemings, Thomas Jefferson wrote his brother that "we shall be happy to see you also" at Monticello, where Randolph's twin sister, Anna Marks, was then visiting. A search of visitors' accounts, memorandum books, and Jefferson's published and unpublished correspondence provided no indication that Randolph did, in fact, come at this time. A similar search was made of the probable conception time for Madison Hemings, without finding reference to a Randolph Jefferson visit.

Conclusion

Since there is no indication of their presence at Monticello in the 1794 to 1807 period, Field Jefferson's grandsons George Jefferson and John Garland Jefferson are unlikely candidates for fatherhood. Two of Randolph Jefferson's sons (Thomas Jefferson, Jr., and Robert Lewis Jefferson) may well have been at Monticello in the 1800 and 1807 conception periods, but they and their brothers are also unlikely fathers because of their youth and very intermittent presence. As mentioned elsewhere, no one familiar with Monticello suggested that Sally Hemings was promiscuous or that her children had multiple fathers.

A stronger case can be made for Randolph Jefferson, who may have had a more sustained presence at Monticello. He was probably encouraged to visit Monticello when Thomas Jefferson was in residence on his vacations from public life. The Isaac Jefferson reference indicates social interaction with the Monticello slaves. The dates of Randolph's widowhood also may coincide with Sally Hemings's childbearing years (the date of the death of his first wife is not certainly known).

On the other hand, no documented Randolph Jefferson visits at the time of the conception of Sally Hemings's six known children have been found. Also, it is known that, at least once in the relevant period, Randolph Jefferson visited the Monticello neighborhood in his brother's absence; none of Sally Hemings's known children were conceived in Thomas Jefferson's absence. As stated above, Isaac Jefferson's observation most likely relates to the period of Randolph Jefferson's youth.

Furthermore, there are no known references (prior to the 1998 DNA results) to Randolph Jefferson as a possible father of Sally Hemings's children. If he was a frequent visitor to Monticello, as well as a known figure in the slave quarters, it would have been more logical for Thomas Jefferson Randolph to attribute to Randolph Jefferson the striking resemblance of Sally Hemings's children to his brother Thomas. Instead, he cited Jefferson's nephews Peter and Samuel Carr, whose connection to Eston Hemings has been ruled out by genetic testing.

For these reasons, as well as the substantial evidence linking Thomas Jefferson to Sally Hemings cited elsewhere in this report, it is very unlikely that Randolph Jefferson or any Jefferson other than Thomas Jefferson was the father of her children.

<<unquote>>

http://www.monticello.org/plantation/hemingscontro/appendixd.html

Now consider the research done on this last website, the open citation and availability and historic primary source documentation (something your source seems to lack) which includes quite a bit of evidence that is relevant to the view at hand.  Consider also that Jefferson, like Adams and Washington was an incredible note taker since all knew, from the first days of the revolution that their words would be reviewed and studied (indeed Washington required four secretaries to record his views during the course of the revolution).

 

I find it incredible that you call it, lets see, what was the word, oh yes, "slander" and that you dismiss the evidence presented.  While the article criticizes the report, it cannot provide a counter, it simply makes conspiracy theory possibilities to the general populace which are unlikely.

I am tempted to state that your rebuttals are akin to the twin towers actually being blown up by the US.  Well yours are "slightly" more realistic, and as Bruce R. McConckie stated "I would never say that"...

The DNA evidence is indisputable as it stands, when coupled with the written and primary source documentation, it is very strong.  The only quibble that the rebuttal really holds is that not enough people where tested but not that the testing itself was incorrect of inconclusive.  In fact the author is asking you to forget the DNA evidence, and the evidence that shows conception times along with the presence of Jefferson (and no one else being documented), but to instead look at the evidence made by southern men that such things don't happen, or don't happen to Jefferson.  Regardless of the DNA.

Not very convincing really.

Does truth become less true because of the character of the one who reveals it?

And exactly how do you know what motivated Jefferson or Washington?  Especially if you don't want to look at the preponderance of the evidence.

When they were looking for a general to lead the rebellion against England, why did Washington show up in his French and Indian war uniform?

There are two possibilities. 

1-He wanted the job (there were other retired British generals in the colonies).

2-It was the only thing that fit him correctly (when Washington ordered clothing from England, he generally stated over 6 ft with accompanying cuffs).  Almost all of his clothes were slightly "off" in size, but his military uniform was custom fit and tailored for him by a British tailor in the colonies.

If you are afraid to look at history, you would never ever know those two possibilities.

Why did Washington join the rebellion?

A sense of knowing it was the honorable thing to do?

Or was a strong motivating factor his realization that the British system of purchase for colonial planters would have him bankrupt in around a decade?  Was it the fact that the crown gave him 50,000 acres in the Ohio Valley for his services during the French and Indian War but then he lost it after the Proclamation Act of 1763, and the Quebec Act allowed British financiers to take that self same land coming south from Canada?

You see, it is important to understand motivation.  I have no axe to grind, Washington for example, is to me, the greatest secular American hero in our history.  But that does not mean I should not seek to understand the man.  In fact, if I see him as a hero, I should seek to understand him better, and what made him a hero, including the motivations behind his heroic deeds.

As to historical revionism.  I find that entire diatribe to be humorous.  History, as we learn more is always being revised.  Whether it was Homers myth of Troy becoming more real or other items we thought were real becoming myths.  Unless someone is going to tell me we have learned all there is to know about history, and that there is nothing else to learn, then the idea of historical "revisionism" is little more than a red herring.

What you call nonsense is really a rejection of certain basic facts.

Your somewhat denigrating attitude towards DNA facts makes me realize why the jury aquitted OJ Simpson.  If they didn't like something, they simply said it doesn't exist and denigrate it rather than confront it.  That, rayb, is exactly what you are doing, rather than reviewing the facts as they stand.  I think it is tedious of you.  Allow me to illustrate it more clearly.  It is akin to holding the same disdain that the attackers of Joseph Smith had, because he was, really, the ultimate revisionist to the stated mythos of religion in America.  Granted his was faith based, but I think you get the point.

Calling something fart does not dispute its reality.

I think you need to learn how to view evidence rather than feelings.  Critical thought is important since it keeps us from falling into blind faith, whether it be of political systems as we saw in the last century, or religions as Joseph Smith saw in the prior period.

I know the word, phrase and tone, and the context in which I replied is the correct response.

I don't dispute the physical facts, I dispute your interpretation of them as stolid reality.

The OJ Simpson jurors said the same thing.

You present nothing that counters the preponderance of the "facts" or how my interpretation could be different, especially given that I do not hang my hat simply upon the DNA, but other evidence as well.

No Virginia, there isn't a Santa Claus.