Mytrueancestry.com

Data raw from "Family Tree DNA - FTDNA". Same results of MyHeritage. Not surprising. Both companies use the Lab "Gene by Gene" in Houston, Texas, for analisys.

Unfortunately the tests in Brazil through 23AndMe, Ancestry and LivingDNA are practically impossible, since Brazilian legislation imposes severe restrictions on the exit of human biological material from the country due to the fear of genetic piracy. The case of the collection of genetic material of the Karitiana Indians without the knowledge of the government and its subsequent indiscriminate use by companies and laboratories throughout the world generated a national commotion and the consequent creation of the restriction by the government.
Only the companies MyHeritage and FamilyTreeDNA maintains bases in Brazil with structure to meet the requirements of Brazilian legislation. Samples from Brazilians have to be sent to these local bases and from it is that the genetic material is sent to laboratories abroad. The final results of the aforementioned companies may take up to 4 months to be published on the internet, due to the bureaucracy that has to be fulfilled.
V3qHISC.png

yxnuVqG.jpg

1fs2ysk.png

Rv5T3vb.png

V3qHISC
b1Urdki.png

upnendM.jpg

nhkwCSK.jpg

mDwW55t.jpg

XnQ1ziO.png
 
Last edited:
Data raw from "Family Tree DNA - FTDNA". Same results of MyHeritage. Not surprising. Both companies use the Lab "Gene by Gene" in Houston, Texas, for analisys.

Unfortunately the tests in Brazil through 23AndMe, Ancestry and LivingDNA are practically impossible, since Brazilian legislation imposes severe restrictions on the exit of human biological material from the country due to the fear of genetic piracy. The case of the collection of genetic material of the Karitiana Indians without the knowledge of the government and its subsequent indiscriminate use by companies and laboratories throughout the world generated a national commotion and the consequent creation of the restriction by the government.
Only the companies MyHeritage and FamilyTreeDNA maintains bases in Brazil with structure to meet the requirements of Brazilian legislation. Samples from Brazilians have to be sent to these local bases and from it is that the genetic material is sent to laboratories abroad. The final results of the aforementioned companies may take up to 4 months to be published on the internet, due to the bureaucracy that has to be fulfilled.
V3qHISC.png

E5rbG56.png

1fs2ysk.png

Rv5T3vb.png

V3qHISC
b1Urdki.png

upnendM.jpg

nhkwCSK.jpg

mDwW55t.jpg

XnQ1ziO.png

That's good to know, I ordered FTDNA because it was on sale, and I had a gift card. I wanted it really for the raw data I could download. If they produce the same exact raw data, I might as well skip on Myheritage.
 
I think they also need to make some updates, since some are yielding significantly fewer results. 23andme doesn't reveal any for me currently. However, I hope I won't have to delete, and re-upload my raw data again to see.

NG Helix results.
(“Something” has been done right after all to outmatch 23) LOL


tUF8wF1.jpg
 
I should also note that despite the fact that the 23andme formatted superkit, and AncestryDNA formated superkit, produce the same results for every feature. Except for the Deep dive; one produces a mediocre amount, the other produces none.
 
MyHeritage has just switched to a custom GSA chip.

just sayin' :giggle:
 
Dante Labs does whole genome sequencing. They provide the raw data as a VCF file. Currently it is accepted by Gedmatch, as well as Mytrueancestry. Right now, it is only $229. Pretty soon it will be as cheap as the standard genotyping I bet.

http://www.beholdgenealogy.com/blog/?p=2879

Now I know what I want for Christmas.
 
Dante Labs does whole genome sequencing. They provide the raw data as a VCF file. Currently it is accepted by Gedmatch, as well as Mytrueancestry. Right now, it is only $229. Pretty soon it will be as cheap as the standard genotyping I bet.

http://www.beholdgenealogy.com/blog/?p=2879

Now I know what I want for Christmas.

qsHERZV.png


As a matter of fact, Dante labs is the only one that allows you to utilize the medical add-on.
 
Now i feel a bit king Pithana or Suppiluliuma...

58701383_2301591520054425_2817850303997542400_n.jpg

58543464_428152817997946_5868862807558062080_n.jpg


2tOWHsk.png


Here is a PCA posted by Lazaridis on twitter. Below is a zoned in edit I made showing the positions of where the Italian groups land, in the Raveane et al paper. I wonder if they had a sample from Kumtepe_pub, how much I would get.

96veLd8.png
 
my grandfather's result
.
.
Gaul + Gallo-Roman (4.866)
Gaul + Thracian (5.522)
Gaul (8.086)
Gallo-Roman (8.595)
Thracian (8.85)
.
.
.
Your closest Archaeogenetic matches...
1. Cisalpine Gaul (590 AD) (8.086) - [Upgrade for more details]
2. Gallo-Roman (590 AD) (8.595) - [Upgrade for more details]
3. Iberian / Piedmont (670 AD) (8.602) - [Upgrade for more details]
4. Illyrian / Dalmatia (1600 BC) (8.85) - [Upgrade for more details]
5. Thracian Bulgaria (450 BC) (8.85) - [Upgrade for more details]
6. Illyrian / Dalmatia (1200 BC) (8.857) - [Upgrade for more details]
7. Central Roman (670 AD) (9.77) - [Upgrade for more details]
8. Scythian Moldova (270 BC) (10.44) - [Upgrade for more details]
9. Medieval Tyrolian (590 AD) (10.66) - [Upgrade for more details]
10. Medieval Piedmont (670 AD) (10.93) - [Upgrade for more details]
11. Central Roman (590 AD) (11.0) - [Upgrade for more details]
12. Central Roman (590 AD) (11.04) - [Upgrade for more details]
13. Medieval Hungary / Balkan (1244 AD) (11.32) - [Upgrade for more details]
14. Medieval Iberian (670 AD) (12.1) - [Upgrade for more details]
15. Medieval Frank (670 AD) (12.44) - [Upgrade for more details]
16. Central Roman (590 AD) (12.46) - [Upgrade for more details]
17. Frankish-Gaul / Lombardy Italy (670 AD) (12.53) - [Upgrade for more details]
18. Roman Soldier Germany (300 BC) (13.59) - [Upgrade for more details]
19. Swiss Germanic (670 AD) (13.69) - [Upgrade for more details]
20. Medieval Tyrolian (670 AD) (13.77) - [Upgrade for more details]
21. Medieval Tyrolian (590 AD) (14.48) - [Upgrade for more details]
22. Hellenic Roman (670 AD) (17.72) - [Upgrade for more details]
23. Roman Soldier Freiham-Nord Germany (300 BC) (19.04) - [Upgrade for more details]
24. Frankish / Hungary (590 AD) (19.25) - [Upgrade for more details]
25. Frankish / Hungary (590 AD) (19.26) - [Upgrade for more details]
26. Scythian Moldova (300 BC) (19.34) - [Upgrade for more details]
27. Alemannic Bavaria (450 AD) (19.67) - [Upgrade for more details]
28. Central Roman / Mixed (590 AD) (20.03) - [Upgrade for more details]
29. Gepid / Goth (450 AD) (20.11) - [Upgrade for more details]
30. Hellenic Roman (590 AD) (20.13) - [Upgrade for more details]
31. Celt / Hungary (590 AD) (20.95) - [Upgrade for more details]
32. Gaulic Gladiator York (250 AD) (21.09) - [Upgrade for more details]
33. Halstatt (775 BC) (21.17) - [Upgrade for more details]
34. Czech Velke Prilepy (0 AD) (21.32) - [Upgrade for more details]
35. Bell Beaker Poland (2500 BC) (21.53) - [Upgrade for more details]
36. Mycenaean (1350 BC) (22.21) - [Upgrade for more details]
37. Nordic Lombard (590 AD) (22.42) - [Upgrade for more details]
38. Nordic Lombard (590 AD) (22.5) - [Upgrade for more details]
39. Scythian Ukraine (600 BC) (22.76) - [Upgrade for more details]
40. Germano-Celtic Gladiator York (250 AD) (22.87) - [Upgrade for more details]
.
.
only 1 deep dive
.
Alemannic Bavaria
450 AD
Total cM=29.71
Largest segment=9.05 cM (4 shared)
 
Guys, do you really didn';t notice that?:)

This is just biggest bullshit lately on Genetic Internet...

Do you know your one-to-many list on Gematch? What is your highest match (besides close family like parents) for me about 30 cM. And Gedmatch says common ancestor was about 4.5 generation ago.

Bez-nazwy-9.png


So what the hell means if you have common 80 cM with sample from Bronze Age Jutland? (It was example from another forum, but here were also posted very high "ancient matches") How many generation ago it was? Go figure
smile.png
It is impossible and completely biased result.

8fe4d8fb-7b3d-4ec7-ab3c-6f304623d26a.png



Posting it, is like posting random numbers taken from the... Nobody can defend those cM values in two post above. Unless you believe you match 3500 years old sample on the same level as 3rd cousin...
 

Some facial reconstruction of a skull has been done of some of the results that are being put.
 
My deep dive

Alemannic Bavaria
450 AD
BIM_33
Total cM=47.45
Largest segment=14.55 cM (5 shared)


Crete Armenoi
1370 BC
I9123
Total cM=8.56
Largest segment=8.56 cM (1 shared)


Mycenaean
1350 BC
I9033
Total cM=4.18
Largest segment=4.18 cM (1 shared)
 
After all, who can say with certainty what is a bullshit and what is or who is right or wrong? One of the four major autosomal testing companies of the world says I have 1,165 cousins ​​scattered around the world. Below, part of the list of some of the countries where I have cousins:

reAibVr.jpg


The first one on the list of cousins is a German woman, my first or second cousin, with whom I share 11 segments of DNA totaling 213 cm (3%), the longest being 51.1 cm. Neither I do believe in this, nor She, so much so that we never contact each other:

BOZIKzI.jpg



Just a genetic coincidence. Genes combine randomly. They play, they fun with us. She and me have only one genetic similarity. She is not my first cousin and neither am I her first cousin. I'm also not a cousin of the other 1,164 people that are on the list.
 
Guys, do you really didn';t notice that?:)

This is just biggest bullshit lately on Genetic Internet...

Do you know your one-to-many list on Gematch? What is your highest match (besides close family like parents) for me about 30 cM. And Gedmatch says common ancestor was about 4.5 generation ago.

Bez-nazwy-9.png


So what the hell means if you have common 80 cM with sample from Bronze Age Jutland? (It was example from another forum, but here were also posted very high "ancient matches") How many generation ago it was? Go figure
smile.png
It is impossible and completely biased result.

8fe4d8fb-7b3d-4ec7-ab3c-6f304623d26a.png



Posting it, is like posting random numbers taken from the... Nobody can defend those cM values in two post above. Unless you believe you match 3500 years old sample on the same level as 3rd cousin...

who has 80cm ?

I have 79cm with a match from 1780
 
Modern Populations
1. Welsh (5.566)
2. Southwest_English (7.584)
3. West_German (7.586)
4. South_Dutch (7.637)
5. North_Dutch (8.732)
6. German_Central (8.792)
7. Southeast_English (8.870)
8. Danish (9.015)

Ancient Populations
Saxon + Frank (5.34)
Longobard + Frank (5.622)
Frank (5.95)
Longobard (8.259)
Saxon (8.901)


Deep Dive
Late Medieval Gotlander 1600 ADTotal cM=17.01 Largest segment=11.21 cM

Archaeogenetic Matches
1. Frankish / Hungary (590 AD) (5.95) - SZ23
2. Alemannic Bavaria (500 AD) (6.164) - ALH_1
3. Bell Beaker Germany (2500 BC) (7.684) - I0112
4. Bell Beaker Southern France (2050 BC) (7.978) - I3875
5. Nordic Lombard (670 AD) (8.259) - CL92
6. Bell Beaker Poland (2500 BC) (8.434) - I4251
7. Alemannic Bavaria (450 AD) (8.88) - BIM_33
8. Anglo Saxon (700 AD) (8.901) - Hinxton HS3
9. Colonial American Pennsylvania (1700 AD) (9.002) - Shohola
10. Nordic Lombard / Winnili (590 AD) (9.168) - SZ16
11. Late Medieval Gotlander (1600 AD) (9.273) - Unknown
12. Corded Ware Denmark (2450 BC) (9.493) - Rise61
13. Viking Sweden (1100 AD) (9.687) - Sigtuna stg021
14. Czech Velke Prilepy (0 AD) (9.723) - Rise577
15. Germano-Celtic Gladiator York (250 AD) (9.967) - 3DRIF-16
16. Frankish / Hungary (590 AD) (9.967) - SZ38
17. Nordic Lombard (590 AD) (10.18) - SZ15
18. Halstatt (775 BC) (10.2) - DA112
19. Celt / Hungary (590 AD) (10.33) - SZ42
20. Swiss Germanic (670 AD) (10.58) - CL102
21. Nordic Lombard (590 AD) (10.92) - SZ12
22. Alemannic Bavaria (425 AD) (11.0) - STR_316
23. Nordic Lombard (590 AD) (11.1) - SZ8
24. Nordic Lombard (590 AD) (11.27) - SZ14
25. Alemannic Bavaria (500 AD) (11.45) - AED_249
26. Celtic Gladiator York (250 AD) (11.48) - 6DRIF-21
27. Gaulic Gladiator York (250 AD) (11.49) - 6DRIF-22
28. Bronze Age Celt England (1000 BC) (11.63) - I5383
29. Nordic Lombard (590 AD) (11.78) - SZ24
30. Nordic Lombard (590 AD) (11.8) - SZ7
31. Nordic-Celtic Gladiator York (250 AD) (11.82) - 6DRIF-18
32. Nordic Lombard (670 AD) (12.13) - CL84
33. Celtic / Hungary (590 AD) (12.31) - SZ11
34. Bronze Age Germany (1050 BC) (12.32) - I0099
35. Viking Sweden (1100 AD) (12.41) - Sigtuna grt036
36. Celtic Briton (0 AD) (12.62) - Hinxton 4
37. Nordic Lombard (590 AD) (12.62) - SZ9
38. Celtic/Viking Iceland (1000 AD) (12.75) - VDP-A6
39. Vandal Chieftain (375 AD) (12.78) - DA119
40. Medieval Tyrolian (590 AD) (12.8) - SZ5
41. Celtic Briton (70 BC) (12.85) - Hinxton 1
42. Nordic Lombard (670 AD) (13.31) - CL145
43. Alemannic Bavaria (500 AD) (13.31) - AED_106
44. Nordic Lombard (590 AD) (13.68) - SZ22
45. Medieval Hungary / Balkan (1244 AD) (13.73) - DA199
46. Alemannic Bavaria (500 AD) (13.85) - ALH_10
47. Frankish-Gaul / Lombardy Italy (670 AD) (13.86) - CL47
48. Ireland Copper Age (1880 BC) (13.94) - Rathlin2
49. Medieval Tyrolian (670 AD) (13.94) - CL53
50. Medieval Tyrolian (590 AD) (13.99) - SZ18
51. Nordic Lombard (670 AD) (14.02) - CL93
52. Pict (670 AD) (14.08) - CL83
53. Bell Beaker Germany (2250 BC) (14.12) - I0806
54. Medieval Frank (670 AD) (14.23) - CL63
55. Nordic Lombard (590 AD) (14.27) - SZ4
56. Germano-Celtic Gladiator York (250 AD) (14.45) - 6DRIF-3
57. Nordic Lombard (670 AD) (14.55) - CL146
58. Unetice Bohemia (1800 BC) (14.72) - Rise150
59. Nordic Lombard (590 AD) (14.8) - SZ2
60. Anglo Saxon (700 AD) (14.82) - Hinxton HS1


 
[/FONT]

Yes it's true. Previously they related the ancient samples that came close to the distance of 20. Now they relate the ancient samples that came close near the distance of 30.

After all, who can say with certainty what is a bullshit and what is or who is right or wrong? One of the four major autosomal testing companies of the world says I have 1,165 cousins ​​scattered around the world. Below, part of the list of some of the countries where I have cousins:

The first one on the list of cousins is a German woman, my first or second cousin, with whom I share 11 segments of DNA totaling 213 cm (3%), the longest being 51.1 cm. Neither I do believe in this, nor She, so much so that we never contact each other:



Just a genetic coincidence. Genes combine randomly. They play, they fun with us. She and me have only one genetic similarity. She is not my first cousin and neither am I her first cousin. I'm also not a cousin of the other 1,164 people that are on the list.

I'm curious about this as well. I find it hard to believe I match with that many people in Norway, but almost all of those matches are from the same area of western Norway that my grandfather came from. So, I do find it interesting and somewhat curious but I also understand many of these genetic similarities are also by chance. These below links seem to be all over the map.

Hq4yNTh.png


So, it matches up with THREE of these locations in the "deep dive" Do I actually share 40cm of DNA with someone from the 1600's? It's possible I suppose but I'm not sure what the relationship would be.

tEvG4RZ.jpg


0XeTk6v.png


VESex4f.png


Yvx1gMR.png


UXtW8iK.png


jYWOWvR.png
 

This thread has been viewed 1253799 times.

Back
Top