Does anyone really have any clue as to what the DNA results really mean, in terms of the ances of this Gilbert Bates? Per BFOOV the DYS values indicate an affinity for the New England Bates line (this was based on only 12 markers, however, and at least 25 markers are really needed, while 37 would be better). Never-the-less BFOOV goes out on a limb and makes a positive ID, as a direct ancestor of the Gilbert line, one "John Bates" born in Hempstead/ Hempsted, Long Island, NY in 1664. However, thus far I have not been able to ID any John Bates born in Long Island in 1664, at all. This leads me to think that there is a certain amount of misinformation floating around re this "John Bates", or it appears that there is a "too quick" jumping to conclusions based only on 12 markers, and more markers are needed.