1.Yes, I'm a sponsor for the Clan Urquhart Bard's page and a member of Clan Urquhart. However, I don't share either Urquhart or Orcutt genetics (mine are test 365 of the Cook DNA page).Thus, I speak as an outsider, and my comments are mine alone.
2.We are in agreement that your test did not match any of the Urquhart tests.I also agree that a statement that "all Orcutts are Urquharts from Scotland' is not correct, as I know Urquharts from England.Using terms such as "patently false" may be taken as implying knowing fabrication.With that I do not agree.I've seen too many folk honestly, but mistakenly, claiming descent line upon line and precept upon precept from royalty and even Adam (Thomas Urquhart aside).
3.The statement that all Orcutts are members of Clan Urquhart is correct if it does not state a blood relationship (a blood relationship not being required for clan membership).If it is taken to state a blood relationship, it is incorrect for the same reasons that it is incorrect to say all Urquharts are genetically related (on which we also agree), and which the Urquhart testing shows (see sample 8). Off the point, but I'm not persuaded that the Urquhart tests performed demonstrate a relationship either, as only ten alleles were tested (vice the current standard of 25).
4.My comments were in no way directed to your own documentation, but only the general application of the limited DNA testing.DNA testing is only an adjunct; a portion of genealogy.As I interpreted your position, obviously incorrectly, it was that based upon the limited DNA testing alone--no documentation considered--the Orcutt-Urquhart connection had been disproven.It was upon that understanding which I put forth my premise which you found logical (I note that it's a bit stronger than some Cooks "may" not be related to other Cooks.Your attention is invited to the Cook DNA Study page).However, I did not make the jump which you indicate to say that some Orcutts could be Urquharts.Rather, it is an unknown.Indeed, I did say "It may turn out that Orcutt and Urquhart have nothing in common. There is insufficient information at this point."I should have said "There is insufficient DNA information at this point."In any event, I simply indicated that based upon DNA the case was not proven.That's entirely different than indicating that the opposing position is proven (which I do not find proven either).It's also different than reviewing both the documentary evidence and the DNA testing in arriving at a decision.
5.I'm not quite sure of the relevance, but I had rather thought most people paid for their own tests.Most also risk the chance of either disproving their relationship to a particular line or even demonstrating what might be delicately phrased a false paternity event (my son's test is immediately below mine on the referenced page and I did pay for his).
6.I fear you took my comments as reflecting adversely on your research.Again, my comments did not address your genealogical research or your individual family history, to which you appear quite committed, but only the DNA evidence as it applies to the general question.Indeed, I could not have, as none was provided.I also agree that you make the decision as to your genealogy (descendancy societies, legal proceedings and such aside).
7.I don't see us as that far apart.As I said, it may be that no Orcutt is related to any Urquhart.I'm just not willing to make the general statement that no Orcutt is related to any Urquhart based upon the limited DNA testing alone.