Janet my point is that there are copious errors in official records so they are not proof but consistent records will create a body of proof.  One record alone whether it is labeled as official or not can prove nothing.   It has nothing to do what what we feel, although feelings do complicate the work of the genealogist as people try to change the reality to fit a "nicer" or "better accepted" version of the story...   truth is something that humans seem to have in short supply in certain situations.   > > > >Additionally my point is that a genealogist has to be able to deal with adoption and births that may have been to a married woman with the genetic father someone other than the person stated on the Church or Birth record.  Sometimes you find the other story in letters or diaries of the family.....  these will contradict official records. > > >A genealogist has to be able to navigate the twists and turns of families.  And official records are just as prone to human errors (I am not just referring to a transcription error here) as any other kind of record.   Sometimes the family records are more accurate than the official ones like in the case of my grandfather and his twin sister.  If he had never needed his birth certificate for a trip to Canada the family may never have learned of this error.  So errors can languish in records for years...   his did for over 78 years! > > >To validate a record I require at least 3 independent sources that do not draw upon each other.  Some people want more and some will take one but in my mind that s not validation.... > > >I have multiple records that all appear to validate the wrong John Penny as the father of William Penny... it took a team of researchers in 6 countries 2 years to untangle that mess and we were able to prove who the right John Penny was and it is different than most of the trees published on the web.  Many of those who worked on that were members of this list.  Official records "seemed" to prove something that in reality they did not and when we found other records that brought those first into question we were able to prove by using both family stories, church records, and civil records the truth...   it was not easy....   > > >Laura > > > >>________________________________ >> From: Janet <[email protected]> >>To: [email protected] >>Sent: Thursday, August 1, 2013 6:08 PM >>Subject: Re: [ABERDEEN] Irregular Marriage >> >> >>To my way of thinking it isnt a question of what we perceive more that we are >>pursuing the truth in legal documented form. We need to have a great deal of >>knowledge of what did happen or could have happened.  A best guess it is not >>if it is capable of being validated. We can follow what we have seen to be >>the case, when error creeps in, but validate we must where a person's name >>and status is concerned.  Unfortunately along the way we find people who >>like the look of a name and grab it and put into their records without >>validating it first. >> >> >>(rest deleted to be able to send this response) >> >>Janet >> >> >> >> >>------------------------------- >>To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >> >> >> > >