I too am involved in a lengthy "historically important" research debacle. Because there is no "conclusive" answer (i.e.: documents such as wills or written verbiage to "prove" anything I gather is considered circumstantial evidence. Every other researcher can either agree or disagree with my findings. I base my case on very tangible evidence..but be that as it may...it is NOT fact..circumstantial evidence at best. To Bruce and John...I respect you both. You are thorough researchers who both have the best intentions..HOWEVER...Bruce....I find your arrogance demeaning to your research. You almost had me sold until you lambasted John in a very vicious way. Reaching back to other ancient sayings..."Doth does protest too loudly" and with that comes the thought that perhaps you are not an open minded researcher but rather a person who must be right at all costs. We are each capable of making up our own minds based on evidence presented...just because YOU say it is so, does not make it a truth. A fact is a fact, circumstantial is still circumstanial. Please get back to everyone posting their research findings and let us all draw our own conclusions. Name calling, religious slander does not belong in true academia nor genealogical research..nor anywhere else for that matter. Laurie Carpenter (a Carpenter thru maternal and paternal and marital.. 6 ways...and if my original is found to be a scoundrel......so WHAT?????? I am not...it is present action that concerns me most!)