Dear Disbrows: I guess I must respond to this latest inevitable gambit of the armchair historians & genealogists among you at this gen web circle...There can be NO instantaneous route to understanding HISTORY, let alone our own layered and complex family history! Though given my own disappointing past experience with some at this web circle (I have no intention of debating the following technical points personally, hopefully some of you would want to waste the time however), I can say I have felt all too many of you are simply hanging out here just biding time waiting for exactly such questionable get-"gen"-rich-quick shortcuts, instead of doing some hard work and difficult research called for. Seems to be an occupational hazard of most genny websters generally: looking for quick-fix short-cuts via the web! I wish some of you were, instead, FAR more interested in doing the hard work of some very detailed historical research, perhaps especially in England 'across the pond,' just as I have been attempting myself after two such overseas trips, totalling 8 weeks, with some truly very startling success (including many very new and richly detailed discoveries yet to be disclosed to this or any website). And then conducting some continued, EXTENDED family genealogy as well, in order to ferret out the whole truth of not just some family history, and/or not just for one or two prominent family connections either. This work, "in the long run," being for all its very rich payoffs and rewards from the always very fascinating details of history, otherwise overlooked perhaps now because of a far too easy and very questionable gambit. So now, just call me an olde PURITAN! As you know, I have spent MANY years studying a possible connection to General Disbrowe, among much else, of my own direct CT ancestors, Thomas and Mercy Disbrow. Though hardly just that, and perhaps even more interestingly for our extended family descendants, considering some HISTORICAL connections especially to Nicholas, Peter and Henry Disbrowe of early CT Colony which my work has led to. The historical speculations themselves have been FASCINATING, as well as following the many hisorical trails which themselves amplify factual history! To short-circuit this process of historical research would be to cheat ourselves of some very rich historical knowledge, trust me... This research, of course, has not been simply in order to "crow" about a "high-born" connection or two, as anyone who knows me might realize;...such gen "gold-mining," not inappropriately, seems very discreditable among the 'pseudo-professionalized' gen hobbyist of nowadays. It is, rather, about discovering a much better understanding of my own Mercy Disbrow's very curious CT colonial history, & some extended family mysteries in ye olde CT Colony, each of which holds real interest value generally to my own state history in fact. This 'interest value' includes reasons why some colonial historians have occasional and very provocatively always seemed to dismiss Mercy's extensive trial record as not just difficult to study for its relational complexities, but also understandable only for its being full of some entangling high-level connections. The historical context of Mercy's trial, and a likely related network of impressive familial connections in early CT history, otherwise long overlooked for some now very obvious reasons to me, is exactly what I have been so very painstakingly researching for many years now. I cannot see how DNA testing, superficially intriguing as it undoubtedly would be, will ever be much of a helpful 'short-cut' for me in the end, or my own work on these yet very intriguing historical Disbrow subjects. Yet that same DNA testing, if cheaply, sloppily and unaccountably handled could set us back in some ways you may not realize, but I certainly do realize for my having stuied these same questions most closely and in detail for some many years (though I'm not yet sure I would care very much one way or the other about the outcome of this test, in fact...). My work is all but complete for one lifetime anyway, and so far it has uncovered to my satisfaction an immense and fascinatingly layered story of some real and very general broad interest value! So, I certainly do resent the psudo-professional presumption that now faddish genealogical DNA testing, with its yet here still unresolved validity questions, might actually settle some fascinating issues,...but only then sacrificing the very process of historical research itself. In other words what will we lose for never further uncovering much amplifying historical detail through that short-circuited research (the truth, or the 'devil,' is in the "details!"). Considering that some very justifiable reservations about the process have yet to be raised, let alone resolved,...CAN this DNA shortcut ever be any sort of substitute for the very arduous (but always ultimately productive) work of on-the-scene historical research, uncovering the warp and weft of actual history, its entangling & connecting set of facts? Think of all the details of history that may never yet be uncovered by some of you for presuming some 'final word' has been registered here "scientifically" (I prefer to believe "psuedo-scientifically," in fact!). My concern, then, is over a test outcome which is ultimately based on faulty or even very "cheap" science, perhaps very second rate, ..for how so can we ultimately assure ourselve better about it given what I have so far read, despite seemingly "impressive" references. And, how can we guard against or have any accontability about some test subjects who may or may not be who they may wish to claim that they are? How can those whose anonymity must also be protected (who, afterall, does NOT wish for some effecting anonymity in this vicious age of identity theft) assure the rest of us of some accountability for the integrity and real verifiability in this complex process?? It does not seem nearly so simple a process to me as it may to the many short-cut 'artists' out there, too many of whom habitually rely on internet short-cuts for genealogical "truths." Not only would much be missed of breadth, interest value, & historical detail for never bothering to research further those questions supposedly resolved, but I certainly feel it would short-circuit most ambition for doing further detailed research by too many among you who think some matters may be settled (you see I fear too many who regularly 'hang-out' at such web circles as this one have become hopeless compromised in their ambition to do very serious research anyway). There simply are NO "short cuts," even via the current "fad" of DNA, ....or at any rate there SHOULD not be any such if you wish for a far more complete understanding of some VERY complex family & detailed regional history,...now otherwise possibly to be overlooked (you can have NO idea just HOW "complex" until you've seen the evidence or done the research in the trenches yourself). Look, even the law gets it wrong with this DNA science these days. Perhaps you read recently of a Texas(?) legal forensics professional (was it?) who short-cut her lab work by routinely cutting out a step in replicating the DNA, which "shortcut" has now thrown into chaotic question dozens of criminal trial convictions. There is also, most recently, the case just reported in the news of a "rapist" who was freed on DNA evidence after serving a decade or more in jail , only now to have been caught "red-handed" in an even worse crime (the murder of yet another vulnerable woman, so wasn't it?)...You will get the picture if you realize that I do not appreciate all of my own hard work and very detailed research tossed summarily in the bin (most of which you yet know virtually NOTHING about), in the end to be only very cheaply arbitrated by a single perhaps discrediting, but ultimately pseudo-professional process (a "shortcut") of (at least yet here) still unresolved, questionable scientific and accountability value. Given what I have experienced from this web circle in past years, and given my emphatically stated criticisms of its occasional pretensions and apparent lack of ambition to do the continuing real work of even some occasional serious and detailed historical research (not just genealogical research!), I cannot but be exasperated by this latest attempt to find still another instantaneous shortcut route to understanding history (this time not just reliant on web gambits). I feel after TWO trips to England and a third one in the works (I'm in no hurry for my results)-- which have been incredibly productive in ways I felt have been of no immediate need to report back to this particular web circle, &/or until publication of my findings...(BTW, THIS also including new information about some fascinating and provocative English "Holbridge" connections)...I have discovered considerable, layered evidence for at least some direct family connection between, for example, our own Thomas Disbrow and the famous Major General, and his brother Samuel who was founder of Guilford, CT. This is not only for the surprising record of a "Thomas" in the baptismal records at Eltisley from 1625, into the extended family of Maj. Gen. John Disbrowe and his brother Samuel (I have found in England the formal will of the father of these two very famous men which does not, however, mention a "Thomas" inevitably, but who would nevertheless be their cousin, yet the will for James does note some extremely fascinating, provocative connections to various fully named individuals who hold a direct interest value to my own CT "Thomas"). My research has been extensive, over many years and full of anecdotal and factual information which is been not just fascinating for itself, its multi-layers of fact themselves hold implications for proving these connections. It most certainly does flesh out the HISTORY and current state of genealogical information, which at least one respected, life-long Disbrow family genealogist has claimed , because of my research discoveries, makes it almost "99.9%" certain of some direct connection between the Major General who married Oliver Cromwell's sister and that "Thomas" who married Mercy in CT. This is my feeling as well...and I'm not likely to change that on the strength of any "shortcut" process so far described. Are some of you "scientific positivists" out there quite so sure that this particular DNA process will answer all of your needs and questions (BTW, did you happen to see the recent PBS "Secrets of the Dead" TV program, produced in 2004 and very recently re-broadcast, which seriously/thoroughly questions the supposed final authority of the Shroud of Turin scientific carbon dating tests made several years ago??)? Go ahead with DNA testing, I must say I'm one who will be especially fascinated to learn of whatever the outcome may be, and am only very mildly cringing at the prospect. But please at least only do so with some greater modesty about what may be certain in this process, ...with also some greater assurance of some accountable, verifiable means of actually validating any test outcome. Realize also what you may be losing in the long run for any inaccurate (or even any 'accurate') test reading: namely the further encouragement of otherwise to be overlooked, yet very rich historical research detail, not just of the genealogical sort. I don't expect some many of you to care much about the little matter of broader historical "truths" perhaps to be lost, very sadly, ...since I know you must have your all too inevitable "shortcuts,"...certainly at this web circle. -- Original Message ----- From: "Mike Disbrow" <dizzy@michweb.net> To: <DISBROW-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2005 2:51 PM Subject: [DISBROW] Disbrow DNA Study > Here is the address for the Disbrow Surname Project at Family Tree DNA: > > http://www.familytreedna.com/surname_join.asp?code=K52005&special=True&projecttype=S > > Mary Jo - I was wondering if there is a minimum number of participants you > would need in order to proceed with the project. I expressed my own > doubts to you on the telephone the other day, but I wish you well and I > hope there are enough un-skeptics out there to make this worthwhile. It > would be very interesting to find a connection (or disprove one) between > our Thomas Disbrow and Major General John Disbrowe. > > Mike Disbrow > > > ==== DISBROW Mailing List ==== > The Disbrow Family Web Site: > http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Ranch/5853 > > > ============================== > New! Family Tree Maker 2005. Build your tree and search for your ancestors > at the same time. Share your tree with family and friends. Learn more: > http://landing.ancestry.com/familytreemaker/2005/tour.aspx?sourceid=14599&targetid=5429 >

I certainly agree with Stephen in specifically one area of his message. I live on the west coast of Canada and spent the money about 5 years ago to go to the east coast - New Brunswick to investigate my husband's Disbrow roots (as well as others) in person. It was VERY fulfilling to find this information myself and to take pictures of gravestones of his ancestors. I too went to England to investigate my family's roots in Devon. In the small community that my grandmother lived, it was an awesome feeling to walk down the narrow streets of the village knowing that my ancestors walked that very path. I am now the online parish clerk for that county and enjoy very much helping others trace their roots in that area. Through this assistance, I have found various cousins and connections to other family trees that have broadened my knowledge of my own ancestors. But I use this information as possible clues only and do not assume that it is correct until I can validate it myself. With respect to the Disbrow line, I have been aided by several very amenable people in Eastern Canada who had additional knowledge to share with me. The sharing was a two way street. Without the internet and email, it is doubtful that I would have found these great people and tied our Canadian family into the US Disbrow's. Unfortunately, when I went to England, I hadn't started with the Disbrow research so I didn't take the opportunity to check out what I could find there. Maybe someday... That's what I love about genealogy - it is a continuous detective story - with no final ending. Trish Watson Currie -----Original Message----- From: Stephen T. Squires [mailto:jyscoach@rcn.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2005 10:11 AM To: DISBROW-L@rootsweb.com Subject: [DISBROW] Pseudo Professional Pomposities Ignores the History Dear Disbrows: I guess I must respond to this latest inevitable gambit of the armchair historians & genealogists among you at this gen web circle...There can be NO instantaneous route to understanding HISTORY, let alone our own layered and complex family history! Though given my own disappointing past experience with some at this web circle (I have no intention of debating the following technical points personally, hopefully some of you would want to waste the time however), I can say I have felt all too many of you are simply hanging out here just biding time waiting for exactly such questionable get-"gen"-rich-quick shortcuts, instead of doing some hard work and difficult research called for. Seems to be an occupational hazard of most genny websters generally: looking for quick-fix short-cuts via the web! I wish some of you were, instead, FAR more interested in doing the hard work of some very detailed historical research, perhaps especially in England 'across the pond,' just as I have been attempting myself after two such overseas trips, totalling 8 weeks, with some truly very startling success (including many very new and richly detailed discoveries yet to be disclosed to this or any website). And then conducting some continued, EXTENDED family genealogy as well, in order to ferret out the whole truth of not just some family history, and/or not just for one or two prominent family connections either. This work, "in the long run," being for all its very rich payoffs and rewards from the always very fascinating details of history, otherwise overlooked perhaps now because of a far too easy and very questionable gambit. So now, just call me an olde PURITAN! As you know, I have spent MANY years studying a possible connection to General Disbrowe, among much else, of my own direct CT ancestors, Thomas and Mercy Disbrow. Though hardly just that, and perhaps even more interestingly for our extended family descendants, considering some HISTORICAL connections especially to Nicholas, Peter and Henry Disbrowe of early CT Colony which my work has led to. The historical speculations themselves have been FASCINATING, as well as following the many hisorical trails which themselves amplify factual history! To short-circuit this process of historical research would be to cheat ourselves of some very rich historical knowledge, trust me... This research, of course, has not been simply in order to "crow" about a "high-born" connection or two, as anyone who knows me might realize;...such gen "gold-mining," not inappropriately, seems very discreditable among the 'pseudo-professionalized' gen hobbyist of nowadays. It is, rather, about discovering a much better understanding of my own Mercy Disbrow's very curious CT colonial history, & some extended family mysteries in ye olde CT Colony, each of which holds real interest value generally to my own state history in fact. This 'interest value' includes reasons why some colonial historians have occasional and very provocatively always seemed to dismiss Mercy's extensive trial record as not just difficult to study for its relational complexities, but also understandable only for its being full of some entangling high-level connections. The historical context of Mercy's trial, and a likely related network of impressive familial connections in early CT history, otherwise long overlooked for some now very obvious reasons to me, is exactly what I have been so very painstakingly researching for many years now. I cannot see how DNA testing, superficially intriguing as it undoubtedly would be, will ever be much of a helpful 'short-cut' for me in the end, or my own work on these yet very intriguing historical Disbrow subjects. Yet that same DNA testing, if cheaply, sloppily and unaccountably handled could set us back in some ways you may not realize, but I certainly do realize for my having stuied these same questions most closely and in detail for some many years (though I'm not yet sure I would care very much one way or the other about the outcome of this test, in fact...). My work is all but complete for one lifetime anyway, and so far it has uncovered to my satisfaction an immense and fascinatingly layered story of some real and very general broad interest value! So, I certainly do resent the psudo-professional presumption that now faddish genealogical DNA testing, with its yet here still unresolved validity questions, might actually settle some fascinating issues,...but only then sacrificing the very process of historical research itself. In other words what will we lose for never further uncovering much amplifying historical detail through that short-circuited research (the truth, or the 'devil,' is in the "details!"). Considering that some very justifiable reservations about the process have yet to be raised, let alone resolved,...CAN this DNA shortcut ever be any sort of substitute for the very arduous (but always ultimately productive) work of on-the-scene historical research, uncovering the warp and weft of actual history, its entangling & connecting set of facts? Think of all the details of history that may never yet be uncovered by some of you for presuming some 'final word' has been registered here "scientifically" (I prefer to believe "psuedo-scientifically," in fact!). My concern, then, is over a test outcome which is ultimately based on faulty or even very "cheap" science, perhaps very second rate, ..for how so can we ultimately assure ourselve better about it given what I have so far read, despite seemingly "impressive" references. And, how can we guard against or have any accontability about some test subjects who may or may not be who they may wish to claim that they are? How can those whose anonymity must also be protected (who, afterall, does NOT wish for some effecting anonymity in this vicious age of identity theft) assure the rest of us of some accountability for the integrity and real verifiability in this complex process?? It does not seem nearly so simple a process to me as it may to the many short-cut 'artists' out there, too many of whom habitually rely on internet short-cuts for genealogical "truths." Not only would much be missed of breadth, interest value, & historical detail for never bothering to research further those questions supposedly resolved, but I certainly feel it would short-circuit most ambition for doing further detailed research by too many among you who think some matters may be settled (you see I fear too many who regularly 'hang-out' at such web circles as this one have become hopeless compromised in their ambition to do very serious research anyway). There simply are NO "short cuts," even via the current "fad" of DNA, ....or at any rate there SHOULD not be any such if you wish for a far more complete understanding of some VERY complex family & detailed regional history,...now otherwise possibly to be overlooked (you can have NO idea just HOW "complex" until you've seen the evidence or done the research in the trenches yourself). Look, even the law gets it wrong with this DNA science these days. Perhaps you read recently of a Texas(?) legal forensics professional (was it?) who short-cut her lab work by routinely cutting out a step in replicating the DNA, which "shortcut" has now thrown into chaotic question dozens of criminal trial convictions. There is also, most recently, the case just reported in the news of a "rapist" who was freed on DNA evidence after serving a decade or more in jail , only now to have been caught "red-handed" in an even worse crime (the murder of yet another vulnerable woman, so wasn't it?)...You will get the picture if you realize that I do not appreciate all of my own hard work and very detailed research tossed summarily in the bin (most of which you yet know virtually NOTHING about), in the end to be only very cheaply arbitrated by a single perhaps discrediting, but ultimately pseudo-professional process (a "shortcut") of (at least yet here) still unresolved, questionable scientific and accountability value. Given what I have experienced from this web circle in past years, and given my emphatically stated criticisms of its occasional pretensions and apparent lack of ambition to do the continuing real work of even some occasional serious and detailed historical research (not just genealogical research!), I cannot but be exasperated by this latest attempt to find still another instantaneous shortcut route to understanding history (this time not just reliant on web gambits). I feel after TWO trips to England and a third one in the works (I'm in no hurry for my results)-- which have been incredibly productive in ways I felt have been of no immediate need to report back to this particular web circle, &/or until publication of my findings...(BTW, THIS also including new information about some fascinating and provocative English "Holbridge" connections)...I have discovered considerable, layered evidence for at least some direct family connection between, for example, our own Thomas Disbrow and the famous Major General, and his brother Samuel who was founder of Guilford, CT. This is not only for the surprising record of a "Thomas" in the baptismal records at Eltisley from 1625, into the extended family of Maj. Gen. John Disbrowe and his brother Samuel (I have found in England the formal will of the father of these two very famous men which does not, however, mention a "Thomas" inevitably, but who would nevertheless be their cousin, yet the will for James does note some extremely fascinating, provocative connections to various fully named individuals who hold a direct interest value to my own CT "Thomas"). My research has been extensive, over many years and full of anecdotal and factual information which is been not just fascinating for itself, its multi-layers of fact themselves hold implications for proving these connections. It most certainly does flesh out the HISTORY and current state of genealogical information, which at least one respected, life-long Disbrow family genealogist has claimed , because of my research discoveries, makes it almost "99.9%" certain of some direct connection between the Major General who married Oliver Cromwell's sister and that "Thomas" who married Mercy in CT. This is my feeling as well...and I'm not likely to change that on the strength of any "shortcut" process so far described. Are some of you "scientific positivists" out there quite so sure that this particular DNA process will answer all of your needs and questions (BTW, did you happen to see the recent PBS "Secrets of the Dead" TV program, produced in 2004 and very recently re-broadcast, which seriously/thoroughly questions the supposed final authority of the Shroud of Turin scientific carbon dating tests made several years ago??)? Go ahead with DNA testing, I must say I'm one who will be especially fascinated to learn of whatever the outcome may be, and am only very mildly cringing at the prospect. But please at least only do so with some greater modesty about what may be certain in this process, ...with also some greater assurance of some accountable, verifiable means of actually validating any test outcome. Realize also what you may be losing in the long run for any inaccurate (or even any 'accurate') test reading: namely the further encouragement of otherwise to be overlooked, yet very rich historical research detail, not just of the genealogical sort. I don't expect some many of you to care much about the little matter of broader historical "truths" perhaps to be lost, very sadly, ...since I know you must have your all too inevitable "shortcuts,"...certainly at this web circle. -- Original Message ----- From: "Mike Disbrow" <dizzy@michweb.net> To: <DISBROW-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2005 2:51 PM Subject: [DISBROW] Disbrow DNA Study > Here is the address for the Disbrow Surname Project at Family Tree DNA: > > http://www.familytreedna.com/surname_join.asp?code=K52005&special=True&proje cttype=S > > Mary Jo - I was wondering if there is a minimum number of participants you > would need in order to proceed with the project. I expressed my own > doubts to you on the telephone the other day, but I wish you well and I > hope there are enough un-skeptics out there to make this worthwhile. It > would be very interesting to find a connection (or disprove one) between > our Thomas Disbrow and Major General John Disbrowe. > > Mike Disbrow > > > ==== DISBROW Mailing List ==== > The Disbrow Family Web Site: > http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Ranch/5853 > > > ============================== > New! Family Tree Maker 2005. Build your tree and search for your ancestors > at the same time. Share your tree with family and friends. Learn more: > http://landing.ancestry.com/familytreemaker/2005/tour.aspx?sourceid=14599&ta rgetid=5429 > ==== DISBROW Mailing List ==== The Disbrow Family Web Site: http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Ranch/5853 ============================== Census images 1901, 1891, 1881 and 1871, plus so much more. Ancestry.com's United Kingdom & Ireland Collection. Learn more: http://www.ancestry.com/s13968/rd.ashx