At 01:48 PM 01/31/1999 -0600, you (Dick Dutton) wrote in the vein of the ongoing discussion: >-----------------------------Snip------------------------------------------ > I also agree, in principal, with those who say that every fact should be > documented with original source data, but we all know that this Utopia > can never be achieved. Many of the necessary documents, if they ever > existed, have long since ceased to exist. In their absence, I feel we > have no practical choice other than to proceed with the "Preponderance > of Evidence" and let the Nea Sayers produce the documentation to prove > us wrong. Hi, cousins and others: Like Dick, I do not believe that proof positive is to be held up as the only standard. After all, the major problem in biologically-oriented genealogy is the "who's the daddy?" question. Until DNA testing (please, I'm not interested in a discussion) there was no way to REALLY verify the mother's claim, "my husband is." All genealogy is based on some trust, on the notion that certain types of evidence are good ENOUGH. However, that too can be taken too far. I really don't think it is up to the nay sayers to prove a line wrong. I think it is up to those who claim a line to offer credible evidence of its accuracy, first; then and only then does the offering of contrary evidence make any sense. To take a ridiculuous example (reductio ad absurdam), if 100 years from now someone finds their ancestor as the baby in a National Enquirer "Space Aliens Got Me Pregnant" story, is it up to anyone to prove that wrong? Isn't it in print, after all?? Of course the burden of proof is on the claim! More proof can be demanded when someone claims that a woman bore a child at 55 years old, and I would need a lot more than that to convince me about the space alien father. Most standards of genealogical proof insistent that contemporary evidence is better; direct evidence is better; and, analysis from normally accurate persons is better. I don't really know about the Odard/Hodard issue, in detail. I do know about the propensity of the nobility to embellish their pedigrees. So here are the questions I would want to have answered before I would accept any parentage for Odard: 1. Is the evidence offered contemporary and primary? 2. Is the writer normally found to be accurate when other statements are challenged? 3. Are there any reasonable possible alternatives? 4. Is there specific evidence to the contrary that even approaches the credibility of the evidence offered in support? Notice I do *not* say that equals the credibility, just approaches it. If the answers to the above questions can be told, then I would be ready to give my opinion on the ancestry of Odard. I don't think the "only one old book" argument is enough to reject a line outright, *if* that one old book is almost always proved right where it can be tested. Still, I don't think any single source is to be completely trusted, either. But you have my permission (as if you needed it) to claim any fact you like, as long as you tell me how you support it--OR that you can't. If you don't support it well, don't expect me to accept it. Darrell Darrell A. Martin formerly of the Dutton District, Springfield, Vermont currently in exile in Addison, Illinois darrellm@sprynet.com