Okay, now we're getting somewhere with this. Thank you, Donna, for taking the time to answer my questions so thoroughly. Thanks to the rest of you for being tolerant of this discussion. There really is a lot of generally-applicable information going back & forth, so I'm hoping it can be a learning tool for all of us. What we're discussing is essentially the heart and soul of genealogy in its finest form. I hope nobody will throw rotten eggs at my computer screen if I venture to clarify some items in question. I will use Donna's section-at-a-time method. Donna's responses will have << D>> at the beginning of each quoted response.. My responses to each follows immediately thereafter, prefaced by the notation <<C>> : <<D>>**How could I have been more specific without typing almost 20 pages of data. I may be retired, but I don't have that kind of time not eyesight to type the whole thing. I guess you can crank some films like I did. <<C>> That was a wee bit snotty, don't you think? All the same, perhaps "specific" wasn't the best word I could have used. I was asking that you relate specific *information* to the sources quoted on this list -- not the entire text -- so I could determine whether there was actually any solid proof I had previously missed in my own review of those sources, or if they were being used as "supporting documentation" of one or more details in your theory. I had already stated rather clearly that I have done my share of "cranking films like you did," and had already read most of the source docs you had previously quoted. I could have missed an important detail in that source that you or Pat Finnell had found. I have actually made mistakes or overlooked significant information while "cranking films." Believe it or not, I'm not perfect. :-) Next, I'm afraid you misunderstood my statement that we do not have any hard fact "that even gives a definite location or date for *any* of these events." That was in reference to the previous sentence: "I just want to know what your sources are for the statements you made on all these lists about Priscilla's capture, life with the Indians and rescue." You apparently understood it to mean there was no hard fact known about where Priscilla or her family lived at any given time. The family is relatively easy to track through court documents, as you know. However, we do not know where Priscilla was living at the time of her capture, because we don't know exactly when that capture took place. We have a pretty firm time span (thank Heaven!), but nothing at all specific. As mobile as those families were in an effort to protect themselves from the Indians during the 1770s and into the 1780s, land ownership does not constitute location on any given date (unless the land deed gives the buyer or seller's current location). Other court documents have been somewhat helpful to at least determine the actual locations of others who were closely associated, but that information is of limited value in determining Priscilla's own location. I also noticed that your sources largely focused on the location of a Richard Estes/Estridge during the above-named time frame. Although I think we've all tracked a Richard Estes/Estridge (or more than one, possibly) fairly thoroughly as part of the process of finding a father for Priscilla, Richard's whereabouts can't be used as an accurate measure of Priscilla's location unless Richard is proven to be her father. We don't dare base one assumption on another assumption. That's really asking for trouble. For that reason, I won't comment further about the data you listed with regard to Richard's whereabouts, although I do appreciate your labors. <<D>>**The only thing that was found that indicates when Mary died was Thomas Townsend being issued 22 May 1789 Bounty Land Warrant #2210-200-Lieut. for his father William Townsend's service in the French & Indian War & normally the bounty land was issued to the widow if she were still living. and <<D>>**Please enlighten me as to how we know Mary Stone Townsend is alive in 1778. I think she is d., otherwise why would Thomas Townsend be issued the Bounty Land??? <<C>> You use a 1789 bounty land warrant to refute the possibility that Mary was alive at the time of Priscilla's capture. If we gather all common elements of family stories surrouding Priscilla's capture, we come up with a time frame of about 1776 to 1780. Averaging that out, we use 1778 as the approximate date of capture. That much we agree on. But how does a 1789 bounty land warrant signify anything about Mary being alive some 11 years earlier, in 1778? If we apply the same "common elements" method to stories about Priscilla's capture, we also find that the word *parents* (plural) was used in virtually all of the stories with regard to Priscilla being present at the time of the attack and her *parents* being elsewhere. Not one account says the parents are dead in 1778. Because of the land deed for William Townsend's military bounty, I agree that Mary was probably dead by 1789, but I have no reason to believe she was dead when the capture took place. We know she was dead before Sept 1795 because of Richard Stone's will. <<D>>**Its called by DAR, "preponderance of the evidence". You don't find one single document proving the fact, but you add up the tons of data & it all points to that direction. <<D>>**I believe that the the analysis the 3 of us did is accurate & correct. If you don't, then go look at the records yourself as we have done. <<C>> There's that snarling again, Donna. It just isn't nice. I have some places in both sides of my family where I have had to use the "preponderance of evidence" method to show what very likely did happen. You and I apparently view that method in different ways. I still don't consider it "proof" and still don't represent it as fact. I state the known facts and give a narrative about why I believe the preponderance of evidence points toward a particular conclusion being drawn, *until such time as we are able to find evidence to the contrary.* The other difference between your view and mine, Donna, is that I do NOT see a "preponderance of evidence" in all the conflicting information we've unveiled in this discussion. There are still far too many holes in the story and there still exists not a single scrap of true evidence that actually names anyone whose relationship is proven. I do not consider this to be the same as *fact* or even "preponderance of evidence." I don't think the research you've done is fouled and I have made it as clear as I possibly can that I appreciate all of your work. You are more than welcome to hold any belief that you wish to hold, based on whatever amount and type of fact that satisfies your need to know. I wish you wouldn't feel a need to resort to demeaning comments like "...then go look at the records yourself as we have done," or "...you'll have to crank some films like I did." As if I haven't done those things or put my blood, sweat, money and brains into the research like you have. You obviously have no idea how much work & money I have invested or the physical price I've paid, or you wouldn't be so mean-spirited. You are not the only researcher with a significant physical disability. Who is flaming whom? Marilyn and I have asked good questions so that we might know whether or not there really are FACTUAL answers to this family mystery. All either of us wanted was to know IF there were factual sources for your assertions, or if you had decided you had enough "evidence" to suit your own desire for truth. Maybe our standards are different than yours -- do we not have a right to know how much of your story is based in fact? I think we do. You may choose not to share information with anyone who can't afford to buy your book -- you invested in that book and you do have that right -- but you should be a conscientious enough genealogist to make sure you do not mislead people when there is no proof of your claims. Otherwise you are perpetuating stories that may in fact be totally inaccurate. Why is it such a bad thing to simply state, "I can't yet prove these things but I feel there is a preponderance of evidence that..."?? By posting to all these lists and stating your opinions as fact, you lead newbies to conclude that those opinions are proven fact and you could lead others to shut doors in our faces when we want to continue to research until WE are satisfied. After a story like that goes out on the internet, pretty soon it turns up in a book as "according to long-time Estes researcher Donna Hull" -- just the same as what has happened with the MILLER line that is quite a bit different in fact than what is stated in some historical society publications. If you don't make it clear that your sources are missing in a few places, some fool will publish it as fact. Next thing we know, we're having trouble getting information beyond, "Oh, that whole family is in such-and-such a book," or "Contact Donna Hull. She researched that all out." Poof. Another brick wall appears. <<D>>**That is all I am, the compiler, so I guess that is why I don't understand all the challenge. I wrote what I thought was a fun story, not presenting it as any- thing other that what I thought her personality to be, & I get all kinds of questions. <<C>> It was a "fun story," Donna. For some of us, it was so fun we were close to heart attacks, thinking you had uncovered the facts we've all been searching to find. It would have been great "light reading" if you had simply thrown in a "perhaps" or an "it looks like" here and there so it didn't go so much like a historical documentary without the documentation. It wasn't about Priscilla's personality. It was about her life with specific Indians in specific locations and it even included a little argument about how many different versions of the basic story there are in the family. <<D>> **Marilyn said the same thing, but I don't see "young woman" when I read it, I see "young girl". <<C>>See the sentence following the one with "young girl" in it, in the McKenzie writeup. <<D>>**ok., find me another Estes/Estridge in the area of Wolf or Walker Creeks in what is now Giles Co. If you look them up on the map they are both flowing to the north into New River near The Narrows & Pearisburg. <<C>> Stay tuned. It might take me a while because not all of my data is on computer, either, but I'll be glad to throw that into the mix if it might help us all find some answers. My files aren't as organized as they should be. :-) -- Cheri