META discussion of theory -- names not needed, no lookups needed. All right, let's say, just for the sake of having somewhere to start, that Absence of proof is not proof of absence. At what stage can one legitimately claim that absence of evidence is proof of the absence of proof? I mean, at what stage are we allowed to be reasonable about it? How many long-shots add up to enough? When you're down to begging total strangers to let you paw through their attic just in case their ancestor (a) kept a diary (b) knew your ancestor and (c) mentioned your ancestor's parents in their diary -- is absence of proof good enough to prove there's no evidence? Is 35 years of personal searching, plus another 52 years combined efforts of two lawyers, two professional genealogists and four other interested family members enough to say "mama-said" is as good as it gets proof-wise? Cheryl singhals <[email protected]>