> > That is exactly what I am saying. Proof is proof. Everything else > > is guesswork. It may be really GOOD guesswork, but absent proof, it= > > must be treated as guesswork. > > = > > [email protected] > = > Well, actually it is all EVIDENCE--some pieces of evidence carry > more weight than others, but it is all evidence and needs to be > weighed in making a determination of the facts. > = > Joan <[email protected]> = Within limits, the lack of evidence is proof of "the lack of evidence." If one exhausts all available records about thus-and- such town, county, etc. one can safely say that "uncle Joe" did not "buy land in X" or he did not live in X, etc. Besides, one can extrapolate all sorts of information about people, events and other factoids from what we might label "non proof" sources. We just cannot definitvely prove that such information is true =C2=AD just that it probably is. In the end, it is a judgement call about such information and how we, as researchers, handle it. The wise researcher identifies his data as proved, probable, unsubstantiated or just outright false. My own solution for such data is to have the following "sources:" 1) INFERENTIAL DATA =C2=AD information derived from other, known, events, but may not be accurate. 2) UNDOCUMENTED DATA =C2=AD This data cannot be (or has not been) verified by other sources. It is assumed to be valid, but must be taken at face value for what it is =C2=AD hearsay evidence. In both cases, I usually offer a sentence or two about the evidence or the lack thereof whenever they are used. Regards, Arnold <><><><><<><><><><><><> Arrowhead Images <[email protected]> <><><><><<><><><><><><> Money can't buy everything. That's what credit cards are for!