McBee49@aol.com wrote: > > Ali, you and I agree on circumstantial evidence. I am a genealogist that > believes in "Leap of Faith". Prior to 1850, genealogy is a crap shoot at > best. We only knew who the head of household was. Linking a child to a > family couldn't really be done prior to 1850. I get so amazed at people who > HAVE to have documentation. I believe in documentation as much as you can > document it. Any information written down had to come from someone > somewhere. What makes that information any more correct than information > written down now by someone in this century. I have so many people who ask > about "Documentation". If you are a Mellard and your family lived in > Charleston, you can assume (usually quite correctly) that you are related to > most of the Mellards from Charleston. Not all Smiths are related to all > Smiths but I am sure you see what I am saying. My suggestion is to use that > "Leap of Faith" if you must. Qualify it as a leap of faith. Bridge the gap > and then work to strengthen your bridge. Have a great day. Danny. I don't see it as a "leap of faith" so much as building a case. Circumstantial evidence can be used in a courtroom, but it must be used to PROVE the case. So once one examines all the known record sources, and eliminates the various candidates for "father" mother", "spouse", and "child", then one can be "reasonably certain" that the relationship is proved. As new record sources are found, the case can be re-examined. I agree that old speculation is no better than newly-written speculation. Only a well-made case makes any sense. Valorie -- I shall allow no man to belittle my soul by making me hate him. - Booker T. Washington

A word of caution is in order. The ground rules for genealogy, research and pedigrees is the same whether you are a certified genealogist or a hobby genealogist. These rules have been refined over time and are very good. Unfortunately, not many hobby genealogist care to read one of the excellent tutorials online that explain the rules in detail. Also, unfortunately, the rules were formulated long ago when todays means of communication was not dreamed of. Saying you have other rules is fine as long as you keep it private, because it is your own business. What one does with one´s own pedigree or posts on their own web site is also their business, and theirs alone. The problem is that so many hobby genealogist take the easy way and grab at links that are circumstantial. They then spread this info far and wide on the web, or post it to one of the commercial sites with no qualifiers and it then becomes forever fact for unsuspecting beginners who are also taking the easy way and repeating and posting theirselves. I also take exception to the statement that before 1850, research is difficult. Colonial America had rules, regulations and covering almost everything from birth to death. Unfortunately, a lot is lost forever, but most hobby genealogist will not take the time and effort to do serious research. You have to show documentation to do anything today, why should it be different with genealogy? Why should we believe any pedigree when we all have gaps in our own and know how hard we worked to find proof and when we did, what we thought to be absolutely true (family history) turned out to be patently false. If you can not verify what you post for the world, you can at least qualify the info with something like: "maybe", "supposedly", "surely", "might be", "hopfully is" or something to alert the world that the info is not proven. Posting something that can not be documented is unfair. Duane Mills Stavanger, Norway >McBee49@aol.com wrote: >> >> Ali, you and I agree on circumstantial evidence. I am a genealogist that >> believes in "Leap of Faith". Prior to 1850, genealogy is a crap shoot at >> best. We only knew who the head of household was. Linking a child to a >> family couldn't really be done prior to 1850. I get so amazed at people who >> HAVE to have documentation. I believe in documentation as much as you can >> document it. Any information written down had to come from someone >> somewhere. What makes that information any more correct than information >> written down now by someone in this century. I have so many people who ask >> about "Documentation". If you are a Mellard and your family lived in >> Charleston, you can assume (usually quite correctly) that you are related to >> most of the Mellards from Charleston. Not all Smiths are related to all >> Smiths but I am sure you see what I am saying. My suggestion is to use that >> "Leap of Faith" if you must. Qualify it as a leap of faith. Bridge the gap >> and then work to strengthen your bridge. Have a great day. Danny. > >I don't see it as a "leap of faith" so much as building a case. >Circumstantial evidence can be used in a courtroom, but it must be used >to PROVE the case. So once one examines all the known record sources, >and eliminates the various candidates for "father" mother", "spouse", >and "child", then one can be "reasonably certain" that the relationship >is proved. As new record sources are found, the case can be re-examined. > >I agree that old speculation is no better than newly-written >speculation. Only a well-made case makes any sense. > >Valorie