There's a story that I told some time ago that illustrates how the most reliable "facts" could be incorrect. Since there are a lot of new people on the list, I will tell it again. The inspiration came from a Daniel Boone story. After a two year absence, he came home to find his wife nursing a baby. "Whose baby is that?" he asked. "It's your brother's" she answered. "We thought you were dead." To the great credit of Daniel and the Boones, they did not try to cover up the fact and raised the female child as their own. Now let's suppose: Suppose the child had been a male. Suppose the Boones, to avoid shame, recorded the birth as Daniel's own child (primary evidence). Daniel named the child as his own in his will (primary evidence) and all of the census records showed the child as Daniel's. There are letters and other evidence, and the papers of the child assert clearly that Daniel is his father--honestly stated, as he was never told otherwise, again primary evidence. Fast forward to the present. Joe Boone, a descendent of that child, has gathered all of these records and is trying to join the prestigious Society of the Descendents of Daniel Boone (I just made that up). As additional evidence he has his DNA tested. Viola! A perfect match with the descendents of the other male Boones. He is easily accepted into the society. After all, the evidence is impeccable, irrefutable.... And wrong. Just a heads up--we all need to be humble about our data and open to challenge. There is really no such thing as 100% certainty. Roy Johnson

Very well put.  However, you can also see why there would be a dispute when someone is sure they have the evidence and someone else is telling Aunt Doe's tell a different way.  Anyway, the research and new evidence is what makes finding out about your family interesting and fun.  Thanks Roy for all you good input. --- On Mon, 1/12/09, Roy Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: From: Roy Johnson <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [PACE] Source reliability - ratings Q To: [email protected] Date: Monday, January 12, 2009, 4:00 PM There's a story that I told some time ago that illustrates how the most reliable "facts" could be incorrect. Since there are a lot of new people on the list, I will tell it again. The inspiration came from a Daniel Boone story. After a two year absence, he came home to find his wife nursing a baby. "Whose baby is that?" he asked. "It's your brother's" she answered. "We thought you were dead." To the great credit of Daniel and the Boones, they did not try to cover up the fact and raised the female child as their own. Now let's suppose: Suppose the child had been a male. Suppose the Boones, to avoid shame, recorded the birth as Daniel's own child (primary evidence). Daniel named the child as his own in his will (primary evidence) and all of the census records showed the child as Daniel's. There are letters and other evidence, and the papers of the child assert clearly that Daniel is his father--honestly stated, as he was never told otherwise, again primary evidence. Fast forward to the present. Joe Boone, a descendent of that child, has gathered all of these records and is trying to join the prestigious Society of the Descendents of Daniel Boone (I just made that up). As additional evidence he has his DNA tested. Viola! A perfect match with the descendents of the other male Boones. He is easily accepted into the society. After all, the evidence is impeccable, irrefutable.... And wrong. Just a heads up--we all need to be humble about our data and open to challenge. There is really no such thing as 100% certainty. Roy Johnson ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message