INHAMILT-L Archives
Archiver > INHAMILT > 2003-08 > 1060959385
From:
Subject: [INHAMILT-L] Re: Dean - Sturdevant
Date: 15 Aug 2003 08:56:25 -0600
This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list.
Message Board URL:
http://boards.ancestry.com/mbexec/msg//Xh.2ADI/986.1.1.1.2
Message Board Post:
Lenora,
My sincerest apologies to both you and Tim!!!
After rechecking the microfilm here and posting my earlier message, I rechecked the census images at ancestry plus. What a difference the digitized images are!
I made two mistakes!
First, in the household of Joseph, the digitized image makes the 1 look more like a 2 in the female 5-10 age category. On the second page, the next total number of people in the household is a 7, so that could be the number of people in Joseph's household, instead of the 6 just above it.
Second, in the household of Nehemiah, the double line marking the area between male and female is more distinct at ancestry plus. With the digitized image, it does appear that there is one female in the 5-10 age category and one female in the 10-15 age category and no female in the under 5 category. And the older female is actually in the 30-40 age category. The number of persons stays at 11 but the categories do appear to be different positionwise from the microfilm. I started counting the female categories one space too soon. My mistake here could have been avoided had I put my finger on the marks and move the film up to see the proper age category. (Which I did, after checking the digitized images!) I sincerely apologize for this huge mistake.
So Lenora, it does appear that Higley Jane could be the child of Joseph or Nehemiah. Again, my sincerest apologies to you both. I am so very sorry to have presented misleading information. Thank you Lenora for calling my attention to it!
It is absoluting amazing to see the difference between microfilm images and digitized images! I sure learn a lesson here: Check both sources to be sure.
Nancy
This thread: