TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM-L Archives

Archiver > TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM > 2009-12 > 1261585109


From: "Jeff Pauley" <>
Subject: Re: [TGF] Absence vs. Availability of Evidence
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2009 11:18:29 -0500
References: <mailman.751.1261555304.6123.transitional-genealogists-forum@rootsweb.com> <a06240800c757d2b17ef4@[192.168.1.3]><651081.44820.qm@web35905.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
In-Reply-To: <651081.44820.qm@web35905.mail.mud.yahoo.com>


Jeanette,

Your interesting "sources" reminds me of a similar situation I encountered.
When I first started researching my family in the mid 1980s I began with a
document that had been shared at a family reunion and gave certain family
history stories. As I began researching these stories I consistently found
that they were untrue but when I presented my aunt with the evidence she
totally dismissed my supported findings and insisted that the stories were
correct because "the family said so!"

Regards,
Jeff Pauley
Pacific Pointe Genealogy Research Service
Goodview, VA
www.pacificpointegenealogy.com


-----Original Message-----
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of
Jeanette Daniels
Sent: Wednesday, December 23, 2009 10:36 AM
To:
Subject: Re: [TGF] Absence vs. Availability of Evidence

Jullaine,

This is a common problem for anyone doing genealogical research.  There are
so many amateur researchers who don't want to change their pedigrees. 
Absense of information may mean that a researcher is in the wrong place.  As
you indicated, the records were destroyed.  In research situations like
this, everything available must be checked and conclusions made based upon
what is there.  I personally have had similar opposition to some of the work
I have done.  It has been amazing the "sources" used to refute my findings. 
In two cases, the "sources" were made up.  One source was a funeral
presentation given in the late 1600s which stated the birth place of the
deceased.  This "source" was never published and the funeral presentation
had fallen apart over 200 years ago, but everyone knew that the birth place
stated in it was ________, not what I had found.  Another was a family bible
that had been destroyed in a fire circa 1900 but again everyone
remembered exactly what the birth year of the earliest descendant in the
bible was. 

As I pointed out to those reading the "sources," these were not sources
because they didn't exist and there was no proof that they had ever
existed.  These "sources" were listed to legitimize the "research" findings
of whoever put the original information together that everyone now accepts
as fact.  I can't comment on the specifics of your own research, because I
personally have not worked the problem.  I, therefore, really don't know
whether you are correct or the others are.  But, if they have used secondary
sources and have not personally done any research with the sources that are
now available, you probably are correct or more correct than they are. 

Don't get discourageed.  You can always rip holes in their non-research
whether you can definitely prove that you are correct or not.

Jeanette


 


-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
with the word
'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message






-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
with the word
'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message


This thread: