Re: Download gedcom files
singhals
> Having hit brick walls in all my research I'm trying some far out
> connections and have been downloading some gedcom files to follow
> some family stories that we were kin to Martha Washington's aunt and
> descended from Pocahontas. I'm basically downloading them and
> searching for familiar family names or people in the right counties
> in Virginia.
>
> My question is, does anybody have any good sites to suggest. I've
> pretty well covered RootsWeb at:
>
> http://wc.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi
>
> and the gedcoms listings of Va. at:
>
> http://gedcomindex.com/Subdivisions/usva.html
>
> I'm sure I've used other sites in the past but can't come up with
> any searching on Google and on Cyndi's list. Any help would be
> very appreciated.
>
> Paulette
>
> p.s. Pocahontas is guestimated to have about one and a half million
> living descendants in spite of the fact that she only had one child
> and one grandchild.
>
> "Paulette Smith" <paulett...@worldnet.att.net>
Posted and mailed.
There is a website that has a downloadable GED of ALL her
decendants. Try Google; if that fails, wave and I'll see if I still
have my copy of it.
As a point of historical interest, her descendants were specifically
excluded from Virginia's anti-miscengation laws. (g)
Cheryl
singhals <sing...@erols.com>
JoAnn
From: "Paulette Smith" <paulett...@worldnet.att.net>
> Having hit brick walls in all my research I'm trying some far out
> connections and have been downloading some gedcom files to follow
> some family stories that we were kin to Martha Washington's aunt and
> descended from Pocahontas. I'm basically downloading them and
> searching for familiar family names or people in the right counties
> in Virginia.
>
> My question is, does anybody have any good sites to suggest. I've
> pretty well covered RootsWeb at:
>
> <snip>
Maybe if you provided some surnames and localities at the point your
proven information ends, we could offer better suggestions.
However, using secondary sources, particularly other people's
research is risky. People make mistakes and you could follow a hot
lead only to discover you've spent a lot of time on the wrong line,
or worse, you find things like children born after the death of
their mother, or when she was too old to be bearing children, other
ages might not line up etc.
JoAnn
JoAnn <ka7...@concentric.net>
Ray Shoemaker
I had a cousin who also thought we were descended from Pocahontas a
few years back. To help research it I borrowed the following book:
"Pocahontas' descendants : a revision, enlargement, and extension of
the list as set out by Wyndham Robertson in his book Pocahontas and
her descendants." The authors are Stuart E. Brown, Jr. Lorraine F.
Myers, and Eileen M. Chappel. You can see it described here:
http://www.genealogical.com/products/Pocahontas&39;%20Descendants/715.html
It is out of print, so you would need to borrow it from a library,
via interlibrary loan if not available in your area. I actually
find it at several libraries in my area, so I suspect that copies
are readily available.
It is true that whenever you rely on the works of others you cannot
assume that it is accurate. However, if that work lists its sources
then you can at least check it yourself.
However many true Pocahontas descendants there may be, I am sure
there are many who think they are descendants, based on faulty
research. So, beware of GEDCOMS that lack citations!
Ray
Ray Shoemaker <rayw...@yahoo.com>
Paulette Smith
Yes, I understand I don't want to accept research that I can't
prove. As I said, this is something I am doing because after 40
years of research, I can't find any more links and I'm grasping at
straws for somewhere to focus for information I've missed.
My Burch family came from New Kent Co., Va. which had all its
courthouse records burned. I'm comfortable in tracing back to
Reuben H. Burch b. abt. 1812. His wife was Julia Ann (Her
granddaughter said Martin). If she is a Martin, and not a Maupin,
there are 4 families who had girls of the right age. Reuben H.
mother was probably Elvirah Ladd (daughter of David) and her mother
was probably a Crew but first name unknown. The only reason I know
about the link to Elvirah is because I did a search on the internet
of her name and her daughter, Lucretia and found a posting that
cited the book on the Ladd family which included that information.
I was hoping for a similar break through with this research.
The name connections I am looking for in the Pocahontas and
Dandridge records is Martin, Burch, Crew and Ladd or anyone else
that I can connect between the families.
Paulette
"Paulette Smith" <paulett...@worldnet.att.net>
Paulette Smith
If you once heard you were descended from Pocahontas keep in mind the
following:
1. John Bolling and Mary Kennon had 6 children.
2 Next generation born 1730-60 had 6 children or 36 grandchildren
3. Born 1760-90 had 5 children or 180 great grandchildren
4. Born 1790-1820 had 5 children or 900 gggc
5. Born 1820-1850 had 4 children or 3,600 ggggc
6. Born 1850-1880 had 4 children or 14,400 gggggc
7. Born 1880-1910 had 4 children or 57,600 ggggggc
8. Born 1910-1940 had 3 children or 172,800 gggggggc
9. Born 1940-1970 had 3 children or 518,400 ggggggggc
10. Born 1970-2000 had 2 children or 1,036,800 gggggggggc
11. Born 2000-2030 had 2 children or 2,073,600 ggggggggggc
Even as a guestimation that's a lot of kids!
If you're researching Pocahontas a good place to start is the
original book on the internet at:
http://www.accessgenealogy.com/native/pocahontas/index.htm
The Pocahontas Foundation updates the information periodically with
what they consider accurate information.
Another great site for the family is:
http://pocahontas.morenus.org/poca_gen.html
He explains what is meant by the red, blue and white Bollings and
has information on the "Pocahontas Foundation".
Lots of information on the Bollings but not the connection I want.
Paulette
"Paulette Smith" <paulett...@worldnet.att.net>
singhals
Vis-a-vis d/l gedcoms, someone said ...
> Yes, I understand I don't want to accept research that I can't
> prove.
I /do/ realize I'm breaking open an awful kettle of worms with this
remark but ...
There will come a time when you WILL accept research you can't
verify. Some truths were known by a bare handful of people and when
they ceased contributing to the oxygen shortage, verification became
impossible. Some truths were duly recorded, sealed, and
acknowledged in books that fell prey to hurricane, fire, damp,
dry-rot, field-mice or silverfish a century or more ago. When that
time comes, for any of us, we /have/ to accept what's unverifiable
as "best information available."
Cheryl
singhals <sing...@erols.com>
leoandlinda
>Vis-a-vis d/l gedcoms, someone said ...
>
>> Yes, I understand I don't want to accept research that I can't
>> prove.
>I /do/ realize I'm breaking open an awful kettle of worms with this
>remark but ...
>There will come a time when you WILL accept research you can't
>verify.
<snipping out some really good explanations here!>
I agree, Cheryl. It's inevitable. You are absolutely right. Just
getting a lot wordier than you here.....
My own comments would be that:
First, the key for most researchers is to not *easily* or
*carelessly* just incorporate research that they haven't tried to
verify and proof through as many original documents and as much
careful analysis as they can manage. Even if the source of the info
sounds 'scholarly' or 'well-researched', or 'full of details and
sources' or 'was published somewhere in 1870', check it and analyze
carefully. There are so many 'scholarly-sounding', constantly
repeated, 'but everyone knows...' *serious basic errors*
everywhere. If you can't proof it, don't take it as fact.
But after that process, the *being a researcher part* truly begins.
When the records run out, you work with hypotheses, and
probabilities. And you label them as such. Use every possible
detail to figure out those probabilities. You include the info that
is most likely, and then keep looking at everything. Keep
analyzing.
Others may have found something that makes your possibility less
likely, or just plain wrong. Or there may be a well-reasoned
article in a journal that drops your 'probability of being right'
from 85% to 30%, and sends you hunting in what might be a more
fruitful direction.
But as hard as you work, and as much as you do, you will always end
up with probabilites and hypotheses....... In some lines, this may
happen in 1890. In others, in 1750. In others, in 1610, or before.
But you always end up with hypotheses and probabilities.
If you don't end up with possibles, perhaps a probable, and a
number of question marks, then you've stopped too soon [grins].
Linda S
leoandlinda <leoan...@provide.net>
AEP
on 18/04/2008 07:36 PM, leoandlinda at leoan...@provide.net wrote:
// CUT //
>
>
> I agree, Cheryl. It's inevitable. You are absolutely right. Just
> getting a lot wordier than you here.....
>
> My own comments would be that:
// cut //
If you can't proof it, don't take it as fact.
>
Ah, the mark of a true historian. Too much "revisionist" history
has been perpetrated on us by others glossing over real facts and
substituting unproven theories instead. As my hard headed father is
fond of saying about his days as a physics professor, "those kids
want to say, 'I repeal the law of gravity,' step off the roof and
kill themselves". In essence, facts are unalterable and to deny
them will not change them
> But after that process, the *being a researcher part* truly begins.
> When the records run out, you work with hypotheses, and
> probabilities. And you label them as such. Use every possible
> detail to figure out those probabilities. You include the info that
> is most likely, and then keep looking at everything. Keep analyzing.
True!
I discovered long ago that research and analysis is never really
finished. Only that the number of possible data points hit the
immutable law of diminishing returns. At the same time, I am
positively amazed at the amount of inferential material that is
buried deep within the data we have. In many cases I have been able
to pin the DOB of a spouse down to a single year using the date of
marriage and sibling order. I have found many other examples
besides that one. It is a matter of carefully inspecting and
drawing reasonable conclusions. But then, sometimes we must be
willing to take logical leaps of faith before there is proof
positive!
> Others may have found something that makes your possibility less
> likely, or just plain wrong. Or there may be a well-reasoned
> article in a journal that drops your 'probability of being right'
> from 85% to 30%, and sends you hunting in what might be a more
> fruitful direction.
Or proves your hypothesis beyond a shadow of a doubt for one of
those EUREKA moments! (I have had a few of them.)
// cut //
>
> If you don't end up with possibles, perhaps a probable, and a
> number of question marks, then you've stopped too soon <grins>.
>
> Linda S
> leoandlinda <leoan...@provide.net>
How true!
Regards, Arnold
<><><><><><><><><><><>
Arrowhead Images
<aepa...@a-znet.com>
<><><><><><><><><><><>
Today is a non trivial event
singhals
AEP wrote:
[snip]
> drawing reasonable conclusions. But then, sometimes we must be
> willing to take logical leaps of faith before there is proof
> positive
Perhaps someone would point me to a definitive document that
pinpoints the difference between your "willingness to accept an
unproven fact" and my "logical leap of faith" ?
Because down where the rubber hits the gravel, dang if I see a real
difference -- other than the obvious.
Cheryl
singhals <sing...@erols.com>
leoandlinda
Hi, Cheryl
I think you may have misread what AEP was saying. He was agreeing
with you. He was saying that when we get beyond proofs, we work
with every clue we can find, and draw our best reasonable
conclusions, which are a kind of 'logical leap of faith', the stress
on the 'logical' bit.
We keep looking and analyzing, and not assuming 'facts', but that
when the facts just plain run out, our most-likely possibility is
the 'logical leap of faith' necessary. At least until some other
bit of information is found.
It was not a matter of 'his reasonable conclusion' and 'your leap of
faith'. We were all on the same page here.
Linda S
leoandlinda <leoan...@provide.net>
AEP
Splitting hairs again, I see. I am, however, inclined to agree your
statement.
In one of my brick walls, I have found some half a dozen sources
that over whelmingly suggest a brother-sister relationship, and yet
I cannot definitively prove the connection. But because this
evidence is all but definitive, I have accepted this relationship as
my working hypothesis. In effect, I am taking a leap of faith that
the connection is true. At the same time, I am still looking for
that elusive piece to the puzzle.
My working definition of a leap of faith: such acceptance of the
unproven is as Sherlock Holmes (Sir Conan Doyle) said, "If all else
fails, then what remains must be true, no matter how improbable it
might be." If one has exhausted all other sources that suggest, but
do not prove a connection (or any other fact), one can reasonably
accept the unproven as the de facto truth. You will note that I
said ALL other sources! (In such cases, the more sources one has,
the better.) That said, the likelihood of that elusive piece of
evidence existing is always there. As genealogists we can and should
accept unproven facts (events, places, dates, etc.) with the caveat
that there is still some doubt and to announce that the doubt is
real.
Regards, Arnold
--
<><><><><<><><><><><><>
Arrowhead Images
<aepa...@a-znet.com
<><><><><<><><><><><><>
I had a destiny once.
All it did was ge me into trouble!
singhals
leoandlinda wrote:
> It was not a matter of 'his reasonable conclusion' and 'your leap of
> faith'. We were all on the same page here.
Yes, now we're quibbling over which line of paragraph 4. (g)
singhals <sing...@erols.com>
singhals
AEP wrote:
> > AEP wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > > drawing reasonable conclusions. But then, sometimes we must be
> > > willing to take logical leaps of faith before there is proof
> > > positive
> >
> > Perhaps someone would point me to a definitive document that
> > pinpoints the difference between your "willingness to accept an
> > unproven fact" and my "logical leap of faith" ?
> >
> > Because down where the rubber hits the gravel, dang if I see a real
> > difference -- other than the obvious.
> >
> > Cheryl Singhals <sing...@erols.com>
>
> Splitting hairs again, I see. I am, however, inclined to agree your
> statement.
No, not really splitting hairs, but thanks for seeing the
point. (g)
Cheryl
singhals <sing...@erols.com>