They seem to have no knowledge whatsoever of any branch of my family however; it was one of the things I checked. I think it is one of those things where if you find someone there, that is one source correlating your information. If you do not, that doesn't mean your info is wrong.
Dana
>Regarding the LDS thing, I've been told by mormon frie
nds that they keep
>records because they baptize everyone into their church and the records are
>part of that. This person actually participated in the baptismal process as
>a surrogate for the long deceased people.
>
>One friend who does quite a bit of geneology said that she was warned of not
>using the mormon research for the same reason, but she found that it is
>possible to request that they not baptize you into their faith.
>
>I'm not an expert on either geneology or LDS, so take that all at face
>value.
>
>-Kevin
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "John Stanley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 4:31 PM
>Subject: RE: Generational Math
>
>
>> Yeah, I've also seen where people have been cautiously warning others
>about
>> some LDS (mormon) research. I did not ask why, and assumed it was because
>> maybe some people were inflating their heritage or making tenouous
>> connections at best.
>>
>> Me, I dont care who I am descended from, just want to know the interesting
>> stories, and try to get a feeling for their lives. There are just as many
>> neat ones about people living on the cusp of poverty, as wealthy ones. We
>> all have them. Interesting marriages, domestic situations, military
>> histories, etc.
>>
>> That's what this is all about for me. If I found out tomorrow that some of
>> what I thought was my lineage turned out false, I would removed the
>> erroneous part and keep on searching, adding as I go on.
>>
>> John.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: dana tierney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 4:14 PM
>> To: CF-Community
>> Subject: Re:Generational Math
>>
>>
>> Just curious. I found a very big error in my family's research on my
>Quebec
>> side when I checked it on the internet. I also found a lot of stuff on the
>> internet that needs checking in records, to put it mildly. I think a lot
>of
>> people want to be related to nobility, so I dunno, for example, about the
>> man who is supposed to have been knighted at Anne Boleyn's coronation. Or,
>> one woman was supposed to have been born in Kittery Maine in 1603, which
>is
>> as far as I know well before the arrival of any Europeans in Maine. And
>her
>> name was Elizabeth something, which does not sound Indian. I tried to
>> contact the person listed as the researcher of the tree and the email
>> bounced.
>>
>> I know what you mean about the people with common ancestors; that was how
>I
>> figured out the problem with the Quebec side. Two different people, who
>> would be distant cousins, looked it up in the accepted authority for me.
>The
>> version I had said we were descended from the son of a priest, which they
>> found rather shocking. I later discovered that there was in fact an Omer
>> Manseau who was pastor of that church, but he lived about a hundred years
>> later than he did in the version I was given. I have no idea how that
>> mistake was made.
>>
>> Dana
>>
>> >Well, from about 1700 and back I am skeptical anyway no matter what the
>> >source. But the ancestor of mine that this started with is from several
>> >pretty well documented sources.
>> >
>> >One is a book my family published in 1926 that lists her, and some
>specific
>> >information about her. Then this information was duplicated on the web,
>but
>> >from different sources (by that I mean, from people searching different
>> >families than mine, that she is a common ancestor to).
>> >
>> >I usually check what I have against reputable sources (census,
>newspapers,
>> >church records) but this line was pretty well researched (lots of
>corollary
>> >information, footnotes, etc.), so I trust it at least as far back as
>around
>> >1500. Then the dates and names are getting a little hinky.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >-----Original Message-----
>> >From: dana tierney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 2:23 PM
>> >To: CF-Community
>> >Subject: Re:Generational Math
>> >
>> >
>> >You got back into the 1300's? Did you or someone in your family do the
>> >research? Just curious as I found some alleged connections to my family
>on
>> >the internet of which I am skeptical.
>> >
>> >Dana
>> >
>> >>Okay doing family history research which by the way can be seen at
>> >>http://www.netconceptions.com <http://www.netconceptions.com> , and
>> >stating
>> >>to see something odd. I know that the number of ancestors a person has
>for
>> >a
>> >>particular generation doubles from the previous generation's number. So
>at
>> >>the 4th generation back from me I have 8, and the 5th I have 16 and so
>on.
>> >>Which leads to this. You can tell the number of ancestors you have for a
>> >>generation by taking 2 to the (generation number minus one) power.
>> >>
>> >>This is all fine and dandy, but after a certain point it becomes more
>and
>> >>more improbable that say after 49 generations which is about 1500 years
>I
>> >>would have 562,949,953,421,312 ancestors in that generation.
>> >>
>> >>So what gives. Is the math suspect? Is there an inbreeding curve? Even
>if
>> >>you account for like 50% cross-ancestral breeding, that still leaves a
>> huge
>> >>number of people anyone is descended from going back that far. This must
>> >>take into account the number of people on earth for the whole
>generational
>> >>period in question.
>> >>
>> >>Anyone?
>> >>
>> >>John
>> >>
>> > _____
>> >
>> >
>> _____
>>
>>
>>
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
