🚀 go-pugleaf

> I am afraid that a "more professional" genealoger would want more proof than
> the circumstancial information I have.  Is this true?  If I do need more
> substantiation, it would likely be difficult.  If this is the same person,
> he may have gone to great lengths to hide his tracks from his first wife
> (whom he likely never divorced) and to hide his past from his second wife
> (to whom he likely lied through his teeth).  Can anyone give me some advice? 

That's part of the whole game.  Without making a few guesses such as this,
many leads turn into dead ends.  (Of course, you may also head down the
wrong path a few (thousand) times, too.)  The important thing is to document
such assumptions, and why they were made.  You may later find other
information which proves or disproves your theories.  If you make a clear
distinction between what you KNOW to be true, what you THINK you know, and
what MIGHT be true, and keep records of how, where, and when you derived
this info, you'll probably be very glad you did some day.  Other people who
you share your info with will also be a lot happier.  Obviously, it's very
difficult to be 100% sure of many things, so it's all the more important to
keep records of how you derived the information.

			Doug Hosking
			Convex Computer Corp.
			Richardson, TX
			{allegra, ihnp4, uiucdcs}!convex!hosking