Re: Paul Heinegg's Bunch Family Research
-
In reply to:
Re: Paul Heinegg's Bunch Family Research
Linda Harris 8/25/12
Hi Linda,
I appreciate the additional information from Paul Hoeingg and share your frustration with unsubstantiated genealogy that is copied and propagated, but respectfully disagree with your assessment of the Ancestry.com Bunch research.
They wrote a separate paper entirely dedicated to the documentation that led them to propose that John Punch was the father of John Bunch.As such, they are presenting a "preponderance of the evidence" argument.That is a long accepted practice in genealogy and while it is not conclusive, it is most certainly acceptable.The reader is free to agree or disagree with the conclusion the genealogist proposes and the genealogist shouldn't be blamed if someone presents their theory as fact later.
Both the Ancestry.com paper as well as the New York Times article state that the researchers have not conclusively proven that John Punch was the father of John Bunch.I agree with Paul that there are other possibilities, but there is nothing wrong with proposing their idea for consideration.That is in fact, very scientific.
Regards,
Randy
More Replies:
-
Re: Paul Heinegg's Bunch Family Research
Jane Doe 9/20/12
-
Re: Paul Heinegg's Bunch Family Research
Henry Jacobs 9/24/12
-
Re: Paul Heinegg's Bunch Family Research
Randy Walker 3/05/14
-
Re: Paul Heinegg's Bunch Family Research