Hello Jean,Yes the McPherson book was the reason I went looking for "Hugh Kinselo." I followed McPherson's documentation and it lead me to the only records ever used to argue for the existence of a "Hugh Kinselo." In going back to these records I discovered much to my surprise and disappointment that the names in the record were actually changed to look like a variation of Kincheloe, when in fact the name was not at all connected to the family.I wrote my piece on "Hugh Kinselo" to correct McPherson.Check out and see what I mean.
There is some valuable material in _Kincheloe, McPherson and Related Families_, to be sure. It is the book that got me started in Kincheloe family research.But readers beware.There are some very big mistakes in many places in that book. Mistakes related to the Canterbury and Williams family, related to the location of the earliest Kincheloe land in America, related to family origins, and related to Hugh.I encourage all researchers to verify their sources by going to original documents.That's where the truth lies! McPherson should just be a guide, and not your proof.