I didn't mean for you to feel that I was offended with your post, I simply would like to see sources and reasons added along with statements. You did give Beanblossom as a source, but it would have been nice if you had listed Beanblossom's sources or reasons for his statements for the benefit of others who do not have access to his book so that they may check theses out for themselves. A LOT of mistakes were made in the past by researchers that made assumptions as statements of fact without giving their reasons, this has been compiled eversince and the Bean family history is a hogpog of errors. The old timers did not give their sources and their mistakes have been carried on and given as gospel. In order to clean up this mess we all need to check out those statements and then give our sources proving or disproving them or give our reasons why we beleive them to be true or false. This is the only way we will be able to unconfuse this family. I have not seen any other family I've been researching so mix up as this Bean line is. Here's and example of what I mean: I was told in and email that William Bean b. 1754 had fathered a child 33 years after he died and that the mother, Ann Scott, was 88 years old at the time. This is obviously a gross error and easy to see, but it was given as fact just as some not so easy to see errors are given as fact. Without sources there is no fact. I believe in genealogy not mythology.