The first two Pearsons to arrive in Massachusetts in the 1600's were both named John. Amazing they settled within 20 miles of each other. The first John arrive in 1639 in the own of Reading. The second John (my relative) was first documented in Ipswich, then Rowley in the year 1643. Both those facts are undisputed. There also appears to be no, if any, co-mingling between families.
The problem lies in perpetuating errors. Recently a series of posts listed my John coming from Bradford, West Riding, Yorkshire, England. That is possible. According to a LDS record in Utah a baptismal record exists that list John Pearson baptized in 1609(?) to the parents of Nicholas Pearson and Elizabeth Briggs. No other information can be located about this person beyond that record.
Since it was previously assumed that he was from Yorkshire, someone tied him to my family. Again, while this may be true, John Pearson is a common name. The baptismal record could be my ancestor, the other John who came in 1639, or just an unrelated person with the same name.
It frustrates me to see people using assumptions as facts. An even more lazy trait is just adding to your tree. Someone, awhile back listed this above lead but spelled John's father incorrectly. Instead of typing Nicholas they typed it Micholas. An understandable typo but that tidbit appears in a significant number of family trees now.
So sad. The fact is there was a person named John Pearson baptized at St. Peter's church in Bradford at that time to a Nicholas Pearson and Elizabeth Briggs. Who he is has not been established.