Evidence Analysis Issues

In a case study or analysis how should I support a norm that a father would frequently witness a son’s first deed, where relationship is not stated. Solomon Hull witnessed Daniel Hull’s earliest deed. Daniel went on to witness several deeds for Solomon and other Hull’s living in the same townships.  The same names appear consistently together in Washington County, PA, then in Knox County, OH. I am sure in my mind he is Solomon’s son. He lives next door to Solomon in PA, then buys property adjacent to Solomon in Knox County, OH.

About 1778 Henry Snow died, and the court records of Bedford County, Virginia, have few things to say about his estate. One part has me scratching my head. I have uploaded the page from the will book that I’m questioning.

I’ve added up the cash paid into the estate (found across bottoms of pages 274 and 275) and it was totaled correctly on the document.

I’ve added up the cash paid out of the estate for expenses (found at the top of page 275) and it was totaled correctly on the document.

I have located two marriage records for William Randle (Randall in the record) and Emily Frances Gibson, both in Talladega County, Alabama:

https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:33SQ-GBLC-9MJF

https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:33SQ-GBLC-99DX

The question I have is which would be best to cite, or should I cite both of them although they are in same county and provide the same information save for spelling variations? They are even located in the same image group within FamilySearch.

I'm looking to understand the two local boards identified in a World War II draft registration card. This man was in San Quentin on that date. So why the Hartford County stamp?

He was previously in Connecticut State Prison from 1940–1942. He committed another crime in California 4 years later which landed him in San Quention prison. Ancestry has this card filed under Connecticut.

Did people use to calculate age at death differently than we do today?  Specifically, did they not count the day the person died?

I have seen a number of records like the attached in which that seems to be the case.  Or was it just miscalculated?

The attached record states Walter was born Mar. 30, 1875 and died  Aug. 28, 1941 at the age of 66 years, 4 months, and 28 days.

If one considers the birth and death dates to be correct then the age should be ... 29 days.  (By my calculation and that of my genealogy software.)

Hello EE,

I have been studying and thinking through this document, found within a civil war pension file. I am trying to understand the date stamps and think through how this letter flowed through the pension system. I want to use this as evidence that Judia Holt died before 4 November 1897. Her name is mistakenly Julia here, but Judia in other documents in the file and from other sources.

I've got an Oklahoma Marriage record from 1909. Easy to read and fill out. The image appears to be from a bound volume (no big deal there). https://www.ancestry.com/discoveryui-content/view/963529326:61379

The issue is that the filmers did not include the cover or a title page. There is a film header giving the dates included, but it's from Ancestry and not the volume dates. 

The question is do I try and find the corresponding film at FamilySearch, where the cover is hopefully filmed, or just deal with what I'm looking at. Pick a side and I'll argue the other one :)

I am writing a proof argument (for my own files and blog at this point) that relies in part on a diagram of a complex 5-generation network of marriages between the descendants of 3 "founders" across 5 states.  I am struggling with documenting this thoroughly and efficiently without overwhelming the resulting diagram and the text of the argument. The diagram shows 19 marriages in 5 generations.

Just needed some levity today. The statement in the text says that "John was a gambler and deeply in debt to the local crime syndicate. To pay for his gambling losses, John sold his company." 

The citation for this, based on EE 3.45 is

Hi EE,

This question probably would have worked best in a writing forum, but what is the most straightforward and clear way to discuss a person in a proof when sources spell the person's name (given or surname) differently, as they often do? 

I find that some authors:

use quotation marks within the sentence when referring to the differently spelled name to the source, others add [sic] after the varied spelling, and others use neither of these, perhaps supposing the reader will pick up on this by simply reading the citation.