Discussion:
ancestral gateways: Sutton/Hatherley/Roberts/Hilton/Lumley to King Edward IV
Add Reply
j***@gmail.com
2018-10-13 22:43:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
George Sutton immigrated to Plymouth Colony, and then went south to New Jersey and eventually North Carolina. His parentage has been a subject of dispute and shaky supposition. Below is what the ancestors say about his ancestry.

According to the ancestors, George Sutton's great-great-grandson Zebulon Sutton descends, through each of his parents, from both the Hilton and Lumley families, back to King Edward IV. One of these descents goes through Rebecca Hilton, wife of Thomas Roberts, an immigrant governor of New Hampshire. Of course this lineage would apply to her brothers William and Edward, also very early New Hampshire immigrants.

Instructions for how to communicate respectfully with deceased ancestors are here: https://www.wikitree.com/g2g/535187/communicating-with-ancestors

Here is a partial ahnentafel showing the Sutton and Hilton/Lumley lineages of Zebulon Sutton:


1st Generation

1. Zebulon Sutton (b. 1707 New Jersey) His 5-generation chart, with (according to the ancestors) the wrong paternal grandparents, the CORRECT paternal great-grandparents, but the wrong paternal great-great-grandparents, is here: https://www.wikitree.com/genealogy/Sutton-Family-Tree-2753
Per his grandson Zebulon Doty: “Zebulon Sutton had a way of always getting what he wanted.” In Zebulon Sutton’s own words: “Zebulon Sutton wanted to make a good family. Zebulon wanted his community to be in a way that was proper.”
“Zebulon wanted to know how to use the gift. Zebulon understood that both of his parents understood. Zebulon had to experiment. Zebulon found, if he was careful, he could use the gift without seeing bad things.”

Zebulon Sutton’s grandson Zebulon Doty: “Zebulon Doty knew of the gift. Zebulon had the gift. Zebulon was discouraged from using it. Zebulon failed. Zebulon didn’t use the gift. Zebulon didn’t have a successful life. Zebulon had to wonder if he didn’t actually fail, if his life actually meant something that was unknown.”

2nd Generation

2. Daniel Sutton (d. 1764)
“Daniel Sutton wanted to be an important man. Daniel knew that he had important ancestors. Daniel didn’t think that this was a help. Daniel was in a new community. Daniel had to prove himself. Daniel was able to do well enough. Daniel never became an important man.”

3. Patience Martin (m. 1704 Piscataway, New Jersey)
“Patience understood that her husband didn’t want to use his gift. Patience understood, because of this, that her husband gave up the opportunity to become a leader. Patience didn’t want her husband to become a leader. Patience discouraged her husband from using his gift. Patience also tried to not use her gift.”


3rd Generation

4. Daniel (NOT William) Sutton (1639-1710), settled in New Jersey.
“Daniel Sutton had a gift. Daniel Sutton didn’t use it.”

5. Mary Hatherly (b. c. 1638)
“Mary was not a long-lived person. Mary had children and died.”

6. John Martin (1650-1704) of Piscataway, New Jersey.
“John Martin knew, because of what had come down, that John Martin had a gift. John Martin understood, because of what had come down, that John Martin was different. John Martin understood, because of the way that he used his gift, he would be safe.”

7. Dorothy (d. 1698), daughter of Richard Smith of Long Island.
“Dorothy had a gift. Dorothy understood that her husband would never be the way she wanted. Dorothy also understood that her gift was not to be used for herself. Dorothy didn’t use the gift correctly. Dorothy tried to get things. And this brought things that Dorothy didn’t want.”


4th Generation

8. George Sutton (d. 1669), immigrant to Scituate in Plymouth Colony, as a servant to his eventual wife’s father Nathaniel Tilden #18.
“George Sutton had the gift. George Sutton used it. George Sutton saw something. George Sutton did what was seen. George Sutton didn’t question. George Sutton acted like a disrespectful man. George Sutton understood that the penalty would be banishment.”

9. Sarah Tilden (1612-1676).
“Sarah was the wife of a man who stole a Bible. The Bible was the book in the meeting house. Sarah knew that her husband did this because of what he saw. Sarah had no idea why that was the case. Sarah understood, if her husband didn’t see the vision, he wouldn’t do what he saw. Sarah knew that his gift was something that should be obeyed.”

10. Timothy Hatherly (1588-1666), merchant adventurer and one of the Assistants to the Governor of Plymouth Colony.
“Timothy Hatherly was able to live a godly life. Timothy understood, because of his role among the merchants, that New Plymouth would not suffer under the worst that was proposed. Timothy was able to make the other merchant adventurers think of the well-being of the colonists.”

11. 2nd wife Susan
“Susan was a godly woman. Susan was from an important family.”

12. John Martin (1618/19-1687), one of the four grantees of Piscataway, New Jersey.
“John Martin knew that his wife was above him. John Martin did not have any problem.”

13. Esther Roberts (c. 1626-1687).
“Esther understood how a woman of a higher station could act to undermine her husband. Esther learned.”
--

5th Generation

16. Nicholas Sutton. (See note for his father.)
“Nicholas Sutton was taught by his father. Nicholas was very careful. Nicholas never used the sight for himself. Nicholas used it for others. Nicholas was not successful. Nicholas had many friends.”

17. Katherine, daughter of Lionel Skipwith.
“Katherine understand that her descendant who is recording her words wants people to be aware of the ability to communicate with ancestors.”

18. Nathaniel Tilden (1583-1641), from a landed family with a long lineage in Kent.
“Nathaniel Tilden wanted to be the progenitor of a large family. Nathaniel was able to establish himself.”

19. Lydia Hucksteppe (1587-1672), also from a landed family in Kent; as a widow she married Timothy Hatherly #10.
“Lydia understood that her second husband was below her first. Lydia had no opinion about that.”

20. Robert Hatherly, died when son Timothy was very young.
“Robert Hatherly was the son of a merchant. Robert was a very successful merchant. Robert married and died.”

21. Elinor Lumley, remarried a Mortimer; 1637 will in Fremington, Devon.
“Elinor was able to marry a successful man. Then Elinor married a man of her position.”
--
26. Thomas Roberts (c. 1600-1674), Governor of New Hampshire.
“Thomas Roberts understood that his wife was above him. Thomas Roberts was not the man in charge.”

27. Rebecca Hilton, sister of William Hilton, who was the founder of the earliest settlement in New Hampshire.


6th Generation

32. Hamon Sutton (husband of Margaret Sheffield).
“Hamon Sutton was unable to be a man. Hamon was crippled. Hamon should have died. Hamon was the son of a man who had second sight. Hamon was to be killed. Hamon understood. Hamon had no value.

“Hamon was preserved. Hamon understood. Hamon his father sacrificed. Hamon had no father.

“Hamon did not have a good life. Hamon was crippled. Hamon had little. Hamon had the ability to foresee. Hamon used this ability very carefully. Hamon knew, because of this, that he was never suspected. Hamon was able to live well enough.”

The father of Hamon Sutton (husband of Margaret Shefield) was Hamon Sutton, husband of Margaret Tyndale:
“Hamon Sutton had the sight. Hamon Sutton wasn’t allowed to continue. Hamon was able to continue without being allowed to live. Hamon wasn’t able to teach his son. Hamon knew that, without being taught, a man with the sight gets blinded.”

The Lancashire pedigree (incorrectly, per the ancestors) shows that Nicholas Sutton, father of George and husband of Katherine Skipwith, was son of Hamon Sutton, who was a son of Hamon Sutton, who was son of yet another Hamon Sutton who married Margaret Sheffield. See https://books.google.com/books?id=IPcMAAAAIAAJ&lpg=PA939&ots=KcUEKR4GSj&dq=Sutton%20Wellingore%2C%20Lincs&pg=PA938#v=onepage&q&f=false – scroll down to page 940. According to the ancestors, this is wrong; they say it was deliberately altered. They say that Nicholas was son of a different Hamon Sutton, first cousin of Nicholas’s misrepresented father Hamon; this Hamon was the son of Nicholas, younger son of Hamon Sutton who married Margaret Sheffield. These two brothers were the younger brothers of Robert Sutton who, according to the Lincolnshire pedigree, was the ancestor of Ambrose/Robert Sutton, the often-mistaken father of George Sutton the immigrant to Plymouth Colony.

A wikitree five-generation ancestry chart for this Robert Sutton (brother of Hamon and Nicholas) is here: https://www.wikitree.com/genealogy/Sutton-Family-Tree-3575 This chart shows both the Sutton ancestry (linking to the ancient Vavasour family), and the Sheffield ancestry. According to the ancestors, the relationships are accurate, with one clear error: Isabella Senlis (St. Elizabeth) was the MOTHER, not the wife, of Robert Sheffield. This Senlis line goes back to Simon I de Senlis, son-in-law of Waltheof, who was progenitor of the Scottish kings starting with Malcolm III (who was not son of King Duncan). Senlis descends in the male line from Charlemagne; see https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/soc.genealogy.medieval/7Cmry5NwSPk
The mother of Hamon Sutton, husband of Margaret Sheffield (not shown in the Lincolnshire pedigree or the wikitree chart) was Margaret, daughter of William Tyndale, whose ancestry goes back to the Felbrigg family, whose progenitor Simon le Bigod was a natural son of Hugh le Bigod, 5th Earl of Norfolk and Magna Carta surety baron. An ancestry chart for William Tyndale is here: https://www.wikitree.com/genealogy/Tyndale-Family-Tree-3 Bigod descends in the male line from Hrolf, the progenitor of the Dukes of Normandy; see https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/soc.genealogy.medieval/Sks1VmsBfT0
--
42. John, 6th Baron Lumley (d. 1609), a noted collector of books and art. His Wikipedia page is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lumley,_1st_Baron_Lumley

"Lumley was able to learn the truth about his ancestry by talking to his ancestors. Lumley did not receive from his imagined father the truth. Lumley has to explain. Lumley was the son of a man who was descended from Lumley. Lumley never knew his father. Lumley was told that he was born just after the death of his father. Lumley knew, when he was young, that he did not have a father. Lumley heard from his mother that his father was innocent. Lumley never doubted her word.

"Lumley was aware that his father was accused and convicted of treason. Lumley was aware that his family had royal blood. Lumley was aware that his family had royal blood from a king more recent than that of most of the peers. Lumley understood that there was an attempt to exterminate Lumley. Lumley, for this reason, pretended, after learning the identity of his father, that he knew nothing.

"Lumley was the son of a man whose mother had a sister who was able to protect her. This sister was married to a nobleman. Lumley understood that his mother, at the home of her sister, was able to plan with her kin. The plan meant that she would bear a son. This meant that she might have daughters. This did not happen. She bore a single son. The father was a man whose mother was Lumley."

43. Jane FitzAlan (d. 1577/8), known as a Greek scholar. She had three children who predeceased her; some researchers have assumed that she ONLY had three children. Her ancestry chart is here: https://www.wikitree.com/genealogy/FitzAlan-Family-Tree-654

--
54. Henry Hilton (aft. 1583-c. 1641), de jure 12th Baron Hylton.
“Henry Hilton made a decision. Henry knew that he was unable to preserve what had been given him. Henry understood that his family was a target. Henry understood, because of his past, that there was awareness that his family had the second sight. Henry understood, if he was to preserve his lineage, that he would have to sacrifice. Henry understood, if he was to sacrifice, he would have to undermine the well-being of his children. This is what Henry did.”

55. Mary, daughter of Sir Robert Wrotley, by his wife Mary, who was not a Swift, but she was a daughter of Robert Swyft of Rotherham. (Robert Swyft is on wikitree at https://www.wikitree.com/genealogy/Swift-Family-Tree-469 , but not connected to Hilton.) Sir Robert Wrotley's ancestor Elizabeth (Dacre) Harrington was daughter not of Thomas Harrington (as currently shown on wikitree) but of his first cousin Hugh, son of Hugh, the second son of Hugh, 4th Baron Dacre.

Hugh's ancestor Catherine, wife of William, Baron Dacre, was not the daughter but the step-daughter of Ralph Neville, who was the second husband of Catherine’s mother Alice Audley. Catherine’s actual father and Alice’s first husband was Ralph Greystoke, whose mother was a Neville.


7th Generation

84. William Hilton (bef. 1512-abt. 1562), de jure Baron Hylton. He was the father of #42 John, 6th Baron Lumley, and of #216 Thomas Hilton.

“William Hilton was the father of the next Baron Lumley. William was the brother of a man who was murdered. William understood that his brother was murdered because he let slip that he had the second sight. William never gave any hint of his ability. William saw that his son Lumley would preserve the sight. William saw that his son Hilton would abandon the barony, and preserve the sight.”

85. Jane Knightley (widow of George Lumley). Per Jane: Her marriage to her second husband protected her pregnancy; he never had a son.

Jane Knightley’s mother was a daughter of John Spencer, ancestor of Princess Diana (Spencer). The Knightleys descend from Burgh of Ireland; see http://nolanfamilies.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/1228-1316-de-Burghs-take-over-Connaught.pdf . Jane Knightley’s ancestry is here: https://www.wikitree.com/genealogy/Knightley-Family-Tree-154

86. Henry FitzAlan (1512-1580), 19th Earl of Arundel. His father’s mother was the younger sister of Queen Elizabeth Woodville (who was his wife’s great-grandmother). According to the ancestors, Earl Henry’s mother was NOT his father’s second wife Anne Percy (as currently shown on wikitree), but rather his father’s first wife Elizabeth Willoughby, whose ancestry chart is at https://www.wikitree.com/genealogy/Willoughby-Family-Tree-230
Henry FitzAlan was the godson of King Henry VIII at his baptism in 1512, which was delayed for two years until his father remarried, because a correct court baptism ceremony required a mother. (And perhaps here is a cautionary tale for those who would use the date of a baptism to decide which wife was the mother of a child.) He served for four years as Lord Chamberlain (the senior official of the royal household) during the reign of Edward VI, following in the footsteps of his father, who served for four years as Lord Chamberlain during the reign of King Henry VIII. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_Chamberlain

87. Catherine Grey was the aunt of Lady Jane Gray, who was proclaimed Queen of England before eventually being beheaded; see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lady_Jane_Grey .
Catherine Grey was granddaughter of infant heiress Cecily Bonville (who became the richest heiress in England after her father, grandfather and great-grandfather were beheaded in 1460-1; Cecily was a descendant of King Edward III). Catherine Grey’s ancestry chart is at https://www.wikitree.com/genealogy/Grey-Family-Tree-387
--
108. Thomas Hilton (c. 1560-1590), son of #216 and grandson of #84; his father outlived him.
109. Anne, daughter of George Bowes of Streatlam Castle, a northern military commander who stayed loyal to Queen Elizabeth during the 1569 Rebellion of the Northern Earls; see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Bowes_(soldier). George Bowes was a brother-in-law of the Scottish theologian John Knox, a leader of the Protestant Reformation in Scotland, who earlier served in England as the chaplain for King Edward VI. Knox’s Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Knox


Eighth Generation

168. William Hilton (c. 1488-aft. 1526). His son’s ancestry chart is here: https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Hilton-193
“William Hilton was unable to preserve his inheritance. William lost his father his land.”

169. Sybil Lumley. Her son’s ancestry chart is here: https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Hilton-193
“Sybil was the daughter of an important man. Sybil understood, after her marriage, that Sybil would have to accept a much lesser position.”
--
216. William Hilton (bef. 1540-1600), de jure Baron Hylton; father of #108 Thomas Hilton; half brother of #42 John, 6th Baron Lumley; and son of #84 William Hilton (and grandson of #168 William Hilton). Yes, the father of someone listed in the eighth generation is found in the seventh generation.

217. Anne, daughter of John York, Master of the Mint under King Edward VI – see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_York_(Master_of_the_Mint)


Ninth Generation

338. Thomas Lumley.
“Thomas Lumley preserved his inheritance during a time of trial.”

339. Elizabeth, natural daughter of King Edward IV. This lineage is mentioned in this earlier thread, almost at the end (post of Sept. 19) https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/soc.genealogy.medieval/9bku-Pq9VEg%5B151-175%5D
j***@gmail.com
2018-10-14 15:28:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by j***@gmail.com
George Sutton immigrated to Plymouth Colony, and then went south to New Jersey and eventually North Carolina. His parentage has been a subject of dispute and shaky supposition. Below is what the ancestors say about his ancestry.
According to the ancestors,
To anyone finding this thread in the future, please note that all of the above is nonsense and the source is imaginary discussions with dead people
--JC
j***@gmail.com
2018-10-19 14:20:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by j***@gmail.com
To anyone finding this thread in the future, please note that all of the above is nonsense and the source is imaginary discussions with dead people
--JC
Once again, Joe Cochoit (and a few others) loudly deny the supposition that communicating with deceased ancestors is a natural human ability. Why the adamant refusal to discuss this rationally and politely?

To anyone finding this thread in the future, here is an explanation with guidelines on how to communicate respectfully with ancestors. Please keep in mind that the way to properly do this is to start with recent ancestors and work your way back, one generation at a time -- don't skip back to that "brick wall" and start asking nosy questions.

--
Humans have a natural ability to communicate with deceased ancestors. In some countries this ability is taken for granted, but in “modern” western society, this ability has been largely lost or suppressed.

Here is my ancestor Anschetil d’Harcourt’s explanation of how he learned to communicate with ancestors: “When my grandfather died, I was young. I was sad because I wanted to be close to him. I asked how I could talk to him. My father said: Think of your grandfather. Word will appear. That is your grandfather.”

Here is a brief quote from my ancestor Bishop Tobey Mathew (taken from his remarks at the end of this page):
“Bishop understood, because of his role in the Church, that Bishop had to accept the accepted teaching on this. This was simple: The ability existed, so God must have had a reason.”

I posted the following explanation of the proper way to communicate with ancestors (written as the ancestors guided me) at wikitree, on Jan. 9, 2018: https://www.wikitree.com/g2g/535187/communicating-with-ancestors

Over a year ago, I was told that it is possible to communicate with deceased ancestors, but I was cautioned to always have a respectful attitude when talking to them. I decided to try it and see what happened, and it worked…
On the “Day of the Dead” (the day after Halloween), I thought of the names of all of my grandparents and their parents and grandparents, and they started talking to me. Remorse came up immediately for some of them. I learned that women often had ongoing connections with living daughters and granddaughters, but most of the men had been isolated since their deaths. I was told – several times – that after death there is a kind of separation of what we call the soul into two parts. Each ancestor has a part that remains accessible to descendants, and a part that goes elsewhere. Memories are incomplete.
Ancestors want to see the well-being of their descendants. Ancestors also want to be able to talk to their own parents and children. Ancestors hope that living descendants will work their way back from their parents or grandparents to more distant ancestors, one generation at a time. This allows children and parents among the ancestors to talk to each other, when a living descendant is open to ancestral communication.

Ancestors want to avoid hearing from descendants who just want to ask questions about the family tree. Ancestors may not communicate with descendants with only this in mind. For this reason, it is once again a good idea to work your back from one generation to the next. Ancestors believe that descendants who are respectful will be pleased to talk about their own lives. Ancestors want their descendants to live will, and ancestors are concerned when descendants are struggling. Ancestors have the ability to observe the lives of living descendants, but they often do not do so. Ancestors may be inclined to be more observant after a descendant contacts an ancestor, especially if that ancestor had not had any communication with descendants before.

Some ancestors, especially those who were devoutly religious, may avoid communicating with descendants who don’t share their moral values.
Husbands and wives who didn’t get along with each other may be able to begin to communicate about issues that they never talked about before death.
One final point – I have heard some disturbing stories from ancestors, and proper respect demands that the ancestor be asked for permission before sharing such stories.

[And then a follow-up post on Jan. 10, 2018]:
On Nov. 1, 2016, I made a point of respectfully focusing on the names of each grandparent, great-grandparent and great-great-grandparent. Then I started listening, focusing on each great-great-grandparent, starting at the top of my 5-generation chart and working haphazardly down the list. When I got to my mother's side of the family, I talked to my Stickler great-grandparents, and then had to end because I was getting overwhelmed; I followed up the following day.

Here are my notes (abridged to remove bits that ancestors would prefer not to share):
"Gottlieb [Schmeeckle] regretted that he had been unable to provide a comfortable widowhood for Barbara, but he had failed to prosper after coming to Nebraska in his elder years. Jacob Zimmerman said that he had been unable to prevent his daughter from marrying outside the Amish church, and then had been unable to shun her after she did so, and so the congregation ended up shunning their minister. Prince Tobey talked about being unable to work on the trip through California (because he was so old), but he had skillfully directed the others, who benefited from his direction. And then back in Nebraska, he was well-received by his children as he lived out his years, once again because of his practical wisdom. I had mistakenly called “Sarah Hunt,” and Prince’s wife Esther talked after him, saying that because of her hips, she was unable to work properly, and mentioned losing six of her children. Her mother Sarah later spoke up, wondering why I had called her. I first said that she was the only ancestor who had been born in Vermont where I grew up, and then explained the mistake, that I had meant to name her daughter Esther. Sarah said that Esther, although unable to work well, had been good at building a loving home environment for her family. She said that there had never quite been enough in the town she lived in, but the community supported each other and together managed to make ends meet. James Gilliland Stickler [I heard him pronounce “Jilliland,” not “Guilliland,” as I had always imagined the pronunciation] said that he had been unable to give good educations to all his children, so he focused his resources on his son Ralph, with the idea that Ralph would pay for the educations of his brothers’ children; and so he did. James said that Ralph’s wife had never been satisfied, and made it impossible for James to enjoy a relationship with his son as an adult. James’s wife Mercy Ann Singley said that she had been a simple woman, and was surprised that anyone had remembered her. And that was when it first occurred to me that I could have extended conversations with these people.

I "heard" all of these conversations in plain English as I am used to speaking. It occurred to me that my great-great-grandfather Gottlieb Schmeeckle spoke little if any English when alive. When I recently talked to distant German ancestors, I also "heard" their thoughts in plain English. However, at times there was confusion about the proper choice of a word, and I indicated that in my first "Ancestral Memories" free space page by putting the word in question in parentheses. [See https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Space:Ancestral_Memories:_The_Schm%C3%BCckle_Family_in_Einod ] In each of these cases, the ancestor and I agreed on the particular word to use, and then the ancestor moved on with his/her story. I don't have any explanation for how I hear their words; it's part of the mystery of what is going on.
--


(Aug. 26, 2018) "Bishop Tobey Mathews is speaking, if that is the correct word. Bishop Tobey Mathews will simply refer to himself as Bishop. Bishop understood, before he died, that he would be able to communicate with descendants. Bishop understood that descendants would have the choice. Bishop also understood that he had the choice to communicate with ancestors. Bishop knew, from an early age, that he could communicate with his mother. This was because his mother died when he was three years old. Bishop understood, because of this experience, that there was a clear reason for this. Children who lost the parents had the ability to continue in their time of need.

"Bishop never thought beyond this. Bishop simply understood that this was common. Bishop understood, because of his role in the Church, that Bishop had to accept the accepted teaching on this. This was simple: The ability existed, so God must have had a reason. Bishop understood, because of this way of thinking, that people would think of rational explanations. This is what happened. Bishop understood, after talking to one man, that some people had the experience of counseling ancestors. This was a shock. Ancestors were to be respected. This was universally accepted. Giving counsel went counter to a general attitude of respect, or at least Bishop thought so. Bishop later thought that giving aid to one in need is always a gesture of respect. But Bishop was never comfortable with the thought of counseling an ancestor.
Bishop will clarify. Counseling an ancestor means giving advice related to a problem in a family relationship. If a living descendant has a grandfather who could not compel the obedience of his wife, for example, the living descendant had to accommodate the discord when trying to communicate with his grandparents. This could lead to a situation where the living descendant gave advice to the grandparents, allowing them to coexist while not denying either one communication with the grandchild.

"Bishop understood, after learning about the ability to communicate with ancestors, that he could ask ancestors about family legends. Bishop discovered that his family was not from where the coat of arms said. (There were two Mathew coats of arms, and Bishop’s family began using the coat from the wrong branch.) This surprised Bishop. Bishop understood that the Mathew family was Welsh. And this was certainly what Bishop found. Bishop understood that his family was from a landowning class. Bishop understood that in Wales, the social structure was different. Bishop found that some of his ancestors weren’t Welsh. And this surprised Bishop."
taf
2018-10-19 15:03:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by j***@gmail.com
To anyone finding this thread in the future, please note that all of the above is nonsense and the source is imaginary discussions with dead people
--JC
Once again, Joe Cochoit (and a few others) loudly deny the supposition
that communicating with deceased ancestors is a natural human ability.
Yes. That bullshit you insist on peddling.
Post by j***@gmail.com
Why the adamant refusal to discuss this rationally and politely?
Because it has absolutely no place in genealogy. You could (and do) make up absolutely anything, attributing it to voices that only you hear, and there is no way whatsoever to confirm or refute it. 'Trust me, I hear dead people' is not the foundation for any kind of scholarship.
Post by j***@gmail.com
To anyone finding this thread in the future, here is an explanation
with guidelines on how to communicate respectfully with ancestors.
Please keep in mind that the way to properly do this is to start
with recent ancestors and work your way back, one generation at a
time -- don't skip back to that "brick wall" and start asking nosy
questions.
To anyone finding any of these threads in the future, here is better advice. Voices you think you are hearing in your head are not a miraculous shortcut to doing the actual work of genealogy, researching documentary sources. That is the only way to do genealogy properly.
Post by j***@gmail.com
Humans have a natural ability to communicate with deceased ancestors.
No, they don't, but they have an incredible tendency toward egoistical self-delusion, as you are demonstrating here.

taf
P J Evans
2018-10-19 15:08:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by j***@gmail.com
To anyone finding this thread in the future, please note that all of the above is nonsense and the source is imaginary discussions with dead people
--JC
Once again, Joe Cochoit (and a few others) loudly deny the supposition that communicating with deceased ancestors is a natural human ability. Why the adamant refusal to discuss this rationally and politely?
To anyone finding this thread in the future, here is an explanation with guidelines on how to communicate respectfully with ancestors. Please keep in mind that the way to properly do this is to start with recent ancestors and work your way back, one generation at a time -- don't skip back to that "brick wall" and start asking nosy questions.
--
Humans have a natural ability to communicate with deceased ancestors. In some countries this ability is taken for granted, but in “modern” western society, this ability has been largely lost or suppressed.
Here is my ancestor Anschetil d’Harcourt’s explanation of how he learned to communicate with ancestors: “When my grandfather died, I was young. I was sad because I wanted to be close to him. I asked how I could talk to him. My father said: Think of your grandfather. Word will appear. That is your grandfather.”
“Bishop understood, because of his role in the Church, that Bishop had to accept the accepted teaching on this. This was simple: The ability existed, so God must have had a reason.”
I posted the following explanation of the proper way to communicate with ancestors (written as the ancestors guided me) at wikitree, on Jan. 9, 2018: https://www.wikitree.com/g2g/535187/communicating-with-ancestors
Over a year ago, I was told that it is possible to communicate with deceased ancestors, but I was cautioned to always have a respectful attitude when talking to them. I decided to try it and see what happened, and it worked…
On the “Day of the Dead” (the day after Halloween), I thought of the names of all of my grandparents and their parents and grandparents, and they started talking to me. Remorse came up immediately for some of them. I learned that women often had ongoing connections with living daughters and granddaughters, but most of the men had been isolated since their deaths. I was told – several times – that after death there is a kind of separation of what we call the soul into two parts. Each ancestor has a part that remains accessible to descendants, and a part that goes elsewhere. Memories are incomplete.
Ancestors want to see the well-being of their descendants. Ancestors also want to be able to talk to their own parents and children. Ancestors hope that living descendants will work their way back from their parents or grandparents to more distant ancestors, one generation at a time. This allows children and parents among the ancestors to talk to each other, when a living descendant is open to ancestral communication.
Ancestors want to avoid hearing from descendants who just want to ask questions about the family tree. Ancestors may not communicate with descendants with only this in mind. For this reason, it is once again a good idea to work your back from one generation to the next. Ancestors believe that descendants who are respectful will be pleased to talk about their own lives. Ancestors want their descendants to live will, and ancestors are concerned when descendants are struggling. Ancestors have the ability to observe the lives of living descendants, but they often do not do so. Ancestors may be inclined to be more observant after a descendant contacts an ancestor, especially if that ancestor had not had any communication with descendants before.
Some ancestors, especially those who were devoutly religious, may avoid communicating with descendants who don’t share their moral values.
Husbands and wives who didn’t get along with each other may be able to begin to communicate about issues that they never talked about before death.
One final point – I have heard some disturbing stories from ancestors, and proper respect demands that the ancestor be asked for permission before sharing such stories.
On Nov. 1, 2016, I made a point of respectfully focusing on the names of each grandparent, great-grandparent and great-great-grandparent. Then I started listening, focusing on each great-great-grandparent, starting at the top of my 5-generation chart and working haphazardly down the list. When I got to my mother's side of the family, I talked to my Stickler great-grandparents, and then had to end because I was getting overwhelmed; I followed up the following day.
"Gottlieb [Schmeeckle] regretted that he had been unable to provide a comfortable widowhood for Barbara, but he had failed to prosper after coming to Nebraska in his elder years. Jacob Zimmerman said that he had been unable to prevent his daughter from marrying outside the Amish church, and then had been unable to shun her after she did so, and so the congregation ended up shunning their minister. Prince Tobey talked about being unable to work on the trip through California (because he was so old), but he had skillfully directed the others, who benefited from his direction. And then back in Nebraska, he was well-received by his children as he lived out his years, once again because of his practical wisdom. I had mistakenly called “Sarah Hunt,” and Prince’s wife Esther talked after him, saying that because of her hips, she was unable to work properly, and mentioned losing six of her children. Her mother Sarah later spoke up, wondering why I had called her. I first said that she was the only ancestor who had been born in Vermont where I grew up, and then explained the mistake, that I had meant to name her daughter Esther. Sarah said that Esther, although unable to work well, had been good at building a loving home environment for her family. She said that there had never quite been enough in the town she lived in, but the community supported each other and together managed to make ends meet. James Gilliland Stickler [I heard him pronounce “Jilliland,” not “Guilliland,” as I had always imagined the pronunciation] said that he had been unable to give good educations to all his children, so he focused his resources on his son Ralph, with the idea that Ralph would pay for the educations of his brothers’ children; and so he did. James said that Ralph’s wife had never been satisfied, and made it impossible for James to enjoy a relationship with his son as an adult. James’s wife Mercy Ann Singley said that she had been a simple woman, and was surprised that anyone had remembered her. And that was when it first occurred to me that I could have extended conversations with these people.
I "heard" all of these conversations in plain English as I am used to speaking. It occurred to me that my great-great-grandfather Gottlieb Schmeeckle spoke little if any English when alive. When I recently talked to distant German ancestors, I also "heard" their thoughts in plain English. However, at times there was confusion about the proper choice of a word, and I indicated that in my first "Ancestral Memories" free space page by putting the word in question in parentheses. [See https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Space:Ancestral_Memories:_The_Schm%C3%BCckle_Family_in_Einod ] In each of these cases, the ancestor and I agreed on the particular word to use, and then the ancestor moved on with his/her story. I don't have any explanation for how I hear their words; it's part of the mystery of what is going on.
--
(Aug. 26, 2018) "Bishop Tobey Mathews is speaking, if that is the correct word. Bishop Tobey Mathews will simply refer to himself as Bishop. Bishop understood, before he died, that he would be able to communicate with descendants. Bishop understood that descendants would have the choice. Bishop also understood that he had the choice to communicate with ancestors. Bishop knew, from an early age, that he could communicate with his mother. This was because his mother died when he was three years old. Bishop understood, because of this experience, that there was a clear reason for this. Children who lost the parents had the ability to continue in their time of need.
"Bishop never thought beyond this. Bishop simply understood that this was common. Bishop understood, because of his role in the Church, that Bishop had to accept the accepted teaching on this. This was simple: The ability existed, so God must have had a reason. Bishop understood, because of this way of thinking, that people would think of rational explanations. This is what happened. Bishop understood, after talking to one man, that some people had the experience of counseling ancestors. This was a shock. Ancestors were to be respected. This was universally accepted. Giving counsel went counter to a general attitude of respect, or at least Bishop thought so. Bishop later thought that giving aid to one in need is always a gesture of respect. But Bishop was never comfortable with the thought of counseling an ancestor.
Bishop will clarify. Counseling an ancestor means giving advice related to a problem in a family relationship. If a living descendant has a grandfather who could not compel the obedience of his wife, for example, the living descendant had to accommodate the discord when trying to communicate with his grandparents. This could lead to a situation where the living descendant gave advice to the grandparents, allowing them to coexist while not denying either one communication with the grandchild.
"Bishop understood, after learning about the ability to communicate with ancestors, that he could ask ancestors about family legends. Bishop discovered that his family was not from where the coat of arms said. (There were two Mathew coats of arms, and Bishop’s family began using the coat from the wrong branch.) This surprised Bishop. Bishop understood that the Mathew family was Welsh. And this was certainly what Bishop found. Bishop understood that his family was from a landowning class. Bishop understood that in Wales, the social structure was different. Bishop found that some of his ancestors weren’t Welsh. And this surprised Bishop."
More imaginary conversations?
This ain't genealogy - it's delusion.
j***@gmail.com
2018-10-19 21:52:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by j***@gmail.com
To anyone finding this thread in the future, please note that all of the above is nonsense and the source is imaginary discussions with dead people
--JC
Once again, Joe Cochoit (and a few others) loudly deny the supposition that communicating with deceased ancestors is a natural human ability. Why the adamant refusal to discuss this rationally and politely?
For I hope, the very very last time: I am not Joe Cochoit.
--Joe Cook
Peter Stewart
2018-10-19 23:32:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by j***@gmail.com
To anyone finding this thread in the future, please note that all of the above is nonsense and the source is imaginary discussions with dead people
--JC
Once again, Joe Cochoit (and a few others) loudly deny the supposition that communicating with deceased ancestors is a natural human ability. Why the adamant refusal to discuss this rationally and politely?
For the same reason we would not rationally and politely discuss the matter if someone claimed to communicate with descendants - the reality that the unborn, like the dead, have no discernible existence is a given from human experience over many thousands of years.

Whether or not eternity exists, where all past and future time are present, is unanswerable by science and (to the truthful) by religious faith also; but at all events whether anyone whose only possible existence is there can communicate directly with the present is answerable, and for all sensible people already answered in the negative.

Peter Stewart
s***@mindspring.com
2018-10-21 16:56:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by j***@gmail.com
Once again, Joe Cochoit (and a few others) loudly deny the supposition that communicating with deceased ancestors is a natural human ability. Why the adamant refusal to discuss this rationally and politely?
Serious genealogists want to see evidence. Ordinary claims only require ordinary evidence, while extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You are making extraordinary claims without offering any evidence other than your own word (and try to guess how much that is worth).

As for your above question ("Why the adamant refusal to discuss this rationally and politely?"), this is a fairly standard rhetorical trick whereby you ask a loaded question in such a way to suggest that those criticizing you are guilty of the charge mentioned in the question. There has been impoliteness on both sides (as tends to happen when an unwelcome Internet Troll such as yourself invades the group by posting phony off-topic material), but the charge of refusing to discuss the matter rationally lies squarely in your court.

Stewart Baldwin
j***@gmail.com
2018-11-01 18:22:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Today is the "Day of the Dead," exactly two years since I started communicating with deceased ancestors.
Post by s***@mindspring.com
Serious genealogists want to see evidence. Ordinary claims only require ordinary evidence, while extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You are making extraordinary claims without offering any evidence other than your own word (and try to guess how much that is worth).
First of all, regarding my credentials as a "serious genealogist," I'm the one who started a discussion around here back in March, challenging the lineage (as it appears in Douglas Richardson's books) of gateway ancestor James Cudworth of Plymouth Colony. That old thread is here: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/soc.genealogy.medieval/5oEUwaUUZBI

I eventually developed a proof by circumstantial evidence of a different lineage for James Cudworth (losing the descent from King Edward I, but adding more Magna Carta ancestors), based on the bits and pieces appearing on the above thread, but discussed in detail over at wikitree: https://www.wikitree.com/g2g/567199/is-james-cudworth-a-false-gateway-ancestor (near the top, a series of posts starting on July 7).

There has been some resistance around here to engaging with my proof, with a never-retracted "certification" that the old disproven lineage is correct. This issue raises questions of sloppy genealogy and the possibility of willfully misleading credulous members of the Cudworth family.

With this ongoing Cudworth embarrassment, the credibility of this forum comes into question, although, to his credit, a single member (taf) spoke out against Douglas Richardson's "humbuggery" -- repeating a word that I coined -- so your insulting reference to me as an "internet troll" suggests a lack of good faith on your part. I hope that you will agree that published inaccuracies (such as Richardson's Cudworth lineage) should be forthrightly noted, and I hope you will agree that my bringing the Cudworth issue to the attention of this forum was worthwhile.
Post by s***@mindspring.com
As for your above question ("Why the adamant refusal to discuss this rationally and politely?"), [snip] the charge of refusing to discuss the matter rationally lies squarely in your court.
Stewart Baldwin
Stewart Baldwin, I don't think you can point to a single instance where I have refused to discuss this phenomenon of communicating with ancestors rationally. You are welcome to provide some evidence to back up your insinuation.

The obvious way to double-check what I put forth is to for people (especially fellow descendants of some of my ancestors) to try for themselves and talk about their results. Have you tried to communicate with your own deceased ancestors? More important, have you done so following the instructions? (See my earlier post of Oct. 19 on this thread.)

Beyond that, I have found that there are definite pitfalls regarding the information that I have received. Unfortunately, the scornful invective that a few members of this group have piled onto me has created an environment that is not conducive to bringing up such issues, in addition to scaring away politely skeptical discussion and inquiry.

A final thought regarding the evidence: I have recorded a growing number of lengthy stories, receiving dictation from perceived ancestors and simply typing the words and sentences as they appear in my mind. It wouldn't be difficult for somebody to observe me doing this and verify that I'm not doing some sort of "creative writing" stunt.

Furthermore, as I have pointed out before, it's not hard to double-check and contrast my own writing style (somewhat academic, with a tendency toward convoluted syntax) with that of various ancestors, although the question of "translation" of ancestors' words into modern English as I receive the communication into my mind is a wrinkle that is worth discussing.

Regarding my own writing, you can find several examples here: http://independent.academia.edu/JohnSchmeeckle

Regarding an evaluation of the text of my transcriptions of ancestors' stories (are there differences in style?), anyone can examine the following:

Paganus de Pridias, a Cornish leader in the time of William the Conqueror, at https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Space:Ancestral_Memories:_The_Pridias_family_%28early_generations%29

Martin Schmuckle, a 17th-century Swiss soldier who got stranded in Germany and never made it home: https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Space:Ancestral_Memories:_The_Schm%C3%BCckle_Family_in_Einod

Jane (Delano) Tobey, who had trouble accepting her daughter-in-law: https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Space:Ancestral_Memories:_Prince_Tobey_and_Jane_Delano

Henry Stickler of Sticklerville, whose carefully-saved-up son's inheritance was wiped out with a bank failure: https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Space:Ancestral_Memories:_Henry_Stickler_and_Jane_Hibbets

William Joseph Coons, who put his money where his mouth was and joined General Sherman's Army during the Civil War: https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Space:Ancestral_Memories:_William_Coons_and_Julia_Wallace
j***@gmail.com
2018-11-01 19:35:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by j***@gmail.com
Today is the "Day of the Dead," exactly two years since I started communicating with deceased ancestors.
Post by s***@mindspring.com
Serious genealogists want to see evidence. Ordinary claims only require ordinary evidence, while extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You are making extraordinary claims without offering any evidence other than your own word (and try to guess how much that is worth).
First of all, regarding my credentials as a "serious genealogist," I'm the one who started a discussion around here back in March, challenging the lineage (as it appears in Douglas Richardson's books) of gateway ancestor James Cudworth of Plymouth Colony. That old thread is here: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/soc.genealogy.medieval/5oEUwaUUZBI
I eventually developed a proof by circumstantial evidence of a different lineage for James Cudworth (losing the descent from King Edward I, but adding more Magna Carta ancestors), based on the bits and pieces appearing on the above thread, but discussed in detail over at wikitree: https://www.wikitree.com/g2g/567199/is-james-cudworth-a-false-gateway-ancestor (near the top, a series of posts starting on July 7).
There has been some resistance around here to engaging with my proof, with a never-retracted "certification" that the old disproven lineage is correct. This issue raises questions of sloppy genealogy and the possibility of willfully misleading credulous members of the Cudworth family.
With this ongoing Cudworth embarrassment, the credibility of this forum comes into question, although, to his credit, a single member (taf) spoke out against Douglas Richardson's "humbuggery" -- repeating a word that I coined -- so your
Do you have any evidence for the claim you coined this word in English, and that you are therefore over 200 years old, since the word has been in common English usage since at least 1839?
--JCook
j***@albion.edu
2018-11-01 21:42:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
I’m just an average genealogist, and casual commenter on this site. I have no personal stakes in any of these discussions, or the claims they make. That being said, my apologies to those members who believe I am “feeding the troll.”
I will readily admit there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in my philosophy, Horatio. However, this list and group seems to me to be intended as a rigorously scientific study of prosopography and genealogy in the medieval era. By “scientific,” let me be more specific that the nebulous claim of “rational” that you have made. My personal Christian faith may be logical (at least to me), but I can admit that there are no scientific proofs of its tenets. Your “rational” proposals may be worded logically, but that does not mean your ideas are scientifically falsifiable. John, no matter how adamantly you claim your TRUTH, you are not stating scientific FACT. Perhaps you have some video “evidence” of your sessions. Perhaps you have some independent linguistic analysis proving that your “transcribed” communications are objectively from literarily different minds. However, given the fact that none of us have heard of these methods and mental abilities even coming close to being the worldwide revelation they should be, in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, tells us more than enough. Occam’s Razor, John: all things being equal, the simplest answer is that you are deluded. And that is not what this group is about.
—the average joe’s 2 cents
j***@gmail.com
2018-11-04 23:06:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Your “rational” proposals may be worded logically, but that does not mean your ideas are scientifically falsifiable. John, no matter how adamantly you claim your TRUTH, you are not stating scientific FACT. [snip] Occam’s Razor, John: all things being equal, the simplest answer is that you are deluded.
Joe, it seems that you might have been overly influenced by the pseudo-scientific cult of empiricism, where if a phenomenon isn't measurable and repeatable, it isn't worth talking about. And perhaps you are not the one to define what this group should and should not discuss. If the material that I bring to this group encourages others to recognize pitfalls in common assumptions about the interpretation of "paper-trail" evidence (that Harcourt I.P.M. comes to mind), then I think it has a lot of merit. Unfortunately, what passes for medieval genealogy often includes groundless assumptions about the literal truth of words on old parchment (often recorded long after the fact), such as (for example) the parentage of Malcolm III, King of Scots.

You try to make an airy distinction between "my" truth and what you consider to be "scientific fact." Perhaps you could clearly state what you consider to be "my" truth? And perhaps you could provide a quote from what I actually said, instead of risking further misrepresentation of where I'm coming from.

I have received communications, and I have typed the words that appeared in my mind. Occam's razor, indeed: The simplest explanation is that the beings or entities who generated the words (including give-and-take conversations as well as extended stories) are exactly who they say they are. If you want to propose the hypothesis that I am deluded, perhaps you could say how and by whom I have been deluded? How can the extended texts that I have shared be rationally explained as "delusion"? It seems to me that any pretension to being "scientific" requires an answer to that question.

Perhaps you could state whether or not you have tried to communicate respectfully with your own deceased ancestors? If not, why not? Perhaps it is worth remembering the bishop who refused to look into Galileo's telescope, because "of course" there was a demon inside that would confuse anyone who looked through it.

In other words, it seems that your biggest objection to what I have been sharing, is that the thought of communication with ancestors goes against your pre-conceptions, which you are unwilling to examine or question or re-evaluate. Perhaps others will agree that such an attitude is anathema to scientific inquiry, which centrally includes the art of forming and testing hypotheses.

p.s. I have referred more than once to the language issue. If you like, you can respond to what I have already said on that.

p.p.s. Regarding the word "humbuggery," when I first used the word (on an earlier thread around here), I was unaware that it already existed. I stand corrected; I did not coin the word.
P J Evans
2018-11-04 23:46:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by j***@gmail.com
Your “rational” proposals may be worded logically, but that does not mean your ideas are scientifically falsifiable. John, no matter how adamantly you claim your TRUTH, you are not stating scientific FACT. [snip] Occam’s Razor, John: all things being equal, the simplest answer is that you are deluded.
Joe, it seems that you might have been overly influenced by the pseudo-scientific cult of empiricism, where if a phenomenon isn't measurable and repeatable, it isn't worth talking about. And perhaps you are not the one to define what this group should and should not discuss. If the material that I bring to this group encourages others to recognize pitfalls in common assumptions about the interpretation of "paper-trail" evidence (that Harcourt I.P.M. comes to mind), then I think it has a lot of merit. Unfortunately, what passes for medieval genealogy often includes groundless assumptions about the literal truth of words on old parchment (often recorded long after the fact), such as (for example) the parentage of Malcolm III, King of Scots.
You try to make an airy distinction between "my" truth and what you consider to be "scientific fact." Perhaps you could clearly state what you consider to be "my" truth? And perhaps you could provide a quote from what I actually said, instead of risking further misrepresentation of where I'm coming from.
I have received communications, and I have typed the words that appeared in my mind. Occam's razor, indeed: The simplest explanation is that the beings or entities who generated the words (including give-and-take conversations as well as extended stories) are exactly who they say they are. If you want to propose the hypothesis that I am deluded, perhaps you could say how and by whom I have been deluded? How can the extended texts that I have shared be rationally explained as "delusion"? It seems to me that any pretension to being "scientific" requires an answer to that question.
Perhaps you could state whether or not you have tried to communicate respectfully with your own deceased ancestors? If not, why not? Perhaps it is worth remembering the bishop who refused to look into Galileo's telescope, because "of course" there was a demon inside that would confuse anyone who looked through it.
In other words, it seems that your biggest objection to what I have been sharing, is that the thought of communication with ancestors goes against your pre-conceptions, which you are unwilling to examine or question or re-evaluate. Perhaps others will agree that such an attitude is anathema to scientific inquiry, which centrally includes the art of forming and testing hypotheses.
p.s. I have referred more than once to the language issue. If you like, you can respond to what I have already said on that.
p.p.s. Regarding the word "humbuggery," when I first used the word (on an earlier thread around here), I was unaware that it already existed. I stand corrected; I did not coin the word.
More fiction...and insulting to people who are far better at genealogy than you are.
j***@gmail.com
2018-11-05 01:25:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by j***@gmail.com
Joe, it seems that you might have been overly influenced by the pseudo-scientific cult of empiricism,
My continued objection is simply that you are posting this information *in the wrong place*. You are posting to the wrong group. This information is not on topic for this group.

Whether you believe your writings or not is irrelevant. You just keep putting them in the wrong place. There are some facebook groups that are more appropriate.

--JC
taf
2018-11-05 01:32:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by j***@gmail.com
Joe, it seems that you might have been overly influenced by the pseudo-
scientific cult of empiricism, where if a phenomenon isn't measurable
and repeatable, it isn't worth talking about. And perhaps you are not
the one to define what this group should and should not discuss.
Actually, there is a FAQ for that. Nowhere in that document will you find mention of the discussion of hallucinations and stuff you just made up.
Post by j***@gmail.com
If the material that I bring to this group encourages others to recognize
pitfalls in common assumptions about the interpretation of "paper-trail"
evidence (that Harcourt I.P.M. comes to mind), then I think it has a lot
of merit.
If you have a criticism of a document, criticize the document, and give a legitimate reason. Don't hold a seance. You just don't seem to get the problem. If you say 'this document says X', and anyone else can look at the document and either confirm or refute the content. However, with your head-games, anyone can literally say anything and claim their ancestor told it to them. Because it is completely impossible to independently verify the voices people claim to hear in their heads, it is of absolutely zero value whatsoever. You say your ancestor said X, I say your ancestor said Y, someone else says your ancestor said Z - there is no avenue to truth there, only noise.
Post by j***@gmail.com
You try to make an airy distinction between "my" truth and what you
consider to be "scientific fact." Perhaps you could clearly state what
you consider to be "my" truth?
Whatever you decide to make up on any given day.
Post by j***@gmail.com
I have received communications,
No, you haven't
Post by j***@gmail.com
and I have typed the words that appeared in my mind.
No, you haven't. You yourself have 'corrected' what you typed, but who is to say the correction is anymore correct (that is a trick question - there can be no possible basis for evaluating what is correct in a world of fiction).
Post by j***@gmail.com
Occam's razor, indeed: The simplest explanation is that the beings or
entities who generated the words (including give-and-take conversations
as well as extended stories) are exactly who they say they are.
No, the simplest explanation is that you are a bold-faced liar. The next simplest explanation is that you are mentally ill. Perhaps next would be that you have imbibed a psychoactive hallucinogenic substance. Then would probably come the possibility that your subconscious is projecting onto the long dead what are, in fact, your own beliefs. Next maybe a brain tumor that is affecting your auditory and logic centers (though one could argue this is a repeat of mentally ill, just with a known cause). You have to go pretty far down the differential diagnosis before the simplest remaining is 'the voices in my head are from the remnant souls of people who have been dead for half a millennium but have nothing better to do than correct my genealogy'.
Post by j***@gmail.com
If you want to propose the hypothesis that I am deluded, perhaps you
could say how and by whom I have been deluded?
I believe he meant delusional. Specifically, self-delusional. There need not be another party involved.
Post by j***@gmail.com
How can the extended texts that I have shared be rationally explained
as "delusion"?
You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of how delusions and hallucinations work.
Post by j***@gmail.com
Perhaps it is worth remembering the bishop who refused to look into
Galileo's telescope, because "of course" there was a demon inside
that would confuse anyone who looked through it.
Ah yes, the G-man. It is only a matter of time before the Galileo fallacy is introduced. It runs: 'Galileo contradicted what was the accepted dogma of science and he was persecuted for it. Time (and science) eventually proved Galileo was right. I am contradicting what is accepted scientific dogma. Therefor time and science will eventually prove me right.' The problem with this is that while the iconoclast who is right in the end makes for the better story, the overwhelming majority of people who contradict the established dogma are just flat out wrong. You don't find most of them in history books because they were never more than dime-a-dozen cranks with an idee fixe, and they are never ever going to turn out to be right.
Post by j***@gmail.com
In other words, it seems that your biggest objection to what I have
been sharing, is that the thought of communication with ancestors goes
against your pre-conceptions, which you are unwilling to examine or
question or re-evaluate.
My biggest problem is that what you are peddling here is complete bullshit.

taf
j***@albion.edu
2018-11-05 01:37:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
(1) Not Joe Cochoit, not Joe Cook. Jim. “average joe” was a rhetorical flourish. I hope the name “Joe” is not giving you paranoid worries.
(2) Not empiricism. Just objectivism — data that is observable to all, not just one.
(3) Not a mod or definer of this group. Just observing how nearly everyone else has reacted in similar fashion to your posts.
(4) Questioning pre-conceived notions is wonderful — and scientific. Doing so from subjective experience is hearsay. Literally.
(5) A quote of “your” truth, repeated ad nauseam: “The ancestors say...” Subjective claim, and frustrating.
(6) “Simplest explanation,” not “most simplistic explanation.”
(7) The delusion may originate from yourself. Not stating a certainty, but... see point (6).
(8) Yes I have — I call it prayer. Sometimes I like to believe “answers” happen. But personal transcendental impressions are not universal facts.
(9) By all means, scientific inquiry into spiritual communication. Please let us know when an accredited journal has tested and confirmed your hypothesis.

That’s really all I have to say. If you have more to respond, I’m bowing out.
—average *jim*
j***@gmail.com
2018-11-05 04:57:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sunday, November 4, 2018 at 5:38:01 PM UTC-8, ***@albion.edu wrote:
[snip]
Post by j***@albion.edu
(2) Not empiricism. Just objectivism — data that is observable to all, not just one.
Which brings up once again the question -- which you evaded with your point #8, -- of whether you have tried to communicate with deceased ancestors, and the result of such an attempt. Are you inclined to resist such an experiment? If not, are you inclined to avoid talking about it in public? If so, well, why could that be?
Post by j***@albion.edu
[snip] (5) A quote of “your” truth, repeated ad nauseam: “The ancestors say...” Subjective claim, and frustrating.
That is actually a disclaimer -- this material isn't the product of my creative imagination; I am transmitting what others originate. Once again, the simplest explanation is that these communications do indeed come from my ancestors. I DO expect you to either try for yourself and discuss the result, or explain why you refuse to do so, instead of being arbitrarily dismissive.
Post by j***@albion.edu
(6) “Simplest explanation,” not “most simplistic explanation.”
(7) The delusion may originate from yourself. Not stating a certainty, but... see point (6).
I see that you evaded the basic question here, so I'll repeat it: How can the extended texts that I have shared be rationally explained as "delusion"? It seems to me that any pretension to being "scientific" requires an answer to that question.

Once again, the existence of the texts is "objective evidence" available to all. I'll repeat the list I gave before:

Paganus de Pridias, a Cornish leader in the time of William the Conqueror, at https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Space:Ancestral_Memories:_The_Pridias_family_%28early_generations%29

Martin Schmuckle, a 17th-century Swiss soldier who got stranded in Germany and never made it home: https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Space:Ancestral_Memories:_The_Schm%C3%BCckle_Family_in_Einod

Jane (Delano) Tobey, who had trouble accepting her daughter-in-law: https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Space:Ancestral_Memories:_Prince_Tobey_and_Jane_Delano

Henry Stickler of Sticklerville, whose carefully-saved-up son's inheritance was wiped out with a bank failure: https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Space:Ancestral_Memories:_Henry_Stickler_and_Jane_Hibbets

William Joseph Coons, who put his money where his mouth was and joined General Sherman's Army during the Civil War: https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Space:Ancestral_Memories:_William_Coons_and_Julia_Wallace

And that's just the tip of the iceberg. Any attempt to blithely explain away this material as delusion or fabrication quickly runs into problems, at least from the point of view of honest inquiry.
taf
2018-11-05 17:33:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by j***@gmail.com
I see that you evaded the basic question here, so I'll repeat it: How
can the extended texts that I have shared be rationally explained as
"delusion"? It seems to me that any pretension to being "scientific"
requires an answer to that question.
This question (and the follow-up 'requirement') is based on an apparent misconception that a delusion cannot be elaborate and hence implies some bar to a delusion being a delusion as long as it is elaborate enough. Exactly how detailed does a fiction need to be, in your eyes, before it crosses this imaginary threshold that grants it credibility?
Post by j***@gmail.com
Once again, the existence of the texts is "objective evidence" available
to all.
They are objective evidence of nothing more than that you wrote the words while making outrageous claims about the source. They are not objective evidence of history, nor of necromancy.

[long list of nonsense presented to prove that there has been a lot of it composed]
Post by j***@gmail.com
And that's just the tip of the iceberg. Any attempt to blithely explain
away this material as delusion or fabrication quickly runs into problems,
at least from the point of view of honest inquiry.
No problems here. A liar is not entitled to the benefit of the doubt simply by being prolific and detailed enough.

taf
Peter Stewart
2018-11-05 21:29:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by taf
Post by j***@gmail.com
I see that you evaded the basic question here, so I'll repeat it: How
can the extended texts that I have shared be rationally explained as
"delusion"? It seems to me that any pretension to being "scientific"
requires an answer to that question.
This question (and the follow-up 'requirement') is based on an apparent misconception that a delusion cannot be elaborate and hence implies some bar to a delusion being a delusion as long as it is elaborate enough. Exactly how detailed does a fiction need to be, in your eyes, before it crosses this imaginary threshold that grants it credibility?
Post by j***@gmail.com
Once again, the existence of the texts is "objective evidence" available
to all.
They are objective evidence of nothing more than that you wrote the words while making outrageous claims about the source. They are not objective evidence of history, nor of necromancy.
The circuitous logic of Gracie Allen would have blithely disposed of this latest self-serving argument - even allowing the truthfulness of the person's preposterous claims, airing them here rather than at a spiritualist meeting is proof of extremely poor judgement on his part. This is like offering prayers in the Oval Office, a nonsense of misplaced ingenuousness. Even if truly recounted, the assertions of the alleged voices are bound to be worthless to the targeted readers: someone with such demonstrably poor judgement as to post these to SGM cannot be objectively trusted to have distinguished between reality and delusion in the first place.

Peter Stewart

Loading...