NOTICE: Our Back (Bach) family in southeastern Kentucky has endured a sick barrage of attacks, for many, many years, from people who falsely claim that we descend from Harman Back.
But our family does not descend from Harman Back.
It all started, in 1994, when a little club called, "The Back-Bach Genealogical Society," published a bizarre book, which falsely claimed that our family descends from Harman Back. However, their book had absolutely no evidence whatsoever, to prove their fraudulent genealogy, because it wasn't true. Although that little club disbanded, around 2014, there are still a few people around today, who continue to promote that fraudulent genealogy, even though there is absolutely no proof that it's true; they are still known as, "the Back-Bach people."
Around 2009, a bizarre "Bach to Back DNA Project" was launched, by a woman using that same fraudulent genealogy, claiming that our family descends from Harman Back. She claims that she has DNA test results, which prove that our family descends from Harman Back. But that isn't true, because she staged her "DNA Project," to make it look that way. In fact, the actual DNA test results, and the actual in-depth analysis done by the website's host (FamilyTreeDNA.com), prove that our family definitely does not descend from Harman Back.
This website provides extensive information about this fraudulent genealogy, and the staged "DNA Project," which has now become the greatest genealogical fraud that this country has ever seen. Surprisingly, the DAR (The Daughters of the American Revolution) is even involved with it.
This website also offers, for sale, a well-documented book, full of evidence and proof, which presents the accurate genealogy of our Back (Bach) family from southeastern Kentucky. The accurate genealogy is now becoming difficult to find online, because the woman behind the staged "DNA Project" is actually removing the accurate genealogy of our family from major genealogy websites, and replacing it with the fraudulent one. Her behavior is truly disgraceful.
Do you have ancestors with the last name of Back,
or Bach, who came from southeastern Kentucky?
Then you have probably heard about
"The Back-Bach Genealogical Society."
That absurd, little club operated
from about 1988-2014.
Its members were known as,
"the Back-Bach people."
The name of their club came from
the fact that some members of the family
spell their last name as "Back,"
while others spell it as "Bach."
However, not one member of that club
was a genealogist, or knew anything
about proper genealogical research.
All they did was tear apart their own family,
with a fraudulent genealogy
of their own family. And they did so,
for their own sick and selfish reasons.
In 1994, they published a fraudulent
genealogy book about their own family,
even though they knew it was fraudulent.
The book was titled, A Back Family History:
The Story of a Major Branch of the
Back/Bach Family.
Their book falsely claimed that the Back (Bach)
family from southeastern Kentucky
descends from Harman Back (born 1708), who
had immigrated from Freudenberg, Germany,
and settled in Little Fork, Virginia.
But they had absolutely no proof of that,
because it wasn't true.
They also falsely claimed that Harman Back
had a son named Henry Back (1740-1809),
and that, after Henry died, his elderly widow,
Elizabeth Hoffman Back (born July 13, 1746),
suddenly moved, 400 miles, from Virginia,
all the way down to southeastern Kentucky,
and founded their family there.
But they had absolutely no proof of that either,
because it also wasn't true.
They further falsely claimed that
John Back (1774-1854) and his brother
Henry Back (1785-1871) were the
sons of Henry Back (1740-1809) and
Elizabeth Hoffman Back (born July 13, 1746).
But they had absolutely no proof of that either,
because it also wasn't true.
Those three false claims were the basis
of their fraudulent genealogy.
They published their fraudulent book,
simply because they thought that
they would "get rich" by selling it.
That's because Harman Back was one of
the immigrants being researched
by The Germanna Foundation,
which made a tremendous amount
of money by selling genealogy.
They also submitted information to DAR
(Daughters of the America Revolution)
that Harman was a "Patriot," simply because
he donated some booze to the soldiers;
and that Henry was a "Patriot," simply because
his name was on a list of potential soldiers.
But neither man ever fought in the war.
They pretended they were so important, by
claiming they descended from those two men,
even though neither of those men
ever fought in the Revolutionary War.
However, their real problem was
the fact that everyone in their family
already knew the actual genealogy of their family,
because it had been well-documented,
and proven, with extensive historical records,
including the old Bach Family Bible.
The actual genealogy of their family
had been passed down, within their family,
for hundreds of years,
and it most certainly did not include
Harman Back, Henry Back, or Henry's widow!
The members of that absurd, little club
were despised by the rest of their family,
for creating that fraudulent genealogy book,
for all the blatant lies that they told,
and for all the illegal things that they did,
trying to "prove" their fraudulent genealogy.
For example, they removed the old gravestone
of their own great, great grandmother,
Elizabeth Hoffman-Maggard Back (1755-1826),
from The Maggard Cemetery, in 1988,
and then they threw it over the hill.
They replaced it with a new, fake gravestone,
which they had made themselves.
It described a completely different woman,
Elizabeth Hoffman Back (born July 13, 1746),
who was the widow of Henry Back (1740-1809),
who they claimed was a son of Harman Back.
They actually used that fake gravestone,
which they had erected themselves,
to try to "prove" that
Elizabeth Hoffman Back (born July 13, 1746)
had moved down to southeastern
Kentucky and founded their family there.
But nobody was fooled.
Members of The Back-Bach Genealogical Society
tore apart their own family,
with that fraudulent genealogy,
for their own sick and selfish reasons.
That's why they were despised
by the rest of their family,
who called them, "the Back-Bach people."
One of "the Back-Bach people" continues
to tear apart her own family, to this day,
by promoting that fraudulent genealogy.
She is a member of DAR.
She obtained her membership in DAR,
by using that fraudulent genealogy,
which she actually knew was fraudulent,
and claimed that she descends from
"Patriot" Harman Back, and "Patriot" Henry Back.
However, shortly after she joined DAR,
several professional genealogists
published a few well-researched books,
which proved that the fraudulent genealogy
truly was fraudulent, and so, suddenly,
her DAR membership was in jeopardy.
She was also humiliated
in front of all her DAR girlfriends.
That's when she came up with a plan.
She created what she calls,
"The Bach to Back DNA Project,"
on FamilyTreeDNA.com (FTDNA).
She is the "Administrator" of it.
She now claims that DNA tests "prove" that
Harman Back is the "common ancestor"
of his actual descendants, as well as
the members of the Back (Bach)
family from southeastern Kentucky.
In other words,
she now claims that DNA tests "prove" that
members of the Back (Bach) family
from southeastern Kentucky
descend from Harman Back, through
his alleged son Henry Back, and Henry's widow.
However, she staged her "DNA Project,"
to make it appear that way.
She created her staged "DNA Project,"
to protect her membership in DAR,
to redeem herself with her DAR girlfriends,
and to maintain her "officer status" in DAR.
(How she staged it is detailed below.)
She doesn't care that her "DNA Project"
is purposefully deceptive,
or that she is misleading her own family
about who their ancestors are.
She only cares about herself.
She also uses her "DNA Project,"
in coordination with DAR (who now knows
that the fraudulent genealogy is fraudulent),
to bully and intimidate the management
of major genealogy websites,
into removing the actual genealogy
of her own family, from those websites,
and replacing it with the fraudulent genealogy.
It's difficult to believe that anyone
would do such a terrible thing
to their own family, but she has.
So, if you post the actual genealogy
of the family, on any website, she will
aggressively, and viciously, attack you,
and taunt you, on that website,
and then, she will "report you,"
to that website, with the full support of DAR.
The website will then immediately
remove the actual genealogy you posted,
and any proof of it that you posted.
They won't even discuss it with you,
because they aren't interested in the truth.
But they might send you a nasty email,
and they will probably close your account.
It is absolutely outrageous.
She is completely obsessed with posting
the fraudulent genealogy,
of her own family, all over the Internet,
and shoving it down everyone's throats.
She sits at her computer, all day long,
like a vulture, watching to see if anyone
posts the actual genealogy on a website.
If she sees something, she gets it deleted.
She has nearly completely destroyed
the actual genealogy of her own family,
on Family Search, WikiTree, and FindAGrave,
just to name a few websites.
Obviously, there is something
deeply wrong with her.
She needs counseling. She needs help.
The rest of the family absolutely despise her,
for what she has done, and continues to do,
yet it is also painfully clear that
she is suffering from a serious problem,
and she needs specialized attention.
Someone who knows her personally
really needs to intervene,
and get her the help that she needs.
Yet, the damage she purposefully created
is already all over the Internet.
SHE HAS CREATED THE GREATEST
GENEALOGICAL FRAUD
THAT THIS COUNTRY HAS EVER SEEN.
***********
If you are interested in knowing the
actual, documented, and proven genealogy
of the Back (Bach) family
from southeastern Kentucky,
unfortunately, you can no longer find it
on major genealogy websites.
The only way that you can find it
is from a well-researched book
that presents actual evidence, such as,
The Bach (Back) Family
from Southeastern Kentucky.
We have located six books which you will find of interest (see below).
1. The first book, The Bach (Back) Family from Southeastern Kentucky, documents the actual genealogy of the family.
2. & 3. The next two books (Manuscript of Families of Breathitt County Area, and The Bach Family Bible) provide additional proof of that actual genealogy.
4. The fourth book, Our "Bach" Family Ancestral Heritage, also documents the actual genealogy of the Bach (Back) family from southeastern Kentucky.
5. The fifth book is the original fraudulent genealogy book that started this terrible tragedy. It was published by The Back-Bach Genealogical Society, back in 1994. It is offered here, so that researchers can see how absurd it was, and how it didn't contain even one historical document, or any proof whatsoever, because none of its claims were true.
6. And finally, there is, Harman Back: His Ancestors and His Descendants, which documents the actual genealogy of Harman Back and his family, in case you are interested in the truth about that family.
We use PayPal to process the orders, and so you can be assured that your purchase is safe and secure.
If you have an ancestor with the last name of Bach or Back, who lived in southeastern Kentucky, back in the 1700s, the 1800s, or the 1900s, then you descend from Johann Heinrich Bach. His family was from Thuringia, Germany. After he immigrated to America, he settled in southern Virginia, and he simplified the spelling of his name, to be John Henry Back.
This book provides the actual, documented, and proven genealogy of the Bach (Back) family from southeastern Kentucky.
It is full of census reports, tax lists, land deeds, and all sorts of additional proof, of who these people were. The book starts at the year 1520, in Thuringia, Germany, and then it continues down, through the years, to the mid-1900s, in southeastern Kentucky. The family actually descends from the family of Johann Sebastian Bach! When you read this book, you will be able to determine your exact connection to Johann Sebastian Bach!
The book is coil-bound.
It includes a comprehensive Index.
It sells for $50, which includes free shipping.
In the early 1900s, Dr. Wilgus Bach was the highly-respected Historian for the Back (Bach) family, in Breathitt County, Kentucky. He interviewed a large number of elderly people, about their ancestors, and he made extensive notes about what they told him.
The manuscript features lots of genealogical information about 63 families in Breathitt County, Kentucky: Adams, Bach (Back), Banks, Blair, Boggs, Bowman, Breeding, Byrd, Calhoun, Campbell, Carpenter, Caudill, Chambers, Cockrill, Combs, Cooper, Cope, Craft, Crawford, Davis, Deaton, Eversole, Fields, Frazier, Fugate, Gabbard, Gibbs, Haddix, Hagins, Hargis, Hensley, Hogg, Holbrook, Holliday, Hollon, Hounshell, Howard, Hudson, Hurst, Kash, Landrum, Landsaw, Lovely, Maggard, Miller, Murphy, Noble, Reynolds, Roberts, Robertson (Robinson), Rose, Russell, Short, Smith, South, Stacy, Stamper, Strong, Swango, Terry, Turner, Tutt, and Williams.
The manuscript (book) is on a DVD.
It sells for $40, which includes free shipping.
In 1762, the immigrant in the Back (Bach) family from southeastern Kentucky, Johann Heinrich Bach (John Henry Back), who had settled in southern Virginia, bought an old Bible (actually a Catechism), from his cousin, Johann Christian Bach, who still lived back in Europe. Johann Christian Bach was the youngest son of Johann Sebastian Bach.
After the old book arrived at his cabin, John Henry Back wrote down the names and dates of birth of many of his family members. In 1791, his youngest son, Joseph Back, migrated to southeastern Kentucky and established the Back (Bach) family there, and he took that old book with him. Over the years, down to 1911, other family members recorded their names and dates of birth into the old book as well.
The Bach Family Bible provides additional proof that the Back (Bach) family from southeastern Kentucky does not descend from Harman Back. It's also fascinating to see the actual handwriting of your ancestors.
The book is on a DVD.
It sells for $30, which includes free shipping.
Before Tilden passed away, in 2009, he provided us with the rights to sell his books.
This book is one of several books that presented the actual genealogy of the Back (Bach) family from southeastern Kentucky, which were published in the early 2000s.
Around 2003, the Administrator of this "DNA Project" commented online, several times, that she knew that Tilden's genealogy was correct, and how "sad" she was, to learn that Harman Back was not her ancestor. (We have the screenshots of her comments.) But when she wanted to join DAR, and use Harman Back and Henry Back as "proof" that she was qualified to join, she pretended she never heard of Tilden.
Shockingly, this woman brazenly presents a screenshot from page 7b of Tilden's book (in violation of our copyright), on her "family's genealogy website," about Elizabeth Hoffman Back (born July 13, 1746). But she deliberately cut off the four lines after, "Henry died about 1808," because it said that Elizabeth moved to Rockingham County, Virginia with her son Aaron, but her fraudulent genealogy claims that Elizabeth moved to Kentucky. That screenshot is a good example of how she "hijacks" proof of the actual genealogy of her own family, and then turns it into so-called "proof" of the fraudulent genealogy of her family.
This is a DVD version of the original book published by The Back-Bach Genealogical Society, back in 1994. It is offered here, simply as a courtesy to researchers, even though it contains a fraudulent genealogy of the Back (Bach) family from southeastern Kentucky, as well as a fraudulent genealogy of the Harman Back family.
There is not even one historical document in the book, that proves any of their ridiculous claims, because the genealogy that it contains is completely fraudulent.
The book also has quite a bit of information about more recent people in the Back (Bach) family, and other related families, although even that information is not entirely correct. The book includes nearly 30,000 names.
We have obtained permission to offer this book. But, due to copyright restrictions, this version does not contain any of the pictures.
The book is on a DVD.
It's over 2,300 pages.
It includes a comprehensive Index.
It sells for $60, which includes free shipping.
If you have an ancestor with the last name of Back, who lived in central Kentucky, back in the 1700s or 1800s, then you probably descend from Harman Back, who immigrated from Freudenberg, Germany and settled in Little Fork, Virginia. He had just one son, Harman Back Jr., who migrated to central Kentucky, in 1789, and so you descend from him, through one of his three sons (Joseph, Harman Jr., or Jacob). Please note that there were, in fact, three men named Harman, in this family: the grandfather, his son, and his grandson.
This book provides the actual, documented, and proven genealogy of Harman Back. It includes the names of 600 of his descendants, many of whom lived into the late 1990s and early 2000s. It also includes numerous historical documents, including Tax Lists, which prove the genealogy of his family.
Are you one of his descendants? Find out!
This book is a "must-have" for anyone who thinks they might descend from Harman Back.
The book is on a DVD.
It sells for $40, which includes free shipping.
NOTICE: We have actual screenshots from several pages from FamilyTreeDNA.com (FTDNA), which prove the information that is presented below.
However, due to copyright restrictions,
we cannot display those actual screenshots.
In order to "prove" that members of the Back (Bach) family from southeastern Kentucky supposedly descend from Harman Back, the Administrator of this "DNA Project" falsely claims that she has DNA from members of the Back (Bach) family from southeastern Kentucky, and DNA from descendants of Harman Back, and that all of their DNA is a "perfect match!"
Therefore, she claims that Harman Back is "the common ancestor," of both, the actual descendants of Harman Back, and members of the Back (Bach) family from southeastern Kentucky. But that isn't true. Their DNA is not a match at all. She simply staged the "results" to make it appear that their DNA is similar, and then she simply wrote in the name of Harman Back, herself, as being the ancestor of every participant in her "DNA Project." It's all staged. It's all a fraud. It's simply a continuation of what The Back-Bach Genealogical Society started, many years ago.
DNA experts: We have studied this matter in great detail, for quite some time. We consulted with three DNA experts, who are extremely experienced in genealogical DNA testing and analysis, and highly respected in their field. They have determined that, "The Bach to Back DNA Project, on FamilyTreeDNA.com (FTDNA), is definitely staged, and the so-called results are presented in an extremely deceptive manner, in order to make it appear that members of the Back (Bach) family from southeastern Kentucky descend from Harman Back, even though they most certainly do not."
We have assembled a substantial amount of proof, concerning this serious matter, which was brought to our attention by these three DNA experts. That proof is presented on this website.
How her "DNA Project" began: The Administrator of this "DNA Project" is definitely a member of the Back (Bach) family from southeastern Kentucky. Sometime before 2002, she had heard about the fraudulent genealogy book that had been published by The Back-Bach Genealogical Society, which claimed that her family descended from Harman Back. But she had questioned the contents of that book, like so many other people had, because the book didn't contain even one piece of evidence that her family descended from Harman Back. In 2003, she bought a copy of Tilden Bach's book, Our "Bach" Family Ancestral Heritage: From Thuringia, Germany, to Quicksand, Kentucky, which conclusively proved that her family did not descend from Harman Back. She realized that Tilden's book presented the actual genealogy of her family, because he proved it with a substantial amount of solid evidence, including a large number of historical documents. She then posted comments on the Internet that Tilden's research was accurate, and that her family did not descend from Harman Back. (We have screenshots of her comments.)
A few years later, she wanted to join DAR, but because she knew that there were no "Patriots" in her Back (Bach) family tree, she simply claimed that she descended from "Patriot" Harman Back, through his alleged son, "Patriot" Henry Back, just so she could join. Those two men were already in DAR's Ancestor Database, because The Back-Bach Genealogical Society had put them there, many years before, to help them sell their fraudulent genealogy book.
But, a few years after she joined DAR, several more books were published (some by Board-Certified genealogists), which really exposed the lies of The Back-Bach Genealogical Society, and in much greater detail. Those books also conclusively proved that the Back (Bach) family from southeastern Kentucky did not descend from Harman Back or Henry Back, also by using a large number of historical documents and other proof. After that, lots of people began posting the actual genealogy of the Back (Bach) family from southeastern Kentucky on various genealogical websites, including Ancestry, FindAGrave, Family Search, and WikiTree. She panicked. That's because her DAR membership was suddenly in jeopardy, as was her "officer status" in DAR. She was also humiliated in front of all of her DAR girlfriends. That's why, in 2009, she decided to create a "DNA Project," to "prove" that her family, the Back (Bach) family from southeastern Kentucky, descended from "Patriot" Harman Back, through his alleged son, "Patriot" Henry Back. (After all, everyone believes DNA...right?) She was absolutely determined to do whatever it took, to protect her DAR membership and her "officer status" in DAR, and to "save face" with all of her DAR girlfriends.
She got her brother John Back to take the first DNA test, in her "DNA Project," although she ordered his test under her name (her initials, K.J. Back), through her personal FTDNA account. Then she went onto genealogical websites, and repeatedly begged other men to take a DNA test and join her "DNA Project." Her constant, childish begging, over and over, was so obnoxious. In 2011, she finally persuaded a man named Greg Back to participate in her "DNA Project." He was the second participant.
Greg Back: He is a proven descendant of Harman Back (1708-1781), who was his great, great, great, great, great, great grandfather. Greg descends from Harman Back's only son, Harman Back Jr. (1737-1797), and then, through his son Harman Back Jr. (1764-1820). Greg's father was Basil Pleasant Back (1912-1984).
Greg had actually already taken a DNA test, back in 2006, through The National Geographic Society. So, she was able to get his DNA test kit results sent over to her, in a "text file." However, Greg had taken a very simple DNA test that only tested 12 DNA markers (a Y-DNA12 test). She convinced Greg to let her order a more sophisticated DNA test for him (that she actually paid for), which tested 37 DNA markers (a Y-DNA37 test), from his original mouth swab. (Apparently, they could simply use his original mouth swab.)
However, when Greg's Y-DNA37 test kit results came in, they were not similar to her brother's test results at all, and they certainly were not "a match." That meant that her brother, herself, and the rest of the Back (Bach) family from southeastern Kentucky, definitely did not descend from Harman Back. She was frantic. What was she going to do? She realized that she was going to have to figure out a way, to rig her "DNA Project," in order to make it appear that the DNA from members of the Back (Bach) family from southeastern Kentucky matched the DNA of Harman Back's descendants, in order to accomplish her goal. And so, that's what she did.
It is suspected that, since she had received Greg's DNA test results in a "text file," she soon learned all about "text files." She learned that she could actually change any of the DNA numbers that she wanted to change, in a DNA test kit, if she got someone's DNA test kit results in a "text file" (or she transferred the results into a "text file"), and nobody would ever be able to tell that she had changed anything.
So, it is suspected that she changed some of the DNA numbers, in the DNA test kits that she received later on, before she uploaded them to her "DNA Project," to make them "match" the DNA numbers in the DNA test kits that she already had (see farther down this page for details about "text files").
It is also suspected that she claimed that certain DNA test kits were taken by particular people, when they were actually taken by someone else. Why else has she bought so many DNA test kits, under odd initials, fake names, and other types of "secret codes," from several different FTDNA accounts? Who knows who has really taken any of the multiple test kits that she has ordered and paid for, and put into her "DNA Project?"
Furthermore, it has been confirmed that she definitely wrote in the name of "Harman Back," on the Results Page of her "DNA Project," as being the "common ancestor" of every participant in her "DNA Project," even though all DNA experts firmly state that DNA tests cannot possibly provide the actual name of a common ancestor, nor can they provide the actual names of several generations of men in a family tree, like she is also claiming.
John Back: Like his sister (the Administrator), he is a proven descendant of the Back (Bach) family from southeastern Kentucky, which is a completely separate family from the Harman Back family. He (and his sister) descends from John Henry Back (1709-1789), through his son Joseph Back (1745-1819), and then, through his son John Back (1774-1854).
Back in early 2023, it was confirmed that the first participant in her "DNA Project" was John Back (as "K.J. Back"), who is her brother, because she ordered his DNA test kit through her personal FTDNA account. You see, she used to provide the user name and password for her personal FTDNA account, on her "family's genealogy website," inviting people to go and take a look at her DNA matches. (That wasn't very smart.) Her personal FTDNA account shows that "K.J. Back" is her "Full Sibling," and that he is her brother. Her "family's genealogy website" shows that she has one brother, and it also provides the names of her parents, which exactly match the names of John's parents, on the "About Us" page of her "DNA Project." So that's him. Simple research proved that his name is John Back, but it really doesn't matter what his name is, because he definitely is her brother, and both of them are proven descendants of the Back (Bach) family from southeastern Kentucky.
She ordered her brother's DNA test kit, through her personal FTDNA account, under her name (actually, her initials, "K.J. Back"), because she didn't want anyone to know that she included her own brother, in her "DNA Project," because it might be viewed as a "conflict of interest," which, of course, it is. However, according to FTDNA's rules, she was required to put his name on his DNA test kit, not her name (K.J. Back). But that was just the beginning of her deceptive and unethical behavior, in her "DNA Project."
Her "family's genealogy website": Of course, on her "family's genealogy website," she claims that she descends from Harman Back, through his alleged son Henry Back, because she aggressively promotes the fraudulent genealogy of her own family, all over the Internet. She actually claims that her lineage, "back to Harman Back is supported by original documents and DNA evidence." But that statement is completely false. She doesn't have even one original historical document, which proves that she descends from Harman Back, and there is NO DNA EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER, because her "DNA Project" is completely staged.
So, because she has no original documents to "prove" her fraudulent genealogy (because there aren't any), she has actually "hijacked" certain original historical documents of her actual ancestors, by either deliberately misrepresenting who is featured on them, or by deliberately misrepresenting what they actually show (explained farther down below, as well as in the "More Proof Report" down below). She also simply declares that some of her actual ancestors never even existed, including John Henry Back (1709-1789), Joseph Back (1745-1819), and Elizabeth Hoffman-Maggard Back (1755-1826), even though there is ample proof that they existed, and ample proof that they are her actual ancestors!
Her "family's genealogy website" is packed full of twisted facts, "hijacked" documents, false statements, untrue "facts," blatant lies, and absurd conclusions, which she simply made up, in her desperate attempt to "prove" that she, and the rest of the Back (Bach) family from southeastern Kentucky, descends from Harman Back. She thinks that, the more "stuff" that she crams onto her "family's genealogy website," as well as on Family Search and WikiTree, the more "right" she will appear to be, and that it will make her look like a real genealogy expert. (No, it doesn't.)
She also lists seven trivial, and mostly unknown, genealogy clubs that she belongs to, as if that's proof that she's a genealogy expert as well. (No, it only proves she was dumb enough to join and pay dues.) She is definitely NOT a genealogy expert. She doesn't follow one aspect of proper genealogical research (The Genealogical Proof Standard). Her ludicrous promotion of a blatantly fraudulent genealogy is incredibly strange. Who does she think she's fooling? She doesn't have even one original historical document, which proves that she, or any member of the Back (Bach) family from southeastern Kentucky, descends from Harman Back. And the so-called "DNA evidence," which she claims to have, from her "DNA Project," doesn't exist either.
She paid for the DNA test kits herself: It has been confirmed that she, as the Administrator of this "DNA Project," has paid for at least some (and probably many) of the DNA test kits, for the participants in her "DNA Project." Greg Back told us that she has spent well over $1,000, ordering and paying for, DNA test kits for him!
After she ordered (and paid for) Greg's Y-DNA37 test ($189), in 2011, she ordered (and paid for) a Y-DNA67 test ($269) for him, in 2012. And then, she ordered (and paid for) a Y-DNA111 test ($249) for him, in 2022. And in June of 2024, she ordered (and paid for) a Big Y-700 test ($449) for him. (The numbers on each test indicate how many DNA markers are tested; the more markers that are tested, means the more information that is collected.) She has also ordered (and paid for) some "Family Finder" tests, and at least one "Deep Clade" test, for Greg.
This is all extremely strange, and extremely suspicious. Why would someone spend that much money, or any money, to get the DNA of a stranger for some silly "DNA Project?" That shows you just how obsessive, and how deranged, she is, trying to "prove" a fraudulent genealogy of her own family.
The TIP Calculator: FTDNA analyzes the DNA test results between two participants, by using what they call, their "TIP Calculator." TIP stands for "Time Predictor," and it's part of FTDNA's "Most Recent Common Ancestor" analysis. It determines just how far back in time that two people share a common ancestor. DNA tests in genealogy can ONLY tell you how far back in time that two people share a common ancestor. DNA tests in genealogy CANNOT tell you the name of that common ancestor, or the names of the people in your family tree, between yourself and that common ancestor. THAT IS A FACT.
Back in September of 2023, Greg Back gave us the user name and password, to his FTDNA account, as well as his permission to view his account, and to do whatever was needed, in order to determine the truth about this matter. That's because he was concerned about the validity of "The Bach to Back DNA Project," just as we were.
In Greg's FTDNA account, the FTDNA TIP Report shows a comparison between his DNA test results, and the DNA test results of the Administrator's brother, John Back. It clearly proves that these two men are NOT closely related at all. First of all, the analysis shows that they have a "Genetic Distance" of 7 (from their Y-DNA111 tests), which, by itself, means that they are not closely related. (If the Genetic Distance was closer to "0," that would mean that they could be related.) FTDNA's analysis also shows that their common ancestor lived, around the year 1500. But, considering that their Genetic Distance is 7, that means that their common ancestor probably actually lived, sometime between 1200 and 1500. FTDNA's analysis proves that these two men shared a common ancestor, at least 500 years ago, around the year 1500, and probably long before that.
Therefore, since Harman Back lived, from 1708 through about 1781 (although the fraudulent genealogy claims that he died in 1797), it is impossible that both of these men (Greg Back and John Back) have Harman Back as a common ancestor. Their common ancestor lived, around the year 1500, and probably long before that, which was hundreds of years before Harman Back was even born. Since the origins of both, the family of Harman Back, and the family of the Back (Bach) family from southeastern Kentucky, came from Germany, it is not surprising that they might share a common ancestor, way back around 1500, or before, back in Germany. But that means absolutely nothing.
Thus, it can be stated, with absolute certainty, that "The Bach to Back DNA Project" does not prove that the Back (Bach) family from southeastern Kentucky descends from Harman Back. In fact, it actually proves that they DON'T descend from Harman Back.
Ronnie Back Lamb: The only other person in "The Bach to Back DNA Project," who is a proven descendant of Harman Back, is Ronnie Back Lamb. (His biological father was Mr. Back, but he was later adopted by Mr. Lamb.) He is also a proven descendant of Harman Back (1708-1781), who was his great, great, great, great, great, great grandfather. Ronnie descends from Harman Back's only son, Harman Back Jr. (1737-1797), through his son Joseph Back (1756-1832). Ronnie's father was Russell Lee Back (1928-2009). Ronnie openly shares his name, his genealogy, and his DNA test kit number, all over the Internet, and so it's not a secret.
In Greg Back's FTDNA account, there is another page that shows all of the men whose DNA matches his, in FTDNA's DNA database. There is only one man with the last name of Back (or Bach), whose DNA matches Greg's DNA, and that is Ronnie Back Lamb. This is further proof that Greg Back's DNA does not match any man in the Back (Bach) family from southeastern Kentucky, because there are several men in FTDNA's DNA database whose last names are Back (or Bach), who are known members of the Back (Bach) family from southeastern Kentucky (including John Back, as "K.J. Back;" and Larry Back), but yet, none of their names are on Greg's list of DNA matches.
Greg Back's DNA only matches Ronnie Back Lamb's DNA, and they are the only men in FTDNA's DNA database (with the last name of Back or Bach) and the only men in "The Bach to Back DNA Project," who are actual, and proven descendants of Harman Back. FTDNA's own analysis proves that neither Greg's DNA, or Ronnie's DNA, matches the DNA of anyone in the Back (Bach) family from southeastern Kentucky. That is a fact.
WikiTree.com and GEDmatch.com: By the way, for many years, these two websites used to openly show if people were related, through their DNA test results, strictly by using computer analysis. These two websites didn't allow an "Administrator" to be involved, who could interfere with the results, stage the results, or misinterpret the results, and so you could be assured that their analysis was valid.
You used to be able to go onto either of these websites and clearly see that Ronnie Back Lamb's DNA test results did not match anyone in the Back (Bach) family from southeastern Kentucky (including John Back as "K.J. Back;" or Larry Back). However, in the spring of 2024, when this Administrator started using her "DNA Project," and DAR, to launch her massive online attack, against her own family (by removing the actual genealogy of her own family from major genealogy websites, and then replacing it with her fraudulent genealogy), "someone" had GEDmatch remove people's ability to see DNA test results on their website, unless they uploaded their own DNA test; and "someone" told Ronnie to remove his DNA comparison from WikiTree. Wonder who that "someone" was? (It's pretty obvious, isn't it?)
This Administrator recently set up a WikiTree account for her brother John Back, but she entered his name as, "Anonymous Back," and showed that he "died in the 2020's." However, he is still very much alive. That's sick. (She likes to use him, to perpetrate her fraudulent genealogy.) She then got WikiTree to post his DNA test kit, as a "match" to Ronnie Back Lamb, even though it doesn't match at all. Would you call that deranged? She also actually created an obnoxious page for herself, on WikiTree, with her picture, wearing her DAR ribbon and pins, next to a list of all the genealogy clubs she belongs to, trying so hard to make it appear as if she is a real genealogy expert. What a joke that is.
Stalking and cyberbullying: This Administrator has stalked, bullied, and threatened, many of our cousins, who support the actual genealogy of our family. She recently added herself as a "Follower" to the FindAGrave accounts of several of our cousins, simply to let them know that she is stalking them. Of course, she did that, after she got the management of FindAGrave to "take away" their memorials from them, so that she could change the information on those memorials to be her fraudulent genealogy. That's sick.
This Administrator especially targeted one of our elderly, disabled cousins, who used to live in Texas. That lady is so sweet and so kind, and she is devastated at what this sick Administrator has done to our family's genealogy. This Administrator found out this elderly lady's home address, took a screenshot of her house from Google Maps, and then mailed it to her, with the lady's date of birth on the envelope, just to intimidate her, and to let her know that she knows where she lives, as some sort of sick threat. She also mailed her other bizarre and threatening things. Then this Administrator found out this elderly lady's email address and phone number, and began bombarding her with spam. (An IT expert proved that the spam came from this Administrator.) This lady took all of this evidence of threats, bullying, and cyberbullying, to her local police department, so the police know what this Administrator has done. But for her own safety and peace of mind, this lady had to delete her email account that she had for 14 years, and then she rented out her Texas home and moved to Florida. She no longer has anything to do with genealogy, "because of this sick, evil Administrator."
We have also obtained screenshots from the personal FTDNA account of the Administrator of "The Bach to Back DNA Project," who is a known descendant of the Back (Bach) family from southeastern Kentucky. Up until late 2023, she provided the user name and password for her FTDNA account, on her "family's genealogy website," inviting people to go and take a look at her DNA matches, which is how we obtained those screenshots.
One screenshot lists all of the people in FTDNA's DNA database (including her "DNA Project") whose DNA matches hers, who have the last name of Back (or Bach). There are just five people on her list. Her brother John Back is identified as "K.J. Back," because she ordered his DNA test kit for him, and she put it under her name (her initials). His name is listed, at the top of her list, and he is identified as being her "Full Sibling." The little purple icon by his kit name shows a figure depicting a man, and a figure depicting a woman, which means that the "Full Siblings" are brother and sister.
There are just four other people on her list. One of them is Larry Back, who is also a known descendant of the Back (Bach) family from southeastern Kentucky. The other three are three of her female cousins; two of whom are identified by initials (BCP and CGC, as some sort of "secret code"), followed by her name (meaning that she bought their DNA test kits as well). So...where is Greg's name? Where is Ronnie's name? It is fascinating that Greg Back, and Ronnie Back Lamb, who are known descendants of Harman Back, are NOT included on her list. That means that Greg and Ronnie's DNA does NOT match her DNA, or her brother's DNA, or Larry Back's DNA. So, how can her "DNA Project" claim that members of the Back (Bach) family from southeastern Kentucky (including herself, her brother, and Larry Back) descend from Harman Back?
Good question! She can't answer it.
One of the biggest problems with her "DNA Project" is that there is no proof whatsoever as to who any of the participants actually are.
On one of the "About Us" pages, she purposefully made the descriptions of each of the participants extremely vague. She doesn't want anyone to know who any of the participants actually are. Why? Because nobody knows who any of the participants actually are, how can anyone possibly believe her claims about the alleged results?
Because this Administrator is using her "DNA Project" to completely destroy the actual, documented, and proven genealogy of the Back (Bach) family in southeastern Kentucky (her own family), which has been passed down, through her family, for generations, and proven by countless historical documents, and because this "DNA Project" affects tens of thousands of people, the least she should do is provide the actual names of the participants, and be forthright and transparent about what she is doing. But she hides the truth, so she can deceive people.
Lots of DNA test kits: And because she has ordered so many DNA test kits, under all sorts of names, initials, and "secret codes," from numerous FTDNA accounts, it is impossible to know exactly who took what test. That fact alone makes her "DNA Project" a sham.
Kit numbers: We do know which Kit number is Greg Back, because he told us his Kit number and he gave us access to his account. We also know which Kit number is Ronnie Back Lamb, because he openly posts it on the Internet. And we also know which Kit number is the Administrator's brother (as "K.J. Back"), because he is identified as being her "Full Sibling" in her account, and his parents are the same people as her parents.
Furthermore, we think we have figured out who the rest of the Kit numbers belong to. But that is assuming that the vague descriptions of the participants are partially accurate. However, that certainly doesn't mean that everything is "on the level." For example, the names on the test kits may not be the actual names of the people who really took those DNA tests; the DNA numbers may have been changed in the DNA test kit results, before the test kits were uploaded to FTDNA (by using "text files"); or, any number of other types of deceptive measures may have been utilized.
Two brothers?: We have discovered that two of the men, in two of the Kits (#645783 and #101494), have the same, exact parents, which obviously makes them brothers. However, FTDNA states that they are in different Haplogroups (#E-FT198173 and #E-FTG6143), which is impossible. Haplogroups define a specific place on the globe, from where a person's ancestors originated from, and they also define a common ancestor. In other words, a father and his sons are always in the same Haplogroup. So how can two brothers in her "DNA Project" be in two different Haplogroups? It's impossible. It appears that this Administrator changed the DNA test results of at least one of those two brothers, which then altered the Haplogroups. It's also extremely odd that two brothers would both participate in a "DNA Project," when only the participation of one would be sufficient.
Duplicates: She obviously uploaded Kit #B281410 (shortly after that man took the Y-DNA67 test), two more times, to her "DNA Project," and called those Kits, "#852765" and "#450919." Those two extra kits are exact duplicates of Kit #B281410 (for the first 67 markers). Anyone can see that the first 67 DNA numbers in those three Kits are identical, just by looking at the Results Page (unless she reads this, and then quickly changes some of the numbers).
Apparently, she made two duplicate Kits of Kit #B281410, just to make it look like she had more participants in her "DNA Project" than she really did. (The man behind Kit #B281410 later had a Y-DNA111 test taken, but the first 67 markers in his Kit are still identical to the 67 markers in Kit #852765 and Kit #450919.) So, the only real "perfect matches" (as she likes to call them), in her "DNA Project," are between Kit #B281410, and Kits #852765 and #450919, because she created those two duplicates herself, and then she uploaded them herself, to her "DNA Project." Uploading that man's DNA test kit two more times was incredibly unethical.
Greg's Family Finder Test: In Greg Back's account, it shows that he took the "Family Finder" test. (She also paid for that test too.) The only person that Greg "matched" to, in that test, was Ronnie Back Lamb. Once again, that's because Greg and Ronnie are the only two actual descendants of Harman Back, in "The Bach to Back DNA Project."
Greg's Big Y-700 test: On June 16, 2024, she ordered (and paid for) this extensive DNA test ($449), for Greg, and the results were completed on August 7, 2024. It also showed that the only person that Greg "matched" to was to Ronnie Back Lamb, and that both of their Haplogroups had been refined to be #E-FT198173. That makes sense, since they both descend from the same man, Harman Back.
Larry Back, and John Back (aka "K.J. Back"), are both known members of the Back (Bach) family in southeastern Kentucky, and they both also took the Big Y-700 test. However, neither one of their Big Y-700 tests match Greg's Big Y-700 test. Larry Back and John Back (aka "K.J. Back") are also shown to be in completely different Haplogroups than Greg.
Yet, just two days later, on August 9, 2024, something changed in the results of Greg's Big Y-700 test. It suddenly showed that Kit #101494 was also in Haplogroup #E-FT198173, and that he was suddenly "matched" to Greg and Ronnie! That man is one of those two brothers, discussed above, who strangely are in two different Haplogroups. If Greg really was a match to that one brother, then why wasn't he also a match to the other brother? The other brother is in Haplogroup #E-FTG6143, which makes no sense at all. It is impossible for two brothers to be in two different Haplogroups.
Hiding participants?: On another page, in Greg Back's account, it shows that there are 14 participants in "The Bach to Back DNA Project," but yet, she is only showing 8 participants on her Results Page. Why? Who are those other 6 people, and why is she hiding them? (Is it because she wasn't able to change their DNA test results?) That page in Greg Back's account also shows that 4 participants in "The Bach to Back DNA Project" are in Haplogroup #E-FT198173, but yet, she is only showing 3 of them on her Results Page. Why? Why is she hiding that fourth man?
Text files: Even more troubling is the fact that she could have changed (and probably did change) some (maybe many) of the DNA numbers in the newer test kits she got, to make them more closely match the DNA numbers in the existing test kits that she already had, prior to uploading the newer test kits into her "DNA Project." That could have very easily been done by using text files (explained in detail, farther down below).
Matches: She like to claim that several of the participants in her "DNA Project" are a "perfect match" to each other. But there is no such thing as a "perfect match," and there are no "perfect matches" in her "DNA Project." She continually uses the words, "match," or "close match," or "perfect match," to describe the DNA test kit results of all of the participants in her "DNA Project." However, the only confirmed "matches" are between the only two men who actually do descend from Harman Back (Greg Back and Ronnie Back Lamb). FTDNA has confirmed that neither Greg's DNA test results, or Ronnie's DNA test results, "match" the DNA test results of any of the men from the Back (Bach) family from southeastern Kentucky, in the FTDNA database.
There are probably "matches" between the men from the Back (Bach) family from southeastern Kentucky, but we have not yet had those DNA test kit results analyzed.
Only had one son: She also falsely claims that Harman Back had four sons, but he actually only had one son (Harman Back Jr.). There is no proof whatsoever that he ever had any other sons. There are a couple of websites that provide substantial documented and proven information about Harman Back and his only son, Harman Jr. Those websites are: Harman Back, and The Ship Oliver.
DNA tests: People naturally trust DNA tests to be accurate, because they see DNA tests being using to solve crimes, and to prove paternity, on television. So, this Administrator is actually using that "trust" of DNA testing, to convince people that her "DNA Project" is credible and accurate. That's just one of the many ways that she has deceived people.
"It's scientific": She actually claims that the results of "The Bach to Back DNA Project" are "scientific." That is absolutely hilarious! She has recently become aware that people are questioning the validity of her "DNA Project," as they should. So, she is suddenly trying to cover up what she has done, by simply claiming that, "it's scientific." Someday, someone is going to really expose her, for all of the terrible things that she has done, destroying her family's actual genealogy.
"DNA talk": All across her "DNA Project," she engages in "DNA talk," to try to make herself appear to be a DNA expert. But the things she wrote either make no sense, or they aren't correct. (Plus, there's lots of typos, of course!) She is not a DNA expert, and she is not a genealogy expert, and she should stop pretending that she is. It only makes things worse.
The Administrator of this "DNA Project" doesn't want anyone to know about that FTDNA TIP Calculator Report (described above), which compares the DNA test results of Greg Back, a known descendant of Harman Back; to John Back, a known descendant of the Back (Bach) family from southeastern Kentucky. That's because that TIP Calculator Report proves that those two men shared a common ancestor, but it was at least as far back as the year 1500, and probably much farther back than that. And yet, Harman Back lived from 1708-1781. Therefore, it is impossible that Harman Back was their common ancestor, and so it is impossible that the Back (Bach) family from southeastern Kentucky descends from Harman Back.
Shockingly, on one of the "About Us" pages, of her "DNA Project," she wrote that there are now six participants who have taken the Y-DNA111 test, and that they are all "close matches, sharing a paternal ancestor." BUT THAT IS NOT TRUE.
Then she wrote that, "The FTDNA TIP calculator is showing a 99.78% chance these men share a common male ancestor, within 8 generations" (about 200 years ago). BUT THAT IS ALSO NOT TRUE. And here's why: (1) The FTDNA TIP Calculator only analyzes the DNA test results between two men at a time (not six), to determine how long ago their common ancestor lived; (2) Nowhere in FTDNA's information does it say there is a "99.78% chance" for anything; and (3) Nowhere in FTDNA's information does it say that any of the participants share a common ancestor "within 8 generations."
The FTDNA TIP Calculator Report actually showed that the most recent common ancestor between Greg Back and John Back lived around the year 1500, or earlier. That is at least 500 years ago (not "200 years ago," as she claims); and that is at least 20 generations ago (not "within 8 generations," as she claims). The year 1500 was 200 years before Harman Back was even born!
The lies are astonishing!
Why doesn't she show that actual FTDNA TIP calculator from Greg Back's account?
Good question! It's because it PROVES that the Back (Bach) family from southeastern Kentucky DOES NOT descend from Harman Back!
The "Results Page," in "The Bach to Back DNA Project," currently shows the "results" of the 8 DNA test kits that she's willing to post online; she is hiding the other 6 test kits, for some reason. The results are listed by the participant's DNA test kit number. That page also shows her "final step" in her staging of her "DNA Project."
First of all, she defines all of the participants as being from, "Germany to Virginia to Eastern Kentucky" (in the orange bar, along the top). However, none of the participants have ancestors from "eastern" Kentucky. The members of the Back (Bach) family from southeastern Kentucky have ancestors who are from southeastern Kentucky. The two descendants of Harman Back have ancestors who are from central Kentucky. (She can't even get that right.)
Please notice the column titled, "Paternal Ancestor Name." She was the one who wrote in the name of "Harman Back" (as "Harman SR"), herself, as being the paternal ancestor of each of the participants. So, when you look at this chart, it appears that all of the participants descend from Harman Back. But that's only because she wrote in the name of Harman Back, herself! She created that illusion, herself! But it's not true!
Then, she also wrote in the name of Harman's alleged son Henry, and some of Henry's alleged descendants, as also being the ancestors of each of the participants, but most of that so-called lineage is 100% wrong. She was the one who wrote in all of the names in the "Paternal Ancestor Name" column, herself!
The management at FTDNA has confirmed to us, in writing, that only the Administrators have the authority to write in whatever name they want, in the "Paternal Ancestor Name" column, and that she was, in fact, the one who did this, on "The Bach to Back DNA Project." Even more important is the fact that this column is to write in ONE name, which is the name of the person's father (if known), because the title of the column is, "Paternal Ancestor Name" (not Names). The column is not meant to write in several generation's worth of names, like she did, because DNA tests cannot possibly provide the actual names of generations of ancestors like that.
According to every DNA expert, DNA tests cannot possibly provide lineage like that, and they cannot possibly provide the names of ancestors like that. All that DNA tests can do is tell you if two people share a common ancestor, and how far back in time that probably happened. They cannot tell you the name of the common ancestor!
Research this for yourself.
Don't believe this staged "DNA Project."
It's all a farce.
The Administrator of this "DNA Project" is a member of DAR (The Daughters of the American Revolution).
DAR is just a club. Like all clubs, it only exists by collecting dues from its members, by selling things to its members, and by getting money out of anyone they can. It's all about the money. Like most clubs, it also creates an atmosphere, among its members, in which they think that they are "better than people who aren't in their club." In DAR, they promote the absurd idea that, "only they know genealogy, and if they claim genealogical information is correct, then, by gosh, it is correct...simply because they say so. The heck with the truth! The heck with actual historical documents! They're DAR!"
DAR uses genealogy, dead soldiers, patriotism, and the American flag, to entice women to join, and to bring in money for their club. Many people have noticed that most of the women in DAR are middle-aged, overweight, have a low IQ, are extremely bossy, and are very childish.
After they join DAR, these women buy a "ribbon" from DAR (costs $27-$90), which they pin on their shirt, and then they spend a small fortune, buying "pins" from DAR, to attach to their ribbon. DAR offers over 600 pins, each ranging in price, from $38 to $6,300. These women actually think that, the more pins they buy, the more important they are. They pretend that their ribbons and pins are "badges of honor" that somehow make them so important, as if they are royalty. But, in reality, the ribbons and pins look ridiculous. (It reminds you of little girls being in the Girl Scouts, and how they sew badges on their sashes.)
Their entire lives are focused on attending their meaningless DAR meetings, and "showing off" to their DAR girlfriends. They constantly compete, to see who can buy the most pins, and who can claim the most "Patriots" in their lineage. They engage in various rituals that involve wearing gloves, and standing in receiving lines. Some people say it's like a cult, and many of them act as if they are in a cult.
DAR also urges their members, as well as non-members, to shop in the "DAR Online Store," and buy their useless, overpriced items, such as the $30 DAR potholder. DAR also constantly harasses their members, as well as non-members, to simply donate money to them, and to make DAR the beneficiary of their will, or the beneficiary of their retirement plan.
These women also pretend that they are genealogy experts, just because they joined that club, although most of them know nothing about proper genealogical research. In fact, most of them obtained their membership by simply copying someone else's genealogy, not knowing (or caring) if it was correct or not.
The main reason that this woman created this staged "DNA Project" was to protect her DAR membership, because her membership was obtained by using a fraudulent genealogy, which claims that her family, the Back (Bach) family from southeastern Kentucky, descends from "Patriot" Harman Back, and "Patriot" Henry Back. That's why she will do, and say, anything, to promote, and protect, the fraudulent genealogy of her own family.
She also created this staged "DNA Project" to impress her DAR girlfriends, and to maintain her "officer status" in DAR. She wants people to think that Tilden Bach's proven research was somehow all wrong; that the proven research of all those Board-Certified genealogists, who wrote those other books, was also somehow all wrong; that the massive number of actual historical documents that prove the actual genealogy of her family don't even exist; and that only she and her fraudulent genealogy is right, even though she has absolutely no proof whatsoever of her fraudulent genealogy. It's crazy!
Shockingly, she even told one of our cousins that she was good friends with Tilden Bach (she wasn't), and that, right before he died, he recanted the actual genealogy of his family, which he had spent three decades, researching and proving. That was such a sick and horrible lie. We were actually longtime friends with Tilden, and spoke with him several times a week, in the seven years before he died, including the day before he died. Tilden never recanted the actual genealogy of his family that he had researched and written about for three decades. You have to be extremely evil, to lie about a dead person like that, especially your own relative, and especially a man who had spent three decades of his life, researching your ancestors. Tilden was a good man, a gentleman, and an excellent researcher. The genealogy that he presented was the actual genealogy of his family (and her family), because it was based on actual, original historical documents. (It's quite odd, how, before she wanted to join DAR, she supported Tilden's research; but when she wanted to join DAR, she changed her tune.)
She wants people to think that she is a "DNA expert," and a "genealogy expert." But that's absolutely absurd. She is not a "DNA expert." Real DNA experts don't claim that DNA tests "prove" the names of people's ancestors, back in time, several generations, or "prove" the name of a "common ancestor." Real DNA experts don't stage the results of DNA tests, to "prove" their own personal agenda.
She is also not a "genealogy expert." Real genealogy experts don't remove the actual genealogy of their own family from the Internet, and purposefully post a fraudulent genealogy of their own family instead. Real genealogy experts don't purposefully misrepresent ("hijack") historical documents. Real genealogy experts don't ignore a massive amount of documented and proven evidence (a "paper trail"), and then aggressively promote a staged "DNA Project" instead.
Apparently, the reason that DAR supports her fraudulent genealogy is because they want access to the tens of thousands of descendants of the Back (Bach) family from southeastern Kentucky, so they can potentially sell them memberships, and everything else. In contrast, there are only a few hundred descendants of Harman Back. It's all about the money, you see.
By the way, in addition to being a member of DAR, she has also joined seven (at last count) other genealogy clubs, as if that is some sort of "proof" that she is a genealogy expert. It's hilarious! She likes to list all of her little clubs on websites, and post a picture of herself, with her DAR ribbon and all her pins, attached to her shirt, to "prove" what a genealogy expert she is. It's hilarious! Joining some genealogy club proves nothing, except that you pay dues to that useless club. (There is no test you have to take, to prove that you know proper genealogical research, before they let you join. All they want is your dues money.) Buying a ribbon and pins also proves nothing, except that you wasted your money on junk.
She also constantly snarls at people and says, "All lineage societies require original sources such as census, deeds, and vital records to prove facts and all researchers should do the same," as if she actually has those kinds of sources! But yet, she doesn't have even one original historical document to prove any aspect of her fraudulent genealogy! It's absolutely hilarious!
In fact, she actually cites her personal, "family's genealogy website," which is full of incorrect information, which she created herself, as being an actual "source," in order to "prove" her fraudulent genealogy, on FamilySearch and other websites. That is truly unbelievable.
As the Administrator of her "DNA Project," she likes to claim that she is "just an unpaid volunteer," and that she has "no control" over her "DNA Project." But neither of those statements are true. The management at FTDNA has confirmed, in writing, that every Administrator has "full control" over their "DNA Project," and that the FTDNA management provides absolutely no oversight whatsoever, to any of the "DNA Projects." In other words, the Administrators can do whatever they want.
For example: (1) only the Administrator can name and define their "DNA Project," and describe its results, any way they want to; (2) only the Administrator decides which DNA test kits to include in their "DNA Project," and they can accept or reject anyone they want; (3) only the Administrator decides how to describe each of the participants; and (4) only the Administrator can write in whatever name they want, in the "Paternal Ancestor Name" column, on the chart showing the results. That means one name, meaning the name of the participant's father. But this woman wrote in the names of several alleged ancestors instead, including the name of Harman Back and his alleged son Henry Back. However, as all actual DNA experts know, DNA tests cannot possibly prove the names of people's ancestors, back in time, several generations, like that, nor can they prove the name of a common ancestor!
Y-DNA tests are designed to test fathers and sons, in order to prove their relationship, as father and son. And "The Bach to Back DNA Project" is strictly a Y-DNA project, because it only tests men.
But yet, this Administrator does not have a DNA test kit result for any of the fathers, of any of the participants in her "DNA Project." Therefore, it is impossible to claim who even the fathers are, of any of the participants. So, how can she claim that she knows exactly who all of their paternal ancestors are, by name (!), going back, hundreds of years, when it is impossible for DNA tests to do that?
Good question! She can't answer it.
It is also extremely strange that this Administrator didn't even consider that it could be "the other way around." In other words, if the DNA of all of these participants supposedly "matched," as she claimed, then why couldn't it mean that all of the participants descend from John Henry Back, who was the immigrant in the Back (Bach) family from southeastern Kentucky? After all, John Henry Back (1709-1789) and Harman Back (1708-1781) were in the same generation; they both immigrated from Germany, within two years of each other; they both settled in Culpeper County, Virginia; and they both had a son who migrated to Kentucky.
Why did she immediately declare that her "DNA Project" only "proved" that all of the participants descend from Harman Back? Why couldn't they all descend from John Henry Back?
Good question! She can't answer it.
Text files are just simple computer files that can be created, copied, changed, or saved, in a computer program called, "Windows Notepad." In fact, that program usually comes pre-installed on most Microsoft computers. You can also easily download the program from the Internet.
Click here to learn more about "Windows Notepad"
You can take almost any computer file, which was created in almost any program, and then open it in "Windows Notepad." While that file is in "Windows Notepad," you can change any of the information that you want (letters or numbers). And then, you simply save your changes to that file, while it is still in "Windows Notepad." And then, you can later upload that saved text file somewhere else, and nobody can tell that you changed anything!
As the Administrator of her "DNA Project," she likes to claim "how scientific" her "DNA Project" is, and that, "FTDNA does all the work." She acts as if she is just an innocent bystander. But that is simply not true.
She also claims that, "FTDNA enters the DNA numbers into the DNA Projects, and the DNA numbers cannot be edited," but that's not the issue.
This is the issue...The results of DNA test kits are in computer files. Those results are simply a bunch of letters and numbers. First of all, they contain a certain number of "DNA markers," depending on the type of DNA test that someone took. For example a Y-DNA67 test tests 67 DNA markers, and a Y-DNA111 test tests 111 DNA markers. DNA markers generally consist of three capitalized letters, followed by three numbers. DNA markers are simply the specific spots, on your DNA, which are tested.
Underneath each of those DNA markers is a "DNA number," which is generally one or two digits. DNA numbers are simply the information that's found, on those specific spots on your DNA. So, the results of DNA test kits are simply a bunch of letters and numbers, all of which can easily be changed, in "Windows Notepad."
It is suspected that, whenever she got a new DNA test kit, in which the DNA numbers weren't a close match to the DNA numbers in the DNA test kits that she already had, she first uploaded that new DNA test kit into "Windows Notepad." Then, she changed some of the DNA numbers (underneath some of the DNA markers), to make those DNA numbers "match" the DNA numbers (underneath the corresponding DNA markers), in the DNA test kits that she already had, in her "DNA Project."
Then, she saved that changed DNA test kit, in "Windows Notepad." Then, she later uploaded that changed DNA test kit to her "DNA Project." At that point, nobody could tell that any of the DNA numbers had been changed. The editing of the DNA numbers took place before the DNA test kits even got uploaded into her "DNA Project," not after.
For many years, FTDNA allowed the results of DNA test kits, in text files, to be uploaded to the "DNA Projects" on their website. In fact, all of the DNA test kits that they got from The National Geographic Society were in text files. But, in 2022, some people became suspicious that this Administrator was changing some of the DNA numbers, in "Windows Notepad," and so they contacted FTDNA and asked them to look into it.
FTDNA soon replied, in writing. They said that they reviewed the matter, and as a result of their findings, they created a new rule. They said that, starting on January 1, 2023, DNA test results, in text files, could no longer be uploaded to "DNA Projects." However, by that point in time, which was about 13 years after this Administrator had created her "DNA Project," she had already uploaded all the text files that she needed, to "prove" her fraudulent genealogy. That's why, nowadays, she denies using text files, and she actually tells people to, "call FTDNA to verify that nobody can use text files, or change numbers."
Of course, she never mentions the fact that text files used to be allowed, up until January 1, 2023! She obtained the majority of her DNA test kit results, between 2010 and December of 2022, which was before that new rule took effect.
So, if you do call FTDNA, the question that you actually need to ask them is, "When did you stop allowing text files?"
First of all, whenever this woman discusses genealogy, she constantly proclaims that, "proof is required!" She actually demands that people have "proof." She is extremely vocal about it. She also likes to talk about "proofs" (in the plural). However, no professional genealogist, or Board-Certified genealogist, ever refers to "proof," in the plural form, as, "proofs." (But she doesn't know that.)
Genealogical proof refers to having original historical documents, such as census reports, tax lists, land deeds, vital records (birth, marriage, or death), Family Bibles, etc., to accurately prove lineage, relationships, etc. Of course, it's true that those kinds of historical documents are required, in order to prove genealogy. A group of several historical documents that prove the same lineage is often referred to as, "a paper trail." Therefore, "a paper trail" provides the actual proof of genealogy, and lineage.
Amusingly, this woman also proclaims that people should never consider genealogy books to be a source for accurate genealogical information, but yet, she now fully supports, and strongly defends, the fraudulent genealogy book that was published by The Back-Bach Genealogical Society, back in 1994! Now that's hilarious!
No, the fact is, countless genealogy books have been published that contain copies of historical documents, or refer to historical documents, which prove the genealogy that they are discussing, including the books for sale on this website (except for the book by The Back-Bach Genealogical Society). This woman is simply trying to discourage people from finding out the truth about the actual genealogy of the Back (Bach) family from southeastern Kentucky, from any book. That's because she has removed the actual genealogy of the family from major genealogy websites, and so the only place to find it is in a book!
DNA tests are used by professional genealogists to prove, or support, a paper trail, not to try to use the tests to completely throw the paper trail out the window! In this situation, the entire paper trail of the Back (Bach) family from southeastern Kentucky supports the actual genealogy of the family. In contrast, there is not one original historical document that supports her fraudulent genealogy. Not one.
It's truly bizarre that this woman doesn't have even one historical document to prove any aspect of her fraudulent genealogy, but yet, she demands that everyone else have historical documents to prove genealogy! If what she was doing wasn't so terrible, it would be comical.
So, because there isn't even one historical document that proves any aspect of her fraudulent genealogy, she simply "creates proof." She does that by "hijacking" specific historical documents.
She "hijacks" documents: This woman actually "hijacks" historical documents of her own actual ancestors, or of people in her actual family tree, by either deliberately misrepresenting who is seen on those documents, or deliberately misrepresenting what those documents mean. And then, she claims that her "hijacked" documents "prove" her fraudulent genealogy. It's so strange. She actually thinks that she's fooling people. She isn't.
Her favorite person to involve in her hijacking scheme is Elizabeth Hoffman Back (born July 13, 1746), the elderly widow of "Patriot" Henry Back (1740-1809). She desperately wants to "prove" that, after Henry died, Elizabeth suddenly moved, over 400 miles, away from her lifelong home in Virginia, all the way down, through the dense and dangerous wilderness, to southeastern Kentucky (for no reason at all), with her alleged sons, John Back (1774-1854) and Henry Back (1785-1871), and founded the Back (Bach) family there. But, of course, none of that is true. Elizabeth never moved to Kentucky, and John Back (1774-1854) and Henry Back (1785-1871) were not her sons.
In fact, Elizabeth actually moved just 30 miles, to nearby Rockingham County, Virginia, with her son Aaron Back (1785-1868), and her two unmarried daughters, to live next to her widowed sister Margaret. There are numerous original historical documents that prove this, including the 1810 Census Report; the 1810 and 1812 Tax Lists; and a 1816 Land Deed (see below).
Furthermore, Elizabeth's actual son John was born in 1776 (not on 11-19-1774), and he died in North Carolina; he never went to Kentucky. And her actual son Henry was born in 1783 (not on 2-6-1785), and he died in Madison County, Virginia, in 1805; he never went to Kentucky either. There are several historical documents, which prove that John Back (born 1776) and Henry Back (born 1783) were her actual sons named John and Henry. (Please read the "More Proof Report," down below.)
So, in order to "prove" that Elizabeth Hoffman Back moved to southeastern Kentucky, this woman has actually "hijacked" historical documents that feature two other women whose married names were Elizabeth Back (Elizabeth Pennington Back, and Elizabeth Hoffman-Maggard Back), who really did live in southeastern Kentucky, by claiming that their documents feature Elizabeth Hoffman Back instead. It's truly bizarre. The details of this "hijacking," and some of her other "hijackings," are also presented in the "More Proof Report" (see down below).
But we will first take a look at some historical documents from Rockingham County, Virginia, including the 1810 Census Report; the 1810 and 1812 Tax Lists; and a 1816 Land Deed (see below). These documents definitively prove that Elizabeth Hoffman Back moved to Rockingham County, Virginia, around 1809, and she never moved to southeastern Kentucky.
Of course, as expected, in order to try to dispute this documented proof, this Administrator simply claims that Aaron Back was not Elizabeth Hoffman Back's son! It's really bizarre. She claims that Aaron was the son of Elizabeth's sister, Margaret Hoffman Back! However, it has been definitively proven that Margaret never had a son; Margaret and her husband John Back only had daughters, as proven by a 1803 Land Deed, and several Tax Lists (presented below). This woman's constant denials of facts, her constant misrepresentations of the truth, and her constant fabrications, are truly shocking.
These three documents above provide definitive proof that Elizabeth Hoffman Back (born July 13, 1746) moved to Rockingham County, Virginia, after her husband Henry Back died, in early 1809. She never moved to southeastern Kentucky.
The reason that Elizabeth Hoffman Back moved, from her home in Madison County, Virginia, to Rockingham County, Virginia, in 1809, was because her husband Henry had just died, and so she was quite upset. She wanted to move to Rockingham County because her widowed sister, Margaret Hoffman Back, had recently moved there, the year before, in 1808. Of course, Elizabeth moving there made perfect sense: she and Margaret were sisters; they were both elderly widows; and they had lived next to each other, all of their lives. Some history about this matter is needed…
Margaret Hoffman Back (1748-1834): She had married John Back (1738-1794), around 1775. He was the brother of Henry Back (1740-1809), who had married her sister Elizabeth (born July 13, 1746), also around 1775. In fact, it was probably a "double wedding."
Margaret and Elizabeth had each inherited 150 acres from their father, John Hoffman, after he had died, in 1772. And so, after Margaret married John, they lived on her inherited land; and after Elizabeth married Henry, they lived on her inherited land. Their land was located in the far southern part of Culpeper County, Virginia, along the Robinson River. That land later became Madison County, in 1792. (It was nowhere near Little Fork, Virginia, which was in the far northern part of Culpeper County, where Harman Back and his family lived.)
Margaret and her husband John Back had five daughters: Elizabeth, Anna, Sarah, Frances, and Susannah. They never had any sons. Historical documents concerning John Back and his wife Margaret Hoffman Back confirm that they never had any sons. In fact, in the Madison County Personal Property Tax Lists, the only male ever indicated in John and Margaret's household was Margaret's husband John. And after he died, in 1794, there still was never was any males indicated in Margaret's household either, including the 1806 Tax List (when Aaron Back would have turned 21, and would have been indicated as living with her, if he really was her son), or any of the Tax Lists after that.
John Back had died suddenly, in early January of 1794, just four years after their fifth daughter Susannah was born. He died without a will, and so the Court appointed several people to administer his estate. No son was mentioned in any of the records involving his estate (see the links below).
**You will need to either sign in to FamilySearch, or sign up for an account (its free), in order to view the links to all of the actual historical documents on Family Search, which are presented on this website.**
Link to the Estate Administration of John Back, page 1
Link to the Estate Administration of John Back, page 2
Six years later, on January 21, 1800, Margaret's oldest daughter Elizabeth married John Embry (see the link below). John may have moved into Margaret's house. The following year, on August 12, 1801, Margaret sold about two acres of her farm along the Robinson River to her new son-in-law, John Embry; he probably wanted to either grow crops on it, or raise livestock on it.
Link to Elizabeth Back and John Embry's Marriage Record
Two years after that, on March 18, 1803, Margaret sold about six acres of her farm to her next-door neighbor, Lewis Crigler, for 40 pounds. The deed indicated that the sale included, "all houses, gardens, fences..." (see the links below). Because that sale included her house, and she apparently had previously verbally promised John Embry, his wife Elizabeth (her daughter), and her other four children, that her land and her house would someday be theirs, all six of them had to sign off on the deed as well. The other four children were clearly named in the deed: Anna Back, Sarah Back, Frances Back, and Susannah Back, and each of them signed the deed. They were all daughters. No other children signed, and no son signed, nor was a son even mentioned. (Aaron Back was born in 1785; John and Margaret's youngest daughter Susannah was born in 1790, and so, if Aaron was John and Margaret's son, he certainly would have signed that deed, as he obviously "wasn't too young" to have signed, since Susannah signed.) That 1803 land deed is definitive proof that Margaret never had a son. Therefore, that 1803 land deed is definitive proof that Aaron Back (1785-1868) was not her son.
Link to the 1803 Madison County Land Deed: Back to Crigler, page 1
Link to the 1803 Madison County Land Deed: Back to Crigler, page 2
Please note that the letters, "L.S.," next to their names on that deed, was an abbreviation for the phrase, "Locus sigilli," which was a Latin term for, "the place for the seal." Back then, documents were not considered valid, unless they had a seal on them. So this 1803 land deed was obviously valid.
After Margaret sold that six acres, along with her house, it appears that she leased out the rest of her land (134 acres) to someone else to farm. It also appears that John Embry leased some land nearby, with a house on it, for himself, his wife, his mother-in-law Margaret, and her two unmarried daughters, to live in. It is believed that Margaret and her unmarried daughters soon moved in with John Embry and his wife, because the last time that Margaret was listed in the Madison County Personal Property Tax Lists was 1804, when she was taxed for having one horse. Meanwhile, John Embry was listed in the Madison County Personal Property Tax Lists up through 1807. (There was no Tax List in 1808, but that was year that they left Madison County.)
On April 28, 1807, Margaret sold the rest of her farm (134 acres) to Adam Miller, for $1,000 (see the link below). The deed described the land as being on the east side of the Robinson River. One side of her land bordered what was described as, "an old line of John Back's," which was her father-in-law, John Henry Back, who had died back in 1789. Because he was an old, German immigrant, with two first names, he followed the longtime German custom of using his first first name ("John"), in public, such as on land deeds; and using his second first name ("Henry"), in private, such as when he signed his old Bach Family Bible as, "Henry."
Link to the 1807 Madison County Land Deed: Back to Miller
About one month after Margaret sold her land, John Embry and his wife Elizabeth sold the two acres that he had bought from Margaret, back in 1801. He sold it, on May 23, 1807, for $65, also to Adam Miller. The deed stated that the two acres bordered Lewis Crigler's land (see the link below).
Link to the 1807 Madison County Land Deed: Embry to Miller
The reason that John Embry sold his two acres, in the spring of 1807, and Margaret Hoffman Back sold the rest of her farm, also in the spring of 1807, was because they were planning on moving, 30 miles away, to nearby Rockingham County. John soon bought 100 acres of land, in Rockingham County, in September of 1807, from Conrad Harnsberger. The land was along two sides of Wolf Run, not far from where it flowed into Elk Run, and just east of the town of Elkton. (Back then, Elkton was called, "Conrad's Store," named after George Conrad, who owned a general store there.) However, that 1807 deed, in which John Embry bought that 100 acres from Conrad Harnsberger, was burned up, in a fire, at the Rockingham County Courthouse, during the Civil War.
But, you can still see the basic information about that deed, in the Rockingham County Land Deed Index (see the link below). After you click the link below, click "Burnt Deed Books 1778-1864." Then click "Secure Remote Access," right under that. Then click "I Accept." Then click the darkened search box to the left of "Historical Index Search." Then click "Grantee Indexes" on the left. Then click "1778-1864 (Burnt Deeds)." Then click the letter "E" (for Embry). Scroll down to near the bottom of page 142. You will see John Embry's name. It shows that he bought the land in Sept. of 1807, from Conrad Harnsberger. Over to the right, under 'Book Number,' it shows "000." Under 'Page Number' it shows "452." And under 'How Much Recorded,' it shows "none." The word "none" means that none of the deed was able to be saved from the fire damage.
Link to the 1807 Rockingham County Land Deed Index: Harnsberger to Embry
**Conrad Harnsberger (1756-1814) was well-known in the nearby town of Elkton (Conrad's Store). He owned and operated a woolen mill near there, which was along Elk Run, near Wolf Run. In the 1806 Land Tax List, Conrad owned several parcels of land, including one that was 100 acres, which had to have been the land along Wolf Run (see the link below). He sold that 100 acres to John Embry, in 1807. (There was no Tax List in 1808.) In the 1809 Land Tax List, Conrad no longer owned that 100 acres (see the link below). That's because John Embry then owned it. (A few years later, Conrad enlisted to serve in The War of 1812, but he died of yellow fever, in Norfolk, Virginia, in 1814.)**
Link to the 1806 Rockingham County Land Tax List
Link to the 1809 Rockingham County Land Tax List
In 1808, John Embry, his wife Elizabeth, his mother-in-law Margaret Hoffman Back, and two of Margaret's unmarried daughters, moved to that land along Wolf Run, in Rockingham County. Margaret was then about 60 years old. John Embry was seen in the 1809 Rockingham County Land Tax List, as owning 150 acres of land (see the link below). In addition to his 100 acres along Wolf Run, he also owned another 50 acres, "near South Mountain," which is now known as, "The Blue Ridge Mountains."
Link to the 1809 Rockingham County Land Tax List
Wolf Run: John Embry's 100 acres along Wolf Run included 50 acres on one side of the creek, and 50 acres on the other side. John Embry and his wife Elizabeth lived on one side of the creek, and his mother-in-law, Margaret Hoffman Back, and her two unmarried daughters, lived on the other side.
Elizabeth Hoffman Back: Meanwhile, back in Madison County, Virginia, Elizabeth's husband Henry Back suddenly died, in early 1809. So, she was obviously quite distraught. She wanted to live next to her widowed sister again. Her son Aaron knew that it would be comforting for his widowed mother to live next to her widowed sister Margaret again, just like they had lived next to each other, along the Robinson River, ever since they were born, including more than 30 years, while their husbands were alive. So, Aaron went to see his Aunt Margaret, who had recently moved to Wolf Run, to talk about buying some land near her, for his mother to live on.
Elizabeth's husband, Henry Back (1740-1809), had been listed in the Personal Property Tax Lists, in Madison County, every year, since the Tax Lists began, but he had died before the 1809 Tax List was prepared. By the time that Henry had died, in 1809, three of Elizabeth's six sons were no longer around: her son John (born 1776) had moved to North Carolina, in 1798; her son Benjamin (born 1781) had died, in 1807; and her son Henry Jr. (born 1783) had died, in 1805. And so, losing three of her sons, and then, losing her husband, must have been very difficult for her.
Two of her other sons, Joseph (born 1782) and Lewis (born 1787), were seen in the 1809 Tax List, in Madison County. But, when that 1809 Tax List was being prepared, her son Aaron (born 1785) was over in Rockingham County, visiting with her widowed sister Margaret, trying to buy some land, and so he wasn't listed.
Elizabeth's son Lewis was getting ready to move to Russell County, Virginia, to live with his cousin John Back (1774-1854) and his wife Catherine Robertson. (Lewis would later move to southeastern Kentucky, in 1810, with John and Catherine, and then he married Elizabeth Pennington, in 1812.) That only left her son Joseph, who had recently married a woman named Elizabeth Hoffman (!), on October 7, 1802, who was his first cousin; she was the daughter of William Hoffman (1737-1812), who was Elizabeth Hoffman Back's brother.
After some discussions, on April 10, 1809, it was decided that Aaron would buy the 50 acres along Wolf Run, where John Embry and his wife were then living, and then Aaron, his mother, and his two unmarried sisters, would move onto that land, as soon as his mother sold her farm back in Madison County. Of course, Aaron wanted Margaret to continue to live on the 50 acres, on the other side of the creek, where she and her two unmarried daughters had been living. It is suspected that Margaret's son-in-law John Embry simply gifted that 50 acres to Margaret. And since these two transactions were between family members, an actual deed was not required, prepared, or recorded, which sometimes happened, back then. However, the fact that these two transactions had taken place, on April 10, 1809, was later confirmed, in a 1816 land deed, when Aaron sold his 50 acres (see the details about that, down below).
After Aaron Back bought John Embry's 50 acres, John and his wife Elizabeth left Wolf Run, and they moved to the nearby town of Harrisonburg, which was only about 15 miles away. That summer, Aaron then probably built a small bridge, across Wolf Run, so that his mother and her sister could easily visit with each other, whenever they wanted.
Five months later, on September 28, 1809, Elizabeth Hoffman Back, sold her farm (157 acres) in Madison County, to Ephraim Fray, for $900 (see the links below). And then, she, her son Aaron, and her two unmarried daughters, moved to that 50 acres along Wolf Run that Aaron had bought. (Elizabeth's son Joseph was her only child who remained in Madison County.)
Link to the 1809 Madison County Land Deed Book: Back to Fray, page 1
Link to the 1809 Madison County Land Deed Book: Back to Fray, page 2
The 1810 Census Report: A few months after Elizabeth Hoffman Back, her son Aaron, and her two unmarried daughters, moved to Rockingham County, they were seen living there, in the 1810 Census Report (see above, and also see the link below). Aaron's name was listed as being the "head of the household," because his mother Elizabeth was elderly, and most likely, rather frail and sickly by then. (She died, just a few years later). Aaron's mother Elizabeth was indicated in the column for females age 45 and older; she was then 64 years old. Aaron's two unmarried sisters were also indicated, in the column for females age 26-45. (There was also another young girl indicated, who may have been an orphan that they took in.)
Link to the 1810 Rockingham County Census Report
The next year, on March 9, 1811, Aaron married "the girl next door," Margaret Elizabeth Luger Hammer (see the link below). She usually went by her middle name of Elizabeth, and she was the daughter of Henry Hammer Sr. (1759-1842), whose name can be clearly seen, in that same 1810 Census Report, as living right next door (see above).
Link to Aaron Back and Elizabeth Hammer's Marriage Record
The Tax Lists: In Rockingham County, in one of the Personal Property Tax Lists (1810), and in two of the Land Tax Lists (1811, which is difficult to read, and their last name was spelled as "Beack"; and 1812), Aaron and his mother were listed as, "Aaron & mother" (see above, and also see the links below). That is definitive proof that Aaron Back's mother, Elizabeth Hoffman Back, had moved to Rockingham County with him. But, starting with the 1813 Land Tax List, only Aaron's name was listed, which probably indicated that Elizabeth had died, sometime between 1812 and 1813.
Link to the 1810 Rockingham County Personal Property Tax List
Link to the 1811 Rockingham County Land Tax List
Link to the 1812 Rockingham County Land Tax List
All of the Land Tax Lists, up through 1816, show that Aaron Back had paid the taxes, on the entire 100 acres: for both his 50 acres (where he lived, with his mother, his two sisters, and his wife); and for his Aunt Margaret's 50 acres, on the other side of the creek. In August of 1816, Aaron sold his 50 acres, and then, he, his wife, and their infant son, moved away from Rockingham County. After Aaron left, his Aunt Margaret then started paying the taxes on her 50 acres.
Elizabeth died: Elizabeth Hoffman Back died, sometime before August of 1816, which was when her son Aaron sold the 50 acres that she had been living on. She probably had died, between 1812 and 1813; but some researchers believe that she died in the fall of 1815. She was probably buried on her son Aaron's land along Wolf Run.
Aaron sold his land: On August 19, 1816, Aaron sold the 50 acres that he, his mother, his two sisters, and his wife, had been living on, to his wife's brother, Henry Hammer Jr. (1794-1864), for one dollar. It is obvious that Aaron's mother Elizabeth had died before then, which was why he sold that land, and was planning on moving away. (He would never have abandoned his elderly mother, and moved away, while she was still alive. Back then, children just didn't leave home until after both of their parents had died.) The deed was dated August 19, 1816 (see below). Aaron also sold another 63-acre parcel of land that day, also to his wife's brother Henry Jr.; it was some land that he and his wife had bought, shortly after they got married.
Curiously, the details of how Aaron and his Aunt Margaret had obtained those two 50-acre parcels, back on April 10, 1809, were included in that August 19, 1816 land deed. That is how those details are known.
After Aaron sold his land in Rockingham County, Virginia, he, his wife, and their infant son, migrated to Preble County, Ohio. They were seen living there, in the 1830 Census Report (see the link below). They later migrated onto Indiana, where they later died.
Link to the 1830 Preble County, Ohio Census Report
What happened to Margaret Hoffman Back?: She was first listed, by name, in the 1811 Rockingham County Personal Property Tax List, because she owned one horse, and horses were taxed. In that 1811 Tax List, as well as in the 1816 Tax List, when she was also taxed on one horse, she was listed separately from Aaron Back, on the line below Aaron, which actually proves that she was not his mother (see the links below).
Link to the 1811 Rockingham County Personal Property Tax List
Link to the 1816 Rockingham County Personal Property Tax List
Keep in mind the fact that women were only listed on the Tax Lists, by their name, if they were "the head of their household." And since Margaret was listed on those two Tax Lists above, by her name, that clearly proved that she was "the head of her household." And since Aaron was listed on all of the Tax Lists, by his name, that clearly proved that he was "the head of his household." These were two separate households, on two, separate 50-acre parcels, on opposite sides of Wolf Run; Aaron obviously did not live with Margaret, and he was obviously not her son.
Furthermore, we know that Aaron's mother Elizabeth was still alive in 1811, because she was indicated in the 1812 Land Tax List as still living with Aaron (as "Aaron & mother"). But Margaret was listed, by name, in the 1811 Personal Property Tax List, separate from Aaron, as owning one horse. If Margaret and Aaron were mother and son, Margaret's name would not have even been listed on the 1811 Tax List, because her son Aaron would have been "the head of the household," and so only his name would have been listed; Margaret's horse would have been taxed, as part of Aaron's property, if he really was her son.
After Margaret's sister Elizabeth died, and after her nephew Aaron sold his 50 acres, in 1816, and moved away, Margaret continued to live on her 50 acres along Wolf Run, for many years, until her death, in 1834 (or shortly thereafter). She was seen living there, in the 1820 and 1830 Census Reports (see the links below). Her two unmarried daughters were still living with her. (Please note that the 1830 Census Report below mistakenly shows, along the top, that it was taken in Preston County, but it was actually taken in Rockingham County. If you click on Margaret's name, over at the right, it shows that it was actually taken in Rockingham County.)
Link to the 1820 Rockingham County Census Report
Link to the 1830 Rockingham County Census Report
After Aaron sold his 50 acres, in 1816, and moved away, that was when Margaret started paying the taxes on her 50 acres. She was first listed in the 1817 Land Tax List (see the link below), and she continued to be listed in the Land Tax Lists, every year, up through the 1834 Land Tax List (see the link below).
Link to the 1817 Rockingham County Land Tax List
Link to the 1834 Rockingham County Land Tax List
Margaret was also listed in the 1817 Personal Property Tax List, as owning one horse (see the link below). But she must have soon sold that horse, because she was not listed in any subsequent Personal Property Tax Lists.
Link to the 1817 Rockingham County Personal Property Tax List
On June 18, 1834, Margaret sold her 50 acres, but that deed was destroyed in the courthouse fire as well. However, in-depth research proved that a man named Thomas Lowrey had bought her land (Book 11, Page 397), and he was seen living on 50 acres, along Wolf Run, in subsequent Land Tax Lists. Margaret probably died, shortly after she sold her land to him, and she was probably buried on her land along Wolf Run.
Summary: In addition to all the proof already presented here, it is important to understand that no son, including Aaron Back, would ever have abandoned his elderly mother, and moved 500 miles away, to Ohio, especially taking her grandchild away from her. Back then, children simply did not move away from home, until after both of their parents had died. That's just the way it was, back then. Margaret was 68 years old, in 1816, and if Aaron was her son, he would never have abandoned her like that. But he wasn't her son. He was the son of Elizabeth Hoffman Back, who had died several years before he left Rockingham County.
This land deed above provides definitive proof that Aaron Back sold his 50 acres of land, along Wolf Run, in Rockingham County, Virginia, in 1816.
This land deed clearly states that it was recorded in Rockingham County, Virginia, on August 19, 1816, between Aaron Back and his wife Elizabeth (Margaret Elizabeth Luger Hammer Back), and Henry Hammer Jr. (the brother of Aaron's wife Elizabeth).
It also clearly states that Aaron and his wife Elizabeth sold that 50 acres of land along Wolf Run to her brother Henry, for one dollar.
It further clearly states that John Embry and his wife Elizabeth (Elizabeth Back Embry) had previously owned 100 acres along Wolf Run, consisting of 50 acres on one side of the creek, and 50 acres on the other side. It also clearly states that, back on April 10, 1809, John Embry and his wife Elizabeth had sold that 50 acres to Aaron Back, and the other 50 acres to Margaret Back (Margaret Hoffman Back).
This 1816 land deed does not include the name of Elizabeth Hoffman Back (born July 13, 1746), because she didn't buy that land, or sell that land; she was not part of the transaction. However, she was closely related to the parties involved. She was mother of the man who had bought that land, back in 1809 (Aaron Back). She also had lived on that land with her son (Aaron Back). She also was the mother of the man who had sold that land, in 1816 (Aaron Back). And she also was the sister of the woman who lived on the other 50 acres, on the other side of the creek.
It has been decisively proven that Aaron Back was not the son of Margaret Hoffman Back, because his name was not on the 1803 land deed, in which Margaret sold her land and house, back in Madison County, Virginia. All five of Margaret's children were named in that deed, and all five signed that deed; all five were daughters; not one of them was a son, and not one of them was Aaron Back.
In the 1810 Census Report, in Rockingham County, Aaron was seen living with an elderly woman who was over the age of 45. Of course, that was his mother, Elizabeth Hoffman Back (born July 13, 1746); she was then 64 years old. Since it has been decisively proven that his mother was not Margaret Hoffman Back, of course, it had to have been his mother, Elizabeth Hoffman Back (born July 13, 1746). Also living with Aaron were his two unmarried sisters. All four of them had just moved to Rockingham County, from Madison County, where his mother, Elizabeth Hoffman Back (born July 13, 1746), had just sold her farm to Ephraim Fray, a few months before, on September 28, 1809. Elizabeth Hoffman Back (born July 13, 1746) was never seen in any subsequent Tax Lists or Census Reports, in Madison County, after she sold her land. Of course, she moved to Rockingham County with her son Aaron and her two unmarried daughters.
The reason that all four of them moved to that 50 acres along Wolf Run, was so that Elizabeth Hoffman Back (born July 13, 1746), who was a recent widow, could live out the rest of her life near her widowed sister Margaret Hoffman Back. Furthermore, the Tax Lists in Rockingham County, in 1810, 1811, and 1812, for Aaron Back, listed him as "Aaron & mother." Of course, that was Aaron's mother, Elizabeth Hoffman Back (born July 13, 1746).
So, if someone tries to claim that Aaron Back was not the son of Elizabeth Hoffman Back (born July 13, 1746), or that she did not move to Rockingham County, after her husband Henry died, in 1809, they are either incredibly stupid, or they are trying to deceive you, and trying to "prove" the fraudulent genealogy.
Birthdate confusion: Aaron Back was born on June 18, 1785; he had a brother named Henry Back Jr., who was born around 1783 (but died around 1805); these two brothers were the sons of Henry Back (1740-1809) and his wife Elizabeth Hoffman Back (born July 13, 1746).
There was another man named Henry Back, who was born on February 6, 1785, and he was the son of Joseph Back and his wife Elizabeth Hoffman-Maggard Back. (That was the Henry Back who migrated to southeastern Kentucky, in 1791.) This Administrator cannot seem to understand all of this. It would be impossible for Aaron Back (born June 18, 1785) to be a brother of Henry Back (born February 6, 1785), because their dates of birth are only four months apart. So, because this Administrator pretends that Joseph Back and his wife Elizabeth Hoffman-Maggard Back never existed, she claims that Henry Back (born February 6, 1785) was the son of Henry Back (1740-1809) and his wife Elizabeth Hoffman Back (born July 13, 1746), which is wrong; and that Aaron Back (born June 18, 1785) was the son of John Back and Margaret Hoffman, which is also wrong.
Burnt Records Collection: During the Civil War, many records in the Rockingham County Courthouse were burned. Years later, some people transcribed what was left of those records, and those transcriptions are now available, in an online collection called, "The Burnt Deed Books, 1778-1864." This 1816 Land Deed is part of that collection (see the link below). You can also view this 1816 land deed on the Rockingham County website (see the link below).
Link to The Burnt Deed Books, 1778-1864
Link to the Rockingham County Burnt Deed Books: Back to Hammer
In order to view this land deed on the Rockingham County website, after you click the link above, then click "Burnt Deed Books 1778-1864." Then click "Secure Remote Access," right under that. Then click "I Accept." Then click the darkened search box to the left of "Historical Index Search." Then click "Grantor Indexes" on the left. Then click "1778-1864 (Burnt Deeds)." Then click the letter "B" (for Back). Scroll down to near the middle of page 17. You will see Aaron Back's name. It shows that Aaron sold two parcels to Henry Hammer Jr. (although the dates of those deed in this index is August 20, not August 19). One deed (Book 3, Page 249) was for Aaron selling some other land that he owned (63 acres), to Henry Jr. The other deed (Book 3, Page 250) was for Aaron selling his 50 acres on Wolf Run, to Henry Jr.; that's the one you want to view.
So, to view this actual deed, go back over to the left, and scroll down to "Document Search." Enter "3" for the Book number, and enter "250" for the Page number. Then click "Search." Two deeds will then come up. The deed you want is the first one, called, "Burnt Deeds." If you hover your mouse over the right side of that box, a small black icon will come up. Just click that, and the deed will open.
This woman denies all of this proof: Before this woman with her staged "DNA Project" posted the Rockingham County Tax Lists on Family Search, she first downloaded the 1812 Land Tax List for Aaron Back, and she altered the year to be 1810. (Why?) Then she downloaded the 1815 Land Tax List for some woman named Elizabeth Bohr, who owned land way over in Keezletown (14 miles west of Wolf Run), and she altered her name to be Elizabeth Back. She referred to that 1815 Tax List that she had just altered as being, "more disturbing." (What?)
Then this woman claimed that, since the Tax Lists only said, "Aaron & mother," and they didn't provide the full name of Aaron's mother (Elizabeth Hoffman Back), that meant that it wasn't Elizabeth Hoffman Back! (What?) But, why in the world would his mother's full name have been written on that Tax List? She was his mother, and so that one word, "mother," was all that was needed. (So...if Aaron's mother actually was Margaret Hoffman Back, as this woman falsely claims, since Margaret's full name was not provided, if couldn't be Margaret, either....right?!)
Then this woman plastered the word "FAKE" in red, bold letters, at the top of her altered copies of those Tax Lists, before she uploaded them to Family Search! Of course, she continually screams that, "Aaron was the son of Margaret Hoffman Back," without any proof; and she continually screams that, "Elizabeth moved to Kentucky with several of her children," without any proof. But yet, she staunchly demands that everyone else provide proof, or as she calls, it, "proofs!" It's crazy!
When this woman posted that 1816 Land Deed on Family Search, she wrote that, it "proves that Elizabeth Hoffman Back did not move to Rockingham County." (What? How?) She also wrote that, because Aaron's wife was also named Elizabeth, that somehow "proves that his mother named Elizabeth did not move to Rockingham County." (What? How?) She also wrote that, because the land was deeded to Aaron Back and Margaret Back, that "proves that Margaret was Aaron's mother." (What? How?) And she even wrote that, because, "the phrase 'Aaron Back and Elizabeth his wife' appears five times," that also somehow, "proves that Aaron's mother Elizabeth did not move to Rockingham County." (What? How?)
Anyone can easily see how deranged this woman's thinking is. It's really sad. People can't tell whether this woman is mentally ill, or whether she is fabricating information, to "prove" her fraudulent genealogy, for her own sick and selfish reasons, just like "The Back-Bach Genealogical Society" did. Perhaps it's both.
**************************
Summary: There is still not one historical document that proves any aspect of her fraudulent genealogy. But yet, there are a massive number of historical documents that prove the actual genealogy of the Back (Bach) family from southeastern Kentucky. Can't she see how bizarre her behavior is? Everyone else can.
This woman with her staged "DNA Project" thinks that her "DNA Project" is all the "proof" that she needs, even though it is obviously staged, and it is in direct conflict with the massive number of historical documents in existence about the family. It appears that, back in 2009, she started her "DNA Project" with a DNA test from her brother. Then, she got the DNA test results for Greg Back, who is a known descendant of Harman Back; he was her second participant. But when Greg's DNA was not a match to her brother's DNA, she figured out ways to stage her "DNA Project," to "prove" that members of the Back (Bach) family from southeastern Kentucky descend from Harman Back, through his alleged son Henry Back.
Yes, her staged "DNA Project" has allowed her to keep her membership in DAR; and yes, she maintained her "officer status" in DAR; and yes, she "saved face" with all of her DAR girlfriends. But at what price? Did she really have to destroy the actual genealogy of her own family, to do it?
She actually thinks that she can fool people with her bizarre behavior. She doesn't understand that people aren't stupid. They aren't going to be fooled by some fraudulent genealogy that has absolutely no proof to support it, and they aren't going to be fooled by some staged "DNA Project."
Many people wonder...why does this woman insist on trying to "prove" that the Back (Bach) family from southeastern Kentucky descends from some guy who simply donated some booze to some soldiers, back in 1780? Who cares! Can't she find an ancestor in her actual family tree, to use, in an honest and ethical manner, to maintain her membership in DAR? If she's such a "genealogy expert," why can't she find someone else to use that won't involve tearing apart her own family?
Why is she so ashamed of her own actual ancestors?
Why does she keep tearing apart her own family with her fraudulent genealogy?
NOTICE: We have actual screenshots, from 2022, from DAR's website, which prove they made corrections to their online Ancestor Database,
in 2022, for Harman Back and Henry Back.
However, due to copyright restrictions,
we cannot display those actual screenshots.
In 2023, DAR removed those corrections. In 2024, DAR put the fraudulent genealogy back onto their online Ancestor Database.
IMPORTANT: The DAR website clearly states that, "Y-DNA will not be considered as stand-alone proof of lineage, because while it can be used as a tool to point to a family, it cannot be used as absolute proof for an individual."
So, why in the world is DAR accepting "The Bach to Back DNA Project," as stand-alone proof of lineage, especially since it is obviously staged? Moreover, they do not have even one historical document that supports the (fraudulent) genealogy that they now present on their online Ancestor Database. WHY ARE THEY VIOLATING THEIR OWN RULES?
In 1988: Back in 1988, The Back-Bach Genealogical Society submitted a fraudulent genealogy to DAR. They told DAR that "Patriot" Harman Back had a son named "Patriot" Henry Back, and that "Patriot" Henry Back had sons named John Back (1774-1854), who married Catherine Robertson; and Henry Back (1785-1871), who married Susannah Maggard. John and Catherine, and Henry and Susannah, were some of the earliest settlers in southeastern Kentucky.
The Back-Bach Genealogical Society did that, just so they could use DAR, to "prove" their fraudulent genealogy, which was going to be printed in a book that they were getting ready to publish. They used DAR, to sell their book, just like they used many other organizations to sell their book.
The Back-Bach Genealogical Society had no proof whatsoever of their fraudulent genealogy, because it wasn't true. But back then, DAR didn't actually require proof, and DAR apparently assumed that, since the information came from "a genealogical society," it must be true. And so, DAR included that fraudulent genealogy in their Ancestor Database, without verifying it.
From 1988, to January 2022: Many members of the Back (Bach) family from southeastern Kentucky were able to buy a membership in DAR, because DAR said that John Back (1774-1854) and Henry Back (1785-1871), who were well-known to have lived in southeastern Kentucky, were the sons of "Patriot" Henry Back, and he was the son of "Patriot" Harman Back. When the DAR website went online, that fraudulent genealogy was presented in their online Ancestor Database, and so their memberships from members of the Back (Bach) family from southeastern Kentucky increased dramatically.
February 2022: In early February of 2022, some members of the Back (Bach) family from southeastern Kentucky submitted a massive research report to DAR, which had taken nearly a year to produce. It was prepared in conjunction with several Board-Certified genealogists, professional researchers, and respected historians. It contained over 100 original historical documents, and it provided overwhelming evidence and proof that John Back (1774-1854) and Henry Back (1785-1871) were not the sons of "Patriot" Henry Back; and that "Patriot" Henry Back was not the son of "Patriot" Harman Back.
The submitters of that research report asked the in-house genealogists at DAR to please review their report, and if they concurred with the results, they asked them to please correct the inaccurate information in DAR's online Ancestor Database, for "Patriot" Harman Back, and for "Patriot" Henry Back.
DAR's in-house genealogists did review the research report, and they completely concurred with its results. DAR then mailed a letter, back to the submitters, confirming this, in mid-February of 2022:
DAR's letter stated the following: (1) Harman Back had just one child who survived to adulthood, which was Harman Back Jr.; (2) Harman Back died before Sept. 15, 1789, in Culpeper County, Virginia, when his only son Harman Back Jr. sold the land that he had inherited from him; and (3) Henry Back did not have sons John Back (1774-1854), who married Catherine Robertson; or Henry Back (1785-1871), who married Susannah Maggard. (A copy of DAR'S letter is presented below.)
DAR's in-house genealogists also corrected their online Ancestor Database accordingly, in mid-February of 2022:
DAR corrected their online Ancestor Database for "Patriot" Harman Back to read as follows: (1) Joseph Back (1756-1832) was "Patriot" Harman Back's grandson, through his only son Harman Back Jr.; (2) Neither "Patriot" Harman Back nor his son Harman Back Jr. had children named John Back or Henry Back; and (3) Harman Back died sometime before 9-15-1789, in Culpeper County, Virginia.
DAR corrected their online Ancestor Database for "Patriot" Henry Back to read as follows: (1) "Patriot" Henry Back is not the father of John Back (1774-1854) who married Catherine Robertson; and (2) "Patriot" Henry Back is not the father of Henry Back (1785-1871) who married Susannah Maggard.
From February 2022, to July 2023: DAR's online Ancestor Database clearly reflected those corrections, and we have saved the screenshots of those corrections. Those corrections (the truth) were most definitely there, as a direct result of the research done by DAR's own, in-house genealogists.
After the truth about "Patriot" Harman Back and "Patriot" Henry Back was posted onto DAR's online Ancestor Database, in February of 2022, the Administrator of this "DNA Project" became absolutely hysterical. Not only did it jeopardize her DAR membership, and her "officer status" in DAR, it also humiliated her in front of all of her DAR girlfriends. And so, she did everything she could, to get DAR to restore the fraudulent genealogy, back onto their online Ancestor Database.
Around July of 2023, she convinced DAR to remove all of those corrections from their online Ancestor Database, for both "Patriot" Harman Back, and "Patriot" Henry Back. She also convinced DAR to replace those corrections, for each man, with a generic statement that said, "Claimed lineages from this man are under review," and she had DAR backdate those generic statements to, "3/2022."
From July 2023, to December 2023: When the submitters of the research report happened to notice those generic statements, in July of 2023, they knew that something nefarious was going on, and they were 99% certain that the Administrator of this "DNA Project" was behind it, because she was an "officer" in DAR, and she had a vested interest in keeping the accurate genealogy off of DAR's online Ancestor Database. So, they sent letters to the senior management team at DAR, including the President of DAR, and they warned them about the staged "DNA Project." They explained, in detail, exactly what that woman was doing, and exactly how her "DNA Project" was staged. They urged DAR's senior management to not be fooled by her "DNA Project." They also asked that the correct information, which DAR had researched and confirmed themselves, be restored to DAR's online Ancestor Database. But nobody from DAR ever replied.
Early 2024: It took that Administrator just a few more months, but she finally convinced DAR that they could simply use her "DNA Project" as "proof" that the fraudulent genealogy was correct, in order to restore the fraudulent genealogy to their online Ancestor Database. That way, DAR could have access, once again, to the tens of thousands of descendants in the Back (Bach) family from southeastern Kentucky, in order to continue making money off of all of those people. DAR could resume selling them memberships, pins, ribbons, and items from their online store. DAR could also reap even greater financial benefits from those people, by being named as the beneficiary in their wills and retirement plans. Plus, DAR would still benefit from making money from the few hundred descendants of Harman Back. It was a win-win situation for DAR, and for the Administrator of this "DNA Project" as well.
The first thing that DAR did was have their attorney mail a sick and threatening letter to the submitters of that research report, on February 1, 2024. The submitters gave us a copy of that letter. The letter was full of bizarre statements that made no sense, blatant lies, and ridiculous threats. It claimed that the submitters' 2022 massive research report of corrections, which DAR had reviewed themselves, had completely agreed with, and had posted to their online Ancestor Database in February of 2022, were simply "some comments." (What?) It also claimed that those 2022 corrections were "not ever completed," and that the fraudulent genealogy (which would soon be reposted) "completed their genealogical research and review process," which was described as being, "impartial and independent." (What?) It even claimed that restoring the fraudulent genealogy to the online Ancestor Database was simply "a regular and ordinary event." (What?)
The letter further described the submitters' attempt at warning the senior management of DAR about the "DNA Project" as being, "accusatory, harassing, and abusive." (What?) Of course, it was none of those things. That statement was simply an attempt at trying to "build a case," for the threats that followed next. The letter said that nobody in our family was allowed to ever contact DAR ever again, and that if anyone in our family dared to mail them a letter, it would be returned, unopened. (How would they know who it was from, unless they opened it?!) It also said that if anyone in our family ever emailed them, they would block their email address. The letter even demanded that the submitters contact every person in the Back (Bach) family in southeastern Kentucky and tell them to never contact DAR either! (What? How could that possibly be done? There are tens of thousands of people in the family, and how could each one of them ever be found!) And finally, the DAR attorney wrote that if anyone in our family ever contacted DAR again, DAR would report them to that person's "local law enforcement." (What?)
If we had not seen the letter, we would not have believed it. But that is exactly what it said. The letter was incredibly sick and incredibly childish. It was actually psychotic.
May 2024: In May of 2024, DAR restored the fraudulent genealogy, back to their online Ancestor Database. It's still there, and it will probably remain there. And so, any member of the Back (Bach) family from southeastern Kentucky who trusts DAR's online Ancestor Database to be valid will be misled. It truly is tragic.
Just look at what DAR has done: (1) They know that the fraudulent genealogy of the Back (Bach) family from southeastern Kentucky is fraudulent, because they have researched the facts for themselves; (2) They know that the "DNA Project" is staged, because they were shown the proof that it is staged; but yet, (3) They put the fraudulent genealogy back onto their online Ancestor Database. Why? Apparently, it's so they can make lots of money off of members of the Back (Bach) family from southeastern Kentucky. What other reason could there be?
Since then: The Administrator of this "DNA Project" has gone all over the Internet, and she has systematically removed the actual genealogy of the Back (Bach) family from southeastern Kentucky from major genealogy websites, and replaced it with her fraudulent genealogy. She uses DAR to do this. She tells the genealogy websites that the (fraudulent) genealogy on DAR's online Ancestor Database is really the correct genealogy, by saying that, "well, they're DAR, and so, of course, it's correct!"
On FindAGrave, she got the management to "take away" countless memorials that honored the ancestors in the Back (Bach) family from southeastern Kentucky, from several of our cousins. Our cousins had created those memorials, back in 2016, and they had "managed" them, ever since. Then she got FindAGrave to remove the biographies from those memorials that had provided accurate information about those people and our family, and she also got them to remove all of the historical documents that were attached to their memorials, which proved the actual genealogy. She even got FindAGrave to "take away" the memorials for "Patriot" Henry Back, and for "Patriot" Harman Back, from the people who had created them, and had managed them, for many years, and now she is linking Henry as a son of Harman.
Even worse, she is trying to link John Back (1774-1854) and his brother Henry Back (1785-1871), to be sons of "Patriot" Henry Back, to complete her fraudulent genealogy on FindAGrave. It is so evil.
Somehow, she convinced the management at FindAGrave to ignore all of their own rules and procedures, and simply take those memorials away from the people who had created them, and had managed them, for years. There was never any problem with them before. But suddenly, within a couple of days of DAR restoring that fraudulent genealogy to their online Ancestor Database, those memorials were simply taken away, and now, that woman can post whatever she wants on them. It is truly outrageous.
On FamilySearch and WikiTree, this Administrator has done the same thing. She has removed the actual lineage of our family, from those websites, and she has replaced it with her fraudulent genealogy. She has also removed all of the actual documents for our family, from our family tree, on those websites. In their place, she has posted her hijacked documents, along with her deliberate misinterpretations of them. You can actually feel her hostility, when you read what she has posted. And, so now, only she is allowed to manage our family tree on those websites, and only she is allowed to post documents on our family tree. In fact, if anyone tries to post the actual genealogy of the Back (Bach) family from southeastern Kentucky, or any actual documents, with the correct descriptions for them, on those websites, within an hour or so, she gets it all removed! And if you persist in trying to post anything about the actual genealogy, she gets you permanently banned from those websites. She obviously sits at her computer all day, watching and waiting, like a vulture, for anyone to post the truth, and then she quickly gets it removed. Nobody has ever seen anything like this before. She has completely destroyed the actual genealogy of her own family, on the Internet, just to maintain her membership in some club, and just to impress her girlfriends in that club.
Even more: The Administrator of this "DNA Project" has also posted, all over the Internet, that, "Records at DAR have now been restored, after a temporary suspension pending submission of proof documents." However, there was no "temporary suspension." The actual genealogy was simply removed, and the fraudulent genealogy was simply restored. That's not a "suspension." And no, no "proof documents" were suddenly submitted. All the "proof documents" had been submitted to DAR, back in February of 2022, which supported the actual genealogy, not the fraudulent genealogy.
All that happened was that this Administrator convinced DAR to accept her staged "DNA Project" as being valid, so that DAR could restore that fraudulent genealogy to their online Ancestor Database. Apparently, DAR did that, just so they could bring in more money from members of the Back (Bach) family from southeastern Kentucky.
This woman has also posted, all over the Internet, that, "Applications for membership under Patriot Henry Back can again be submitted." That statement sums it up perfectly.
About us
Who we are: We are a group of cousins whose Back (Bach) ancestors come from southeastern Kentucky. Our family definitely does not descend from Harman Back. We are proud of our actual ancestors, and so we believe that it is important to expose the fraudulent genealogy of our family that has been perpetrated by The Back-Bach Genealogical Society, The Bach to Back DNA Project, and DAR.
If you have additional evidence concerning these types of attacks on our family, please let us know:
MrsRobertaHastings (a t) g m a i l (d o t) c o m
Terms of service: This website is a public service. It is offered to you, conditioned upon your acceptance of the terms, conditions, and disclaimers contained herein. Visiting this website constitutes your acceptance of these terms, conditions, and disclaimers. By visiting this website, you agree to hold harmless, the webmasters and their associates, from all complaints and litigation. By visiting this website, you also agree that it is your choice to do so, and at your own risk. If you are somehow upset by the information on this website, then you should not visit this website. Any contact with the webmasters that contains offensive language, threats, or hate, will not be tolerated, and it will not be answered; in fact, it may result in litigation.
Disclaimers: This website is for informative purposes only. Every effort has been made to insure the validity of the information presented. We are unable to display the actual screenshots from FTDNA, or from DAR, due to copyright restrictions, but we most certainly have them, and we have reported their contents, exactly as they had existed on the Internet. The webmasters make no representations, no guarantees, and no warranties, of any kind, expressed or implied, regarding the information on this site. We are simply providing information that you may or may not find useful. Any criticism of any information on this website is simply an attempt at covering up the truth, and therefore, will constitute a frivolous and baseless cause of action, which, if pursued, will result in a substantial and successful cross-complaint, as well as unflattering media exposure. This website does not defame or libel any individual or entity, because the information it presents is true; therefore, any plaintiff will have an impossible burden of proof, attempting to claim otherwise. The webmasters have no responsibility, or liability, for any damages, or hurt feelings, that someone may suffer, or alleges they have suffered, as a result of this website.
Copyright © Mrs. Roberta Hastings 2024. All Rights Reserved.
This website uses cookies to analyze website traffic and optimize your website experience. By accepting our use of cookies, your data will be aggregated with all other user data.