He’s telling you what he saw with his own eyes, but then saying it couldn’t be so and goes on the blame in on the Carr’s.
But then the DNA settles the Carr question.
> He’s telling you [the grandson speaking of the resemblance to Thomas Jefferson] what he saw with his own eyes, but then saying it couldn’t be so...
Come on now! That “it” makes the statement seem as if he’s denying what he saw with his own eyes. He saw the resemblance, but didn’t interpret it as you do.
This is the first time I’ve been angered by a response during this exchange (which otherwise has been carried on in a civil and conscientious manner — at least, among the persons I’ve been addressing). Randolph did not say that what he saw with his own eyes couldn’t be so. That’s a blatantly false interpretation of what was said.
He saw a close family resemblance to Thomas Jefferson, yes, but did not attribute it to Thomas Jefferson being the father. On the contrary, he denies that inference with great emphasis, and gives reasons why.
> But then the DNA settles the Carr question.
The DNA shows that a Carr was not the father of Eston, but it in no way rules out a Carr as the father of any of the other children.