Re: Maria Van Siclen Bible
-
In reply to:
Re: Maria Van Siclen Bible
Ed Gusman 12/09/02
"Doug wrote - He boldly proclaimed the DAR contents to be true, without bothering to look for records to verify the claims, and now his inflated ego won't allow him to admit his mistakes.
Gusman - You appear not to know the difference between the DAR application and the affidavits"
You, sir, don't read very well.I did not say "application", I said "contents".The affadavits were included with the application and are a part of the "CONTENTS" of the DAR file.The statement I made applied to ALL contents of the DAR file, including the affadavits.No wonder you have such difficulty with simple comprehension of details.Even the simplest of concepts confuses you.
Your statements regarding "proof" is absolutely false.Anyone interested may find the necessary references in the Van Sickle Forum, or they can contact me directly, and I will be happy to provide everything they need.The line is proven.Eddy attempts to deceive everyone by using his "exact spelling" nonsense in an attempt to discredit the evidence, but the ploy doesn't work on intelligent people.Sorry Eddy...we all know better.The burden of proof is not on me, but rather, on you.While I have a well documented paper trail conclusively proving Maria's real ancestry, Eddy cannot even find one piece of paper from Canada or New York to support the DAR/affadavit fiction.The DAR application is fictitious and so are the affadavits.
Catherine Johnson is not a fictitious name.She really did exist, and she did marry a Cornelius Van Sicklen in 1771.They lived and died in Rumbout New York, and they did not have a daughter named Maria between them.That is what is fictitious....Claiming Catharine Johnson was Maria's mother.She wasn't, Hannah Lawson was...records prove that.
There is no need to prove anything about "affadavit Van Siclen".The affadavits claim that Maria's father, Cornelius Van Siclen, was a Revolutionary soldier.Her real father was not Rev War soldier, therefore "affadavit Van Siclen" is also a work of fiction.Since "affadavit Van Siclen" did not exist, the events of his fictitious life are irrelevant.
More Replies:
-
Re: Maria Van Siclen Bible
Ed Gusman 12/09/02
-
Re: Maria Van Siclen Bible
Douglas Van Curen 12/10/02
-
Re: Maria Van Siclen Bible
Ed Gusman 12/11/02
-
Re: Maria Van Siclen Bible
Douglas Van Curen 12/11/02
-
Re: Maria Van Siclen Bible
Ed Gusman 12/13/02
-
Re: Maria Van Siclen Bible
Douglas Van Curen 12/14/02
-
Re: Maria Van Siclen Bible
Ed Gusman 12/14/02
-
Re: Maria Van Siclen Bible
Douglas Van Curen 12/14/02
-
Re: Maria Van Siclen Bible
Ed Gusman 12/15/02
-
Re: Maria Van Siclen Bible
Douglas Van Curen 12/15/02
-
Re: Maria Van Siclen Bible
Ed Gusman 12/16/02
-
Re: Maria Van Siclen Bible
Douglas Van Curen 12/16/02
-
Re: Maria Van Siclen Bible
Ed Gusman 12/17/02
-
Re: Maria Van Siclen Bible
Douglas Van Curen 12/17/02
-
Re: Maria Van Siclen Bible
Ed Gusman 12/18/02
-
Re: Maria Van Siclen Bible
Richard McCool 12/18/02
-
Re: Maria Van Siclen Bible
Ed Gusman 12/23/02
-
Re: Maria Van Siclen Bible
-
Re: Maria Van Siclen Bible
-
Re: Maria Van Siclen Bible
-
Re: Maria Van Siclen Bible
Douglas Van Curen 12/18/02
-
Re: Maria Van Siclen Bible
Ed Gusman 12/26/02
-
Re: Maria Van Siclen Bible
Douglas Van Curen 12/27/02
-
Re: Maria Van Siclen Bible
Ed Gusman 12/28/02
-
Re: Maria Van Siclen Bible
Douglas Van Curen 12/28/02
-
Re: Maria Van Siclen Bible
Ed Gusman 12/30/02
-
Re: Maria Van Siclen Bible
Richard McCool 1/12/03
-
Re: Maria Van Siclen Bible
Douglas Van Curen 12/31/02
-
Re: Maria Van Siclen Bible
Ed Gusman 1/01/03
-
Re: Maria Van Siclen Bible
Douglas Van Curen 1/01/03
-
Re: Maria Van Siclen Bible
Ed Gusman 1/02/03
-
Re: Maria Van Siclen Bible
Douglas Van Curen 1/02/03
-
Re: Maria Van Siclen Bible
Douglas Van Curen 1/02/03
-
Re: Maria Van Siclen Bible
Ed Gusman 1/03/03
-
Re: Maria Van Siclen Bible
Douglas Van Curen 1/03/03
-
Re: Maria Van Siclen Bible
-
Re: Maria Van Siclen Bible
-
Re: Maria Van Siclen Bible
-
Re: Maria Van Siclen Bible
-
Re: Maria Van Siclen Bible
Robrert Esling 1/01/03
-
Re: Maria Van Siclen Bible
Ed Gusman 1/02/03
-
Re: Maria Van Siclen Bible
Robrert Esling 1/03/03
-
Re: Maria Van Siclen Bible
Ed Gusman 1/04/03
-
Was Van Sic{k}len OLD ENOUGH TO have fought?
karen depeso 6/18/07
-
Re: Was Van Sic{k}len OLD ENOUGH TO have fought?
Douglas Van Curen 7/17/08
-
Re: Was Van Sic{k}len OLD ENOUGH TO have fought?
-
Re: Maria Van Siclen Bible
Robrert Esling 1/08/03
-
Re: Maria Van Siclen Bible
Richard McCool 1/09/03
-
Re: Maria Van Siclen Bible
-
Re: Maria Van Siclen Bible
Richard McCool 1/09/03
-
Was Van Sic{k}len OLD ENOUGH TO have fought?
-
Re: Maria Van Siclen Bible
-
Re: Maria Van Siclen Bible
-
Re: Maria Van Siclen Bible
-
Re: Maria Van Siclen Bible
-
Re: Maria Van Siclen Bible
-
Re: Maria Van Siclen Bible
-
Re: Maria Van Siclen Bible
-
Re: Maria Van Siclen Bible
-
Re: Maria Van Siclen Bible
-
Re: Maria Van Siclen Bible
Richard McCool 1/09/03
-
Re: Maria Van Siclen Bible
Richard McCool 1/09/03
-
Re: Maria Van Siclen Bible
Richard McCool 1/09/03
-
Re: Maria Van Siclen Bible
Richard McCool 1/09/03
-
Re: Maria Van Siclen Bible
-
Re: Maria Van Siclen Bible
Richard McCool 1/09/03
-
Re: Maria Van Siclen Bible
Douglas Van Curen 1/17/03
-
Re: Maria Van Siclen Bible
-
Re: Maria Van Siclen Bible
Douglas Van Curen 3/09/03
-
Re: Maria Van Siclen Bible
-
Re: Maria Van Siclen Bible
-
Re: Maria Van Siclen Bible
-
Re: Maria Van Siclen Bible
-
Re: Maria Van Siclen Bible
-
Re: Maria Van Siclen Bible
Richard McCool 1/13/03
-
Re: Maria Van Siclen Bible
Richard McCool 1/09/03