Doug wrote - Since existing Rev War records have been published in various volumes, such to include indexes, it is a simple matter to view all spelling variations of a surname at a glance.
Gusman - What you are trying to tell me is that if Van Sicle, Sickle, Van Sicklin is spelled in one index as I have spelled the names. In another index one or more may be spelled as an example, Sicele, Sicl, Siklen, Van Sickelen, Van Sickalen etc. You then claim that you can determine which of those spellings are not Van Siclen with a variant spelling - and therefore you can conclusively state that Cornelius Van Siclen did not serve in the Revolution.
Perhaps you would explain to this Forum world how from the various indexes you determine that Van Siclen does not appear under an alternate spelling when you haven't a clue as to what the alternate spelling is?
Doug wrote - Eddy believes you have to look through the records one by one, looking only for one spelling at a time.......
Gusman - Exactly what I believe! When looking for a name, be it in military service records, telephone books, birth records, land records, immigration records, newspapers or whatever is being reviewed, the procedure is one name at a time. I do not believe that your have the ability of the Star Trek Next Generation "Data"or are you omniscient to be able to fan the pages of the records you review and read and assimilate every name on every page. You truly are skillied at making yourself appear foolish to the reading public when you claim that there is any way but reading each name in any record to determine the spelling of a name.
The Revolutionary Status of any veteran can only be determined when the exact spelling of the name he used during his service is known - Whether the name used was as he exactly spelled his birth name or any one of many variants, it is only when the exact spelling of the name the man used during his service is known that his service or no service can be determined.
You, jerk, haven't the faintest idea as to how Van Siclen may be spelled in the "index". Consequently, when you search, the only name you can search for the revolutionary status is Cornelius Van Siclen. Because Van Siclen may have been spelled with a variant (even the first name) with only a single letter being different as in Van Siclin or Van Sicle, or two letters as in Van Sickle,you have no means of determining if any of the spellings were for Van Siclen. YOU THEREFORE ARE NOT ABLE TO DO ANYMORE THAN TO ALLEGE THAT CORNELIUS VAN SICLEN WAS NOT A REVOLUTIONARY VETERAN AS STATED IN THE AFFIDAVITS. ALLEGATIONS PROVE NOTHING WHATSOEVER.
THE AFFIDAVITS REMAIN UNTARNISHED and continue to sparkle, and shine at the top of the worlds tallest obelisk.
Whydon't you comment about my comment that Cornelius Van Siclen and Catherine Johnson are not from any lineage with which you are familiar. Cornelius Van Siclen fell through the genealogic cracks when he was born and no birth record was made for him.
Not even your "vast" acculation of microfile can be said to be conclusively accurate. Micro film when printed will sometimes develop what may be referred to as a print through and dates applying to another person will either overprint and or print where no dates should appear. That is what happened with the microfilm print of the Reform Fishkill baptism record you sent me well over a year ago. The record you sent showed a baptism date for Maria the daughter of Hannah Lossing. The original baptismal record does not contain a baptismal date for Maria. You see, when I began to read baptismal dates before the children were born I suspected you had a problem. What did I do? what every competant researcher does, - I went to the original source record - wrote the Fishkill Reform church which 4 months later sent me a copy of the original page and there it was - no baptismal date for Maria Van Sicklen daughter of Hannah Lossing. That can of course mean two things - 1. Maria died before she could be baptised 2. No baptismal date is recorded because the last date written above it is "assumed" to be the correct baptism date. Naturally when there is no baptism date recorded and a missing date is "assumed" to be the last date recorded for another child above Maria, the missing date can equally be assumed to be missing because Maria died before being baptized - you - are left not knowing what the true status of Maria was died or baptized. Consequently, once again you speculate without proof that Maria was baptized and did not die.
Doug wrote - At this point, my exchange with "Eddy the uninformed" shall cease. In more than two years of trying to sell the affadavits as fact, he has been unable to uncover so much as one real document, dated during Cornelius' lifetime, establishing that Maria's father had either served in the Revolution, or was married to someone named Catharine.
Gusman - Excellent move by Doug. He quits without being able to answer two simple questions. He knows he cannot answer them because he also knows that the allegations he attempts to justify were created in his imagination and can never be supported by factual evidence.
In additition Doug is apparently not perceptive or wise enough to recognize that when the desriptions provided by the affidavits for Cornelius Van Siclen and Catherine Johnson fail to fit Doug's square hole genealogic lineages, that the people he cannot fit are from a lineage for which he has not knowledge or information.
You need to understand that Doug's entire genealogic world revolves around his microfilm. He is similar to the spider in the center of the web he has spun. His whole world revolves around the web as does Doug's around his microfilms. The spider has no knowledte of the millions of insects his web can't catch. In a similar manner Doug has no apparent awareness that there exists millions of records which do not appear on microfilm. I wonder if Doug has ever seen the inside of the record rooms inside of a Court house or records and books in an historical society which have not been microfilmed. He is not able to understand that outside his world of microfilm there is another world consisting of genunine cemetery graves, genuine records of all types in Court houses across the nation and Canada and a host of other locations where the microfilmer never has been. Doug also appears not to know that many churches of faiths other than the Dutch Reform do not believe in child baptism and consequently do not and never have kept records of the births and baptism of children. Doug also does not understand that there are millions of people who have never been inside of a church, millions of people who rent, housing or farms and consequently there would be no records of land grants,ownership or taxes paid on property they rented. Doug also cannot understand that in the 16th 17th and 18th century there were hundreds of thousands of people in Canada and the U.S. who never appeared on the Census's because they were not at their residences when the Census takers were there. Doug practices Cherry Picking genealogy research and appears not to have the skills needed to analyze the documents presented to him. He fails to look at documented dates or to understand that often times what is not in a document when it should be, often is more revealing than what is in the documents. The classic example in this situation is why if a name is not known as Doug alleges for the wife of Cornelius Van Siclen why then did not Violetta, simply leave the box for her veteran's wife a blank. Why would she place her future DAR membership in jeopardy with a fraudulent application by creating a fictious name when no name was equally qualifed for membership. Cherry Picking researchers do not have the perception or talent to grasp the subtleties of accurate research.
1. Why doesn't the affidavits or DAR application include the name Annetje Lawson which Doug alleges was the wife and grandmother of the affidavites known to the deponents throughout their lifetime? Why would Violetta create a fictitious name where no name was required and how does a daughter and niece influence her mother and uncle into disgarding their mother's real name and subsitute a fictitious name in an affidavit for which they swore to tell the truth. Neither of the deponents would under no cirumstances have perjured themselves and dishonored the name of their grandmother by swearing that a fictitious name, alleged by Doug to be Catherine Johsnon was their grandmother if Catherine Johnson had not been their real grandmother.
2. Doug has no means whereby he can prove that Cornelius Van Siclen was not revolutionary veteran as stated in the affidavits. Doug is not omniscient and has no way to determine if Cornelius Van Siclen's name is recorded under a variant spelling.
Douglas Van Curen has decided to quite responding to my questions because Douglas Van Curen recognizes that he cannot find the evidence he requires to support his allegations. As a researcher of the Van Sicklen lineage he may be qualified. As a researcher for any other lineages he has much to learn.
He would do himself a favor if he ventured into the real world of searching for original source documents as opposed to devoting all of his time to microfilm.
True Doug it is over. You finally recognize that the more foolish statements in which you indulge yourself the deeper my responses did your hole.
Your termination of your responding is a blessing I have been looking forward to. Should you decide to return to the affidavits with more of your lies, speculation and imagination, I will be hear with the truth as it is written into the affidavits.