Dec 17 2002 to McCool
Why don't you just knock off the foolishness Richard. You haven't the faintest idea what I amwriting about and what you continue to avidly support wherein the affidavits and DAR application are concerned. You admit as much when you write –“At this point I think it unlikely that anyone has any idea what you are about, including especially me."
Frankly, I believe that it is Richard and Doug alone whohave no idea about that which I write - I have no problem believing that other readers understand the significance of what I present and Doug and Richard's inability to come up with evidence of errors in the affidavits. They would like the reader to believe their clap trap because they are both too embarrassed to admit the faux pas which both are responsible for making in regards to the affidavits.
Gusman - Sarcasm does not become you Richard - probably because you are not good at it. That is your loss.
The problem that Richard and Doug have is that because they are devoid of any method whereby they can prove their allegations of affidavit errors, they feel that it would a loss of face if they were to admit their lack of knowledge about the affidavit Van Siclen family. Consequently, in order for them to cover up their deficient knowledge about the affidavits, they revert to sarcasm,ridicule and not provable allegations in order to divert a readers attention from their inability to produce conclusive evidence supporting their allegations about errors in the affidavits.
All Richard and Doug need do is simply admit that the affidavit Van Siclen family is a family new to them and about which they have to date not discovered information.
Rather than admit there is an affidavit Van Siclen family about which they know nothing, they proceed to fault the affidavits and deponents by telling us that the affidavits are wrong, the deponents were too old to accurately recall anything of importance and too old to resist the pressures of their daughter and niece, thereby agreeing to perjure themselves by using an alleged grandmother's fictitious name - all absurd and unproven allegations.
All that because they are not able to fit their square peg lineage’s into the round holes of the affidavits and they are too ego driven to admit there are a few families in genealogical history about which they know nothing. That is always a problem for "self-proclaimed experts".
If Richard has failed to understand what I have been posting regarding the following subjects - perhaps Richard should take down his "genealogy researcher shingle".
What this on going argument is about, described in the simplest words I know is - if allegations made by Doug and Richard of affidavit error and the deponents alleged inability to accurately recall events from between their ages of 31 and 40 respectively, allegations which cannot be proven with conclusive facts - then neither Doug or Richard should be making their not provable allegations regarding people about whom Doug and Richard know nothing at all or have never read or heard about.
They reveal their amateur research techniquesby the manner in which they resort to not provable allegations, ridicule and sarcasm as relates to alleged errors by the deponents in their affidavits.
If Richard and Doug want to put me down, as their single minded objective appears to be, then they can DO THIS:
1. Simple as writing a-b-c. Send to me, via an e-mail attachment or snail mail to me, a photograph of the Brighton Cemetery marker with the name Van Siclen engraved on it and any additional adjacent marker containing the name of the wife of the man buried under the Cemetery marker.
If Richard and Doug are correct - the initials A or H or name Annetje or Hannah will be on the same Van Siclen stone or on a marker next to it. Because of Doug's predilection to tampering with historical records, nothing but an un-tampered photograph sent by another individual, not known to Doug, will suffice as conclusive evidence that the man and wife under the Brighton Cemetery markers are who Doug alleges them to be - the third generation Van Sicklen and Annetje Lawson in his Van Sicklen genealogy.
I too have the software to edit and print photos and scanned documents anyway I choose. It would be a simple matter for me to remove a name on a photo and replace it with Annetje or Hannah, or alter a scanned historical document, if I had no integrity or character.Software is available which will replace handwritten entries on scanned documents with handwritten entries forged so neatly that neither Richard or Doug have the skills to determine the difference. Which is why, Doug’s insistence on letters and documents is nothing but foolishness by a man who apparently knows nothing about the ease with which historical documents can be created or forged.
I once received, from an unnamed individual, two ostensibly identical 19th century wills – they were ostensibly identical in every respect. One unexpected difference by the sender slipped by him. The individual sending me the wills, in an effort to prove his point, had altered one will to show the heir with a first name and no surname, whereas the ostensibly identical second will had the heir’s name written with the surname of the heir. The problem being that the sender forgot that he had earlier sent one will and then later sent a second will because he forgot about sending the first will. His mistake was in not remembering which will he had sent first or perhaps he forgot he had even sent the first will.
I would be inclined to believe an e-mail from a correspondent living in Brighton, Ontario, Canada, providing that the e-mail originated from someone not related to or who had not known Doug prior to the beginning of or during this on going argument. Such ane-mail need only contain the data EXACTLY copied as it appears on all sides of the Brighton Cemetery marker and or adjacent marker for the same primary stone.
Doug and Richard have an excellent and extremely easy golden opportunity to prove me wrong - Please! - I ask of you - do it!
I seek the confirmation which will prove what Doug and Richard currently only allege is true about Doug's Van Sicklen name appearing in his Van Sicklen genealogy as being the identical man and wife buried under the Brighton Cemetery Van Siclen marker.
The marker is Doug's only means of proving that Van Sicklen and Van Siclen are one and the same person - hopefully proven by a wife's name or initials buried with him.
This will be the first time that Richard or Doug has the opportunity to CONCLUSIVELY PROVE anything about anything as regards the affidavits or Doug's third generation in his Van Sicklen genealogy.
I PREDICT THE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE BRIGHTON VAN SICLEN MARKER WILL NOT SHOW A NAME OF ANNETJE OR HANNAH OR A. OR H.
Should it show Annetje or Hannah's name, it would be interesting to read Doug's explanation as to why the Van Siclen surname did not appear in his 3rd generation Van Sicklen genealogy.
"Self-proclaimed" expert researchers like Doug should have known, prior to the revelation to them by another individual of the Van Siclen in the Brighton Cemetery, that the name of Annetje/Hannah Lawson's husband was Van Siclen and not Van Sicklen - if indeed Annette/Hannah is buried with him under or near the Van Siclen marker. Another curious factor, Richard, is why, with Doug's "vast tomes" of microfilm, did Doug fail to find a Cornelius Van Siclen marker in the Brighton Cemetery? Someone had to tell him it was there. Is that how Richard describes an "expert" researcher?
2. Prove conclusively that the affidavit Cornelius Van Siclen IS NOT on any Revolutionary Record under a variant spelling such as Sicle, Sickle, Sicklin or any one of the many variant spellings of Van names in the various "Revolutionary indexes" with or without the prefix "Van".
3. Prove conclusively that Catherine Johnson was a fictitious creation of Violetta and NOT THE GENUINE WIFE OF THE AFFIDAVIT CORNELIUS VAN SICLEN.
4. Explain why and conclusively prove that the two deponents would fabricate, as alleged by Doug, afictitious name for their grandmother, Catherine Johnson, after having personally known their grandmother and or heard her name the first 31 and 40 years of their respective lives.
You know as well as I and thousands of others who may have read these postings, that the deponents would not dishonor their grandmother or themselves by perjuring themselves on an affidavit merely to appease a daughter and a niece, Violetta.
Richard also knows, like I and every other reader of these posts know, that no one applying for DAR membership would take the chance of later having that membership revoked because the applicant had inserted a fictitious name which could later be revealed as a fraudulent entry on the DAR application.
Because DAR membership is granted with or without the name of the Veteran's wife, Richard, why don't you attempt to explain why an applicant "determined to become a DAR member "create and enter any fictitious name on her application when such a name is not required and the applicant does not know the real name? I have asked that same question to Doug a number of times and he refuses to answer it.
Richard - please display some common sense with your support of Doug's allegations! Do you not understand how, with your support of Doug, you risk destroying whatever reputation you may have acquired?
5. Provide conclusive evidence that the father of Hannah Lossing was not a man with the Lossing surname,