For the education of D.G Van Curen - There is NO VAN SICLEN Board on Gen. Forum.Hope that is sufficient to assuage Van Curen’s egotism –Van Curen’s Post 561 - “It still illustrates that he was looking for me, specifically,” . Van Curen’s Post560 – “He was clearly looking specifically for my message, and no other.”Van Curen you can't get the simplest of simple things correct!How could I expect you to understand anything as complicated as a Certification of a document.
As to why I was on the Van Sickle board? How about this - Iwas looking for another Van XXXXX, (who was not on the Van Sickle board), encountered the exchange between Ed Gusman & Van Curen, became intrigued and you know the “rest of the story”.
A competent “researcher” , anyone except Van Curen,would have exercised the precaution of at least checking for a Van Siclen board before putting his foot into his mouth by writing - "Had he truly been interested in the Exact spelling of "VAN SICLEN", he would have posted a relevant message on that board."You surely do crack and smear a lot of eggs on your head Van Curen! My my what fools some mortals be!
To D.G. Van Curen – I will expose two additional lies out of the numerous lies contained in your postings. Then it is tweedle dee – tweedle dum – I have to run -to post no more.
By G. Norman - MARIA’S CERTIFIED BIBLE ENTRY written in 1814 tells all that is needed. When Van Curen provides certified documentary evidence authenticating his allegations that any single or all parts of Maria’s Certified Bible entry contains errors, including providing a Certification of documentation authenticating Van Curen’s claim that alleged errors exist in any deponents testimony contained in their affidavits, then and only then will D. G. Van Curen have a case to pursue.
Why can’t Van Curen produce the single certified or even uncertified document he must have to show that Luther Calvin Eastling actually married Van Curen’s protégé Maria Van Sicklen. Ed Gusman provided a certified document showing his protégé Maria Van Siclen married Luther Calvin Eastling!
Now exposure of two additional lies out of the vast number created by D.G. Van Curen.
Post # 556 by Van Curen – “Fact: Hannah Lawson, aka Hannah Lossing, aka Annetje Lassing, aka Annetje Lassen, etc, was the mother of Maria Van Sicklen Eastling, as established by the records of the Dutch Reformed Church of Fishkill, New York, and corroborated by the Eastling Bible entries, and Maria's cemetery record. Hannah is buried next to her husband Cornelius Van Sicklen, lot B28, Murray, Ontario Canada. A hastily done DAR application containing numerous proven errors will not change that."
By G. Norman - There is no value in the preceding paragraph when the subject of the Certified Bible entry is Maria Van Siclen, her marriage date and data contained therein.
Ed Gusman and I had quite a phone converstation.
Who, except D.G. Van Curen, the man who researched the wrong lineage for Maria Van Siclen, is interested in the Maria Van Sicklen, Cornelius Van Sicklen lineage or where they are buried and who because of his flawed research into the wrong lineage now must defend his magnificent mistakes.
The Van Sicklen lineage is not relevant to the lineage of Maria Van Siclen. Maria Van Siclen & her father Cornelius Van Siclen and Maria Van Sicklen & her father Cornelius Van Sicklen are two separate and unique blood-lines, DNR, etc. with each descended from different progenitors. Refer to Post #216 Feb 7, 2000 and Post # 335 Aug 7, 2000 by McCool. Amust reading for Van Curen.
Van Curen states in his quoted paragraph – “……AND CORROBORATED BY THE EASTLING BIBLE ENTRIES, AND MARIA’S CEMETERY RECORD”.“Corroborated by Eastling Bible entries, and Maria’s cemetery record” is the baldest-faced of outright bald-faced lies created by Van Curen to date. I quote Maria’s certified Bible entry:
Quote – “Luther C. Eastling born May 30th 1791” and “Maria Eastling was born Sept 15th 1801”,that subsequent entries among many others in said family bible are the following “Luther & Maria Van Siclin Eastling was married July 22nd 1814”, Fanny Hill Eastling born November the 20th 1837”, Francis Irons was married to Fanny Eastling April the 22 1854 in her 17 year”, “father Van Siclen died March the ?? in 1850”, that the entry of the birth of “Fanny Hill Eastling“ is the tenth-entry of births of children of Luther and Maria Eastling, that the day of the month in the record of the death of “father Van Siclen” is too indistinct to read. That the mother of applicant is the Fanny Hill Eastling whose birth and marriage are recorded in said bible as above set forth.”
Anyone find corroboration within the preceding bible entry record for “Hannah Lawson, aka Hannah Lossing, aka Annetje Lassing, aka Annetje Lassen, etc, was the mother of Maria Van Sicklen Eastling” – or for the marriage of Maria Van Sicklen to Luther Calvin Eastling? Van Curen piles lies upon lies when he states ”.“Corroborated by Eastling Bible entries”.
Van Curen also stated “Corroborated by…..Maria’s cemetery record”: Knowing nothing about Maria’s cemetery record, I called Ed Gusman by phone. Ed told me the allegation by Van Curen about Maria Van Siclen Eastling’s Cemetery record corroborating any of Van Curen’s allegations was another of Van Curen’s bald-faced lies. Maria Van Siclen’s Cemetery record consists solely of her grave marker and what is written on it. Located in Lone Pine Cemetery, Plainfield, WI. No civil, church record or obituary record has been found describing her death and burial.
Maria’s grave stone - “Maria wife of L.C. Eastling Died March 4 1868 Age 66 years, 6 mo. & 18 days.”,
By G. Norman - I had no knowledge of a DAR application, which Van Curen keeps referring to. While discussing with Ed, Maria’s cemetery record, I also asked Ed Gusman why Van Curen keeps referring to a Violetta DAR application.
For the benefit of those who, like myself, don’t know a thing about a Violetta DAR application, here is what Ed told me:
“In 1907 Violetta Irons Voorhees, an affidavit deponent, decided to join the DAR and submitted an application with the name of her great grandfather Revolutionary Veteran written as Cornelius Van Sickle. Violetta submitted her application Aug 23 1906. Eight months later, April 6 1907, Violetta discovered after reading the Certified copy of Maria’s 1814 Bible entry, that she had misspelled the name of her Revolutionary Veteran ancestor who’s name she should have spelled as Cornelius Van Siclen. Violetta did not resubmit the DAR application because three months, Nov. 14 1906, after initial submission, her election to the local DAR chapter had been locally approved. That was five months prior to Violetta receiving the Certified Maria bible entry copy containing the information about the correct spelling of the Van Siclen name. The DAR Headquarters withheld final approval of Maria’s DAR application until Sept. 24, 1907 ten months after her local election and five months after the affidavits were submitted to DAR Headquarters. Approval of Violetta’s DAR application, Sept. 24, 1907 was denied for a total of 13 months and required the submission of the affidavits of Violetta, Fanny and Ferdinand which provided the correct spelling for Cornelius Van Siclen. The correct spelling for the Revolutionary Vets name, Cornelius Van Siclen, over-rode the erroneous spelling in the DAR application and Violetta did not have to resubmit her DAR application.
Ed went on to say, that he has known for over a year and early on notified Van Curen that the originally submitted DAR application contained the misspelled Van Sickle name as opposed to the correct spelling of Van Siclen. Ed said there was an ironic humor in the fact that Van Curen, who constantly vilified and badmouthed Violetta for researching the wrong veteran Van Sickle, did exactly the same thing as Violetta had done when he, Van Curen, researched the wrong lineage, that of Van Sicklen!
Ed said the DAR application has been a dead issue for the better part of a year or more.
By G. Norman – Response to Van Curen’s allegation about many Eastling’s in Canada. Esling is not Eastling and only once in history has the twain meet – which would have been at whatever generation the Eastling surname was originally derived from Esling – perhaps nearly 500 years ago.Ed suggested to me that Van Curen does some research about the Eastling surname. As to Garrett Eastling – if Van Curen can provide certified authenticated evidence that Henry Eastling is a descendent of Garrett Eastling, Ed said he will back off his allegation that Henry Eastling maybe the third son of Luther Calvin Eastling and Maria Van Siclen. Simple enough Van Curen – provide certified documentation supporting your allegation.
Told to G. Norman by Ed Gusman - Van Curen know this, we who research Eastling’s lineage knew about the Eslings years before you decided to Post your Loyalists garbage, including the presence of Garrett Eastling in Canada. In April of 2000 the following data was discovered by Mary C. Mary's search for one Luther Calvin “Esling” was prompted by the derivation of the spelling of the Eastling name from Esling to Eastling as described by Dr. MacDONALD in the first paragraph of his Luther Calvin Eastling commentary.
Mary C. - "And I also found on the LDS site, a Luther Calvin Esling, born May 30, 1781, in Upton, Worcester, MA. Parents: Richard Esling and Rhoda ???. "
Dr. MacDonald - Quoting from Dr. MacDonald’se-mail
“Then again, 'Ancestry.com' shows a 'Richard Wm. Esling' marrying in Ocon (Oconto) County, Wisconsin on 19th June, 1800. The right sort of age for the oldest son of Richard & Rhoda Esling [and the elder brother of Luther Calvin Esling] to be marrying !” Unquote.
By G. Norman – A multitude of additional allegations by Van Curen appear in his postings about the Certification, affidavits, and the Van Siclen surname. Until the time Van Curen can provide certification of authenticating documents or even not certified documents supporting each of his allegations, the Van Curen allegations are nothing more than on going lies. Van Curen cares not a whit about accurate genealogy records. None of his writings are to be trusted.
Ed Gusman told me during one of our phone conversations, that genealogy researchers who collect documents, willy nilly, but who don't have the skills to correctly analyze and accurately interpret data contained in the collected documents are often referred to as cherry pickers. Filling a file with documents takes no more skill than filling a container with picked cherries. A unique research talent is needed to analyze and correctly interpret discovered documents. Anyone reading this believe that Van Curen’s random distortion and tampering with Certified bible entry data and affidavits demonstrates analytical talent?
You have a nice day D.G. Van Curen
Tha tha thats all folks! There there there will be no follow-ups by G. Norman