Whenever the discussion turns to evidence in support of the "VAN SICLEN" exact spelling and documentation of the mythical Quebec family and their mythical place of residence that never has existed anywhere in Quebec, Mr Gusman is always ready to "terminate the discussion" with, of course,name calling and personal attacks.Everyone should recognize this as a dodge and a distraction from the real issue:
Mr Gusman has no source documents/evidence to support his claims, but he thinks he wins the argument by self declaring HIS to be the last word.Such has been his tactic in the past, and fails just as miserably now, as it did before.Fortunately, concerned Eastling researchers are now beginning to follow the true ancestral line, which is why I published it in the first place.Take the time to do the research, and you will quickly dismiss the Gusman fantasy as totally baseless.The 1814/1824 date is the only part of the entire published "Descendants of Cornelius Van Sicklen" that I can't prove, but I can show good cause why I believe it to be true.That is irrelevant, however, since an actual marriage record is not necessary."Original Source" records already prove Maria's lineage.I don't have a marriage record, but Mr Gusman does not have one either.And just because the Notary certified the Bible entry, in no way proves that he could not have "misread" it.Mr Gusman has NEVER seen the actual Bible entry, so He DOESN"T know for sure.He is simply "anti-research", believing that family folklore is all you need for genealogical discovery.So, a couple of quick Q&A, to illustrate how little Mr Gusman actually does know:
Q: Does Mr Gusman have a certified Bible entry for the marriage of someone whose name was spelled EXACTLY "Maria VAN SICLEN"? A:No.The certified Bible entry says "Maria VAN SICLIN", exactly.
Q: When the Notary certified the maiden name of Luther Eastling's wife on page 1 of the Bible certification, did he spell her maiden name EXACTLY "Maria VAN SICLEN"? A: No.The maiden name, as written by the Notary, says "Maria VAN SICKLIN", exactly.
Q: In the Notary's certification of Bible entries, does the name "Maria VAN SICLEN", spelled exactly, ever appear?
A: NO. Never.
Q: Does Fanny, daughter of Luther and Maria, in her affadavit, refer to her mother's maiden name only by the EXACT SPELLING "VAN SICLEN"? A: NO. She also uses Van Sicle and Van Sickle.Clearly, if Maria's own daughter isn't sure, then how can Mr Gusman be so sure.
Q: Is "EASTLING" the only spelling of the surname used by this family? A: NO. Refer to page 1 of the Notary's Certification ".....that her(Violet Voorhees) parents were Frank Irons and Fanny his wife, whose maiden name was FANNY EASLIN, as SHE spelled her name, and that her father spelled his name EASLING."
Last Q: Knowing that the only documents in Mr Gusman's possession contain the EXACT SPELLINGS; Van Siclin, Van Sicklin, Van Sicle, and Van Sickle, all certified by a Notary...Why would anyone believe someone who has read those entries and from them concluded that the EXACT SPELLING of the surname is VAN SICLEN, and no others can be considered?Think about it.If Mr Gusman used the spelling certified as the maiden name of Maria on page one of the certified Bible entries....Van Sicklin...he would have accepted the spelling used by the Murray family in their land records.And that, readers, is the only reason he insists on VAN SICLEN, exactly.To divert everyone away from Maria's real parents...Cornelius and Hannah of Murray.I suggest everyone reading this to write to the DAR and get photocopies of all documents from Violet Voorhees application, and examine them yourself.Then you will truly know who is attempting to "Flim Flam" you.
Ranting, Raving, Tantrum Throwing, Personal Attacks, affadavit waving...these do not prove lineages.Research...and only research...can prove a family line.To Mr Gusman I say...get a library card, and put in the time.Your lack of knowledge has become quite boring.