You appear to have settled down sufficiently at least be coherant in your posting. That is an improvement.
There is much that I could respond with for your latest posting, but it has all been said before.
You have a unique way of looking at things. I doubt if a survivor of the Hitler holocaust who had a tattoted number on his body, produced pictures taken by the SS showing him being beaten,pictures of people who passed through the gassed showers buried by bulldozers, people being machine gunned and actually dropping in the hangmans noose, could convince you that a holocaust every happend.
You would allege that there was no official german records to prove those things happened and that it is based on "family folklore, tradition and stories made up to scare little children. You would no doubt say that the holocaust was a creation of the allies so they could execute german leaders and other guilty german leaders for atrocities that never happened.
Do believe that Wounded Knee happened? - how about the Custer massacre? Do you believe that Jessie James was killed by a shot to the back of the head? Perhaps you are part of the pack that allege that those historical events never happened. Do you know that "researchers" went so far as to exhume the body of Jessie James. They found a bullet hole in the skull, but then of course people like your self then claimed that - "well all they have is a skull with a bullet hole. That could be anyone's skull".Sounds exactly like your writings.
Van Curen, with your attitude Mary Washington couldn't prove that her husband was George Washington. Have you ever attempted to prove to anyone that George Washington our alleged first President was really George Washington and not an interloper posing as George Washington because three months into his term George Washington died and some prominent people didn't want that known because it could bring down the fledgling government? I have heard that story. Do I believe it - why don't you try and disprove that George Washington didn't die three months into his term, was secretly buried and replaced by a look alike - never mind if it is true - merely look for the evidence that would prove George Washington didn't, THAT IS DID NOT DIE 3 months into his term of office.
The point is that there is no such thing as "conclusive" evidence that will prove anything if the receipient of such evidence choses to reject out of hand the presented evidence.
If you have been told by your parents or anyone that they are your biological birth parents - try proving that they really are what they or others allege them to be. Without the evidence of DNA, you couldn't find evidence strong enough to prove anything about your birth parents or who you are if the recepient of your proof rejected your presented evidence as "riddled with errors".
You see it is easy to say "riddled with errors" but it rapidly becomes impossible to find evidence to prove the existance of errors. You have no method except your ongoing and unsupported self perceived impressions whereby you can come up with evidence of any type that would prove the existance of a single error in the Eastling documents (excluding the DAR application which as you say does contain errors).
That is where you are at right now.
I know from the way you are reacting to my postings that you in fact have finally recognized the truth of what I presented. Perhaps some day you will mature to the point where you can admit that you are fallible and really made a very serious research error when you researched Van Sicklen and not Van Siclen.
Prove that any document I have posted to this forum or sent to you contains a single error - Don't just continue to talk, back up your allegations with evidence.For nearly two years you have been telling me and others that the Eastling documents are riddled with errors but you have your first time to present evidence proving a single error. Talking about Van Sicklens and Van Siclins in Canada, Murray and cemeteries is nothing more than you proverbial smoke screen to cover up you inability to show evidence confirming a single error in any of the documents except the DAR application.
I have been contacted by a man (he posted once to this forum some weeks, month or more back) We discussed the Eastling versus Van Siclen - Van Sicklen situation. Verrrrrry interesting and revealing comminication. He Was curious about what your reaction would be if he posted what he uncovered after going through old family records, a few which date back to the middle 1700's.
I told him if he posted what he had discovered, you would come completely unglued and he could expect to be ridiculed and debased worse that myself or Violetta Voorhees had been. (I sent him some of your comments about Violetta back when this dialog first started). I told him that when a man like yourself is not able to recognize the significance and truth in affidavits and certified bible entries, that man surely would reject evidence uncovered in ancient family records. I told him that the first words you would write would be equivalent to "family folklore, ludicrous, laughable etc or words to that effect." I suggested that he post a resonse anyway.
Perhaps he will, perhaps not. Should he do so....well it is not necessary that I say more.