Quoting Van Curen - "I have no idea where you got themisconception that I have "finally recognized the truth in what I presented". Except for a page of bible entries, you haven't presented anything truthful/factual that I am aware of. Repeating the mistakes of others certainly does not impress me in the least."
I recognize a sudtle change in the manner in which you responded to postings. Of course I don't expect you to acknowledge anything that you have in the past trumpeted as filled with erros.
Take the posting to which I am now responding.Quoting Van Curen - "The certified bible entries are consistent with Maria being of the Murray, Ontario Van Sicklen(aka Van Sicklin) family. Nothing in those bible entries stands to exclude her from that family."
You now recognize merit in the certified bible entries but you continue to attempt confusing readers with your comment about bible entries being consistent with your allegations. I remind the readers that the names Van Sicklen and Van Sicklin do not appear in the bible entries. How can consistency exist when there are no names to be consistant with anything?
Van Curen states -"Nothing in those bible entries stands to exclude her from that family."
You are correct, there is nothing in the certified bible entries that would exclude "Maria" from being in Murray and a daughter of the Van Sicklen/Van Sicklin family. That is another attempt to create the impression of consistency. However, if you had written Maria Van Siclen it is immediatly apparent that Maria Van Siclen cannot be connected with the Murray Van Sicklen/Van Sicklin because the daughter in your records for Murray Cornelius Van Sicklen/Van Siclens' was named Maria Van Sicklen.
As I have told you many times - you must first prove that Maria Van Siclen named by herself is as you allege Van Sicklen.
Quoting Van Curen -"Catharine Johnson as the mother of Maria VS Eastling. This information is false, as the name originated with Violet Voorhees discovery of the 1771 marriage - Cornelius Van Sicklen to Catharine Johnson."
Wrong - the name Catherine Johnson originated with grandchildren of Maria Van Siclen Eastling. As you know, Violetta Voorhees researched the wrong Rev. Vet. a Cornelius Van Sicklen. She discovered a Cornelius Van Sicklen married to a Catherine Johnson. Unfortunately for your allegation, Maria Van Siclen in her bible entry tells us that her father's name was Cornelius Van Siclen. To make a case for your allegations you are forced to falsify Maria's father's Van Siclen surname into Van Sicklen.
Quoting Van Curen -"Fact: No Cornelius VAN SICLEN, which could have been Maria's father, ever served in the Revolution."
All you need to do is read the Eastling affidavits. Merely because you allege that the affidavits are wrong, perjured or whatever doesn't make it so. Prove conclusively that the affidavits contain a single error - of course you can't - you can offer nothing but your imaginery allegations as proof.
You tell us you can find nothing in the records about Cornelius Van Siclen serving in the Rev. War. If you knew what to look for when analyzing data you would look to the wording of both Fanny and Ferdinand when they describe their Grandfathers service. The truth in their statements is evidenced by how the statement is worded versus how they would have worded them if lying.
You are aware that in 1800 or thereabout, hugh volumes of Rev. War service records were burned in a fire which destroyed archives of Rev. Vet. Need I say more about missing records or should I go on about how records can be lost or destroyed by careless clerks and for other reasons.
Quoting Van Curen -"Fact: No Cornelius Van Siclen ever lived anywhere in Quebec prior to 1850."
Maria Van Siclen in her Certified bible entry states that "father Van Siclen died in Bacauta, Quebec, Canada." You tell the readers that Maria Van Siclen didn't know where her father died and that she lied about where her father died. You expect us to believe that because you couldn't find a record of his death in Quebec that he never lived or died in Quebec, Canada. Prove your allegation that he didn't die where Maria Van Siclen stated he died! The year was 1850. In 1850 civil records of death and births in that area of Quebec were not required to be reported. Also just about any place else in Canada. You'r so great on research, I suggest you determine the year when deaths and births were first required to be posted in various parts of Canada. Your research missed the boat on that one. Is this to be a repeat of your Violetta Voorhees exercise over a year ago when I finally became fed up with your ongoing vandalizing of Violetta Voorhees because you believed she was so desparate to join the DAR that she induced Fanny and Ferdinand in their affidavits to perjure themselve by creating a ficticious Catherine Johnson who never existed.I finally sent you a letter I had received from the DAR telling you that no names were required on the DAR application for non-blood line spouses of the Revolution. In other words Violetta's DAR application was acceptable without a created and fraudulent name which you alleged that Violetta had created specifically for DAR membership.Unfortunaly for your allegations, you had failed to research DAR application requirements before vandalizing and debasing Violetta for creating and entering a fraudulent name that was not even required by the DAR. You are now attempting to vandalize and debase Maria Vans Siclen with the same type of manuver by accusing Maria Van Siclen of lying about where her Father died without having first done you research homework to determine what year the Province of Quebec wrote laws requiring the reporting of births and deaths. Do that research and you will discover that no records of birth, death and burial in Quebec were required in 1850 in the area where Maria said he died.
How you going to find computer records of the death of Cornelius Van Siclen in Quebec when in the year he died, the reporting of deaths to civil authorities was no yet required. I have told you that on a number of occasions.
Quoting Van Curen -"Original source documents from Canada and New York provide the necessary date matches to prove that Maria was Cornelius and Hannah's daughter."
I don't doubt that you have original source documents showing that Maria was a daughter of Cornelius and Hannah's. Your problem is that you have no records showing that Maria Van Siclen was a daughter of "Cornelius and Hannah's. Maria herself tells us that her father was Van Siclen and Maria's grandchildren tell us that her mother was Catherine Johnson.
About "my contact - Your getting started a little early on him aren't you. Why don't you wait and see if he even posts. I mentioned to him that anything he posted would be treated with the same ridicule as you responded to Maria's bible entry and the affidavits. As to your remaining comments about those correspondents who appear to support my position, why don't you prove what you have said about them.
Quoting Van Curen -"Once again, Eddy, I make the challenge. Provide just one record dated before 1850...one is all you need...that shows that your scenario is at least possible."
Mr. Van Curen - I have presented you with the best of all records, Notarized documents created under oath.That you chose not to accept those documents is your problem, not mine.
So I challenge you - provide one record as conclusive evidence that the following allegations by your self are factual:
1. Conclusive evidence proving that Maria Van Siclen and Maria Van Sicklen/Van Sicklen are one and the same person.
2. conclusive evidence that Hannah Lossing was the mother of Maria Van Siclen,
3. conclusive evidence showing that name of Hannah Lossing changed to Hannah Lawson,
4. conclusive evidence that Maria Van Sicklen married Luther C Eastling,
4a. conclusive evidence that Luther C. Eastling was married in 1824.
5. conclusive evidence proving the deponents did not know the name of their grandmother
6. conclusive evidence proving that Cornelius Van Siclen was not a Rev. Vet
7. conclusive evidence proving the father of Maria did not live and die in Quebec in 1850.
I truly have had enough repitition of old discussions. As I earlier stated, I will not leave this forum unless cut off or you cease posting allegations for which you have nothing to offer as proof except your speculation and imagination.