It is indeed regrettable that you too are not able to accept the truth in the Eastling affidavits. My anecestry on the Eastling side starts with Maria Van Siclen not your version of Maria Van Sicklen.
You with Van Siclens' in your lineage are the most to be pitied of all the disenters who do not believe the affidavits. You have been given the opportunity via the Eastling affidavits to explore a previously unknown and unrecorded Cornelius Van Siclen.
Because your concept that affidavits are valueless documents if received from the DAR you reject the truth inherant within the context of the affidavits. The truth of the affidavit statements becomes rather obvious when you read the Van Sickle name (yes I wrote Van Sickle) written 8 times in Violetta's DAR application. Do you have the intuitive perceptive ability to recognize the gem of truth that is hidden in the affidavis?
As to your complimenting Donna there is nothing wrong in that, perhaps she did an excellant write up as you state,I didn't read it and certainly she was partially correct about the fact that there was, is and always will be variations in name spelling. Unfortunately she has the tendency to generalize too broadly and when that is done anything can be alleged just as she alleged that there was no correct spelling in the 18th century. Generalizing and proving specifics are worlds apart.
Then too it appears that like Van and perhaps Donna, you also are not able to recognize the significance of unique bloodlines and the fact that they are not established or accurately traced using aka's. Perhaps you also fail to understand that the bloodline/genetic/DNA of Maria Van Siclen is different that that of Maria Van Sicklen - consequently their descendants will be different.
I know you will not do what I suggest but I recommend that you review each Eastling affidavit, comparing it person for person, line for line, date for date, event for event with Waddel and if Waddel is not a favorite reference, then compare against whatever may be the equivalent of your biblical genealogy reference. If you have confirmed proof that Cornelius Van Siclen was not born to a Van Siclen father, perhaps you will tell all of us Maria Van Siclen supporters exactly who was the father of Cornelius Van Siclen and why you believe that Fanny and Ferdinand did not know the names and correct spelling of their Van Siclen grandparents and why they would perjure themselves about the service record of their grandfather Cornelius Van Siclen.
Your biggest problem is identical to Van's. You cannot find the conclusive evidence that would permit you to discredit the Eastling affidavits by proving that the Respondents either lied or made a mistake. So like Van and Donna you revert to ridicule as when you stated - " ....bit of genealogical silliness that is being continued by a fellow who will not take his proper ancestry when given it on a platter."
You sir have no more concept of who the father of Cornelius Van Siclen is, when he and Catherine Johnson were married and where and who were the parents of Catherine Johnson than I do. You don't even know what to look for in the affidavits and DAR application to ascertain the truth of the affidavit statements - so knock off the garbage or provide conclusive evidence that the Respondents lied or made an error in their affidavits and that the transcribed Bible entry was wrong or prove that the Notaries transcribing the Bible entry lied or copy them incorrectly.