"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."
Because you are not a genealogist, is is rather easy to say that I am many times the better genealogist than you. Nobody has said that anyone was deliberately lying. Why put it in those terms?
Consider that that those who deposed were mistaken.
Consider also my request that you find some other evidences than the 'Eastling rendition' to bolster your argument.
Van has told you flat-out what the correct ancestry is.
Catherine Johnson was the second wife of your guy. It cannot be helped that his progeny lost track of their ancestry.
Once again, I would ask you to please provide documentation from primary sources, repeat, primary sources, that the ancestry is otherwise.
It puzzles me that you are so devoted to this Eastling thing. Is it just that you think you "discovered the Eastling 'affidavits?'" Is it that you cannot comprehend that the local DAR approved the Eastling-promoted application, but the National office would not? Is there a point at which you might devote yourself equally to genealogy?
Has it ever occurred to you how queer it is that a Canadian branch of our family might desire to identify itself with the DAR in the first place?
Your branch was Loyalist, not Patriots. That is precisely why they made their way to Canada.