Eddy's response was exactly as I anticipated.Illogical, irrational, and pointless.Still on about the exact spelling nonsense.Sorry Eddy, but when you insist on applying 20th century spelling standards to persons who lived in the 18th and 19th century, all you accomplish is establishing your own incompetence and foolishness.That alone is sufficient to prove to any serious genealogist that you have no credibility.Despite years of looking for evidence to corroborate the information in the DAR application, you haven't been able to come up with a single original source document that would even suggest that the claims made in the DAR application/affadavits could be true.And the best part is, Eddy establishes his ignorance in his own posting.All one needs do is follow this thread back to Eddy's posting where he admits that his own GUSMAN family has variant spelling of the surname.Isn't that a double standard, Eddy...admitting your own family has spelling variations, but refusing to believe that anyone else's family could?
I don't need to provide a birth record for Hannah LOSSING(exact spelling).All I needed to do was establish that Hannah LOSSING(exact spelling) of the 1801 baptism of daughter Maria at Fishkill is the same person as Annetje LAWSON(exact spelling) and Hannah LAWSON.I did that by proving that all three are married to the same man - Cornelius Van Sicklen, son of Ferdinand.I further proved that Cornelius Van Siclen buried in Brighton is the same as Cornelius Van Sicklen, son of Ferdinand...using birth date matches for him and son Ferdinand(both baptised in Dutchess County and buried in Brighton).As far as your insistence that Hannah Lawson and Hannah Lossing must have different fathers, because of the spelling of their last names - My last post gave an excellent example of how stupid that contention is.I have the church records of 86 NY Dutch churches in my possession.I can use those records to provide thousands of examples indisputably proving your total ignorance of the subject of surname spelling.I see no need to waste the space on this forum to do such.Anyone who has ever done any actual research already knows that what I have said is true, and that what you claim is absolutely false.Lasson vs Lasson...I went with the last spelling used by Hannah, which was Lawson.Your "like father like daughter" is a statement of ignorance, since both father and daughter throughout their lives each used a half dozen variant spellings.Get a clue...noone in 1800 was concerned about exact spelling.Baptism records prove that spelling was not important...land records, census records, tax records, etc.They all prove that your exact spelling claims are nothing but fiction...existing only in your inexperienced little mind.Everyone who does family research checks variant spellings when looking for records.Could it be that everyone in this field knows something that Eddy doesn't?(that statement is an obvious "YES)Of any/all persons following this exchange, everyone who believes that Hannah Lossing and Hannah Lawson are different people are "EDDY GUSMAN".Everyone else is smart enough to see the truth.
"Names appearing in an index cannot be used as a basis for proving that all of the surnames apply to the same man. Have you checked the index/page referenced to determine if each male surname has the same maiden name for a wife?"
A big "DUH" is indicated here.Of course I used spouse names to verify that persons of variant spellings were one and the same.You can't come to a conclusion like that without compiling a number of records as evidence.Hannah Lossing and Hannah Lawson could be different people.But Hannah Lossing at Fishkill married to Cornelius Van Sicklen and Hannah Lawson of Fishkill married to Cornelius Van Sicklen, and ANnetje Lawson married to Cornelius Van Sicklen of Fishkill, when there is only one Cornelius Van Sicklen in the Fishkill membership, are unquestionably the same person.And Cornelius Van Siclen of Brighton married to Hannah Lawson is the same as Cornelius Van Sicklen of Fishkill married to Hannah Lawson, because birth dates match(Brighton Cemetery vs Poughkeepsie baptism) Why don't you follow the advice I have been giving you for the last two years and go LOOK AT THE RECORDS yourself.Do us all a favor and do some actual research.A little time spent with real records, and you will quickly forget about the exact spelling nonsense.The fact that you still believe in it is proof positive that you do not, and have never done, any actual research.The fact that you still believe in Violet Voorhees piece of DAR fiction is also proof that you don't research.
"Please provide in your next posting and from whatever record you use, an exact copy of the entry recording the birth of Hannah Lossing include both the father's and mother's surnames."
Again, I don't need to provide a record of Hannah Lossing's birth.1. records prove that Hannah Lossing is Hannah Lawson is Annetje Lawson, etc.2. Her baptism record has been provided and the surname recorded for that event wasn't spelled "Lossing".A compilation of records prove conclusively that Annetje Lasson baptised 1774 is Hannah Lawson, is Annetje Lawson, is Hannah Lossing.Do the research.
"If Margariet Van Keuren does not appear as the mother of Hannah Lossing along a fathers name of Simeon Lawson or Lasson you cannot aka Hannah Lossing as a replacment for Annetje Lawson."
I can use Hannah Lossing of the 1801 baptism as a replacement for Annetje Lawson...since both are married to Cornelius Van Sicklen, son of Ferdinand...a fact that proves they are the same person.Any intellignet person would readily recognize that fact.
"I suggest that if you intend to publish anything addressing the Eastling lineage, including Cornelius Van Siclen and Catherine Johnson without sourcing the fact that there are refuting affidavites and you plan on changing anything in the affidavits prior to including the data in your genealogy, including the removal of Catherine Johnson and the testimony that Cornelius Van Siclen was a Revolutionary Veteran, that you first consult your attorney. Bear in mind that only the Courts can alter the contents of a sworn and notarized affidavit."
I don't plan on using anything in the DAR application, except the bible certifications.Hannah Lawson was Maria's mother, and that is the way it will be published.Maria's father was not a Rev War soldier, so that myth will not be included.Since the Bible certifications are the only things of value in the DAR application, they are all that will be used.Since the affadavits are largely fiction and family folklore, they are essentially useless.My sources will conmsist of real records, which prove her real lineage when matched with the bible records.I do nopt plan to alter any affadavits.They are already fiction, so what would be the point of changing(or even using) them.No court would ever hold up an affadavit in favor of indisputable real evidence, so your threats are of no concern to me.You have no records to support your fiction, but if you want to waste the courts time and give me all of your worldly possessions, I have no problem with that.Don't waste your time trying to bluff me, because I have enough evidence to turn you into a public laughing stock and break you financially.I publish real genealogy of real people, not DAR fiction.Do the research, and you will find the REAL ancestors, yourself...and will also put that DAR application/affadavits in the trash where they belong.