Your listings of these names are interesting and informative but are not CONCLUSIVE evidence of anything.
On page 57, Andrew Lawson is married to Mary Clock
On page 64, Andrew Lossing is married to Mary Clock
Your comparison does not CONCLUSIVELY prove that the two women both named Mary Clock, are not two identically named but uniquely different women with each married to two different men one named Lawson and the other named Lossing. The fact that all are in the same church record,is not conclusive evidence that the two women are one and the same woman or evidence that two men, one named Lossing the other Lawson are one and the same man. The fathers names for each person must be known before you can conclusively establish that they are one and the same individual.
This is not nit picking - it is precision accuracy in professional genealogy research - something seldom practiced by researchers and probably never before encountered by yourself. Most researchers, like yourself find it much easier and less time consuming to merely rationalize on the bases of a few inclusive documents the relationship between people.
On 58, 59, 72, Catharine Lawson is married to Aaron Phillips
On 62 and 67, Catharine Lossing is married to Aaron Phillips
The same reasoning applies for the above two identically named men.
On 42, 44, 47, Elizabeth Lasson is married to John Dates
On 52, 55, 58, Elizabeth Lawson is married to John Dates
On 60 and 63, Elizabeth Lossing is married to John Dates
The same reasoning applies to the above individuals. As an example do you have conclusive evidendence that the three John Dates men were not triplets with the first named John A. Dates - the second named John M. Dates and the third named John S. Dates.You don't have the conclusive evidence that would tell you they are not tripletts. Probability is that they weren't but probablility is only probability not conclusive evidence.
About the first name Elizabeth - How many Elizabeths would you suspect were living in the Colonies at that time?
For information only. I include this: I checked the LDS records in an attempt to determine how many centuries earlier the following names began.That single Web Site listed the following:
LASSING - I stopped counting at 300 names. EARLIEST FOUND WAS 1579 in England. Scattered throughout Europe.
LOSSING - I stopped counting at 300. EARLIEST FOUND WAS 1684. Scattered in Europe and North America.
LAWSON - Stopped counting at 344. EARLIEST FOUND 1591 in England and throughout the world.
The above are three unique nuclear surnames that evolved centuries prior to Annetje Lawson's and Hannah Lossing's birth.
So while there was without doubt much mispelling of names in Colonial times, a fact I would never attempt to dispute, the three names above have a centuries old origin. Consequently, it is reasonable to assume that many of those same names in Colonial times, are in fact the correctly spelled names of many of the people you and others allege to have mispelled their names.
I care not. I included this to illustrate that you do not have a lock on Annetje Lawson versus Hannah Lossing when you allege that Hannah Lossing is a mispelled name. Hannah Lossing may have been a descendent of Lossing beginning prior to 1681. Perhaps you should expand your vision about the viable ancestry of Hannah Lossing. You would do well to come up with the parents of Hannah Lossing before you turn her into Annetje Lawson. I do not allege that Hannah Lossing is not Annetje Lawson, she may very well be. I would like to see Hannah's parents name before I make a conclusion as to the viability of you transpostions.
Prior to making a conclusion that uniquely named people are one and the same individual, the first step is to determine who the parents of the individul in question are. Knowing that, you then have your conclusive evidence to meld or not to meld two names into the identical individual.
I freely admit that you have a strong case but not strong enough on which to build precisely accurate lineages and in no sense of the word strong enough to set aside sworn affidavit testimony by people who had a personal ongoing relationship with the people about whom they testified.You consistantly forget that the deponents are testifying about people they personally knew.
Unless you have conclusive evidence that the father of Hannah Lossing was not a Lossing, the Court will dismiss your case out of hand after hearing how you made the transposition first and then attempt to justify the transposition by using the birth record of Annetje Lawson,as the birth record of Hannah Lossing without first having establihsed the both ladies had indentical fathers.
I know that you have said the birth dates for both ladies and their husbands are identical, Regretably, conclusive identities are not established by birth dates, even though the dates may be identical. Identities in a situation such as you have created can only be established by the surnames of fathers.
I was interested in your reasoning and how you rationalized your transpostion of Hannah Lossing to Annetje Lawson. Your rationalization has a degree of validty without knowing the parents names of Hannah Lossing, however knowing the names of Hannah's parents, one could make a conclusive and provable decision.
I admit your reasoning appears to be valid. Unfortionatly it is based on your speculations unsupported with conclusive evidence, which can only be determined from the birth parents names. You cannot legitimatly make a transition from Hannah Lossing to Annetje Lawson without first knowing the birth parents of Hannah Lossing and you cannot legitmately assume the birth parents of Hannah Lossing are the same as for Annetje Lawson after you transpose Hannah Lossing to Annetje Lawson.
You reasoning follows those who subscribe to the belief that "the end justifies the means'.
In other words - you need Hannah Lossing's baby Maria born Sept 15 1801 to make your theory work. So having found a coincedental birth date of Sept 15 1801 - you transpose Hannah Lossing to Annetje Lawson thereby achieving your END objective. Then to justify the transposition, and without the conclusive evidence of a birth fathers name for Hannah Lossing that is known to be identical with the birth father of Annetje Lawson, you allege that because you have created one person Annetje Lawson from two persons Annetje Lawson and Hannah Lossing that the birth parents of Hannah Lossing are those of Annetje Lawson.
That is a classical example of circular reasoning based on nothing more than your personal speculation which is based on wishful thinking by yourself.
Reminds me of palentologists who tell us the age of bones can be determined by the age of the ground in which they are found. Whereas the genalogist tells us that the age of the earh can be determined by the bones that lay in the earth.
It is imperative that you have the evidence of Hannahs parents contained in the birth record for Hannah Lossing. The evidence must be known before the transposition not rationalized after the transposition.
You appear to be irrevocably dedicated to the thinking that because many people didn't know how to read/write and spelled names by sound only, that you have an ongoing open license to bandy names helter skelter with no attention given to the genetic blood lines such names represent.
A person may have spelled his name 22 different ways, as did Shakespeare, the paper trail is available to prove that the 22 different spellings are for the same man - consequently we know that the 22 spellings represent the same man and his Genetic blood line remained unchanged.
Unless her birth/Baptism record is found, there is no paper trail proving that Hannah Lossing had a father named Lawson/Lasson Consequently and until found, you don't know if Hannah's gentic blood line is identical to Annetje's. Quit a difference between the paper trail 22 names for Shakespeare and the no paper trail Hannah Lossing andAnnetje Lawson names.
Until you produce parents for Hannah Lossing prior to transposing, not after transposing, her into Annetje Lawson, you don't know what Hannah Lossing's genetic blood line is. It certainly is not impossible, as you allege, that it is Lossing and not Lawson/Lasson. Rather than alleging would it not be better to be conclusive.
To make the transposition, the blood line of Hannah and Annetje must be identical. You don't get there with speculation. You get there with proof. If there is not a birth record for Hannah Lossing showing her parent, your transposing Hannah to Annetje Lawson cannot be proven to be correct. Your charade of attempting to connect Hannah's daughter Maria to Maria Van Siclen in the affidavites with a mother named Annetje Lawson is ended.
I have consistently rejected your speculations that Annetje Lawson was a player in the Eastling lineage, and I continue to reject your rationalizations. I reject your rationalization that Cornelius Van Siclen was not a Revolutionary Veteran because you and Richard have not found records which can prove your rationalizations and allegations anymore than I can find records proving his Revolutionary Veterans Status.
Consequently, the affidavits testimony about his veteran's status will remain in tact until you conclusively prove Cornelius did not serve. Considering that thousands of Revolutionary Veterans records were burned, lost or other wise destroyed, the sworn affidavit testimony, wherein the deponents personally knew Cornelius Van Siclen, will be accepted in any Court. Hopefully push and shove never meet. Should that happen...the case will end with the Court ordering you to retrieve all distributed books and correct your entries to match the sworn affidavit testimony.
It is the oath and Notaries signature that makes the sworn testimony acceptable and believeable in a Court of law. The affidavit is on par with the veterans record itself. Recall this quote from the Lectric Law Library- "... JUDGES FREQUENTLY ACCEPT AN AFFIDAVIT INSTEAD OF THE TESTIMONY OF THE WITNESS AND ARE USED IN PLACE OF LIVE TESTIMONY IN MANY CIRCUMSTANCES...".
The strongest evidence available that a deponent Conspiracy never existed between the deponents to create either a fraudulent Revolutionary Veteran or a Catherine Johnson is proven by the testimoney in the affidavits themselves. That happened when the deponents wrote that Cornelius Van Siclen,not Van Sickle, was the Veteran. The appearance of Van Siclen in the affidavits in lieu of Van Sickle placed the future approval of Viletta's DAR membership in jeapordy.
How easy it would have been to virtualy guarantee Violtta's DAR membership if the deponents wrote Cornelius Van Sickle as opposed to Cornelius Van Siclen. How easy it would have been for Violetta to withold/conceal the availability of the Eastling Bible wherein the name Van Siclen first appeared.
The integrity of the deponents would not permit them to violate their sworn oath. Rather than do that they wrote the truth, let whatever may happen to their daughter and niece's DAR application.
Doug, If your integrity matched that of the deponents,you would not now be on your wild good chase.
The second item you can't get around is this. If Annetje Lawson was a player, as alleged by you, in the Eastling lineage history - such as the mother of Maria Van Siclen and grandmother of Fanny, Ferdinand and Cynthia Easting, WHY THEN DOESN'T THE NAME ANNETJE LAWSON APPEAR IN THE AFFIDAVITS OR DAR APPLICATION? Your new allegations explaining why Annetje is not in the affidavits or DAR application will be interesting to read.
It is finally over unless a time arrives that you can provide conclusive evidence that Catherine Johnson was never born and Cornelius Van Siclen was not a Revolutionary Veteran. Neither of which you can currently prove.