Dec 17 2002 to McCool
Why don't you just knock off the foolishness Richard. You haven't the faintest idea what I amwriting about and what you continue to avidly support wherein the affidavits and DAR application are concerned. You admit as much when you write –“At this point I think it unlikely that anyone has any idea what you are about, including especially me."
Frankly, I believe that it is Richard and Doug alone whohave no idea about that which I write - I have no problem believing that other readers understand the significance of what I present and Doug and Richard's inability to come up with evidence of errors in the affidavits. They would like the reader to believe their clap trap because they are both too embarrassed to admit the faux pas which both are responsible for making in regards to the affidavits.
Gusman - Sarcasm does not become you Richard - probably because you are not good at it. That is your loss.
The problem that Richard and Doug have is that because they are devoid of any method whereby they can prove their allegations of affidavit errors, they feel that it would a loss of face if they were to admit their lack of knowledge about the affidavit Van Siclen family. Consequently, in order for them to cover up their deficient knowledge about the affidavits, they revert to sarcasm,ridicule and not provable allegations in order to divert a readers attention from their inability to produce conclusive evidence supporting their allegations about errors in the affidavits.
All Richard and Doug need do is simply admit that the affidavit Van Siclen family is a family new to them and about which they have to date not discovered information.
Rather than admit there is an affidavit Van Siclen family about which they know nothing, they proceed to fault the affidavits and deponents by telling us that the affidavits are wrong, the deponents were too old to accurately recall anything of importance and too old to resist the pressures of their daughter and niece, thereby agreeing to perjure themselves by using an alleged grandmother's fictitious name - all absurd and unproven allegations.
All that because they are not able to fit their square peg lineage’s into the round holes of the affidavits and they are too ego driven to admit there are a few families in genealogical history about which they know nothing. That is always a problem for "self-proclaimed experts".
If Richard has failed to understand what I have been posting regarding the following subjects - perhaps Richard should take down his "genealogy researcher shingle".
What this on going argument is about, described in the simplest words I know is - if allegations made by Doug and Richard of affidavit error and the deponents alleged inability to accurately recall events from between their ages of 31 and 40 respectively, allegations which cannot be proven with conclusive facts - then neither Doug or Richard should be making their not provable allegations regarding people about whom Doug and Richard know nothing at all or have never read or heard about.
If Richard and Doug want to put me down, as their single minded objective appears to be, then they can DO THIS:
1. Simple as writing a-b-c. Send to me, via an e-mail attachment or snail mail to me, a photograph of the Brighton Cemetery marker with the name Van Siclen engraved on it and any additional adjacent marker containing the name of the wife of the man buried under the Cemetery marker.
If Richard and Doug are correct - the initials A or H or name Annetje or Hannah will be on the same Van Siclen stone or on a marker next to it. Because of Doug's predilection to tampering with historical records, nothing but an un-tampered photograph sent by another individual, not known to Doug, will suffice as conclusive evidence that the man and wife under the Brighton Cemetery markers are who Doug alleges them to be - the third generation Van Sicklen and Annetje Lawson in his Van Sicklen genealogy.
I too have the software to edit and print photos and scanned documents anyway I choose. It would be a simple matter for me to remove a name on a photo and replace it with Annetje or Hannah, or alter a scanned historical document, if I had no integrity or character.Software is available which will replace handwritten entries on scanned documents with handwritten entries forged so neatly that neither Richard or Doug have the skills to determine the difference. Which is why, Doug’s insistence on letters and documents is nothing but foolishness by a man who apparently knows nothing about the ease with which historical documents can be created or forged.
I would be inclined to believe an e-mail from a correspondent living in Brighton, Ontario, Canada, providing that the e-mail originated from someone not related to or who had not known Doug prior to the beginning of or during this on going argument. Such ane-mail need only contain the data EXACTLY copied as it appears on all sides of the Brighton Cemetery marker and or adjacent marker for the same primary stone.
Doug and Richard have an excellent and extremely easy golden opportunity to prove me wrong - Please! - I ask of you - do it!
I seek the confirmation which will prove what Doug and Richard currently only allege is true about Doug's Van Sicklen name appearing in his Van Sicklen genealogy as being the identical man and wife buried under the Brighton Cemetery Van Siclen marker.
The marker is Doug's only means of proving that Van Sicklen and Van Siclen are one and the same person - hopefully proven by a wife's name or initials buried with him.
This will be the first time that Richard or Doug has the opportunity to CONCLUSIVELY PROVE anything about anything as regards the affidavits or Doug's third generation in his Van Sicklen genealogy.
I PREDICT THE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE BRIGHTON VAN SICLEN MARKER WILL NOT SHOW A NAME OF ANNETJE OR HANNAH OR A. OR H.
Should it show Annetje or Hannah's name, it would be interesting to read Doug's explanation as to why the Van Siclen surname did not appear in his 3rd generation Van Sicklen genealogy.
"Self-proclaimed" expert researchers like Doug should have known, prior to the revelation to them by another individual of the Van Siclen in the Brighton Cemetery, that the name of Annetje/Hannah Lawson's husband was Van Siclen and not Van Sicklen - if indeed Annette/Hannah is buried with him under or near the Van Siclen marker. Another curious factor, Richard, is why, with Doug's "vast tomes" of microfilm, did Doug fail to find a Cornelius Van Siclen marker in the Brighton Cemetery? Someone had to tell him it was there. Is that how Richard describes an "expert" researcher?
2. Prove conclusively that the affidavit Cornelius Van Siclen IS NOT on any Revolutionary Record under a variant spelling such as Sicle, Sickle, Sicklin or any one of the many variant spellings of Van names in the various "Revolutionary indexes" with or without the prefix "Van".
3. Prove conclusively that Catherine Johnson was a fictitious creation of Violetta and NOT THE GENUINE WIFE OF THE AFFIDAVIT CORNELIUS VAN SICLEN.
4. Explain why and conclusively prove that the two deponents would fabricate, as alleged by Doug, afictitious name for their grandmother, Catherine Johnson, after having personally known their grandmother and or heard her name the first 31 and 40 years of their respective lives.
You know as well as I and thousands of others who may have read these postings, that the deponents would not dishonor their grandmother or themselves by perjuring themselves on an affidavit merely to appease a daughter and a niece, Violetta.
Richard also knows, like I and every other reader of these posts know, that no one applying for DAR membership would take the chance of later having that membership revoked because the applicant had inserted a fictitious name which could later be revealed as a fraudulent entry on the DAR application.
Because DAR membership is granted with or without the name of the Veteran's wife, Richard, why don't you attempt to explain why an applicant "determined to become a DAR member" would create and enter any fictitious name on her application when such a name is not required and the applicant does not know the real name? I have asked that same question to Doug a number of times and he refuses to answer it.
5. Provide conclusive evidence that the father of Hannah Lossing was not a man with the Lossing surname, a name that may predate the Doomsday book.
I suggest that you wake up, look, and read and study what is written in the affidavits. The affidavit Van Siclens' are a family for which you have no knowledge or records. Your blind faith in Doug's research techniques does you an injustice.
6. Finally, consider what I revealed in my last post about the two typed transcriptions by two obviously different people, of the Reform Fishkill Baptismal record.One typed copy containing the spelling Van Sickler and the other typed copy containing the spelling Van Sicklen.
If I had not written the Reform Fishkill church requesting a photocopy of the actual page in the record book or if they had not been kind enough to grant my request, then none of us would now know there are two non-notarized typed transcript microfilm copies, one correct and one wrong, for the baptismal record.
I do have to admit that I was more than a little naive about one item. Back when Doug began his charade about the affidavits, I believed the microfilm records he was quoting was microfilm of original handwritten source documents. It was not until I received from him his microfilm copy of the typed Reform Church Baptismal record with the over printed microfilm data that I realized that Doug had nothing in the way of microfilm copies of source documents. All he had was un-notarized typed transcripts of what are ostensibly original source documents.
Who is to say at this late date that the typed copies appearing on Doug's microfilm are not themselves typed copies of older typed copies of older typed copies of original records - what is the potential for a transcription error each time a new typed transcription is created?
Non-notarized transcripts of records are essentially worthless as proof of an event. Until I produced the photo copy of the original Baptismal entries, Doug had nothing in the way of meaningful evidence regarding the Reform Fiskkill Baptismal record. Therein Douglas and Richard is the precise reason that Courts only permit notarized documents to be entered as evidence and the precise reason that Doug will loose a Court challenge to the veracity of the affidavits - should it eventually come to that.
IN THE LIKELY EVENT THAT YOU DISBELIEVE WHAT I TELL YOU ABOUT THE TWO DIFFERENT SPELLED NAMES, I WILL BE MOST HAPPY TO SEND AS E-MAIL ATTACHMENTS EACH TYPED PAGE IN MY POSSESSION. IN ADDITION I CAN ALSO SEND YOU EITHER THE NAME OF THE PERSON SENDING ME HIS MICROFILM COPY OR IF YOU LIKE, THE LETTER HE WROTE. THE LETTER IS MERELY AN ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF MY REQUEST AND THAT THE REQUESTED COPY WAS INCLUDED. IF YOU WISH I CAN ALSO SEND A COPY OF THE HANDWRITTEN BAPTISMAL RECORD COPIED FROM THE CHURCH RECORD. IT SHOWS THE NAMES AND ALSO SHOWS THAT THE ORIGINAL BOOK WAS OPENED ON THE SCANNER.
Not exactly shabby work on my part for a person Richard and Doug alleges knows nothing about research techniques. I have had the two typed copies of the Reform Fishkill Baptismal record since shortly after receiving the first typed microfilm copy from Doug.
Something to keep in the back of your head Richard and Doug. Even a bad poker player doesn't reveal what he is holding until the hand is over-over as in Court over?
Could I be holding back a signed tintype photo of the affidavit Catherine and Cornelius Van Siclen? Hold onto this thought Doug -Photographs were being made prior to 1844......Ever consider the possibility of paintings - a signed self portrait by Catherine Johnson perhaps.......Then what about this thought....
We know from the Bible transcripts that Maria Van Siclen had an education by the age of 12 sufficient to permit her to write the entries into her Bible. You think it is just possible that perhaps her mother Catherine Johnson helped Maria with her education in addition to schooling up to her marriage? My intuition tells me that Catherine Johnson was a very well educated woman for her time in history - perhaps a school teacher or more.
Should you someday wake up to the possibility that the affidavit Van Siclen's could be currently an undiscovered family, a few places to start your new research would be the Boston, Mass; Montreal, Quebec and Oxford County, Ontario areas. Perhaps you can outdo myself and a Canadian researcher and discover the affidavit Van Siclens on Canadian census records 1841 or earlier for Quebec and Ontario provinces.
You will NOT find the affidavit Cornelius Van Siclen listed as receiving Crown Grant land. Yes Doug – I followed up on that one. Crown grants were given only to Colonials who had assisted the British armed forces in the Colonies in some way either by joining the British Armed forces or serving the British in some other capacity for which there was an official record to prove their service. Crown Grants were not given during or after the Revolutionary War to Colonials who had fought the British. You will not find the affidavit Cornelius Van Siclen in the Crown Grant records in Canada.