Re: Van Siclen/Van Sicklen Controversy revisited” Posted by: Richard Alan McCool (ID *****7472) Date: December 30, 2002 at 17:55:27 In Reply to: Re: Van Siclen/Van Sicklen Controversy revisited” by Ed Gusmanof 1068
Blah, Blah, Blah, Bla-blah.
Once again, still. No one here is at these GenForums to do your genealogy for you. Visitors here try to help when they can. Mr. Van Curen and, less directly, me, are trying to help those others of your family who may (somehow) be persuaded by your foolish Philistine arguments.
One continues to try to understand your purpose. Indeed, whether, in fact there is one.
Outside of proving conclusively that the old folks were determined to be a part of a semi-political anti-immigrant, anti-Catholic movement of historically obvious origins, there is nothing you offer from actual records.
You continuously do this to the detriment of established genealogical method, and despite the known (and long-since decried by the modern DAR) motives driving such applicants to the DAR during that time--and at the risk of severely misinforming those seeking knowledge.
Richard …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. Gusman – Doug wrote – “Mr. Van Curen and, less directly, me, are trying to help those others of your family who may (somehow) be persuaded by your foolish Philistine arguments.”
Gusman - What Richard deems to be help has in fact been an ongoing effort by Doug and Richard to discredit the Eastling notarized affidavits culminating with the effort by each of them to destroy the memory of Catherine Johnson wife of affidavit Cornelius Van Siclen and grandmother of the deponents. Doug and Richard attempt to destroy her person and her memory using Doug’s allegations that Catherine Johnson was a fictitious person created by Violet Voorhees to gain membership into the DAR. Doug has attempted several methods of the destruction of Catherine Johnson’s memory and person. Doug has:
Changed Catherine Johnson’s daughter from Maria Van Siclen to Maria Van Sicklen and then attempted to prove it was Maria Van Sicklen who married Luther Calvin Eastling. Doug was not able to find any evidence of an Eastling, by any variant form of spelling in his Van Sicklen lineage, was not able to find to find evidence of their marriage, could not find letters, civil, or church records showing or even implying the marriage of a Maria Van Sicklen to an Eastling. He was finally compelled to admit on this forum that he had no evidence, which would even imply such a marriage and gave it up.
Both Doug and Richard have slandered and vilified the deponents unceasingly, alleging they had had perjured themselves in their affidavits by alleging their memories were flawed. Doug and Richard have also alleged the deponents had intentionally created a fictitious Catherine Johnson because of pressure from Violetta Voorhees who was so “desperate” to become a DAR member that Violetta could and did influence the deponents into intentionally perjuring themselves in their affidavits. Doug and Richard have not been able to provide evidence, which would support their ongoing lies about the character of the deponents who Doug and Richard accuse of unintentional and intentional perjury by the deponents.
Richard’s latest ploy, included in his quoted post which opens this response of mine. Written by Richard – “Outside of proving conclusively that the old folks were determined to be a part of a semi-political anti-immigrant, anti-Catholic movement of historically obvious origins, there is nothing you offer from actual records.”
Richard’s statement is a flat out lie – At no time during the last two years has the word “anti-political” – “anti-immigrant” – or “anti-catholic” appeared on a single posting by Ed Gusman on this forum or in the affidavits of the deponents. Because Richard’s statement - “….old folks were determined to be a part of a semi-political anti-immigrant, anti-Catholic movement of historically obvious origins,” an easily proved blatant lie by Richard to accomplish whatever objective I don’t know.
When a correspondent to this forum deliberately lies (as Richard has now done) about statements written by another correspondent I become more than a little angry. I may “officially” notify Genealogy.com that Richard has slandered and harassed me with his posted lie – “Outside of proving conclusively that the old folks were determined to be a part of a semi-political anti-immigrant, anti-Catholic movement of historically obvious origins, there is nothing you offer from actual records. The lie is easily provable.
Gusman - Richard wrote – “be persuaded by your foolish Philistine arguments”
Gusman – My“foolish philistine arguments” about the Brighton Cemetery Markers were taken from the engravings on the Brighton Van Siclen Snr. and found on the photographs displayed on Doug’s web site. They are not from my own discoveries – which is the beauty in how Doug unwittingly shot his feet off. I merely present the evidence on the Markers to Richard and Doug for their personal review, benefit and education. I demonstrated that the both of you need to improve your analytical skills prior to continuing with genealogical research. The markers represent the final flaming of Doug and Richard’s allegations that the Brighton Cemetery Cornelius Van Siclen Snr. and Hanna H. Van Siclen Snr are not DNA identical people withthe family of Cornelius Van Sicklen and Annetje Lawson in the Van Sicklen genealogy of Doug. The birth dates below conclusively proof that there is no possibility of a DNA match between them
C. Van Siclen Snr b. 1776 C. Van Sicklen b. 1775
Hannah H. b. 1779 Annetje L. b. 1774
As I have told Doug – the Brighton Cemetery markers for Van Siclen Snr.s’ have closed the door against the fantasy world in which Doug (and Richard) lives. The elements that destroyed Doug’s fantasized allegations are as follows:
1.THE DIFFERENT BIRTH DATES BASED ON THE VAN SICLEN SNR.’S AGES AT THEIR DEATH. 2. THE ABBREVIATION SNR. APPEARING AFTER THE VAN SICLEN SNR. NAME – DICTIONARY. 3. THE DUTCH SPELLING OF THE NAME HANNA. – WHICH APPEARS IN NO OTHER VAN SICLEN GENEALOGY DOCUMENTS. 4. THE H. AT THE END OF HANNA - THE FIRST LETTER OF HANNA’S MAIDEN NAME.
I WOULD BE INTERESTED IN READING DOUG’S EXPLANATION REGARDING HOW PEOPLE BORN 1 AND 5 RESPECTIVE YEARS APART CAN BE IDENTICAL COUPLES !!!
My analytical skills with the Brighton Van Siclen Snr. cemetery Markers have shaken Richard so badly that Richard must be loosing control of his emotions.Richard wrote – “You continuously do this to the detriment of established genealogical method,”
Gusman - If pointing out the truths contained on the historical Brighton cemetery markers for the Cornelius Van Siclen Snr. family is not practicing "established genealogical method" and of the highest ethical practice, I would like someone to explain to me when revealing the truth became unethical.
Gusman – By “established genealogical method” does Richardmean the genealogical methods that Richard and Doug practiced when they failed to establish how and when the Van Siclen Snr family arrived in Brighton Ontario Canada area.. Both Richard and Doug have no more of an idea when, how or why the Van Siclen Snr family came to live in that area of Canada and be buried in the Brighton than I do.
By “genealogical method” do Richard and Doug mean the failure by both of them to closely examine the Van Siclen Snr. cemetery Markers for evidence, which ultimately destroyed every vestige of a possible DNA connection between Cornelius Van Sicklen & Annetje Lawson with the Brighton Cemetery Van Siclen Snr. and Hanna M. Siclen Snr. family?
By “genealogical method do Richard and Doug mean Doug’s failure to find evidence which would support his unfounded and un-provable allegations that Catherine Johnson was not the wife of affidavit Cornelius Van Siclen and mother of Maria Van Siclen?
By “established genealogical method” do Richard and Doug mean the failure by Richard and Doug to explain why Doug’s alleged grandmother Annetje Lawson, is not recorded in the affidavits, if as alleged by Doug and yourself, Annetje Lawson had been personally known to the deponents Fanny and Ferdinand Eastling during the first 11 and 20 years of their lives. Catherine Johnson is in the affidavits because Catherine Johnson was the grandmother of the deponents and the lady known to and remembered by the deponents.
By “established genealogical method” do Richard and Doug mean that they qualified themselves for the Onion award because of their talents for “ignoring the obvious” when they failed to analyze the engravings on the Van Siclen Snr. Markers?
By “established genealogical method” do Richard and Doug mean that they believe that it is ethically correct to tamper with historical records as Doug has done when he changed the name of Maria Van Siclen to Maria Van Sicklen and then created a fraudulent marriage.
By “established genealogical method” do Richard and Doug mean that it is ethically correct to tamper with a historical marriage date (1814) appearing in the affidavits and changing it to 1824 without first discovering data establishing the date 1814 was not correct.
By “established genealogical method” do Richard and Doug mean that when historical documents refer to 10 children it is ethically correct to remove from a published genealogy three of the 10 children merely because the names of those three are not known.
By “established genealogical method” do Richard and Doug mean that when statements are written into notarized affidavits, such as Revolutionary Veteran, died in Quebec, Ontario and additional statements, it is genealogically ethical to say the statements are fraudulent without first discovering conclusive evidence that will prove the falsity of the Notarized statements.
Perish the thought and practice of such distorted and convoluted ethical practices in genealogical research. If thinking of that type prevails in the circles of the self-proclaimed research experts – I want nothing to do with it.
The arguments about the Brighton Cemetery Van Siclen Snr. family end now ! If Richard and Doug continue to post on any forum and if their posts references either the affidavit Van Siclen or Brighton Cemetery Van Siclen Snr. families – I will be there to refute your allegations.
Do yourself a favor Richard, in the future keep your poison pen writings to yourself – how absurd you look and desperate you must be to now begin writing inflammatory comments like – “….to be a part of a semi-political anti-immigrant, anti-Catholic movement of historically obvious origins”. What are the “origins” of which you speak”, and where do you get such unmitigated drivel.
Your statement – “...to be a part of a semi-political anti-immigrant, anti-Catholic movement of historically obvious origins”- reads like it was copied from an activistic movement handbook which may be referring to perceived reasons for the violent overthrow of our government. The “obvious origins” about which you write – what are they and when did the movement originate.“…a semi-political anti-immigrant, anti-Catholic movement of historically obvious origins”. Richard you do indeed have a strange way of thinking.
Richard you make yourself out to be one of those unprintable words.