You come up with some of the strangest notions, and "way out in left field" responses.No comment necessary on any of the totally irrelevant "comparisons" at the beginning of your post, other than to say they provided us all with a good laugh.I guess desperate people do desperate things.
I have no idea where you got the misconception that I have "finally recognized the truth in what I presented".Except for a page of bible entries, you haven't presented anything truthful/factual that I am aware of.Repeating the mistakes of others certainly does not impress me in the least.
Direct to the point: The certified bible entries are consistent with Maria being of the Murray, Ontario Van Sicklen(aka Van Sicklin) family.Nothing in those bible entries stands to exclude her from that family.Exact spelling was not a prime consideration in most 19th century families, all experienced genealogists are aware of that, so your only existing argument carries no weight.The affadavits contain the name Catharine Johnson as the mother of Maria VS Eastling.This information is false, as the name originated with Violet Voorhees discovery of the 1771 marriage - Cornelius Van Sicklen to Catharine Johnson.That record has been proven to NOT be Maria's parents, and it doesn't matter how many people repeat this mistake, you can't make it so.The claim that Maria's father served in the Revolution is also false.It was false in the application, and it was just as false in the affadavits.
Fact:No Cornelius VAN SICLEN, which could have been Maria's father, ever served in the Revolution.In fact, I have yet to find any Revolutionary war record using the exact spelling "Cornelius Van Siclen", as you insist.Cornelius Van Sicklen...several of them...did serve, and were so recorded.There was a record of a Ferdinand Van SICLEN, but he was the father of Cornelius Van SICKLEN of Murray, Ontario.He was also recorded as Ferdinand VAN SICKLEN.
Fact: No Cornelius Van Siclen ever lived anywhere in Quebec prior to 1850.Canadian records do exist...they are fairly good, in fact....and no such person was ever recorded there.There is also noone there in later years who could have been his descendants.
Fact:Original source documents from Canada and New York provide the necessary date matches to prove that Maria was Cornelius and Hannah's daughter.Maria's son Ferdinand provides additional evidence, as she had a brother and grandfather named Ferdinand.The information is CONCLUSIVE, and this IS the proper way to prove a lineage...with real source documents.DAR applications commonly contain errors, and so always need to have their contents verified.
About your "contact".After the many stunts you have pulled, I doubt if such a person exists.As you commonly "make up" supporting contacts and have "friends" write on your behalf to make yourself look better, I would be really surprised if such a person did exist.On the chance that he is real, have him post his information.I will diligently research everything he makes reference to.Since you are not specific about what records he has....and we all know if there was something there that would strengthen your case, you'ld be waving it like an American flag in a parade....I have no comment on what your contact (supposedly) has in his possession.I welcome all "real" records, and will gladly change my position should anything he provides show me that I have made an error.You see, Eddy, that is where you have always failed.All you have ever needed to do was produce just one single record...New York or Canada before 1850...that suggested that your scenario could possibly be correct.And I am not saying "prove conclusively", I am only saying "suggesting that it is possible.Over and over and over again, I have challenged you to provide me with a reference to work from.If records exist, I will find them.
How will I react if your contact provides records?Unglued?More of Eddy's silly theatrics.You do make us laugh at times.Firstly, any references to ANY/ALL Van Siclen/Van Sicklen/Van SIckle, etc, original source documents is of interest to me.Eventually I intend to publish a Family history of Ferdinadus' descendants, which include all of the above, so it is all relevant to me.Anything provided that is relevant to this discussion will be duly considered, as well.If he provides original source documents, I will attempt to determine which branch of the family they belong to.If he presents items such as bible records, they will be used as references to attempt to locate source documents and I will make an attempt to verify same.If he presents "family folklore", I will tell him it is "family folklore".If he presents 20th century family letters talking about 18th century events...if such contain errors, I will tell him so.When families get together and discuss long past events...embellishment is the rule, and errors are commonplace.Facts become distorted and people end up believing in fantasies.And that is where you are at.
Once again, Eddy, I make the challenge.Provide just one record dated before 1850...one is all you need...that shows that your scenario is at least possible...and I will spare no effort researching, on the outside chance you could be right.Just one record.Why is that so hard?Because those people NEVER EXISTED...that's why.Until you can come up with that one record, you should quit wasting time and space on this forum with your fantasy.The forum was meant to aid "real" genealogy research.