Posted By:Ed Gusman
Subject:Re: Van Siclen/Van Sicklen Controversy revisited”
Post Date:December 07, 2002 at 19:44:35
Message URL:
Forum:Vansickle Family Genealogy Forum
Forum URL:

As I stated Hannah Lossing may be in fact be Annetje Lawson - Without a Birth/Baptism record we will have no conclusive evidence. Attempting to transpose Hannah Lossing into Annetje Lawson is an unproveable exercise, consequently lineages based on such specultative exercises are speculated lineages only. Do you have a valid and non-speculative reason why Annetje Lawson did not appear on the affidavits or DAR application.

Without Hannah Lossing's birth/baptism record are you prepared to conclusively state that Hannah Lossing was not a Lossing descendant from ancestors dating to earlier than the 1500's as opposed to be an accidental product of a spelling error?

I have the instincts to know that Doug has been spinning his genealogic wheels for two years and continuous to do so.

I recognize the futility of redundant and non-productive research and gave it up long ago.

Attempt to explain why Annetje Lawson did not show on the affidavits and DAR application if for 20 years she had been known as Annetje Lawson by Ferdinand Eastling as his grandmother.

I still await for proof of whatever error or errors you believe are in the affidavit.What Doug calls proof is only proof related to his allegations about the Van Sicklen lineage - not a linkage between Cornelius Van Siclen and the Van Sicklen lineage.

Please - if you continue to post, provide only the evidence required which will prove your perception of errors or don't waste our time with rhetoric.

It is over Richard! Unless you and or Doug can find records describing a Cornelius Van Siclen which match those in the affidavits

I guess Doug is planning on publishing a genealogy including the affidavit Maria Van Siclen. At least he has been converted to the "exact spelling" of Cornelius Van Siclen. And you tell me that I am an obstructionist on the forum. It wasn't directly my doing that converted him but it was my unrelenting insistance that influenced someone to check the cemetery records and discovered Van Siclen.

You recall he use to have a field day with his sarcasm and ridicule about my unrelenting, unwavering belief that the name was correctly spelled and I absolutely refused to back off.

There will come a day when you will be referring to Doug's new genealogy using the same words that you described a genealogy from Bergans time or earlier several postings back - paraphrased - all messed up. As I earlier stated, it is not the affidavits that are wrong it is Doug's research that is messed up.