Posted By:Greg Norman
Subject:Re: Are We Being Flim Flamd and by whom?
Post Date:June 15, 2001 at 09:08:59
Message URL:
Forum:Vansickle Family Genealogy Forum
Forum URL:

I am posting my response here and after Van Curen's # 556 response to my Are We being Flim Flamd posting. I wouldn't want anyone to miss Van Curen's response to my "Are we being Flim Flamd" because they didn't scroll onto page two of this forum.

Give it up D.G. Van Curen - Most of what you wrote about, I don't have any idea of where you are coming from or where you are going.

I addressed specifically the tampering which you did to Maria's entry into her bible in 1814 and which the notary certified as a true copy.

I addressed your tampering with the 1814 date and changing it to 1824.

I addressed your deleting three of the Luther family children.

I addressed the name of Van Siclen as spelled by Maria Van Siclen herself and your tampering with same to change to Van Sicklen.

Those were the issues.

The first two: the 1814 date and deleting children from the Luther family, you didn't address because your rationalization cannot be supported in the face of Maria's entries into her own bible.

About the Van Siclen name - There you make a complete donkey out of yourself and your displayed ignorance is not worthy of comment by myself. A more descriptive name for donkey is available but I chose not to use it.

Give it up D.G. Van Curen - your response to myself and your two earlier postings in response to Ed Gusman, in the face of Certified copies and affidavits, make you out to be the worlds greatest self promoting and egotistical genealogy research clown.

Quoting part of the last paragraph of Van Curens Posting. "As to Henry Eastling of Oxford being a son of Luther and did you come to that conclusion? Because he has the right last name in the census? Refer to the 1794 and 1796 record of Loyalists in Ontario Province. You will find that there were a lot of Eastlings in Ontario that also could have been Henry's father."

D.G. Van Curen I challenge you to provide as a posting to this board the name of a single Eastling that is recorded as a Loyalist. If or when you can provide that name, I then challenge you to prove that Henry Eastling is the son of a descendent of whatever Eastling line you produce and not a son of Luther Calvin Eastling as stated by yourself when you wrote "As to Henry Eastling of Oxford being a son of Luther and Maria..."

Along with the name you submit in your response to my challenge be certain that you include precise instructions as to how and where you "discovered" the data.

You have lied about the data contained in the Certified copy of Maria's bible entry, You have lied about three of the Luther family children. You have completely discredited your self to the genealogy world that can now read your Internet postings on this forum - So PROVE what you have alleged about the Eastlings as Loyalists and their being "lot of Eastlings in Ontario" in the years between 1820 and 1851.While your at it - prove that your submitted source is not founded on another lie of your own creation.

In other words for once and forever either - put up or shut up - and stop polluting this and other forums with your garbage about the Luther Calvin Eastling family. I don't give a hoot about that family but I do detest and abhor people who lie about historical events and documents and take it upon themselves to alter history by tampering with data when they have only their pet imagination to self authenticate their tampering.

Save your arguments defending your trumped up distortions and rationalizing about the Luther C. Eastling lineage and Maria Van Siclen, for Ed Gusman or whoever takes you on.

My singular interest in the affair is exposing your tampering with a certified document and secondly for tampering with notarized affidavits.

Your kind need to be exposed as representative of people who take it on themselves to rewrite historical documents to fit their personal conception of history.

People who pretend to be genealogy researchers and alter the facts as stated by Maria in her bible entry are the worst part of the very dregs of the genealogy world. Such people are to be studiously avoided by legitimate and unbiased researchers with integrity dedicated to truth.

I close with this - Suggest you revisit my post on this board about Henry Eastling and reread what Ed Gusman was honest enough to admit. It is you, Van Curen who states that Henry Eastling is the son of Luther Calvin Eastling.

You make yourself appear ridiculous by some of the things you write. To do so in front of the Internet world really takes what is known as "fools courage".