> Instead of poking holes in the document I offered, it would be
> nice if you obtained a copy and examined it before declaring it a
> forgery by relying on your "logical" arguments to "examine" it.
Forgery may been too strong of a word, but I also left open the
possiblity of the interpretation could be *suspect*. Does anyone
know what the motive could have been? Why wait 2 years (this was
filed sometime in 1733 if I remember correctly.) Martin
obvilouisly did not have any estate here.
Instead of me pooking holes, allow me to torpedeo this crazy idea
and send it to the bottom once and for all.
Go find a copy of the passenger list, look for a Görg Dierich
Kehl/Kail and wife Maria Ursela. Now, take a good look at the
name Johann Christian, their son. He did DIE AT SEA on the
Britannia of London and was buried at sea. And his name still
appears on the passenger list. Why? Because there is two main
lists, the captains list of all those who boarded at Rotterdam,
and then there is the courts list of those who qualify to take
the oath upon arrival.
If Martin *really* died at sea a week before arriving he would
still be listed on the passenger list because that list was
prepared before departing as proven above. End of theory.
Let me know when you finally get off this crazy "Martin died at
sea" band wagon.
Notify Administrator about this message?
|Home | Help | About Us | Site Index | Jobs | PRIVACY | Affiliate|
|© 2007 The Generations Network|