I am posting this here with today's date and also as a response to Van Curen's message #543.
Was cruising the forum today and encountered an absurdity posted by one D.G. Van Curen about which I am compelled to comment. Also checked out the Family Tree Maker Family Home Page postings for Van Curen and Gusman. I have read the Van Curen posting # 543 (all of it) and have concluded that Van Curen will go to any length to cover up the magnificent mess he made when he changed Maria Van Siclen in the Certified Copy of the Violetta affidavit to Maria Van Sicklen and Van Siclen's marriage date from 1814 to 1824 and then included the tampered version of the Eastling record into the Van Sicklen lineage on the Van Curen Home Page.
Re: Postings # 542 May 25 by Ed Gusman
Re: Postings # 543 May 25 by D.G. Van Curen
Posting # 542 by Ed Gusman -From the 1907 Violetta Affidavit certified copy of the 1814 Bible entry by Maria Van Siclen about her marriage to Luther Calvin Eastling. “Luther & Maria Van Siclin Eastling was married July 22nd 1814”,
Posting # 542 by Ed Gusman - From the 1907 Violetta Affidavit certified copy of the 1814 Bible entry by Maria Van Siclen about her marriage to Luther Calvin Eastling. – “the entry of the birth of “Fanny Hill Eastling“ is the tenth-entry of births of children of Luther and Maria Eastling,”
Posting # 543 by Van Curen - From Van Curen – “To the point, Mr Gusman neglected to give us a reason why a couple would marry in 1814, then have their first child in 1825, followed then by births at regular intervals. Until that gap is adequately explained, the 1814 date makes no sense,…….” .
Van Curen's 1824 makes no sense to this reader, 1814 was written by the lady who was married and that is good enough. The best example of "no sense" is Van Curen’s rationalizing 1824 out of 1814 and removing three children from the Eastling family tree.
Why does Van Curen believe that Mr Gusman must give a reason why Maria had no children between 1814 & 1824. Mr Gusman makes no claim in his postings to being omniscient. Apparently Van Curen believes himself to be omniscient judging by the way he changed the maiden name, the marriage date and eliminated three children birthed by Maria Van Siclen.
I compared the Van Curen and Gusman rendering of the Luther Calvin Eastling & Maria Van Siclen lineage’s. Seems to me like Van Curen chose to edit Gusman’s version of the Eastling lineage with nothing to support editing by Van Curen except his overactive imagination whereas Gusman appears to have based his version on the Certified copy of Maria’s bible entry.
For instance Posting 542 by Ed Gusman – ten children are mention in the Certified copy. The Eastling lineage on Gusman’s home page on the Family Tree Maker Web site records a total of ten children with three of them unnamed. Van Curen records only 7 children all with names, the three unnamed children are not recorded.
Why did Van Curen remove the 3 unnamed children from the Eastling lineage mentioned in the certified copy. If Van Curen had included the three unnamed children, then Maria could not have been married in 1824 as the omniscient Van Curen would have us believe. If Maria married in 1824 then Van Curen would have had 3 illegitimate children born to Maria Van Siclen Eastling between 1815 & 1824. How does Van Curen handle the problem…? After changing Maria’s marriage date from 1814 to 1824 Van Curen removes the three unnamed children from the Certified copy of Maria's bible entries and intentionaly leaves their births off from the Luther Calvin Eastling & Maria Van Siclen family tree.
Never mind accuracy in genealogical lineaages.Just tamper with the record until if matches whatever the imagined perceptions of the researcher believes the record should be.
Van Curen chooses to ignore the fact that the births of 10 children were recorded by Maria herself into her bible and that the entries were certified in 1907. Van Curen choses to ignore the facts recorded by the birth mother and record only the births of 7 of Maria's children. A pox on that type of researcher.
So who do you believe – a researcher named Van Curen with a rampant imagination who changes a marriage date from 1814 to 1824, changes the surname of Van Siclen to Van Sicklen and who deliberately removes three children from the Eastling family tree because they don’t fit the Van Curen perception of events contrived by the “researcher” Van Curen.
Or do you believe the Certified copy of bible entry events written in 1814 by the women who lived the events about which she wrote – her maiden name Van Siclen, her marriage date 1814 and the ten children that she gave birth to.
Point of interest – I have been in communication with Ed Gusman and he told me that a researcher living in Canada, may have within the last two weeks discovered the name of what could be the third birthed child of the unnamed three children of Maria Van Siclen. The child’s name is Henry Eastling born in 1820 and is based on an 1851 Oxford County, Province of Ontario Canada Census.
Kind of looks like the Canadian Researcher may have inadvertently placed another nail in the Van Curen version of the Eastling lineage.
I really have no use for researchers who tamper with historical records without first having records available which would support the alteration of historical records.
Which is the reason I have taken this opportunity to critique the Van Curen version of the the Luther Calvin Eastling & Maira Van Siclen entries in the Van Curen authored genealogy.
|Home | Help | About Us | Site Index | Jobs | PRIVACY | Affiliate|
|© 2007 The Generations Network|