Mr Norman is correct...there is no "Van Siclen" Board. However, the message line of his "Oops" post included the exact spelling "Van Siclen". I invite all readers of this message to refer to #561 post for the exact URL to see his "oops" message. To repeat, Mr Norman was not looking for Van Siclen information, he was looking for my post in particular, most likely as a favor to friend Ed Gusman. Anyone possessing even the slightest hint of deductive reasoning will pick up on that right away, as I did. Sorry, you didn't help your friend, especially considering that you yourself established that you have no knowledge of this family line.
I also note that the terminology used by Mr Norman is virtually identical to that used by Mr Gusman in previous exchanges. I invite everyone to read the posts by both Mr Norman and Mr Gusman and compare them. They are incredibly similar, right down to the tired old metaphors, and the "that's all, I won't respond any more" endnotes. Eggs were especially favored by Mr Gusman throughout our exchanges, and I note they are a favorite of Mr Normans, as well. Either 2 people who think and write incredibly alike have somehow found each other, or Mr Gusman is using a pseudonym. I think it is the latter, but no matter. Such a waste. All this mindless rhetoric, and niether Mr Gusman or Mr Norman has even so much as 1 original source document to support the fantasy. The only hope they have of clinging to the fantasy, is to insist on "exact spelling", in order to set aside the factual evidence. They are simply non-researchers pretending to be experts. Fortunately, I don't see very many people being sucked in by this ploy. Most people are smart enough to recognize nothing when they see it, and Gusman/Norman twins have nothing.
Mr Norman's post illustrates what I have already said. If the 1850 date was "too indistinct to read", so it follows that an 1814, or 1824 date, would be even more indistinct, due to the additional age. I believe the notary did his best at reading the Bible, but made a mistake, because of the nearly illegible writing. Anyone who has ever tried to read old bible entries would understand that very well. Until the Bible, itself, can be produced for examination, or proof is found of a child born prior to 1824, I will continue to use the 1824 date. I am not saying I know for sure that 1824 is right, just highly likely given the evidence at hand, and the unlikelyhood that Maria would be married at age 12.
Bible entries do, in fact, corroborate the claim that Hannah Lawson was Maria's mother:
Maria born Sep 15, 1801, d.o (Hannah Lawson and) Cornelius Van Sicklen who died March 19, 1850, Canada.
Maria born Sep 15, 1801, d.o. Cornelius Van Siclen, who died Mar, 1850, Canada.
The bible entries contain both dates, a dead match, and such a coincidence will not be found in nature.
Add to that fact that the first Maria had a brother named Ferdinand, and the second had a son named Ferdinand, and any intelligent person will readily recognize that the 2 Marias are definitely the same person. The combination of events eliminates the possibility of "coincidence". Especially given the fact that there was no 2nd Cornelius anywhere in Canada, as Mr Gusman claims. Sorry Eddy and Greggy. You have no evidence to support the fantasy. Even the bible entries serve to prove you wrong. The cemetery record as well, corroborates Hannah Lawson as mother. When you convert the date/age on the stone, you come up with Sep 15, 1801, which is the birth date for Hannah's daughter Maria.
I read the posts mentioned...216 and 335. I don't understand where Mr Norman was trying to go with that. There is absolutely nothing in there even remotely relevent to this discussion. I know Richard McCool, and he would be insulted by the insinuation that he supported this "exact spelling" nonsense. Richard is a dedicated researcher who Seeks out source documents and properly sources his work. I have corresponded with him on many occassions, on some of the tougher Van Sicklen lines. His references have been a big help in locating the records necessary to prove certain lines. Of all people, he knows well that spelling variations are common within a given family's records. To say that only "Van Siclen" records, spelled exactly, may be considered for this family, shows total ignorance of the subject. Plain and simple. Van Sicklen is not the wrong lineage, because Van Sicklen and Van Siclen are the same lineage, coming down from the same common ancestor, Ferdinandus Van Sycklin. So, how is that Van Sycklin to Van Siclen is OK, but Van Sicklen to Van Siclen isn't? The argument is idiotic and makes no rational sense. They only use it, because that is all they have.
I don't have to prove anything on the Eastlings of Canada. I am not the one that pulled a name out of a census record and declared it to be a "possible" child of Luthers. Now that's what I call a serious research flaw..."If the name is spelled right, it must be a relative". Too funny. Everything I have on the Eastlings came from the LDS Family History Center, which holds thousands of Canadian archive microfilms, literally millions of records, back to the 1790s. I would like to suggest that Mr Gusman and Mr Norman both spend some time in the Library looking over Canadian Archive records. You will find a number of Eastlings there, as well as Van Siclens...and you will also find that their names are spelled differently in other records. Same people, Same places, different spellings. That is reality. The people claimed by the affadavits to be Maria's parents of Canada never existed. We know that Cornelius married to Hannah Lawson existed in Canada. Plenty of records to establish that. How about a person named exactly Cornelius Van Siclen", other than the one married to Hannah Lawson and living in Murray, Ontario? (Some of his records do name him Cornelius Van Siclen, exactly) Not one piece of evidence exists that any Cornelius of an age to have a daughter born in 1801, other than Hannah Lawson's husband, ever lived in Canada...anywhere.
I agree with Mr Norman, in that analyzing collected materials correctly requires a unique talent. Unfortunately, Mr Norman and Mr Gusman don't possess that talent. Of course, they would have to actually have some documents before they could analyze them, which they don't. They believe that 2 affadavits written by elderly people more than 50 years after the fact somehow constitutes proof, and that source documents from Government agencies, Churches, cemeteries, census, etc, recording specific events as they occurred have no value if they disagree with the statements of the elderly working from memory. Fanny and Ferdinand may have been very nice people, with the best of intentions...but their statements are still false. And I have never put down Violet Voorhees. All she wanted to do was join the DAR. She did that..so what. She has a legitimate link for the DAR....she just didn't take the time to discover it. Violet isn't the problem. The problem is 2 people(or is it one?) who use the contents of the application as "proof" of lineage. They sound like children, throwing tantrums
to get their way. Ask Mr Norman and Mr Gusman for ALL 19th century source documents which support the claims of the affadavits....and what you will get is NOTHING. There aren't any...never have been, never will be. The statements are false.
|Home | Help | About Us | Site Index | Jobs | PRIVACY | Affiliate|
|© 2007 The Generations Network|