Big changes have come to Genealogy.com — all content is now read-only, and member subscriptions and the Shop have been discontinued.
 
Learn more


Chat | Daily Search | My GenForum | Community Standards | Terms of Service
Jump to Forum
Home: Surnames: VanSickle Family Genealogy Forum

Post FollowupReturn to Message ListingsPrint Message

Re: Van Curen are we being flim flamd
Posted by: Van Date: June 21, 2001 at 21:13:14
In Reply to: Re: Van Curen are we being flim flamd by David Van Sickle of 1585

Thank you David. I absolutely could not agree more. Note that Mr Norman came out of the gate with a personal attack, without even bothering to ask what documents I have, or how to obtain copies of those documents for his own examination. Before this attack, I had never had any sort of communication with him, therefore he has no idea what information I have, or how solid the proof is. I apologize for the defensive responses that served no real purpose, and realize that I should have handled the unwarranted attack differently. Genforum should not be used for such bickering. The data collected during the research of this line is far to great to try to squeeze into a single message, so I have decided to publish the references and their resulting conclusions to a web site. It will take some time to properly develop, but once finished I will post the URl to this forum, so interested parties may locate the same documents I have, and decide for themselves what the truth is. I don't expect anyone to take my word for anything. I would prefer that they use my references to find the documents on their own, and draw their own conclusions. Regardless of what Mr Norman and Mr Gusman say, my research is solid. Every name, date, and place found at my website "Descendants of Cornelius Van Sicklen"(of which the Eastlings are a part) has a foundation in real records. Much has been made of my claim that Maria and Luther married in 1824, rather than the 1814 date claimed in the notaries certificate....yet noone has offered anything to prove that the Notary did not simply misread the record. The 1814 date idicates that she was married at age 12, but the oldest known child was born when she was 23. That doesn't make sense. I truly believe that she was married in 1824, and the Notary simply misread a nearly illegible entry. Can I prove it? No. Am I absolutely certain? No. But I will leave the 1824 date in my family file, until someone can show me something to explain the 10 year gap between the marriage and first child. I would like to look at the actual Bible entry, not a notary's certification. Let us see for ourselves if the date is well defined, or nearly unreadable...as was the death date of Maria's father.


Followups:

Post FollowupReturn to Message ListingsPrint Message

http://genforum.genealogy.com/vansickle/messages/571.html
Search this forum:

Search all of GenForum:

Proximity matching
Add this forum to My GenForum Agreement of Use
Link to GenForum
Add Forum
Home |  Help |  About Us |  Site Index |  Jobs |  PRIVACY |  Affiliate
© 2007 The Generations Network