Re: Van Siclen/Van Sicklen Controversy revisited”
-
In reply to:
Re: Van Siclen/Van Sicklen Controversy revisitedu201d
Douglas Van Curen 10/07/02
Witten specifically to Douglas Van Curen with information for Mr. McCool.
Prove to me that my calculations for the Birth date of Maria Van Siclen buried in Pine Grove Cemetary and who was married to Luther Calvin Eastling are incorrect - calculations which I show herein and which are based on her graveston inscription at Pine Grove Cemetery, Portage County WI recording the number of years Maria is shown as living.
On Maria Van Siclen Eastling’s gravestone - (wife of Luther Calvin Eastling) - at Pine Grove Cemetery, Portage County, WI is written the following:
Maria wife of L.C. Eastling
Died March 4 1868
Age 66 years, 6 mo. & 18 days.
What year and day was Maria Van Siclen born?
CALCULATION
Died March 4 1868 minus 66 yrs. = March 4 1802
March 4 1802
Feb 4 1802
Jan 4 1802
Dec 4 1801
Nov 4 1801
Oct 4 1801
Sept 4 1801 < March 4 1802 Minus 6 Months = Sept 4 1801 >
3
2
1
Aug 31
30
29
28
27
26
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
AUG 17 1801 < Sept 4 1801 Minus 18 days to Aug. 17
1801> - BIRTH DATE FOR MARIA VAN SICLEN
married to Luther Calvin Eastling>
COMPARE WITH THE REFORMED CHURCH FISHKILL NY 1801 BIRTH & BAPTISMAL RECORD FOR MARIA VAN SICKLEN - BORN SEPT. 15 1801.
Question of the day - Are my calculations for Maria Van Siclen's birth date Correct?
If correct what does that do to the Van Curen house of cards which is based on the Sept. 15 1801 birth date contained in the Reformed Church Fishkill NY 1801 Birth Record of his Maria Van Sicklen?
Whether I be correct or incorrect it does not change the fact that the mother of Maria Van Siclen, Catherine Johnson & husband of Cornelius Van Siclen was is and will remain the Catherine Johnson as testified to in the affidavits.
Not the Hannah Lossing AKA Annetje Lawson, a purely abstract and imaginery creation of Douglas Van Curen using AKA's which Van Curen has never been able to find which would support his allegation of a name change to Annetje Lawson using AKA's.
If Aug 17 1801 turns out to be the correct birth date for Maria Van Siclen married to Luther Calvin Eastling then where will Douglas Van Curen go next to find his windmills with which to joust.
Give it up Van - if my calculated birth date is correct the discussion is over because you must have a Sept 15th birth date for the Maria Van Siclen Eastling buried in Pine Grove Cemetary, Portage County WI. to make your allegations work.
If my calculations are incorrect, nothing has changed because the affidavits, until set aside by a Court, will continue to take precedence over your absurd use of AKA's to change a birth mother's name in order for you to have the correct name for a wife married to whomever you want to marry her too.
We have found found the names and birth dates for two of the three Luther Calvin Eastling Children born between 1815 and 1825 - names we did not know until about two months ago. 1815 - 1825 is the childless period between the marriage of Luther and Marie and the first recorded Census birth of their child in about 1826. We also now know that one of the newly found people had two children born in the U.S. and the other one had something like 3 children born in Canada. Their names are also known.
Seems like you made an unwed mother out of your Maria Van Sicklen three times over.
More Replies:
-
Re: Van Siclen/Van Sicklen Controversy revisitedu201d
Douglas Van Curen 10/18/02
-
Re: Van Siclen/Van Sicklen Controversy revisitedu201d
Ed Gusman 10/18/02
-
Re: Van Siclen/Van Sicklen Controversy revisitedu201d
Douglas Van Curen 10/18/02
-
Re: Van Siclen/Van Sicklen Controversy revisitedu201d
Ed Gusman 10/19/02
-
Re: Van Siclen/Van Sicklen Controversy revisitedu201d
Douglas Van Curen 10/19/02
-
Re: Van Siclen/Van Sicklen Controversy revisitedu201d
Ed Gusman 10/20/02
-
Re: Van Siclen/Van Sicklen Controversy revisitedu201d
Douglas Van Curen 10/20/02
-
Re: Van Siclen/Van Sicklen Controversy revisitedu201d
Ed Gusman 10/23/02
-
Re: Van Siclen/Van Sicklen Controversy revisitedu201d
Douglas Van Curen 10/23/02
-
Re: Van Siclen/Van Sicklen Controversy revisitedu201d
Ed Gusman 10/23/02
-
Re: Van Siclen/Van Sicklen Controversy revisitedu201d
Douglas Van Curen 10/23/02
-
Re: Van Siclen/Van Sicklen Controversy revisitedu201d
Ed Gusman 10/24/02
-
Re: Van Siclen/Van Sicklen Controversy revisitedu201d
Douglas Van Curen 10/24/02
-
Re: Van Siclen/Van Sicklen Controversy revisitedu201d
Ed Gusman 10/25/02
-
Re: Van Siclen/Van Sicklen Controversy revisitedu201d
Douglas Van Curen 10/25/02
-
Re: Van Siclen/Van Sicklen Controversy revisitedu201d
Ed Gusman 10/26/02
-
Re: Van Siclen/Van Sicklen Controversy revisitedu201d
Douglas Van Curen 10/26/02
-
Re: Van Siclen/Van Sicklen Controversy revisitedu201d
Ed Gusman 10/27/02
-
Re: Van Siclen/Van Sicklen Controversy revisitedu201d
Douglas Van Curen 10/27/02
-
Re: Van Siclen/Van Sicklen Controversy revisitedu201d
Ed Gusman 10/27/02
-
Re: Van Siclen/Van Sicklen Controversy revisitedu201d
Ed Gusman 5/13/03
-
Re: Van Siclen/Van Sicklen Controversy revisitedu201d
Walt Stander 6/23/03
-
Re: Van Siclen/Van Sicklen Controversy revisitedu201d
Ed Gusman 6/25/03
-
Re: Van Siclen/Van Sicklen Controversy revisitedu201d
Richard McCool 7/18/05
-
Van Sicklen Controversy
Walt Stander 8/02/07
-
Re: Van Sicklen Controversy
Richard McCool 8/03/07
-
Re: Van Sicklen Controversy
Walt Stander 8/03/07
-
Re: Van Sicklen Controversy
-
Re: Van Sicklen Controversy
-
Van Sicklen Controversy
-
Re: Van Siclen/Van Sicklen Controversy revisitedu201d
-
Re: Van Siclen/Van Sicklen Controversy revisitedu201d
-
Re: Van Siclen/Van Sicklen Controversy revisitedu201d
-
Re: Van Siclen/Van Sicklen Controversy revisitedu201d
-
Re: Van Siclen/Van Sicklen Controversy revisitedu201d
-
Re: Van Siclen/Van Sicklen Controversy revisitedu201d