Alas poor Eddy feels that by, once again, distracting readers away from the fact that he has absolutely NO source documents to support his fantasy, that he somehow has won something.
Fact: Eddy cannot provide one original source document from Canada...not even a census record...to show that there ever was a Cornelius Van Siclen other than the one which lived at Brighton who could have been Maria's father.
Fact: Eddy cannot provide one original source document from anywhere in the world...not even a census record...which shows a Cornelius married to a Catherine(let alone specifically Catherine Johnson) who could be Maria's parents.
Fact: Eddy cannot provide one original source document of any kind that would even suggest that the family he claims to have existed(Cornelius Van Siclen and Catharine Johnson in Quebec, Canada), actually did exist.
Why can't Eddy find any records? Because he insists on searching for people who never actually existed. IT IS A DAR ERROR. Sorry Eddy, but your dodge didn't work. Nobody is buying. Your cheap little parlor tricks do nothing but illustrate how desperate you are to sucker people into chasing the dead end with you. If you can't produce evidence to support your fantasy, then noone will buy it, and that is something you will never be able to do. I find it amusing, however, how you constantly pat yourself on the back for making yourself look foolish. Your personal opinion is not evidence, and neither is the family folklore presented in Fanny and Ferdinand's affadavits. You still have absolutely nothing.
Now to quickly address your "significant entry" ponts:
1. All of the Bible entries are considered "acceptable" by me. Why? Because they are original source records. There is no "condition" placed by me on the death date of Maria's father. The "condition" only exists in Eddy's mind. The bible simply verifies that the Cornelius Van Siclen(exact spelling on tombstone) buried in Brighton is Maria's father, by virtue of a date match.(Eddy would have you believe that 2 Cornelius Van Siclens died in Mar, 1850 as a "coincidence) This is also supported by the fact that this particular Cornelius had a daughter named Maria born in Fishkill on Sep 15, 1801....another date match to the Eastling Bible. These facts are essentially PROVEN by the fact buried with Cornelius Van Siclen and wife Hannah Lawson is son Ferdinand Van Sicklin(using the exact spelling on his stone), who was also born in the Fishkill area(Jun 26, 1798), and baptised at New Hackensack. There is absolutely no doubt that Maria was the daughter of Cornelius Van Siclen and Hannah Lawson. Don't forget, Maria born at Fishkill Sep 15, 1801 had a brother and grandfather named Ferdinand. Maria married to Luther Eastling had a son named Ferdinand. Odd coincidence or further proof? Any intelligent person would recognize such as further proof. The "Cornelius Van Siclen" exact spelling argument is a long dead issue, since the spelling of the name on Cornelius' tombstone in Brighton is an EXACT match to the spelling claimed by Eddy as the correct spelling. I accept that Maria's father spelled his name EXACTLY "Cornelius Van Siclen" at the time of his death, as that is how it was spelled on his tombstone. The only Bible entry that is in question at all is the marriage date. It is highly unlikely that Maria was married at age 12. I will continue to challenge that date, based upon her age, until someone can present supporting evidence to establish it to be correct. The Notary noted having difficulty reading the death date of Maria's father. Perhaps all of the dates were difficult to read. Perhaps "1819"(hypothetical) was faded enough to look like "1814". All Eddy has to do is present the actual bible entry. If it truly does say 1814, then I will whole heartedly accept it as fact. I have never "rejected" the 1814 date. I question it as any intelligent person would question a date that makes a bride 12 years old on her wedding day. I do have one verified 12 year old bride in 30,000 person plus family file. I know that such events did happen, but they were so rare that a claim like that should be verified from another source. That is simply intelligent research.
Eddy claims that I "reject" the birth of 3 of Maria's children, as I only have 7 recorded. I only have 7 recorded, because I have only been able to verify names/dates of 7 children. That is not "rejection", that is sound genealogy work, something Eddy would never understand. Kind of hard to record a name you don't know and give it birth date you don't have. That's what makes Eddy and I different. He records whatever he thinks is true, whether he supporting evidence or not. I only record that which I am able is supported by records/source documents. Do I believe Maria had 10 children? Of course I do. The notary's certification of bible entries makes that much clear. He simply neglected to name all of them. And until I have the names of the other 3, my file will only show the names of the seven I know.
A final note to Eddy:
You are boring us to tears with your "Chapters" and your "experiments" and your idiotic cliches. In all of your writings you have literally done everything EXCEPT....provide any real evidence to support your fantasy. Bottom line: Either you have records that support your position, or you don't. We all know you don't, because we all know that you are clinging to a DAR error and trying to make people believe it was real. And because the name you have as Maria's mother - Catherine Johnson - was the result of a research error, you will never find any records to support your fantasy. You need to face the real truth and accept it.....you simply don't have what it takes to be a credible researcher. It is a field you clearly have no clue about.
Notify Administrator about this message?
|Home | Help | About Us | Site Index | Jobs | PRIVACY | Affiliate|
|© 2007 The Generations Network|