Re: Maria Van Siclen Bible
-
In reply to:
Re: Maria Van Siclen Bible
Douglas Van Curen 1/02/03
Jan 3 2002
Posted by Doug
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Re: Maria Van Siclen Bible
Posted by: D G Van Curen (ID *****7681) Date: January 02, 2003 at 18:27:46
In Reply to: Re: Maria Van Siclen Bible by Ed Gusmanof 46
My apologies again, but once I picked myself up off the floor from laughing so hard, I just had to respond.
Eddy - What is it with the list thing? Why don't you just do the math? Simple subtraction is all it takes. If you aren't capable of 2nd grade math, take the problem to the nearest grade school and have a student work it out for you. Here is your mistake:
Sept 4 1848 Seventy three
SEPT 4 1848 SEVENTY FOUR
I don't care how many lists you make, Cornelius Van Sicklen born Poughkeepsie in 1775 was 74 years 6 months and 15 days on Mar 19, 1850. Simple second grade math. And a match.
And Cornelius Snr of Brighton did NOT have a son named Cornelius. Check the historical marker, where his children are named...the same names as the children of Cornelius Van Sicklen and Hannah Lawson of Fishkill. Gee...what a coincidence. Time for another "DUH".
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Congratulations Douglas Van Curen – That is two gold stars for you this week. Should I describe my mistakes as folderol’s or faux pas. In either case they shouldn’t have happened. The first couple days in 2003 have not been my best. I messed up the two charts, a friend died, I lost an argument with my wife, ran out of gas, hit my finger with a hammer, cut a two by four too short - accidentally overwrote two TV shows I had recorded and really wanted to watch – even grew a little fatter. I hope things come together soon!
I am included the corrected chart and of course I have to retract what I said about Cornelius Van Sicklen being AE 75. He was without question AE 74.
However, AE 74 for Cornelius Van Sicklen and not AE 75 proves only that I am fallible. The bottom line is that it does not prove that Cornelius Van Sicklen is DNA interchangeable with Cornelius Van Siclen Snr.
While Cornelius Van Sicklen was born on Sept 4 1775 there remains 364 days in 1775 any one of which could have been Cornelius Van Siclen Snr.’s birth date. Consequently, Doug continues not to have a birth day match for Cornelius Van Sicklen until he can conclusively provide evidence showing that both men were born on the exact same date.
As for a death date match – matching death dates have no merit for DNA matches when attempting to transpose people based on DNA matches. I find it nearly impossible to believe that Doug is so naive that he would ignore all of the additional information on the Brighton Van Siclen Snr. markers and attempt to meld two couples into one based on only an identical first names for the husbands and identical years (not even date and year) of death for the both couples.
Doug attempts to tell us that Snr. in Cornelius Van Siclen Snr. does not mean that Cornelius Van Siclen Snr. had a child named Cornelius Van Siclen Jr. because Cornelius Van Siclen Jr. does not appear on the “historical marker”. Do not be mislead people. The Historical Marker to which Doug refers is not the Brighton grave markers for Cornelius Van Siclen Snr. and Hanna H. Van Siclen Snr.
The argument is not about who are the children of Cornelius Van Sicklen – the argument is about who’s child is “Cornelius Siclen Jr.”
Using one of Doug’s favorite cliches “everyone knows” who knows anything about naming conventions and can read a dictionary knows that Snr. is a definitive method of telling “everyone” that the man with Snr. after his name had a child by the same name as the father after which Snr. appears. Snr. is the conventional short form of the identical name of a father for his child. The Marker could have been engraved – “Cornelius Van Siclen – father of Cornelius Van Siclen Jr.”The cost of the extra 28 letters might have been prohibitive. We know not the reason that Snr. was used as opposed to “father of Cornelius Van Siclen Jr.” but used it was and either method of naming the child of Cornelius Van Siclen Snr. tells us exactly the same thing – Cornelius Van Siclen Snr. had a child with the name of Cornelius Van Siclen Jr.
That one is locked in stone Douglas – there is no way around it!
Doug is attempting to convince us that Cornelius Van Siclen Snr. did not have a son named Cornelius Van Siclen Jr. “because Cornelius Van Siclen Jr.'sname is not on the Van Sicklen historical marker for Cornelius Van Sicklen”. If the words – “father of Cornelius Van Siclen Jr. “ were on the Van Sicklen Snr. marker does the reader believe that Douglas would be telling us that Cornelius Van Siclen Jr. was not the son of Cornelius Van Siclen Snr. I believe he would be trying to do so because Doug appears to believe that no one knows what Snr. means or “father of Cornelius Van Siclen Jr. means. But then Doug is that way.
Quoting Douglas Van Curen’s “proof” – “And Cornelius Snr of Brighton did NOT have a son named Cornelius. Check the historical marker, where his children are named...the same names as the children of Cornelius Van Sicklen and Hannah Lawson of Fishkill. Gee...what a coincidence.”
Readers please note how Doug attempts to deceive you – Doug states – ‘Cornelius Snr. of Brighton did NOT have a son named Cornelius. Check the historical marker, where his children are named...the same names as the children of Cornelius Van Sicklen and Hannah Lawson of Fishkill.”
Well Douglas whether you like it or not - the Snr. after Cornelius Van Siclen Snr. is proof positive that Cornelius Van Siclen Snr. did indeed have a son named Cornelius Van Siclen Jr.
Doug’s statement contains a couple, shall I be kind, and say “intentional deceptions: 1. The photographs that I saw on Doug’s web site of the Brighton Van Sicklen Snr couple do not show a “historical marker” for Cornelius Van Siclen Snr and Hanna H. Van Siclen Snr. The photographs are of their grave markers after removal and placement in a brick wall. Their markers contain only the names of the Van Siclen Snr. couple and do not show the name of any child or children.The single reference to a child of the Van Siclen Snr couple is contained in the word “Snr.” appearing after Cornelius Van Siclen Snr.s’ name on his personal grave marker.
Note how Doug includes – “…THE SAME NAMES AS THE CHILDREN OF CORNELIUS VAN SICKLEN AND HANNAH LAWSON OF FISHKILL.” Doug is trying to convince you that the children’s names appearing on the “Historical Marker” are the birth children of the Van Siclen Snr family. Doug is also referring to the Van Siclen Snr. and Van Siclen family as if there were identical people.
The correct name for Hannah is as shown by her birth record - Annetje Lawson and not Hannah Lawson.
About the “of Fishkill”. The names appearing in the Reform Fishkill 1801 baptismal record are Cornelius FV Sicklen- Maria – Hannah Lossing. Annetje Lawson is not on the 1801 Baptismal record and the only child shown is Maria. Another Douglas Van Curen allegation flamed and so easily.
I viewed no photographs on Doug's web site of the "Historical Markerr" written about by Doug. I don't know if such a marker exists. Consequently I don't know what names are contained thereon or who their parents may be. Doug must first prove that there is such a marker in Brighton Cemetery as he alleges. Doug must then show in a photograph of the Historical Marker, the names Cornelius Van Siclen Snr and Hanna H. Van Siclen Snr. along with the names of the children Doug alleges were born the Van Siclen Snr. family.
Doug cannot find who the parents of Hannah Lossing are. Even so and without conclusive evidence Doug alleges that Simeon Lawson & Margriet Keuren are the parents of Hannah Lossing. Thereby permitting the children of Cornelius Van Sicklen and Annetje Lawson/Hannah Lossing to be referred to as the children of Cornelius Van Siclen Snr. and Hanna H. Van Siclen Snr.
It is with such manipulations that Doug hopes to convince people on this forum that the affidavit Catherine Johnson is not the mother of affidavit Maria Van Siclen – that the “Maria” who’s birth mother is Hannah Lossing transposed to Annetje Lawson transposed to Hanna H. Van Siclen and finally transposed to Catherine Johnson as a replacement for Catherine Johnson the wife of the affidavit Cornelius Van Siclen.
By replacing the affidavit Catherine Johnson with Annetje Lawson Doug hopes to alter the genetic/DNA of all of the descendants beginning with the affidavit Maria Van Siclen. This cannot be permitted unless Doug can conclusively FIRST prove that each transposition of people he proposes to transpose first be proven to have the identical DNA of the people with which the transposition is to occur.
Doug has no evidence that Catherine Johnson is a fictitious person created by Violetta Voorhees to get DAR membership. That is how this charade began.
That is why I continue to respond to Doug's garbage about the affidavit Van Siclen and the Brighton Van Siclen Snr. families.
The people researching their ancestry, be it Eastling or Van Siclen, need to be told how Doug manipulates the truth to mean what Doug wants his version of the truth to mean – not what it really is. Remember this one Douglas - July 22 1814 changed to 1824 by you! Probably about the dumbest move you ever made!
The name “Cornelius Van Siclen Jr.” not appearing on the “Historical Marker ”, is NOT evidence that Cornelius Van Siclen Snr did not have a child Cornelius Van Siclen Jr. It is evidence that Cornelius Van Sickle did not have a child named Cornelius Van Siclen Jr. and therefor Van Siclen Snr. and Van Siclen cannot be the same person as alleged by Doug.
What has become very apparent is how Douglas has studiously avoided explaining why Doug believes that Hanna H. Van Siclen Snr. AE 70 can be a DNA match for Annetje Lawson. AE 75. Approximately 5 years separates their birth.
Who made the error Douglas? Was it the engraver of Hanna M. AE 70, the husband of Hanna H. AE 70, the children of Hanna H. AE 70 the person who recorded the birth date of Annetje Lawson AE 75, the person who transcribed the birth date of Annetje Lawson which you copied? I know you will attempt to fault one of those options I give you – of course you can find others if you try hard enough.
What you can’t afford to do is admit that Hanna M. Van Siclen Snr. is not DNA compatible with Annettje Lawson. That admission by itself, ignoring the additional data available, without qualification would invalidate all of your allegations that the couple are DNA compatible. So you continue attempting to prove a compatible DNA match when faced with the overwhelming evidence on the Brighton Markers that no compatible DNA match is possible.
There is the problem with H. in Hanna H. Van Siclen Snr. I know that H. is the first letter of Hanna’s maiden name based on Dutch burial customs – unfortunately I will never be able to prove it. The only thing in my favor about the H. is that in none of your source records have you ever found the name Hanna H. However, like Snr. and AE 70, Hanna H. is carved in stone for all to view and cannot be wished out of existence.
There are people who appear to believe that Doug has a strong case for melding the Van Siclen Snr. family and Van Siclen family. I disagree.
A legitimate DNA match cannot be made for both couples when the only conclusive evidence is identical first names for the husbands and identical death dates for both couples. Doug has the identical year of birth for both husbands but does not have the actual day or month of birth for Cornelius Van Siclen Snr – consequently Doug cannot prove identical month/day/ of births.
People may guess if they wish to but when looking for DNA matches, no guesswork is permitted. Every item required for an exact non-laboratory DNA match must be present for a transposition of two people into one. There is no exception. Doug has 364 additional days from which to guess about a birth date for Cornelius Van Siclen Snr. and until he comes up with conclusive evidence of a matching date he has nothing. As discussed earlier and because of the differences in surnames of the husbands, Doug must also prove the parents of both husbands and wives are identical. All that is in addition to those factors previously discussed.Producing an identical birth date without proving that the names of their parents are identical proves nothing whatsoever. The varient spellings of each surname very strongly imply different parents and different DNA.
Do me a favor Douglas Van Curen and do not post an answer. I am nearly sick unto death reading you stupid and ongoing allegations. When you discover some genuine evidence proving that Cornelius Van Siclen Snr. and Hanna H. Van Siclen Snr. are not who their cemetery markers tells us they are then post again. Except for proof positive evidence I do not want to read your postings again.
Ed
..........................................................
Following is the corrected chart to which Doug has earlier referred and for which I gave him two gold stars.
Sept 4 1847 Seventy two
Sept 4 1848 Seventy three
SEPT 4 1849 SEVENTY FOUR
Oct 4 1849 Seventy four
Nov 4 1849 Seventy four
Dec 4 1849 Seventy four
Jan4 1850 Seventy four
Feb 4 1850 Seventy four
Mar 4 1850 Seventy four
MARCH 19 1850 SEVENTY FOUR *** CORNELIUS VAN SICKLEN AE 74 PLUS 6 MO, 15 DAYS
More Replies:
-
Re: Maria Van Siclen Bible
Douglas Van Curen 1/03/03