Alexander Palace Forum

Books and Films about the Romanovs and Imperial Russia => Books about the Romanovs and Imperial Russia => Topic started by: Helen_Azar on April 03, 2008, 01:48:23 PM

Title: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Helen_Azar on April 03, 2008, 01:48:23 PM
...which would be nice to finally have answers/explanations to.

Since every attempt so far ended up in fights and/or personal attacks resulting in lock downs/deletion of the topic, I thought that it may be a good idea to just compile a list of questions/issues here, and let them stand until we (hopefully) get answers, at which point we can post these answers or explanations here.

The only two conditions are:

1. for the posters to use specific examples with quotes and page numbers, so that it can't be argued that you are misinterpreting/making it up/ etc.  No discussion or arguments here, please, unless it is to clarify the question.

and

2. no one should attempt to post answers unless they have emailed the authors and got the answers directly from them (in other words: don't speak for them). If no answers will be forthcoming directly from the authors , we can just let them stand.

I am going to post my first question/comment/observation (with specific examples), for which I would really like to hear an explanation:

P 445: "To obtain a complete sequence, or mtDNA fingerprint, Gill and Ivanov were forced to look for overlapping, repetitive strands, which were then spliced together to form the missing links in the genetic chain. Although standard practice, this scientific necessity did not provide an unaltered genetic code for the remains, but rather one achieved through manipulation of the available data based on estimation. (*35)" ( * reference 35 is Bryan Sykes' book "The Seven daughters of Eve" p 66-68).

These words the authors use: "forced to look for overlapping", “missing links”, "did not provide an unaltered genetic code", "achieved through manipulation", "based on estimation" – all sound very ominous. If the reader doesn't know basic science, this may give him/her the impression that the scientists did something manipulative, speculative, and that the end result didn't produce a clear-cut answer, but instead they ended up with an uncertain and questionable conclusion.
 
In fact, this is absolutely not true. The entire point of mitochondrial DNA sequencing is that it produces an exact sequence - 100% correct sequence over say 600 letters. This is a very important point. If you get one single "altered genetic code" out of 600 letters, this means you got only 99.9% right, and 0.1% wrong answer, which will then ruin the whole theory/conclusion. The 0.1% difference would confirm that these remains were NOT the Romanov family. But this did not happen at all and the result was a 100% match.
 
Greg King and Penny Wilson state that they based these facts on the Bryan Sykes' book. However, if you read pp 66-68 of the said book, Sykes never said such a thing, in fact he said the complete opposite. 
Sykes: "…eventually the sequences of the presumed Tsarina and her three children were typed. They all had exactly the same sequence as 111, 357. They were all an exact match with the Duke of Edinburgh."

Sykes used the word "exact" twice. Not a single reference to the "altered genetic code" or "manipulation" or "estimation".

So, paraphrasing, why do the authors use terms to imply that there were some sort of dodgy dealings going on, and why do they quote a page from a book that says the exact opposite of what they state?   


If anyone else wants to post any more questions in a similar format (with quotes/examples from the book - as well as page numbers - in a non-confrontational manner), maybe we can finally get a civil exchange going.
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Annie on April 03, 2008, 02:43:41 PM
Since I don't own a copy of the book and my local library doesn't carry it, I guess I won't be able to participate under these rules. I do have some questions, if I post them, can someone be so kind as to find the page number?

They are:

Sophie's alleged "betrayal"
The presumed Rape on the Rus and the misquote of Volkov's 'left in peace' statement
Maria's alleged estrangement due to an alleged relationship with a guard
the part at the end where the book seems to leave the door open for Anastasia to have still been alive after the killings
Alexei's behavior in the Crimea
Yurovsky's religion

Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Helen_Azar on April 03, 2008, 02:49:10 PM
Annie, what you can actually do is use "search inside the book" feature on Amazon and get the quotes and page numbers that way. You can use key words to find the right pages...

Here is where it is: http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0471727970/ref=sib_dp_pt#reader-link
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Forum Admin on April 03, 2008, 03:17:31 PM
The presumed Rape on the Rus and the misquote of Volkov's 'left in peace' statement;

This one has been discussed to death.

An analysis of the text of FOTR pg140-141 using the known evidence. (my additions in bold)
"'The women, as Buxhoeveden recalled, had been ordered "to leave our cabin doors open all night. No one undressed." [Through the open doors, the soldiers leered at the grand duchesses]this phrase added by the authors, there is NO factual evidence to support the statement, and it is asserted as FACT and not identified as speculation [refusing, as Volkov later learned, to "leave them in peace"]Completely false. Volkov stated the GDs WERE LEFT IN PEACE. The abuse reached a cresendo as the night wore on. exactly what abuse? again, abuse is stated as fact when there is no support in the evidence.   Gibbes, locked away in his cabin, listened helplessly, as he later told his son George, as the drunken guards harassesd the grand duchesses, "It was dreadful, what they did,"  the former tutor recalled.  The "terrifed screams" of the girls, Gibbes said, haunted him, "to the end of his life."When Gibbes was deposed by Sokolov within months of the event, HE SAID NOTHING about abuse or screams or anything else. This statement was made literally decades after the fact, and saliently in House of Special Purpose George Gibbes made NO MENTION of this event on the Rus. "Rodionov, who was in charge of the evil-looking detachment, insisted on padlocking Alexis and Nagorny into their cabin, even though it was made clear that the child might need a doctor. The girls, on the other hand, were forbidden to lock their cabin door." (HOSP, pp. 102-103) 
 
"Almost certainly, the Grand Duchesses were subjected to taunts, and perhaps lewd advances at the hands of the drunken Latvian guards, how this progressed as the evening wore on is impossible to determine." Saliently, there is no cited evidence to support this supposition at all, much less "almost certainly'. To the contrary, Buxhoeveden writes specifically that only the assigned guards came near them, the others stayed on their assigned part of the boat, see "Left Behind" - "The rest of the soldiers did not come near us and spent the day on their part of the deck, singing and playing the accordion.  Some had fine voices, and it carried us back to happier days,..."
 
"no matter what took place, it is difficult not to believe that the experience had a profound traumatic effect on the young women, particularily grand Duchess Olga. Once she arrived in Ekaterinburg, Olga was withdrawn, silent, and did not mix with her sisters, perhaps indicating that she suffered some significant trauma. "  Buxhoeveden says Olga N. was showing these syptoms in April, weeks BEFORE the voyage on the Rus: cf. Life & Tragedy..."Olga Nicholaevna was in a state of great anxiety. She longed to join her parents, for whose fate she trembled, and, on the other hand, she feared the move for her brother, both on account of his health and also for fear of what the move might lead to" at Ch. 31; or perhaps for myriad of other reasons including imprisonment itself under increasingly difficult circumstances. - cf: Gilliard Ch. 22 "The conditions of the imprisonment were much more severe than at Tobolsk. Avdiev was an inveterate drunkard, who gave rein to his coarse instincts, and, with the assistance of his subordinates, showed great ingenuity in daily inflicting fresh humiliations upon those in his charge. There was no alternative but to accept the privations, submit to the vexations, yield to the exactions and caprices of these low, vulgar scoundrels."
 
"The near veil of silence surrounding the events of that night, however, is not difficult to understand, given the exalted position of the Grand Duchesses; ... to present them as paragons of all moral virtue  or perhaps the "silence" is because NOTHING ACTUALLY HAPPENED so no one had anything to say. ie: the entire diary entry of Gilliard:
"Monday May 20th - At half-past eleven we left the house and went on board the Russ.  She is the boat which brought us with the Czar and Czarina eight months ago.  Baroness Buxhoeveden has been granted permission to rejoin us.  We left Tobolsk at five o'clock.  Commisar Rodionov has shut Alexei Nicholaievich in his cabin with Nagorny.  We protested: the child is ill and the doctor ought to have access to him at any time.
"Wednesday May 22nd - We reached Tiumen this morning."
or here is the ENTIRE discussion on the subject in the Sokolov investigation's report made AFTER interrogating all surviving passengers of the Rus(pg 146)
    "Here is how the journey of the imperial children went under the command of Rodionov:
     "From Gilliard's deposition: "Rodionov behaved very badly. He closed off from outside the cabin in which were found Alexei with Nagorny.  All of the other cabins, in particular those of the Grand Duchesses were not to be locked from inside, under his order."
     "The morning of May 22, the imperial children arrived in Tiumen."

 
"Those on board the ship were unable (being locked up) or unwilling (through fear of reprisal ...) again, suppostion without evidence, yet stated as fact...This may be the key to the events of that night: shame and humiliation at not being able to come to the defense of the helpless Grand Duchesses might well account for Gibbes' "worst memory.

I spoke to Penny personally on the phone about the Rus/Volkov question. She was adamant that she knew the original Volkov quote, and that it was an editorial error that was missed in a push to publishing deadline when an additional phrase or sentence was eliminated in betweent the two remaining phrases.
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Annie on April 03, 2008, 04:14:39 PM
Thanks FA for the info. It's very helpful.
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Belochka on April 04, 2008, 02:19:43 AM
The presumed Rape on the Rus and the misquote of Volkov's 'left in peace' statement;

... I spoke to Penny personally on the phone about the Rus/Volkov question. She was adamant that she knew the original Volkov quote, and that it was an editorial error that was missed in a push to publishing deadline when an additional phrase or sentence was eliminated in betweent the two remaining phrases.

How could such an "editorial error" have possibly occurred when the only Volkov reference that was listed in the FOTR Bibliography was the flawed and fanciful French translation?

The original Russian language statement that Volkov wrote down was rather banal by comparison.

_________________________________________________________________________________

The FOTR authors expanded the Rus trip using almost two pages of text (see FOTR pp 140-141), including their impression that (my emphasis):

"The harasssment, as Volkov wrote, continued throughout the night, while Buxhoeveden's comment that the women remained dressed suggests the attention was sexual in nature."

It appears that it was the FOTR authors cited Buxhoeveden's simple words to offer far more for their modern reader to consider than the original author had intended.

However the FOTR authors continued @ p 141 in the same para:

"Gilliard made no mention of any such incident, yet according to Volkov and Gibbes, the soldiers were persistant in their actions. The near veil of silence surrounding the events of that night, however is not difficult to understand, given the exalted position of the grand duchesses ... to present them as paragons of all moral virtue ..."

and (with my emphasis):

"Those aboard the ship were unable (being locked up) or unwilling (through fear of reprisal at the hands of the Bolsheviks), to intercede, as Buxhoeveden herself remarked: "We were prisoners and had to be passive." This may well be the key to the events of that night: shame and humiliation at not being able to come to defense of the helpless grand duchesses might well account for Gibbes' "worst memory"."

The above mentioned sentences extracted from FOTR cannot be simply explained as just as an "editorial error".

Indeed is this entire segment in the book an exercise in adhering to the "stylistic demand" of their publisher?

Margarita  
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Helen_Azar on April 04, 2008, 08:49:18 AM
How could the entire meaning of the passage, including the authors' comments - which went on for 2 pages - stem from an editorial error in a quote?  It makes no sense, especially since the authors commented on the quotes and referred to them, and their comments were completely consistent with the quotes.

Were the elaborations and comments by the authors related to the quote "editorial errors" too? Did the editors change the entire passages of what the authors originally wrote? It would be one thing if something was misquoted but the rest of the passages were not consistent with the wrong quote which would make it obvious that it was an editorial errors, but this is not the case here. Perhpaps there is a reasonable explanation, but frankly I am having a hard time believing that the entire 2 pages of quotes and discussion were "an editorial error". This is why I would like to hear an explanation from the authors about this particular issue.
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Helen_Azar on April 04, 2008, 09:48:48 AM
Sophie's alleged "betrayal"

Annie, we did discuss this particular issue in some detail in the past (not sure if that thread has also been deleted or not). During the discussion we came to the conclusion that there was absolutely no evidence that Sophie Buxhoeveden ever betrayed the IF. But I am not sure if anyone has actually posted the exact quotes from the book, where the authors accused Bux of doing so. I did a quick search on the Amazon search feature and found those pages in FOTR for you...

In fact, this one sort of ties into the Rus incident. The authors start with the stament (p. 141) "... just as these horrors [aboard the Rus] unfolded, another, ominous, and in the end brutally personal situation played itself out. Unknown to the terrified grand duchesses, a previously trusted member of their father's suit willingly betrayed their secret..."

This continues on pp. 142 - 143

Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Helen_Azar on April 04, 2008, 10:17:50 AM
Maria's alleged estrangement due to an alleged relationship with a guard

That would be starting on page 244. 
 In this one, Yurovsky's "unpublished memoirs" are mentioned yet again...
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Louis_Charles on April 04, 2008, 10:45:41 AM
I think these scans violate copyright laws, unless they are posted with permission of the publisher or authors. I am just guessing that you probably don't have that, Helen. It might be better if you confined yourself to specific quotes or page citations, and send Annie her own copy of the book so she can follow along at home.

Simon
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Helen_Azar on April 04, 2008, 10:47:28 AM
Annie, copy these for your use and they can be deleted. Just making sure that no one accuses me of making things up... ;-)
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Louis_Charles on April 04, 2008, 10:49:49 AM
No, just of not understanding basic copyright law. I do love the solution. Quck, copy them and they can be deleted? You really were out of the room for some key courses in librarianship, I guess.  ;)
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Louis_Charles on April 04, 2008, 10:53:53 AM
Actually, dear, I posted for FA's benefit. You could get his forum into trouble with this kind of unethical behavior. I am merely surprised that someone who claims to be a professional librarian is unaware of basic standards.
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Helen_Azar on April 04, 2008, 11:02:15 AM
Actually, dear, I posted for FA's benefit. You could get his forum into trouble with this kind of unethical behavior. I am merely surprised that someone who claims to be a professional librarian is unaware of basic standards.

You're a peach, to be sure.

Why don't we let FA be the judge of this. If he wants this deleted, he will delete it. As it stands, let those who need to see it, see it (we have had way too many accusations of "misquoting" the "poor" authors), and it can be deleted in due time. That's the decision of the owners of this forum, who cannot be held responsible for what one ignorant librarian did while they weren't looking ;-).

And I am, dear, pretty sure that you will be the first one to run and point this out to whoever is ready to sue FA over this. Just as I am pretty sure that you are instigating this in order to get this thread deleted or locked again. Yes, I am sure you're doing it for FA's benefit ;-).

FA, please delete these OT posts, as well as anything else you deem inappropriate.
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Louis_Charles on April 04, 2008, 11:11:36 AM
I don't actually report back to Penny, Helen. These posts are public, she can presumably see them as easily as the rest of us. And I am certainly not trying to stop you from asking questions. But should we take your history seriously? You apparently can't function in the field in which you trained, let alone history.

And don't think of this post as addressed to you, if it helps. The title of the thread is "Questions/COMMENTS for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS". Consider this my comment to Greg King and Penny Wilson, mmm-kay?
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Puppylove on April 04, 2008, 11:15:42 AM
The presumed Rape on the Rus and the misquote of Volkov's 'left in peace' statement;

This one has been discussed to death.

I spoke to Penny personally on the phone about the Rus/Volkov question. She was adamant that she knew the original Volkov quote, and that it was an editorial error that was missed in a push to publishing deadline when an additional phrase or sentence was eliminated in betweent the two remaining phrases.

I think the Rus/Volkov issue is now dead in the water. Per FA's discussion with Ms Wilson, this question's  been answered and I don't believe any revised answer is in the works.
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Puppylove on April 04, 2008, 11:17:39 AM
Well, at this rate I doubt the thread will exist at sundown!

Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Puppylove on April 04, 2008, 11:24:17 AM
A question for Lisa D: Since you and Penny were online at the same time a couple of days ago and the Part II thread was still available then, did she give any indication that she'll be addressing our questions? I know you had planned to discuss this with her.

Thanks, Jenn
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Helen_Azar on April 04, 2008, 11:26:27 AM
Well, at this rate I doubt the thread will exist at sundown!

I think that's the idea, isn't it Simon? ;-)

I emailed Rob about this, and if he feels it's a genuine problem, he will delete the scans, and we can figure out another way of presenting the relevant pages, while avoiding the implications of putting words in the authors' mouths (or pens - as the case may be, lol).

I think the Rus/Volkov issue is now dead in the water. Per FA's discussion with Ms Wilson, this question's  been answered and I don't believe any revised answer is in the works.

The question is dead in the water, but I would still like some sort of an explanation as to how the entire thing could be an "editorial error". I know that we will probably never get any answers to this, or anything else, but I don't want to be accused of not trying. :-)
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Helen_Azar on April 04, 2008, 11:30:23 AM
A question for Lisa D: Since you and Penny were online at the same time a couple of days ago and the Part II thread was still available then, did she give any indication that she'll be addressing our questions? I know you had planned to discuss this with her.

Thanks, Jenn

I am sure that Lisa would have told us if she spoke to Wilson about this one way or another. Wouldn't you Lisa?
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Louis_Charles on April 04, 2008, 11:39:56 AM
Helen,

If spending your working day on the computer doing this doesn't hurt your ability to earn a living, I doubt anything I could say would affect it.

Seriously --- I am not trying to stop your questions from receiving answers, just pointing out that there are protocols as to how this kind of thing is done. Your answer seems is that you don't care, and will conduct your interrogation without regard to legal and academic standards. Fair enough.

. Having received an answer, I fold my tent.

Cheers,

Simon
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Helen_Azar on April 04, 2008, 11:40:09 AM
Your answer seems is that you don't care, and will conduct your interrogation without regard to legal and academic standards.

" Legal and academic standards", ouch, that's so harsh! :-)

Ok, we had our fun, now back to the topic, please.

I think the Rus/Volkov issue is now dead in the water. Per FA's discussion with Ms Wilson, this question's  been answered and I don't believe any revised answer is in the works.

The question is dead in the water, but I would still like some sort of an explanation as to how the entire thing could be an "editorial error". I know that we will probably never get any answers to this, or anything else, but I don't want to be accused of not trying. :-)


Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Helen_Azar on April 04, 2008, 12:00:11 PM
But as it stands at this time, I would most like some sort of a comment on my initial question about the DNA results, which has never been addressed yet, here or anywhere else as far as I know.

P 445: "To obtain a complete sequence, or mtDNA fingerprint, Gill and Ivanov were forced to look for overlapping, repetitive strands, which were then spliced together to form the missing links in the genetic chain. Although standard practice, this scientific necessity did not provide an unaltered genetic code for the remains, but rather one achieved through manipulation of the available data based on estimation. (*35)" ( * reference 35 is Bryan Sykes' book "The Seven daughters of Eve" p 66-68).

These words the authors use: "forced to look for overlapping", “missing links”, "did not provide an unaltered genetic code", "achieved through manipulation", "based on estimation" – all sound very ominous. If the reader doesn't know basic science, this may give him/her the impression that the scientists did something manipulative, speculative, and that the end result didn't produce a clear-cut answer, but instead they ended up with an uncertain and questionable conclusion.
 
In fact, this is absolutely not true. The entire point of mitochondrial DNA sequencing is that it produces an exact sequence - 100% correct sequence over say 600 letters. This is a very important point. If you get one single "altered genetic code" out of 600 letters, this means you got only 99.9% right, and 0.1% wrong answer, which will then ruin the whole theory/conclusion. The 0.1% difference would confirm that these remains were NOT the Romanov family. But this did not happen at all and the result was a 100% match.
 
Greg King and Penny Wilson state that they based these facts on the Bryan Sykes' book. However, if you read pp 66-68 of the said book, Sykes never said such a thing, in fact he said the complete opposite. 
Sykes: "…eventually the sequences of the presumed Tsarina and her three children were typed. They all had exactly the same sequence as 111, 357. They were all an exact match with the Duke of Edinburgh."

Sykes used the word "exact" twice. Not a single reference to the "altered genetic code" or "manipulation" or "estimation".

So, paraphrasing, why do the authors use terms to imply that there were some sort of dodgy dealings going on, and why do they quote a page from a book that says the exact opposite of what they state?
   


Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Forum Admin on April 04, 2008, 01:48:13 PM
Having given the matter serious thought, I have come to the conclusion that the discussion is about the questioning of specific text in the book.  To have the original text in its entire context is of educational benefit to the discussion, and demonstrates the authors' intent.

Therefore, FOR THE TIME BEING, I will permit the scans of the specific pages in question to remain. HOWEVER, if the authors have the slightest objection, I will remove them immediately upon the authors' request. as it is clearly NOT our intent to infringe upon any copyright.

I think this is a fair resolution to the question. Now, please, lets all stay On Topic and play nice ok?
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: LisaDavidson on April 04, 2008, 02:06:40 PM
A question for Lisa D: Since you and Penny were online at the same time a couple of days ago and the Part II thread was still available then, did she give any indication that she'll be addressing our questions? I know you had planned to discuss this with her.

Thanks, Jenn

I am sure that Lisa would have told us if she spoke to Wilson about this one way or another. Wouldn't you Lisa?

In this circumstance, of course. And, I don't mind phoning Penny and seeing if there is anything she would like to pass on to this Forum.

By the way, just because I happen to be here on the Forum at a certain time does not necessarily mean I have any online personal contact with any of you.
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Puppylove on April 04, 2008, 02:27:56 PM

By the way, just because I happen to be here on the Forum at a certain time does not necessarily mean I have any online personal contact with any of you.

Right! I didn't mean to imply that at all! It just reminded me that you were going to broach the subject of our questions with her and I thought you might have gotten an answer.
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Annie on April 04, 2008, 04:59:59 PM
Oh good I haven't missed it! I got back before it got deleted, but it still looks headed that way. I had to go to Charlottesville to take my son to spend the weekend with his buddies at UVA. I still can't drive past that big blue Martha Jefferson Hospital this exit sign without thinking about the intestines and laughing.

Thanks very much, Helen, that's right, if we have the orginal text there's no way anyone can say we 'made things up' or misquoted. If the authors had used Volkov's original text there wouldn't be a problem with it today! Of couse, they may not last the night, but for now it's nice to see exactly what was written. Sadly there seems to be more sensationalism and theory presented as fact than nonfiction. It's funny, the same people who support this book tooth and nail have often criticized me for the same things? Go figure! Oh the irony. At least I never charged anyone money for my comments.
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Alixz on April 04, 2008, 11:09:47 PM
Threads about FOTOR don't die - they just come back under a different title.

This may be the most over - discussed yet under - whelming piece of work on the Romanovs to date.

As long as some kind of credit is given to the authors - isn't that enough to let the scans of the pertinent pages stand?   After all, it is not as if Helen is trying to say that she wrote the pages.

Many people don't own the book or have read it from the library.  This way were are all "on the same page" so to speak and have all of the criticized information at hand.
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Sarushka on April 05, 2008, 08:39:51 AM
As long as some kind of credit is given to the authors - isn't that enough to let the scans of the pertinent pages stand?   After all, it is not as if Helen is trying to say that she wrote the pages.

IMO, no. As an author myself, seeing 8 pages of a text posted without permission makes me rather uncomfortable -- in spite of the obvious aid they will be for discussion.
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Forum Admin on April 05, 2008, 08:47:39 AM
As long as some kind of credit is given to the authors - isn't that enough to let the scans of the pertinent pages stand?   After all, it is not as if Helen is trying to say that she wrote the pages.

IMO, no. As an author myself, seeing 8 pages of a text posted without permission makes me rather uncomfortable -- in spite of the obvious aid they will be for discussion.

Which is exactly why I made the decision as I did, above.
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Sarushka on April 05, 2008, 08:57:19 AM

IMO, no. As an author myself, seeing 8 pages of a text posted without permission makes me rather uncomfortable -- in spite of the obvious aid they will be for discussion.

Which is exactly why I made the decision as I did, above.
[/quote]

Your decision does seem reasonable, but it's hard for me to get beyond my gut reaction, I guess. If King & Wilson have no problem with it, then it's really none of my business.
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Forum Admin on April 05, 2008, 09:05:45 AM
...and if they have the slightest problem at all, all they have to do is drop me an email (they both have my address) and it will be gone asap.
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Louis_Charles on April 05, 2008, 09:49:15 AM
I'm sorry, Rob,  but the "decision" was not yours to make. I'm a published author, and the idea that people could publish lengthy excerpts from my plays on the internet without my permission is not only uncomfortable, it's illegal. A published book is a commercial property, and as such is protected. You can quote, but wholesale reproduction? No.
You yourself told people to make sure that they had King and Wilson's permission to publish any answers they received, if they were going to simply post the e-mail. If you are (properly, of course) that concerned about this issue, why are you allowing this again? Or why is the onus upon them? You have their e-mail addresses. Why not write and ask their permission before allowing the scans to stand?

Simon
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Annie on April 05, 2008, 10:02:01 AM
Alix is right. Helen never claimed to have written the book, and plaigerism is the main concern when entire pages are copied. It was presented just as what it was, pages from a book that is on display in public libraries. (though mine has not seen fit to add it) Look at it like this, libraries buy books, and put them up for everyone to read for free. Is that costing authors money? Any and all authors could claim that having their book in the library has cost them sales, yet I have never heard that complaint from anyone, not even K and W! Helen works in a library, so what she did was present the pages of a book to us that she had purchased and then loaned out for free- just like the library. If we all lived near Helen, she would have loaned us the book, but since we don't, this was the next best thing, but really the same thing.

Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Louis_Charles on April 05, 2008, 10:14:20 AM
Annie,

I'm sorry, but you do not understand copyright law, which has nothing to do with intent, but actions. No one is claiming (Helen least of all, I should think) that she wrote the book. The public library paid for the book, and whether people can read them for free has nothing to do with the copyright law. We are talking apples and oranges here. Lending you a book is not the same as publicly posting it on the internet. Copyright law is not designed to prevent plagiarism; that's a separate issue. It is designed to protect intellectual property rights.

I realize that this sounds complicated, but trust me, this is a clear violation of copyright, and I would bet that every published author on this forum is squirming a bit.  Helen knows very well that it is, but as she expressed in her posts, she doesn't care. Fair enough, but it doesn't make it right. There is an easy solution to this. Helen should e-mail Penny Wilson or Greg King and ask their permission.

This is not something that is about Wilson or King, either.  For this forum to post the books that they have, the works have to be either in the public doman (i.e. unprotected by copyright law) or permission had to be granted by the authors. Someone like Bob Massie or Peter Kurth or Shay McNeal or Corynne Hall is still making money from their books, and that's one of the reasons you don't see them posted on the Alexander Palace Forum.

Simon
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Forum Admin on April 05, 2008, 10:17:05 AM
I'm sorry, Rob,  but the "decision" was not yours to make. I'm a published author, and the idea that people could publish lengthy excerpts from my plays on the internet without my permission is not only uncomfortable, it's illegal. A published book is a commercial property, and as such is protected. You can quote, but wholesale reproduction? No.
You yourself told people to make sure that they had King and Wilson's permission to publish any answers they received, if they were going to simply post the e-mail. If you are (properly, of course) that concerned about this issue, why are you allowing this again? Or why is the onus upon them? You have their e-mail addresses. Why not write and ask their permission before allowing the scans to stand?

Simon


Very simple.  The discussion is with respect to specific paragraphs and sentences in the original text. Several times, the original text and original context of the text were questioned.

There IS the "educational" exemption for copyright.  As the text itself is questioned and under discussion, as well as the accompanying footnotes, the original text itself is the subject of this educational discussion.  Nobody is claiming the work as anything other than belonging to King and Wilson, and nobody is using the text for any commercial purpose (trust me on that one!).  Further only the specific pages in question are reproduced, nothing more.

Therefore, I have made the decision that the text falls within the fair use for educational purposes under the copyright laws, which shifts the burden back to the authors. 

The emails are different because they constitute as yet unpublished writings by the authors, and the emails, should there be any, are originally intended to be private communications, and for these two reasons require advance permission from the authors.  The text of FOTR is already out there in the public domain, on the other hand.

I hope this clarifies your questions, Simon.

Rob
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Annie on April 05, 2008, 10:21:19 AM
Quote
Simon said:

The public library paid for the book, and whether people can read them for free has nothing to do with the copyright law.

Helen paid for the book, too.


The text of FOTR is already out there in the public domain, on the other hand.



Rob

This is basically what I was trying to say.
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Louis_Charles on April 05, 2008, 10:26:32 AM
It actually doesn't, Rob, although it delineates your position. I repeat, the posting of an electronic reproduction of material from a book without the permission of the publishers or authors is a copyright violation. I consulted with three professional librarians/authors last night, and all three of them agreed.

Having said that, would someone please explain what the big deal is about contacting King and Wilson about this? Even if you don't think you are violating copyright, wouldn't that be good manners? I thought that we were now aiming for civility on these threads.

The text of Fate of the Romanovs is certainly NOT out there in the public domain. It is owned by Greg King, John Wiley Inc. and Penny Wilson.

And Annie, the fact that Helen paid for the book is irrelevant.

Simon
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Forum Admin on April 05, 2008, 10:27:05 AM
I'm sorry, Rob,  but the "decision" was not yours to make. I'm a published author, and the idea that people could publish lengthy excerpts from my plays on the internet without my permission is not only uncomfortable, it's illegal.
Simon


Actually, Simon, it is not "illegal" as a blanket statement.  Lets say that I wanted to write an online analysis of the works of Simon, the playwright, to demonstrate why he is the Shakespeare of the 21st century.  I could very easily reproduce whole pages of your work so long as I provide the commentary, questioning and analysis to go along with it.

NOW, if I were publishing your play to give it to people free so they don't have to pay you, THAT's illegal.

NOBODY is providing the pages of FOTR to infringe upon the authors' right to sell their books. THAT is illegal. The pages are here for public discussion of the text and the ideas contained therein. THAT is called Free Speech. THAT is the crucial issue in copyright law.
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Forum Admin on April 05, 2008, 10:30:16 AM
It actually doesn't, Rob, although it delineates your position. I repeat, the posting of an electronic reproduction of material from a book without the permission of the publishers or authors is a copyright violation. I consulted with three professional librarians/authors last night, and all three of them agreed.

Simon

Simon, I suggest next time you call an intellectual property attorney:

US Code:
TITLE 17 > CHAPTER 1 > § 107

§ 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Annie on April 05, 2008, 10:32:10 AM
Simon, FA is a lawyer. He knows what he's talking about.
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Louis_Charles on April 05, 2008, 10:34:04 AM
Thanks, but that is not what has happened here, Rob. The pages have been publicly posted, not privately used. These pages are not in the public domain, i.e. free to re-publish without permission.

And you could not quote from my works without permission from the estate (assuming that you want to do this after I am dead; prior to that you have to come to me). The James Joyce estate, for example, is quite vigilant about this, and has been throttling all sorts of bios and ciriticism that needed direct quotes from his books.

Simon

Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Louis_Charles on April 05, 2008, 10:36:25 AM
Thank you, Annie. I am a published author and hold a master's degree in library science, and so do I. My point remains: if you are willing to immediately strike the posts if King and Wilson object, why not avoid that by asking permission to do this?
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Forum Admin on April 05, 2008, 10:37:24 AM
The discussion is now moot. (although I strongly disagree with you Simon. One of my oldest friends from High School is the head of the Intellectual Property section of O'Melvany and Myers,and says I'm on ok ground here...)

From:   penny@kingandwilson.com
Subject: Fate of the Romanovs pages
Date: April 5, 2008 10:32:44 AM CDT
To:   Rob@alexanderpalace.org
Cc:   Ldavidson@alongcamemary.com, madking@seanet.com, rob@thecellaraustin.com

Dear Rob –
 
Please remove the pages of Fate of the Romanovs that Helen Azar posted yesterday on your book forum without permission from Greg or I.
 
Thank you.
 
Penny Wilson
 
 
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Louis_Charles on April 05, 2008, 10:39:14 AM
Rob,

If you want to continue this in PM, I'd be happy to oblige so we don't bore the board.

Simon
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Forum Admin on April 05, 2008, 10:46:45 AM
The pages have been removed. Prior permission from the authors is therefore required before posting scans of pages in the forum.
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Helen_Azar on April 05, 2008, 01:24:37 PM
I guess this point is now moot since Penny Wilson ordered FA to remove the pages (surprise, surprise! ;-)). It would have been nice if she also addressed some of these questions while she was at it... although I would have been surprised if she did.

I would like to make a few comments before we resume the discussion on topic.


Annie,

I'm sorry, but you do not understand copyright law...

Obviously only Simon understands the copyright law, rest of us don't. But after all, he does hold a master's in library science.

The text of Fate of the Romanovs is certainly NOT out there in the public domain. It is owned by Greg King, John Wiley Inc. and Penny Wilson.

And Annie, the fact that Helen paid for the book is irrelevant.


Actually, I didn't pay for the book, and don't ever plan on paying for it, I got these pages off Amazon.com (a public domain), and so can anyone else.

These pages are not in the public domain ...

Actually, they are in the public domain (see above). Maybe Penny Wilson doesn't realize that, so you have to tell her. She will need to contact Amazon and ask them to pull the FOTR pages off the public domain.

I am a published author and hold a master's degree in library science, and so do I.

Simon, a master's degree in library science is a joke. Ask Penny Wilson ;-). Actually, I have to admit that it is too :-).

In any case, my point is that anyone can easily access any full page on FOTR on public domain, so it's not really necessary to have them posted on this forum (other than for efficiency and posters' convenience), but ultimately it doesn't really make a difference. We can still access these pages on public domain and discuss them. 

And now let's get back to the topic. All those who would like to see the original pages, can just go to this link (http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0471727970/ref=sib_dp_pt#reader-link) and type in relevant keywords, and the pages will come up in full (in public domain). Annie, if you feel like typing up the relevant quotes we were discussiing, that's also an option (or is that copyright violation too?) We'll have to consult Simon, who has a master's degree in library sceince.

Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Helen_Azar on April 05, 2008, 01:25:53 PM
I would most like some sort of a comment on my initial question about the DNA results, which has never been addressed yet, here or anywhere else as far as I know. This issue has renewed its importance recently because of the new remains found in Ekaterinburg, which are thought to belong to Alexei and his sister. So IMO, it is important to clarify this issue, which has been so controversial in the last 10 years, and obviously this "assessment" in FOTR does not help matters. Do the authors still feel the same way about the Romanov DNA results, and if not then why wasn't that paragraph in the book corrected with the release of new editions?

P 445: "To obtain a complete sequence, or mtDNA fingerprint, Gill and Ivanov were forced to look for overlapping, repetitive strands, which were then spliced together to form the missing links in the genetic chain. Although standard practice, this scientific necessity did not provide an unaltered genetic code for the remains, but rather one achieved through manipulation of the available data based on estimation. (*35)" ( * reference 35 is Bryan Sykes' book "The Seven daughters of Eve" p 66-68).

These words the authors use: "forced to look for overlapping", “missing links”, "did not provide an unaltered genetic code", "achieved through manipulation", "based on estimation" – all sound very ominous. If the reader doesn't know basic science, this may give him/her the impression that the scientists did something manipulative, speculative, and that the end result didn't produce a clear-cut answer, but instead they ended up with an uncertain and questionable conclusion.
 
In fact, this is absolutely not true. The entire point of mitochondrial DNA sequencing is that it produces an exact sequence - 100% correct sequence over say 600 letters. This is a very important point. If you get one single "altered genetic code" out of 600 letters, this means you got only 99.9% right, and 0.1% wrong answer, which will then ruin the whole theory/conclusion. The 0.1% difference would confirm that these remains were NOT the Romanov family. But this did not happen at all and the result was a 100% match.
 
Greg King and Penny Wilson state that they based these facts on the Bryan Sykes' book. However, if you read pp 66-68 of the said book, Sykes never said such a thing, in fact he said the complete opposite. 
Sykes: "…eventually the sequences of the presumed Tsarina and her three children were typed. They all had exactly the same sequence as 111, 357. They were all an exact match with the Duke of Edinburgh."

Sykes used the word "exact" twice. Not a single reference to the "altered genetic code" or "manipulation" or "estimation".

So, paraphrasing, why do the authors use terms to imply that there were some sort of dodgy dealings going on, and why do they quote a page from a book that says the exact opposite of what they state?
   



Helen
BA, MS, MLIS  (no BS) ;-)
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Louis_Charles on April 05, 2008, 01:30:16 PM
Helen,

You were asked to be civil. I'm trying. See what you can do about it.



Simon.
M.S.L.S.
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Helen_Azar on April 05, 2008, 01:48:56 PM

I would most like some sort of a comment on my initial question about the DNA results, which has never been addressed yet, here or anywhere else as far as I know. This issue has renewed its importance recently because of the new remains found in Ekaterinburg, which are thought to belong to Alexei and his sister. So IMO, it is important to clarify this issue, which has been so controversial in the last 10 years, and obviously this "assessment" in FOTR does not help matters. Do the authors still feel the same way about the Romanov DNA results, and if not then why wasn't that paragraph in the book corrected with the release of new editions?

P 445: "To obtain a complete sequence, or mtDNA fingerprint, Gill and Ivanov were forced to look for overlapping, repetitive strands, which were then spliced together to form the missing links in the genetic chain. Although standard practice, this scientific necessity did not provide an unaltered genetic code for the remains, but rather one achieved through manipulation of the available data based on estimation. (*35)" ( * reference 35 is Bryan Sykes' book "The Seven daughters of Eve" p 66-68).

These words the authors use: "forced to look for overlapping", “missing links”, "did not provide an unaltered genetic code", "achieved through manipulation", "based on estimation" – all sound very ominous. If the reader doesn't know basic science, this may give him/her the impression that the scientists did something manipulative, speculative, and that the end result didn't produce a clear-cut answer, but instead they ended up with an uncertain and questionable conclusion.
 
In fact, this is absolutely not true. The entire point of mitochondrial DNA sequencing is that it produces an exact sequence - 100% correct sequence over say 600 letters. This is a very important point. If you get one single "altered genetic code" out of 600 letters, this means you got only 99.9% right, and 0.1% wrong answer, which will then ruin the whole theory/conclusion. The 0.1% difference would confirm that these remains were NOT the Romanov family. But this did not happen at all and the result was a 100% match.
 
Greg King and Penny Wilson state that they based these facts on the Bryan Sykes' book. However, if you read pp 66-68 of the said book, Sykes never said such a thing, in fact he said the complete opposite. 
Sykes: "…eventually the sequences of the presumed Tsarina and her three children were typed. They all had exactly the same sequence as 111, 357. They were all an exact match with the Duke of Edinburgh."

Sykes used the word "exact" twice. Not a single reference to the "altered genetic code" or "manipulation" or "estimation".

So, paraphrasing, why do the authors use terms to imply that there were some sort of dodgy dealings going on, and why do they quote a page from a book that says the exact opposite of what they state?
   



Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Forum Admin on April 05, 2008, 02:11:41 PM
I got an email from Penny, wanting to clarify their position.  She doesn't think they would deny permission for specific pages to be reproduced here for discussion purposes, but wants the copyright respected by people asking permission of them first.

I think that's ultimately reasonable.  Carry on. Civilly.






Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Helen_Azar on April 05, 2008, 02:25:33 PM
She ...wants the copyright respected by people asking permission of them first.

Would Wilson have given me this premission if I asked her?... lol. Let's face it, the only reason she told  FA to remove these pages is because I was the one who posted them ;-) Otherwise she would have loved to have the exposure.

She doesn't think they would deny permission for specific pages to be reproduced here for discussion purposes...

So does that mean that she now gives her permission, or not? What if someone else asks her really nicely? :-) Did she also say anything about answering our questions, if someone asks really nicely?

In any case, as I mentioned, we don't really need these pages posted here since they are in the public domain and accesible to anyone anyway. It will take one extra step for posters to see them, which was what I was trying to help out with before Simon stepped in and all hell broke loose.

And now, may we please get back to the topic and stop going off tangent for every piece of nonsense?
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Helen_Azar on April 05, 2008, 02:27:05 PM


I would most like some sort of a comment on my initial question about the DNA results, which has never been addressed yet, here or anywhere else as far as I know. This issue has renewed its importance recently because of the new remains found in Ekaterinburg, which are thought to belong to Alexei and his sister. So IMO, it is important to clarify this issue, which has been so controversial in the last 10 years, and obviously this "assessment" in FOTR does not help matters. Do the authors still feel the same way about the Romanov DNA results, and if not then why wasn't that paragraph in the book corrected with the release of new editions?

P 445: "To obtain a complete sequence, or mtDNA fingerprint, Gill and Ivanov were forced to look for overlapping, repetitive strands, which were then spliced together to form the missing links in the genetic chain. Although standard practice, this scientific necessity did not provide an unaltered genetic code for the remains, but rather one achieved through manipulation of the available data based on estimation. (*35)" ( * reference 35 is Bryan Sykes' book "The Seven daughters of Eve" p 66-68).

These words the authors use: "forced to look for overlapping", “missing links”, "did not provide an unaltered genetic code", "achieved through manipulation", "based on estimation" – all sound very ominous. If the reader doesn't know basic science, this may give him/her the impression that the scientists did something manipulative, speculative, and that the end result didn't produce a clear-cut answer, but instead they ended up with an uncertain and questionable conclusion.
 
In fact, this is absolutely not true. The entire point of mitochondrial DNA sequencing is that it produces an exact sequence - 100% correct sequence over say 600 letters. This is a very important point. If you get one single "altered genetic code" out of 600 letters, this means you got only 99.9% right, and 0.1% wrong answer, which will then ruin the whole theory/conclusion. The 0.1% difference would confirm that these remains were NOT the Romanov family. But this did not happen at all and the result was a 100% match.
 
Greg King and Penny Wilson state that they based these facts on the Bryan Sykes' book. However, if you read pp 66-68 of the said book, Sykes never said such a thing, in fact he said the complete opposite. 
Sykes: "…eventually the sequences of the presumed Tsarina and her three children were typed. They all had exactly the same sequence as 111, 357. They were all an exact match with the Duke of Edinburgh."

Sykes used the word "exact" twice. Not a single reference to the "altered genetic code" or "manipulation" or "estimation".

So, paraphrasing, why do the authors use terms to imply that there were some sort of dodgy dealings going on, and why do they quote a page from a book that says the exact opposite of what they state?
   



Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Louis_Charles on April 05, 2008, 02:32:08 PM
Quote
In any case, as I mentioned, we don't really need these pages posted here since they are in the public domain and accesible to anyone anyway. It will take one extra step for posters to see them, which was what I was trying to help out with before Simon stepped in and all hell broke loose.

Helen, if you really want to keep this civil, you will stop sniping, or I will abandon my saintly restraint. Notice how I didn't even bother to correct you on the difference between "public domain" and "public visibility"? Oops, I guess I just did.

You can repost your questions as often as you wish, and I won't comment. You have set up the Amazon link, so I assume you will be restricting yourself to the pages Amazon makes available?

Have at it, girlfriend.
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Annie on April 05, 2008, 02:34:50 PM


Would Wilson have given me this premission if I asked her?... lol. Let's face it, the only reason she told  FA to remove these pages is because I was the one who posted them ;-) Otherwise she would have loved to have the exposure.


Of course, and  she wouldn't have given me permission either so why bother? I am pretty sure I've seen AGRBear use similar looking pages from FOTR with certain passages highlighted and no one complained. But of course Bear is their friend and that makes all the difference.

 I didn't know that Helen got the actual pages on Amazon and that they were in public domain for free, that to me really discounts any claim of infringement (and this would go for anyone) It seems that if authors don't want their work scanned and put up they should take it up with Amazon, but once it's there, it's public domain and I don't see how anyone can legally force you to remove it (unless you want to just to avoid hassle, but you don't have to)
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Helen_Azar on April 05, 2008, 02:37:44 PM
You have set up the Amazon link, so I assume you will be restricting yourself to the pages Amazon makes available?

FYI to those who are interested but may be confused by this statement. Every page in the book is available to the public and can be accessed by typing in specific keywords. All pages containing this keyword(s) will come up and can be viewed in their entirety. Please don't pay attention to those who tell you otherwise. So if you want to check a quote or double-check some information in the book, you don't need to purchase the book or even check it out of the library, but only use this feature on Amazon.

And now, once again, back to the topic.
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Louis_Charles on April 05, 2008, 02:47:05 PM
The above post is correct, although it will be a cumbersome way to read the book, and I think Amazon would be surprised to learn that there are people who choose to do it this way. Still, if you are determined not to purchase it or take it out of the library, and you have some time to kill, she has provided a free way to read the book (of course, you can also sit in the cafe at Barnes and Noble with a shelf copy and have coffee while you do it.)

Don't miss the words "Copyrighted Material" at the bottom of each page, though. It's my favorite part.

Public domain, my aunt Fanny.
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Helen_Azar on April 05, 2008, 02:48:35 PM
You can repost your questions as often as you wish, and I won't comment.

I hope you won't, since according to the rules on this thread unless you have the answer directly from one of the authors and can post a quote from them, you are not supposed to comment. So thanks for that.


So, once again, I would most like some sort of a comment from the authors on my initial question about the DNA results, which has never been addressed yet, here or anywhere else as far as I know. This issue has renewed its importance recently because of the new remains found in Ekaterinburg, which are thought to belong to Alexei and his sister. So IMO, it is important to clarify this issue, which has been so controversial in the last 10 years, and obviously this "assessment" in FOTR does not help matters. Do the authors still feel the same way about the Romanov DNA results, and if not then why wasn't that paragraph in the book corrected with the release of new editions?

P 445: "To obtain a complete sequence, or mtDNA fingerprint, Gill and Ivanov were forced to look for overlapping, repetitive strands, which were then spliced together to form the missing links in the genetic chain. Although standard practice, this scientific necessity did not provide an unaltered genetic code for the remains, but rather one achieved through manipulation of the available data based on estimation. (*35)" ( * reference 35 is Bryan Sykes' book "The Seven daughters of Eve" p 66-68).

These words the authors use: "forced to look for overlapping", “missing links”, "did not provide an unaltered genetic code", "achieved through manipulation", "based on estimation" – all sound very ominous. If the reader doesn't know basic science, this may give him/her the impression that the scientists did something manipulative, speculative, and that the end result didn't produce a clear-cut answer, but instead they ended up with an uncertain and questionable conclusion.
 
In fact, this is absolutely not true. The entire point of mitochondrial DNA sequencing is that it produces an exact sequence - 100% correct sequence over say 600 letters. This is a very important point. If you get one single "altered genetic code" out of 600 letters, this means you got only 99.9% right, and 0.1% wrong answer, which will then ruin the whole theory/conclusion. The 0.1% difference would confirm that these remains were NOT the Romanov family. But this did not happen at all and the result was a 100% match.
 
Greg King and Penny Wilson state that they based these facts on the Bryan Sykes' book. However, if you read pp 66-68 of the said book, Sykes never said such a thing, in fact he said the complete opposite. 
Sykes: "…eventually the sequences of the presumed Tsarina and her three children were typed. They all had exactly the same sequence as 111, 357. They were all an exact match with the Duke of Edinburgh."

Sykes used the word "exact" twice. Not a single reference to the "altered genetic code" or "manipulation" or "estimation".

So, paraphrasing, why do the authors use terms to imply that there were some sort of dodgy dealings going on, and why do they quote a page from a book that says the exact opposite of what they state?
   



Let's please stop changing the subject to all sorts of nonsense, since I know we still have other legitimate questions which should be posted here just in case the authors decide to defend their statements in the book.
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Helen_Azar on April 05, 2008, 03:09:19 PM
Once again, here is that Amazon link - this feature is free of charge to anyone who wants to use it. For those who don't own the book and need to do a quick reference check for something we are discussing, or double-check a quote, etc., it's a perfect tool! The only thing now is that instead of being able to post the page containing the quote(s) we are discussing, we will have to retype them. Thanks, Simon, for making things more difficult for the posters. But it builds character! ;-)


http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0471727970/ref=sib_dp_pt#reader-link) 
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Alixz on April 09, 2008, 01:37:09 PM
I am sorry that my post was removed.  I was being facetious.

It was meant as comic relief as in Shakespeare.

Could it be put back?
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Forum Admin on April 09, 2008, 01:49:17 PM
So sorry Alixz, it was so OT, and at the end you said you realized you had "put this in the wrong thread" so I thought you wanted me to delete it. Once a post is deleted, it can't be restored. My bad...
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Annie on April 09, 2008, 08:32:45 PM
Now that I have direct quotes, here is an issue I want to address and question:

The back cover declares that 'newly discovered sources shatter long held beliefs'

among the claims:

Surprising evidence that Anastasia may have indeed survived

Revelations of how the Romanovs were betrayed by trusted servants


the flap claims that FOTR "explodes myths, confirms long dismissed theories, solves mysteries, and poses intriguing new questions..."

on page 470, it declares that 'intended victims left the murder room that night' The claim is made that forensic evidence from the exumed remains counteracts the Bolsheviks' story that the last two screaming girls (AN and MN) were finished off with head shots. Later: " Maria most certainly died that night...The evidence, as it stands, does not support any such conclusions about the possible deaths of GD Anastasia and Tsarevich Alexei. It is at least possible that one or more of the intended victims remained alive.....the deaths of Anastasia and Alexei are only a theory."

So much of this seems to directly tie into the AA story- AN 'surviving', Bux betraying the family, etc.  Some of the comments from the flap even seem to be leading into the AA story. My question is, do the authors confirm or deny that a main goal of this book was to set up a possible escape for AN ahead of and laying the groundwork for the (then) upcoming claimant book? Knowing what we know about the 'passing of the torch', (as the champions of AA's story from Kurth to Wilson and King) it's very hard to believe anything else. I would be interested to heara  truthful, sincere and friendly response.




(http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20080410/capt.c7e5c358dedc440793ff556f91188f65.olympic_torch_cajc114.jpg)
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Alixz on April 09, 2008, 11:07:55 PM
That's OK FA. 

Everything was getting so tense and contentious, that I was trying to get people to say, "What?"

At least for a minute.

I know that it looked very OT and it was supposed to be.  All of that larger than life posting and all of the terse comments made me want to do something - well strange.

I should have warned you in advance. 

No "bad" on either side.  i confused my son, too.

Thanks,
Alixz

By the way - has anyone truly thought about "whirled peas"?  Certainly not the Chinese or some of the posters on this thread for that matter.   ;-)
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: LisaDavidson on April 09, 2008, 11:42:55 PM
Now that I have direct quotes, here is an issue I want to address and question:

The back cover declares that 'newly discovered sources shatter long held beliefs'

among the claims:

Surprising evidence that Anastasia may have indeed survived

Revelations of how the Romanovs were betrayed by trusted servants


the flap claims that FOTR "explodes myths, confirms long dismissed theories, solves mysteries, and poses intriguing new questions..."

on page 470, it declares that 'intended victims left the murder room that night' The claim is made that forensic evidence from the exumed remains counteracts the Bolsheviks' story that the last two screaming girls (AN and MN) were finished off with head shots. Later: " Maria most certainly died that night...The evidence, as it stands, does not support any such conclusions about the possible deaths of GD Anastasia and Tsarevich Alexei. It is at least possible that one or more of the intended victims remained alive.....the deaths of Anastasia and Alexei are only a theory."

So much of this seems to directly tie into the AA story- AN 'surviving', Bux betraying the family, etc.  Some of the comments from the flap even seem to be leading into the AA story. My question is, do the authors confirm or deny that a main goal of this book was to set up a possible escape for AN ahead of and laying the groundwork for the (then) upcoming claimant book? Knowing what we know about the 'passing of the torch', (as the champions of AA's story from Kurth to Wilson and King) it's very hard to believe anything else. I would be interested to heara  truthful, sincere and friendly response.




(http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20080410/capt.c7e5c358dedc440793ff556f91188f65.olympic_torch_cajc114.jpg)

First of all, what is on the back cover of the book is placed there by the publisher, not the authors. The publisher is generally interested in selling books, so they control what goes on the covers. It has nothing at all to do with the authors, so is not pertinent to any discussion of the contents of FOTR. Ditto the contents of "the flaps" - I believe these are called end papers - they are also the work of the publisher and not the authors.

Second, I have always interpreted Peter's remarks about "passing the torch" as a much more casual thing than those on this board seem to take it. When I discussed this with Peter years ago, he said he was glad that Greg and Penny had written their book, and that was about it. Although he has apparently said otherwise to others, he has always told me that the only thing he disputed about the 1990's testing was AA being identified as Fraziska Schanzkowska. Since he told me this directly and was consistent about it for many years, I tend to believe this more so than later statements attributed to him after he became so ill. This is, however, only my opinion.

Third, the purpose of this book was to reexamine the evidence around the murder of the family. I think this is fairly evident by what the authors said before during and after the publication. This is not to say that there was not consideration of a claimant book. Over the years, I have compiled a great deal of material on claimants and I have always found this to be an interesting subject. However, no one I know, including myself, has any intention of writing such a book. It has nothing to do with the new findings or AA's true identity - it has to do with the level of nastiness that seems to accompany the publication of any new book on the Romanovs. For me, my kids are old enough to read what is said about me (and they do) but still young enough to get very upset by some of what is said to me on the Forum and by PM - not to mention email. I really don't need this in my life - and I think that most of the writers I know feel the same way - who needs it?

This was certainly sincere, and definitely honest. I don't feel at all unfriendly by writing this, but I don't know if my reply will meet your expectations or not, Annie.
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Annie on April 10, 2008, 06:33:37 AM


First of all, what is on the back cover of the book is placed there by the publisher, not the authors. The publisher is generally interested in selling books, so they control what goes on the covers. It has nothing at all to do with the authors, so is not pertinent to any discussion of the contents of FOTR. Ditto the contents of "the flaps" - I believe these are called end papers - they are also the work of the publisher and not the authors.

1. Well, if the publisher got that impression from the book, then I'm still not wrong.

2. The authors did or said nothing to prevent or change the wording.

3. I wonder if this was the same 'editor' who changed all those meanings inside the book, too? Wow, there must be a real conspiracy against them by somebody at that publishing company!

Quote
Second, I have always interpreted Peter's remarks about "passing the torch" as a much more casual thing than those on this board seem to take it.

It sure seemed pretty emotional to me. I was told by one person that he did it at a time when he was ill and thought he may not survive, so it was like his 'last wishes', trusting them to carry on for AA when he was gone, which makes it even more emotional. Add to that the fact that at the time he was not allowed to post on the forum and had to send it via a reliable friend. That proves it was no casual, off hand remark, it was something very important to him that he wanted publically seen.

Quote
When I discussed this with Peter years ago, he said he was glad that Greg and Penny had written their book, and that was about it. Although he has apparently said otherwise to others, he has always told me that the only thing he disputed about the 1990's testing was AA being identified as Fraziska Schanzkowska. Since he told me this directly and was consistent about it for many years, I tend to believe this more so than later statements attributed to him after he became so ill. This is, however, only my opinion.

Yet, to this day, he still openly admits he thinks she was AN.

Quote
Third, the purpose of this book was to reexamine the evidence around the murder of the family. I think this is fairly evident by what the authors said before during and after the publication. This is not to say that there was not consideration of a claimant book. Over the years, I have compiled a great deal of material on claimants and I have always found this to be an interesting subject. However, no one I know, including myself, has any intention of writing such a book. It has nothing to do with the new findings or AA's true identity - it has to do with the level of nastiness that seems to accompany the publication of any new book on the Romanovs.

I don't believe there would have been any 'nastiness' had there not been open invitation to controversy by claiming 'shocking new evidence that destroys long held beliefs', and the way one of the authors reacted when questioned. They had mentioned a claimant book , even here on this forum, so there's no question one was in the works. Another poster (nameless, not in this thread but has been active in others on this topic) even admitted that Greg had told her the book started out as an AA book and took on a larger purpose. But maybe it was still a lead-in, leaving little bits of info to back up parts of the AA story (like Bux, rape on the Rus) for an upcoming blockbuster AA book? Having been handed the 'torch', that would make sense.

One more thing I'd really like to know is that if this stuff was once true but is not anymore, have the authors changed their minds, are they  maybe a little 'embarrassed' (hence the silence) and if it is or was true, would they ever just admit it and move on? If they did, I don't think it would cause more trouble, but clear up a lot of questions and finally STOP it all!

Quote
I really don't need this in my life - and I think that most of the writers I know feel the same way - who needs it?

Really, who does?


Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Helen_Azar on April 10, 2008, 08:53:55 AM
One more thing I'd really like to know is that if this stuff was once true but is not anymore, have the authors changed their minds ... would they ever just admit it and move on? If they did, I don't think it would cause more trouble, but clear up a lot of questions and finally STOP it all!

I agree.
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Tsarfan on April 10, 2008, 01:13:32 PM
In Mein Kampf Adolf Hitler advanced a lot of sensational theories about Jews.  It would have been nice if people had put anywhere near the sustained energy into challenging his foray into book writing that has been put into trying to force a recantation of two authors' proposition that a few former princesses had a bad night on a boat.

When I read a book on a historical topic that takes what I view as an untenable position (whether the result of deliberate assertion or editorial error), I put it back on my shelf until I get around to the next cycle of sending books to Goodwill or the Salvation Army.  The notion that I would spend the next several years in unceasing demands that the authors explain themselves to me or recant their views seems rather extraordinary.

It is one thing to argue for one's own position . . . and even to do so with great and repetitive zeal.  (That  I get.)   But it is quite another to demand time and time and time and time again that an author either explain himself to my satisfaction or recant his views.

Everyone has the right to put their own views forward or to change their minds.  No one has a right to demand it of others (unless one counts Torquemada among one's ideological signposts).
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Annie on April 10, 2008, 01:31:53 PM
The notion that I would spend the next several years in unceasing demands that the authors explain themselves to me or recant their views seems rather extraordinary.

The difference is they have been active participants in the internet board community, and other authors have not. Either they or someone close to them seems to be around at all times. For this reason, it's not unusual at all to ask things of them that haven't been challenged with others in the past, and expect answers.

Quote
Everyone has the right to put their own views forward or to change their minds.

Fine, but why not just tell us?
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Helen_Azar on April 10, 2008, 01:32:27 PM
Everyone has the right to put their own views forward or to change their minds.  No one has a right to demand it of others...  

Good point about "Mein Kampf", but with that one most [reasonable] people do realize that those ideas have been detonated long ago (except in some circles of course). As far as "demanding", you are right, no one can "demand" anything from anyone else, but from where I stand I am not demanding, I'm just saying that it would be "nice if" these things were explained and/or retracted/corrected, especially since according to the authors most of them were "editorial mistakes"... But believe me, I have no delusions that there will be any explanations or retractions/corrections forthcoming any time soon.
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Helen_Azar on April 10, 2008, 01:52:55 PM
The difference is they have been active participants in the internet board community, and other authors have not. 

Yes, that's another thing. Because the authors used to post here and interact with the posters, and things got somewhat ... heated... in the process - which continued for some time - it makes this book sort of "special" and different from other books with similar "issues". 
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Louis_Charles on April 10, 2008, 02:31:44 PM
No, it really doesn't. It makes it special and unusual for you, Helen. You have posted your questions, but you refuse to e-mail them to Wilson or King. Case closed, I think. Your objections have been noted by everyone who has read this thread, and several others like it that have existed over the years. In fact you are demanding, since you post relentlessly about Fate of the Romanovs all over the internet, both under your own name and a variety of aliases. Since by your own admission you do not expect a response, what point are you trying to make by continuing to ask? Other than that you are obsessed with this?

At any rate, after being chided by you that this thread is for questions directed to King and Wilson, I am not sure why you feel compelled to speculate about their motivations for refusing to answer your questions. Especially since you haven't e-mailed them. To paraphrase you, cut the nonsense and get back on topic. Otherwise it seems to me that it is fair game to speculate about your motivations in doing this.

Simon
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Louis_Charles on April 10, 2008, 02:34:31 PM
The notion that I would spend the next several years in unceasing demands that the authors explain themselves to me or recant their views seems rather extraordinary.

The difference is they have been active participants in the internet board community, and other authors have not. Either they or someone close to them seems to be around at all times. For this reason, it's not unusual at all to ask things of them that haven't been challenged with others in the past, and expect answers.

Quote
Everyone has the right to put their own views forward or to change their minds.

Fine, but why not just tell us?

I don't know. My guess --- and it is only a guess --- is that they don't like you. I realize that you dislike them as well, so surely you can understand why the reverse might be true?
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Helen_Azar on April 10, 2008, 02:42:57 PM
No, it really doesn't. It makes it special and unusual for you, Helen. You have posted your questions, but you refuse to e-mail them to Wilson or King. Case closed, I think. Your objections have been noted by everyone who has read this thread, and several others like it that have existed over the years. In fact you are demanding, since you post relentlessly about Fate of the Romanovs all over the internet, both under your own name and a variety of aliases. Since by your own admission you do not expect a response, what point are you trying to make by continuing to ask? Other than that you are obsessed with this?

At any rate, after being chided by you that this thread is for questions directed to King and Wilson, I am not sure why you feel compelled to speculate about their motivations for refusing to answer your questions. Especially since you haven't e-mailed them. To paraphrase you, cut the nonsense and get back on topic. Otherwise it seems to me that it is fair game to speculate about your motivations in doing this.

Simon

Ok, here we go again. Don't you have to work or something? FYI: I do not post anything all over the internet, that's your overactive imagination. The only place I ever posted anything about FOTR was here and on Amazon*, which is quite reasonable. "A variety of aliases"? You are out of your mind, Simon. I have no reason to use aliases and will be more than happy to post anything I want to say under my real name, as I have been all along. And speaking of "obsessed", what do you call your patrolling the forum at all hours and posting all sorts of nonsensical accusations at people, whenever anything you don't like to hear about FOTR comes up? I think you are the one who is obsessed... And I'm sure you know very well why I won't email them, other than the fact that you already told us that they have no intention of answering me or anyone else...

As anyone can see, these are legitimate questions, whether you want to admit it or not (my guess is "not" ;-)), and they need to be brought out into the open, no matter whether they are answered or not. If they were allowed to stand two years ago, no one would be posting them again. As it stands, I realize that your goal is to start another brawl so that this thread is deleted and people don't get to see these questions, but guess what, I am as stubborn as you are, and they will be reposted again and again, until they do stand. You and I are very much alike in that way, Simon, whether you like it or not ;-).

FA feel free to delete this post and Simon's in the interest of the flow of this discussion.

*P.S. Oh yes, also on that dumb Legends of Anastasia forum, where I posted as a joke as the generic "romanovfan" (when everyone accused me of being Bob, lol), but I think I only mentioned FOTR once there after someone else posted about it. I can't even count that one. That was the only time I ever posted under an alias and it was a complete joke, as you very well know. Simon, you should really give up on accusing people of posting under aliases, weren't you embarassed enough when you accused poor Jim Wilhelm of being me on K&W (you were really sure of that one, weren't you, lol)? As if I would really go near there, let alone go through all that trouble. Get real...
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Helen_Azar on April 10, 2008, 02:43:48 PM
Quote
Everyone has the right to put their own views forward or to change their minds.


Fine, but why not just tell us?

I don't know. My guess --- and it is only a guess --- is that they don't like you. I realize that you dislike them as well, so surely you can understand why the reverse might be true?

Trust me, even if they liked her (or me for that matter) we would still get no answers ;-).
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Alixz on April 10, 2008, 02:46:48 PM
In Jennie - The Life of Lady Randolph Churchill - The Romantic Years 1854-1895 page 241:

"A woman with a graceful figure and a small head, the Czarina resembled her sister, Princess Alexandra, "though not so beautiful."  She asked Jennie "endless questions about England," and Jennie remembered the Czarina from Cowes as a wholesome, normal girl with a love of laughter.  The strictures of the rigidly formal Russian Court, however, had converted her into a nervous, submissive woman with mystical leanings.  Concern for her son's health had brought her under the influence of Rasputin, who represented hope for a possible cure for her son's illness."

Ok -  anyone see anything wrong in this?  I first read this in 1976 (it was published in 1969) and immediately wrote to the publisher to let them know that they had an error of gigantic proportions.  I never head a word from them, however, subsequent editions were changed and the comment -    "The strictures of the rigidly formal Russian Court, however, had converted her into a nervous, submissive woman with mystical leanings.  Concern for her son's health had brought her under the influence of Rasputin, who represented hope for a possible sure for her son's illness." have been removed.

I am sure it wasn't removed because of me as I read it 8 years after publication, but I am just as sure that someone brought it to their attention and they realized it was an error by - the writer? - the editors? - the typesetter? - the proof reader?

Who knows, but errors no matter what their origin can be and are changed upon research and clarification.

Did Ralph G Martin - who wrote this book approve the changes?  I would think that the publisher would go first to him to find out if anyone who was complaining had a case.

By the way this trip to Russia was made in 1888.  Nicholas was barely 20, Alix was just 16, Rasputin, though married to Praskovia, was most likely on yet another of his "pilgrimages" and, of course Alexei wasn't born until 1904.

Uh, whirled peas anyone?

Hi Mike.

Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Helen_Azar on April 10, 2008, 02:54:02 PM
...the Czarina resembled her sister, Princess Alexandra, "though not so beautiful."

"...her sister, Princess Alexandra"?
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Louis_Charles on April 10, 2008, 02:54:41 PM
But Helen, they like me. And I get answers.

In fact I am out of class for the next couple of hours, and I will be happy to match my little logged in time against yours anytime --- you spend far more time on this forum than I. I am also a night owl, and my work allows me to stay up past 11:00.

Which is all kind of "so's your old man", so let's drop that.

In fact, my intent is not to get this thread deleted. I stayed off for several days after your post a few days ago elicited no reaction. And you can post your questions to your heart's content, dear Helen. At least from my end. The more you do it, the more obsessed you appear. So go for it; it makes the point far more clearly than anything else to people that read the thread.

And for the record? I know for a fact that you posted against this book using an alias on a forum other than this and Amazon (where you posted negative reviews under several nom de plumes in an inane sttempt to hurt sales of the book). If you want further details, I will be happy to e-mail them to you, but frankly the introduction of that kettle of fish would make this thread far worse than it is.

Finally, thanks for your generous offer to Rob, but in fact there is nothing offensive in my previous post. Why is it always such a shock to you that people could follow what has happened on these boards and come to different conclusions than yourself?

Simon





Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Alixz on April 10, 2008, 02:56:30 PM
Helen - right sister - wrong child.


You all post so fast that I can't keep up.
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Helen_Azar on April 10, 2008, 03:01:23 PM
But Helen, they like me. And I get answers.

Great! Maybe you can share these answers with us and all this controversy would finally be over. :-) Oh yes, that's right, you didn't ask the questions which actually require answer that are kind of difficult to produce... Oh well. So why not just let the questions stand - because we can all agree that they are legitimate - and stop trying to cause this thread to go on the fritz again (which is obviously what you are trying to do, no matter how hard you deny it). As I already mentioned, I am not so delusional as to expect an answer, I just want the questions to stand.

P.S. Sorry to hear that you don't have more time to patrol, perhaps you would be liked even more if you did ;-)
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Louis_Charles on April 10, 2008, 03:05:19 PM
You were Romanovfan too? Wow.

Helen, one more time. Is everyone listening? I am not trying to get this thread deleted oir prevent you from asking your questions. Rob, if you are reading this, do not delete this thread!

Good luck!
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Annie on April 10, 2008, 03:10:27 PM



I don't know. My guess --- and it is only a guess --- is that they don't like you. I realize that you dislike them as well, so surely you can understand why the reverse might be true?

And you wonder why we don't bother to email them? At least on a public forum, they have a chance to address these issues for everyone, not just those they dislike. If it were my book, I'd welcome the opportunity.
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Helen_Azar on April 10, 2008, 03:12:13 PM
You were Romanovfan too? Wow.

Oh please, like you didn't know. We talked about it back then, is your memory that short? What do you mean by "too"? Who else did you accuse of being me? ;-)

I am not trying to get this thread deleted oir prevent you from asking your questions. Rob, if you are reading this, do not delete this thread!

Could have fooled me, Simon. :-)  Rob, you can delete if you feel like it.
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Annie on April 10, 2008, 03:23:22 PM

Oh please, like you didn't know. We talked about it back then, is your memory that short? What do you mean by "too"? Who else did you accuse of being me? ;-)

I was 'dogwood', of course, but was also accused of being several others though I didn't even know who from AP (if anyone) most of the others were! I openly asked the mod to check IPs many times to prove I was telling the truth  but she never answered. Something that needs to be realized and accepted is that other people hold the same views on this that Helen, or I, do, and not everyone who expresses them is one of us using an alias. Some people want to post and remain anonymous to stay out of the mess the rest of us are already in as veteran participants. I was accused of being "Green Day" by people on both sides, but it wasn't me, and to this day I honestly have no idea who it was. (though he or she is a very smart person!)

Quote

Could have fooled me, Simon. :-)  Rob, you can delete if you feel like it.

I would like to make a motion that if this thread must be ended, please lock it and let its contents sstand instead of deleting it. This stuff really can't continue to remain hidden and avoided by deletions. That way, IF one of the authors ever do decide to answer, the thread can be reopened!
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Louis_Charles on April 10, 2008, 03:32:36 PM
Ladies,

No one but yourselves is suggesting that the thread be deleted or locked, okay?

Sheesh.

And Annie, I don't wonder anything at all. Seriously,  I actually think that you and Helen are correct in assuming that e-mailing King and Wilson would be pointless. For either one of you, anyway. You suggested in an earlier post that the reason they are not responding is because they are somehow "embarrassed" about Fate of the Romanovs. In fact, Wilson did respond to Rob Moshein about the Rus incident, and he posted her answer at the beginning of this thread, yes? You and Helen don't accept her answer, yes? Since she speaks to Rob (and to me and Bear and Sarushka and others), I merely offered the alternative explanation for her radio silence on this thread. She doesn't like you and Helen. Q.E.D.

And while it is good to know that if you ever publish a book you will make yourself available to all of us, it seems that Wilson and King have decided not to do that anymore on this forum. As Lisa said, can you blame them?

But yes, your questions should stand.

Simon
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Forum Admin on April 10, 2008, 04:28:43 PM
I'm not locking or deleting the thread. Frankly, I have too big a headache after reading today's additions.

I will only add one thing. Helen, your position re: King and Wilson would be a bit stronger based "if" you actually bothered to write them a direct email, with your questions and perhaps a request to copy the specific text here FIRST, and then they refused you or ignored you. 

It's sort of like saying "they won't come to the party, so I wont invite them..."   well, invite them first, so you can say "see? they didn't come even though we invited them..."


Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Janet Ashton on April 10, 2008, 05:36:25 PM
There's another issue with email vs. message board post. An IP can reveal your general location, but an email has detailed headers that can be traced a lot further into your privacy. For that reason I am personally always suspicious of anyone- and I do mean ANYONE, anywhere- who demands to be emailed instead of using a message board to communicate.  If the authors do not want to answer on the board, perhaps they can answer Helen in a PM, here on AP. I think they both still have active accounts. I say Helen because things are so bad between Penny and I that I feel ANY attempt to contact her would only be taken as negative and aggressive. If not, I'm here, I welcome a PM.  I don't even think it's necessary to contact them privately because they, or at least their tattletales and cronies, are always well aware of what is going on here. If they wanted to speak up, they would have done so by now.

Annie - Greg is not interested in this board, isn't interested in the Romanovs, has no intention of writing a book on "claimants" or any such topic, has written three whole books and co-authored another since FOTR, isn't even at home; and as I have pointed out here before, there are no circumstances in which I would speak to him about any internet bulls**t as it irritates and distracts. So if I - his intimate personal friend of several years, research associate, protegee, co-author of articles, putative co-author of books, and so on, who has my own reasons for being here, as we all do - am covered by your reference to a "tattle-tale and crony", rest assured that I have not and would not trouble him with one line of the inane drivel you and others post here. Some have lives outside the internet, with real issues and real concerns to deal with.
Neither, Annie, did I "admit" that FOTR "started out as an AA book": I pointed out to you that the project which bcame FOTR started life as an re-examination of the AA case. There's a world of difference, as is clear to most.
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Annie on April 10, 2008, 06:12:59 PM


Annie - Greg is not interested in this board, isn't interested in the Romanovs, has no intention of writing a book on "claimants" or any such topic,

At one time they did. So they have indeed changed their minds? (and moved on to other subjects?)

 
Quote
Neither, Annie, did I "admit" that FOTR "started out as an AA book": I pointed out to you that the project which bcame FOTR started life as an re-examination of the AA case. There's a world of difference, as is clear to most.

Sure seems like pretty much the same thing!
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Alixz on April 10, 2008, 11:05:11 PM
In Jennie - The Life of Lady Randolph Churchill - The Romantic Years 1854-1895 page 241:

"A woman with a graceful figure and a small head, the Czarina resembled her sister, Princess Alexandra, "though not so beautiful."  She asked Jennie "endless questions about England," and Jennie remembered the Czarina from Cowes as a wholesome, normal girl with a love of laughter.  The strictures of the rigidly formal Russian Court, however, had converted her into a nervous, submissive woman with mystical leanings.  Concern for her son's health had brought her under the influence of Rasputin, who represented hope for a possible cure for her son's illness."

Ok -  anyone see anything wrong in this?  I first read this in 1976 (it was published in 1969) and immediately wrote to the publisher to let them know that they had an error of gigantic proportions.  I never head a word from them, however, subsequent editions were changed and the comment -    "The strictures of the rigidly formal Russian Court, however, had converted her into a nervous, submissive woman with mystical leanings.  Concern for her son's health had brought her under the influence of Rasputin, who represented hope for a possible sure for her son's illness." have been removed.

I am sure it wasn't removed because of me as I read it 8 years after publication, but I am just as sure that someone brought it to their attention and they realized it was an error by - the writer? - the editors? - the typesetter? - the proof reader?

Who knows, but errors no matter what their origin can be and are changed upon research and clarification.

Did Ralph G Martin - who wrote this book approve the changes?  I would think that the publisher would go first to him to find out if anyone who was complaining had a case.

By the way this trip to Russia was made in 1888.  Nicholas was barely 20, Alix was just 16, Rasputin, though married to Praskovia, was most likely on yet another of his "pilgrimages" and, of course Alexei wasn't born until 1904.




To quote myself. 

Only one person has commented on the gigantic error that I quoted from Jennie by Ralph G. Martin. Everyone is so intent on one-upping each other that no one even noticed what the error truly was.

I know that it isn't the subject of this thread, but gosh guys, didn't anyone read what Mr. Martin wrote?  Talk about "editorial errors"!

How many people have read this book and not known that if the Czarina was the sister of Princess Alexandra that she had to be Empress Marie and if Jennie met Empress Marie Feodorovna 1888 then there was no Rasputin to offer a "cure" for her son's illness?  Because as WE all know, Nicholas and Alix weren't Czar and Czarina until 1894 and Alexei wasn't born until 1904!

Come on guys.  The point was that FOTOR is a drop in the bucket.  I actually agree with Tsarfan (and that is a surprise in itself)!  So much controversy about a couple of Russian Grand Duchesses who may or may not have had a bad time of it on a boat just a few months before the end of their lives.

I admit it!  I DO own FOTOR.  I read it and found it to be mildly interesting.  I have never truly bought the theory that no one ever tried anything physical with any of the captives.  Revolution is brutal.  Revolutionaries are brutal people.  Yes, it was a different time and perhaps a different sensibility, but - Oh, I don't know.  Until someone invents a time machine or at least a time viewer, we just have to rely on the interpretations of those who  research and write.

We used to accept the possibility that all escaped.  Then we accepted the possibility (Massie) that all were killed.  Now we know that Yurovsky was telling the truth about the burial and the separation of the bodies and the fire.

Our perception of our own personal history is colored by faulty memory.  What makes revolutionaries or writers any different?

Everyone here seems to admire Oscar Wilde - please refer to my signature quote.
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Alixz on April 11, 2008, 12:05:55 AM
Oy vey!
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Forum Admin on April 11, 2008, 10:36:20 AM
Oy Vey indeed.

If I could shout and slap wrists with a meter stick when students misbehave I would, just like my 6th grade US History teacher used to do. And trust me, those hurt. He liked the meter stick over the yard stick because of the extra six inches or so.  Ahhhh, the good ole days of corporal punishement for children....*sigh*

Lots of posts have been deleted, after the extra strength headache medicine kicked in, a double vodka and good nights sleep.

Y'all know who you are. Consider yourselves slapped with that meter stick. Hard.


(Ok. before anyone starts sending me hate mail, or anything like that, the above is called SARCASM.  I am trying to make a point about people acting childish and misbehaving.  I do not necessarily endorse corporal punishment in schools, nor the slapping of kids' wrists with a meter stick.  -FA)
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Annie on April 11, 2008, 10:58:40 AM
Oy Vey indeed.

If I could shout and slap wrists with a meter stick when students misbehave I would, just like my 6th grade US History teacher used to do. And trust me, those hurt. He like the meter stick over the yard stick because of the extra six inches or so.  Ahhhh, the good ole days of corporal punishement for children....*sigh*

Lots of posts have been deleted, after the extra strength headache medicine kicked in, a double vodka and good nights sleep.

Y'all know who you are. Consider yourselves slapped with that meter stick. Hard.



I am asking that you please delete or seriously edit Simon's post #87. It was one of the worst in the thread if not the worst! It was almost all directly aimed at me and offensive to me. If you aren't going to delete it I'm going to have to post a rebuttal, it's not right for his rudeness to stand and mine to be deleted. After all I was the one who requested the deletions for the good of the board, so it's not fair that his against me stands while my response goes.

Honestly the entire mess between me and Simon and Helen and Simon should go, several pages, all the way back to the questions.
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Louis_Charles on April 11, 2008, 12:09:06 PM
Well, no, although I don't really mind all that much about post #87.

I am reposting the salient point, because I think it is germane to the entire thread. Annie described Janet Ashton as "admitting" that Fate of the Romanovs "started out as an AA book."  Janet took issue with that paraphrase of what she actually said. Here is why, at least in part (she may actually dispute that she said anything like this at all, for all I know): the word "admit" carries the connotation that someone was forced into a statement. It is the language of interrogation, and it substantially changes the meaning of a sentence to say that X "admitted something" as opposed to X "stated something".

"Public domain" has specific meaning, as does "public visibility". They should not be confused.

Here is why I think these points are germane to the questions you wish to ask King and Wilson. Your "questions" use the language of interrogation, which is why Tsarfan referred to the "demands" that King and Wilson reply. Moreover, the issue of language is at the heart of some of the objections to Fate of the Romanovs, and if you don't think that King and Wilson were precise enough in their use of words, it behooves those who question them to take especial care.

Simon
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Helen_Azar on April 12, 2008, 08:02:14 AM
Helen, your position re: King and Wilson would be a bit stronger based "if" you actually bothered to write them a direct email, with your questions and perhaps a request to copy the specific text here FIRST, and then they refused you or ignored you. 

You're right. I will give it a shot even though Simon here already told us it would be a fruitless exercise (and I believe him).

The main thing I am concerned about is the way FOTR handled the information about Romanov DNA. Of course I realize that the book is not the cause of all the controversy surrounding the DNA results, but it sure makes matters worse - with its misleading statements and insinuations about DNA science. So I will send Wilson a PM about that matter in particular and give her a chance to comment on it. I will post my message here and then report on the response (or lack of). Stay tuned... :-)


P.S. Rob, I feel your pain ;-)
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Helen_Azar on April 12, 2008, 08:21:46 AM
Here is the email I just sent to Penny Wilson. The only address I had for her was her earthlink one, which I am not sure is still active. Does anyone know what her most recent one is? I can resend there too.

Anyway, here is goes:

*********************

Hello, Penny,
 
 Here are the questions I have, and I was wondering if you can please comment:
 
In Fate of the Romanovs, on page 445, you state: "To obtain a complete sequence, or mtDNA fingerprint, Gill and Ivanov were forced to look for overlapping, repetitive strands, which were then spliced together to form the missing links in the genetic chain. Although standard practice, this scientific necessity did not provide an unaltered genetic code for the remains, but rather one achieved through manipulation of the available data based on estimation. (*35)" ( * reference 35 is Bryan Sykes' book "The Seven daughters of Eve" p 66-68).

These words you use: "forced to look for overlapping", "missing links", "did not provide an unaltered genetic code", "achieved through manipulation", "based on estimation" – all sound very ominous. If the reader doesn't know basic science, this may give him/her the impression that the scientists did something manipulative, speculative, and that the end result didn't produce a clear-cut answer, but instead they ended up with an uncertain and questionable conclusion.
 
In fact, this is absolutely not true. The entire point of mitochondrial DNA sequencing is that it produces an exact sequence - 100% correct sequence over say 600 letters. This is a very important point. If you get one single "altered genetic code" out of 600 letters, this means you got only 99.9% right, and 0.1% wrong answer, which will then ruin the whole theory/conclusion. The 0.1% difference would confirm that these remains were NOT the Romanov family. But this did not happen at all and the result was a 100% match.
 
You state that you based these facts on the Bryan Sykes' book. However, if you read pp 66-68 of the said book, Sykes never said such a thing, in fact he said the complete opposite. 

Sykes: "…eventually the sequences of the presumed Tsarina and her three children were typed. They all had exactly the same sequence as 111, 357. They were all an exact match with the Duke of Edinburgh."

Sykes used the word "exact" twice. Not a single reference to the "altered genetic code" or "manipulation" or "estimation".

So, paraphrasing, why do you use terms to imply that there were some sort of dodgy dealings going on, and why do you quote a page from a book that says the exact opposite of what you state?  Do you still believe the statements you made about DNA in FOTR, or have you changed your mind? If you changed your mind, what is your current opinion? Thanks.


*************************

Maybe I will get an answer/comment, most likely not, but I wanted to give her that chance, as per Rob's advice.
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Forum Admin on April 12, 2008, 08:52:54 AM
I don't think Penny will have a problem with my posting a good email address for her, for ANYONE who might have questions. 

Penny@KingandWilson.com
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Helen_Azar on April 12, 2008, 08:54:25 AM
I don't think Penny will have a problem with my posting a good email address for her, for ANYONE who might have questions. 

Penny@KingandWilson.com

Thanks, I just sent the same email to this address.
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Annie on April 12, 2008, 08:42:03 PM
I hate to say it, but yes, the DNA question Helen asks is yet another way the book seems to be helping the AA case.

Anyway, we'll see if Helen gets an answer. I'll avoid this thread until then.
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: AGRBear on April 13, 2008, 01:16:04 PM


Would Wilson have given me this premission if I asked her?... lol. Let's face it, the only reason she told  FA to remove these pages is because I was the one who posted them ;-) Otherwise she would have loved to have the exposure.


Of course, and  she wouldn't have given me permission either so why bother? I am pretty sure I've seen AGRBear use similar looking pages from FOTR with certain passages highlighted and no one complained. But of course Bear is their friend and that makes all the difference.

 I didn't know that Helen got the actual pages on Amazon and that they were in public domain for free, that to me really discounts any claim of infringement (and this would go for anyone) It seems that if authors don't want their work scanned and put up they should take it up with Amazon, but once it's there, it's public domain and I don't see how anyone can legally force you to remove it (unless you want to just to avoid hassle, but you don't have to)

With Penny's permission,  I used part of a page from FATE OF THE ROMANOVS to provide you the answer as to how a footnote ended up at the end of a sentence where it didn't belong because the editor had removed part of the paragraph.  All my posts discussing this matter have not been nor will they ever, it seems, be  acceptable answers to Annie or Helen.

My earlier post on this subject on this thread has been eliminated  so I assume this one will, too, however,  I feel I have a right to respond to Helen's  reference to my use of FATE OF THE ROMANOVS, therefore I'm making the attempt, again. 

I, also,  believe I  have a right to agree with Simon, but those posts of mine are gone, too.  Is there a reason I can't agree with Simon?  I'd like to know so I won't waste my time, again, in doing so.

AGRBear


Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Helen_Azar on April 14, 2008, 07:23:51 AM
Just to let you guys know, I did get a response to my email from Greg King this morning. He said that neither he or Penny can find their copy of the Brian Sykes book and asked me to send him a scan of the pages I mention. Since I don't have the author's permission to scan the pages of his book, I directed Greg to Amazon's "look inside the book" feature where he can find and read the pages in question... So let's hope he is able to do that and we will get the answer to my DNA question soon. 
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Tsarfan on April 14, 2008, 10:02:25 AM
The main thing I am concerned about is the way FOTR handled the information about Romanov DNA. Of course I realize that the book is not the cause of all the controversy surrounding the DNA results, but it sure makes matters worse - with its misleading statements and insinuations about DNA science.

Helen, if this is the core of your concern about FOTR, might I suggest that you're worrying about something that the passage of time is already resolving?

When you refer to "all the controversy surrounding the DNA results" I think you're really referring to a small group of die-hard conspiracists who are never going to accept that Anna Anderson was not Anastasia.  Their views fly in the face of both science and common sense and ultimately rest on layered conspiracy theories.  And those theories rest on a hodge-podge of distorted statistical methodology surrounding medical conditions; wildly varying reports both of GDP-sized fortunes sitting in various banks today and, at the same time, inherently inconsistent reports of embezzlement of such funds 80 years ago; elaborate coverups on the one hand and, on the other hand, proofs of such embezzlements lying around in bank vaults for casual visitors to stumble upon; etc.

But if you check virtually any press or other recently-published source these days, you will find the fact that Anna Anderson has been proven to be a fraud is now almost universally accepted.  It seems to me you're trying to mount a very large campaign against a very small nemesis.

As for FOTR, I have read it.  I agree with some of its viewpoints but not with all (as is the case with most books I read on history or historical topics).  And I welcomed it as providing yet another perspective on a murky few months 90 years ago.  But I have never understood it to be either a beacon to the conspiracists or ammunition for making the case that Anna Anderson was Anastasia.  The book certainly never said or even implied she was.  In fact, Penny Wilson has indicated since last fall that she fully expects the recent finds in Ekaterinburg to be proven to be the missing children.

If it's really the Anna Anderson conspiracists you want to vanquish, why not engage with them directly?  Penny Wilson is not among their ranks.

(I will admit that I engage with the conspiracists every now and again.  It's good for hoots but, please, Helen . . . don't ever hope to prevail.  It's rather like trying to convince a skinhead that his daddy didn't beat him as a child because Hitler failed to finish off the Jews.)
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Annie on April 14, 2008, 10:44:32 AM

As for FOTR, I have read it.  I agree with some of its viewpoints but not with all (as is the case with most books I read on history or historical topics).  And I welcomed it as providing yet another perspective on a murky few months 90 years ago.  But I have never understood it to be either a beacon to the conspiracists or ammunition for making the case that Anna Anderson was Anastasia.  The book certainly never said or even implied she was.

If you haven't seen it for yourself,  please allow me to explain. The reasons it's a beacon for AA conspiracists:

As stated on the back cover:

FOTR makes compelling revisions to many long-held beliefs..

This powerful account includes:

Surprising evidence that Anastasia may have indeed survived

Revelations of how the Romanovs were betrayed by trusted servants


The first line right there is an OPEN CLAIM leading into the AA story, how is it not?

As for the 'servant betrayal', that was allegedly Sophie Buxhoevedon, though further examination of the details proved their bombshell to be inaccurate. What, you may ask, would be the purpose of this? Well, remember that AA had claimed that Bux had betrayed the family, and this was, according to supporters, one of the 'things only the real Anastasia would know'. If it could be proven AA knew this, the case for her having been in Ekaterinburg would be stronger!

When the book came out, it claimed to be (as quoted on the flap) a "startling new report" that "explodes myths, confirmed long-dismissed theories, solves mysteries, and poses intriguing new questions." If that's not at least partially about AN possibly being AA, I will eat my monitor.

Then there is the 'rape on the Rus' controversy. How does this tie into AA? Easy. AA, according to most accounts, (though some later denied it, it is documented) claimed to have had her baby Dec. 5, 1918. Now if Anastasia was AA, she would have had to have been pregnant in the spring of 1918 for the baby to have been viable in Dec., so that rules out fatherhood by alleged (ficticious) rescuer Alexander Tchaikovsky after July 16, 1918. How can you deny that this rape was a clever way to make sure there was a possibilty AN was pregnant and gave birth, as AA, in Dec. 1918? This fits the storyline perfectly. Of COURSE the authors weren't going to say that at the time, but likely would have referenced the time frame in the (then upcoming) AA book.

Lastly, and probably most importantly, we have the denials that the DNA tests were accurate, as Helen as described above. WHY would they do this? What would be the point, other than to, once again, leave the door open for Anastasia to still possibly be Anna Anderson after all?

NOW- add to this the fact that, in 2000, Peter Kurth openly 'passed the torch' to Penny and Greg as her "champions and protectors" handed down from Harriet Rathlef in Berlin in 1925 to Dominique Aucleres, to Kurth, who was 'standing on their shoulders', giving it to Penny and Greg. In addition to this, Penny once openly admitted to believing in AA right here on this forum, as well as elsewhere online, and she frequently mentioned (of course she went on a mad deleting rampage and most of the posts are gone, but many of us saw them) that she and Greg were working on a claimant book. In mentioning this book, she would frequently drop enticing little bits of info, for example that she could prove FS was not injured in the grenade explosion, but when questioned about it, she said you'd have to wait for the book. She also claimed AA was a chimera! Anytime you questioned her, she became irate, and the thread would degenerate quickly (this is how the bad blood between Penny and I, Helen and Penny, and Penny and a few others, came to exist)



Quote
In fact, Penny Wilson has indicated since last fall that she fully expects the recent finds in Ekaterinburg to be proven to be the missing children.

If it's really the Anna Anderson conspiracists you want to vanquish, why not engage with them directly?  Penny Wilson is not among their ranks.



If Penny no longer believes AA may have been AN, that's great. I would accept that she does, and that she has changed her mind, if she would just admit it and tell us that she has abandoned the formerly planned claimant book for that reason. It would be a lot more respectful than denying it and avoiding the question. (I don't know if Helen has heard back from her yet, I'm assuming not or it would have been mentioned here) So yes, I do believe (and I am not alone) that, considering their AA position at the time, and their close relationship with Kurth, that when FOTR was written (and as Janet said, Greg even admitted it started out as 'a re-examination of the AA case, however you choose to take that) at least partially as a lead-in, laying the groundwork for an upcoming book on AA and how she still might be AN. See, the little bits of 'shocking' 'new' evidence mentioned in FOTR almost all tie into the case! (and, strangely enough, so do the 'editoral errors')
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Tsarfan on April 14, 2008, 11:26:13 AM
Surprising evidence that Anastasia may have indeed survived . . . .

This is a bit of a leap, Annie.  The most that FOTR suggested was that the circumstances of the actual massacre, insofar is it could be reconstructed, were such that someone could have left the room still breathing.  But for such a survivor to go on to emerge in Berlin as Anna Anderson, a whole string of far-fetched events would had to have taken place -- not one at which FOTR even remotely hinted.  The text of the book could just as easily be read to suggest that one or two people survived the massacre proper but died in the course of later transport or preparation for burial.

A sales tickler on the back of a book cover is hardly where I would look for the evidence to take an author to task for the contents of a book.  Since this sales tickler was obviously meant to be as sensationalist as possible, don't you think it would have said something about Anna Anderson if the point of the book was to prove that she was Anastasia?



Then there is the 'rape on the Rus' controversy. How does this tie into AA? Easy. AA, according to most accounts, (though some later denied it, it is documented) claimed to have had her baby Dec. 5, 1918. Now if Anastasia was AA, she would have had to have been pregnant in the spring of 1918 for the baby to have been viable in Dec., so that rules out fatherhood by alleged (ficticious) rescuer Alexander Tchaikovsky after July 16, 1918. How can you deny that this rape was a clever way to make sure there was a possibilty AN was pregnant and gave birth, as AA, in Dec. 1918? This fits the storyline perfectly. Of COURSE the authors weren't going to say that at the time, but likely would have referenced the time frame in the (then upcoming) AA book.

Now, Annie . . . this is just downright conspiracy twaddle on a par with what one hears from the pro-AA camp.

Anna Anderson claimed to have delivered a baby on December 5, 1918.  The three grandduchesses were transported on the Rus in late May 1918, barely six months earlier than the supposed birth you claim Penny Wilson was trying to prove.  If Ms. Wilson were trying to trump up a rape of Anastasia to explain a claimed birth by Anna Anderson, don't you think she would have been smart enough to claim it somehow happened in Tobolsk around nine months earlier?  True conspiracists are capable of truly creative arguments.

And nowhere in the text of FOTR does it say a rape occurred, anyway.  You may disagree with the book's characterization of the girls' treatment on the boat, but you really shouldn't saddle the text with specific  charges it did not make.

Here's the relevant passage from the book:  "Almost certainly, the grand duchesses were subjected to taunts, and perhaps lewd advances at the hands of the drunken Latvian guards; how far this progressed as the evening wore on is impossible to determine."

The only thing  the book said was almost  certain to have occurred was taunts.  Exactly how do you get from this description to the charge that FOTR said the girls were raped?  I think you're reading as much into the text of FOTR to suit your purposes as you claim Penny Wilson was reading into the evidence to support hers. 



NOW- add to this the fact that, in 2000, Peter Kurth openly 'passed the torch' to Penny and Greg as her "champions and protectors" handed down from Harriet Rathlef in Berlin in 1925 to Dominique Aucleres, to Kurth, who was 'standing on their shoulders', giving it to Penny and Greg.

Oh, please.  Given all the hyperbole and histrionics on these royalty forums, if we were all taken to task for the claims of other people about us this would be a hopeless quagmire.

Ooops . . . I guess it already is.
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Helen_Azar on April 14, 2008, 12:13:16 PM
When you refer to "all the controversy surrounding the DNA results" I think you're really referring to a small group of die-hard conspiracists who are never going to accept that Anna Anderson was not Anastasia.  Their views fly in the face of both science and common sense and ultimately rest on layered conspiracy theories.  And those theories rest on a hodge-podge of distorted statistical methodology surrounding medical conditions; wildly varying reports both of GDP-sized fortunes sitting in various banks today and, at the same time, inherently inconsistent reports of embezzlement of such funds 80 years ago; elaborate coverups on the one hand and, on the other hand, proofs of such embezzlements lying around in bank vaults for casual visitors to stumble upon; etc.

But if you check virtually any press or other recently-published source these days, you will find the fact that Anna Anderson has been proven to be a fraud is now almost universally accepted.  It seems to me you're trying to mount a very large campaign against a very small nemesis.

I don't know about trying to mount "a very large campaign", all I am doing is asking some questions - it's not like I'm going to the media or engaging private detectives - lets not exaggerate here... This entire thing has been blown out of proportion for a couple of years now by none other than one of the authors herself, who flew into histrionics when some [legitimate] questions were asked about FOTR and mistakes pointed out, which later resulted in a ban of the subject here several times, not to mention all sorts of legal threats. Which is why we ended up the way we are  now, walking on eggshells... 

As far as "a small group of die hard conspiracists", I don't think this was really the case until *possibly* a few months ago when the latest remains were found (and it still remains to be seen if the new results will be accepted as legitimate). The Russian Orthodox Church was part of this "small group of die hard conspiracists", as well as some other groups of Russians abroad, as well as in Russia. The former even hired a Stanford scientist to demonstrate that the original DNA results were wrong.... During the time I worked on an article related to this, I spoke directly with Dr Gill and another scientist who worked on the first remains, and they seemed pretty upset by all the conspiracy theories surrounding their work, including the fact that people were questioning their own professional integrity. So it was taken quite seriously by them as well as others. 

Perhaps you are correct, and the latest developments will put an end to all this nonsense once the results come out, and only "a small group of die hard conspiracists" will indeed be left to question the science. I hope so, but it kind of remains to be seen.I am not talking about Anna Anderson, which to me is a joke and I really couldn't care less about her one way or another, although a lot of these conspiracy theories do stem from the AA case. I am talking about the DNA work on the Romanov remains and how so much misinformation came from all sorts of corners, including books like FOTR, which added to the general confusion.

Regardless, I still would like an answer to my question as to why the authors of FOTR presented the DNA results the way they did, implying that there was some murkey stuff going on, while completely misquoting their source. And if it was an honest mistake - a result perhaps of confusion about science - maybe they can admit that and correct it. And yes, there is a certain degree of personal involvement in this for me, since I was, after all, accused of trying to "sabotage" King and Wilson's work in the past, just because I brought up the inconsistencies in their statements about science, and I was also publicly called a "liar" by Penny Wilson just because I was trying to correct some of the misconceptions which were being presented by her.

I would like to set the record straight as far as that goes, and also get an answer to my question. I don't think it's an unreasonable objective and a far cry from mounting "a very large campaign"...
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Annie on April 14, 2008, 12:29:45 PM

This is a bit of a leap, Annie.

No it's not, it's an open invitation for readers to buy the book to read how Anastasia may have survived. WHY would this be relevent except in the case of AA (since she was the only real viable pretender?)

Quote
, don't you think it would have said something about Anna Anderson if the point of the book was to prove that she was Anastasia?

No. It would be better not to mention it directly, then use it as backup in the upcoming AA book. People would accept it better that way.

Quote

Now, Annie . . . this is just downright conspiracy twaddle on a par with what one hears from the pro-AA camp.

Or it could be a brilliant discovery and cracked detective case worthy of Sherlock Holmes (though it's not that hard to see and I am hardly the only one who saw it or thinks it) I realize that Ms. Wilson may now be embarrassed by some of her former theories, and in an attempt to completely deny them now the only defense seems to be  combination of complete denial or silence on the subject, along with friends who use the tactic of trying to attack, and/or belittle and discount those who have seen these things first hand and have pointed out things others don't want seen. The message you want to leave is 'Annie is stupid and/or crazy, don't listen to her' (or that someone else had a grudge, vendetta, etc., so they need to shut up, etc,. there's always a reason for it) I don't understand why you just won't let the truth finally come out, admit to it, and move on! If that happened this would have been over ages ago.

Here is an excellent article which raises valid questions about FOTR:

http://www.searchfoundationinc.org/Book-Review.html

Quote
And nowhere in the text of FOTR does it say a rape occurred, anyway.  You may disagree with the book's characterization of the girls' treatment on the boat, but you really shouldn't saddle the text with specific  charges it did not make.

The text was clearly meant to leave the impression. It said "refusing to, as Volkov later said, 'leave them in peace' This is a direct misquote of Volkov, and twisted to sound like they were not left in peace when in fact they were. So technically Volkov said the words 'leave them in peace', yet they used them to say the Grand Duchesses were NOT left in peace. How is that not wrong?


Quote
Oh, please.  Given all the hyperbole and histrionics on these royalty forums, if we were all taken to task for the claims of other people about us this would be a hopeless quagmire.



No, this was a direct quote from Kurth, posted online.
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Tsarfan on April 14, 2008, 01:18:40 PM
The text was clearly meant to leave the impression.

I read the text, Annie, and it did not leave me with the impression the girls were raped.  I guess some patches of soil are softer than others.

I grant there is a legitimate controversy over whether the girls were "left in peace", given Volkov's report.  But, since FOTR only made a firm claim that the girls were being taunted, it would seem most logical to apply the question of whether they were "left in peace" to mean "did taunting occur or not".  To turn a claim of taunts and a question of whether they were left in peace into an assertion that FOTR contended the girls were raped is quite a stretch.  I really don't understand how an author can be held accountable for an impression a reader develops independently of anything actually written.

Perhaps you can clear this up by pointing us exactly to where the claim of a rape was so strongly suggested?



No, this was a direct quote from Kurth, posted online.

You missed my point.  I do not doubt Kurth said such a thing, although it doesn't rock my world one way or the other.  The question, though, is whether Ms. Wilson accepted the mantle.  I have seen no indications in her published work that she did.  What she wears in private I do not know.
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Annie on April 14, 2008, 02:23:54 PM


  To turn a claim of taunts and a question of whether they were left in peace into an assertion that FOTR contended the girls were raped is quite a stretch.  I really don't understand how an author can be held accountable for an impression a reader develops independently of anything actually written.

What about if was intentionally worded to be misleading? Though we may never know, there sure appears to be a possibility. The very wording that the guards 'refused' to 'leave them in peace' is a falsehood as proven by the memoirs of Bux and Volkov. In addition, there was also no mention of any 'taunting', this was all made up.


Quote
You missed my point.  I do not doubt Kurth said such a thing, although it doesn't rock my world one way or the other.  The question, though, is whether Ms. Wilson accepted the mantle.  I have seen no indications in her published work that she did.  What she wears in private I do not know.

There was this quote:

 Penny_Wilson  Offline
Boyar
**
   Sunt lacrimae rerum, et mentem mortalia tangunt.    Posts: 123

View Profile WWW Email Personal Message (Offline)
   
Re: Anna Anderson and Anastasia
   
(snip)

If she was Anastasia -- and I myself believe it likely that she was -- then Gleb and his sister Tatiana were her two truest friends. And if she wasn't Anastasia, then the Botkins were still her truest friends -- and you do them a grave disservice by suspecting them in this manner.  Belief in Anastasia Manahan does not equate with criminal intention -- especially as this "criminal endeavor" made none of them into rich people -- quite the opposite, in fact.

See link:

http://forum.alexanderpalace.org/index.php/topic,9.75.html

In addition to this, she had also said it elsewhere online. Just last fall, yes AFTER the remains were found, she gave a speech at Eurohistory's seminar questioning the validity of the bones in a presentation called "The Romanov Bones: Who was Anna Anderson?"

Number 10 on this list:(date: October 2007)

http://forum.alexanderpalace.org/index.php/topic,10369.0.html

10. The Romanov Bones: Who was Anna Anderson, by Penny Wilson.

She may never have published her belief in a book, but this is not to say it may have turned out that way if the much discussed but apparently ditched claimant book had been completed. When almost all of the questions we have about the 'errors' in this book are at least remotely tied to the AA case, how can you deny it? I realize she must be your friend and you're trying to help her salvage her reputation, but let's not deny the original intentions may have been just as some of us presume.




Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Louis_Charles on April 14, 2008, 02:34:04 PM
Quote
She may never have published her belief in a book, but this is not to say it may have turned out that way if the much discussed but apparently ditched claimant book had been completed. When almost all of the questions we have about the 'errors' in this book are at least remotely tied to the AA case, how can you deny it? I realize she must be your friend and you're trying to help her salvage her reputation, but let's not deny the original intentions may have been just as some of us presume.

Annie,

You are not citing things from the book, where the name "Anna Anderson" does not appear; you are making linkages on fairly tenuous grounds --- the "passing of the torch" is particularly silly, but all of that pales before your statement "I realize she must be your friend . . . "

How insulting. Are we to assume that the only reason you are interested in this stems from the fact that you are Wilson's "enemy"?

Or is it?

Simon


Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Annie on April 14, 2008, 02:46:52 PM
I stand by my statement, and my position. I was not the first, and am certainly not the only person to believe the same way, so your new tactic that I am making up this conspiracy theory  just isn't going to fly. This is hardly new, and not unique to me. In fact I was rather late to join in. Your attempts to make it go away just aren't going to work. That can only happen when Penny answers Helen.

The torch is not 'silly', though I understand coming from your position it's a good try to pass it off that way. No, the torch is the smoking gun that proves beyond doubt that Kurth handed the AA legacy to Greg and Penny in 2000, and therefore their work in the recent years to follow may well have been tainted with that agenda.
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Tsarfan on April 14, 2008, 02:58:41 PM
She may never have published her belief in a book, but this is not to say it may have turned out that way if the much discussed but apparently ditched claimant book had been completed.

So now you're attacking an author for the ideas you say she might have put in a book she never wrote and apparently does not intend to write?

Annie, you really might want to step back, take a deep breath, slowly open your eyes, and take a look at the precipice over which you are tottering.  After railing about a claim of a rape that was never made, you are now ranting about how awful it is that an author once considered writing a book with which you would have disagreed had it been written.

But it wasn't.  In the confused state in which you seem to be operting right now, you do understand the distinction between "did" and "didn't".  Er . . . don't you?


Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Annie on April 14, 2008, 03:06:23 PM


So now you're attacking an author for the ideas you say she might have put in a book she never wrote and apparently does not intend to write?





All I want is the same thing Helen is asking for, answers. Yes I do think she was going to write an AA book. She was incredibly nasty to me both on this board and in private over it, and I was not the only one. All I want is the truth- was the AA agenda at least partly behind the 'errors' in FOTR, especially the DNA declarations? If she has changed her mind, and there is not going to be a claimant book, do let us offically know. What I don't like is you guys trying to bury this like it never happened and trying to frame me up as some kind of nut who made it all up. Sorry too many people saw it. I guess what I would like to see, but will never get, is the entire story. Yes, admit it, stop denying it, stop having friends cover for it by demeaning other posters, just answer. I'm still waiting.
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Annie on April 14, 2008, 03:10:49 PM


  In the confused state in which you seem to be operting right now, you do understand the distinction between "did" and "didn't".  Er . . . don't you?




Here is a prime example of the insults and demeaning attacks I have had to endure from you and Simon over this. As a mod on other forums, I find this unacceptable behavior worthy of suspension.

Again, you cannot make it go away by labeling me as crazy, so give it up.
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Tsarfan on April 14, 2008, 03:25:03 PM
So first we make the leap from "taunts" to "rape".  Now we're making the leap from asking why you're attacking an author for something she did not write  and that you did not want her to write   to my saying you're crazy?

Well, I wouldn't have gone that far.  But now that you mention it . . . .
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Louis_Charles on April 14, 2008, 03:25:47 PM
It's not an attack, Annie. In view of your previous posts it's a perfectly legitimate question. The written evidence seems to be that you do not understand the difference, so could you please clarify by answering the question Tsarfan raised on a public forum?

Parenthetically (and obviously, of course), this is exactly the argument you use with Wilson AND the way you phrase the questions.

Just sayin'

Simon
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Tsarfan on April 14, 2008, 03:37:36 PM
The Russian Orthodox Church was part of this "small group of die hard conspiracists", as well as some other groups of Russians abroad, as well as in Russia.

I take your point.

I tend, perhaps without warrant, to discount the views of such groups, though they may be relatively large in number.  These are, after all, the descendents both literally and figuratively of the people who once thought that through the mystical offices of the coronation ritual the tsar magically ascended beyond the human state to some elevated sphere of transmortal existence by which he became God's mouthpiece on earth.  The fact that they would also be just the types to resist the scientific method of inquiry causes me to dismiss them too lightly perhaps in the 21st century.
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Tsarfan on April 14, 2008, 03:58:33 PM
I'm still waiting.

As are some of us for you to point out the text in FOTR about what you label the "rape on the Rus".

Believe it or not, Annie, I don't have any particular agenda to defend FOTR.  I think it did contain some errors, perhaps major ones, and I'm not clear on how they got into the book.  Moreover, I'm not that interested in knowing.  As I wrote earlier, if I find a book less than persuasive, I put it back on my bookshelf until recycling time.

What I do find interesting is going after illogical analyses and thought processes wherever I find them.  It has given me plenty of fodder for attacking the pro-AA crowd, for attacking some of the arguments on the history threads on this board, and for attacking some of the other nonsene elsewhere on the internet.

Which brings us to your arguments.  I find it interesting that you lambast FOTR for presenting things that are not supportable while you make at least equally unsupportable claims about what FOTR said or "implied" regarding rape and Anna Anderson.  I really have trouble with a line of argument that is, in essence, the thing it argues against.

Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Helen_Azar on April 14, 2008, 04:04:12 PM
My "grievance" (for the lack of a better term) is not how the text in FOTR may be interpreted, or what was said by someone or what someone may have meant, etc.. What I am concerned with is that the book contains at least several statements which say the exact opposite of what the sources attributed to them actually state. I focused on DNA comments because this is what I know best, but this also applies to other statements, like the one with the grand duchesses on Rus. I couldn't care less if the GDsess were "left in peace" or not, what I care about is that the source which was cited clearly says "they were left in peace" whereas in the book it says they were "not 'left in peace'" and cites the above source...  Again, this is just an example of what I mean. The same with the DNA paragraph, the one I already posted here several times. There are other examples of this, but I think everyone gets the picture...

So my question is: what is the reason for this? The reader would only know about these "mis-statements" if he or she checked the sources. I know that the authors have said that these were "editorial errors", but some of them clearly could not be that. To me, all this looked suspicious, and became even more suspicious when instead of giving an explanation, the authors became very defensive, angry and accusatory. And the rest, as they say, is history. Which is why I would still like an explanation for these things. Now mind you, I am not demanding one from them, it's their call of course, but I am just saying it would be nice to have one. Otherwise all this continues to look very suspicious, and of course puts the rest of the information in the book under suspicion (at least as far as I am concerned).  Not to mention the fact that I was the one accused of lying and trying to "sabotage" their work just because I pointed this out (which of course is ludicrous)...

The Russian Orthodox Church was part of this "small group of die hard conspiracists", as well as some other groups of Russians abroad, as well as in Russia.

I take your point.

I tend, perhaps without warrant, to discount the views of such groups, though they may be relatively large in number.  These are, after all, the descendents both literally and figuratively of the people who once thought that through the mystical offices of the coronation ritual the tsar magically ascended beyond the human state to some elevated sphere of transmortal existence by which he became God's mouthpiece on earth.  The fact that they would also be just the types to resist the scientific method of inquiry causes me to dismiss them too lightly perhaps in the 21st century.

Oh believe me, I agree that ROCA et al are all insane, but many people don't discount their views, that's the point. When I was doing the research for the article, I learned how seriously people take them and others like them. They even got "legitimate" scientists to back them up (such as Dr Alec Knight of Stanford U http://www.stanford.edu/group/mountainlab/people/alec_knight.html and Dr Nagai http://sciencelinks.jp/j-east/article/200011/000020001100A0252588.php) to do their own scientific work in order to show that the DNA results are not valid... You would be surprised how many people get taken in by that...

So my point is, books like FOTR, who make irresponsible statements about science, etc., don't help matters. Which is why I am still questioning this and still hope to get an answer.
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Louis_Charles on April 14, 2008, 04:12:15 PM
Dear Helen,

So you disassociate yourself from the idea that the "agenda" of the book was to promote the idea that Anna Anderson was Anastasia, as Annie seems to believe it was?

Also, a correction. I have spoken to people who attended the Eurohistory conference last fall, and not one says that Penny Wilson disputed the authenticity of the bones, Annie. It's also a meaningless phrase at this point until the DNA results are released.

Simon
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: LisaDavidson on April 14, 2008, 04:35:19 PM
Dear Helen,

So you disassociate yourself from the idea that the "agenda" of the book was to promote the idea that Anna Anderson was Anastasia, as Annie seems to believe it was?

Also, a correction. I have spoken to people who attended the Eurohistory conference last fall, and not one says that Penny Wilson disputed the authenticity of the bones, Annie. It's also a meaningless phrase at this point until the DNA results are released.

Simon

And I can speak directly to two points that have been raised:

Eurohistory conference: Penny did not dispute the DNA findings and remained consistent with what I have said all along is the view of Kurth and others on the Imperial Family remains found in the 1990s. Which is, the remains belong to the IF, but they do not agree that AA was FS. I was in the room for Penny's entire presentation. Her talk, as Ilana and Larry can back me up, was about - since AA could not have been Anastasia and we think not Franziska, who was she? Penny presented several interesting ideas - but they were presented as ideas, nothing more.

This throws that whole Penny still thinks AA was Anastasia thing right out the window.

Claimant Book: Many of us think that a book about all the people who claimed to be the Imperial children would make for an interesting read. I am one of those people and yet I have never been anything close to a supporter of any of the claimants. I have researched about a half dozen or so claims. Greg and Penny also strongly considered doing such a book and I would have gladly given them my research had they decided to do such a book. But, they didn't. There was never an AA book planned.

So, this is also (to borrow your metaphor) beating a dead horse, Annie. I am sorry if you are spun about the fact that some people might find it interesting that many people claimed to be part of a family when they could not possibly be related - but the claimants are interesting to some of us - without becoming "AA supporters".

Just my two kopeks.

Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Helen_Azar on April 14, 2008, 04:38:12 PM
So you disassociate yourself from the idea that the "agenda" of the book was to promote the idea that Anna Anderson was Anastasia, as Annie seems to believe it was?

I challenge you to show me where I ever stated that the "agenda" of the book was to promote the idea that Anna Anderson was Anastasia. I don't really care about Anna Anderson, at least not the in the sense that you imagine. The only reason I got interested in AA case was because of the things that were being said about the scientific aspects of the case, particularly by Penny Wilson here on this forum. Wilson had argued very passionately here some years ago that AA was indeed Anastasia, even if she had to twist a few things along the way, but I don't think she believes this anymore, at least she won't admit to it publicly. So that's really a moot point to me, even if there are still suspicions.

What I have always said was that the agenda of the book seems to be is that they wanted to be the first to present "new" and "different" and "startling" information about the Romanovs, which no one else had in the past, even if they had to "fenagle" with facts and sources a bit... This is my opinion until someone convinces me otherwise - by answering some of these questions, and I have always said that I am perfectly willing to be convinced...

Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Louis_Charles on April 14, 2008, 04:43:39 PM
Dear Helen,

I asked if you disassociated yourself from the idea, not if you ever promoted it. For example, I disassociate myself from the idea of Marxist-Leninism, without ever having promoted it. Annie clearly believes that this was the agenda of Fate of the Romanovs.

Simon
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Helen_Azar on April 14, 2008, 04:58:15 PM
I asked if you disassociated yourself from the idea, not if you ever promoted it. For example, I disassociate myself from the idea of Marxist-Leninism, without ever having promoted it. Annie clearly believes that this was the agenda of Fate of the Romanovs.

What I have always said was that the agenda of the book seems to be is that they wanted to be the first to present "new" and "different" and "startling" information about the Romanovs, which no one else had in the past, even if they had to "fenagle" with facts and sources a bit... This is my opinion until someone convinces me otherwise - by answering some of these questions, and I have always said that I am perfectly willing to be convinced...


Why should I disassociate or not disassociate myself from anything that someone posts here? Annie can post whatever she wants, and I can post what I want. I never asked you if you disassociate yourself from any of AGRBear's ideas, or anyone else's, so why should you ask me to do that with Annie's ideas? That's a very strange question.

If you really want to know what I think about that, then I will tell you. I don't discount the possibility that part of the agenda of the book could have been to promote AA's claims - I certainly would not be surprised if it were knowing what I know about the authors' past beliefs - but that's not my concern here and I have never said that it was.
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Tsarfan on April 14, 2008, 05:05:41 PM
They even got "legitimate" scientists to back them up (such as Dr Alec Knight of Stanford U http://www.stanford.edu/group/mountainlab/people/alec_knight.html and Dr Nagai http://sciencelinks.jp/j-east/article/200011/000020001100A0252588.php) to do their own scientific work in order to show that the DNA results are not valid...

So my point is, books like FOTR, who make irresponsible statements about science, etc., don't help matters. Which is why I am still questioning this and still hope to get an answer.

Helen, it would seem to me that if forces such as the ROCA are supporting attacks on the DNA evidence and can assemble such credentialed scientists as you list to join in the attack, a book written several years ago that was something short of a blockbuster in the first instance and that is now settling into place as but one of a long stream of books on the last Romanovs is not numero uno on the list of threats to the order of things -- even in the claustrophobic little world of late Romanov buffs.

For my part, whether anyone survived the massacre or not has never seemed of any real historical consequence.  What does it really  matter whether Anastasia lay in a grave from 1918 or whether she wound up in Charlottesville, Virginia?  Romanovs, alive or dead, were a dead letter from 1917.

The challenge is not to try to argue down people who might believe in survival from the cellar.  The challenge is to come to terms with why the Russian monarchy ended a year earlier and to prevent a rewriting of the history that matters -- not the history that leaves teenage girls sighing over colorized photographs.

In the world of popular Russian historiography, of far greater consequence to me are major blockbusters such as Massie's Nicholas and Alexandra  that have fostered a sympathetic view of two monarchs who were utterly unsuited to their jobs, who ran a despotic autocracy laced with xenophobia, who believed and acted as if they were the voices of God on earth, who continued the conditioning of an entire people to believe that only the voices of leaders were legitimate parts of the political equation, and who persisted until their last days on the throne in paving the path that led from tsars to general secretaries to Putins.

It's the whole romanticization of things Romanov and the desperate desire to believe the monarchy operated as God's proxy solely for the good of the Russian people that keeps me awake . . . not whether Anastasia made it to a few parties on Long Island.
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Alixz on April 14, 2008, 05:14:58 PM
The Russian Orthodox Church was part of this "small group of die hard conspiracists", as well as some other groups of Russians abroad, as well as in Russia.

I take your point.

I tend, perhaps without warrant, to discount the views of such groups, though they may be relatively large in number.  These are, after all, the descendants both literally and figuratively of the people who once thought that through the mystical offices of the coronation ritual the tsar magically ascended beyond the human state to some elevated sphere of trans-mortal existence by which he became God's mouthpiece on earth.  The fact that they would also be just the types to resist the scientific method of inquiry causes me to dismiss them too lightly perhaps in the 21st century.

I think I would watch out what one says about "true believers" of anything religious.  Remember the Catholics raise a common man to be Pope and therefore "God's mouthpiece on Earth" and they also believe in the miracle of communion turning the communion wafer into the literal body of Christ.

Neither can be judged "insane" as Helen has said.



Oh believe me, I agree that ROCA et al are all insane, but many people don't discount their views, that's the point. When I was doing the research for the article, I learned how seriously people take them and others like them. They even got "legitimate" scientists to back them up (such as Dr Alec Knight of Stanford U http://www.stanford.edu/group/mountainlab/people/alec_knight.html and Dr Nagai http://sciencelinks.jp/j-east/article/200011/000020001100A0252588.php) to do their own scientific work in order to show that the DNA results are not valid... You would be surprised how many people get taken in by that...

So my point is, books like FOTR, who make irresponsible statements about science, etc., don't help matters. Which is why I am still questioning this and still hope to get an answer.

And people believe what they want to believe even in the face of undisputed fact.  That is they there are so many conspiracy theories.
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Helen_Azar on April 14, 2008, 05:23:49 PM
For my part, whether anyone survived the massacre or not has never seemed of any real historical consequence.  What does it really  matter whether Anastasia lay in a grave from 1918 or whether she wound up in Charlottesville, Virginia?  Romanovs, alive or dead, were a dead letter from 1917.

The challenge is not to try to argue down people who might believe in survival from the cellar.  The challenge is to come to terms with why the Russian monarchy ended a year earlier and to prevent a rewriting of the history that matters -- not the history that leaves teenage girls sighing over colorized photographs.

In the world of popular Russian historiography, of far greater consequence to me are major blockbusters such as Massie's Nicholas and Alexandra  that have fostered a sympathetic view of two monarchs who were utterly unsuited to their jobs, who ran a despotic autocracy laced with xenophobia, who believed and acted as if they were the voices of God on earth, who continued the conditioning of an entire people to believe that only the voices of leaders were legitimate parts of the political equation, and who persisted until their last days on the throne in paving the path that led from tsars to general secretaries to Putins.


And again, I feel the same as you about these things. These things are not important per se, but this is a discussion forum after all, and this is a thread about the book FOTR, so where else would we post these things but here? If we were discussing Massie's book then we could post things that we like or dislike about that book. but this thread is to discuss FOTR. And what I am challenging here is the misrepresentation of science and also of other things which I noticed in the book. Not even whether Anastasia survived or went to parties on LI, although that would be a valid discussion for an appropriate thread. Of course there are other issues in the world that are much more important than any of this, but that's not really the point. If we think this way, then we shouldn't be discussing anything at all other than those huge issues you mention.

Like I said earlier, what we are doing here is discussing the book and presenting critiques of what we think is wrong with it. And if these things were addressed a couple of years ago and not turned into some cloak and dagger operation, then all this would have been forgotten by now and none of this discussion would be taking place now... So again, let's not blow things out of proportion here.

I think I would watch out what one says about "true believers" of anything religious.  Remember the Catholics raise a common man to be Pope and therefore "God's mouthpiece on Earth" and they also believe in the miracle of communion turning the communion wafer into the literal body of Christ.

Sorry, it slipped ;-) And I'm not going to state anything else about any other "true believers", including Catholics...   :-X

And people believe what they want to believe even in the face of undisputed fact. 

Tell me about it!
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Tsarfan on April 14, 2008, 05:29:38 PM
I think I would watch out what one says about "true believers" of anything religious.  Remember the Catholics raise a common man to be Pope and therefore "God's mouthpiece on Earth" and they also believe in the miracle of communion turning the communion wafer into the literal body of Christ.

Neither can be judged "insane" as Helen has said.

Or both can be.

Since most religions spend so much time judging non-believers (not to mention each other), what's wrong with a little tit for tat when it comes to being judgmental?  These religions teach that I'm immoral.  I say they're insane.  Even-steven.  And no hard feelings.

But I don't mean to pick just on Catholicism or Orthodoxy.  The only religious doctrine I really get is the Rapture.  But then . . . I was one of those kids who always thought The Twilight Zone made sense.
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Louis_Charles on April 14, 2008, 05:50:43 PM
Quote
Since most religions spend so much time judging non-believers (not to mention each other), what's wrong with a little tit for tat when it comes to being judgmental?  These religions teach that I'm immoral.  I say they're insane.  Even-steven.  And no hard feelings.

Congratulations. Somewhere in there you have created a metaphor for this entire thread, Tsarfan. Truly.

Dominus vobiscum.
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Helen_Azar on April 14, 2008, 06:16:45 PM
Quote
Since most religions spend so much time judging non-believers (not to mention each other), what's wrong with a little tit for tat when it comes to being judgmental?  These religions teach that I'm immoral.  I say they're insane.  Even-steven.  And no hard feelings.
Somewhere in there you have created a metaphor for this entire thread ...

And wouldn't it be a hoot if we all ended up in the same hell...   ;)
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Louis_Charles on April 14, 2008, 07:00:18 PM
I don't know about the rest of you lot, but my actions are pure. Like my thoughts. And in my magical Catholic way, I'm shooting for Purgatory.

And Helen, if you were there it would be a little slice of heaven, even in hell.  ::grins:: Sorry, too much cake for dessert. I'm in sugar shock.
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Helen_Azar on April 14, 2008, 07:06:06 PM
And Helen, if you were there it would be a little slice of heaven, even in hell.  ::grins::

Yeah, I bet you say it to all the girls!
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Annie on April 14, 2008, 07:09:22 PM
And Helen, if you were there it would be a little slice of heaven, even in hell.  ::grins::

Yeah, I bet you say it to all the girls!


He wouldn't say it to me (not that I care!)

So now he's trying sugar instead of buttermilk to drag this thread off course and bury the questions deep!

I have one question not just for the authors but for all of you- WHAT possible purpose could there be for the way they tried to discredit the DNA tests if it wasn't because of AA? (To leave an opening for AA to still possibly be AN? Combine that with the claim on the back cover, and it walks and quacks like a duck!) I really don't see how the two issues can be separated. I've never seen anyone take a stab at denying the DNA unless it was related to AA (or Heino Tammet)
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Helen_Azar on April 14, 2008, 07:13:28 PM
WHAT possible purpose could there be for the way they tried to discredit the DNA tests if it wasn't because of AA?

That's a good point, although I don't particularly care WHY they did it as much as the fact that they did it. Which is also why I would like them to comment on the DNA issue and explain it, since we don't want to assume anything...
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Annie on April 14, 2008, 07:20:46 PM
May I assume you've had no word from Penny?
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Louis_Charles on April 14, 2008, 07:30:16 PM
And Helen, if you were there it would be a little slice of heaven, even in hell.  ::grins::

Yeah, I bet you say it to all the girls!


He wouldn't say it to me (not that I care!)

So now he's trying sugar instead of buttermilk to drag this thread off course and bury the questions deep!


I have one question not just for the authors but for all of you- WHAT possible purpose could there be for the way they tried to discredit the DNA tests if it wasn't because of AA? (To leave an opening for AA to still possibly be AN? Combine that with the claim on the back cover, and it walks and quacks like a duck!) I really don't see how the two issues can be separated. I've never seen anyone take a stab at denying the DNA unless it was related to AA (or Heino Tammet)

You know, Annie, you have the well-developed sense of humor of King Kong. And for the record, I am not trying to bury the questions "deep"; Helen has posted that she has e-mailed them to Greg and Penny, so unless I can wield my awesome powers to DESTROY HER E-MAILS, how on earth can I "bury them deep"?

Quote
He wouldn't say it to me (not that I care!)

Oh, you care. Admit it, Annie. The only torch that anyone around here is carrying is the one you hold for me.

You also seem to be confusing DNA tests, lamb-chop. Is the Anna Anderson DNA test even discussed in Fate of the Romanovs? Or are they talking about the identification of the bodies of the Tsar, Empress, three grand duchesses and assorted servants? Which they accept, oddly enough, thereby blowing the DNA conspiracy to hell.

Luckily for us, because we're in heaven.

Simon


Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Helen_Azar on April 14, 2008, 07:34:36 PM
May I assume you've had no word from Penny?

You may have missed my post about that earlier. I heard from Greg who told me that neither he or Penny have the Brian Sykes book handy and asked me if I could send him scans of the pages. I referred him to that nifty Amazon search feature too, so hopefully he will be able to respond again soon.
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Annie on April 14, 2008, 07:39:51 PM
Any discrediting of any DNA tests related to the Romanovs seems very leading to the claimant cause. What other reason would there be? If the 1991 bones weren't the family, then we're back to square one as far as what happened to them! So many 'shocking' 'new' stories can come from that! (not, of course)

One thing I never understood about FOTR is that they went into so much detail to show the gruesome end of the family, yet still seem to leave the door open that one or more may have survived. Which is it?
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Louis_Charles on April 14, 2008, 07:42:03 PM
Let me ask again:  if they accepted that the bodies in the Pig's Meadow grave were those of the Imperial Family, how did they "discredit" the DNA tests? Unless . . unless . . . they were trying to discredit themselves!!!!!!

Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Annie on April 14, 2008, 07:49:24 PM
Let me ask again:  if they accepted that the bodies in the Pig's Meadow grave were those of the Imperial Family, how did they "discredit" the DNA tests? Unless . . unless . . . they were trying to discredit themselves!!!!!!



Obviously, they question DNA testing  concerning the Romanovs, and are very wrong about it, as Helen has explained.

I do not carry a torch to you, I got tired of holding it while standing on all those shoulders and passed it to Penny!
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Louis_Charles on April 14, 2008, 07:53:49 PM
Not to me, for me.

So even though they accept the DNA results about the Imperial Family, they are discrediting the DNA results about the Imperial Family by accepting the DNA results about the Imperial Family.

Ummm . . .

But it's alright, Annie. I understand. Love has blinded your analytical abilities.

Simon
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: LisaDavidson on April 14, 2008, 08:40:30 PM
Any discrediting of any DNA tests related to the Romanovs seems very leading to the claimant cause. What other reason would there be? If the 1991 bones weren't the family, then we're back to square one as far as what happened to them! So many 'shocking' 'new' stories can come from that! (not, of course)

One thing I never understood about FOTR is that they went into so much detail to show the gruesome end of the family, yet still seem to leave the door open that one or more may have survived. Which is it?

And yet, Annie, everything I've ever discussed with these authors indicatse that they do believe the identification of the 1991 remains was correct, so it is entirely beside the point when discussing FOTR, which is the topic here. If there is no discrediting then there is no "leading to the claimant cause", right? The shocking new stories had to do with giving some credit to the Bolsheviks without discounting their testimonies just because they killed the family. Why do you persist, Annie, in arguing something the authors themselves don't argue?

As to your second paragraph, this is not an either or situation. If you re- read the book, you will find that they did believe the family was killed that night. As to why they thought one or more may have survived, that should be entirely obvious. The 1991 grave was missing two bodies. If you are trying to figure out what really happened and you didn't have all the evidence, could you not conclude this as a possibility? There is no conspiracy here, Annie, just two writers trying to examine the evidence that was out there.
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Annie on April 14, 2008, 09:21:30 PM


 Why do you persist, Annie, in arguing something the authors themselves don't argue?



The point is, they did at the time. If they have since changed their minds, then they need to say so.  Having argued it AT THE TIME the book was being written, and soon after it came out, makes all the difference in the world.

Quote
just two writers trying to examine the evidence that was out there.

The problem is some of it wasn't really 'out there' but seemed 'fenangled'.

I do not regret one thing I have said about any of this, or retract any of my stances. However I am rather sick of the unchecked abuse and personal insults(which are not even allowed against AGRBear at her most extreme, yet are approved of for me)  and will likely avoid this mess for awhile. I have to do my taxes anyway.
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Tsarfan on April 14, 2008, 09:27:21 PM
Any discrediting of any DNA tests related to the Romanovs seems very leading to the claimant cause. What other reason would there be?

Annie, I believe the Big Bang theory (at least in its current iteration) is not going to be the last word in cosmology, but that doesn't mean I believe God created the world in six days and am out to prove it.  Sometimes one can doubt something because of a suspected internal inconsistency in the argument without the necessity that the doubt lead to any particular alternative interpretation.  The logic by which you derive motive is somewhat flawed on general principle . . . to say the kindest thing I can about this kind of reasoning.

I do not know why King and Wilson said what they said about DNA testing.  If they harbored a dearly-held agenda to advance AA's claim by discrediting the DNA tests, it would seem they would pick a more sophisticated method of planting doubt than blatantly misquoting a well-known source that could readily be checked out (as Helen did with relatively little trouble).  If they were really out to discredit the DNA for the purpose of setting up the claim of Anna Anderson,  why would they have forgone the argument so often pressed into service that her DNA sample was switched.  This really seems more like an error of confusion regarding a highly-technical matter than a deliberate attempt to sell a pig as a cow.

And, as Lisa so cogently asked, why do you persist in arguing the authors said or believed things that they clearly did not?

Just today, we have seen you write they claimed the girls were raped on the Rus.  Yet you refuse to prove your assertion by pointing us to the place in the text where they wrote any such thing.  You wrote that Penny Wilson said something at a conference which actual attendees dispute she said.  In fact, it seems she took the exact opposite position of what you claim.

I think it's time we demand the same answers from you about your patent mis-statements that you persist in demanding from them.

Ante up, Annie . . . or hang it up.
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Annie on April 14, 2008, 09:36:24 PM

 If they were really out to discredit the DNA for the purpose of setting up the claim of Anna Anderson,  why would they have forgone the argument so often pressed into service that her DNA sample was switched. 

In fact, Greg did write a long paper once decrying the DNA (nothing to do with the book) and they wrote an article for Atlantis claiming 'startling new evidence' would prove the AA DNA tests were invalid.

Quote
why do you persist in arguing the authors said or believed things that they clearly did not?

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.talk.royalty/browse_thread/thread/42f3142b4e119083/859a008cd5357cf7?lnk=gst&q=atlantis+magazine+anna+anderson#859a008cd5357cf7

    
      
Greg King      
View profile
    More options Mar 6 2000, 4:00 am
Newsgroups: alt.talk.royalty
From: Greg King <madk...@seanet.com>
Date: 2000/03/06
Subject: Atlantis Magazine News
Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
We are happy to announce that Volume One, Number Four of Atlantis
Magazine: In the Courts of Memory, is in the final stage of production
and will be mailed to subscribers beginning 15 March.

in this, our first issue since our change of focus to Imperial Russia
and the Romanov Dynasty, we offer the following:

*The first of a multi-part series on the case of Anna Anderson,
including new evaluation of the DNA tests and recently discovered,
startling information which contradicts their findings, by Penny
Wilson and Greg King.


 *An article detailing new research and information on the life of
Polish Peasant Franziska Schanzkowska and the problems with
identifying her as Anna Anderson, by best-selling author Peter Kurth.

* "Anastasia and Dr. Manahan," the exclusive memoirs of Bernard
Ruffin, one of Anna Anderson's American friends.



These are the people who wrote FOTR. You expect me to believe they didn't question the DNA or the identification of AA as FS and I'll eat YOUR monitor! Naturally, when you hold these views, and write about them in your magazine, they will inevitably find their way into your book.
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Tsarfan on April 14, 2008, 09:42:07 PM
Just today, we have seen you write they claimed the girls were raped on the Rus.  Yet you refuse to prove your assertion by pointing us to the place in the text where they wrote any such thing.  You wrote that Penny Wilson said something at a conference which actual attendees dispute she said.  In fact, it seems she took the exact opposite position of what you claim.

I think it's time we demand the same answers from you about your patent mis-statements that you persist in demanding from them.

Come on, Annie.  You made some very specific assertions that have been challenged.  PROVE THEM OR ADMIT YOU WERE WRONG.  After all, that's no more than you've been demanding for months on end from Penny Wilson.  Surely you're willing to submit to the same standard, eh?
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Annie on April 14, 2008, 09:46:01 PM
Uh, I just did. Want more? Here's Greg's paper declaring the DNA tests on AA no longer valid:

I think you should all know that the DNA tests have lost 2/3 of their validity. Greg King:

Ten years later, Greg King (author of  The Last Empress: The Life and Times of Alexandra Feodorovna, Tsarina of Russia and co-author with Penny Wilson of The Fate of the Romanovs) adds for the record:  “One needn’t believe in conspiracies or ascribe incompetence to those who conducted the testing to have doubts about their continued validity.  Two distinct methods of DNA testing were used to show support for the hypotheses that Anastasia Manahan or Anna Anderson 1) Could not have been a child of Nicholas and Alexandra; 2) Did not match the mtDNA Hessian profile derived by Gill and used to match four of the female Ekaterinburg remains to the profile derived from HRH The Duke of Edinburgh; and 3) Matched the mtDNA profile of Karl Maucher, lending support to the hypothesis that she was Schanzkowska.

“Both nuclear and mitochondrial (mtDNA) testing was done.  Nuclear testing is preferred as it renders better results and is considered more accurate, while mtDNA is less discriminating.  Nuclear DNA tests showed that AA could not possibly have been a daughter of N and A, yet changes in the science make the 1994 verdict obsolete.  Gill used a 6-point Short Tandem Repeat (STR) analysis of the nuclear DNA to arrive at these results.  Within four years of these tests, 10 point STR testing was being done, and when results of 10 point STR testing were compared with 6 point STR tests, the 6 point analysis was shown conclusively to give both false positive and negative results-in other words, conclusions based on 6 point STR tests were proved faulty.  In 1999, the testing had gone from the 6 point STR tests of 1993-94 and the 10 point STR tests of 1998 to 12 point STR tests, the accuracy of which further undermined 6 point STR test results.  Gill admitted this in a statement released in 2000, adding that FSS had changed from the old 6 point STR method to the 10 point STR method in 1999.  In 2000, the STR tests were up to a 14 point system; in 2001, it was 16 points, and by 2002, the industry standard worldwide in STR testing was 20 point STR tests.  Scientific studies have repeatedly shown that 6 point STR tests are unreliable and result in false matches and exclusions.  The 6 point STR nuclear DNA tests that showed Anastasia Manahan could not have been a daughter of N and A, therefore, are now meaningless.

“The mtDNA match to the Maucher profile is also now known to be less reliable than everyone believed.  In 1994, mtDNA matches were believed to prove identity, and to be unique to related individuals.  Last year, an extensive UK study showed that out of a random 100 persons, four completely unrelated subjects shared exactly the same mtDNA profiles; extrapolate that here, on a board with 400 members: of the 400 of us posting here, 40 of us-unrelated to each other-would have identical mtDNA profiles, thus "proving" that we're related.  The odds of a random mtDNA match between the Manahan sample and the Maucher profile are indeed considerable given the size of the world’s population and the numbers involved.  I suspect, based on the continuing evolution of the science, that future studies will show mtDNA profiles to be even more common than this.

“My reservations about regarding the 1994 DNA tests as absolutely conclusive in the matter of Anastasia Manahan, therefore, rest on the advances of science.  Two of the three planks in the DNA case against her have now been shown to be either unreliable or less than compelling in a mere ten years.  Her exclusion from the Hessian mtDNA profile remains, and while the methods used to obtain the exclusion remain in practice, given the above changes I hesitate to presume that they, too, won’t be challenged as the science evolves; already in the last 2 years there have been two substantial challenges to the DNA testing done on the Ekaterinburg remains, and I suppose there will be more in the future that may or may not be valid.  This makes it theoretically possible -- given the facts above about the first two DNA planks in the case -- that ultimately in another generation none of the DNA identifications/exclusions in the Anderson case will matter-and the case will fall back to where it always rested before the DNA -- to examination of physical traits, memories, recognitions, etc.

“It seems to me, whether one wishes to believe in Anna Anderson or not (and I don't wish either way, incidentally), it’s best to keep an open mind and at least examine the facts as known now in the DNA case against Anastasia Manahan -- as three separate issues -- rather than repeatedly refer to ten year old tests that, taken as a whole, have lost two-thirds of their validity.”
King continues, on a “Romanov” chat-line (“The Alexander Palace Discussion Board” – http://hydrogen.pallasweb.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi):  “The DNA does not prove anything in this case.  It [did not] confirm the identities of Nicholas and Alexandra and the three children, but merely showed that Hessian and Romanov DNA was present in those remains.  Thus saying that `DNA proves this is Nicholas, Alexandra, etc.,' isn't really correct -- what it shows is support for the hypothesis that the remains were theirs, and were related to their families.  It does not show or confirm actual identity.  … Where DNA is concerned, it is important to stress not only that in this case it did not identify anyone, but also that the very tests conducted in 1992-94 are now so out of date they are no longer used.  For example -- using a 6 point STR DNA test, Anna Anderson was shown not to have been a child of Nicholas and Alexandra.  By 1999, 10 point STR testing had shown that 6 point tests were not only inaccurate but also gave false positive and negative results; they were replaced with 12, then 16, and now 20 point STR tests.  So the 6 point STR test which shows Anna Anderson wasn't a Romanov cannot be considered valid any longer, and is, indeed, subject to proved false results.  The same can be said of mtDNA testing as well -- methodology has vastly changed, and we now know that the same mtDNA patterns are shared by perhaps 18-20% of the population -- it is not the discriminating factor it was described as seven or eight years ago.  It is so inaccurate and so common that it is no longer used in court cases for identity and paternity tests -- they use nuclear DNA rather than mtDNA, which is subject to too many variables.



As for the 'rape on the Rus', there was a very long detailed thread here, I think it's now deleted, which I didn't even participate in until it was some 20 or so pages long. It's no wild theory of mine, and I wasn't even the one who originated it.
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Louis_Charles on April 14, 2008, 09:46:34 PM
But they didn't find their way into the book, as everyone has rather patiently pointed out. And the synopsis of the article in Atlantis that you present argues that Anderson may not have been Schanzkowska, not that she was Anastasia. Those are two separate arguments, and the Schanzkowska identification is at least open to argument.

In the meantime, doesn't the argument that they disputed the DNA findings in Fate of the Romanovs rather suffer from the fact that they accepted the DNA identification of the Imperial Family and their servants in Fate of the Romanovs? Even if they felt that the Grand Duchess in the grave was Maria rather than Anastasia, what of it? So did most foreign forensics experts that worked on the case.

Tsarfan is right. Surely the easiest way to prove that Anderson was Anastasia is to impeach the Martha Jefferson intestinal sample's provenance. Did I miss the part  where King and Wilson claimed that the sample had been switched? For that matter, did I miss the parts about Anna Anderson in Fate of the Romanovs?

Good luck with your taxes! Good Lord! Tomorrow is filing day!



Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Annie on April 14, 2008, 09:50:35 PM
But they didn't find their way into the book, as everyone has rather patiently pointed out. And the synopsis of the article in Atlantis that you present argues that Anderson may not have been Schanzkowska, not that she was Anastasia. Those are two separate arguments, and the Schanzkowska identification is at least open to argument.

Yet a few pages back, I proved with a post (emailed to me by someone else, btw) that proved Penny did admit to believing in AA.


Quote
For that matter, did I miss the parts about Anna Anderson in Fate of the Romanovs?

Not switched, just discredited. See above post.

You don't get it, I'm not saying this stuff is IN the book, I'm saying it INFLUENCED it and was part of the agenda.

Quote
Good luck with your taxes! Good Lord! Tomorrow is filing day!


Why thank you! I will be burning the midnight oil!




[/quote]
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Tsarfan on April 14, 2008, 09:51:45 PM
You're obfuscating, Annie, and even you can see it.

You said that FOTR argued that the girls were raped on the Rus.  JUST POINT US TO THE TEXT THAT ADVANCED THAT ARGUMENT.

You said that Penny Wilson spoke at the Eurohistory Conference and argued that Anna Anderson was Anastasia.  Actual attendees dispute that.  GIVE US YOUR SOURCES.

You made two very simple assertions.  You are now being asked to support them.

Do so.
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Louis_Charles on April 14, 2008, 09:55:04 PM
So we are supposed to accept that you can read Greg King and Penny Wilson's minds?

Are you kidding?

Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Annie on April 14, 2008, 10:29:40 PM
Maybe what I'm saying is, I want them to answer these questions, NOT YOU. Good night.
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Annie on April 14, 2008, 10:36:16 PM
The presumed Rape on the Rus and the misquote of Volkov's 'left in peace' statement;

This one has been discussed to death.

An analysis of the text of FOTR pg140-141 using the known evidence. (my additions in bold)
"'The women, as Buxhoeveden recalled, had been ordered "to leave our cabin doors open all night. No one undressed." [Through the open doors, the soldiers leered at the grand duchesses]this phrase added by the authors, there is NO factual evidence to support the statement, and it is asserted as FACT and not identified as speculation [refusing, as Volkov later learned, to "leave them in peace"]Completely false. Volkov stated the GDs WERE LEFT IN PEACE. The abuse reached a cresendo as the night wore on. exactly what abuse? again, abuse is stated as fact when there is no support in the evidence.   Gibbes, locked away in his cabin, listened helplessly, as he later told his son George, as the drunken guards harassesd the grand duchesses, "It was dreadful, what they did,"  the former tutor recalled.  The "terrifed screams" of the girls, Gibbes said, haunted him, "to the end of his life."When Gibbes was deposed by Sokolov within months of the event, HE SAID NOTHING about abuse or screams or anything else. This statement was made literally decades after the fact, and saliently in House of Special Purpose George Gibbes made NO MENTION of this event on the Rus. "Rodionov, who was in charge of the evil-looking detachment, insisted on padlocking Alexis and Nagorny into their cabin, even though it was made clear that the child might need a doctor. The girls, on the other hand, were forbidden to lock their cabin door." (HOSP, pp. 102-103) 
 
"Almost certainly, the Grand Duchesses were subjected to taunts, and perhaps lewd advances at the hands of the drunken Latvian guards, how this progressed as the evening wore on is impossible to determine." Saliently, there is no cited evidence to support this supposition at all, much less "almost certainly'. To the contrary, Buxhoeveden writes specifically that only the assigned guards came near them, the others stayed on their assigned part of the boat, see "Left Behind" - "The rest of the soldiers did not come near us and spent the day on their part of the deck, singing and playing the accordion.  Some had fine voices, and it carried us back to happier days,..."
 
"no matter what took place, it is difficult not to believe that the experience had a profound traumatic effect on the young women, particularily grand Duchess Olga. Once she arrived in Ekaterinburg, Olga was withdrawn, silent, and did not mix with her sisters, perhaps indicating that she suffered some significant trauma. "  Buxhoeveden says Olga N. was showing these syptoms in April, weeks BEFORE the voyage on the Rus: cf. Life & Tragedy..."Olga Nicholaevna was in a state of great anxiety. She longed to join her parents, for whose fate she trembled, and, on the other hand, she feared the move for her brother, both on account of his health and also for fear of what the move might lead to" at Ch. 31; or perhaps for myriad of other reasons including imprisonment itself under increasingly difficult circumstances. - cf: Gilliard Ch. 22 "The conditions of the imprisonment were much more severe than at Tobolsk. Avdiev was an inveterate drunkard, who gave rein to his coarse instincts, and, with the assistance of his subordinates, showed great ingenuity in daily inflicting fresh humiliations upon those in his charge. There was no alternative but to accept the privations, submit to the vexations, yield to the exactions and caprices of these low, vulgar scoundrels."
 
"The near veil of silence surrounding the events of that night, however, is not difficult to understand, given the exalted position of the Grand Duchesses; ... to present them as paragons of all moral virtue  or perhaps the "silence" is because NOTHING ACTUALLY HAPPENED so no one had anything to say. ie: the entire diary entry of Gilliard:
"Monday May 20th - At half-past eleven we left the house and went on board the Russ.  She is the boat which brought us with the Czar and Czarina eight months ago.  Baroness Buxhoeveden has been granted permission to rejoin us.  We left Tobolsk at five o'clock.  Commisar Rodionov has shut Alexei Nicholaievich in his cabin with Nagorny.  We protested: the child is ill and the doctor ought to have access to him at any time.
"Wednesday May 22nd - We reached Tiumen this morning."
or here is the ENTIRE discussion on the subject in the Sokolov investigation's report made AFTER interrogating all surviving passengers of the Rus(pg 146)
    "Here is how the journey of the imperial children went under the command of Rodionov:
     "From Gilliard's deposition: "Rodionov behaved very badly. He closed off from outside the cabin in which were found Alexei with Nagorny.  All of the other cabins, in particular those of the Grand Duchesses were not to be locked from inside, under his order."
     "The morning of May 22, the imperial children arrived in Tiumen."

 
"Those on board the ship were unable (being locked up) or unwilling (through fear of reprisal ...) again, suppostion without evidence, yet stated as fact...This may be the key to the events of that night: shame and humiliation at not being able to come to the defense of the helpless Grand Duchesses might well account for Gibbes' "worst memory.

I spoke to Penny personally on the phone about the Rus/Volkov question. She was adamant that she knew the original Volkov quote, and that it was an editorial error that was missed in a push to publishing deadline when an additional phrase or sentence was eliminated in betweent the two remaining phrases.
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: zackattack on April 14, 2008, 10:54:01 PM


And I can speak directly to two points that have been raised:

Eurohistory conference: Penny did not dispute the DNA findings and remained consistent with what I have said all along is the view of Kurth and others on the Imperial Family remains found in the 1990s. Which is, the remains belong to the IF, but they do not agree that AA was FS. I was in the room for Penny's entire presentation. Her talk, as Ilana and Larry can back me up, was about - since AA could not have been Anastasia and we think not Franziska, who was she? Penny presented several interesting ideas - but they were presented as ideas, nothing more.

This throws that whole Penny still thinks AA was Anastasia thing right out the window.


At this point, how is presenting the "possibility" that AA was some random Russian noblewoman who lost her fortune (and her accent!) in the chaos of the Russian Revolution really that different then arguing that she was Anastasia? the odds against the possibility of a random mtdna match are really quite incredible. But this has all been discussed to death in the "survivors" section.

Were these "ideas" presented with any evidence?
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: LisaDavidson on April 15, 2008, 12:03:09 AM


And I can speak directly to two points that have been raised:

Eurohistory conference: Penny did not dispute the DNA findings and remained consistent with what I have said all along is the view of Kurth and others on the Imperial Family remains found in the 1990s. Which is, the remains belong to the IF, but they do not agree that AA was FS. I was in the room for Penny's entire presentation. Her talk, as Ilana and Larry can back me up, was about - since AA could not have been Anastasia and we think not Franziska, who was she? Penny presented several interesting ideas - but they were presented as ideas, nothing more.

This throws that whole Penny still thinks AA was Anastasia thing right out the window.


At this point, how is presenting the "possibility" that AA was some random Russian noblewoman who lost her fortune (and her accent!) in the chaos of the Russian Revolution really that different then arguing that she was Anastasia? the odds against the possibility of a random mtdna match are really quite incredible. But this has all been discussed to death in the "survivors" section.

Were these "ideas" presented with any evidence?

Did you read my post? If you misunderstood what I wrote, I'll try again. Penny said there was no disagreement with the DNA findings except that no one who knew AA (for example Kurth) believed she was FS. Penny's premise was, since she was not ANR and was not FS, who was AA? My purpose in mentioning this talk was the poster said that Penny's talk meant something other than what she actually spoke about.

You have embellished what I said (or what Penny said for that matter) - no discussion of fortune, or accent. Penny looked for girls around the grand duchess' ages who disappeared during the revolution - and about whom have an unknown fate. Of these young women, a handful had a reasonable resemblance to AA.

I did not mention the talk to debate its merits with you or anyone else - I gather you either missed my point in mentioning it or ignored it.
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Tsarfan on April 15, 2008, 05:47:04 AM
Annie, your long repost of Rob's remarks of events on the Rus still does not answer the question you were asked to answer.  Rob clearly thinks nothing of any significance happened to the girls on the Rus, and he presents good reasons for his view.  But his remarks, unlike yours, address the actual text of FOTR, not a claim of rape.

These girls had led very sheltered lives, they were now separated from their parents, they were prisoners on a boat heading to an unknown fate, and they were surrounded by men unfamiliar to them.  In those circumstances, it could easily have taken something far short of rape to unsettle or even terrify them.

King and Wilson clearly thought the girls became very alarmed at things that were going on.  They may or may not have been correct.  But they NEVER said the girls were raped, nor did they refer to any reactions on the part of the girls or anyone else on the boat that required rape as an explanation for that reaction.

So you have yet to point out the text from FOTR which said the girls were raped or even made it "clear" that FOTR intended us to think they were raped.  FOTR said it was "almost certain" they were taunted.  They went on to say things might  have gone further.  But there are many steps between a taunt and a rape:  a general taunt about the person or loved one; a taunt with a threat added; a sexual taunt; a physical move toward someone; an attempt to touch or grab; a forced kiss; a grabbing of part of the body; ripping of clothing; an exposing of sexual organs (on either side); etc.

You are taking a very long leap by insisting that the text of FOTR was "clearly" meant to suggest a rape occurred.  I think this determination to find a rape where none is mentioned reveals much more about your psyche than about how the authors thought.

So . . . I'm still waiting for you to point out the text in FOTR that either refers to a rape or can only makes sense if a rape is being suggested.

And I'm still waiting for you to give us your source for the charge that Penny Wilson's speech at the Eurohistory Conference contained claims that Anna Anderson was Anastasia.

Right now, it appears you are inventing charges to lay at the door of someone you intensely dislike rather than disciplining yourself to stick to actual facts.  I'm sure you would like to help us dispel that impression.
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Janet Ashton on April 15, 2008, 08:05:22 AM
There's another issue with email vs. message board post. An IP can reveal your general location, but an email has detailed headers that can be traced a lot further into your privacy. For that reason I am personally always suspicious of anyone- and I do mean ANYONE, anywhere- who demands to be emailed instead of using a message board to communicate.  If the authors do not want to answer on the board, perhaps they can answer Helen in a PM, here on AP. I think they both still have active accounts. I say Helen because things are so bad between Penny and I that I feel ANY attempt to contact her would only be taken as negative and aggressive. If not, I'm here, I welcome a PM.  I don't even think it's necessary to contact them privately because they, or at least their tattletales and cronies, are always well aware of what is going on here. If they wanted to speak up, they would have done so by now.

Annie - Greg is not interested in this board, isn't interested in the Romanovs, has no intention of writing a book on "claimants" or any such topic, has written three whole books and co-authored another since FOTR, isn't even at home; and as I have pointed out here before, there are no circumstances in which I would speak to him about any internet bulls**t as it irritates and distracts. So if I - his intimate personal friend of several years, research associate, protegee, co-author of articles, putative co-author of books,

May I clarify this post written in anger, lest anyone accuse me of claiming anything else - a better phrase would have been "would-be co-author" since I mean we have dicussed in principle and think it would work.

Just so that's clear. I have not visited any later posts on this thread.
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Forum Admin on April 15, 2008, 09:09:54 AM
Clearly, people can, and do change their minds about things when new evidence appears, Annie.  Yes, years ago, Penny and Greg were of the opinion that the original DNA testing was "less reliable" because the new tests used more PCRs.  In the intervening years, they have come to understand the underlying science better than previously, and I believe now understand that the new tests, while more sensitive, in no way change the results of the first 6 point PCR tests (ie: the five AA mis-matches will still be there). 

Life happens.  My last phone conversation with Penny was not long after last years discovery of the two new bodies.  Penny's exact words to me were "I am pretty certain it will turn out that they have found the two missing children. Its them."  DOES THAT HELP clarify for you what Penny now believes??
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Annie on April 15, 2008, 09:32:39 AM
Clearly, people can, and do change their minds about things when new evidence appears, Annie.  Yes, years ago, Penny and Greg were of the opinion that the original DNA testing was "less reliable" because the new tests used more PCRs.  In the intervening years, they have come to understand the underlying science better than previously, and I believe now understand that the new tests, while more sensitive, in no way change the results of the first 6 point PCR tests (ie: the five AA mis-matches will still be there). 

Life happens.  My last phone conversation with Penny was not long after last years discovery of the two new bodies.  Penny's exact words to me were "I am pretty certain it will turn out that they have found the two missing children. Its them."  DOES THAT HELP clarify for you what Penny now believes??

As I have said MANY MANY TIMES in THIS VERY THREAD- I DO think they've changed their minds, but would like to have them admit it openly. (and have even said I suspect they may be 'embarrassed' by their former position- not embarrassed by the book as Simon claimed)  The point of this thread is questions about FOTR. From all I've seen and read, it seems to me that AT THE TIME THE BOOK WAS BEING WRITTEN AND SOON AFTER- they did openly appear to me AA supporters. There were (and I have posted all of these):

*the 'passing of the torch' in 2000 proving that Kurth was making them heirs to AA's story and legacy
*Penny's open admission on this forum in 2004 that she believed AA was most likely AN
*Greg's paper explaining why he believed the DNA tests involving AA were flawed and inaccurate (not switched)
*Penny and Greg's article in Atlantis claiming to discount the DNA tests, and deny her identification as FS
*the cover and flap of FOTR claiming to have 'new'  evidence to suggest AN might have survived
in addition to:
*many other posts here and elsewhere over the early 2000's- most deleted, but seen by many witnesses, where they argued in favor of these points and claimed to have more 'new' evidence that would help AA's case

My point, and my only point, is that AT THE TIME the book was written, they were heavily involved in the AA stuff and therefore it's not out of the question that the book was influenced by that agenda, especially as a lead-in to an upcoming claimant book.

I never claimed FOTR talked about AA. Of course not. What I suggested was that certain questionable parts of it all had at least loose ties to something directly involved with AA's story and case, and it's highly likely this was on purpose.

As for the seminiar speech, as Zack said, it's still denying the DNA results even if it's claiming she wasn't FS but some random mysterious anonymous Russian noblewoman. When the Eurohistory conference was first announced, I messaged Arturo and asked him why, since had always been a firm detractor of AA's story, was he allowing Penny's suggestion that the DNA tests may not be all they are supposed to be? He never said, oh no it's not like that, or that's not the topic of her speech, he only said that he was open to having all points of view presented at his conference EVEN IF THEY DISAGREED WITH HIM (so this led me to presume he did disagree with her position, and it was different from his, and we all know he accepts all DNA results) and that if someone on the 'other side'- such as SEARCH foundation- wanted to make a counterpoint speech they were most welcome to do so (and since SEARCH foundation also accepts the DNA results, this also sounds as if Penny's views were not the same as theirs, or why would they have to tell the other 'side?')

This has become pointless. The thread was put here so the authors could address the questions, yet they are not going to do so (at least not here) Their friends jump in and vehemently defend them, ignoring all negative points against them and grasping onto anything they can use to try to clear them. Nothing I post does any  good and never will. All we all can do here is to act as lawyers presenting our cases to a jury and let the public accept which side they believe. The writers are NEVER going to admit to anything, just as no criminal ever gets up on the witness stand and says "I did it" - that's what defense and prosecution attorneys are for (no I'm NOT comparing the writers to criminals, just this situation to a trial)

Okay, my personal opinion is that they DID used to be AA supporters (whether or not they actually believed in her or were only furthering her agenda as 'champions and defenders' of her legacy) and did indeed use at least parts of FOTR to help AA's case in an upcoming claimant book. However, now, there will be no claimant book, they've changed their minds or at least their opinions, and now they presumably want to forget the whole thing and sweep it under the rug as if it never happened to preserve their professional reps. However, it's not right to do this by framing up people questioning the work done AT THE TIME by attacking their sanity, intelligence, credibility or honesty. Those of us who suspected what was going on back then and argued with them over it deserve the vindication more than those who hid the truth. I'm sure you will all take this in your own way, but that's what I have been getting at the whole time.

It's useless to argue here, because no one who knows them will ever admit to any of this EVEN IF THEY SECRETLY KNOW IT TO BE TRUE and the mods are not going to stop Simon or Tsarfan from treating me any way they want, so basically I'm done. Everything I have to say is there in the posts somewhere.
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Louis_Charles on April 15, 2008, 09:47:09 AM
Annie,
I am sorry, how are we treating you any differently than the way you have treated King and Wilson? Tsarfan has demanded you produce sources for your allegations that King and Wilson said that the Grand Duchesses were raped on the Rus, and for your blatant misrepresentation of what Wilson said at the Eurohistory conference. Can't do it? Probably not. Won't do it? Then stop demanding that King and Wilson cater to your demands.

You persistently take swipes at other people and then get irate if they take swipes at you. Apparently you are a veteran of internet flame wars, and I suggest that you put on your big girl underoos and deal. Or stop taking swipes, looking for imaginary insults, and inserting yourself into conversations until you get attention. If you had confined yourself to the questions asked, or better yet stayed off the thread as you said you were going to umpteen posts ago, then you wouldn't find yourself in the position you now do --- utterly discredited as a responsible critic of the book.

Simon

Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Forum Admin on April 15, 2008, 09:54:16 AM
WHOA...JUST A MINUTE ANNIE.
and the mods are not going to stop Simon or Tsarfan from treating me any way they want, so basically I'm done.


Simon and Tsarfan aren't "treating you any way they want". They ASKED YOU SPECIFIC QUESTIONS. No less and no more than you have done of King and Wilson. You have not been abused or mistreated by them in the slightest. You have been given as good as you give out ourself.

as for "The thread was put here so the authors could address the questions, yet they are not going to do so", you haven't yet given them the chance.  Greg RESPONDED TO HELEN, and clearly indicated his intent to answer her question.

AT THE TIME the book was written, they were heavily involved in the AA stuff and therefore it's not out of the question that the book was influenced by that agenda, especially as a lead-in to an upcoming claimant book.  Guess what, Life Happens. That was THEN, this is NOW.  Lots of authors make mistakes.

Should we rake Bob Massie over the coals for mistakes in "Nicholas and Alexandra"? The book FOTR is yesterday's news. Even Penny and Greg admit it. They have moved on.  Greg doesn't even write about Russian History anymore (to the best of my understanding). 

Annie, I've permitted this to go on and on and on. Now, even I am of the opinion from what I see from you that all you really want is a pound of flesh from Penny and Greg for, G-d forbid, being wrong.

Guess what. You might not ever get that pound of flesh. They're human.  I myself have been personally  PUBLICLY slandered, libeled, and been accused  PUBLICLY by other people of things I never did or said.  Should I get a public apology from those people? Damn straight skippy.  WILL I get that apology? When pig's fly. So what? In the long run and big picture, what does it matter?

Should there be a discussion of things in this book or any other to set the historical record straight for people to learn that books can be 'wrong'? Damn straight skippy.

Should we expect authors to show up here and publicly crucify themselves with rending of garments and loud cries of "mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa"  for writing a book that contained blatant errors? It would be nice, in a perfect world.

Will that ever happen? When pig's fly.
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Tsarfan on April 15, 2008, 10:11:08 AM
but would like to have them admit it openly. (and have even said I suspect they may be 'embarrassed' by their former position- not embarrassed by the book as Simon claimed)

Annie, FOTR was written several years ago.  That's a lot of time for people to digest new evidence and to change their minds.  Moreover, FOTR never contained any claim -- indeed, not even a mention -- regarding Anna Anderson.  In any case, it seems extremely odd to demand that someone answer -- not for an opinion they hold today -- but for an opinion they once held. 

However, you wrote just in the past couple of days that FOTR suggested a rape on board the Rus and that Penny Wilson gave a speech at the Eurohistory Conference last summer in which she argued Anna Anderson was Anastasia.  That's not much time for you to have changed your mind.

So, since you want King and Wilson publicly to confess their supposed embarrassment over long ago taking positions they no longer hold, why don't you start by admitting your own embarrassment over claims you made just yesterday but cannot support today?

Of course, if you instead want to show us the proof of your claims, go right ahead.  I don't think you can or will . . . but since you are demanding and demanding and demanding and demanding it of others to the point of gruesome tiresomeness, why not do it yourself and spare yourself and us the same tiresomeness?  I can assure you that as long as you persist with the pointless vendetta against King and Wilson, you and every reader of this thread are going to be reminded that you yourself made claims that you are refusing to support or answer for.

It's tit for tat time, my dear.
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: AGRBear on April 15, 2008, 10:25:10 AM
... [ in part]....
So . . . I'm still waiting for you to point out the text in FOTR that either refers to a rape or can only makes sense if a rape is being suggested.

And I'm still waiting for you to give us your source for the charge that Penny Wilson's speech at the Eurohistory Conference contained claims that Anna Anderson was Anastasia.

Right now, it appears you are inventing charges to lay at the door of someone you intensely dislike rather than disciplining yourself to stick to actual facts.  I'm sure you would like to help us dispel that impression.


For the past several years I've asked these same questions over an over.  The reponse  has been  that I was told that I was distrupting the flow of the conversation or I  still believed in the world being flat  and there is a thread where little green teddy bears  on space ships  exist because of my persistence in certain subjects.   I'll be the first to admit I've taken us on some wild SPECULATIONS so with my own acceptance of this fact,  I  thought the green teddies and the ones sitting with FATE OF THE ROMANOVS. were cute.   So, Annie,  just accept the facts.  People change as new information is processed.  And,  we all hope you get a refund and don't have to write a check to Uncle Sam this year.

AGRBear
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Helen_Azar on April 15, 2008, 10:28:49 AM
Ok, we're going too much OT and this thread is in danger of becoming a three ring circus again (complete with dancing bears, etc). The whole point of this discussion is to see if we can get some comments/explanations directly from the authors of FOTR, not from anyone else, and no one really cares for Annie's explanations of what she posts since we're not discussing Annie's book, but FOTR. When Annie publishes a book, you can then demand she explain what she wrote (of course that doesn't mean she will have to ;-)) but until then let's drop all this nonsense and stick to the topic, please.

Update: I got an email from Greg King this morning where he says that he would like to speak to me on the phone before answering my questions. I just emailed back and told him that I would rather they just responded to my questions via email without making a bigger deal out of this than necessary (especially since some people already think that I am making a capital case of this). And also this way we will avoid any miscommunications/misunderstandings since it will all be in writing... So still waiting for the answers.

Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Louis_Charles on April 15, 2008, 10:38:58 AM
Quote
Ok, we're going too much OT and this thread is in danger of becoming a three ring circus again. The whole point of this discussion is to see if we can get some comments/explanations directly from the authors of FOTR, not from anyone else, and no one really cares for Annie's explanations of what she posts since we're not discussing Annie's book, but FOTR. When Annie publishes a book, you can then demand she explain what she wrote (of course that doesn't mean she will have to ;-)) but until then let's drop all this nonsense and stick to the topic, please.

On the contrary. I care about her explanations, and I will be happy to make it clear why I do. This is a thread that is visited by a lot of people, Helen. At one point yesterday there were seven registered users and fourteen guests on it. Annie made precise charges about King and Wilson's work, charges that have been refuted by (1) eyewitnesses and (2) textual examination of the book. If these are not corrected, how will people know that her charges were false?

It seems to me that this is exactly what you are trying to do with your questions to Greg King and Penny Wilson, no?

By the way, I hope the fact that Greg answered you put an end to the idea that I am a mouthpiece for King and Wilson? I am flabbergasted that he has. Yet more proof that if there is a Simon/King and Wilson conspiracy, we're just terrible at it.

Simon


Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Helen_Azar on April 15, 2008, 10:45:36 AM
On the contrary. I care about her explanations, and I will be happy to make it clear why I do. This is a thread that is visited by a lot of people, Helen.

Then start another thread and call it something like "Questions for Annie about her accusations of FOTR authors". Let's stick to the rules on this one, otherwise as I already mentioned, this willl become a circus again (now that the bears are here too). 

By the way, I hope the fact that Greg answered you put an end to the idea that I am a mouthpiece for King and Wilson?

I never said you were King's mouthpiece ;-) I emailed Wilson, but got an answer from King :-).


Topic, please. 
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Tsarfan on April 15, 2008, 10:48:59 AM
When Annie publishes a book, you can then demand she explain what she wrote . . . .

I do not understand why it is reasonable to demand that an author of a book explain on an internet forum what he or she published but unreasonable to demand that an author of a post explain on the same thread what she wrote.  In fact, it would seem the best way to counter an author of a book is to write a book of one's own . . . just as the logical manner and place of challenging a post is on the thread in which the challenged claim was made.


(of course that doesn't mean she will have to ;-))

Just as it doesn't mean that King and Wilson have to explain themselves . . . although it is demanded of them incessantly.


llet's drop all this nonsense and stick to the topic, please.

What is nonsensical about asking a poster to support a questionable assertion they have made?  And, Helen . . . in reading your posts, the topic of this thread seems to be every bit as much about why  these authors should answer challenges to their positions as about the substance of the book itself.  Wasn't that, indeed, your whole point yesterday in explaining on this thread why you thought it was important that King and Wilson recant their characterization in FOTR of the DNA evidence?

So asking Annie to defend her claims is hardly off topic, as you yourself have implicitly defined the topic.

And I remain resolved.  Annie is going to get hit by the demands that she explain her questionable assertions every time she demands that someone else do so.
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Forum Admin on April 15, 2008, 10:57:02 AM
Annie's assertions are about what is content of FOTR.  Therefor, I rule that it shall be permissible for her assertions about the content of FOTR to be questioned, so long as the questions pertain to the content itself as such is the thread here.
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Annie on April 15, 2008, 11:12:36 AM

And I remain resolved.  Annie is going to get hit by the demands that she explain her questionable assertions every time she demands that someone else do so.

Which is exactly the ploy of you and Simon to detract attention from the issue here, your buddies and their book- which is why I will no longer participate. If Wilson and King don't have to answer in writing for the whole world to see, why should anyone else?

PS I also never said Simon was KING'S mouthpiece.
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Tsarfan on April 15, 2008, 11:24:10 AM
Well, for starters, you'll certainly be back.  You've already said goodbye forever twice since yesterday morning . . . yet here you are again.

Now that you're here again, Annie . . . how about answering the two questions:

What text in FOTR forms the basis for your claim that King and Wilson said or were suggesting a rape occurred on board the Rus?

What was your source for the allegation that Penny Wilson gave a speech last summer in which she argued that Anna Anderson was Anastasia?


As far as I'm aware, King and Wilson have not been on this thread.  Therefore, they appear not to be here to answer questions.  You, however, are here . . . and here  is precisely where you made these two claims.

It seems rather childish to say you will not answer a question about something you said right here because someone else -- who is not here -- won't answer one first.

I'm sorry, but it really does leave the impression that you were lying to try to build a case and now don't want to be held to account.
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Tsarfan on April 15, 2008, 11:46:21 AM
Update: I got an email from Greg King this morning where he says that he would like to speak to me on the phone before answering my questions. I just emailed back and told him that I would rather they just responded to my questions via email without making a bigger deal out of this than necessary (especially since some people already think that I am making a capital case of this). And also this way we will avoid any miscommunications/misunderstandings since it will all be in writing... So still waiting for the answers.

I find this rather odd.  You have long sought a response from King or Wilson.  You now have gotten a response, and King has made a simple request to talk with you.  You say you want to communicate with him only in writing in order to keep from making this a big deal.

In the business world, an insistence that a communication occur only in writing is inevitably taken to mean the gravitas  of the situation is escalating, not declining.

This strikes me rather like one country taunting another to come to the negotiating table and, once they agree, then starting an argument about the shape of the table, the temperature of the room, who walks in first, what food is served . . . .

Why not just have a conversation with the man and report back to us your take on it?  It almost seems as if you're more interested in controlling the situation than in starting a dialogue that might finally resolve the issues that have been raised endlessly on this forum.

Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Louis_Charles on April 15, 2008, 11:52:33 AM

And I remain resolved.  Annie is going to get hit by the demands that she explain her questionable assertions every time she demands that someone else do so.

Which is exactly the ploy of you and Simon to detract attention from the issue here, your buddies and their book- which is why I will no longer participate. If Wilson and King don't have to answer in writing for the whole world to see, why should anyone else?

PS I also never said Simon was KING'S mouthpiece.

Ah, so you just meant to insult Penny. Nice. It becomes increasingly difficult to understand why you people present yourselves as the wronged parties in this dispute.

Annie, you really need to stop with the whole "ploy" nonsense, or at least grow a melodramatic mustache to figuratively twirl when you spout it. We're all big kids here, and can operate on our own. Furthermore, please notice that I am not reposting Tsarfan's questions. It's actually because I am satisfied you cannot answer them, not will not.

Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Tsarfan on April 15, 2008, 12:02:18 PM
Simon, you're now tilting with windmills.  Annie tells us she has abandoned this thread.
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Louis_Charles on April 15, 2008, 12:03:08 PM
I'm quixotic.
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Annie on April 15, 2008, 12:16:45 PM


It seems rather childish to say you will not answer a question about something you said right here because someone else -- who is not here -- won't answer one first.



Actually, it's a very mature, intelligent and diplomatic move. The very worst thing I could do to you is to shut up, and that's why I'm doing it.

I have said everything I intend to say, take it or leave it. My messages are there for all to read, I have presented my case and stand behind it. Let others be the judge. I realize you are both upset, because belittling me in order to discredit my position is your goal, along with drawing attention away from the charges here against someone else, and I will no longer allow you to do that.

Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Helen_Azar on April 15, 2008, 12:18:40 PM
I do not understand why it is reasonable to demand that an author of a book explain on an internet forum what he or she published but unreasonable to demand that an author of a post explain on the same thread what she wrote.  In fact, it would seem the best way to counter an author of a book is to write a book of one's own . . . just as the logical manner and place of challenging a post is on the thread in which the challenged claim was made.

You can demand away, just start another thread for it (see my previous post for subject suggestion), otherwise this one will become a mess again as it has in the past.

Just as it doesn't mean that King and Wilson have to explain themselves . . . although it is demanded of them incessantly.

They certainly don't have to answer.


 
And, Helen . . . in reading your posts, the topic of this thread seems to be every bit as much about why  these authors should answer challenges to their positions as about the substance of the book itself.  Wasn't that, indeed, your whole point yesterday in explaining on this thread why you thought it was important that King and Wilson recant their characterization in FOTR of the DNA evidence?

Yes, it is about that in addition to the challenges about the book. And I already explained why it came down to this, which is why I want them to comment about this too. Not demand, would like them to comment...

I find this rather odd.  You have long sought a response from King or Wilson.  You now have gotten a response, and King has made a simple request to talk with you.  You say you want to communicate with him only in writing...  In the business world, an insistence that a communication occur only in writing is inevitably taken to mean the gravitas  of the situation is escalating, not declining.

I find it odd that you find this odd. I have no interest in communicating with either Greg King or Penny Wilson by telephone (why should I?), particularly since I don't see any reason why some simple questions cannot be answered or commented on by email. That way I can relay the response and there will not be any accusations of me twisting anything around as can happen from a regular conversation ("he said, she said" type of stuff with has happened in the past).

I contacted the authors as I was asked/advised to, and so far I've had two email communications from Greg King, neither one of which really commented on my questions. Yes, I got a response but it was not the response I was waiting for. I don't see why answering the questions in writing would escalate the situation, it will be a response, why do we have to speak on the telephone exactly? King (or Wilson for that matter) had no problems communicating with me on many many occasions via email in the past, why is there a need to speak to me on the phone now? This is not the business world but just a discussion forum.
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Louis_Charles on April 15, 2008, 12:20:48 PM
Quote
I have said everything I intend to say, take it or leave it.

Leave it, thanks. And our posts are here as well, so that's all right. And for the record? We're belittling your position, such as it is. And that isn't much.

Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Puppylove on April 15, 2008, 12:26:38 PM

AT THE TIME the book was written, they were heavily involved in the AA stuff and therefore it's not out of the question that the book was influenced by that agenda, especially as a lead-in to an upcoming claimant book.  Guess what, Life Happens. That was THEN, this is NOW.  Lots of authors make mistakes.


I won't presume to speak for Annie, who clearly feels passionately about this issue; I am just happy to imagine the above quote coming from King and Wilson rather than FA, and, for myself, call it a day. Is there really anything less important in this world than the sorry claimant AA? I thank God all the children have been or will shortly be accounted for; I'm glad there is no longer a reason, if there ever was, to "champion," in a book, online or wherever, this silly little claimant.

I would, however, like to know why the authors (at least Wilson, per Lisa's earlier post) or anyone would accept the DNA results re AA/AN, but not re AA/FS. Helen, can you explain to me how that would make sense scientifically?

Thanks, Jenn
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Helen_Azar on April 15, 2008, 12:35:43 PM
I would, however, like to know why the authors (at least Wilson, per Lisa's earlier post) or anyone would accept the DNA results re AA/AN, but not re AA/FS. Helen, can you explain to me how that would make sense scientifically?

It really doesn't. Semantically they argue that mtDNA does not prove identity, which is literally true, but mtDNA is constantly used to figure out identity in the legal/criminal cases, and statistically and technically it does "prove" someone's identity. They still don't want to accept this for reasons of their own, which is fine - it's their personal business, but presenting misleading information about science in order to prove your case is not acceptable in my book, which is what has been done in the past. It may be just due to ignorance about science, and they may sincerely believe what they say, or it could be deliberate deception, I don't know which, but fact is it's not acceptable and should be challenged without then being accused of trying to "sabotage" or being called a "liar". 
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Tsarfan on April 15, 2008, 01:27:18 PM
The very worst thing I could do to you is to shut up, and that's why I'm doing it.

I have no worries, as you are constitutionally incapable of shutting up.  In fact, you put up this very post less than 25 minutes after saying yet again that you were abandoning this thread . . . something you have promised to do several times in the past couple of days.


I have said everything I intend to say, take it or leave it. My messages are there for all to read, I have presented my case and stand behind it.

For those to whom English is not an insurmountable challenge, a "case" means a thesis supported by evidence.  What you put forward were two narrow points:  that FOTR said or implied a rape on the Rus, and that Penny Wilson gave a speech last summer in which she argued that Anna Anderson was Anastasia.  You have refused, however, to put forward the supporting evidence.  Moreover, you have refused to counter the evidence others have presented that you are flat wrong on both these assertions.

Now, if you're suggesting that these two points were the evidence supporting the larger "case" that Wilson had an agenda in writing the book, you have yet to show your "evidence" is anything more than insupportable personal assertions.

So, besides making those two assertions you cannot support, you are now adding a third groundless assertion that you have somehow built a "case".

Alas, now that you have "said everything you intended to say", I guess we'll not be hearing back from you to explain this, huh?
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Helen_Azar on April 15, 2008, 01:39:27 PM
What you put forward was two narrow points:  that FOTR said or implied a rape on the Rus ...  Now, if you're suggesting that these two points were the evidence supporting the larger "case" that Wilson had an agenda in writing the book, you have yet to show your "evidence" is anything more than insupportable personal assertions.

I think what Annie has is a hypothesis, not a "case". She presented some circumstantial evidence of why she thinks the way she does, which some will accept as supporting her hypothesis, others will not. Some evidence Annie presented suggests that Wilson had an agenda in writing this book, but of course it cannot be proven unless she specifically admits it (which of course will never happen). So that's that, there is no more reason to discuss it. 

What I would like is to hear answers or comments by one of the authors (via email) to my questions about their treatment of Romanov DNA results in their book FOTR. And also why on numerous occasions they used sources which say the complete opposite of what they assert these sources state. Including the Rus incident   :-). Is that too much to ask?

P.S. Annie is not the only one who thought that the Rus incident as described in FOTR suggested that the GDsess may have been raped. Someone even started a thread about this back when (I think it was deleted when all the drama about FOTR started). Annie was not the one who started the thread as far as I can remember, but from what I can remember, there was a lot of back and forth discussion about the implications of that chapter (possible rape). I didn't care one way or another, I cared more about why the information from the source was changed...
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Tsarfan on April 15, 2008, 01:51:30 PM
Helen, I'm a bit surprised by your viewpoint.

An author was accused on this board of taking a position in a speech at a history conference that she, in fact, never took.  Most people would view spreading such a lie about someone as very serious, indeed.

Claiming someone advanced arguments in a speech that they never, in fact, advanced is not a "hypothesis".  And it's not "circumstantial evidence."  It's an outright lie, plain and simple.

What if someone alleged that you made a speech last year in which you argued that Anna Anderson was, in fact, Anastasia?  My guess is you'd have a very hard time viewing it as a "hypothesis" or "circumstantial evidence". 

Annie might get confused on such a very simple point, but I find it hard to believe you would.
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Helen_Azar on April 15, 2008, 01:57:15 PM
An author was accused on this board of taking a position in a speech at a history conference that she, in fact, never took.  Most people would view spreading such a lie about someone as very serious, indeed.

Claiming someone advanced arguments in a speech that they never, in fact, advanced is not a "hypothesis".  And it's not "circumstantial evidence."  It's an outright lie, plain and simple.


I wasn't referring to the talk, actually when I said she had a "hypothesis", I was referring to other stuff Annie presented. I should have made that more clear, sorry. I already know that Wilson didn't claim that Anna Anderson was Anastasia at her talk.
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Tsarfan on April 15, 2008, 02:00:49 PM
Some evidence Annie presented suggests that Wilson had an agenda in writing this book . . .

If the evidence is an outright fabrication, it cannot reliably suggest anything . . . .
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Helen_Azar on April 15, 2008, 02:13:33 PM
If the evidence is an outright fabrication, it cannot reliably suggest anything . . . .


As I already said, I wasn't talking about her comments on Wilson's talk, that wasn't even in my mind. I was referring to other things Annie as well as FA posted which certainly suggest that this may be the case. Also see back a couple of posts, I added something about the Rus incident in the P.S.

Can we talk about my questions now?
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Helen_Azar on April 15, 2008, 02:19:03 PM
Clearly, people can, and do change their minds about things when new evidence appears, Annie.  Yes, years ago, Penny and Greg were of the opinion that the original DNA testing was "less reliable" because the new tests used more PCRs.  In the intervening years, they have come to understand the underlying science better than previously, and I believe now understand that the new tests, while more sensitive, in no way change the results of the first 6 point PCR tests (ie: the five AA mis-matches will still be there). 

Life happens.  My last phone conversation with Penny was not long after last years discovery of the two new bodies.  Penny's exact words to me were "I am pretty certain it will turn out that they have found the two missing children. Its them."  DOES THAT HELP clarify for you what Penny now believes??

I just noticed this post (somehow I missed it before). Well, this is certainly good news, I hope this means that there will be no more misleading statements about DNA science. If this is how they feel, then that's what they should put in their answer to my question and I would happily accept that, as I am sure others would too. But I would kind of like for this to come directly from "the horse's mouth", as they say. And I would still kind of like an apology for being called a liar publicly and for being accused of trying to sabotage their work. But I won't hold my breath for that one ;-).

But I think Annie's hypothesis has nothing to do with the above, she argues that FOTR may have started out with the agenda to "prove" that Anderson was Anastasia, or at least may have been Anastasia, which is why some of the information in the book seems a bit skewed toward a certain perspective, and possibly this could also be the reason for fenagling with the sources (correct me if I'm wrong Annie)... And she presented some circumstantial evidence (NOT the PW talk) to this effect. So regardless of whether the authors later changed their minds or not, it is still a possibility that the original agenda of the book was to promote the AA claim. Which of course cannot be proven at this point, short of a "confession" which of course will never happen. So really, this is a kind of a fruitless discussion...
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Louis_Charles on April 15, 2008, 02:48:30 PM
Dear Helen,

In fact, Annie has presented no circumstantial evidence at all, unless you consider her imagination to be evidence. Do you, since you function as her mouthpiece?

And Helen, you have tried to publicly sabotage their work, so I wouldn't hold my breath on that apology, either. And given the welter of lies that Annie has published today, to say nothing of the shots you have taken over the years, it would probably be a good idea to settle for a draw.

Cheers,

Simon
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Helen_Azar on April 15, 2008, 03:09:53 PM
In fact, Annie has presented no circumstantial evidence at all, unless you consider her imagination to be evidence.

Well, in fact she did present circumstantial  evidence that was not just her "imagination". Let me give you a couple of specific examples (and mind you, I am not accusing anyone just presenting).

Example 1: Changing the information from the source in the Rus paragraph to make it sound like the girls were harassed and leaving an opening for possibility of more than harassment - and others beside Annie saw it as the implication of possible rape (they were careful not to say it outright of course), hence the very long thread about it... And this of course possibly to support Anderson's claims because she was at one point pregnant and had a child (hey, the timing sure works with Rus). 

Example 2: "Fenagling" with the Sykes source to make it sound like there was a possibility that the DNA results of the Romanov  remains may not be valid, hence possibly leave a window open for the Anna Anderson/Anastasia thing (since her DNA was compared to the DNA of the remains... well, you get the picture).

Example 3: Combine the above with the fact that both authors were very strong AA supporters at the time the book was written and some years after that, and that they are good friends with Peter Kurth who is an avid AA supporter still (who does not believe the DNA evidence) and who self admittedly "passed the Anna Anderson torch" to Greg and Penny (of course we have no evidence that they accepted "the torch", other than their passionate arguments in favor of AA right here on this forum a few years ago), and voila! an even stronger circumstantial evidence.

So I wouldn't say all this is strictly in anyone's imagination, otherwise how would you explain the fact that the authors seem to have gone out of their way to change the information to the opposite of what the sources really say, which just happens to possibly favor the AA claim? Again, I'm not accusing anyone, just presenting circumstantial evidence...

And Helen, you have tried to publicly sabotage their work


You mean because I "lied" about them? Well, it turned out that I didn't lie, didn't it? So if telling the truth means "sabotaging" someone's work, then yes, I guess I did. ;-). I guess I also sabotaged Phillipa Gregory's work as well as Lovell's (luckily he is no longer with us so it doesn't really matter) and probably Radzinsky's too. Oh well.

Cheers,

Helen
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Forum Admin on April 15, 2008, 04:23:24 PM
In fact, Annie has presented no circumstantial evidence at all, unless you consider her imagination to be evidence.

Well, in fact she did present circumstantial  evidence that was not just her "imagination". Let me give you a couple of specific examples (and mind you, I am not accusing anyone just presenting).

Example 1: Changing the information from the source in the Rus paragraph to make it sound like the girls were harassed and leaving an opening for possibility of more than harassment - and others beside Annie saw it as the implication of possible rape (they were careful not to say it outright of course), hence the very long thread about it... And this of course possibly to support Anderson's claims because she was at one point pregnant and had a child (hey, the timing sure works with Rus). 

Example 2: "Fenagling" with the Sykes source to make it sound like there was a possibility that the DNA results of the Romanov  remains may not be valid, hence possibly leave a window open for the Anna Anderson/Anastasia thing (since her DNA was compared to the DNA of the remains... well, you get the picture).

Example 3: Combine the above with the fact that both authors were very strong AA supporters at the time the book was written and some years after that, and that they are good friends with Peter Kurth who is an avid AA supporter still (who does not believe the DNA evidence) and who self admittedly "passed the Anna Anderson torch" to Greg and Penny (of course we have no evidence that they accepted "the torch", other than their passionate arguments in favor of AA right here on this forum a few years ago), and voila! an even stronger circumstantial evidence.

So I wouldn't say all this is strictly in anyone's imagination, otherwise how would you explain the fact that the authors seem to have gone out of their way to change the information to the opposite of what the sources really say, which just happens to possibly favor the AA claim? Again, I'm not accusing anyone, just presenting circumstantial evidence...


Helen,

Let us "suppose" that Annie was correct and FOTR was written to forward an "agenda" about the AA controversy and the DNA evidence. Now, I'm NOT saying there was such an agenda. Just saying, "what if there really had been one?"  Within a month or two at the outside, the entire discussion will have been rendered wholly and utterly moot.  Even Penny now admits that the remains of the missing children have most likely been found, and Dr. Soloviev's findings will probably confirm it.

So, if there 'was' an agenda, SO WHAT? Who cares anymore?? They were wrong, if they indeed HAD such an agenda to favor the AA claim and they got "lucky" that events unfolded before they wrote the "follow up claimant book" before they REALLY got egg on their faces, Right?

I mean, honestly, at least you have legitimate questions, and seem likely to have them answered by one of the authors. (and frankly does it matter a whit whether its Penny or Greg??)  Isn't that the crux of the matter?

Annie simply seems to be hell bent on getting her pound of flesh and a public apology from  Penny. Well, thats probably not going to happen, and so what if it doesn't?

I just don't see WHY Annie is so doggedly pursuing this.  There seems no genuine point.
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Louis_Charles on April 15, 2008, 04:30:11 PM
Helen,

1) As Tsarfan pointed out, perhaps some imaginations are more fertile than others. There is indeed evidence that the girls were harassed that night. The fact that you do not accept it does not change the fact that it exists.I assume that the "others" who saw the "possible implications" were you and . . . well, let's just say you and another person who cannot be described as unbiased in the matter. Since there is no mention of Anna Amderson in the book, it is quite a stretch to jump to laying the grounwork of her putative December 5 birthing process. In fact, I participated on the thread in question (disputing it) and I do not remember Penny or Greg making any remarks on it in support of Anna Anderson. Peter Kurth has dismissed the idea that Anderson claimed to have given birth in December, 1918 as an invention made by others in the 1920s. Insofar as I am aware, he believes that she was impregnated by one of the guards who figure in Anderson's rescue story. Which is, you know, not in the book.

2) As several people are aware, the discrepancy with the Sykes material was addressed on King and Wilson, which you claim to have never visited. If Greg wants to go through it again to make you happy, I hope it works.

3) Neither author was a "very strong AA supporter", and you are characterizing them as such to support what you call Annie's hypothesis (I would call it her fantasy, but never mind). They allowed for the possibility of Anastasia's survival and carefully refrained from speculating in Fate of the Romanovs that she morphed into Anderson. This is particularly offensive as a charge, since you give the misleading impression that they discussed her in the book by harping on this on a thread devoted to the book. Or do you intend to pursue them throughout their personal lives, challenging things they say in ordinary conversation? They are indeed friendly with Peter Kurth. I am as well. Tsarfan and he have had epic battles. Is your point that Peter is so radioactive that mere friendship is sufficient to affect our abilities to think for ourselves? And you know perfectly well that Annie's "smoking gun" about the "torch" is hilarious. I know you can't admit it, but trust me, you will never convince me that yiou think it bolsters anything at all.

In fact, this thread has been most interesting. It has clearly demonstrated that you are obsessed with them, which is either kind of endearing or kind of really creepy.

And yes, you have tried to publicly sabotage their work. By lying about them. I have no idea if you have lied about Phillipa Gregory ---- I don't read Philippa, so I don't really care --- but what did you do to Lovell and Radzinsky? My goodness, you do get around! Or it that a topic for another thread?

Cheers,

Simon
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: LisaDavidson on April 15, 2008, 04:40:13 PM
Wow. It appears to me that you have crossed some lines here, Annie, and that concerns me.

King and Wilson are historians.  It appears that you may not grasp the difference between intellectual curiosity and espousing a cause, but they are two entirely different things. Did King and Wilson ever believe AA was ANR? Perhaps, but that does not make them "Anna Anderson supporters". Your "evidence" for this alleged espousal of the AA cause? Kurth's remark about passing the torch? It has already been explained to you several times that this was not the case. The fact is, as historians, they can and should consider all possibilities, and I believe they did. When espousing a cause - as many associated with claimants do - one must overlook facts to sustain said cause. Yet, I have seen no evidence that either Wilson or King has done this - just the opposite in fact. I believe you find fault with their book because they did not overlook possible scenarios for the missing children. However, this intellectual curiousity, this desire to find out what happened, has nothing whatsoever to do with being "Anna Anderson supporters".

Can you cite examples for us which lead you to conclude that the writers had an agenda and that therefore because I was thinking about writing a claimant book - and at one time, so we they - that somehow what they wrote was incorrect? Again, I think you have mistaken intellectual curiousity for something else. That would be okay up to a point, but where I think you have crossed the line is to ascribe a specific intent to this alleged agenda. You really have no way of knowing what was in their minds, and indeed, that is certainly no one else's business.

I also find your challenging Arturo's conference agenda and selection of speakers to be highly inappropriate. He is entitled to have whatever speakers he wishes, and why you think it's okay to grill him about this is, frankly, pretty creepy to me. There was no denial of DNA results (another confusion) by Wilson in the talk. It was an examination of who AA might have been.

Also inappropriate is your insistance that the writers "admit" that they have changed their minds. Annie, they don't participate in this Forum! How are they going to do this in a way that will satisfy you? Obviously, they have changed their minds many times. So have I. So has Bob, so has Rob, so have many of us. Quite frankly, I find people who will not admit they were in error even when shown they are mistaken to be a little scary. Et tu Annie? Your demand for vindication also seems to be beyond the pale. You appear to feel persecuted about this, and your insistance that anyone who challenges your mistaken charges is nothing more than "a friend of King and Wilson" makes you no less mistaken.

But, when you allege that (in caps no less) those who know the authors would withhold vital information from you about this - that they would secretly know something yet not reveal it - is nothing but plain silliness. I don't believe Tsarfan has ever met either writer and Simon is at best an aquaintance of one of them (as he can vouch) - but they have raised some cogent arguments. I don't blame you for being frustrated and clearly you have time on your hands - but if you want someone to admit something, why not start with yourself?
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Tsarfan on April 15, 2008, 05:00:06 PM
Changing the information from the source in the Rus paragraph to make it sound like the girls were harassed and leaving an opening for possibility of more than harassment - and others beside Annie saw it as the implication of possible rape, hence the very long thread about it... And this of course possibly to support Anderson's claims because she she was at one point pregnant and had a child (hey, the timing sure works with Rus).

Helen, the timing does not  work.  Anderson claimed her child was born on December 5, 1918.  The girls were on the Rus on May 23.  A child born almost 3 months premature to a political refugee in hiding in late 1918 central Europe would have had a virtully zero chance of survival.  If King and Wilson had wanted to trump up a rape to set up the claim that AA=ANR, they would very likely have tried to place the rape in Tobolsk, not on a small crowded boat full of men, not all of whom could be relied upon to stand by while a man raped a young girl in front of her sisters.

As for changing the information from the source, Rob has already passed on the answer:  some qualifying phrases were omitted through an editorial oversight, and King and Wilson have said that passage did not read as intended.  You don't accept that answer, but you got one nevertheless.

This whole "rape-as-a-setup-for-an-AA-sequel" is just conspiratorial nonsense on a par with what the silliest pro-AA people post on other websites. 


"Fenagling" with the Sykes source to make it sound like there was a possibility that the DNA results of the Romanov  remains may not be valid, hence possibly leave a window open for the Anna Anderson/Anastasia thing (since her DNA was compared to the DNA of the remains... well, you get the picture).

Again, Rob has passed along to you an answer about what they thought then and what they think now.  Another answer you have been given but choose not to accept.


Combine the above with the fact that both authors were very strong AA supporters at the time the book was written and some years after that, and that they are good friends with Peter Kurth who is an avid AA supporeter still and who self admittedly "passed the Anna Anderson torch" to Greg and Penny (of course we have no evidence that they accepted "the torch", other than their passionate arguments in favor of AA right here on this forum a few years ago), and presto! an even stronger circustantial evidence.

FOTR was published in 2003.  By your own admission, Wilson was saying in the summer of 2007 that she accepted that AA was not  ANR, a conclusion I doubt she arrived at just moments before making her speech at the Eurohistory conference.  So just what do you mean by saying "for some years after" FOTR King and Wilson continued to believe AA=ANR?  One year?  Two years?  Three years?  The connotation of the phrase "some years after" is something more than just a year or two.

I have been accused in some quarters of being a torch-bearer for the owners of this forum, and people who know me and have read my posts over the years know just how absurd that is.  Just because someone has been called a torch-bearer for someone else does not make it so.  Because two people happen to have the same viewpoint about something does not torch-bearers make.



But, Helen . . . to me there is a much bigger problem with this whole premise that FOTR was a prequel to dropping the big bomb in a later book that AA=ANR.  That problem is that it is quite easy to read FOTR without the slightest suspicion taking root that it's all a colossal buildup to the great AA bomshell.  Nothing is said about Anna Anderson.  Nothing is hinted about escape scenarios.  Sympathetic guards are not maneuvered into position on the last page of FOTR to pick up the suspense on the opening pages of the sequel.  If King and Wilson were intending to leave readers sitting on the edge of their seats chewing their nails like Harry Potter fans for the next installment to hit the bookstores, they really bungled the job.  Really  bungled it.

To make it the prequel, one has to start extracting all kinds of subtext, such as Annie's theory that there were secret signals of a rape in order to set up a pregnancy in order to explain a birth in order to create suspense around how such a premature baby survived . . . .

And, when all the dust settles around such nonsense, she winds up sounding just like the pro-AA conspirators who believe in secret fortunes, who believe Olga Alexandrovna was pressured to lie, who believe in dog carts waiting to cross the steppes, who believe in hospital tissue samples stolen to prevent DNA testing before such testing was even invented, who believe in British bankers embezzling tsarist deposits . . . .

Loonies, like snowflakes blowing in the wind, are as likely to land on one snowbank as on another.

Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Helen_Azar on April 15, 2008, 05:04:54 PM
And yes, you have tried to publicly sabotage their work. By lying about them.

Now Simon, in the words of Lisa Davidson, you are now the one crossing the line. If you are going to accuse me of lying, you BETTER have evidence to back up your statement and it better be more than "Penny Wilson told me this or that".

As for the rest of your comments, direct them elsewhere, since I am not the one claiming the "AA agenda" in the book, since I couldn't care less if there was an AA agenda which originally spewed the book. As for me, I STILL would like an answer as to why the sources were tweaked to say the complete opposite of what they actually said.

Let us "suppose" that Annie was correct and FOTR was written to forward an "agenda" about the AA controversy and the DNA evidence. Now, I'm NOT saying there was such an agenda.

I made it clear that I wasn't saying it either.


So, if there 'was' an agenda, SO WHAT? Who cares anymore?? They were wrong, if they indeed HAD such an agenda to favor the AA claim and they got "lucky" that events unfolded before they wrote the "follow up claimant book" before they REALLY got egg on their faces, Right?

I agree, my concern is not with this matter at all.

I mean, honestly, at least you have legitimate questions, and seem likely to have them answered by one of the authors. (and frankly does it matter a whit whether its Penny or Greg??)  Isn't that the crux of the matter?

Absolutely.

Annie simply seems to be hell bent on getting her pound of flesh and a public apology from  Penny. Well, thats probably not going to happen, and so what if it doesn't?
I just don't see WHY Annie is so doggedly pursuing this.  There seems no genuine point.

I can't answer for her, but the reason I made my post is because it doesn't seem like some people want to let go of it, no matter how many times I asked (pointing out that this is a fruitless and pointless discussion) so I attempted to explain what Annie was trying to convey, hoping that it will put an end to this part of the discussion and we can concentrate on the more important questions, but obviously that didn't work either.. When someone wants a pound of flesh, they want a pound of flesh and there is nothing anyone can do about it. Of course as FA, you can do something about it ;-)
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Helen_Azar on April 15, 2008, 05:17:26 PM
If King and Wilson were intending to leave readers sitting on the edge of their seats chewing their nails like Harry Potter fans for the next installment to hit the bookstores, they really bungled the job.  Really  bungled it.


Yes, they did. I almost feel sorry for them... ;-)



And, when all the dust settles around such nonsense, she winds up sounding just like the pro-AA conspirators who believe in secret fortunes, who believe Olga Alexandrovna was pressured to lie, who believe in dog carts waiting to cross the steppes, who believe in hospital tissue samples stolen to prevent DNA testing before such testing was even invented, who believe in British bankers embezzling tsarist deposits . . . .

Loonies, like snowflakes blowing in the wind, are as likely to land on one snowbank as on another.

One again, you are preaching to the choir. I couldn't care less if FOTR was or was not a prequel to Anna Anderson. I already said this a few hundred times, not sure how else to convey it... As FA pointed out, there are much more valid questions here which I would like the authors to answer directly (not through anyone else) for a change, and I really don't want to waste any more time or energy on all this other stuff. You guys are the ones who won't let go of this silly stuff with AA.

So once again, what I would like to know is the following: why numerous sources in FOTR have been messed with and state the opposite of what they say in reality. I would like a comment or an explanation for this from the authors, one of the authors, I don't care which one. I've been saying this all along, I didn't want to talk about the AA conspiracy but you and Simon insisted so I tried to outline what Annie meant, so that perhaps it would be better understood. Somehow Simon managed to turn it around, accusing me of lying in the process. And then he wonders why some of us think he is the mouthpiece for Penny Wilson... Sheesh...   
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Helen_Azar on April 15, 2008, 05:58:26 PM
Did King and Wilson ever believe AA was ANR? Perhaps, but that does not make them "Anna Anderson supporters". 

Are you kidding? Have you forgotten all the passionate arguments and fights that went on here in 2004-2005 (maybe even as recent as 2006)? Again, I couldn't care less if they were supporters or not, that's their own business as far as I am concerned as long as they don't put out misleading information about science, but "perhaps" they were supporters? Why can't we just admit that they were, and then they realized they were wrong and changed their minds? What's wrong with just saying that?

In any case, I wish we could just move on from this Anna Anderson silliness and concentrate on my questions, which contrary to what has been said were not yet answered by the authors...

BTW, Tsarfan, I know that FA said that PW and GK have changed their minds about DNA, but that still doesn't answer my question about the source in the Brian Sykes book and why the information was changed to mean the complete opposite from the cited source. So please, just humor me, I would like to hear what Greg King has to say about it.
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Tsarfan on April 15, 2008, 06:36:01 PM
In any case, I wish we could just move on from this Anna Anderson silliness . . . .

Well, we can give it a try . . . at least until Annie rethinks her most recent permanent departure from this thread.

I am a little confused, though.  I took your post #184 to mean you wanted to keep this line of discussion going.  Oh, well.
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Helen_Azar on April 15, 2008, 06:41:21 PM
I am a little confused, though.  I took your post #184 to mean you wanted to keep this line of discussion going.  Oh, well.

I can't answer for her, but the reason I made my post is because it doesn't seem like some people want to let go of it, no matter how many times I asked (pointing out that this is a fruitless and pointless discussion) so I attempted to explain what Annie was trying to convey, hoping that it will finally put an end to this part of the discussion and we can concentrate on the more important questions, but obviously that didn't work either..

... I didn't want to talk about the AA conspiracy but you and Simon insisted so I tried to outline what Annie meant, so that perhaps it would be better understood.    
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Tsarfan on April 15, 2008, 06:54:57 PM
I tried to outline what Annie meant, so that perhaps it would be better understood.

I understood what she meant, and I'm pretty sure Simon did.  But understanding a hare-brained theory about a supposedly implied rape setting up a sequel for a character not mentioned still leaves us with a hare-brained theory.

The questions to Annie, though, were not about the theory per se.  They were requests to point us to the actual text that set up the rape implication and to reveal the source of her claim that Penny Wilson gave a speech last year arguing that Anna Anderson was Anastasia.

And the questions were relevant to this thread, because they challenged a poster who was so determined to attack someone that she was willing to cross into rank fabrication of "evidence" in order to carry on her campaign.  It's one thing for people to argue their opinions until the cows come home.  It can be annoying, contentious . . . and (admit it) lots of fun.  But it's quite another to start lying to advance a cause.  And that  is something everyone on these threads ought to find a violation of one of the core tenets required to keep this a viable forum and to unite in demanding that it cease.
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Helen_Azar on April 15, 2008, 06:58:53 PM
I understood what she meant ...

Both of you kept insisting she only had the theory of the Eurohistory talk and nothing else, which is why I outlined the other stuff which Annie mentioned in her earlier posts.

The questions to Annie, though, were not about the theory per se.  They were requests to point us to the actual text that set up the rape implication and to reveal the source of her claim that Penny Wilson gave a speech last year arguing that Anna Anderson was Anastasia.


I wish that "Rape" thread wasn't deleted because that would have your answer in it. Maybe FA still has it and can bring it back. As far as I am concerened, I would only like to know why the meaning of the Volkov quote was changed to the complete opposite of its meaning, not about the rape implications. I know it was blamed on the editors, but if you read that entire paragraph, it's hard to believe that the editors would have changed the entire thing to take on a completely opposite meaning... There has to be a better explanation, that one is just SO lame!

Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Tsarfan on April 15, 2008, 07:18:46 PM
Please point out just where I said Annie had the Eurohistory talk "and nothing else".  In fact, I grasped her wider conspiracy theory from the outset.  However, while I disagreed with it, some of it lay in the realm of interpretation, which is inherently subjective.

But she made two very specific claims that could be objectively  tested.  She first contended that FOTR said there was a rape on the Rus.  When challenged, she slightly modified that to say there was a "clear" implication of rape.  Now, whether or not FOTR said there was a rape on the Rus can be objectively verified.  There will be words in the text that say as much, or there won't.  It's a litte murkier when the claim becomes "clear implication", but if it's all that clear, there should be some text that leads one incontestably to that conclusion.  Annie was being asked to point out such text.  She refused.

The second claim was about Wilson's speech.  Either Wilson said what Annie claimed, or she didn't.  We were given the names of three people who attended the conference, and all three said Wilson made no such argument.  So Annie was asked to prove her claim, the first step of which is usually citing the source.  She refused to do so.

If Annie comes back on this thread (and you know she will), those two claims are going to be put right back front and center.  Point out the text, and give the source.
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Helen_Azar on April 15, 2008, 07:26:10 PM
Please point out just where I said Annie had the Eurohistory talk "and nothing else".  In fact, I grasped her wider conspiracy theory from the outset. 

I'm sorry if I had underestimated your conspiracy grasping abilities, but since the only thing that kept coming up was that damn conference talk, I assumed that this was the only thing you were referring to. And since you guys didn't seem like you were going to drop that tiresome subject any time soon, I felt it was my obligation to remind you that the conference thing was only one of numerous things Annie spoke about when she brought up her FOTR/AA theory.  Maybe I should just let Annie speak for herself from now on.

But I still would like answers to my own questions, which I hope will be forthcoming soon... I would outline them here again, but I am getting really sick of it!
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Forum Admin on April 15, 2008, 07:28:22 PM
I understood what she meant ...

Both of you kept insisting she only had the theory of the Eurohistory talk and nothing else, which is why I outlined the other stuff which Annie mentioned in her earlier posts.

The questions to Annie, though, were not about the theory per se.  They were requests to point us to the actual text that set up the rape implication and to reveal the source of her claim that Penny Wilson gave a speech last year arguing that Anna Anderson was Anastasia.


I wish that "Rape" thread wasn't deleted because that would have your answer in it. Maybe FA still has it and can bring it back. As far as I am concerened, I would only like to know why the meaning of the Volkov quote was changed to the complete opposite of its meaning, not about the rape implications. I know it was blamed on the editors, but if you read that entire paragraph, it's hard to believe that the editors would have changed the entire thing to take on a completely opposite meaning... There has to be a better explanation, that one is just SO lame!



OK, its been like a year or more since I had this conversation with Penny, and I didn't take notes, so the following is my best recollection of our otherwise very cordial discussion.

The text reads:The women, as Buxhoeveden recalled, had been ordered "to leave our cabin doors open all night. No one undressed." Through the open doors, the soldiers leered at the grand duchesses, refusing, as Volkov later learned, to "leave them in peace"] The abuse reached a cresendo as the night wore on.

There was no deliberate changing of the text, according to Penny.  The original read, as best I can recall, something like this:
The women, as Buxhoeveden recalled, had been ordered "to leave our cabin doors open all night. No one undressed." Through the open doors, the soldiers leered at the grand duchesses, refusing their pleas to leave them alone. However,  as Volkov later learned, they were ordered to "leave them in peace". The abuse reached a cresendo as the night wore on.

The original text, or something similar, is in bold.
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Helen_Azar on April 15, 2008, 07:32:12 PM
OK, its been like a year or more since I had this conversation with Penny, and I didn't take notes, so the following is my best recollection of our otherwise very cordial discussion.

The text reads:The women, as Buxhoeveden recalled, had been ordered "to leave our cabin doors open all night. No one undressed." Through the open doors, the soldiers leered at the grand duchesses, refusing, as Volkov later learned, to "leave them in peace"] The abuse reached a cresendo as the night wore on.

There was no deliberate changing of the text, according to Penny.  The original read, as best I can recall, something like this:
The women, as Buxhoeveden recalled, had been ordered "to leave our cabin doors open all night. No one undressed." Through the open doors, the soldiers leered at the grand duchesses, refusing their pleas to leave them alone. However,  as Volkov later learned, they were ordered to "leave them in peace". The abuse reached a cresendo as the night wore on.

The original text, or something similar, is in bold.


Ok, thanks.  This is the first time in all these years I have seen this explanation... The original Volkov quote was "the grand duchesses were left in peace", wasn't it? And what did they mean by "the abuse reached a cresendo as the night wore on"? I can look up the quote at some point later on Amazon, and see if I need any more clarification.

Did Penny tell you anything to explain the Sykes book misquotes?
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: LisaDavidson on April 15, 2008, 08:00:16 PM
Did King and Wilson ever believe AA was ANR? Perhaps, but that does not make them "Anna Anderson supporters". 

Are you kidding? Have you forgotten all the passionate arguments and fights that went on here in 2004-2005 (maybe even as recent as 2006)? Again, I couldn't care less if they were supporters or not, that's their own business as far as I am concerned as long as they don't put out misleading information about science, but "perhaps" they were supporters? Why can't we just admit that they were, and then they realized they were wrong and changed their minds? What's wrong with just saying that?

In any case, I wish we could just move on from this Anna Anderson silliness and concentrate on my questions, which contrary to what has been said were not yet answered by the authors...

BTW, Tsarfan, I know that FA said that PW and GK have changed their minds about DNA, but that still doesn't answer my question about the source in the Brian Sykes book and why the information was changed to mean the complete opposite from the cited source. So please, just humor me, I would like to hear what Greg King has to say about it.

Helen - Again, if you read my post, I am not kidding.

Annie seems to have the idea that King and Wilson are "Anna Anderson supporters" as though that is some kind of fan club. They are writers, and while they may have had opinions about what they wrote and who they wrote about, they have always come from a place of wanting to know what happened, not from a place of trying to stick to some kind of pre-set agenda. Did they passionately argue about their opinions and such? Of course, but my point is there is a great difference between being "fans" and having intellectual curiousity.

So, no, I don't see them as  "AA supporters". They are writers who thought that based on the evidence available at the time that there was a chance that someone survived the murders. That if someone did that the person who had the best claim was AA. I believe Penny's words were something to that effect. However, you may not appreciate or recognize this distinction, and it is a matter of opinion.

I promise to move beyond the silliness if others will stop slinging it at me. What was said yesterday about the conference by another poster was simply not true and we should move on.

As to your questions, that is between you and the authors, and I wish you the best with all of that.
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Tsarfan on April 16, 2008, 10:24:24 AM
Helen, I decided to try to understand the point of the questions you have raised about the Sykes book compared to what was said in FOTR.  Having done so, I'm not sure the conflict even exists that you think does.

On pp. 67-67 of the Sykes book, he writes:

"It is always much harder to get a complete sequence in one go from ancient DNA than from a modern sample.  The strands are fragmented by the ageing process, so even the relatively short 500 base segment of the control region has to be built up in overlapping stages of a hundred bases or so.  This is a laborious process, but eventually the sequences of the presumed Tsarina and her three children were typed.  They all had exactly the same sequence of 111,357.  They were all an exact match with the Duke of Edinburgh."

And here is what FOTR says:

"To obtain a complete sequence, or mtDNA fingerprint, Gill and Ivanov were forced to look for overlapping, repetitive strands, which were then spliced together to form the missing links in the genetic chain.  Although standard practice, this scientific necessity did not provide an unaltered genetic code for the remains, but rather one achieved through manipulation of the available data based on estimation."

It seems to me that both Sykes and FOTR are describing the same process:  "has to be built up in overlapping stages" (Sykes) vs.  "forced to look for overlapping, repetitve strands" (FOTR).

Sykes does not  say the samples -- as obtained -- were an exact match.  Sykes says that, once steps were taken to assemble a complete strand, then  you got an exact match.  Sykes clearly was describing a process of trying to match DNA -- not  exactly as found -- but rather as matched after steps were taken to assemble a complete sequence by borrowing missing pieces from other strands.

I think what really is bothering you is the connotation of the word "manipulation".  I agree is does tend to convey something untoward.  But the cold, hard fact is that both Sykes and FOTR are describing a process that really is  a manipulation of a damaged sample in order to obtain a sample suitable for comparison to another.

I think this frustration over the choice of the word "manipulation" has caused you to lose sight of where FOTR actually went with this passage in their book.  After reviewing several arguments from labs in Japan and elsewhere that contested the match to the Romanovs, here is where FOTR landed their own plane:

"While questions remain over the exact genetic profile of Nicholas II, the grave itself provided the ultimate evidence.  The odds of it being discovered in the correct historical location; bearing the correct mtDNA sequences; and bones answering to the correct forensic and anthropological assessment, yet not containing the Romanovs -- would have been too staggering to calculate."

In short, King and Wilson landed firmly in the camp that the bones in the grave contained murdered Romanovs . . . just as did Sykes.


Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Helen_Azar on April 16, 2008, 01:40:03 PM
On pp. 67-67 of the Sykes book, he writes:

"It is always much harder to get a complete sequence in one go from ancient DNA than from a modern sample.  The strands are fragmented by the ageing process, so even the relatively short 500 base segment of the control region has to be built up in overlapping stages of a hundred bases or so.  This is a laborious process, but eventually the sequences of the presumed Tsarina and her three children were typed.  They all had exactly the same sequence of 111,357.  They were all an exact match with the Duke of Edinburgh."

And here is what FOTR says:

"To obtain a complete sequence, or mtDNA fingerprint, Gill and Ivanov were forced to look for overlapping, repetitive strands, which were then spliced together to form the missing links in the genetic chain.  Although standard practice, this scientific necessity did not provide an unaltered genetic code for the remains, but rather one achieved through manipulation of the available data based on estimation."

It seems to me that both Sykes and FOTR are describing the same process:  "has to be built up in overlapping stages" (Sykes) vs.  "forced to look for overlapping, repetitve strands" (FOTR).

Sykes does not  say the samples -- as obtained -- were an exact match.  Sykes says that, once steps were taken to assemble a complete strand, then  you got an exact match.  Sykes clearly was describing a process of trying to match DNA -- not  exactly as found -- but rather as matched after steps were taken to assemble a complete sequence by borrowing missing pieces from other strands.

I think what really is bothering you is the connotation of the word "manipulation".  I agree is does tend to convey something untoward.  But the cold, hard fact is that both Sykes and FOTR are describing a process that really is  a manipulation of a damaged sample in order to obtain a sample suitable for comparison to another.

I think you may be having the same problem with what Sykes was saying as the authors did. When Sykes states that "steps were taken to assemble a complete strand" he doesn't mean that the sequence was not exact as it oriiginally had been or that anything was manipulated within the sequence. He means that it took several sequencing steps to get the strand that length - which is not at all unusual - in fact this is done routinely for stands that are longer than a certain length. It doesn't mean that there was any "manipulation" of the sequence, or any "missing links" were filled in, or anything other randomness or guessing games, as FOTR implies. The final product was the exact sequence as it was supposed to be. Exact. In FOTR, they make it sound like some parts of the stand were filled in with random sequences or there was some random guessing involved. That's the problem I am having with what FOTR stated. There was no "manipulation" at all, everything was very straighforward. Perhaps the language Sykes used was a bit confusing, but the FOTR authors should have made sure they understood what he was talking about before making the claims of "manipulation" or implying anything else about this process. I am willing to accept that perhaps it was an honest mistake on their part, they may have been confused about what Sykes was saying, but if they consider themselves responsible researchersand if they would like to be taken seriously, this is something they should have made sure they understood before publishing it in their book.

With all the confusion and controversy about these particular DNA results, one more factor to throw into the general pot of confusion certainly did not help. And instead of educating themselves about the subject, after the publication of the book, the authors still went around spreading misinformation about DNA science and implying and even arguing that these results may not be valid. I realize that it is now said that they had since changed their minds - as they very may have - although from what I understand as recently as late last year Greg King was still posting misleading information about DNA on the internet. This makes me suspect that this "honest mistake" in the book was used as a tool for promoting a certain theory (i.e. you can't trust these DNA results). For whatever irrelevant reason...
 
Now, Tsarfan, I am sure that King and Wilson will appreciate your assistance in answering this question, but I would like to hear what they have to say directly from them regarding this. But thank you for the time you took to look into it.
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Louis_Charles on April 16, 2008, 02:10:30 PM
Quote
I realize that it is now said that they had since changed their minds

Changed their minds about the identities of the bodies in the Pig's Meadow Graves? So they no longer agree with Sykes' conclusion that the bodies were those of the Romanovs? Are you saying that they have changed their minds about the conclusions they reached in Fate of the Romanovs?

Quote
Now, Tsarfan, I am sure that King and Wilson will appreciate your assistance in answering this question, but I would like to hear what they have to say directly from them regarding this. But thank you for the time you took to look into it.

Here we agree, Helen, although I think his explanation makes sense. Perhaps because when you read what was actually said by both Sykes and King and Wilson placed next to each other . . .well, they agree. I checked with the chair of the biology department at my college, who was mystified by your condemnation of the word "manipulated", which in context is a technical term used to describe what occurred.

Is your concern that not everyone who reads the book will be able to parse things the way that Tsarfan did, and might be misled by the word "manipulation"?

Simon

Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Helen_Azar on April 16, 2008, 02:12:33 PM
Quote
I realize that it is now said that they had since changed their minds

Changed their minds about the identities of the bodies in the Pig's Meadow Graves? So they no longer agree with Sykes' conclusion that the bodies were those of the Romanovs? Are you saying that they have changed their minds about the conclusions they reached in Fate of the Romanovs?

Changed their minds about the unreliability of DNA science.
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Louis_Charles on April 16, 2008, 02:19:23 PM
How exactly did they claim DNA evidence was unreliable in Fate of the Romanovs when they come to the same conclusion as Sykes? Unless the average reader of the thread follows every word that can be dug up from every thread on every posting board, what makes you think that he or she will have reservations about their use of DNA? Moreover, isn't the topic of the thread King and Wilson's work in Fate of the Romanovs, not whatever motives you deduce from . . . well, I don't really understand what you use as the basis for your insinuations. But certainly what you are proposing is not in the book.

Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Helen_Azar on April 16, 2008, 02:24:01 PM
How exactly did they claim DNA evidence was unreliable in Fate of the Romanovs ...

Simon, please. Don't play stupid.
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Louis_Charles on April 16, 2008, 02:26:51 PM
Helen,

You are proposing that what was said in Sykes does not match what was said in Fate of the Romanovs. Tsarfan has clearly demonstrated that the sources are in agreement. Why is it "playing stupid" to point that out?

I have an e-mail from you in which you say that English is not your first language. Could that perhaps be the difficulty here?

Simon
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Helen_Azar on April 16, 2008, 02:28:30 PM
I have an e-mail from you in which you say that English is not your first language. Could that perhaps be the difficulty here?


I think you may be the one who is having the difficulty here. Maybe you are not even playing stupid. Or perhaps you never had any basic science courses... In which case it's understandable.
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Helen_Azar on April 16, 2008, 02:32:29 PM
Here is one of Greg King's favorite posts:

"I think you should all know that the DNA tests have lost 2/3 of their validity."  Greg King

Ten years later, Greg King (author of  The Last Empress: The Life and Times of Alexandra Feodorovna, Tsarina of Russia and co-author with Penny Wilson of The Fate of the Romanovs) adds for the record:  “One needn’t believe in conspiracies or ascribe incompetence to those who conducted the testing to have doubts about their continued validity.  Two distinct methods of DNA testing were used to show support for the hypotheses that Anastasia Manahan or Anna Anderson 1) Could not have been a child of Nicholas and Alexandra; 2) Did not match the mtDNA Hessian profile derived by Gill and used to match four of the female Ekaterinburg remains to the profile derived from HRH The Duke of Edinburgh; and 3) Matched the mtDNA profile of Karl Maucher, lending support to the hypothesis that she was Schanzkowska.

“Both nuclear and mitochondrial (mtDNA) testing was done.  Nuclear testing is preferred as it renders better results and is considered more accurate, while mtDNA is less discriminating.  Nuclear DNA tests showed that AA could not possibly have been a daughter of N and A, yet changes in the science make the 1994 verdict obsolete.  Gill used a 6-point Short Tandem Repeat (STR) analysis of the nuclear DNA to arrive at these results.  Within four years of these tests, 10 point STR testing was being done, and when results of 10 point STR testing were compared with 6 point STR tests, the 6 point analysis was shown conclusively to give both false positive and negative results-in other words, conclusions based on 6 point STR tests were proved faulty.  In 1999, the testing had gone from the 6 point STR tests of 1993-94 and the 10 point STR tests of 1998 to 12 point STR tests, the accuracy of which further undermined 6 point STR test results.  Gill admitted this in a statement released in 2000, adding that FSS had changed from the old 6 point STR method to the 10 point STR method in 1999.  In 2000, the STR tests were up to a 14 point system; in 2001, it was 16 points, and by 2002, the industry standard worldwide in STR testing was 20 point STR tests.  Scientific studies have repeatedly shown that 6 point STR tests are unreliable and result in false matches and exclusions.  The 6 point STR nuclear DNA tests that showed Anastasia Manahan could not have been a daughter of N and A, therefore, are now meaningless.

“The mtDNA match to the Maucher profile is also now known to be less reliable than everyone believed.  In 1994, mtDNA matches were believed to prove identity, and to be unique to related individuals.  Last year, an extensive UK study showed that out of a random 100 persons, four completely unrelated subjects shared exactly the same mtDNA profiles; extrapolate that here, on a board with 400 members: of the 400 of us posting here, 40 of us-unrelated to each other-would have identical mtDNA profiles, thus "proving" that we're related.  The odds of a random mtDNA match between the Manahan sample and the Maucher profile are indeed considerable given the size of the world’s population and the numbers involved.  I suspect, based on the continuing evolution of the science, that future studies will show mtDNA profiles to be even more common than this.

“My reservations about regarding the 1994 DNA tests as absolutely conclusive in the matter of Anastasia Manahan, therefore, rest on the advances of science.  Two of the three planks in the DNA case against her have now been shown to be either unreliable or less than compelling in a mere ten years.  Her exclusion from the Hessian mtDNA profile remains, and while the methods used to obtain the exclusion remain in practice, given the above changes I hesitate to presume that they, too, won’t be challenged as the science evolves; already in the last 2 years there have been two substantial challenges to the DNA testing done on the Ekaterinburg remains, and I suppose there will be more in the future that may or may not be valid.  This makes it theoretically possible -- given the facts above about the first two DNA planks in the case -- that ultimately in another generation none of the DNA identifications/exclusions in the Anderson case will matter-and the case will fall back to where it always rested before the DNA -- to examination of physical traits, memories, recognitions, etc.

“It seems to me, whether one wishes to believe in Anna Anderson or not (and I don't wish either way, incidentally), it’s best to keep an open mind and at least examine the facts as known now in the DNA case against Anastasia Manahan -- as three separate issues -- rather than repeatedly refer to ten year old tests that, taken as a whole, have lost two-thirds of their validity.”
King continues, on a “Romanov” chat-line (“The Alexander Palace Discussion Board” – http://hydrogen.pallasweb.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi):  “The DNA does not prove anything in this case.  It [did not] confirm the identities of Nicholas and Alexandra and the three children, but merely showed that Hessian and Romanov DNA was present in those remains.  Thus saying that `DNA proves this is Nicholas, Alexandra, etc.,' isn't really correct -- what it shows is support for the hypothesis that the remains were theirs, and were related to their families.  It does not show or confirm actual identity.  … Where DNA is concerned, it is important to stress not only that in this case it did not identify anyone, but also that the very tests conducted in 1992-94 are now so out of date they are no longer used.  For example -- using a 6 point STR DNA test, Anna Anderson was shown not to have been a child of Nicholas and Alexandra.  By 1999, 10 point STR testing had shown that 6 point tests were not only inaccurate but also gave false positive and negative results; they were replaced with 12, then 16, and now 20 point STR tests.  So the 6 point STR test which shows Anna Anderson wasn't a Romanov cannot be considered valid any longer, and is, indeed, subject to proved false results.  The same can be said of mtDNA testing as well -- methodology has vastly changed, and we now know that the same mtDNA patterns are shared by perhaps 18-20% of the population -- it is not the discriminating factor it was described as seven or eight years ago.  It is so inaccurate and so common that it is no longer used in court cases for identity and paternity tests -- they use nuclear DNA rather than mtDNA, which is subject to too many variables.

Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Louis_Charles on April 16, 2008, 02:35:08 PM
Helen,

If this is all you have to bring to the table at this point, I'm done arguing with you. And there's really no need anymore, is there?. You have been thoroughly discredited as a responsible critic for this book, Helen. You have dragged this on for years, and now you've been called on it and lost. Drink your wormwood like a good girl and head off; perhaps you can turn the works on Helen Rappaport next.

Ms. Rappaport, if you are reading this, run. And don't look back.

Helen, the thread is about Fate of the Romanovs. Try to stay on topic. On which page of the book does Greg say this? If you'd like I'll wait while you scurry over to Amazon and cue key words into the text.

Simon

Quote
Or perhaps you never had any basic science courses... In which case it's understandable.

I had a few basic science courses at an excellent university. But even more to the point, I had many more excellent English courses that allow me to actually read with understanding. And your excuse is?

Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Helen_Azar on April 16, 2008, 02:41:52 PM
Now consider these statements in FOTR:

"P 445: "To obtain a complete sequence, or mtDNA fingerprint, Gill and Ivanov were forced to look for overlapping, repetitive strands, which were then spliced together to form the missing links in the genetic chain. Although standard practice, this scientific necessity did not provide an unaltered genetic code for the remains, but rather one achieved through manipulation of the available data based on estimation. (*35)" ( * reference 35 is Bryan Sykes' book "The Seven daughters of Eve" p 66-68).

"Form missing links in the genetic chain"? "Did not provide an unaltered genetic code for the remains, but rather one achieved through manipulation of the available data based on estimation"? Nothing could be farther from the truth.  If the reader doesn't know basic science, this may give him/her the impression that the scientists did something manipulative, speculative, and that the end result didn't produce a clear-cut answer, but instead they ended up with an uncertain and questionable conclusion.
 
These statements are completely false. And this is what I was referring to when I asked them my questions, which I would still like an answer to. Why tell the reader that missing links of the DNA sequence were filled with random chunks of DNA? Why tell the reader that the results "did not provide an unaltered genetic code for the remains"? Why tell the reader that the results "were achieved through manipulation of the available data based on estimation"? There was no estimation. There was an unaltered genetic code. There was a clear cut answer.

And of course to add to all that they cited Brian Sykes, who never said any of this in his book...

Now I would like an answer from King or Wilson as to why these statements were used when discussing the DNA results and why they attributed these statements to Brian Sykes, who never said them. Thank you.

 
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Louis_Charles on April 16, 2008, 02:49:09 PM
Quote
There was a clear cut answer.

The clear cut answer was the identification of the bodies as Romanovs.

Quote
If the reader doesn't know basic science, this may give him/her the impression that the scientists did something manipulative, speculative, and that the end result didn't produce a clear-cut answer, but instead they ended up with an uncertain and questionable conclusion.

There is nothing in the sentences you quote that says the answers were not clear-cut; Sykes and King/Wilson agree that it was a laborious process to arrive at them. Speaking as someone whose scientific credentials you mocked, Helen, I have no problem understanding what was said in the book and in what you quote from Sykes. If you define me as the baseline reader for the science, I get it. You can stop sitting up nights worrying about all of the impressionable minds that are being corrupted. We're fine.
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Helen_Azar on April 16, 2008, 02:53:48 PM
"Did not provide an unaltered genetic code for the remains, but rather one achieved through manipulation of the available data based on estimation"...  Sounds to me like they are saying there was no clear cut result. Perhaps you are having trouble understanding English, Simon, despite the excellent classes you took... Maybe time for a refresher course...

"Did not provide an unaltered genetic code for the remains..." Hmmm, let's see which part of this statement don't you understand? The "did not provide" part? Or perhaps the "unaltered genetic code" part? Maybe if you read it over a couple of times, the meaning will eventually sink in... Try it.

You are making a complete fool of yourself arguing this point, Simon... And besides, you said that you were "done arguing" with me. I guess you're not...
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Louis_Charles on April 16, 2008, 02:58:23 PM
You are in the bizarre position of posting things that directly contradict what you are trying to say; I am at a loss to know how to reason with irrationality. Those excellent English courses are doing me just fine at the moment, Helen. Since Sykes and King/Wilson agree on the results (clear-cut --- bodies = Imperial Family), and Sykes did in fact have to manipulate the strands in order to make a clear-cut indentification (stay with me: bodies = Imperial Family) and Greg and Penny agree with the identification (bodies=Imperial Family) . . . really, if there was a way to say this in words of one syllable, Helen, I would do it to help you out.


Quote
You are making a complete fool of yourself arguing this point, Simon... And besides, you said that you were "done arguing" with me. I guess you're not

I said "if this is all you've got I'm done arguing with you" in reference to the childish insults, Helen m'love. You're still hurling the childish insults, but you are posting more than that. And trust me, those reading this thread are perfectly aware of who is making a "complete fool" of herself.
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Helen_Azar on April 16, 2008, 03:21:57 PM
Update: I have not received a reply from Greg King since he told me that neither he or Penny have their copies of the Brian Sykes book and later asked to speak to me on the phone before sending me an answer or comment. So still waiting for his answer, which I hope will be coming soon.

To refresh everyone'se memory (it's been so long since I posted this question), this was my email to Wilson:

Hi Penny,

Here are the questions I have, and I was wondering if you can please comment: 

In Fate of the Romanovs, on page 445, you state: "To obtain a complete sequence, or mtDNA fingerprint, Gill and Ivanov were forced to look for overlapping, repetitive strands, which were then spliced together to form the missing links in the genetic chain. Although standard practice, this scientific necessity did not provide an unaltered genetic code for the remains, but rather one achieved through manipulation of the available data based on estimation. (*35)" ( * reference 35 is Bryan Sykes' book "The Seven daughters of Eve" p 66-68).

These words you use: "forced to look for overlapping", "missing links", "did not provide an unaltered genetic code", "achieved through manipulation", "based on estimation" – all sound very ominous. If the reader doesn't know basic science, this may give him/her the impression that the scientists did something manipulative, speculative, and that the end result didn't produce a clear-cut answer, but instead they ended up with an uncertain and questionable conclusion.
 
In fact, this is absolutely not true. The entire point of mitochondrial DNA sequencing is that it produces an exact sequence - 100% correct sequence over say 600 letters. This is a very important point. If you get one single "altered genetic code" out of 600 letters, this means you got only 99.9% right, and 0.1% wrong answer, which will then ruin the whole theory/conclusion. The 0.1% difference would confirm that these remains were NOT the Romanov family. But this did not happen at all and the result was a 100% match.
 
You state that you based these facts on the Bryan Sykes' book. However, if you read pp 66-68 of the said book, Sykes never said such a thing, in fact he said the complete opposite. 

Sykes: "…eventually the sequences of the presumed Tsarina and her three children were typed. They all had exactly the same sequence as 111, 357. They were all an exact match with the Duke of Edinburgh."

Sykes used the word "exact" twice. Not a single reference to the "altered genetic code" or "manipulation" or "estimation".

So, paraphrasing, why do you use terms to imply that there were some sort of dodgy dealings going on, and why do you quote a page from a book that says the exact opposite of what you state?  Do you still believe the statements you made about DNA in FOTR, or have you changed your mind? If you changed your mind, what is your current opinion? Thanks.
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Louis_Charles on April 16, 2008, 03:26:37 PM
Quote
So, paraphrasing, why do you use terms to imply that there were some sort of dodgy dealings going on(1), and why do you quote a page from a book that says the exact opposite of what you state(2)?  Do you still believe the statements you made about DNA in FOTR(3), or have you changed your mind(4)? If you changed your mind, what is your current opinion(5)? Thanks.

Dear God, I hope he answers.

(1) We don't.
(2) We don't.
(3) Yes, they were correct.
(4) No need.
(5) That you are obsessed.
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Helen_Azar on April 16, 2008, 03:28:35 PM
Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS which would be nice to finally have answers/explanations to.

Since every attempt so far ended up in fights and/or personal attacks resulting in lock downs/deletion of the topic, I thought that it may be a good idea to just compile a list of questions/issues here, and let them stand until we (hopefully) get answers, at which point we can post these answers or explanations here.

The only two conditions are:

1. for the posters to use specific examples with quotes and page numbers, so that it can't be argued that you are misinterpreting/making it up/ etc.  No discussion or arguments here, please, unless it is to clarify the question.

and

2. no one should attempt to post answers unless they have emailed the authors and got the answers directly from them (in other words: don't speak for them). If no answers will be forthcoming directly from the authors , we can just let them stand.

I am going to post my first question/comment/observation (with specific examples), for which I would really like to hear an explanation:

P 445: "To obtain a complete sequence, or mtDNA fingerprint, Gill and Ivanov were forced to look for overlapping, repetitive strands, which were then spliced together to form the missing links in the genetic chain. Although standard practice, this scientific necessity did not provide an unaltered genetic code for the remains, but rather one achieved through manipulation of the available data based on estimation. (*35)" ( * reference 35 is Bryan Sykes' book "The Seven daughters of Eve" p 66-68).

These words the authors use: "forced to look for overlapping", “missing links”, "did not provide an unaltered genetic code", "achieved through manipulation", "based on estimation" – all sound very ominous. If the reader doesn't know basic science, this may give him/her the impression that the scientists did something manipulative, speculative, and that the end result didn't produce a clear-cut answer, but instead they ended up with an uncertain and questionable conclusion.
 
In fact, this is absolutely not true. The entire point of mitochondrial DNA sequencing is that it produces an exact sequence - 100% correct sequence over say 600 letters. This is a very important point. If you get one single "altered genetic code" out of 600 letters, this means you got only 99.9% right, and 0.1% wrong answer, which will then ruin the whole theory/conclusion. The 0.1% difference would confirm that these remains were NOT the Romanov family. But this did not happen at all and the result was a 100% match.
 
Greg King and Penny Wilson state that they based these facts on the Bryan Sykes' book. However, if you read pp 66-68 of the said book, Sykes never said such a thing, in fact he said the complete opposite. 
Sykes: "…eventually the sequences of the presumed Tsarina and her three children were typed. They all had exactly the same sequence as 111, 357. They were all an exact match with the Duke of Edinburgh."

Sykes used the word "exact" twice. Not a single reference to the "altered genetic code" or "manipulation" or "estimation".

So, paraphrasing, why do the authors use terms to imply that there were some sort of dodgy dealings going on, and why do they quote a page from a book that says the exact opposite of what they state?   


If anyone else wants to post any more questions in a similar format (with quotes/examples from the book - as well as page numbers - in a non-confrontational manner), maybe we can finally get a civil exchange going.


Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Louis_Charles on April 16, 2008, 03:32:47 PM
Quote
maybe we can finally get a civil exchange going.

Guess not. Of course, tossing words like "stupid" and complete "fool" around doesn't contribute to the gaiety of nations, Helen.

You're perfectly fine making sly remarks, so it's a little ingenuous to start crying "foul!" 20 pages into the damned thread.

Oops, sorry. Fifteen. It just seems longer.
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Helen_Azar on April 16, 2008, 03:35:26 PM

Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS which would be nice to finally have answers/explanations to.

Since every attempt so far ended up in fights and/or personal attacks resulting in lock downs/deletion of the topic, I thought that it may be a good idea to just compile a list of questions/issues here, and let them stand until we (hopefully) get answers, at which point we can post these answers or explanations here.

The only two conditions are:

1. for the posters to use specific examples with quotes and page numbers, so that it can't be argued that you are misinterpreting/making it up/ etc.  No discussion or arguments here, please, unless it is to clarify the question.

and

2. no one should attempt to post answers unless they have emailed the authors and got the answers directly from them (in other words: don't speak for them). If no answers will be forthcoming directly from the authors , we can just let them stand.

I am going to post my first question/comment/observation (with specific examples), for which I would really like to hear an explanation:

P 445: "To obtain a complete sequence, or mtDNA fingerprint, Gill and Ivanov were forced to look for overlapping, repetitive strands, which were then spliced together to form the missing links in the genetic chain. Although standard practice, this scientific necessity did not provide an unaltered genetic code for the remains, but rather one achieved through manipulation of the available data based on estimation. (*35)" ( * reference 35 is Bryan Sykes' book "The Seven daughters of Eve" p 66-68).

These words the authors use: "forced to look for overlapping", “missing links”, "did not provide an unaltered genetic code", "achieved through manipulation", "based on estimation" – all sound very ominous. If the reader doesn't know basic science, this may give him/her the impression that the scientists did something manipulative, speculative, and that the end result didn't produce a clear-cut answer, but instead they ended up with an uncertain and questionable conclusion.
 
In fact, this is absolutely not true. The entire point of mitochondrial DNA sequencing is that it produces an exact sequence - 100% correct sequence over say 600 letters. This is a very important point. If you get one single "altered genetic code" out of 600 letters, this means you got only 99.9% right, and 0.1% wrong answer, which will then ruin the whole theory/conclusion. The 0.1% difference would confirm that these remains were NOT the Romanov family. But this did not happen at all and the result was a 100% match.
 
Greg King and Penny Wilson state that they based these facts on the Bryan Sykes' book. However, if you read pp 66-68 of the said book, Sykes never said such a thing, in fact he said the complete opposite. 
Sykes: "…eventually the sequences of the presumed Tsarina and her three children were typed. They all had exactly the same sequence as 111, 357. They were all an exact match with the Duke of Edinburgh."

Sykes used the word "exact" twice. Not a single reference to the "altered genetic code" or "manipulation" or "estimation".

So, paraphrasing, why do the authors use terms to imply that there were some sort of dodgy dealings going on, and why do they quote a page from a book that says the exact opposite of what they state?   


If anyone else wants to post any more questions in a similar format (with quotes/examples from the book - as well as page numbers - in a non-confrontational manner), maybe we can finally get a civil exchange going.


Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Louis_Charles on April 16, 2008, 03:37:16 PM
Maybe you should increase the font size, and do that thing where colored words scroll across --- that sometimes works.
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Tsarfan on April 16, 2008, 03:41:39 PM
Why tell the reader that missing links of the DNA sequence were filled with random chunks of DNA?

Helen, you are deliberately misquoting FOTR to try to make a point you want to make.  FOTR said nothing about dropping in "random chunks" of DNA.  The actual text of FOTR reads:

"To obtain a complete sequence, or mtDNA footprint, Gill and Ivanov were forced to look for overlapping, repetitve strands, which were then spliced together to form the missing links in the genetic chain."

Note the word "overlapping" in this quote.  Now compare it to Sykes, which reads:

"The strands are fragmented by the ageing process, so even the relatively short 500 base segment of the control region has to be built up in overlapping stages of a hundred bases or so."

Did you see that?  The word "overlapping" in both passages?  Could you now please point us to the words "random chunks" anywhere in the FOTR passage?

I really do find it more useful to dissect a text when one is actually referring  to the text instead of to what one's emotions make one want the text to be.

As for FOTR's use of the word "manipulation", you might want to consult a dictionary . . . or even several.  While the word does have one meaning that carries a negative connotation, almost all dictionaries also designate "manipulate" as a term used in medicine and science to mean working with an organ, a piece of tissue, or a piece of equipment in a skillful manner for the purpose of putting it into a more useful state or position.  (One dictionary, for instance, used the example of "manipulate the position of a fetus during delivery".  I certainly hope that did not mean someone was trying to pull the wool over the poor fetus' eyes.)  In fact, the very derivation of the word "manipulate" is from the French manipuler, which originally referred to working with chemistry equipment.

In short, the use of the word manipulate in the context in which FOTR used it was completely appropriate.
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Louis_Charles on April 16, 2008, 03:45:05 PM
Golly. Talk about excellent English courses!
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Helen_Azar on April 16, 2008, 03:47:51 PM
Do you have anything to comment about: 


"Did not provide an unaltered genetic code for the remains, but rather one achieved through manipulation of the available data based on estimation...  ?

Especially the based on estimation part. You can look the meaning of the word "estimation" up. I understand that one is the tough one to explain, but let's not pick and choose if we're going to use direct quotes here.
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Tsarfan on April 16, 2008, 04:52:04 PM
Helen, if your entire multi-year assault on King and Wilson and FOTR has finally come down to the single word "estimation", you might want to find the nearest shore, because the ice under you is cracking fast.

To get quite literal, when the original of something is lost and a replacement is inserted in its stead, one has not by that means acquired the original.  You can quibble whether that new thing should be called a proxy for the original, an estimation of it, a match to it, a substitute for it . . . .  But this is, in fact, a mere quibble.

Sykes described how the gaps in the mtDNA sequences were filled by finding overlapping points on other stretches that could then be inserted into the gaps.  King and Wilson described the same process as used by Gill and Ivanov.  Sykes thought he found a reliable match.  Gill and Ivanov thought they found the same reliable match.  King and Wilson agreed with both of them.

You are trying to make it appear that King and Wilson bastardized Sykes' work by asserting the opposite of what he asserted.  In fact, they simply explained his work using words of their own, and they made it patently clear that they were in complete accord with his findings.  In fact, if you were to read one page further than the page in which the word "estimation" blinds you with fury, you would see that they referred to the mtDNA as "bearing the correct mtDNA sequences" to be those of the tsarina and three of her daughters.

It would seem to me that if the real agenda of King and Wilson had been to cast doubt on the identification of the bones, they would have been far less firm in stating the conclusion -- in no mincing, no equivicating, no uncertain terms -- that the bones in the grave were surely those of the Romanovs.
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Helen_Azar on April 16, 2008, 06:11:54 PM
Ok, you are not going to believe this, but Louis_Charles  and Tsarfan made me have a sudden and unexpected revelation. I now see that they are absolutely right and others and I were completely wrong and delusional, not to mention untruthful and aggressive (assaulting the authors).

Yes, I am in complete agreement with you now, FOTR is the best piece of research anyone has ever done or will ever do. It is extremely accurate, strongly objective and should be perceived unquestioningly as the foremost authority on Russian history as well as science. It overshadows even The Bible (yes, Simon, The Bible!) in its accuracy and objectivity. I cannot imagine now how anyone could have questioned anything in this book when it is obvious that there is absolutely nothing to question, it is all very accurate. Everyone should purchase a copy of this book and have it on his or her bookshelf in order to refer to it with any question about Russian history or science.

I highly recommend this book to everyone. If English is not your first language, you must get a copy in your native language to make sure you understand every word clearly and properly (the wording is highly sophisticated, therefore a little tricky for non-native English speakers to understand). I don’t really understand how any of us could have ever questioned anything at all in this book. In my own case it may be because I have problems with the English language, but what’s anyone else’s excuse?

So there, we all joyfully agree now on this subject and there is nothing more to discuss. Oh wait, we can still discuss the virtues of the book! And then we can all live happily ever after.

So Simon, you win the game! 10 points for you ;-)

Ciao (sp? Italian is not my first language - alas…) for now!

P.S. I still would like to hear from Greg King in regards to my question, do you think it will help now that I am a fan?  ;-)
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Puppylove on April 16, 2008, 07:34:17 PM
Ok, you are not going to believe this, but Louis_Charles  and Tsarfan made me have a sudden and unexpected revelation. I now see that they are absolutely right and others and I were completely wrong and delusional, not to mention untruthful and aggressive (assaulting the authors).

Yes, I am in complete agreement with you now, FOTR is the best piece of research anyone has ever done or will ever do. It is extremely accurate, strongly objective and should be perceived unquestioningly as the foremost authority on Russian history as well as science. It overshadows even The Bible (yes, Simon, The Bible!) in its accuracy and objectivity. I cannot imagine now how anyone could have questioned anything in this book when it is obvious that there is absolutely nothing to question, it is all very accurate. Everyone should purchase a copy of this book and have it on his or her bookshelf in order to refer to it with any question about Russian history or science.

I highly recommend this book to everyone. If English is not your first language, you must get a copy in your native language to make sure you understand every word clearly and properly (the wording is highly sophisticated, therefore a little tricky for non-native English speakers to understand). I don’t really understand how any of us could have ever questioned anything at all in this book. In my own case it may be because I have problems with the English language, but what’s anyone else’s excuse?

So there, we all joyfully agree now on this subject and there is nothing more to discuss. Oh wait, we can still discuss the virtues of the book! And then we can all live happily ever after.

So Simon, you win the game! 10 points for you ;-)

Ciao (sp? Italian is not my first language - alas…) for now!

P.S. I still would like to hear from Greg King in regards to my question, do you think it will help now that I am a fan?  ;-)


Helen, would you mind submitting this post to Amazon?
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Puppylove on April 16, 2008, 07:41:22 PM
It overshadows even The Bible (yes, Simon, The Bible!) in its accuracy and objectivity.

I love my Good Book, but just for today I love Helen's quote even more. Joan, you rock!

Helen, thanks for answering my DNA question a few pages back. I appreciate the scientific perspective you bring to this thread, and look forward to Mr. King's response.
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Louis_Charles on April 16, 2008, 08:15:44 PM
Ok, you are not going to believe this, but Louis_Charles  and Tsarfan made me have a sudden and unexpected revelation. I now see that they are absolutely right and others and I were completely wrong and delusional, not to mention untruthful and aggressive (assaulting the authors).

Yes, I am in complete agreement with you now, FOTR is the best piece of research anyone has ever done or will ever do. It is extremely accurate, strongly objective and should be perceived unquestioningly as the foremost authority on Russian history as well as science. It overshadows even The Bible (yes, Simon, The Bible!) in its accuracy and objectivity. I cannot imagine now how anyone could have questioned anything in this book when it is obvious that there is absolutely nothing to question, it is all very accurate. Everyone should purchase a copy of this book and have it on his or her bookshelf in order to refer to it with any question about Russian history or science.

I highly recommend this book to everyone. If English is not your first language, you must get a copy in your native language to make sure you understand every word clearly and properly (the wording is highly sophisticated, therefore a little tricky for non-native English speakers to understand). I don’t really understand how any of us could have ever questioned anything at all in this book. In my own case it may be because I have problems with the English language, but what’s anyone else’s excuse?

So there, we all joyfully agree now on this subject and there is nothing more to discuss. Oh wait, we can still discuss the virtues of the book! And then we can all live happily ever after.

So Simon, you win the game! 10 points for you ;-)

Ciao (sp? Italian is not my first language - alas…) for now!

P.S. I still would like to hear from Greg King in regards to my question, do you think it will help now that I am a fan?  ;-)


Thanks, Helen! That was bellissima!
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Alixz on April 17, 2008, 02:27:16 AM
Uh - did the scientists use "frog DNA" to complete and fill in the blanks (Ala Jurassic Park)?

Well, maybe that would be OK in this case as they do say you have to "kiss a lot of frogs before you find a prince"!
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Tsarfan on April 17, 2008, 06:58:06 AM
. . . he [Sykes] said the complete opposite.

Well, Helen, now that you are in rapt admiration of FOTR, I guess there is little purpose in pointing out that the "complete opposite" of Sykes' finding of an "exact match" would be "total mismatch".  (Since you put so much stock in being unerring in the choice of every single word, I just thought this point bore mention.)  In fact, FOTR agreed with Sykes that there was a match.  The worst that can be said of FOTR is that it missed on the technical point that proper sequencing produces an exact  replica of the original sequence, not a sufficiently accurate estimation.

This would be of greater consequence if FOTR used the distinction to argue that the bones in the grave were not those of imperial females.  However, FOTR did not make that argument.  In fact, they took a firm position that the mtDNA was a reliable indicator of the bones belonging to imperial females.

Nothing in FOTR indicates they had any  doubt about the match of the mtDNA on the bones of the females in the grave.  That is why they said the mtDNA in the grave bones was a "correct" match to those of the tsarina and three of her daughters.  The DNA findings they thought were more questionable were those of the tsar's bones.  However, even there they concluded the bones must be the tsar's because of the overwhelming circumstantial evidence of the overall find -- including the certain  mtDNA match of the females.

This is a vital point.  It was the certainty  FOTR had of the mtDNA match to the females that caused them to add it to the list of indisputable evidence that, in turn, constituted circumstantial evidence that the more scientifically questionable DNA match to the tsar was  nevertheless a match to the tsar.

I would understand some of the energy behind your argument if you were upset that they raised questions about the DNA match to the tsar, because FOTR did, in fact, do that.  But you have been arguing that they raised questions about the match of the mtDNA to the women.  That they demonstrably did not  do.
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: AGRBear on April 17, 2008, 09:45:34 AM
...[in part]...

P.S. I still would like to hear from Greg King in regards to my question, do you think it will help now that I am a fan?  ;-)


You have heard from Greg King so why are you telling us that you haven't heard from him?


And why are you suddenly mocking this whole affair when it has been  you who has been carrying  acusations about Greg King and Penny Wilson's book FATE OF THE ROMANOVS all the way to this point in time, even after they publicly explained what had occured and why and accepted responsibility for the errors? 

Ok, you are not going to believe this, but Louis_Charles  and Tsarfan made me have a sudden and unexpected revelation. I now see that they are absolutely right and others and I were completely wrong and delusional, not to mention untruthful and aggressive (assaulting the authors).

Yes, I am in complete agreement with you now, FOTR is the best piece of research anyone has ever done or will ever do. It is extremely accurate, strongly objective and should be perceived unquestioningly as the foremost authority on Russian history as well as science. It overshadows even The Bible (yes, Simon, The Bible!) in its accuracy and objectivity. I cannot imagine now how anyone could have questioned anything in this book when it is obvious that there is absolutely nothing to question, it is all very accurate. Everyone should purchase a copy of this book and have it on his or her bookshelf in order to refer to it with any question about Russian history or science.

I highly recommend this book to everyone. If English is not your first language, you must get a copy in your native language to make sure you understand every word clearly and properly (the wording is highly sophisticated, therefore a little tricky for non-native English speakers to understand). I don’t really understand how any of us could have ever questioned anything at all in this book. In my own case it may be because I have problems with the English language, but what’s anyone else’s excuse?

So there, we all joyfully agree now on this subject and there is nothing more to discuss. Oh wait, we can still discuss the virtues of the book! And then we can all live happily ever after.

So Simon, you win the game! 10 points for you ;-)

...[in part].....

Although your words give the appearance that you are weary and don't wish to continue,  I really can't believe you will ever give up on what seems to become a personal obession rather than an academic one.

If I'm wrong,  I will apologize.  And, if true,  I'd love to have permission to quote you on my own forum.



AGRBear

Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Annie on May 03, 2008, 08:33:55 PM
From the book "The Last Days of the Romanovs", here is Gilliard's commentary on the trip on the Rus.

On May 7th at 11 o'clock in the morning, we were moved to the steamer Russ and about 4 o'clock that evening departed  from Tobolsk. We were escorted by a detachment commanded by Rodionoff, which was composed mainly of Letts. Rodionoff did not behave well, he locked the cabin door in which were the czarevich and Nagorny. All other cabins, including those of the Grand Duchesses, were locked also, by his order...On May 9th we reached Tumen and the same day took a train. We arrived at Ekaterinburg on May 10th at 2AM.

There is no mention of any taunts, leering or abuse. Since the purpose of the statements in this book was partly to show how badly the family had been treated by the Bolsheviks, surely if anything extreme had happened, it would have been mentioned. The girls were locked in their rooms, and that was the end of it.
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Sarushka on May 03, 2008, 09:02:10 PM
From The Life and Tragedy of Alexandra Feodorovna, Sophie Buxhoeveden's recollection of the trip:

"The Grand Duchesses were not allowed to shut the doors of their cabins. Guards were posted everywhere, even inside the dressing-rooms, whence we dislodged them with difficulty."

Buxhoeveden also makes no mention of taunts, leering or abuse, but she clearly states that the GDss doors were left open. Obviously either Gilliard or Buxhoeveden has misremembered that relevant detail. Who are we to believe?
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Forum Admin on May 04, 2008, 10:21:58 AM
Volkov reported that Rodionov ordered the GDs leave the doors to their rooms open at night, with guards stationed outside in the hallway while still  in Tobolsk, before they left for Ekaterinburg.  It would stand to reason that he would maintain this regulation during the voyage on the Rus...
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Sarushka on May 04, 2008, 12:09:23 PM
I agree. I think it's also significant that while Gilliard was presumably locked in his cabin like the other men, Buxhoeveden actually traveled with the girls.
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Helen_Azar on May 04, 2008, 12:11:25 PM
But according to FOTR, Buxhoeveden cannot be trusted because she betrayed the IF...
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Annie on May 04, 2008, 03:17:42 PM
http://forum.alexanderpalace.org/index.php/topic,1596.0.html

I was reading FoTR, and there was one huge inconsistency in the executioner’s report that troubled me. In the report, both Marie and Anastasia are said to be shot in the head point blank in the basement after stabbing them proved ineffective. Yet somehow, they both get up and start screaming when they're being loaded into the truck. How is that possible? Even if they weren't killed immediately after being shot, there's no way they'd be able to get up and start shrieking - at best they'd be in a coma. I’ve never heard anyone question this, but it seems like something that definitely needs to be adressed...

I just found this thread titled 'something that's been bothering me' while digging through old survivor threads. This person asked a question three and a half years ago and it still hasn't been answered. I had never noticed this situation, but they did. Please do not grill me on this issue, it's not my question, I'm just passing it along to the proper thread since I dug it up. If anyone has any explainations please post.
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Sarushka on May 04, 2008, 03:43:56 PM
But according to FOTR, Buxhoeveden cannot be trusted because she betrayed the IF...

That's not exactly true. Yes, K&W claim that Buxhoeveden squealed about the jewels, but they do not in any way draw connections between that transgression and her credibility as a witness.

Whether or not her alleged betrayal makes Buxhoeveden an unreliable witness is indeed a valid question, but it is not discussed in FOTR.
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Louis_Charles on May 04, 2008, 04:47:44 PM
On page 313, FOTR states that while Yurovsky and Kudrin stated unequivocally that everyone was dead, Strekotin and Voikov --- also in the room during the period when the bodies were being gathered for transport --- stated equally unequivocally that "two of the daughters" (presumably Maria and Anastasia) were still alive. Massie obviously picked up on their testimonies for Nicholas and Alexandra.

FOTR attributes the statements that Maria and Anastasia were "finished off" by shots to the head to Yurovsky; he is writing about a very confused event. In this case I would probably side with Strekotin and Voikov --- the details are horrific, and they don't propose that either girl survived the massacre, merely that they weren't dead when the process of picking up the bodies began.
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: doddy3988 on May 10, 2008, 12:39:42 PM
Finally i found this discussion. This is pretty much my last hope. Is there any way I could get this book? I have tried every library in Romania, every site (even e-bay or amazon, but I can't pay, cause I don't have a credit card at a international bank, plus I can't really afford the sending taxes.). I have found some other Romanovs books, but i was so dissapointed. I'm asking desperatelly again: Is there any way I could read the book online? Or is there anyway someone could send it to me? For the last 3 months I have tried everything. Is so frustrating to want to read a book, but to also find yourself in the impossibility of doing it. My email adress is doddy3988@yahoo.com. Any information is valuable to me. Thank you so much ( excuse my english)
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Annie on May 16, 2008, 01:20:12 PM
I finally have a copy in my hands, thanks to an out of town library! I haven't read it yet, but just glancing through the beginning of it some things jumped right out at me that I never knew before!

1. it's dedicated to Peter Kurth

2. Peter Kurth wrote the introduction

3. in the 'cast of characters' list, the death dates for Anastasia and Alexei are omitted, all others in the IF carry the death date of 1918.

so, naturally, these things do nothing to change my previously held opinion on its ties to AA;)
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Helen_Azar on May 16, 2008, 01:31:46 PM
2. Peter Kurth wrote the introduction

What does he say in the intro?
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Louis_Charles on May 16, 2008, 01:53:00 PM
2. Peter Kurth wrote the introduction

What does he say in the intro?

"Don't let anyone know about the Torch, or the jig will be up."
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Helen_Azar on May 16, 2008, 01:54:17 PM
2. Peter Kurth wrote the introduction

What does he say in the intro?

"Don't let anyone know about the Torch, or the jig will be up."

Does Kurth mention anything about AA in the intro or just makes general comments about the Romanovs?
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Louis_Charles on May 16, 2008, 02:02:18 PM
He didn't write the "Introduction", he wrote the "Foreword". This isn't just semantics, as there is a proper "Introduction".

Kurth wrote:

"I still think otherwise, and am known in the trenches either as Anna Anderson's "tireless champion" or --- more often --- as some kind of nut on this story. In saying this, I salute Greg and Penny's courage in asking me aboard, but imply nothing about the independence of their work."

The Foreword is two and one-half pages. He allows for the possibility that it was either Marie's or Anastasia's body that was found in the main grave, which is still open to dispute as far as I know.  He does not think that the other bones will ever be uncovered as of the date he wrote the foreword. There is nothing in his writing to support the thesis that Greg King and Penny Wilson have produced support for Anna Anderson's claim --- indeed, his tone about his own support seems to be a resignation to the fact that most people disagree with him.

As for the lack of death dates for Alexei and Anastasia (I assume they side with the American forensic experts as to the identity of the body in the grave as Marie, since she is assigned a 1918 date of death), they do not list dates, but do add "the body has not been found." Which was true at the time of publication (2003). I have a family tree that puts question marks after all of their names in regard to date of death; it was devised in 1967, and none of the bodies had been found. So I'm not sure that particularly is indicative of anything except caution.
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Helen_Azar on May 16, 2008, 02:08:49 PM
Thanks.
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Louis_Charles on May 16, 2008, 02:12:10 PM
Thanks.

No prob.
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Annie on May 16, 2008, 02:13:17 PM
2. Peter Kurth wrote the introduction

What does he say in the intro?

I have to keep it at 20% so I don't get sued, I think, so I'll pick out the best parts:

Foreward

When Greg King and Penny Wilson asked me to write a short forward for this book, I said I'd be honored. This statement conceals more than it looks. After 30 years' involvement in what I happily call the Romanov Wars, I find myself still entrenched among these rebels- if anything, somewhat further to the left. In 1983, my first book "Riddle of AA" argued for a complete revision of thinking about the most famous "Anastasia" claimant...I pled her case again briefly in "Tsar", even though, by that time, DNA testing on Mrs. Anderson's remains had seemed to prove conclusively that she was a fraud. I still think otherwise, and am known in the trenches either as AA"s 'tireless champion" or- even more often- as some kind of nut on this story.

In saying this, I salute Greg and Penny's courage in asking me aboard...they know that they've entered both a quagmire and a minefield, and that their account of the last days and murder of the Russian IF will find objection in many quarters..When I began researching the story seriously in 1970, the accepted version of the death of the Romanovs had hardened into stone..

(..he goes onto explain the details..says how books 'knocked holes' in the Sokolov report..questions the ID of the missing GD...expresses questions about the people who found and identified the bones from the 1991 grave...)

In conclusion:

This is the subject of the book you're about to read, the first comprehensive account of the Romanov murders to appear since their bones were walle dup in 1998...all but two of them, that is. I am indeed a "nut" on this story, and am confident in predicting that many of you will be, too, when you discover what follows.


The dedication page reads:

To Peter Kurth

Loyalty to petrified opinions never yet broke the chain or freed a human soul in this world- and never will.
-Mark Twain

 
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Annie on May 16, 2008, 02:17:10 PM

As for the lack of death dates for Alexei and Anastasia (I assume they side with the American forensic experts as to the identity of the body in the grave as Marie, since she is assigned a 1918 date of death), they do not list dates, but do add "the body has not been found." Which was true at the time of publication (2003). I have a family tree that puts question marks after all of their names in regard to date of death; it was devised in 1967, and none of the bodies had been found. So I'm not sure that particularly is indicative of anything except caution.

Do you really believe that, or are you just trying to cover for them? Caution? Oh come on now none of us are that naive.
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Louis_Charles on May 16, 2008, 02:19:00 PM
2. Peter Kurth wrote the introduction

What does he say in the intro?

I have to keep it at 20% so I don't get sued, I think, so I'll pick out the best parts:

Foreward

When Greg King and Penny Wilson asked me to write a short forward for this book, I said I'd be honored. This statement conceals more than it looks. After 30 years' involvement in what I happily call the Romanov Wars, I find myself still entrenched among these rebels- if anything, somewhat further to the left. In 1983, my first book "Riddle of AA" argued for a complete revision of thinking about the most famous "Anastasia" claimant...I pled her case again briefly in "Tsar", even though, by that time, DNA testing on Mrs. Anderson's remains had seemed to prove conclusively that she was a fraud. I still think otherwise, and am known in the trenches either as AA"s 'tireless champion" or- even more often- as some kind of nut on this story.

In saying this, I salute Greg and Penny's courage in asking me aboard...they know that they've entered both a quagmire and a minefield, and that their account of the last days and murder of the Russian IF will find objection in many quarters..When I began researching the story seriously in 1970, the accepted version of the death of the Romanovs had hardened into stone..

(..he goes onto explain the details..says how books 'knocked holes' in the Sokolov report..questions the ID of the missing GD...expresses questions about the people who found and identified the bones from the 1991 grave...)

In conclusion:

This is the subject of the book you're about to read, the first comprehensive account of the Romanov murders to appear since their bones were walle dup in 1998...all but two of them, that is. I am indeed a "nut" on this story, and am confident in predicting that many of you will be, too, when you discover what follows.


The dedication page reads:

To Peter Kurth

Loyalty to petrified opinions never yet broke the chain or freed a human soul in this world- and never will.
-Mark Twain

 

The quotation above deliberately (and dishonestly) leaves out the salient phrase "but imply nothing about the independence of their work" after the word "aboard".

.

Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Louis_Charles on May 16, 2008, 02:24:04 PM
Annie,

Do I think that it was prudent to avoid assigning a death date for Alexei and Anastasia failing the forensic evidence that established it as a certainty for the rest of the family? Yes.

If you start from the premise that I genuinely believe what I post, you can spare yourself the need to address me. If you would like to avoid me, which is your professed aim, is it not?

Simon

Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Tsarfan on May 16, 2008, 02:25:23 PM
3. in the 'cast of characters' list, the death dates for Anastasia and Alexei are omitted, all others in the IF carry the death date of 1918.

so, naturally, these things do nothing to change my previously held opinion on its ties to AA;)

As usual, Annie, you're going way  beyond the evidence in making one of your claims.

At the time the book was written, only five imperial bodies had been found.  It is convention to leave a death date unspecified if circumstances indicate a body is missing in circumstances that make the time and place of death uncertain.  Thinking seven imperials to have been executed and finding only five bodies would be such a circumstance.  It is the convention that has been observed in citing the death dates of other missing royals, such as Louis XVII, although most think he died or was killed in prison in 1795 or thereabouts.

You gloss over the fact that King and Wilson left the death date blank for Alexei, too.  Yet no one has ever accused them of believing in any of the Alexei imposters.  In fact, the most ardent supporter of Heino Tammet's claim to be Alexis frequents some forums hosted by King and Wilson, and they partake of absolutely none of his nonsense.

The bottom line remains -- as it always had -- that with an entire book at their disposal to lay out their views in considerable detail, neither King nor Wilson gave the slightest indication anywhere  in FOTR that they thought Anna Anderson was Anastasia.  As has been pointed out to you endlessly (and apparently uselessly), Anna Anderson is in no way mentioned in FOTR, either directly or obliquely.

Yet you continue to insist they wrote an entire book for the express purpose of making an argument that they somehow overlooked actually making.

Given the way you process real data, I'm surprised you are not Heino Tammet's biggest supporter.
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Annie on May 16, 2008, 03:21:35 PM
Simon accuses:

Quote
The quotation above deliberately (and dishonestly) leaves out the salient phrase "but imply nothing about the independence of their work" after the word "aboard".

I expected you'd get paranoid and say something like that. The reason I skipped things is because I was trying to keep under 20% copying. I knew there would be things you'd claim I left out on purpose, and you'd post them, okay, that's your 20% not mine! Maybe tsarfan can do the rest and then we'll have the whole thing! Besides, the whole book is readily available for anyone who wants to see it for themselves (unless you live in Romania, as one poster has informed us)
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Helen_Azar on May 16, 2008, 03:32:10 PM
I was trying to keep under 20% copying.

What is this 20% thing, is it for real?

P.S. I slept right through the copyright part of the classes in library school ;-)
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Annie on May 16, 2008, 03:41:41 PM
I was trying to keep under 20% copying.

What is this 20% thing, is it for real?

P.S. I slept right through the copyright part of the classes in library school ;-)

When you posted those pages of FOTR a few weeks ago, remember Simon and FA got into a disagreement over copyright laws, and then Penny emailed FA to remove the pages. After that somebody posted that it was okay to quote from a book as long as it was only 20%.
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Louis_Charles on May 16, 2008, 03:44:38 PM
Annie,

Oh, dear. I am afraid I will have to forfeit my "classy" status in your eyes by responding to you.

You're a liar and a troublemaker, and you left the phrase out because it contradicted the point you were trying --- not very successfully -- to make. I have argued that you are so delusional that you may not know you are lying, but this incident combined with your lie about the San Francisco conference blow that theory out of the water.

No one is going to sue you, Annie. No one is going to pay any attention to you at all, and so, like a child, you jump up and down and make imbecilic remarks until you force the grown-ups to notice you.

Okay, I've noticed you. Now, can we go back to ignoring each other?

Thanks!

Your classy opponent,

Simon
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Helen_Azar on May 16, 2008, 03:45:41 PM
When you posted those pages of FOTR a few weeks ago, remember Simon and FA got into a disagreement over copyright laws, and then Penny emailed FA to remove the pages. After that somebody posted that it was okay to quote from a book as long as it was only 20%.

Oh, I must have missed that... How did they come up with 20%? Why not 15% or 25%? How do you calculate 20% - from the entire book or just a paragraph?

Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Annie on May 16, 2008, 03:50:30 PM
I don't know, but I was going by 20% of the foreward.
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Annie on May 16, 2008, 03:53:55 PM
Annie,

Oh, dear. I am afraid I will have to forfeit my "classy" status in your eyes by responding to you.

You're a liar and a troublemaker, and you left the phrase out because it contradicted the point you were trying --- not very successfully -- to make. I have argued that you are so delusional that you may not know you are lying, but this incident combined with your lie about the San Francisco conference blow that theory out of the water.

No one is going to sue you, Annie. No one is going to pay any attention to you at all, and so, like a child, you jump up and down and make imbecilic remarks until you force the grown-ups to notice you.

Okay, I've noticed you. Now, can we go back to ignoring each other?

Thanks!

Your classy opponent,

Simon

This is all an invention of your mind, and none of it is true. The person you describe is very far from the real me, maybe a few others around here, but not me.
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Tsarfan on May 16, 2008, 04:01:28 PM
Both you guys might as well give it up, you know darn well that Penny DID believe in AA at the time FOTR was written and published, there is evidence to prove it.

My entire range of contacts with Penny Wilson has been one e-mail many moons ago.  I have no idea what she thought about AA several years ago.

And, as you have not yet adduced any actual evidence  on this score (other than that speech you fabricated), I do not find your assertions persuasive.

But, no matter what Penny felt privately, your argument for these many months has been that the published book, Fate of the Romanovs, put forward the claim that Anna Anderson was Anastasia.  That it simply did not do.

It's apparent that you believe it did in your deepest soul, Annie.  I can only observe -- and it's just a general observation -- that a hallmark of the borderline personality is to confuse objective truth with "emotional truth".  It's one of the reasons borderlines can lie so facilely, even to the point of lack of awareness that they are asserting things as facts that no one else perceives as facts.


The reason I skipped things is because I was trying to keep under 20% copying.

Just how stupid do you think we are?

The 20% you chose to quote had plenty of inconsequential verbiage in it.  If your purpose had been to choose an extract that accurately represented the text of the passage (and you were, in fact, up against some 20% limit), there was more than enough extraneous text to omit in order to make room for a nine-word phrase that accurately preserved the point Kurth was making.  Instead, you retained inconsequential text and deliberately removed a phrase that changed the meaning of the quoted passage to bring it into alignment with the argument you were trying to make.

That is intellectual dishonesty, pure and simple.  Don't hide behind any absurd the-copyright-law-made-me-do-it argument to try to cover your tracks. 
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Annie on May 16, 2008, 04:05:14 PM
I realize your attacks on my credibility are your only defense against my position, however, you can't call this a "lie" so don't even try.(I was going to edit it down FOR SIZE but didn't want to get accused of leaving things out on purpose, so here it is in its entirety with important parts bolded.

UNFORTUNATELY I have just been told by the forum software that my post exceeds the character limit therefore it is edited for length only, no sinister motives!

PART I
      
Jen Gutmaker      
View profile
    More options May 30 2003, 1:22 pm
Newsgroups: alt.gossip.royalty, alt.talk.royalty
From: jagutma...@aol.com (Jen Gutmaker)
Date: 30 May 2003 10:22:27 -0700
Local: Fri, May 30 2003 1:22 pm
Subject: Re: Please do me a huge favor and answer this survey (for my grad school project)
Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
jagutma...@aol.com (Jen Gutmaker) wrote in message <news:2591146.0305300516.1400942b@posting.google.com>...
> I am taking a graduate course this summer on how to use an
> inquiry-based teaching methodology in a secondary ed classroom
> environment. Each person in my grad school class has been assigned the
> task of developing an inquiry-based project that can be translated to
> their discipline.


Atlantis Magazine      
View profile
    More options May 30 2003, 2:38 pm
Newsgroups: alt.gossip.royalty, alt.talk.royalty
From: "Atlantis Magazine" <pe...@atlantis-magazine.com>
Date: Fri, 30 May 2003 18:39:09 GMT
Local: Fri, May 30 2003 2:39 pm
Subject: Re: Please do me a huge favor and answer this survey (for my grad school project)
Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author

"Jen Gutmaker" <jagutma...@aol.com> wrote in message

news:2591146.0305300516.1400942b@posting.google.com...

Jen, I tried to answer privately, but I'm apparently missing something
needed to do so from Outlook Express. I won't have time to answer later from
home, so I'm just going to continue publically from work.

I just saw your follow-up post, and none of these things concerns me, please
feel free to use this info however you like.

> THE SURVEY:

> 1. In what country do you currently reside (if a US resident, please
> include the region or closest major city)?

Southern California, close to Los Angeles.

> 2. Are you residing in the same country where you grew up?

Yes and no. I was born and lived in the NY/NJ area for the first six or
seven years; then I moved to Wales for two years; then we lived in Plymouth,
Massachusetts for two years; back to various point in Europe for five years;
then to California for my senior year of high school, graduating almost two
years ahead of time; then back to Italy/Greece until I was 18; then back to
California for college, where I've been pretty steadily ever since.

> 3. What is your first language?

Bilingual English/Welsh.

> 4. Which languages do you speak/read/write?

Speak (with varying levels of fluency and accuracy): English, Welsh, French,
German, Italian, Russian. Tiny, tiny bits of conversational Greek, Hungarian
and Romanian (thanks to college roommates).

Read/Write: English, Welsh, French, German, Italian, Russian, Latin. I can
pick through some Greek also.

> 5. How old are you?

37 on 10 June.

> 6. What is your gender?

Female.

> 7. What is your occupation?

Author/writer. Part-time data entry and Girl-Friday at my husband's
environmental/oceanographic laboratory.

> 8. What is your highest level of formal education?

Bachelor of Arts X 2. One in Modern European History (read twentieth
century) and the other in Languages (Russian, German and Italian).

> 9. How did you first become interested in history, and more specifically,

in royal history?

My father interested me in his own hobby while I was still very young --
military history. Visiting and walking battlefields etc sort of helped it
become real for me, and before I knew it, I was hooked!

> 10. Which dynasty primarily interests you?

If I can give only one answer, then it must be the Romanov Dynasty.  I have
a secondary interest in the Plantagenets, and a growing interest in the
Egyptian Dynasties and some of the Roman Emperors.

> 11. Do you subscribe to any royalty or history related publications?

Not at the moment.

> 12. Have you ever published any articles or books related to history or

royalty?

Yes.

> 13. Do you consider yourself an expert on any particular topic in royal

history?

Sticky question. I'd say "no" and "yes." "No" because I have a hard time
coming to grips with seeing myself as an "expert," but "yes" because I DO
have an outsized knowledge of the last year or two of the lives of the last
Imperial Family of Russia. And "yes" again because I have written (with Greg
King) The Fate of the Romanovs,
which I believe is the most up-to-date and
comprehensive look at the last few months of the Imperial Family, and which
includes quite a bit of previously unpublished/ unavailable material.

> 14. On a scale of 1-10 (1 being lowest and 10 being highest), what
> level of interest do you have for the Romanov assassination?

10.

> 15. Do you believe any members of the Romanov dynasty were
> assassinated at Ekaterinburg Russia?

Yes.

> 16. Do you believe that G.D. Anastasia survived the assassination at
> Ekaterinburg?

Yes.


> 17. Do you believe that Tsesarevich Alexis survived the assassination
> at Ekaterinburg?

A grey area for me. But in the absence of a body, yes, I do think he may
well have survived the assassination and left the basement room alive. But
did he live through the night or the next few days? I don't know. Whatever
happened to him, I believe he did not share a burial with his family.

> 18. Do you agree with the identifications of the Romanov skeletons as
> proposed by the Russian team of experts (i.e., that Maria is missing)?

No.

> 19. Do you agree with the identifications of the Romanov skeletons as
> proposed by the American team of experts (i.e., that Anastasia is
> missing)?

Yes.

> 20. Do you believe that G.D. Anastasia and the woman who called
> herself Anna Anderson were the same person (please elaborate in a
> couple of paragraphs).

Yes.

I've swithered over her for a long time, but I find in the end that for me
the weight of human experience is greater than that of out-moded DNA
tests -- the provenance of which would not, I think, be acceptable in any US
or UK court system.

By "human experience," I mean the physical evidence on her body; the
recognition of her by many people; the denial of her by the expected
suspects; the virtual impossibility of keeping up a charade for sixty years
and more.




Later in the thread, she argues with FA over the validity of the DNA.

There you go, Penny admitted to believing in AA at the time of FOTR, that's all I ever tried to say. This is much better than just a torch, because there's no way you can twist your way out of it or try to call me crazy or a liar. It's right here.

Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Annie on May 16, 2008, 04:10:02 PM

My only point here is: If Penny professed a belief in AA at the time of FOTR, and the book was dedicated to PK, and the torch was handed to them by PK, it's a no brainer to try to claim there was no influence from the AA case on parts of the content of the book. No, of course they didn't say it directly, they laid the groundwork for the claimant book. That is the whole thing me, and a few others, saw all along. No matter how much you and Tsarfan try to discredit me, call me a liar, crazy, kid, etc, that's never going to change what happened.
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Louis_Charles on May 16, 2008, 04:19:59 PM
You are, in fact, a liar.

You did, in fact, misrepresent the quote you cited from the foreword to Fate of the Romanovs.

You did, in fact, lie about Penny Wilson's speech.

You are, in fact, obsessed by this topic to the point of monomania. It had died down, and you are deliberately seeking to re-ignite it because no one has paid attention to you for several weeks. All available evidence suggests that you can tolerate everything except being ignored.

There is nothing in the book that supports the idea that Anderson was Anastasia. When you actually, you know, read the book, you will see this. Or you won't, I don't know. Or care.





Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Annie on May 16, 2008, 04:26:05 PM
You are posturing, and never give up your personal attacks on me to take attention away from the fact that Penny DID believe AA was AN at the time FOTR was written. IT DOES NOT MATTER that this is not said in so many words in the book, OF COURSE they're not going to do that! This does NOT change the very real chance that much of the content, which has already been quoted, was influenced by, or leaving little hints, to back up the AA case for the (then planned) upcoming claimant book. Your petty little dregs at me for what you consider to be something 'wrong' (or 'lie' as you call it) are insignificant in comparison to the 'wrong' info in this book, yet all you can do is get angrier and more insulting as your desperation drives you to lash out at me personally to hide the reality of your friend's errors. If you really care so much about errors, why not check out some of the misquoted sources and theory presented as fact in the book? Oh that's right, you want to defend them and discredit anyone who challenges them. You don't really care about what's true or not, or right or wrong, it's all about whose side you are on. Very valid questions have been raised. Your only defense is 'don't listen to Annie she's nuts!' Oh well, it's all here for everyone to see, let them all make up their own minds.
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Louis_Charles on May 16, 2008, 04:45:06 PM
You are posturing, and never give up your personal attacks on me to take attention away from the fact that Penny DID believe AA was AN at the time FOTR was written. IT DOES NOT MATTER that this is not said in so many words in the book, OF COURSE they're not going to do that! This does NOT change the very real chance that much of the content, which has already been quoted, was influenced by, or leaving little hints, to back up the AA case for the (then planned) upcoming claimant book. Your petty little dregs at me for what you consider to be something 'wrong' (or 'lie' as you call it) are insignificant in comparison to the 'wrong' info in this book, yet all you can do is get angrier and more insulting as your desperation drives you to lash out at me personally to hide the reality of your friend's errors. If you really care so much about errors, why not check out some of the misquoted sources and theory presented as fact in the book? Oh that's right, you want to defend them and discredit anyone who challenges them. You don't really care about what's true or not, or right or wrong, it's all about whose side you are on. Very valid questions have been raised. Your only defense is 'don't listen to Annie she's nuts!' Oh well, it's all here for everyone to see, let them all make up their own minds.

Posturing? I tried to make my last post as brief as possible.

First, a "lie" by definition is the misrepresentation of the truth for deliberate reasons. You deliberately lied about Penny Wilson's speech, and you deliberately left out the phrase by Kurth that undercut the point you were trying to make.  Ergo, you are a liar.

Second, you discredit yourself.

Quote
IT DOES NOT MATTER that this is not said in so many words in the book, OF COURSE they're not going to do that!

If you are going to charge that the intent of the book was to advance an Anderson agenda, it would help if there was actually something about Anderson --- or indeed ANY claimant --- in the book. Wow. They really were too clever for the rest of us.

My "dregs" at you (I have no idea what that word means, by the way) are not petty. It is a big deal to call someone a liar, Annie, something that I wish you try and realize before you spin off into your rants. In fact, if you wish to attack the integrity of these authors, it would help if you yourself had some. The fact that you are clutching at every conceivable straw you can to make your points, and lying to boot, speaks volumes about your lack of the same.

Quote
You don't really care about what's true or not, or right or wrong, it's all about whose side you are on.

I am not lying to support my points. Physician, heal thyself.

Simon
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: halen on May 16, 2008, 04:55:04 PM
I finally have a copy in my hands, thanks to an out of town library! I haven't read it yet, but just glancing through the beginning of it some things jumped right out at me that I never knew before!


I need a clarification please...Annie, are you stating that you have NEVER read  FOTR before, or that you haven't had the chance to read again?

Louise
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Tsarfan on May 16, 2008, 05:38:37 PM
> 20. Do you believe that G.D. Anastasia and the woman who called
> herself Anna Anderson were the same person (please elaborate in a
> couple of paragraphs).

Yes.

See, Annie.  You have finally adduced some proof for an assertion.  Now, that wasn't so hard, was it?

And, upon seeing this, I acknowledge that Penny Wilson did, in fact, think in 2003 that AA was Anastasia.  That wasn't the least bit hard.


There you go, Penny admitted to believing in AA at the time of FOTR, that's all I ever tried to say.

Oh, dear, Annie.  After finally climbing back into the boat, you fell right back out again.  In actuality, you tried to say a good deal more.  You tried to say that the book, Fate of the Romanovs,  put forward the argument that AA was Anastasia.  It did not.

You tried to argue that the book was the prelude to a sequel that would argue the Anderson identity.  No such book was ever written.  And the existing book is quite self-contained in that it can be read and understood quite readily without generating any supposition that a more sensational book is in queue at the publisher.  There is no mention of Anna Anderson in the book.  There is no teaser or cliff-hanger at the end.  There is, in fact, a Foreword that you yourself pointed out (albeit somewhat inaccurately) that was written by a well-known Anderson supporter who took care to mention that his views were not necessarily those of the authors.

You have lost sight of the dividing line between what an author thinks and what an author publishes.  And you have lost sight of the significance of that divide.  People can believe a lot of things.  Smart people take care in committing their beliefs to writing.  King and Wilson took that care.

If you go back and read my earlier posts on this board, you will find I said that, regardless of what King and/or Wilson felt privately, their book did not advance the arguments you said it did.

You have proven that Wilson thought in 2003 that AA was Anderson.  You have not proven that FOTR put forward that proposition, which has been your all-consuming mission for, lo, these many moons.



Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Annie on May 16, 2008, 05:59:01 PM
I never said the book put forth the argument that FOTR made any case that AA was AN openly. I am saying that there is quite a bit in it that leads into backing up that position, and that it appears certain situations portrayed in the book were slanted specifically for that reason. There is sufficient evidence in this thread to make that case for a jury.

how about going back to the original topic of the thread, questions for the authors:

At the time you wrote FOTR, were you an AA supporter, and did this in any way influence the way the book was written?
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Annie on May 16, 2008, 06:39:33 PM
I finally have a copy in my hands, thanks to an out of town library! I haven't read it yet, but just glancing through the beginning of it some things jumped right out at me that I never knew before!


I need a clarification please...Annie, are you stating that you have NEVER read  FOTR before, or that you haven't had the chance to read again?

Louise

No, I have never read the entire book. I got all my info and formed my opinions based on what others posted about it on this forum. There used to be a very long detailed thread about it. It's strange I am the one who gets the blame for originating this position when I was the LAST one to jump on its bandwagon. Unfortunately, I am now the only one willing to post publically about it but none of the others have changed their minds, they just don't want to fight anymore. I looked into the things brought up by the other members and found out they were right, the sources didn't add up and most of the 'mistakes' were all somehow tied to the AA case- the Rus questions, the twisted misquote of Volkov, the DNA questions, the false 'betrayal' by Sophie B. they claimed to have a source that Xenia said she betrayed the family, however, when I checked out the footnotes the only source was 'personal info told to authors in 2000' which really proves nothing. As these guys endlessly tell me 'somebody told me' or 'I heard it" doesn't hold water- where is the proof?) Add to that the stuff on the back cover, 'surprising evidence AN may have in fact survived) inside flap(most shocking of all is the confirmation that two of the tsar's children may have escaped execution) and foreward (by Kurth) and introduction (to Kurth, this after his famous 'torch passing' of the AA legacy to Greg and Penny in 2000) and I find it impossible to accept that this book was written with no connections to AA. Again, this is NOT my theory- I did NOT find the mistakes in the book, other people did. I have reviewed both sides of the story and decided which one I believe, now I want all the proof and circumstantial evidence brought out so others may do the same.
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: halen on May 16, 2008, 07:49:41 PM
I finally have a copy in my hands, thanks to an out of town library! I haven't read it yet, but just glancing through the beginning of it some things jumped right out at me that I never knew before!


I need a clarification please...Annie, are you stating that you have NEVER read  FOTR before, or that you haven't had the chance to read again?

Louise

No, I have never read the entire book. I got all my info and formed my opinions based on what others posted about it on this forum.

Thank you,

Louise
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: grandduchessella on May 16, 2008, 07:54:19 PM
There's also a proviso (right before the dedication to Kurth, on the opposite page) that states that the 'publisher and the author have used their best efforts in preparing his book' but that 'they make no representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy or completeness of the contents ths book and specifically disclaim any implied warranties or merchantability or fitness  for a partcular purpose. ...The advice and strategies contained herein may not be suitable for your situation. You should consult with a professsional where appropriate...."
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Louis_Charles on May 16, 2008, 08:00:47 PM
So we have actually been debating the merits of Fate of the Romanovs with someone who has never read it, but still feels able to offer opinions? Good God, Annie, why didn't you just lie and say you read it? You've lied about everything else.

That's it for me. The only thing I will post in response to whatever stuff you put up on this thread is "The above poster could not be bothered to read the book."

Judas Priest, lady.

Simon
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Annie on May 16, 2008, 08:12:24 PM
I finally have a copy in my hands, thanks to an out of town library! I haven't read it yet, but just glancing through the beginning of it some things jumped right out at me that I never knew before!


I need a clarification please...Annie, are you stating that you have NEVER read  FOTR before, or that you haven't had the chance to read again?

Louise

No, I have never read the entire book. I got all my info and formed my opinions based on what others posted about it on this forum.

Thank you,

Louise

I take it then you have already decided to delete and ignore my entire explaination and the past history of all this.
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Louis_Charles on May 16, 2008, 08:14:02 PM
The above poster could not be bothered to read the book.
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Annie on May 16, 2008, 08:18:54 PM
I said, I checked it out and am looking at it now, and the new things I have found just today do nothing but solidify the opinion I already had. It does no good to explain to those who are determined to latch onto one word or phrase and ignore everything else. I have explained the history behind my reasons, and I owe you nothing. As Alix said you are not my professor.

your strategy: every time info is posted, push it off the page by attacking poster and getting into an argument that will bury the info from those stopping by the forum, and make it look like another fight so they'll go away, ridicule me to discredit me as 'crazy' to anyone who might consider what I post. The new stuff I posted this morning is already 3 pages back. This is what you wanted. What we need is a thread like the FAQ, info only, no commenting.
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Helen_Azar on May 16, 2008, 08:19:56 PM
Why don't we wait and see what Annie's impressions will be once she reads the entire book. Perhaps she will change her mind and come to the conclusion that it's the best book ever published, like I did!   :-*
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Louis_Charles on May 16, 2008, 08:21:32 PM
The above poster (but one) could not be bothered to read the book.

And maybe she will, Helen! We can only hope! ; )
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: grandduchessella on May 16, 2008, 08:55:08 PM
3. in the 'cast of characters' list, the death dates for Anastasia and Alexei are omitted, all others in the IF carry the death date of 1918.

so, naturally, these things do nothing to change my previously held opinion on its ties to AA;)

As usual, Annie, you're going way  beyond the evidence in making one of your claims.

at their disposal to lay out their views in considerable detail, neither King nor Wilson gave the slightest indication anywhere  in FOTR that they thought Anna Anderson was Anastasia.  As has been pointed out to you endlessly (and apparently uselessly), Anna Anderson is in no way mentioned in FOTR, either directly or obliquely.

Yet you continue to insist they wrote an entire book for the express purpose of making an argument that they somehow overlooked actually making.

Given the way you process real data, I'm surprised you are not Heino Tammet's biggest supporter.

Actually, AA is mentioned on 9 different pages according to the appendix but, according to the pages I looked at, it's just in passing like in the epilogue where they mention that Gleb Botkin gained notoriety due to his belief in her.  It's more along the lines of the AA case than the woman herself. The closest I could find to an opinion was when they quote Avdonin who DIDN'T believe there were any survivors saying that AA could have been Anastasia but only if Anastasia had never gone into the Ipatiev House because everyone in that house was killed.
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: grandduchessella on May 16, 2008, 09:00:37 PM
I know this topic roils emotions which is why various threads have,  over time, been either locked or deleted. However, can we keep the personal remarks out of them? Comments like calling someone an imbecile really don't have a place in this forum. You may think it privately, you may vent in PM to a pal or you could think 'well, that comment speaks for itself for whoever reads this'. I don't think it lends itself to civilized discourse to name-call and these threads seem to bring out the worst in some of our very best posters--on both sides of the issue.
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Louis_Charles on May 16, 2008, 09:13:11 PM
GDElla,

As a matter of precision, I did not call Annie an imbecile. I said some of her remarks were imbecilic.

Thanks,

Simon

 
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: grandduchessella on May 16, 2008, 09:20:18 PM
Thank you for the precision. None of us like misquotes.
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Tsarfan on May 16, 2008, 10:14:04 PM
Actually, AA is mentioned on 9 different pages according to the appendix but, according to the pages I looked at, it's just in passing like in the epilogue where they mention that Gleb Botkin gained notoriety due to his belief in her.  It's more along the lines of the AA case than the woman herself. The closest I could find to an opinion was when they quote Avdonin who DIDN'T believe there were any survivors saying that AA could have been Anastasia but only if Anastasia had never gone into the Ipatiev House because everyone in that house was killed.

Thanks for the catch, GD Ella.  I actually did read the book, but it was so very far from being the big buildup to a coming Anna Anderson bombshell that I had not even remembered these references.  I had accepted that Anna Anderson was surely a fraud from the moment the DNA tests on her tissue sample were first reported.  I am able to read books with a passing level of comprehension, and I have no recall of encountering anything in FOTR that gave me the least pause in maintaining that view.

In any case, I think King and Wilson's use of the Avdonin quote says quite a bit about the claim that FOTR was a set-up to pump Anna Anderson as Anastasia.

And I am still agog that we have been arguing about this book with a woman who, it turns out, has never actually read the book and "got all [her] info" exclusively from other posters.  Moreover, she has not been just a casual poster on a book that she knew only by indirect reference.  She has been an unrelenting attacker for months on end of two authors, laying charges at their door without ever bothering beforehand to read the work she was attacking.

Given the prolonged and extraordinary intensity of the attacks this forum has hosted on FOTR, might I suggest banning all posters from this topic until they make a formal attestation that they have actually read the book in its entireity?
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Annie on May 16, 2008, 10:47:17 PM
With all your talk of my 'attacking', there really has been no answering of the questions and issues raised about the book. The 'attacking' has been done by you two against me, what do you want, me to shut up, no, then you'd be bored, or do you want me to pretend to concede to you even though I don't mean it as one other poster has done? Is that good enough to appease you, even though it's fake? This whole thing is ridiculous. The issue here is the book, not any individual poster.
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Tsarfan on May 17, 2008, 12:13:27 AM
. . . there really has been no answering of the questions and issues raised about the book.

There have been plenty of answers given to the questions, by the Forum Administrator among others.  They were simply not the answers you wanted to hear.  Raise the point again once you have actually read the book. 


The issue here is the book, not any individual poster.

If the issue were the book, you would have bothered to read it.  The real issue is the seething personal hatred you bear for one of the authors . . . and the free hand you have been given to make this forum the venue for an endless venting of your bilious spleen about it.

You really have some nerve to pretend you have been the only victim of attacks here.  But then . . . you had some nerve to post endless challenges to a book you never read.


Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: halen on May 17, 2008, 06:13:22 AM
I finally have a copy in my hands, thanks to an out of town library! I haven't read it yet, but just glancing through the beginning of it some things jumped right out at me that I never knew before!


I need a clarification please...Annie, are you stating that you have NEVER read  FOTR before, or that you haven't had the chance to read again?

Louise

No, I have never read the entire book. I got all my info and formed my opinions based on what others posted about it on this forum.

Thank you,

Louise

I take it then you have already decided to delete and ignore my entire explaination and the past history of all this.

Yes. I asked if you had ever read the book. You have not read it.  Since you have not read the book your explanations of the past history have become invalid.

Louise



Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Annie on May 17, 2008, 07:19:45 AM
I don't see why this is an earthshaking revelation. Everyone always knew this, I even said I wouldn't buy it and my local libraries didn't carry it. People posted scanned pages for me. Not reading the entire thing makes no difference at all considering the questions raised. People posted the parts with the parts in question and they are exactly as described. It doesn't matter what's in the rest of the book, because certain parts are all that are the issue here. As I said yesterday, I picked it up for five minutes and found even more to encourage my previous opinion, not less. Anyway, everything is here in this thread or the other one somewhere, mixed in between the fighting (which should be deleted as OT) Those of us who know these things will never be convinced otherwise, and those who defend the author (though they know better, too) will never shut up. It's just going to have to stand as evidence in a court case, for anyone to examine if and when they ever want to look into this situation and issues raised by some very intelligent and knowledgeable people.(Helen and Belochka) I believe they were right. And the AA connection is undeniable, in reality, and calling me rude names will not make it go away.
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: StevenL on May 17, 2008, 07:55:50 AM
I don't see why this is an earthshaking revelation. Everyone always knew this, I even said I wouldn't buy it and my local libraries didn't carry it. People posted scanned pages for me. Not reading the entire thing makes no difference at all considering the questions raised. People posted the parts with the parts in question and they are exactly as described. It doesn't matter what's in the rest of the book, because certain parts are all that are the issue here. As I said yesterday, I picked it up for five minutes and found even more to encourage my previous opinion, not less. Anyway, everything is here in this thread or the other one somewhere, mixed in between the fighting (which should be deleted as OT) Those of us who know these things will never be convinced otherwise, and those who defend the author (though they know better, too) will never shut up. It's just going to have to stand as evidence in a court case, for anyone to examine if and when they ever want to look into this situation and issues raised by some very intelligent and knowledgeable people.(Helen and Belochka) I believe they were right. And the AA connection is undeniable, in reality, and calling me rude names will not make it go away.

Please stop beating the poor old dead horse. Though I came to greatly admire the authors as I read the book, and though I completely agree with you that there are undertones in the book along the lines you describe, the fact is you have made your point(s) and people don't need to always find them at the top of the discussion list. To a newcomer, your fierce emotions about a book you have not even attempted to read (much less read with an open mind!) further undermines your credibility, and causes one to wonder just exactly what is the true motivating force behind so much unbridled hostility.
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Tsarfan on May 17, 2008, 10:51:12 AM
Not reading the entire thing makes no difference at all considering the questions raised.

This statement reflects some of the sloppiest reasoning I have ever heard.

By your own grudging admission, FOTR said nothing overt about Anna Anderson's being Anastasia.  Your entire argument became premised on the notion that the book implied  this through all sorts of means embedded in the text:  you have to read the Foreword (and selectively, at that), you have to find the clues in the missing death dates, you have to read the hidden signals encoded in the discussion about mtDNA, you have to extract far more from the discussion about the trip on the Rus than the text contained, ad nauseum . . . .  Indeed, for your premise to hold, the book has to be read as if one were trying to decipher the Da Vinci code because, in your view,  the real truths are hidden from the eyes of the casual observer.

And these things -- mostly as you heard about them from other posters -- are all you have taken into consideration in forming your opinion.

This is rather like picking a few verses from the Bible -- and even then mostly as related by your preacher instead of reading them for yourself -- and using them to argue the totality of the entire work or to form a religious doctine.

It's a farily long book.  There's a lot in it.  And it is quite possible to read it without feeling railroaded into any conclusions about survivors or Anna Anderson or without having one's belief that Anderson was a fraud in the least bit shaken.

Your current attempt to get back to shore -- i. e., that as you only now  read bits and bobs of the book you find your preconceived notions fully justified -- is argumentation that would be taken as a joke were even a high school student to try to make it.

I certainly hope you didn't have the temerity to write a book review on some public forum of a book you have not even read.
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Annie on May 17, 2008, 02:09:27 PM
Statement to the press: I have never written a review of  FOTR or any other book on any site anywhere. I can't even log into any of those sites to read because I have never bought anything from them, I don't order online, and I'm not paying just to log in. Please remember, I was far from the first, or only, person to have issues with this book. If some of the things said in those reviews sounds like things I've said, that's because, as I already told you, I got most of my info from posts by several other people. Contrary to what you and Simon like to portray here, these issues are not my invention, imagination, or even my discovery, just an interest. (this is not to say that someone here wrote one or any of those reviews, I don't know who wrote them, it could have been anybody, but it wasn't me.)

Steven L are you the one PK called a 'cad' and a 'gnat' on one of those old threads?
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: StevenL on May 17, 2008, 06:54:44 PM
Steven L are you the one PK called a 'cad' and a 'gnat' on one of those old threads?

I wouldn't be surprised that it was me, as we differed sharply in our views, but those discussions were some time ago, and on another forum altogether.
Mr. Kurth has not always had an easy time of it, and so I recall the "lively" discussions more than any harsh words.
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: StevenL on May 17, 2008, 07:33:12 PM
Please remember, I was far from the first, or only, person to have issues with this book.

I think the difference between you and the others is that the sheer passion of your unrelenting criticism
makes no sense once it is understood that you still have not read the book in the five years that it's been out.

FOTR certainly has its little flaws and there is much in it that I take issue with. Nevertheless I rate it as the finest
book I've ever read on the subject. I hope you are able to enjoy reading it with an open mind.
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Annie on May 17, 2008, 07:48:51 PM
No, the difference between me and others is that other people, while they feel the same way as I do, are tired of fighting about it because they can see what happens. This only leads to personal attacks and negativity. I would like to ask that any further questions or commentary concerning me personally be directed to PM. I would also like to point out to everyone, mods, members and lurkers, that not ONE person who posts negatively about me has come to me in PMs or emails, though I have tried to discuss it privately with them, they refuse to answer me, yet make another rude open post about me. What does this tell you? Of course, their goal is not really talking it out with me, but trying to portray me in the worst possible light on the open forum. If you guys want to start a let's bash/judge/try to humiliate Annie publically thread, start another one, as this is OT. Thank you.
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Louis_Charles on May 17, 2008, 09:35:39 PM
First, it isn't true that I have never PM'd you. Away back in the olden times you sent me a semi-hysterical PM accusing you of making you look like a fool because I was not joining you in disdain for Penny Wilson or Peter Kurth or Anna Anderson or something --- I still have the PM, but can't be bothered. I responded with the news that nothing I had posted had anything to do with you. This elicited a more fully hysterical PM, I think I sent you one more, and then I was out. I will not converse privately with you because everything I have to say to you I can say in public. What you see is what you get, folks.

Second, I was happily ignoring you these past few weeks despite the completely one-sided jabs you took at me. All of these posts remain on the boards, and on the insane chance that anyone wants to follow along with the Annie-Simon Home Game, you can track them as you wish. Why anyone would wish to do this is beyond me.

Third, it has been a salutary thing to watch you fight things out on a public thread. The climax to all of this was your flabbergasting statement that you have been darting all over this  forum these past four years attacking the authors of a book that you haven't read. By the way, have you read Kurth? Or Gilliard? Or anything in this field? I am agog. It would certainly explain why you have squealed so loudly every damned time someone has asked you to produce a source.

I have no interest in starting a bash/humiliate Annie thread. I would like to ignore you. If you don't want me to, I won't. Make up your mind.

Simon

Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Tsarfan on May 17, 2008, 11:16:13 PM
. . . not ONE person who posts negatively about me has come to me in PMs or emails, though I have tried to discuss it privately with them . . . .

Just in case there are any newcomers to this thread, the first (and only) PM Annie sent me began thus:

"For God's sake, shut up, you pompous ass. Your devoted defense of Penny is a joke . . . . "

When she says she would like to converse in PM's in order to avoid the "negativity" on the board, she is telling yet another of her lies.

And, Simon . . . remember that Annie has not only been in a years-long assault on a book she never read.  She has also been a member of a Russian history forum for several years without having any idea who Father Gapon was.  This is not a mind that admits much light.
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: grandduchessella on May 18, 2008, 09:56:02 AM
Reiterating again:

I know this topic roils emotions which is why various threads have,  over time, been either locked or deleted. However, can we keep the personal remarks out of them? Comments on a fellow's poster intelligence really don't have a place in this forum. You may think it privately, you may vent in PM to a pal or you could think 'well, that comment speaks for itself for whoever reads this'. I don't think it lends itself to civilized discourse to name-call and these threads seem to bring out the worst in some of our very best posters--on both sides of the issue.

(I basically just cut & pasted my last reminder since I have to leave for a couple of days to a Library conference and am short of time. Hope all goes well on this thread and others while I'm gone listening to fascinating discussions on copyright.  :) )
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: LisaDavidson on May 18, 2008, 11:30:38 AM
Reiterating again:

I know this topic roils emotions which is why various threads have,  over time, been either locked or deleted. However, can we keep the personal remarks out of them? Comments on a fellow's poster intelligence really don't have a place in this forum. You may think it privately, you may vent in PM to a pal or you could think 'well, that comment speaks for itself for whoever reads this'. I don't think it lends itself to civilized discourse to name-call and these threads seem to bring out the worst in some of our very best posters--on both sides of the issue.

(I basically just cut & pasted my last reminder since I have to leave for a couple of days to a Library conference and am short of time. Hope all goes well on this thread and others while I'm gone listening to fascinating discussions on copyright.  :) )

To underline Courtney's words - we are often criticized for "allowing" criticism of others on this site. To support freedom of speech as much as possible means that one must "allow" speech with which one may personally disagree.

One rule we have which may conflict with this is that we don't allow personal attacks. It's a tough tightrope across which we walk. I would admonish all posters that it's not what you say but how you say it that's important.

In other words, we will allow statements such as - "not reading a book that is under discussion means I can't take your statements seriously" but not allow "xyz doesn't know what he/she is talking about".
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: LisaDavidson on May 18, 2008, 03:10:43 PM
Simon accuses:

Quote
The quotation above deliberately (and dishonestly) leaves out the salient phrase "but imply nothing about the independence of their work" after the word "aboard".

I expected you'd get paranoid and say something like that. The reason I skipped things is because I was trying to keep under 20% copying. I knew there would be things you'd claim I left out on purpose, and you'd post them, okay, that's your 20% not mine! Maybe tsarfan can do the rest and then we'll have the whole thing! Besides, the whole book is readily available for anyone who wants to see it for themselves (unless you live in Romania, as one poster has informed us)

Annie: I know of nothing about "20% copying". There is a fair use doctrine about copyright. Do not, however, presume to ask anyone to do anything that might violate fair use, including "copying".

You are welcome to start a discussion about Kurth's contribution - do so. But that is not the topic for this thread. Questions for the authors is the topic.

As you point out, FOTR is available for everyone, including you, to read. I strongly suggest you do so before accusing others of being "paranoid".
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: LisaDavidson on May 18, 2008, 03:57:27 PM
No, the difference between me and others is that other people, while they feel the same way as I do, are tired of fighting about it because they can see what happens. This only leads to personal attacks and negativity. I would like to ask that any further questions or commentary concerning me personally be directed to PM. I would also like to point out to everyone, mods, members and lurkers, that not ONE person who posts negatively about me has come to me in PMs or emails, though I have tried to discuss it privately with them, they refuse to answer me, yet make another rude open post about me. What does this tell you? Of course, their goal is not really talking it out with me, but trying to portray me in the worst possible light on the open forum. If you guys want to start a let's bash/judge/try to humiliate Annie publically thread, start another one, as this is OT. Thank you.

Just who, exactly are these "other people" who feel the way you do - and how is that? And why do you think it is that people are "trying to portray you in the worst possible light"?

 I have read no posts regarding Annie bashing (I presume from reading what you posted that you are actually Jen Gutmaker?), but I do see people taking issue with your attacking a book that you have not read. I do see posters taking issue with your reasoning. These are fair questions, Jen. They are especially fair when you consider that your stated views, derived from questionable methods, are simply not in sync with the known facts.

It's permissible from an intellectual standpoint to challenge known facts, but when doing so, it is imperative to employ proper reasoning, logic, and great care with facts. I don't see you doing this, Jen, and so perhaps an attitude of persecution is inappropriate?
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Tsarfan on June 09, 2008, 05:53:25 PM
The woman who has railed on this forum for several years about Fate of the Romanovs  and its authors, accusing them of inaccuracies and/or deliberate fudging of sources, has just made this astonishing announcement elsewhere on this forum:

I have written academic papers, even done them for other people, and gotten them very good grades.

She has admitted that she forges academic papers for other people to turn in as their own.

I had thought her admission that she had never read the book took the cake.  I had never imagined that a woman who so sanctimoniously prattled on about academic standards was herself a participant in academic fraud . . . and is proud  of it.
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Valmont on June 09, 2008, 07:02:50 PM
The woman who has railed on this forum for several years about Fate of the Romanovs  and its authors, accusing them of inaccuracies and/or deliberate fudging of sources, has just made this astonishing announcement elsewhere on this forum:

I have written academic papers, even done them for other people, and gotten them very good grades.

She has admitted that she forges academic papers for other people to turn in as their own.

I had thought her admission that she had never read the book took the cake.  I had never imagined that a woman who so sanctimoniously prattled on about academic standards was herself a participant in academic fraud . . . and is proud  of it.

I guess the question remains as of ""Does FOTR have inaccuracies and/or deliberate fudging of sources?"... or the comment made by this forum member automatically made the book totally reliable...

Inquirer minds want to know....

Arturo Vega-Llausás
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Tsarfan on June 09, 2008, 07:10:24 PM
Inquirer minds want to know....

Then those inquiring minds have several years of posts on this topic available to read on this forum in order to form one's own opinion.  You are not going to find a consensus answer anywhere, though.

The fact that a poster admitted to academic fraud does not go to the question of FOTR's reliability.  It simply goes to the hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty of the poster who decries another's work for improper use and attribution of sources while admitting that she forged academic papers for students.
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Helen_Azar on June 09, 2008, 07:13:30 PM
I presume from reading what you posted that you are actually Jen Gutmaker?

Who is Jen Gutmaker?   ???
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Annie on June 09, 2008, 07:19:49 PM
I presume from reading what you posted that you are actually Jen Gutmaker?

Who is Jen Gutmaker?   ???

She was the person who asked Penny in 2003 on alttalk if she believed in AA and got her to say 'yes.' No, I am not her, and since her personal info remains on the old threads I suggest someone contact her and ask her if she's me. She won't know what you're talking about since we've never had any contact, and I did not come to the Romanov online community until the summer of 2004. Someone sent me a link to the alt.talk thread with Jen and Penny sometime in 2005, before that I never heard of it.

I see my explainations and rebuttal has been deleted, as I assume anything else in my defense will be, while others continue to run rampant and unchecked. It's not what you do around here, it's who does it, and who is allowed to get away with it. Why am I not surprised?

Here's something to think about! This was posted by another person in  a different book thread:

“Plagiarism refers to a form of academic dishonesty occurring when an individual
purports that a piece of work has been authored by himself or herself when indeed
the work has been created by another individual. In particular, students are
expressly prohibited from submitting:
a. the words, ideas, images or data of any other person as a student’s own in any
academic work which is a component of a course or program of study at the
College;
b. information or data which have been altered or contrived in any way that is
intended to mislead;
c. work which includes misleading references to material or references that do not
accurately reflect the sources used by the student.”

The Code also stipulates that students are expressly prohibited from:
􀂃 “submitting material for academic evaluation which has been procured in
whole or in part from other sources, including the internet or other agencies or
individuals, except where the material has been fully and properly attributed
to those sources;”
􀂃 “submitting all or a substantial portion of academic work for which previous
credit has been, or is in the process of being, obtained in another course
without the prior approval of the course instructor.”


"b" and "c" are particularly interesting considering the subject matter of this thread.
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Tsarfan on June 09, 2008, 07:26:39 PM
Here's something to think about!

Yes.  And here's something else to think about!!


Plagiarism refers to a form of academic dishonesty occurring when an individual
purports that a piece of work has been authored by himself or herself when indeed
the work has been created by another individual
.

Actually, there's no need to think about it.  You admitted that you assist students with plagiarism:


I have written academic papers, even done them for other people, and gotten them very good grades.
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: grandduchessella on June 09, 2008, 09:24:31 PM
Please let's be careful about posting personal info (real names, addresses, etc) of other posters. Many, such as Tsarfan, Art Beeche, Lisa Davidson and ChristineM (formerly Tsaria) amongst others have chosen to share all or part of their names. Others wish for anonymity or at least onlly the reveal in private messages. That is a personal choice and should be respected. Thank you.
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Valmont on June 10, 2008, 10:08:29 AM
Here's something to think about!



Actually, there's no need to think about it.  You admitted that you assist students with plagiarism:


I have written academic papers, even done them for other people, and gotten them very good grades.

So, Does this also apply to the times I have helped my kids with their homework or science projects? Or the times I have helped my little sisters do their homework???
If that’s so, then shoot me too….

Or are you inferring that Annie has no right to say anything about the authors of FOTR because she has done the same?????....

Please elaborate...

Arturo Vega-Llausás
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Louis_Charles on June 10, 2008, 10:43:58 AM
If in fact you allowed your little sisters to pass off your work as theirs, thereby letting the teacher think that they were more knowledgeable than they actually were, then yes --- you committed plagiarism.

I'm a teacher. The point of doing research papers at the high school and undergraduate levels is to demonstrate the student's ability to (1) distinguish among source materials (2) properly cite source materials and (3) assemble the source materials into a coherent narrative. It is not expected that the student will do what might be called "original" work --- that normally happens in graduate school in the liberal arts and sciences.

There is a lovely story about a little girl who visited Albert Einstein every day and stayed for about a half hour. Finally her parents asked him what on earth they talked about, and Einstein said, "Nothing. She brings me chocolate chip cookies and I do her math homework." The point is --- a little heavy-handed to be sure --- that unless A.E. took the time to explain what he was doing, the little girl wasn't learning math.

I wouldn't call tossing your kid an occasional answer as he struggles with his geography "plagiarism";  I did that, and I think most parents do it. But I didn't write his papers for him, and if a student turned in a paper written by someone else as his own work, I would fail the paper. The student has clearly not done the assignment, and students who have should not be measured against this falseness. In other words, the student who has Einstein doing her math homework has an unfair advantage in a system that awards grades. Annie mentioned that her work had obtained good grades for the students for whom she did it. Presumably she meant that it had obtained them good grades. Do you think that helping your little sisters and allowing them to claim it as their own work is fair to the other little girls in the class who do not have a helpful big brother?

Annie did not say that she had helped her children, she said that she had written papers for others and obtained good grades for them. Of course this doesn't mean that she can't speak about Fate of the Romanovs, but it does mean that she shouldn't be taken seriously when she speaks about source usage. The admission of plagiarism, no matter how well-intentioned, disqualifies her to speak about research.

In fact, cheating is a widespread problem. Ask any teacher. I understand that people do it, but I am uncomfortable being around people bragging about doing it. Moreover, none of this has anything to do with Fate of the Romanovs.

Simon

Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Helen_Azar on June 10, 2008, 02:02:50 PM
There is a lovely story about a little girl who visited Albert Einstein every day and stayed for about a half hour. Finally her parents asked him what on earth they talked about, and Einstein said, "Nothing. She brings me chocolate chip cookies and I do her math homework."

Annie seems to be in good company then... ;-)
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Puppylove on June 10, 2008, 02:17:16 PM
What's more unpalatable to a teacher (or people generally), the person who does the student's paper, or the student who hands it in? Who bears the lion's share of guilt, the shady or unreliable source, or the author who uses it?

Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Louis_Charles on June 10, 2008, 02:26:46 PM
That's an interesting question. I tend to blame the plagiarist if the child is in high school, and the student if in college. But this may be a function of my age; in truth, high school students should be well aware that passing someone else's work off as your own is wrong. Students were more innocent when I was a child, back in the 1800s.

Simon
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Helen_Azar on June 10, 2008, 02:27:57 PM
What's more unpalatable to a teacher (or people generally), the person who does the student's paper, or the student who hands it in?

That's a tough one... I think the student who hands it in. Of course I'm not a teacher... I guess it also depends on the age of the student...


Who bears the lion's share of guilt, the shady or unreliable source, or the author who uses it?

Definitely the author who uses it, providing they are aware that the source is "shady" or unreliable... But of course it is the authors' responsibility to make him or herself aware.
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Forum Admin on June 10, 2008, 02:45:23 PM
ummmm, and this all has WHAT to do with FOTR??
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Helen_Azar on June 10, 2008, 03:15:57 PM
Shady sources perhaps? Just a guess...
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Tsarfan on June 10, 2008, 03:29:45 PM
Or explainable error, such as when grandduchesses' diary entries about funerals get mistranslated or dates confused?

Stones and glass houses, Helen.

I really don't understand all this parsing of questions regarding plagiarism.  There is a simpler word for one person writing an academic paper for another to claim as his own work:  CHEATING.  And they're BOTH doing it.
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Helen_Azar on June 10, 2008, 03:36:23 PM
Or explainable error, such as when grandduchesses' diary entries about funerals get mistranslated or dates confused?

Stones and glass houses, Helen.

Mistakes happen to us all. The difference is, some people admit and correct them immediately, even if they are just on a discussion forum - not a published book, while some others don't. On the other hand, some errors are explainable, while others are not... Touche.

What are we discussing here again? Oh yes, plagiarism. Wait a minute, no, that's not the topic.
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Tsarfan on June 10, 2008, 05:14:02 PM
Well, when your 650+ page book covering a complex and, of necessity, somewhat speculative subject comes out, we'll see how the editing and proofreading went.  But based on your track record of trying to edit a few diaries, it doesn't bode particularly well, I'm afraid.

In reading the last Harry Potter book, I found a couple of typos -- and I can hardly imagine a more thoroughly proofread book than that.  Go figure.

Besides, in one place or another, I found satisfactory answers or explanations given to all the questions raised about FOTR . . . and some of those explanations were actually, "it was an error".  Even after the authors departed this forum because of the tarring-and-feathering campaign, the Forum Administator and others stepped in with perfectly reasonable answers to some of the continuing challenges.  And once I undertook to really dissect the challenge about the mtDNA findings and Sykes that so occupied your attention, the challenge itself seemed unsupportable.
____________

But, if you'd like, I'll be glad to stick with the question of plagiarism.  Since it is now the admitted avocation of your chief co-assailant on FOTR, I really think it's worth exploring the question of how an admitted (and apparently proud) academic cheater attains the moral high ground to claim any other person has played fast and loose with facts.
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Puppylove on June 10, 2008, 05:59:43 PM

I really don't understand all this parsing of questions regarding plagiarism.  There is a simpler word for one person writing an academic paper for another to claim as his own work:  CHEATING.  And they're BOTH doing it.

Tsarfan, aren't all FOTR threads basically odes to the art of parsing? It's been awhile, but I think I may have even signed a blood oath agreeing to parse down to the last syllable before posting here. (Just kidding!)
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: LisaDavidson on June 10, 2008, 06:17:56 PM
I think we have pretty much exhausted this topic? Time to shut it down?
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Forum Admin on June 10, 2008, 06:26:32 PM
Unless this thread returns to and STAYS on topic, I will lock it. Period.  This is the one and only warning.

FA
Title: Re: Questions/comments for the authors of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS...
Post by: Tsarfan on June 10, 2008, 07:01:47 PM
For what it's worth, I think it's probably time to lock it.

It has long been clear that the authors from whom answers or comments are sought are not going to be giving them here.  And the answers that have been given by others beget nothing but a repeat of the questions or snide asides on other threads unless they are the answers that are demanded by a couple of people.

I also think the topic of FOTR, whether raised directly or by insinuation, should be banned everywhere on the forum.  Otherwise, the GREAT FOTR WAR will be a perpetual feature of this board, outlasting even the enmity arising from the Crusades.  (You may argue that it's hard to determine when something is actually an insinuating reference to FOTR.  But I think it's rather like that famous definition of pornography . . . you know it when you see it.)