Alexander Palace Forum

Discussions about the Imperial Family and European Royalty => The Myth and Legends of Survivors => Topic started by: sokolova on April 09, 2005, 02:06:19 PM

Title: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: sokolova on April 09, 2005, 02:06:19 PM
If the DNA evidence had shown that AA was unrelated to both FS and AN then I think I'd go with the 'mundane' hypothesis - but the fact that the DNA evidence seems to show AA  WAS related to FS raises the whole question to a new level.

I'd like to ask everyone to bear with this newbie and think about it for a minute: .....

Everyone agrees that identifying AA as FS was probably  done for  propaganda; that pics were doctored and that AA was more or less 'set up'. Yet,  now, more that fifty years later the DNA comes along and supports this identification.

This means 1 of 3 things:



It has to be one of these three, doesn't it? And when you think about it none of them are mundane. They all require either huge  (almost unbelievable) coincidences or actual real deception.

So, doesn't the whole thing about the DNA  versus the non-physical evidence actually raise more (many more) baffling questions?

Sokolova

Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: rskkiya on April 09, 2005, 06:11:47 PM
Quote


Everyone agrees that identifying AA as FS was probably  done for  propaganda; that pics were doctored and that AA was more or less 'set up'. Yet,  now, more that fifty years later the DNA comes along and supports this identification.

Sokolova



WHAT? Who is willing to suggest that three independant labs all doctored their evidence?

I do not understand your statement --Please rephrase!

rskkiya
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Helen_Azar on April 09, 2005, 07:04:11 PM
Sokolova,

I think everyone has pretty much agreed (even AA's biggest supporters) that "doctoring" the DNA results was impossible.

So now we are left with 1. and 2.

1. That the people who tried to discredit AA by claiming she was FS were amazingly lucky and by chance she really WAS this obscure girl they just plucked out of the air. *

2. That they were really lucky in a different way and AA's DNA just concidentally (with at best a 1 in 300 chance) resembles FS. **

*They may have tried to "stroke" the evidence, but that doesn't mean that they weren't correct about her identity. It's sort of like what the police do with thteir suspects: they know someone is guilty, they just make it look like they are if it doesn't already ;) . So no, I don't think it was just some amazing stroke of luck.  

**I must point out here that AA's mtDNA did not just "resemble" FS's relative, it was identical to his.

Yes, these two choices is what we are left with. But this is why, despite all the alleged evidence against the fact that AA was FS, in light of these two points, it is difficult to accept the fact that she was not.
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: sokolova on April 09, 2005, 07:26:06 PM


Calm down rskkiya! I'm sorry I confused you. But don't reach for the indignant bold button just yet!  ;)

I don't mean the DNA evidence was doctored.
I mean there's obvious evidence that the original identification of AA as FS (back around seventy years ago)  was  - at the very least - helped along with some dubious practices and was quite likely made up. And this seems to sit oddly  with the DNA evidence, which (as we all know)  suggests the identification is real.

As I said - every one of the three potential explanations for this anomaly seems so unlikely...

If AA was FS, then why is the non-DNA evidence for it so murky and so seemingly contrived and dubious? Why the evidence of tampering, both with witnesses and physical evidence?  You don't need to tamper with evidence if you have the right girl, so why would they have done the tampering if AA really was FS?

See, it doesn't jive.

But...if AA wasn't FS then why is there any DNA match at all when the odds are said to be  at least 300-1 against  it happening by chance? Could this really happen by simple coincidence? Does that make any sense?

Again, it doesn't jive.

But the third possibility - that the DNA was doctored  ??? :o well that seems just as far-fetched, or even more so.

Okay all three explanations seem impossible - but one of them must be true. Or is there something I am missing which ties it all up?

BTW - I am not trying to claim AA was AN. I am totally agnostic about all of that, I am just quite troubled by the obvious inconsistencies in the evidence at this point and hope other people are too. Something isn't adding up. I have no idea why  right now, does anyone else?

peace, calm and ever-open, searching minds to all!

Sokolova


Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: rskkiya on April 09, 2005, 07:39:27 PM
Quote
Sokolova,

.  

**I must point out here that AA's mtDNA did not just "resemble" FS's relative, it was identical to his.

But this is why, despite all the alleged evidence against the fact that AA was FS, in light of these two points, it is difficult to accept the fact that she was not.


Sokolova

I do hope that Helen A's  post has explained the evidence that most of the people here are working with, and of course you are free to doubt the "AA -FS" connection (there is a separate thread for this topic) although the DNA evidence is not the best way to "prove" the paradox.

rskkiya
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Helen_Azar on April 09, 2005, 07:50:42 PM
Quote

If AA was FS, then why is the non-DNA evidence for it so murky and so seemingly contrived and dubious? Why the evidence of tampering, both with witnesses and physical evidence?  You don't need to tamper with evidence if you have the right girl, so why would they have done the tampering if AA really was FS?

But...if AA wasn't FS then why is there any DNA match at all when the odds are said to be  at least 300-1 against  it happening by chance? Could this really happen by simple coincidence? Does that make any sense?



I think that if more people realized just how powerful DNA evidence really is (many people don't seem to, even though they say they do), they would pay more attention to it and less to the other evidence. You can offer various reasonable explanations for the other seemingly contradictory evidence (although on this forum you get jumped on when you try - I know I probably will be for this particular statement  :o ;)), but it is practically impossible to offer explanation for the existing DNA evidence in this case, if we are to assume that AA was not FS. So there you have it.  :)
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: sokolova on April 09, 2005, 08:03:23 PM
Quote
Sokolova,


*They may have tried to "stroke" the evidence, but that doesn't mean that they weren't correct about her identity. It's sort of like what the police do with thteir suspects: they know someone is guilty, they just make it look like they are if it doesn't already ;)



Hi Helen.
I don't really agree that it's okay for the police (or anyone) to plant evidence to secure convictions providing they 'know'  the person is guilty. I think that's how innocent people can end up in jail. Intuition isn't a valid substitute for evidence!  ;)

And then of course to say  'oh well they probably knew it was her and that was why they invented the evidence'  kind of begs the obvious question - if they didn't have any evidence how did they know it was her?
 

The way I  see it there is a big anomaly here. If AA really was  FS then why did the people identifying her need to fabricate the evidence? Why not just find her family and let them id her? End of story.


But if it wasn't her, then what about the DNA?

Quote
**I must point out here that AA's mtDNA did not just "resemble" FS's relative, it was identical to his.


Yes I know, that's exactly my point. The chance of it being a coincidence are so small. But this doesn't fit with the earlier evidence of a fit-up.  On the one hand the obviously planted early evidence for AA being FS, and on the other the much later DNA evidence that shows she really was her.

Quote
Yes, these two choices is what we are left with. But this is why, despite all the alleged evidence against the fact that AA was FS, in light of these two points, it is difficult to accept the fact that she was not.



Yes it's difficult to accept she wasn't FS, but equally difficult - given the evidence - to accept she was! That's the puzzle! :-/

Sokolova
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Helen_Azar on April 09, 2005, 08:13:27 PM
Quote


Hi Helen.
I don't really agree that it's okay for the police (or anyone) to plant evidence to secure convictions providing they 'know'  the person is guilty. I think that's how innocent people can end up in jail. Intuition isn't a valid substitute for evidence!  ;)

And then of course to say  'oh well they probably knew it was her and that was why they invented the evidence'  kind of begs the obvious question - if they didn't have any evidence how did they know it was her?
  

The way I  see it there is a big anomaly here. If AA really was  FS then why did the people identifying her need to fabricate the evidence? Why not just find her family and let them id her? End of story.


But if it wasn't her, then what about the DNA?


Yes I know, that's exactly my point. The chance of it being a coincidence are so small. But this doesn't fit with the earlier evidence of a fit-up.  On the one hand the obviously planted early evidence for AA being FS, and on the other the much later DNA evidence that shows she really was her.



Yes it's difficult to accept she wasn't FS, but equally difficult - given the evidence - to accept she was! That's the puzzle! :-/

Sokolova


Oh I never said it was ok to try to stroke the evidence, in fact we are not even sure that they did. I don't think it is obvious at all that they planted anything, it is just possible. They may have presented what they knew. And of course we all know that this case went far beyond "let them find her family and id her", it was far more complicated than thar. But after all, FS dissapeared at around the same time as AA appeared, she looked a lot like her, some people came out and said it was her, etc... But all that is really irrelevant right now. What I actually said was, that maybe they did try to make the evidence look more than what it was, maybe they didn't, but that doesn't mean that this proves that it wasn't her, that's all... I don't really care what they did or didn't do back then, I am going by DNA and statistics,as any reasonable person would.  :)
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Annie on April 10, 2005, 10:42:50 AM
Quote

 But after all, FS dissapeared at around the same time as AA appeared, she looked a lot like her, some people came out and said it was her, etc...


I really don't understand why anyone would doubt her being FS because of these very things, as well as the DNA of course. I don't think it was propaganda that AA was labeled FS, it was good detective work by a PI. There was no great conspiracy to deny Anastasia, I'd think that theory should be long since put to bed. The reason the relatives denied her was because IT WASN'T HER!!  There are also no other suspects as to who else she might have been, and since she did look just like FS and have the same DNA and vanish at the same time, well, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck.. ;)

I really don't want to get into my speeches again, but obviously this new person hasn't read them so I must paraphrase the general idea. There really is no 'murky' area here when we have proof. The conflicts on clothing and language skills are just mistakes and human error, incorrect memories. It was likely the clothes weren't even really hers after all those years in a busy boarding house. Even if the lady wasn't lying she could have been honestly mistaken. I've had people send me back the wrong baby clothes I'd loaned them, getting them confused with another friend's. Same with the height, as I said about the many people who all met the famous rock star yet all reported him at different heights. Then there is the mind's eye distortion, like the story I told of how 5 of us looking at a house recalled the bathtub a different color and we all turned out to be wrong! These little tidbits are so subject to error I woudn't even think they made any difference beside the convincing DNA and photographic evidence. Then there's the family, and as I've posted many times, the family had MANY good reasons to deny her and none to accept her (she and they could have been held responsible for a lot of bad things, or she could even have ended up in a Nazi death camp for being mentally ill!) so that means nothing either, it makes perfect sense they denied her for their own good as well as hers.

After all this going on for months, I have sadly come to the conclusion that some people just plain don't want the story to end, and they will come up with anything to keep from solving it. The 'open mind' thing can only go so far when there IS a right answer, and it's been proven. If that's not good enough for you, forgive me, but it never will be, as I've said in my 'the truth what will it take' thread.
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: lexi4 on April 10, 2005, 04:49:57 PM
Thank you all for this discussion. I think the DNA evidence speaks for itself. I also think that had there been any merit to AA's claims in the beginning, the surviving members of the IF would have shown more interest. I think there are so many people who want to believe that someone in the IF survived that horrible massacree. I can understand that. I would love to think there was a survivor. However, we may never know. What we do know is that the remaining members of the IF had very good reason to doubt AA's claims. Decades later, we were able to confirm their doubts because of what we now know about DNA. But I have to tell you, I never did believe AA, if that makes any difference. Whatever happened in the past, wtih evidence etc., is now moot because we have the DNA.
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: AGRBear on April 13, 2005, 07:02:59 PM
Quote
...[in part]...

Yes it's difficult to accept she wasn't FS, but equally difficult - given the evidence - to accept she was! That's the puzzle! :-/

Sokolova


I can understand your difficulty.  I'm  in the same boat as you.

The evidence which may prove AA was not FS is in Penny's discovery that FS and Gertrude may not have the same mothers.  If this is true, then the numbers daveK has presented goes one step backward and the numbers are far highter and ranges from 1 generation to maybe 10 or even 25 generations back into their family genealogy.....

One would think that such information about the different wives of Anton S. [FS and Gertrude's father]  would have been told to the scientists but then I'm not sure the members of Gertrude's family even knew about Anton having been married three times.

So, until that information is presented,  I'm on the fense on this one, and, like you, still looking around and speculating.

AGRBear
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Lanie on April 13, 2005, 08:50:45 PM
If FS and Gertrude had different mothers how come the mtDNA matched with Karl Maucher, then?  I'd say the different mother thing is just a rumor.  DNA says she was FS, so I'm pretty darn sure she was FS.
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: lexi4 on April 13, 2005, 11:29:18 PM
Ok. Someone help me out on this. I just don't see how you can dispute DNA evidence. I also agree that there was a reason the family denied AA. It was because she wasn't Anastasia. I have the same questions Lanie does about the different mothers thing. Perhaps Helen can enlighten us here. Helen?
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Helen_Azar on April 14, 2005, 08:35:27 AM
I am not expert on the FS case of course, but you don't really have to be one because you can just base your reasoning on logic here. I don't really know where the idea that Gertrude and FS had different mothers came from, one day it just appeared here. I don't know if there is any real basis to this theory because no appropriate evidence of this was ever provided, other than "he said this and she said that" and "we think this" and "trust me at my word because you will see later" type of thing.
I am not sure what the people who are promoting the "different mothers" theory are getting at exactly, other than to show that something was wrong with the DNA results. The only thing that would make sense is that if, in fact, they did have different mothers, then the DNA results were rigged because then FS and Gertrude's grandson would not have identical mtDNA. Since we have all (or most of us anyway) agreed that the DNA results could not have been rigged (and there were numerous discussions about that in the past),  I am of course inclined to believe that Gertrude and FS must have had the same mothers because the mtDNA's matched, and the chances are very very low to non-existant that this match would be random (something like less than 1 in 8000 or 0.000125% - see the DNA thread for an explanation of these stats). This means that AA had to be FS and she also had to be Gertrude's full sister.  The fact that she also looked a lot like FS adds to these odds (and I am not necessarily going by her picture but by the fact that Felix, FS's brother said so himself). The fact that FS dissapeared and AA appeared at around the same time adds even more to this. But even without the last two pieces of evidence and only with the DNA statistics it's very clear to most reasonable people who AA was.
Of course we can continue going around in circles about the same mother/different mother thing, and some other evidence that is not really provable one way or another, but we won't get anywhere. Since the DNA results are the most reliable and straight forward piece of evidence in this whole case, I am going to go with that and not some other ambiguous theories that may or may not have any basis, unless these theories are clearly proven otherwise (which you realy can't do like you can with DNA). So this is my take on it.
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Annie on April 14, 2005, 09:02:00 AM
I also think it's interesting that while some highly touted the 'half sister' thing, when it was unable to be proven, it's now being claimed that Gertrude's birth records cannot be found (all the other kids have birthdates) How convenient, now nothing will ever be proven and the wild speculation can go on. But for me, the fact that no evidence can be produced, and that the truth seems to have 'vanished', (perhaps 'rubbed out' when it didn't say what it was supposed to?) makes me feel even more strongly that they were whole sisters and there was nothing to this other than some people 'grabbing at straws.'
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: AGRBear on April 14, 2005, 09:59:57 AM
No it's not true that the possibility that FS and Gertrude might not have had the same mothers didn't just appear.  Evidently, it was mentioned in some book, I think it was Kurth's, that Felix and FS's family was more liberal in thinking than Gertrude's mother's family which was part of FS's father's other marriage which seem to have indicated that there were two different mothers.  Then somewhere along the line, Penny mentioned she was looking into this statement.  She wasn't and as far as I know hasn't declared that Gertrude and FS did have different mothers, because, at this time Gertrude's birth record can't be found.  So, some of us has made a decision to "sit on the fense" until we've learned for sure if Gertrude and FS did or did not have the same mother.

Logic is always good.  Since the DNA seems to show that triangle that if Gertrude is related [sister to 10th or 25th cousin] FS and AA has the same mthDNA as Gertrude's grandson Karl Maucher, that it all fits, that FS and AA are the same person.

Nice neat little package.

Penny started a link for us to speculate who AA might be if she wasn't FS.  So,  we've run through various data about AA and FS which ranged from ears, shoe size, height and did AA speak Russian.  The more the differences were discussed the more of us have just stepped back and made the decision just to wait and see.

I'm not sure why our "just wait and see" is so hard for some to accept.  But accept it or not,  that is what some of us are doing.
Of course, this doesn't mean we're anti-DNA or have some kind of agenda or think green little men walk about the dark side of the moon.

For newbies,  it appears there is a huge canyon between those who believe AA is FS and the "let's wait and see group".  There really isn't.  

If FS and Gertrude have the same mothers than that is okay with most of us.  But if they did not have the same mothers then we have to step back and return to the mtDNA which we assume was done correctly.  And, since it probably is correct than understand how Gertrude ends up being related to AA and how were their mother's related.  And, that is why we'd have to discover the common ancestor for both Gertrude and AA.

Would FS be out of the picture.....  No, not  necessarily.  But we don't have FS's DNA so the task might prove to be impossible to discover any kind of relationship.

So, as you can see, the problem only occurs if FS and Gertrude had different mothers.

To this point in time, we do not know if they did have or didn't have the same mothers.

Since my other other hobby is genealogy, I know how easy it is for descendants to not know about who belongs to whom when an ancestors was married two, three sometimes six times,  or parents of a child dies and the uncle or an aunt takes them into their family as their own or when a child is born out of wedlock and is absorbed within a family....

AGRBear
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: AGRBear on April 14, 2005, 10:06:48 AM
Quote
This is the udated version of Chart Two.
 
CHART TWO:  
   
Anton Schanzkowsky m. (1) to 1890 to Josefina Peek
 Issue:  [unknown]
 
   
Anton Schanzkowsky m. (2) 1894  to  Marianna __NN__ b. 1866.   Marriage ended in divorce abt 1910/1912.  Both remarried.  [Mother remarried to ___NN___]  
     Issue:  
    2. Martin Christian S. b. 16 November 1895
    3. Franziska S.  b. 16 December 1896 [date from Penny]  also listed in some books as  22 December 1896, baptized 24 December 1896
     *  Gertrude b. poss. 1898
    4.  Michael S.  b. 16 December 1899
    5.  Valerian S.  (AKA Walther) b. 25 April 1901
    6.  Felix b. 17 February 1903
    7. Juliane Marianna S. (AKA Maria Juliana) b. 30 April 1905
 
 ---
Anton Schanzkowsky m. (3) to  ___NN3___  
 Issue:  
   1. [unknown]  
 
NOTES
*Gertrude S.'s official birthdate unknown and place in families above is at this time is not known, however, Gertrude did tell people her birthdate was 1898 which would place her fourth between FS and Michael.


Quote
...[in part]...
From what I could find so far,  Franzisca had , at least 5 siblings: Maria-Juliana, gertrud, Walter, Felix,
Valerian. (One more than previously documented I think).

Gertrud's children were:

1. Another Gertrud m. Maucher
     Carl Maucher's mother.

2, Hedwig Lander
    

3. Margarete
     Who lived with Carl Maucher
 
4. Magdalene m. Weber
     Had a son called Herbert Weber

Hope this all helps
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Annie on April 14, 2005, 10:07:07 AM
No it wasn't Kurth's book, neither Kurth or Lovell mention that in their books. It was a more obscure book whose author's name I can't think of, but I never heard of it before I came here.

Now for the 'let's wait and see' thing- as I said in the 'truth what will it take' thread, what are you waiting for?? Is there anything that will ever convince you, or do you just think it's fun to drag it out? If nothing has convinced you so far, I doubt anything ever will, and if there is something specific that will, please do explain what it would take. I never got that answer in the other thread.
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: AGRBear on April 14, 2005, 10:22:01 AM

Does anyone remember the correct source since Annie doesn't think it was Kurth?

Annie has already started a thread about what will it take for some of us on the fense to accept the truth...

We're waiting for the truth which in this case is birth records of Gertrude.

Sometimes you can't rush research even if the wait is annoying
;D as I am when I continue to repeat the reason some of us are dong the "wait and see" act.

AGRBear
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Annie on April 14, 2005, 12:54:18 PM
Suppose there ARE no birth records, or that they've been destroyed so we'll never know.

Suppose they DO appear, and they show she and FS were whole sisters. That still won't prove anything to you, because you still think FS may not have been AA, so what does it matter?

If you are waiting for something that does not exist, or cannot be found out, this will never end. There is a good chance there will be NO new evidence, and we have to go with what we have (which is more than enough for me, who used to believe in AA) Besides, no matter what surfaces, some people will always find a way to discount it, so in a way, this is a bottomless pit.
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: jeremygaleaz on April 14, 2005, 01:06:02 PM
Quote
Does anyone remember the correct source since Annie doesn't think it was Kurth?

Annie has already started a thread about what will it take for some of us on the fense to accept the truth...

We're waiting for the truth which in this case is birth records of Gertrude.

Sometimes you can't rush research even if the wait is annoying
 ;D as I am when I continue to repeat the reason some of us are dong the "wait and see" act.

AGRBear


Here you go:

from THE QUEST FOR ANASTASIA

"Her father married twice, and she was a child of the second marriage and close to her brother Felix.  The first family were very religious and straitlaced, while Franziska and Felix were more open-minded."  

This goes back to my original points  :

Where does this spell out specifically   that Franziska and Felix were the only children of the second marriage? It only statest that they were the products of their father's second marriage

And how can anyone draw the conculsion that Gertrude herself was a half sister from this statement? Where is her name mentioned?

It's only seems to be implying that there were older half siblings, and thus far, no evidence for their existence has come up.

And all of this was news to the Schankowsky family, and was never brought up at the original DNA tests, not that it mattered anyway.
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: lexi4 on April 14, 2005, 01:19:22 PM
Thank you Helen.
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: AGRBear on April 14, 2005, 01:37:56 PM
What those words [and thanks for finding them, again] caused was a reaction in Penny who is a person who likes to know the facts.  So, to know more about the family and who was born from the various wives of Anton S., she's gone  into the records.

Is there a problem in trying to discover if Gertrude was the daughter of the same mother as FS?

Sometimes research takes a person into a different direction than what historians have written.

This doesn't mean the earlier historians were lying or fabricating evidence.  What it means is the historians were working with the evidence that they had.

In modern times we have DNA.

In each new generation, it appears there is a new way of discovering evidence which then causes historians to rewrite history.  Something will come after DNA, I'm sure, which will help us discover new evidence.

This is the way it is.

AGRBear
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Helen_Azar on April 14, 2005, 01:43:16 PM
Quote
What those words [and thanks for finding them, again] caused was a reaction in Penny who is a person who likes to know the facts.  So, to know more about the family and who was born from the various wives of Anton S., she's gone  into the records.

Is there a problem in trying to discover if Gertrude was the daughter of the same mother as FS?

Sometimes research takes a person into a different direction than what historians have written.

This doesn't mean the earlier historians were lying or fabricating evidence.  What it means is the historians were working with the evidence that they had.

In modern times we have DNA.

In each new generation, it appears there is a new way of discovering evidence which then causes historians to rewrite history.  Something will come after DNA, I'm sure, which will help us discover new evidence.

This is the way it is.

AGRBear


What this really means is grasping at straws trying to find a reason, any reason to show that AA may not have been FS, while conveniently ignoring other more compelling evidence  ;).  Oh well  ::)
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: jeremygaleaz on April 14, 2005, 01:56:44 PM
Quote
Is there a problem in trying to discover if Gertrude was the daughter of the same mother as FS?



Let's not get silly and defensive here.

Like I said before , it's a free country. Research what you want. However, the point seems to be missed that the half sister issue is pretty meaningless, as mtDNA tests do not produce "false positives" or "false matches", and let's not get into the "conspiracy theory" debates (though I think that people will always speculate on that one  ::))

Just keep in mind that a missing birth certificate/baptismal record does not a half sister make! :)
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Helen_Azar on April 14, 2005, 01:59:21 PM
Quote
Something will come after DNA, I'm sure, which will help us discover new evidence.


Don't be so sure ....  ;)  8)
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: AGRBear on April 14, 2005, 02:16:54 PM
Quote


Let's not get silly and defensive here.

Like I said before , it's a free country. Research what you want. However, the point seems to be missed that the half sister issue is pretty meaningless, as mtDNA tests do not produce "false positives" or "false matches", and let's not get into the "conspiracy theory" debates (though I think that people will always speculate on that one  ::))

Just keep in mind that a missing birth certificate/baptismal record does not a half sister make! :)


Can't argue with anything you've said:
"A missing birth certificate/baptismal record does not a half sister make."

However, a birth certificate/baptismal record does make half sisters if the mothers are not the same.  And it is through the female line which presents the mtDNA which you and others have told us is  the "final evidence".  If they were not sisters, you'll have to take a giant step backward where I and some others haven't moved.

So let's put it this way, you may be a step ahead of me and some of the others, but that's okay, because we don't mind lagging back here on the fense  a little longer.  ::)


AGRBear
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Helen_Azar on April 14, 2005, 02:21:15 PM
Quote

Can't argue with anything you've said:
"A missing birth certificate/baptismal record does not a half sister make."

However, a birth certificate/baptismal record does make half sisters if the mothers are not the same.  And it is through the female line which presents the mtDNA which you and others have told us is  the "final evidence".  If they were not sisters, you'll have to take a giant step backward where I and some others haven't moved.


There is no reason for us to think that Gertrude and FS had different mothers. There would have been a reason for us to think so if AA's mtDNA and Carl Maucher's mtDNA did not match, but since it did match, why are we questioning that the original assumption was accurate? I'll tell you why: to try to prove that AA was not FS. That's the only reason. Well, that's not a good reason, we need some other compelling evidence of this, but there really is none. Unless it can be proven that their mothers were different, this is a moot point. The burden of proof lies with whomever is saying that they had different mothers, not with someone who is saying they had the same mothers.  
Just because Gertrude's baptismal papers are missing, it does not prove anything, in fact, it doesn't even imply anything. Only if the DNA did not match would we have a reason to come up with the "different mothers" theory, but this of course is not the case, and we have no other compelling evidence that this is the case, so why is this even being seriously considered.  
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: AGRBear on April 14, 2005, 02:49:03 PM
The majority believe FS and Gertrude were full sisters because of the DNA tests.  The post which wondered if FS was a half sister may prove to be  a contradictory statement, which a paradox needs, and a possible birth certificate which may show it's true that FS was not the full sister of Gertrude, but it is just Gertrude who is the relative of AA and not FS,  and, therein may be  a paradox.

AGRBear
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: jeremygaleaz on April 14, 2005, 02:53:15 PM
Quote
The majority believe FS and Gertrude were full sisters because of the DNA tests.  The post which wondered if FS was a half sister may prove to be  a contradictory statement, which a paradox needs, and a birth certificate which shows it's true that FS was not the full sister of Gertrude, but it is just Gertrude who is the relative of AA and not FS,  and, therein lays a paradox.

AGRBear


Huh? Do you have any specific evidence that Gertude was a half sister? Then you're just speculating with nothing to back it up.

But, it's a free country. Knock yourself out.  :)
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: AGRBear on April 14, 2005, 03:02:05 PM
A paradox and a problem was presented by Sokolov:

>>1. That the people who tried to discredit AA by claiming she was FS were amazingly lucky and by chance she really WAS this obscure girl they just plucked out of the air.
 
OR
 
2. That they were really lucky in a different way and AA's DNA just concidentally (with at best a 1 in 300 chance)  
resembles FS.
 
OR  
 
3. The DNA tets were set up too

 
It has to be one of these three, doesn't it? And when you think about it none of them are mundane. They all require either huge  (almost unbelievable) coincidences or actual real deception.  
 
So, doesn't the whole thing about the DNA  versus the non-physical evidence actually raise more (many more) baffling questions?  
 
Sokolova<<

I think they raise interesting questions and the sister/half sister debate is just one of many.

AGRBear

Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Mgmstl on April 19, 2005, 11:28:33 AM
Hi Bear, et al,

I am back.  Have had to take a break for a bit, because of my Mother's health, etc.  Things are better, BUT we have a long row to hoe as the old country expression goes.

Bear I apologize for deserting you.  This discussion is anything BUT mundane.  The only reason it seems to become so is that because we keep hearing: DNA DNA.

There are too many physical differences between the woman described as FS, and the woman we know as AA,
those physical differences along with the cultural, language issues, are the crux of why I believe further investigation is needed.  

I believe in one of Penny's earlier posts Helen, it may be that Gertrude was possibly a half sister of Franziska, if you look at the marriages of the father.  I think we are
forgetting that possibility.  Jeremy regardless of your new found expertise on DNA, it looks to me that they are more than likely half sisters,  could the mothers have been related in that case?  Always a possibility.
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: jeremygaleaz on April 19, 2005, 12:08:25 PM
Quote
Hi Bear, et al,
  Jeremy regardless of your new found expertise on DNA, it looks to me that they are more than likely half sisters,  could the mothers have been related in that case?  Always a possibility.


Then you wouldn't be adverse to providing evidence as to why you believe them to have been half sisters? So, if you have the evidence please feel free to provide the details.   
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: AGRBear on April 19, 2005, 12:15:47 PM
Welcome back Michael.

I know you have a long way to go with your Mom but I'm sure you are going to be there for her every step of the way.  

As for the half sister problem, we don't know the answer.  At the moment we're waiting for Penny's findings which hasn't produced any kind of birth or bap. certificate for Gertrude.

The question about AA being FS is something that needed to be asked and was asked in the trial of AA.  Then, it was asked again, I think by several others on this thead.  I mentioned that Grossmann had been accused of murdering FS, so, if she had been murdered then she couldn't have been AA....  Anyway, one thing has lead to another and be these questions "mundane" is something all of us have to leave up to the person reading these post.
AGRBear
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Annie on April 19, 2005, 12:17:24 PM
Yes, Jeremy, I'm waiting too!

Michael, perhaps you missed it, but our most recent 'new' evidence on the Schanskowska family makes it look more and more like they were of only one set of parents (perhaps someone can find the new list on this) Gertrude's birth certificate is (perhaps conveniently) 'missing' or 'nonexistant' so we can't prove it. But she fits right into the birth order by her own claim to age. I agree with Massie and all the original info, (including the court case which NEVER MENTIONED THIS) that they were whole sisters.

As far as the other 'differences' go, I have already explained, you really have nothing other than hearsay and he said she said conflicting reports which will never prove anything, not even if those alleged clothes even  belonged to her. We have to go with what we DO have, and that leads to AA being FS (as Helen recently posted, the probability of error is .0000125%! ) I'm afraid it's over!
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: AGRBear on April 19, 2005, 12:23:34 PM
Nope, it's not over.
Why?
We don't know the answer.

AGRBear
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: jeremygaleaz on April 19, 2005, 01:19:28 PM
Quote
Nope, it's not over.
Why?
We don't know the answer.

AGRBear


Correction: It's not over for You because you don't know your answer yet.... but that's quite okay. Your speculations aren't hurting anyone ;)
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Mgmstl on April 19, 2005, 01:38:56 PM
Yes Annie, and I SEVERLY skeptical of ANY evidence presented by you or Jeremy....Sorry that's just the way it is.
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: jeremygaleaz on April 19, 2005, 01:47:51 PM
Quote
Yes Annie, and I SEVERLY skeptical of ANY evidence presented by you or Jeremy....Sorry that's just the way it is.


Huh? ??? Simply present your evidence as to why you believe that they were half sisters. Or is this just your personal opinion? No more or less valid than anyone elses.
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Mgmstl on April 19, 2005, 02:41:14 PM
I think I made my statement plainly & clearly.

I like Bear will await any evidence that Penny has to share with in regards to this issue.

If you will check my earlier posts, Jeremy, you will find that my statement regarding whether or not FS & Gertrude were sisters of the half or full blood, could only be ascertained with the marriage dates of the parents,
census's, canonical christening & birth records & civil birth records.  Since one doesn't exist for Gertrude it doesn't completely exclude her from being  FS 's full sister, it however raises questions, and it is worth looking into.    It also doesn't assure us of Gertrude being her full sister either.   So let's wait until all of the evidence is in.    There is evidence of the father of having three marriages according to Penny,  & I would like to see the evidence before making a decision.
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: AGRBear on April 19, 2005, 03:00:44 PM
Quote

Correction: It's not over for You because you don't know your answer yet.... but that's quite okay. Your speculations aren't hurting anyone ;)


A good researcher doesn't assume but looks at the birth/bap certificates.

Michael G., what the problem here is that most of these people have never worked in genealogy.  And, we have.  So, we've seen all the different situations in doing this kind of research.  

Let me tell you people who haven't worked on your genealogy, that all kinds of crazy situations occur.

Heck, if I was trying to track down Gertrude, I'd be looking in all kinds of places.  And,  I don't mean that unkindly or turn her into a child born out of wedlock.  Nor would I just keep my research to the particular year she said she was born.  My one aunt always looked young for her age and  she claims to be ten years younger than my Mom, but my aunt is six or seven years older and so my aunt is marching in the 90s.  Maybe, when she reaches a 100 she'll tell everyone the truth. I said I wouldn't tell.   And, my mother, well, she just smiles and rolls her eyes then says: "Whatever makes her happy."

AGRBear
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Annie on April 19, 2005, 04:33:48 PM
Quote
Yes Annie, and I SEVERLY skeptical of ANY evidence presented by you or Jeremy....Sorry that's just the way it is.


Then  I won't be hung for saying I feel the same way about anything Penny would come up with? (especially if it runs contrary to dozens of other pieces of evidence from the past)
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Mgmstl on April 19, 2005, 04:52:01 PM
Annie, if the CONDESCENSION would cease, as you all are so very good at inferring that everyone who doesn't believe the DNA 1000% is a quart low, then I think we could have a discussion, however it is impossible for you all to do, I have seen it while I was absent, and if you want civility, then my answer is to cut the crap.

As for your comments on Penny I will answer them thusly:  Penny has raised a valid point, if she wasn't FS then who was she.  YOU, have not been able to get past that, and for whatever personal reasons or agenda you have, you have rebuffed, rejected and repudiated her research.  

I found Fate Of The Romanovs, to be a compelling book, answering many of my questions, and shedding light in areas of the Romanov captivity, and found it to be credible and bringing out things which have never before been brought out.  Greg & Penny did an outstanding job.  I hope that their next book is as good
or better than this one.  

While I believe the DNA evidence,  what you seem to be unable to get past is that these differences to me are substantial.  I wasn't even aware of the Gossman issue until it was brought up here.  All of these alleged issues you challenge, add up in my book, and as a person who has spent long hours looking for answers within their own family, I find that there are no "pat" answers.

The problem is that we have to sift through the evidence, the trials, the transcripts, testimomies, affadavits and statements for answers or to build a case either way, and Annie it may work out that she is FS, if she is then so be it.  I say let the chips fall where they may.   However this is something you seem to be unwilling to do or if the testimony or affadavit goes against the DNA you get upset.  While she may very well be FS, I myself cannot be reasonably sure until these questions have been answered.

As a historical & genealogical researcher with years of experience behind me, I will put faith in what Penny & Greg can unearth and share, they have a great track record so far, and don't seem to be promoting an agenda as others within this group seem to be doing.
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Annie on April 19, 2005, 05:12:40 PM
LOL at anyone who supports Penny accusing ANYONE else of a 'personal agenda!'

And as I told bear, this question was fairly and sufficiently discussed by many members for a long time. There is no other suspect, because she was FS! Why can't you accept that?
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Mgmstl on April 19, 2005, 05:32:29 PM
I wasn't around for that discussion Princess, so pardon your royal highness, if I offended you for DARING to discuss something that was discussed before by those far more equipped   ::) ::) than lowly me...  I beg your pardon your royal highness...

Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Mgmstl on April 19, 2005, 07:08:09 PM
Yes Bear, it is nothing other than a Merry Go Round....

Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Mgmstl on April 19, 2005, 07:16:01 PM
Posted by: Annie Posted on: Today at 5:12pm
LOL at anyone who supports Penny accusing ANYONE else of a 'personal agenda!'  


Whoa....if that isn't the case of the pot calling the kettle black....

I have lain my cards on the table about my expectations on this.  It could go either way.  However what I support is proven research, with an emphasis on getting at the truth.   If she is FS then fine, if she isn't then fine, it's just getting the questions answered that
seems to be the issue.  

Did you ever think if they get answered then the mystery may finally be put to rest, by others than yourself who are interested in finding the truth.

Oh & Annie PLEASE quit using the tired OJ analogy, or who won the Civil War, also a bit dated, and both not applicable in this instance.
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: AGRBear on April 19, 2005, 07:46:58 PM
Quote
Yes Bear, it is nothing other than a Merry Go Round....



Sorry Michael G. , I accidently pushed the wrong key about the post on the merry-go-'round and click it vanished.

I had ask in the  post what he'd like to ride on the merry-go-round we're being taken.

I chose the black horse because I always loved the story of Black Beauty.

AGRBear
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Vera_Figner on April 19, 2005, 08:45:58 PM
Quote
Annie, if the CONDESCENSION would cease, as you all are so very good at inferring that everyone who doesn't believe the DNA 1000% is a quart low, then I think we could have a discussion, however it is impossible for you all to do, I have seen it while I was absent, and if you want civility, then my answer is to cut the crap.


OK, I again ask, and being most civil about it, please explain, please what is it you do not accept about DNA studies?  Please take the time to explore the process and how results are interpreted, and throw in a few scientific words for good measure. Otherwise, honestly, some of you come off as overgrown children, stamping your feet insisting that Santa Claus is real.  And Bear, please don't make light of this as you did with the moon/cheese comments.  I'm quite serious about this. Bottom line is: those who will not accept the various DNA results not only are showing profound ignorance of matters that are quite easily understood by the average person of even modest education, but you are happy to be in a fantasy world where science means nothing, but a supposed birth certificate (which has never turned up and if it did could not be proven either genuine or fake) is one of your fantastical holy grails!
And that is ok with you?
Please take some science courses. DNA is not difficult to understand, there is no great mystery.  In fact, one of the beauties of actual DNA and the process of extracting and interpreting it is extremely simple.
Why don't you look into this and learn more about science before you discount it?

No one answered my question about science backgrounds. I am not surprised, as anyone who has even taken Biol 101 would not make the type of statements that pop up on this forum every day.
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: rskkiya on April 19, 2005, 08:48:38 PM
So is this site to be the new FS/AA  or  FS/not AA discussion thread? It seems we just keeep having the same debate under different topic headings.

rskkiya

(Michael G  - welcome back.)
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Olga on April 19, 2005, 11:06:15 PM
Quote
No one answered my question about science backgrounds. I am not surprised, as anyone who has even taken Biol 101 would not make the type of statements that pop up on this forum every day.


I did. *meek voice*
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Mgmstl on April 19, 2005, 11:21:39 PM
Vera, might I suggest that science is not the issue nor the DNA evidence.  I for one accept the DNA evidence.
So please, don't go down that well travelled road with me, AGAIN.

If you read my posts correctly you would see that I have NO PROBLEM with the DNA evidence.  Also there is a DNA thread for those who wish to discuss nothing but that, all DNA, ALL THE TIME....

Might I suggest that before you start calling people ignorant, that you take a good long look in the mirror, and think twice, as I for one am d*&m sick & tired of this attitude.  Also, this debate is NOT about the DNA it is about FS/AA and the  differences between the two
identities.   So I might I suggest you follow your own sage advice, take a course and bone up on previous
posts, Vera...
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Vera_Figner on April 20, 2005, 06:27:18 AM
Quote
Annie, if the CONDESCENSION would cease, as you all are so very good at inferring that everyone who doesn't believe the DNA 1000% is a quart low, then I think we could have a discussion,


Why did you make this statement if you do not question the DNA results?  And yes, you made this statement in this thread.

You can't have it this way and the other as well. Not with regard to DNA science.

As to the rest of your message, I ask you to take your own, previously offered advice to "cut the crap."
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Annie on April 20, 2005, 07:06:37 AM
Quote

Why did you make this statement if you do not question the DNA results?  And yes, you made this statement in this thread.

You can't have is this way and the other as well. Not with regard to DNA science.

As to the rest of your message, I ask you to take your own, previously offered advice to "cut the crap."


Thanks Vera. You are exactly right. It's good to have another person here who can see this, I'm afraid those of us who have been trying for so long are being ignored or disregarded.

I have always wanted an answer to that, too. If a person claims they have no problem with the DNA, yet still put remote, questionable quotes about shoes and earrings over it, then they MUST not believe it! If they did, the silly shoe mixups wouldn't even matter! I would love to see a direct answer to this!
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Mgmstl on April 20, 2005, 09:33:57 AM
Yes Vera you are exactly right, echos Annie from the background....

Annie shoe size is an issue.

The earring are not an issue.  Just a mere footnote.

My issues are with language, culture, PHYSICAL differences.

Annie who could keep from ignoring you, you are constantly like a spoiled unwanted child screaming the loudest from a group of screaming children.  So no one is ignoring you, it's just that some of us don't agree with you.  

Vera I have a suprise for you,  my issue is NOT with the DNA or it's results.  So please if you want to discuss DNA go to the DNA thread.....

Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Annie on April 20, 2005, 09:43:14 AM
Quote
Yes Vera you are exactly right, echos Annie from the background....


I regret posting that, since you only use it as a way to jump on me and avoid the question. If I hadn't posted perhaps you'd have given her a straight answer.

Quote
Annie shoe size is an issue.


No, it's not, because we have no proof the shoes were even hers! They could have mistaken. Even if they were hers, they could have been borrowed, or charity shoes that didn't fit, those were hard times. That's really not much!


Quote
My issues are with language, culture, PHYSICAL differences.


All of these things have comments from both sides, wiht varying answers. Why do you choose only to believe the ones you like? Since we have the DNA now, we know who was wrong and who wasn't.

Quote
Annie who could keep from ignoring you, you are constantly like a spoiled unwanted child screaming the loudest from a group of screaming children.  So no one is ignoring you, it's just that some of us don't agree with you.  


What I mean by ignoring me (not just me but anyone else trying to explain) is that all we say makes no difference to you, so perhaps you'd consider listening to a new person you don't hate yet?

Quote
Vera I have a suprise for you,  my issue is NOT with the DNA or it's results.  So please if you want to discuss DNA go to the DNA thread.....



As she asked, if you BELIEVE the DNA, how could the other things possibly make any difference to you? That's what she wants to know. If you believe the DNA, then you know who she was, shoes be damned. So if you still have questions, evidently you must NOT really be convinced by the DNA. Can you explain?
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Mgmstl on April 20, 2005, 10:22:59 AM
Annie I have given her & you my D%&N ANSWER 100 times on this merry go round...I believe the DNA, the differences don't fall or melt away because of DNA, they still exist, in SPITE OF THE DNA...

How many times do I have to say this to YOU...

Annie the comments from people who knew are VERY IMPORTANT, and in most cases they are more than comments, they are testimony, affadavit, sworn statements, but since they are not revered royalty
we need to discount them.....

You & I are NEVER going to agree on this.  Why not just agree to disagree?  
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Helen_Azar on April 20, 2005, 10:27:33 AM
Michael, I think that they are absolultely right. If you accept DNA evidence for what it is, all other evidence, which is not definitive in any case, becomes irrellevant. Since various testimonies about all the things you mentioned were always contradictory to each other, we had no way of knowing which was correct. But DNA came along and put a rest to that. DNA evidence showed, unbiasely, where the answer lies.
For anyone who understands DNA and accepts it, that should pretty much be the end of it, unless out of curiousity you just want to find exaplanations for all the other evidence that contradicts it (but not negates it). And obviously there are explanations to all this other stuff, we just don't know what they are. But that doesn't mean that it can effectively contadict the DNA evidence, it can't. So someone continues doubting the answer that DNA gave us by bringing other evidence in, such as shoes, teeth and language abilities, it shows that this someone does not fully accept the DNA evidence. Anyone who fully understands what the DNA evidence means would see the absurdity of comparing DNA to shoes, teeth, bunions, language abilities, etc.

What I just said is probably going to make you angry and you may also accuse me of having personal agenda in this, but I assure you, the only personal agenda I have is to try to get across to the readers accurate information about what these DNA results actually mean, in comparison to the other evidence as well.  
If you accept DNA, it means you now have your answer  within 0.00025%, regardless of all the other, much less compelling, evidence. If you accept the other evidence, that means you are rejecting DNA results, which means you don't trust them for whatever reason. You can't accept the DNA results and also accept the other evidence like shoes, birth certificates, languages, etc. If you accept one then that means you reject the other, there is nothing in between...

DNA evidence tells us that although all these other claims exist about various contracdictory evidence, there are other possible explanations for the other evidence such as shoes and teeth, which may be that it was a mistaken testimony, lies, mix ups, whatever, but the explanations would be there. In contrast, there is no other possible explanation for what the DNA results showed us, none at all, unless you want to believe conspiracies, which of course you are welcome to, but you stated numerous times that you don't.

You should decide if you actually do believe DNA or you don't, and argue your points using other evidence based on that, but you really can't have it both ways... you can't say that you believe the DNA but that you believe the other evidence just as much.
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Mgmstl on April 20, 2005, 11:32:30 AM
Helen again, & I politely & respectfully state to you, that
the DNA is not the issue.  

Believing the DNA is not the issue.

What remains to be discussed and researched and analyzed are the differences.   Of course we could just leave them to another generation to ferret out, and
argue over.   The differences do not just melt away because of the DNA, they remain.    


My question for you is, why do you continue to discuss it, if the DNA answers all your questions??  Again my statement is, if it ends the argument for you then stay out of the discussion, as you or Agenda Ridden Annie, or Vera, or Jeremy will not change my mind

I truly don't care to discuss this any further.  You know
what my position is and how I feel on this matter.
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Annie on April 20, 2005, 11:49:28 AM
The differences DO just melt away because of the DNA! Because once we got that, we know she was FS, and now we know that the other details were all incorrect because we have our answer! I don't know how anyone can spell it out more plainly than Helen did- if you believe the DNA, you couldn't possibly still question AA's identity, and if you do, you couldn't totally believe the DNA!

And consider too, there were conflicting details of ALL the evidence you cling to- which means it couldn't all be right, some of it had to be wrong. But what? Well, now that we have the DNA, the mystery is solved, we know her identity, and anything to the contrary was a lie, a mixup or an unfortunate mistake. This is not my opinion or an agenda, this is REALITY!!!
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Helen_Azar on April 20, 2005, 11:58:19 AM
Quote
The differences do not just melt away because of the DNA, they remain.    


Michael, I don't think you understood my point, I probably wasn't that clear. I am not arguing that the reported differences exist. My point is, that these differences can be explained away reasonably, now that the DNA showed us what the real answer is. This is a subtle concept, but pretty understandable.

DNA gave us the answer - and while other things may appear to exist that contradict this answer, they can be explained away without negating the DNA results. While the DNA results cannot be explained away in order to negate these other things. That's all.

But when someone tries to provide possible explanations for these things (explanations that are pretty reasonable and not "out there" at all), this person is usually accused of having an agenda.

Quote
 
My question for you is, why do you continue to discuss it, if the DNA answers all your questions??  

I just gave my answer on the other thread where you also posed this question...
Title: ARe: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Mgmstl on April 20, 2005, 12:07:42 PM
Annie, the differences do melt away, IN YOUR OPINION.
However, in my opinion THEY DO NOT.  So in the future please refrain from telling me what I can and cannot think or believe.  Or has Bush & the "christian right" taken total control within the last few minutes. :o :o
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: AGRBear on April 20, 2005, 12:09:20 PM
I see the merry-go-'round is still here.

Michael G.,  you've been so nice to let me have the Black Horse who reminds me of Black Beauty.

After this,  I think I'd like to get off for awhile, too.

I don't think it is the circles we're taking these days but maybe it's being force feed all this mtDNA that's making my berries and honey flip flop in my tummy.

Yes, I've told them over and over, just like you and others have, that they don't need to feed mtDNA to me anymore but they do NOT seem to understand.  I wonder if this is a paradox and a problem as well.


The Hokey AGRBear

PS:
Heads who can't accept the possibility they may not know everything >>(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v152/WuvDaNick/banghead.gif)<<Wall of truth

Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Vera_Figner on April 20, 2005, 12:58:35 PM
Quote
Yes Vera you are exactly right, echos Annie from the background....

Annie shoe size is an issue.

The earring are not an issue.  Just a mere footnote.

My issues are with language, culture, PHYSICAL differences.


Annie who could keep from ignoring you, you are constantly like a spoiled unwanted child screaming the loudest from a group of screaming children.  So no one is ignoring you, it's just that some of us don't agree with you.  

Vera I have a suprise for you,  my issue is NOT with the DNA or it's results.  So please if you want to discuss DNA go to the DNA thread.....



No you don't Michael. You have contradicted yourself on this issue several times in just the past 24 hours, and even more previously.  Shall I dredge them all up and post them here so you can explain how it is that you can support and question DNA results in the same instance?

This will be a magnificent feat. Won't you indulge us and explain what appears to be some sort of double-speak. Are you feeling a little bit Orwellian?

Now, as to language and culture. Are you an anthropologist or perhaps a linguist?  Wait. You work for PayLess shoes, is that it?

Either way, none of these matter whatsoever. At least to those who trouble themselves to learn just a little bit (that's all it takes for clarification) about DNA science.

Why do you avoid answering the question as to what you know about that subject?


Title: Re: ARe: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a prob
Post by: Annie on April 20, 2005, 12:59:51 PM
Quote
Annie, the differences do melt away, IN YOUR OPINION.
However, in my opinion THEY DO NOT.  So in the future please refrain from telling me what I can and cannot think or believe.  Or has Bush & the "christian right" taken total control within the last few minutes. :o :o


[glb]BUT HISTORICAL AND SCIENTIFIC FACT ARE NOT OPINION!!!!![/glb]


(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v152/WuvDaNick/banghead.gif)

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v152/WuvDaNick/banghead.gif)

There is an answer to this! As I said before, it's an opinion what your favorite color is and what pizza you prefer and no one can challenge that. But this is not like that! There is proof, and your fantasy 'opinion' does not change the FACTS!!!!

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v152/WuvDaNick/banghead.gif)


Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Vera_Figner on April 20, 2005, 01:00:10 PM
Quote
Michael, I think that they are absolultely right. If you accept DNA evidence for what it is, all other evidence, which is not definitive in any case, becomes irrellevant. Since various testimonies about all the things you mentioned were always contradictory to each other, we had no way of knowing which was correct. But DNA came along and put a rest to that. DNA evidence showed, unbiasely, where the answer lies.
For anyone who understands DNA and accepts it, that should pretty much be the end of it, unless out of curiousity you just want to find exaplanations for all the other evidence that contradicts it (but not negates it). And obviously there are explanations to all this other stuff, we just don't know what they are. But that doesn't mean that it can effectively contadict the DNA evidence, it can't. So someone continues doubting the answer that DNA gave us by bringing other evidence in, such as shoes, teeth and language abilities, it shows that this someone does not fully accept the DNA evidence. Anyone who fully understands what the DNA evidence means would see the absurdity of comparing DNA to shoes, teeth, bunions, language abilities, etc.

What I just said is probably going to make you angry and you may also accuse me of having personal agenda in this, but I assure you, the only personal agenda I have is to try to get across to the readers accurate information about what these DNA results actually mean, in comparison to the other evidence as well.  
If you accept DNA, it means you now have your answer  within 0.00025%, regardless of all the other, much less compelling, evidence. If you accept the other evidence, that means you are rejecting DNA results, which means you don't trust them for whatever reason. You can't accept the DNA results and also accept the other evidence like shoes, birth certificates, languages, etc. If you accept one then that means you reject the other, there is nothing in between...

DNA evidence tells us that although all these other claims exist about various contracdictory evidence, there are other possible explanations for the other evidence such as shoes and teeth, which may be that it was a mistaken testimony, lies, mix ups, whatever, but the explanations would be there. In contrast, there is no other possible explanation for what the DNA results showed us, none at all, unless you want to believe conspiracies, which of course you are welcome to, but you stated numerous times that you don't.

You should decide if you actually do believe DNA or you don't, and argue your points using other evidence based on that, but you really can't have it both ways... you can't say that you believe the DNA but that you believe the other evidence just as much.
 



Helen, brilliant! And worth posting twice!
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Annie on April 20, 2005, 01:02:58 PM
I have one more thing to say before I get off for now. My son's friend is writing a research paper on the Romanovs, and he told her it might be interesting to include the AA story. She refused, saying that AA was FS, everyone knows that now, it's a proven (scientific and historical) fact, and it's so stupid it's not even worth bringing it up anymore as no rational person with a brain in their head would even have a doubt anymore. (her words!)
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Mgmstl on April 20, 2005, 01:17:18 PM
Annie, you can post all of the BS that you want, but you and your mignion Vera, cannot and will not change my mind.  

Vera I have never altered or changed or waivered in what I have said from day one.  So may I suggest you stick your nose just a bit further up Annie's derriere,
along with your opinion.
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Mgmstl on April 20, 2005, 01:21:30 PM
Oh & Vera, I have never CLAIMED to be an anthropologist nor a dna expert or scientist of any kind,
so tell me what is your background that makes you so mighty and far above the rest of us???  

What exactly is your background Vera?
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Vera_Figner on April 20, 2005, 01:22:57 PM
Quote
Annie, you can post all of the BS that you want, but you and you mignion Vera, cannot and will not change my mind.  

Vera I have never altered or changed or waivered in what I have said from day one.  So may I suggest you stick your nose just a bit further up Annie's derriere,
along with your opinion.


Now Michael, how can you say that when YOUR head is entirely in your very OWN derriere!
That's minion, btw, and I do not know Annie so cannot be her minion.
You still avoid the obvious don't you, all the while accusing others of BS and head placement! You do not know how to successfully argue a point, and refuse to explain how it is you can believe DNA results, and at the same time...not!  How vapid!

Ok, I don't have time today to dredge up all the times you contradicted yourself (you're so unconscious about it, it's hilarious!) so hopefully you won't go deleting your pearls of wisdom in the meantime, because I will copy and paste every one I find into a new post to prove my point! I will watch and see if your posts increase or decline! What fun!

Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Mgmstl on April 20, 2005, 01:23:37 PM
Annie I could care less what research paper your son's friend is writing.  I just hope that he/she/it doesn't use you to gather FACTS.....  Have a nice day ;D
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Vera_Figner on April 20, 2005, 01:29:23 PM
Quote
Oh & Vera, I have never CLAIMED to be an anthropologist nor a dna expert or scientist of any kind,
so tell me what is your background that makes you so mighty and far above the rest of us???  

What exactly is your background Vera?


My background is irrelevant as I do not dispute the DNA tests whatsoever and neither do I contradict myself with every breath.

However, I have a B.S. in biology, B.A. in history, with minors in various subjects including Russian studies, anthropology, and I'm still studying most of the above.

The point is, EVERYTHING you need to know about DNA as far as interpreting and understanding this case can be had very easily in Biol 101 OR on one's own, even online, if one bothers to make such discoveries before talking out of both sides of the mouth.

I find it very interesting that you believe it is fine to contradict yourself, but when OTHERS contradict you, well, that's just not on, is it?  No one can have a reasonable discussion with someone possessing that mindset.  

Now, will you finally answer the question and explain how it is you understand DNA and can still have pertinent (non-fantasy land) questions about this case?

How pathetic! You are asked repeatedly, provided with examples of where you contradicted yourself, but rather than having the intestinal fortitude to defend your position, you go on the attack, demanding others present their credentials.

I obliged. Are you able to do the same?
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Mgmstl on April 20, 2005, 01:31:24 PM
Vera, as I said before I have not changed my mind or my statement on DNA.

What I have said is that I will continue to research and discuss the differences, and hopefully come to a conclusion on my own without interference from yourself or Annie.

FIND where I have contradicted myself on what I have stated... You will have a problem there Vera.  I have never stated that I did believe AA was FS or that  after research I didn't believe the DNA.

Go ahead and waste your time Vera.....you aren't wasting ANYMORE of mine.
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Vera_Figner on April 20, 2005, 01:33:18 PM
Answer the question put to you Michael.

Or can't you?

If you won't, then I think we all have your answer.
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: AGRBear on April 20, 2005, 01:37:48 PM
Quote
...[in part]...
Helen again, & I politely & respectfully state to you, that
the DNA is not the issue.  

Believing the DNA is not the issue.

What remains to be discussed and researched and analyzed are the differences.   Of course we could just leave them to another generation to ferret out, and
argue over.   The differences do not just melt away because of the DNA, they remain.    

...


How many of these post would you like me to find and post here to prove Michael has been consistant in trying to talk about the "differences"?

AGRBear
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Mgmstl on April 20, 2005, 01:40:11 PM
I have answered it Vera and obliged you with the same
answer, that I have given everyone else. If you don't like my answer or feel it doesn't give you the ammunition you want or need, be satisfied as that is the only answer you will get from me.

If your background is irrelevant to this discussion, than mine is.

Others can discuss and we can contradict each other and we have in the past.  How dare you sit there and say I have contradicted myself, when I have not.  That
my opinion or statement has changed, when it has not.
You haven't provided ONE not ONE specific example, when you demand that I answer your question.
You have the audacity to state that I don't have the right to believe the way I do because of DNA, or that if
accepting the DNA, I can't have my own opinion, it may not be right, it may not be what you believe, and then demand I explain myself to you, and you offer NOTHING???  We will continue to discuss the differences, regardless of your interference.  Vera I would like to be able to tell you where you can go, but it is obvious you have spent your entire life there already.

So you have an answer, now go and play in the traffic...
It may not be the answer you want or demand, but it is all YOU are going to get.

Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: AGRBear on April 20, 2005, 01:41:42 PM
Quote
Annie I have given her & you my D%&N ANSWER 100 times on this merry go round...I believe the DNA, the differences don't fall or melt away because of DNA, they still exist, in SPITE OF THE DNA...

How many times do I have to say this to YOU...

  


More?  Okay.

Quote
...[in [part]....

Annie shoe size is an issue.

The earring are not an issue.  Just a mere footnote.

My issues are with language, culture, PHYSICAL differences.

... I have a suprise for you,  my issue is NOT with the DNA or it's results.  So please if you want to discuss DNA go to the DNA thread.....



AGRBear
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Vera_Figner on April 20, 2005, 01:45:57 PM
Quote
I have answered it Vera and obliged you with the same
answer. If you don't like my answer or feel it doesn't give you the ammunition you want or need, be satisfied as that is the only answer you will get from me.

If your background is irrelevant, than mine is.

Others can discuss and we can contradict each other
Vera, but it is obvious that you feel it is one way, your
way.  I don't feel that way.

So you have answer, now go and play in the traffic...




You have answered nothing. I was pretty sure you were incapable of explaining yourself, but gave you the benefit of a doubt. Your background is extremely relevant due to the types of statements you have made in this and other threads. A person of character would insist on making their position quite clear in order to strengthen their argument. Instead, you have most certainly pointed out the obvious: you possess only the ability to fling irrelevant insults.
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: AGRBear on April 20, 2005, 01:47:08 PM
He hasn't made his point clear???

Let me go some more of Michael's posts.

AGRBear
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Vera_Figner on April 20, 2005, 01:48:04 PM
Quote

More?  Okay.


AGRBear



YES, Bear, MORE. Only this time questions should be answered rather than avoided.

Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: AGRBear on April 20, 2005, 01:49:17 PM
My pleasure.

Quote
...[in part]...

...might I suggest that science is not the issue nor the DNA evidence.  I for one accept the DNA evidence.
So please, don't go down that well travelled road with me, AGAIN.

If you read my posts correctly you would see that I have NO PROBLEM with the DNA evidence.  Also there is a DNA thread for those who wish to discuss nothing but that, all DNA, ALL THE TIME....



Quote

...[in part]...

Bear I apologize for deserting you.  This discussion is anything BUT mundane.  The only reason it seems to become so is that because we keep hearing: DNA DNA.

There are too many physical differences between the woman described as FS, and the woman we know as AA,
those physical differences along with the cultural, language issues, are the crux of why I believe further investigation is needed.  

I believe in one of Penny's earlier posts Helen, it may be that Gertrude was possibly a half sister of Franziska, if you look at the marriages of the father.  I think we are
forgetting that possibility.  Jeremy regardless of your new found expertise on DNA, it looks to me that they are more than likely half sisters,  could the mothers have been related in that case?  Always a possibility.


Seems Michael hasn't changed his position.  

AGRBear
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: AGRBear on April 20, 2005, 01:59:28 PM
Quote


YES, Bear, MORE. Only this time questions should be answered rather than avoided.



I'm sorry, which question?  

The ones about: What does Michael G. think about DNA or the topic of>> 'mudane idea-a paradox and a problem"<<

AGRBear
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Vera_Figner on April 20, 2005, 02:23:03 PM
Bear, the question that really ought to be answered was posed to Michael, who has decided to push his head ever farther up his posterior, peeping out only to fling ignorant insults in every direction.

Here's the problem, followed by the question:

For someone with even a slight familiarity with DNA studies, and I am talking VERY elementary levels here, it is simply not possible to continue to have questions.  Yes, the DNA results are that precise, UNLESS, as I have said before, one wishes to indulge in fantasy, or believes in a conspiracy of DNA "switches."

Michael continues to make the case for believing DNA results and continuing to wonder who is who. DNA made this a NON-ISSUE.  Now, if he or you or anyone else prefers to remain in the dark about the simple technology of which we  may avail ourselves, that is fine, but to do it in the context of serious historical inquiry is blatant ignorance.  

The question I put to him was simple. He refuses to answer it but his ignorant rant responses have filled in the blanks nicely.

The question:
Have you done the research into DNA itself, and the processes involved in getting from extraction to interpretation?

Bear, you are someone who likes to consider every point of view, leaving no stone unturned. Do you feel the same way about this part of the AA/FS/AN story? Don't you believe that understanding how scientists arrived at these conclusions would help to clarify a few matters? If not, why not?
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: AGRBear on April 20, 2005, 02:56:58 PM
My education on DNA and mtDNA had been taken from Helen's posts as well as daveK's.  I dug around other material, too, and I asked one of my sons who's into all of this and he gave me some extra information.

So, my knowledge is limited.  Just go read the DNA thread to find that out  8) .

But the  fact that the birth or bap. certificate has not been found for Gertrude does give me un uneasy feeling.  Having drawn thousands and thousands of such records from all around the world, I know that if you don't have one or the other than it's trouble for the genelogists because we come to a brick wall which we can't go over or around.

It is not unknown for families to adopt a child who never discovers they were adopted, therefore, the child is not the child of the two people he/she have called mother and father all their lives.

Before and around the 1900s there were so many deaths that this scenario I've given occured many many many times.

Usually the child was a relative of the couple who adopted the child but not always.

Children born out of wedlock were a real problem for families who were embarsed by this child.  Sometimes, these infants were sent away and could end up in homes of strangers.  There was one fellow who was born in Russia, ended up in Wales, discovered he had been adopted, turn over all kinds of stones and discovered  his mother's whereabout but unfortunately, the mother had died several weeks earlier in Rumania.  Fortunately, he found brothers and sisters he never knew he had.

Since Gertrude does not have a birth/bap. certificate, as far as I'm concern at this time, the mtDNA proves AA and Gertrude were related.  It can not tell us that Gertrude was related to FS or even Felix or anyone.  Why?  Because there is no proof she was ever born in records and so we can not know who her parents were.  And, I don't think Felix gave his DNA.  I forget if Felix had children who could or has given DNA....

If and when the birth/bap certificate is found, then we can take the next steps.

AGRBear
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Vera_Figner on April 20, 2005, 03:06:37 PM
Quote
My education on DNA and mtDNA had been taken from Helen's posts as well as daveK's.  I dug around other material, too, and I asked one of my sons who's into all of this and he gave me some extra information.

So, my knowledge is limited.  Just go read the DNA thread to find that out  8) .

But the  fact that the birth or bap. certificate has not been found for Gertrude does give me un uneasy feeling.  Having drawn thousands and thousands of such records from all around the world, I know that if you don't have one or the other than it's trouble for the genelogists because we come to a brick wall which we can't go over or around.

It is not unknown for families to adopt a child who never discovers they were adopted, therefore, the child is not the child of the two people he/she have called mother and father all their lives.

Before and around the 1900s there were so many deaths that this scenario I've given occured many many many times.

Usually the child was a relative of the couple who adopted the child but not always.

Children born out of wedlock were a real problem for families who were embarsed by this child.  Sometimes, these infants were went away and could end up in homes of strangers.  There was one fellow who was born in Russia, ended up in Wales, discovered he had been adopted, turn over all kinds of stones and discovered he'd been born in Rumania and found his mother who had died several weeks earlier.

Since Gertrude does not have a birth/bap. certificate, as far as I'm concern at this time, the mtDNA proves AA and Gertrude were related.  It can not tell us that Gertrude was related to FS or even Felix or anyone.  Why?  Because there is not proof she was ever born and so we can not know who her parents were.

If and when the birth/bap certificate is found, then we can take the next steps.

AGRBear


Well, Bear, a couple of points. First of all, have you ever thought about actually studying the elementary aspects of DNA?  As someone so fascinated with this case, you might want to look into that, in fact, you can even take elementary biology courses online. Or, well, I could perhaps recommend a couple of useful websites. None of it is difficult to understand, and there is no great mystery. But once you have the knowledge I can almost guarantee you will view this case differently.  And once you know better, you will wonder why you worried over a missing birth certificate. Really, you will wonder.

As regards said certificate, the fact that it's missing isn't so very remarkable. You of all people should know that the upheavals of two world wars and a great depression
caused a great many things to go missing. Plus, as a geneaologist, you must surely be aware of the dilemma of burned records.  I know in the U.S. dozens of localities court houses and churches burned, taking important family history from many forever. This happened in Europe as well.  Furthermore, it is not out of the realm of possibility that the birth simply was not recorded, due to family crisis, disinterest, or even misfiling over the decades.
Now, these are totally plausible possibilities, bordering on probabilities.
DNA is an absolute. You should learn more about this and see what I mean.
I think, again, the whole difficulty is that the DNA results do not fit what people wish to believe.
You said in another thread that the Perm stories should not be put aside. Well, why do you put aside the DNA results? They are far more valuable and accurate than anything else you could ever dredge up!
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: AGRBear on April 20, 2005, 03:21:15 PM
I must not have made myself clear.

I believe the mtDNA does tell us that AA and Gertrude were relatives.

Since we do not know who Gertrude's parents were because there isn't a birth/bap certificate, then we can not prove she was the daughter of Anton S. or any of his wives.  Nor can we prove Gertrude was the sister of FS.

Therefore, you can not prove that AA and FS were related, therefore, how can anyone prove they were the same person.

To do this, all you have is this so-called "hearsay" evidence like shoe size, who spoke what language, etc. etc. etc..

If AA was FS then many of these pieces of evidence should match.  Not all will, of course.

And, this is all that myself, Michael and others wish to discover and we can do this while Penny looks for  the birth/bap. certificate of Gertrude.

My last post was just explaining why birth/bap. certificates are imporant and in this case  this is a huge piece of evidence missing at this time.

A missing birth/bap certificate is not that unsual but it's still missing until it's found.

AGRBear
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Mgmstl on April 20, 2005, 04:11:18 PM
Gee Vera, I thought you were going to spend time digging up all of my posts where I have contradicted myself.......hmmmm.

Well again you indulge yourself in fantasy, and spin my statements to what you want them to be.  

For me, the DNA doesn't melt away or even explain the differences.  I just want it cleared up, explained to my satisfaction.

You demand answers out of everyone without offering any yourself.  I don't nor have ever pretended to have a background in science or dna.  I have an elementary understanding of dna.  

As long as there are unanswered questions, I am going to try to get answers.  What is your background on this case, have you studied anything BUT the DNA??  Since you are such an expert perhaps you can enlighten us
with your vast array of knowledge on the subject.

Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Mgmstl on April 20, 2005, 04:24:53 PM
Helen, no one has offered reasonable explanations for the differences,  Annie constantly pulls facts out of the air, and she does have an agenda.  

I am not indulging in fantasy nor conspiracy theories, nor have I ever done so.  I am talking about factual differences between FS & AA.  These are not explained to my satisfaction, and I am interested in the outcome from the court documents, etc.  After all what could it hurt to explore it.  It's just my time that I am wasting, and if it comes out that she is FS, or the issues areexplained to my satisfaction then I am fine with that. This is what I have said all along.  However the pathetic Vera Finger/Figner (perhaps if it isn't Finger, then I can giver her one some day 8) ) comes along and spins, and misstates, etc. and then expects & demends me to give her further ammunition,  I don't think so. I have answered the question NUMEROUS times, my answer has been the same.  If she doesn't like the answer than perhaps she needs to put it in her rectal cavity along with her opinion (s).


While I respect you, and your opinion, I will keep my options open on this one, and wait for Greg & Penny's book, and see what else she has to share with us.  I prefer not to rely on results given by Jeremy or Annie, as I have serious doubts about the veracity of what they would present.
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Vera_Figner on April 20, 2005, 04:34:50 PM
Quote
Helen, no one has offered reasonable explanations for the differences,  Annie constantly pulls facts out of the air, and she does have an agenda.  

I am not indulging in fantasy nor conspiracy theories, nor have I ever done so.  I am talking about factual differences between FS & AA.  These are not explained to my satisfaction, and I am interested in the outcome from the court documents, etc.  After all what could it hurt to explore it.  It's just my time that I am wasting, and if it comes out that she is FS, or the issues become
explained then I am fine with that.  This is what I have said all along.  However the pathetic Vera Finger/Figner
(perhaps if it isn't Finger, then I can giver her one some day 8) ) and spins, and misstates, etc. and the expects me to give her further ammunition,  I don't think so. I have answered the question NUMEROUS times, my answer has been the same.  If she doesn't like the answer than perhaps she needs to put it in her rectal cavity along with her opinion (s).


While I respect you, and your opinion, I will keep my options open on this one, and wait for Greg & Penny's book, and see what else she has to share with us.  I prefer not to rely on results given by Jeremy or Annie, as
I have serious doubts about the veracity of what they would present.


My knowledge of this case is at least as good as yours as I have studied it from every angle for many years.  Having a science background has enhanced my understanding in ways you are not able to appreciate. You could learn better, but you do not wish to do so. Your misfortune.

As to the childish play on my screen name, you again reveal ignorance of Russian history.

Your persistent crude insults only continue to point to your ignorance and stupidity.  They do not contribute to your arguments but then, it is clear you have nothing to argue.  If you possessed even an elementary understanding of DNA you categorically could not hold the view that you can accept the results AND keep digging for answers.

You don't get it! The DNA results render ALL else MOOT POINTS.

You are the moot point specialist.
Nothing more.
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: rskkiya on April 20, 2005, 04:50:17 PM
So Michael, as far as I can see (I may be myopic) you believe in subjective evidence rather than objective evidence? As in 'The earth seems flat and it sure looks like the sun moon and stars are revolving around us --- so forget the validity of Copernicus & Gallileo' -- is that it?
Or do you feel that the DNA was switched?

Please clarify.
rskkiya
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: AGRBear on April 20, 2005, 05:02:00 PM
Let us take this step by step.

Does Gertrude S. have a birth/bap. record?

AGRBear
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Helen_Azar on April 20, 2005, 05:28:52 PM
Quote
Let us take this step by step.Does Gertrude S. have a birth/bap. record?


Yes, I am sure she does/did have one, we just don't know where it is (allegedly). This claim that Gertrude had a different mother has no basis as far as I can see, unless we had this certificate and it said that the mothers were different. So why are we assuming that this is the case? What normal researchers would do is assume that they had the same mothers, until proven otherswise. What Bear wants to do is assume that they have different mothers until proven otherwise. But that is completely incosistent considering that the DNA matched.

Why don't we, based on the same reasoning, assume that AA really was AN, but that she was a changeling, not the biological child of N & A, but really a relative of Gertrude Schankowska. So when both AN and Gertrude were infants, this relative, whom we will call "Martha", was planted and the real AN was taken away somewhere, and no one was the wiser.

After all, we have so much "evidence" that shows that AA was in fact AN, so may similarities, testimonies, ets, so how could she not be? But the DNA showed that she wasn't AN because she couldn't have been A & N's biological child.

And this is what everyone accepted, disregarding all the other compelling evidence that showed that she must have been AN. So the "changeling" theory would have to be right, wouldn't it? This is how we can explain that AA knew all these things that no one else knew, yet her DNA didn't  match.

Can you prove to me that this was not the case, Bear? No, you can't. If we can't find witnesses who will say this didn't happen, or we have no other proof for this outrageous theory, then should we accept it as fact? Should we assume then that something like this really did happen? You tell me, is this your reasoning?

Because it sure sounds like that. What you are proposing about the different mothers amounts to the same thing, but with a different twist.

Think about that one, Bear (if you actually understand  what I am talking about).

Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: AGRBear on April 20, 2005, 05:33:16 PM
These can be yes or no answers  ::)

Evidence as we know it today, Wed.  the 20 th of April.
Question #1: Does Gertrude have a birth/bap. record?
Ans.#1- Gertrude doesn't have a birth/bap. record.

Question #2-  Can you tell me who Gertrude's father was?

AGRBear
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Helen_Azar on April 20, 2005, 05:38:41 PM
Quote
These can be yes or no answers  ::)

Evidence as we know it today, Tues.  the 20 th of April.
Question #1: Does Gertrude have a birth/bap. record?
Ans.#1- Gertrude doesn't have a birth/bap. record.

Question #2-  Can you tell me who Gertrude's father was?

AGRBear


You know what Bear? This can be my only possible response to you from now on:

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v152/WuvDaNick/banghead.gif)
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: AGRBear on April 20, 2005, 05:41:16 PM
Is this Helen hitting her head because she doesn't know the answer to Question #2?>>(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v152/WuvDaNick/banghead.gif)<<Wall of truth is still standing.

AGRBear
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Helen_Azar on April 20, 2005, 05:45:08 PM
Quote
Is this Helen hitting her head because she doesn't know the answer to Question #2?>>(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v152/WuvDaNick/banghead.gif)<<Wall of truth is still standing.

AGRBear


Ok, I have two questions of my own then:

1. Are you, Bear, now implying that Gertrude and FS had not only different mothers but also a different fathers, and what is your point exactly?

2. Can you please respond to my previous post, or do you not know how to respond to it? Thanks!

Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: AGRBear on April 20, 2005, 05:52:10 PM
Quote

Ok, I have two questions of my own then:

1. Are you, Bear, now implying that Gertrude and FS had not only different mothers but also a different fathers, and what is your point exactly?

2. Can you please respond to my previous post, or do you not know how to respond to it? Thanks!



Helen:  >>1. Are you, Bear, now implying that Gertrude and FS had not only different mothers but also a different fathers, and what is your point exactly? <<
Bear Ans:  Do you have a birth/bap certificate of Gertrude which tells me or anyone else that who Gertrude's father was?

Helen: >> Can you please respond to my previous post, or do you not know how to respond to it? <<
Bear Ans:  I did.
Quote
Is this Helen hitting her head because she doesn't know the answer to Question #2?>>(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v152/WuvDaNick/banghead.gif)<<Wall of truth is still standing.

AGRBear


Silly bear I bet you were referring to this question:
Helen:>>What normal researchers would do is assume that they had the same mothers, until proven otherswise.<<
Bear Ans:  Nope, not true, especially not in genealogy.

AGRBear
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Helen_Azar on April 20, 2005, 05:58:21 PM
Bear, don't try to be "cute", it really doesn't really work. Belwo is the post I was referring that you are avoiding responding to:

(and you still have not responded to my question 1.)

Quote

Yes, I am sure she does/did have one, we just don't know where it is (allegedly). This claim that Gertrude had a different mother has no basis as far as I can see, unless we had this certificate and it said that the mothers were different. So why are we assuming that this is the case? What normal researchers would do is assume that they had the same mothers, until proven otherswise. What Bear wants to do is assume that they have different mothers until proven otherwise. But that is completely incosistent considering that the DNA matched.

Why don't we, based on the same reasoning, assume that AA really was AN, but that she was a changeling, not the biological child of N & A, but really a relative of Gertrude Schankowska. So when both AN and Gertrude were infants, this relative, whom we will call "Martha", was planted and the real AN was taken away somewhere, and no one was the wiser.

After all, we have so much "evidence" that shows that AA was in fact AN, so may similarities, testimonies, ets, so how could she not be? But the DNA showed that she wasn't AN because she couldn't have been A & N's biological child.

And this is what everyone accepted, disregarding all the other compelling evidence that showed that she must have been AN. So the "changeling" theory would have to be right, wouldn't it? This is how we can explain that AA knew all these things that no one else knew, yet her DNA didn't  match.

Can you prove to me that this was not the case, Bear? No, you can't. If we can't find witnesses who will say this didn't happen, or we have no other proof for this outrageous theory, then should we accept it as fact? Should we assume then that something like this really did happen? You tell me, is this your reasoning?

Because it sure sounds like that. What you are proposing about the different mothers amounts to the same thing, but with a different twist.

Think about that one, Bear (if you actually understand  what I am talking about).


Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: AGRBear on April 20, 2005, 06:02:32 PM
The burden of proof is in your corner.

I have a perfectly valid question and you should be able to give me an official document just like you demand of those in your DNA thread.

AGRBear
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Helen_Azar on April 20, 2005, 06:06:52 PM
Quote
The burden of proof is in your corner.

I have a perfectly valid question and you should be able to give me an official document just like you demand of those in your DNA thread.

AGRBear


You obivously did not understand a word I said, just as I suspected you wouldn't.... Oh well.
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: AGRBear on April 20, 2005, 06:26:58 PM
I have answered your questions, or, so I thought.

What did I miss?

AGRBear
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Mgmstl on April 20, 2005, 07:43:08 PM
Rskkiya,

I have made no such statement, or have Vera & Annie credited me with saying that I believe in switched DNA.

I don't believe in switched DNA, or conspiracy theories in this case.

I also believe that there are differences between AA & FS that are significant enough that the DNA does not render it moot, as Vera demands.

I am a historian who just wants to investigate a bit farther.   I believe in looking at the case from the beginning from her first stay at Dalldorf, until the the
end of WW II.  

I am interested in those who knew her before the media feeding frenzy, and the agenda of the GD Of Hesse and the Gleb Botkin agenda took over.  I am interested in the testimony of the nurses, doctors, friends, descriptions of her.

As far as FS goes I am interested in the family data and clarifying the marriages and the siblings from each, and who FS really was.  However I am sure that information from this source will be more limited.  The family is extremely private and I am sure that source materaial from this end is also limited.

I am also interested in the Grossman case.  What brought the Berlin Police to the conclusions that they arrived to & how.

Rskkiya, I am just looking at who she originally was, and
if she is FS then FINE, I have no problem with that, but it would help me understand how she became who she was.  I don't think it is too much to ask.  I just want to be able to decide for myself, without this screaming shrew Vera, who has decided what I think, how think it and when....
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: AGRBear on April 20, 2005, 08:01:38 PM
I guess I did answer Helen's questions, or, maybe she hasn't been back to post.  

Meanwhile, I'll repeat my Question #2:

These can be yes or no answers  ::)

Evidence as we know it today, Wed.  the 20 th of April.
Question #1: Does Gertrude have a birth/bap. record?
Ans.#1- Gertrude doesn't have a birth/bap. record.

Question #2-  Can you tell me who Gertrude's father was?

AGRBear
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Mgmstl on April 20, 2005, 08:37:29 PM
Bear, at this point we should "assume" that she is also the daughter of Anton (?) Schanzkowska, as she is included in lists of the siblings.  

It depends on where the family was residing when Gertrude was born in 1898.  If birth registration was required at that time where they lived, it would be registered civilly as well as canonnically at the time of baptism in the church.  

There could be other factors and issues involved, in this situation.  

Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Vera_Figner on April 20, 2005, 09:13:27 PM
Quote
Rskkiya,

I have made no such statement, or have Vera & Annie credited me with saying that I believe in switched DNA.

I don't believe in switched DNA, or conspiracy theories in this case.

I also believe that there are differences between AA & FS that are significant enough that the DNA does not render it moot, as Vera demands.

I am a historian who just wants to investigate a bit farther.   I believe in looking at the case from the beginning from her first stay at Dalldorf, until the the
end of WW II.  

I am interested in those who knew her before the media feeding frenzy, and the agenda of the GD Of Hesse and the Gleb Botkin agenda took over.  I am interested in the testimony of the nurses, doctors, friends, descriptions of her.

As far as FS goes I am interested in the family data and clarifying the marriages and the siblings from each, and who FS really was.  However I am sure that information from this source will be more limited.  The family is extremely private and I am sure that source materaial from this end is also limited.

I am also interested in the Grossman case.  What brought the Berlin Police to the conclusions that they arrived to & how.

Rskkiya, I am just looking at who she originally was, and
if she is FS then FINE, I have no problem with that, but it would help me understand how she became who she was.  I don't think it is too much to ask.  I just want to be able to decide for myself, without this screaming shrew Vera, who has decided what I think, how think it and when....


What is your educational and professional background in history, Michael?

BTW, no one, not even me (whom you have determined somehow to be your personal torturer, if that is so, then you have allowed it) has put words in your mouth or thoughts in your head.

Your insistence that DNA is not enough speaks for itself. And "it" is pure ignorance, though very possibly denial.

Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Annie on April 20, 2005, 09:43:08 PM
Quote
Annie I could care less what research paper your son's friend is writing.  I just hope that he/she/it doesn't use you to gather FACTS.....  Have a nice day ;D


That would be a lot better than using you.

But she doesn't need any of us, only the historical and scientific evidence which for most people speaks for itself.

BTW, I don't even know Vera, never heard of her until yesterday. She is just a person stating sensible reason, and I'm glad she came since you  don't pay any attention to me, Helen, Jeremy, FA or anyone else here. You say none of us will change your mind, will anyone or  anything?  I am beginning to believe it is made  of something much more dense than cotton wool. Something is wrong if you don't see that if you accept the DNA, nothing else means anything. (and speaking of personal insults your derriere comments were totally childish and unecessary)

No matter how much we try to  explain, the meaner and more stubborn you get. Maybe as a kid you  couldn't stand losing and tossed the checker board. But no matter what, science and history will never  change  to make you happy, so someday you'll have to realize that and deal with it.


Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Vera_Figner on April 20, 2005, 09:56:08 PM
Quote

That would be a lot better than using you.

But she doesn't need any of us, only the historical and scientific evidence which for most people speaks for itself.

BTW, I don't even know Vera, never heard of her until yesterday. She is just a person stating sensible reason, and I'm glad she came since you  don't pay any attention to me, Helen, Jeremy, FA or anyone else here. You say none of us will change your mind, will anyone or  anything?  I am beginning to believe it is made  of something much more dense than cotton wool. Something is wrong if you don't see that if you accept the DNA, nothing else means anything. (and speaking of personal insults your derriere comments were totally childish and unecessary)

No matter how much we try to  explain, the meaner and more stubborn you get. Maybe as a kid you  couldn't stand losing and tossed the checker board. But no matter what, science and history will never  change  to make you happy, so someday you'll have to realize that and deal with it.




Annie, I know you and Helen, and others must be so jealous of me. Michael just pays SO much attention to me. Never misses a beat, always responds, and with that flirtatious naughty derriere talk...ahh, I guess I'm just really lucky!

;D
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Mgmstl on April 20, 2005, 11:31:51 PM
Vera, how you do, GO ON :-* :-*  Such charm.... :-/
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: lexi4 on April 20, 2005, 11:37:54 PM
Whoa! What a post. I haven't been here long, but I hate it when discussion turns nasty. Nothing is accomplished with that. By the end of reading this thread, I had no idea what the original topic was. So I may be way off in what I am about to ask. If I am, I am sure someone will jump right in and pounce.
So be it.
I agree that the DNA is solid evidence that AA was NOT AN. I also agree that it does confirm she was FS. I have found DNA evidence undisputable. That being said, I have no idea:
1. what are the differences some of you are talking about.
2. Why do they matter now.
3. Why wouldn't one assume that FS and Gertrude had the same mothers until proven otherwise. (And yes, I have done a lot of work with geneology and am well aware of the difficulty in finding records. It is often very difficult in the U.S. I can only imagine what it would be like in a war torn country.)
4. Who is Penny and what is she working on?
5. Exactly what is the point of all of this?
Before ANYONE jumps down my throat, which can be discouaging for those of us who are relatively new, I am asking out of genuine interest and curiosity. I have no agenda. I don't know any of you except through your postings. This is not personal.
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Olga on April 20, 2005, 11:38:05 PM
Vera and Michael, can you two please ignore each other?
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Helen_Azar on April 21, 2005, 07:55:59 AM
Quote
I guess I did answer Helen's questions


No Bear, you have not even come close to responding to my post and you know it very well (unless you are even a lot more dense than I suspected). But at this point I really don't want to spend any more energy on this fruitless exchange because it is obviously useless. I would rather concentrate on dealing with people who actually have the ability to reason.
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Vera_Figner on April 21, 2005, 07:58:41 AM
Quote
Vera and Michael, can you two please ignore each other?


This I am trying to do, Olga.  I am hoping my last post helps to achieve the goal!
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Helen_Azar on April 21, 2005, 08:29:35 AM
Lexi, let me try to answer some of your questions.

Quote
1. what are the differences some of you are talking about.
 


On some other related threads, various testimony was presented (contradictory from both sides). Things like shoe size, teeth, pregnancies, language abilities, general appearance, etc, was compared between the two women (AA and FS). Even a story about a serial killer named Grossman who allegedly killed FS, and also a story about FS having a different mother than her sister Gertrude was introduced. All these things were brought in to prove that AA could not have been FS (even though DNA showed that she was FS with more than 0.000125% certainty). All of these testimonies were contradicted by other testimonies, that told us the complete opposite, but neither side could be proven or disproven for a long time. Then DNA results come along and confirmed some of these testimonies, but negated the others.
Some people still want to hold on to the testmonies that conradict the DNA results, even though it makes no sense. These people feel that the DNA results were not enough and that these contradictory testimonies carry just as much weight as DNA so they should still be given just as much consideration.

Quote
4. Who is Penny and what is she working on?
 

Penny Wilson is the co-author of Fate of the Romanovs. She is/was a big supporter of the theory that AA was AN and is now a big supporter of the theory that AA is not FS. She used to present all sorts of evidence to show that AA was AN, disregarding the DNA results, and recently she started doing the exact same thing with AA and FS case. Her goal is to prove that AA could not have been FS. She is writing a book that promotes this idea.

Quote
2. Why do they matter now.
 


Theoretically, they don't, since we have the DNA results. Just like all that convincing evidence in the AA/AN case no longer matters because DNA has proven she was not AN. There is no difference between the two cases really, but some people feel there is.

Quote
3. Why wouldn't one assume that FS and Gertrude had the same mothers until proven otherwise.  


Because there are people who would like us to believe that this is not the case, because it supports their claims that AA was not FS.

Quote
5. Exactly what is the point of all of this?

For the former (or maybe present) AA=AN supporters to try to show that AA was not the Polish peasant FS, since they now can no longer publically argue that she was a Russian grand duchess. A couple of their followers have now taken over the "cause" and continue arguing about this. This keeps interest in this subject alive which is a good thing as far as they are concerned, for obvious reasons.


Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Penny_Wilson on April 21, 2005, 08:44:33 AM
Quote
Penny Wilson is the co-author of Fate of the Romanovs. She is/was a big supporter of the theory that AA was AN and is now a big supporter of the theory that AA is not FS. She used to present all sorts of evidence to show that AA was AN, disregarding the DNA results, and recently she started doing the exact same thing with AA and FS case. Her goal is to prove that AA could not have been FS. She is writing a book that promotes this idea.


Not correct.  I thought scientists were supposed to be unbiased, unemotional presenters of the truth?

Anyway -- I'll answer this myself just as soon as this forum returns to civilization.  I won't participate in a mean-spirited, self-congratulatory discussion with people who have to resort to insult and innuendo to make their points.

Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Olga on April 21, 2005, 08:59:47 AM
Quote
Not correct.  I thought scientists were supposed to be unbiased, unemotional presenters of the truth?


Um, what does that have to do with what Helen wrote?  ???
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: rskkiya on April 21, 2005, 09:28:55 AM
Quote


I am a historian who just wants to investigate a bit farther.   I believe in looking at the case from the beginning from her first stay at Dalldorf, until the the
end of WW II.  
    I just want to be able to decide for myself, without this screaming shrew Vera, who has decided what I think, how think it and when....
Michael I think that that "shrew' remark was completely uncalled for. Please apologize, and if your are a historian, then please start behaving with the dignity expected of any historical debate - NO Name Calling!

I have my doubts - but I do hope to be proven wrong!

Please lets all remain civil.

rskkiya
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Mgmstl on April 21, 2005, 09:37:32 AM
 Rskkiya,


I will not apologize to Vera.  End of story.  Shrew was mild compared to what I was thinking, however I am
just going to ignore this .............. >:(  woman.


She dishes it out Rskkiya she should be able to take it.
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Annie on April 21, 2005, 09:41:26 AM
Quote


  I won't participate in a mean-spirited, self-congratulatory discussion with people who have to resort to insult and innuendo to make their points.



Since when did you turn over this new leaf?  ;) You have a history of being one of the biggest offenders and participants.
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: rskkiya on April 21, 2005, 09:43:27 AM
I don't remember ever reading a post to you from VF in which she made any vulgar sexist remarks about you. I must express my deep disapointment in your behaviour sir - it will make it a great deal more difficult to take your  "historically related" comments seriously...Please reconsider.

rskkiya


Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Annie on April 21, 2005, 09:43:58 AM
Quote
Lexi, let me try to answer some of your questions.


On some other related threads, various testimony was presented (contradictory from both sides). Things like shoe size, teeth, pregnancies, language abilities, general appearance, etc, was compared between the two women (AA and FS). Even a story about a serial killer named Grossman who allegedly killed FS, and also a story about FS having a different mother than her sister Gertrude was introduced. All these things were brought in to prove that AA could not have been FS (even though DNA showed that she was FS with more than 0.000125% certainty). All of these testimonies were contradicted by other testimonies, that told us the complete opposite, but neither side could be proven or disproven for a long time. Then DNA results come along and confirmed some of these testimonies, but negated the others.
Some people still want to hold on to the testmonies that conradict the DNA results, even though it makes no sense. These people feel that the DNA results were not enough and that these contradictory testimonies carry just as much weight as DNA so they should still be given just as much consideration.

Penny Wilson is the co-author of Fate of the Romanovs. She is/was a big supporter of the theory that AA was AN and is now a big supporter of the theory that AA is not FS. She used to present all sorts of evidence to show that AA was AN, disregarding the DNA results, and recently she started doing the exact same thing with AA and FS case. Her goal is to prove that AA could not have been FS. She is writing a book that promotes this idea.


Theoretically, they don't, since we have the DNA results. Just like all that convincing evidence in the AA/AN case no longer matters because DNA has proven she was not AN. There is no difference between the two cases really, but some people feel there is.


Because there are people who would like us to believe that this is not the case, because it supports their claims that AA was not FS.

For the former (or maybe present) AA=AN supporters to try to show that AA was not the Polish peasant FS, since they now can no longer publically argue that she was a Russian grand duchess. A couple of their followers have now taken over the "cause" and continue arguing about this. This keeps interest in this subject alive which is a good thing as far as they are concerned, for obvious reasons.




Once again, BRILLIANT!
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Annie on April 21, 2005, 09:47:28 AM
Quote
Rskkiya,


I will not apologize to Vera.  End of story.  Shrew was mild compared to what I was thinking, however I am
just going to ignore this .............. >:(  woman.


She dishes it out Rskkiya she should be able to take it.


She isn't dishing anything out, only asking questions you can't answer and telling you things you don't want to hear. You hate everyone who does this, just because we are calling you on your incosistencies (like saying you believe in DNA but still thinking she may not have been FS) You don't like anyone who challenges you, you even refused drinks with Jeremy and said he wasn't your friend. Why, because he believes AA was FS? If you continue to hate everyone who's trying to explain things to you, and shut out everything you don't want to hear, you will never learn anything (unless you only choose to read things you want to hear, in which case you will never get a factual or fair answer to anything!)
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: AGRBear on April 21, 2005, 09:48:45 AM
Quote
Differences between AA and FS:

I. Photographs:
Photograph comparisons won't make everyone happy as to their looking alike....  

II.  Shoe sizes
FS wore shoes that were three sizes larger than AA
 AA wore shoes that were three sizes smaller than FS

Shoes sizes still doesn't accomplish any agreement even though at the trial  there  shown that there was three size difference.

III. Pregnancy
AA- Evidence of a pregnancy but no proof of when.  Claimed to have had a son.
FS- No pregnancy known.

IV. Scars.
FS -  no unusual scars remembered by family; no scars inflicted in factory accident
AA - scars which were claimed to have been inflicted by a bayonet;  small scar on finger claimed to have been from a door; scar from removal of a mole..... Some scar may have been caused by tb and surgery.  Penny mentioned that AA had a "grove" on the side of her head which may prove to be a injury of some kind had occured....

IIV. Height
FS is reported to have been 5'6", which is about 4 inches taller than AA - Helen was th source on this fact.
AA was about 5'2"" tall

IIIV.  Knowledge of Languages
FS - knew German and Katchoubian.  Did not know Russian or English.
AA - knew Russian, German and English

IX.  Ears pierced [nothing important, I'm told]
FS - one retouched photo shows earrings and pierced ears but this may be in error
AA - doesn't appear to have pierced ears

Anyone have anything to add?

AGRBear
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: AGRBear on April 21, 2005, 09:50:01 AM
Karl Grossmann is listed as the murderer of FS back in 1920. He was convicted of murderering a lot of people.  At the end, he killed mostly women.  He was arrested in 1921.

The Berlin Police found evidence which they thought was good enough  and went to FS's family and told them that they believed  FS was one of the victims of Grossmann.

Gross mann was placed on trial after AA claimed she was Anastasia.  This was after the Berlin police sent photographs everywhere to discover who AA was.  This is after they took AA's fingerprints.  

The Berlin Police probably  had FS's fingerprints because they took all prints of those in asylums, jails and prisions and probably compared them to AA's.  And, I must add here, the Berlin Police were very good at this time and I'm sure they did there work with care.  Germans Police loved the order and kept files that were precise an accurate.

I'm not sure that FS's prints survived but AA's did.

AGRBear
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Penny_Wilson on April 21, 2005, 09:51:57 AM
Quote

Since when did you turn over this new leaf?  ;) You have a history of being one of the biggest offenders and participants.


I'm not denying this.  But does it also mean that I am not allowed to draw back and remind myself that I am better than this?  Because that's what I have done.  When you and others here recall themselves to planet earth and acceptable standards of behavior, then I'll be ready to discuss again.  You may not realize this, but the actual questions under discussion are being lost in the invective.

In addition, I simply don't have all that much time to spend here right now.  Greg and I have started our next joint book (not the Pretenders one), and will be here, there and everywhere conducting research for the next few months.  I'd like what little time I'll have to spend here to be productive -- and in any case, I think that after all this time, lines have been drawn and everyone knows what everyone else thinks of them.  It seems unnecessary to continually underline things...
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Olga on April 21, 2005, 09:52:08 AM
Quote
I will not apologize to Vera.  End of story.  Shrew was mild compared to what I was thinking, however I am
just going to ignore this .............. >:(  woman.


Well, Michael, this shows you for the rude and immature person you really are.
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Penny_Wilson on April 21, 2005, 09:54:10 AM
Quote

She isn't dishing anything out, only asking questions you can't answer and telling you things you don't want to hear. You hate everyone who does this, just because we are calling you on your incosistencies (like saying you believe in DNA but still thinking she may not have been FS) You don't like anyone who challenges you, you even refused drinks with Jeremy and said he wasn't your friend. Why, because he believes AA was FS? If you continue to hate everyone who's trying to explain things to you, and shut out everything you don't want to hear, you will never learn anything (unless you only choose to read things you want to hear, in which case you will never get a factual or fair answer to anything!)


Please don't introduce the word "hate."  It raises the temperature here, and despite differences, I hope that no-one here "hates" anyone else.
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Olga on April 21, 2005, 09:54:44 AM
Quote
Grossmann


What about him?
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Vera_Figner on April 21, 2005, 09:58:15 AM
Quote

Well, Michael, this shows you for the rude and immature person you really are.


Just more of the same. Just like when he was on the attack as "Matrix" in the old Yahoo clubs some years before.
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Mgmstl on April 21, 2005, 09:59:35 AM
Lexi,

I don't think you have to worry about getting anyone angry.

Some of the differences are in language, culture, deportment, appearance.  Her own family denying who she was.

The reason it matters, to me, and this is EVEN IF SHE IS FS..(read clearly now Vera & Annie) that we do our utmost to clean up this mystery and clear up the differences, as they exist.  As long as there is one iota of unsolved mystery about this, people will forever claim she is AN, or FS or neither.

While I admit I believe the DNA evidence, and that there is no DNA conspiracy theory in my view.  I just want them cleared up so we can say beyond statistics or probability that she is or is not FS.  That with all of the information available, we have compiled these facts from
the evidence available and done our best to come to this
conclusion.  

There are people who tout the idea on here that if we don't beleive their way then we are somehow in a round about way trying to prove that AA is AN.  That is FALSE, for me.  I believe no such thing.  

Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Mgmstl on April 21, 2005, 10:01:57 AM
Think what you will Olga.  I stand my ground on this one.
Why not take this to PM instead of wasting board space on it ok?  I will be more than willing to address your issues frankly there.
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: AGRBear on April 21, 2005, 10:02:47 AM
Quote
 
CHART TWO:  
   
Anton Schanzkowsky m. (1) to 1890 to Josefina Peek
 Issue:  [unknown]
 
   
Anton Schanzkowsky m. (2) 1894  to  Marianna __NN__ b. 1866.   Marriage ended in divorce abt 1910/1912.  Both remarried.  [Mother remarried to ___NN___]  
     Issue:  
    2. Martin Christian S. b. 16 November 1895
    3. Franziska S.  b. 16 December 1896 [date from Penny]  also listed in some books as  22 December 1896, baptized 24 December 1896
    ?.  ** Gertrude S. b. possibly 12 Nov 1898
    4.  Michael S.  b. 16 December 1899
    5.  Valerian S.  (AKA Walther) b. 25 April 1901
    6.  Felix b. 17 February 1903
    7. Juliane Marianna S. (AKA Maria Juliana) b. 30 April 1905
 
 ---
Anton Schanzkowsky m. (3) to  ___NN3___  
 Issue:  
   1. [unknown]  
 
*Gertrude S.  [birthdate unknown and place in families above is at this time is not known]

** Gertrude claimed her birthdate was 12 Nov 1898
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Olga on April 21, 2005, 10:04:13 AM
Quote
Why not take this to PM instead of wasting board space on it ok?


Should you have not done that a long time ago?
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Mgmstl on April 21, 2005, 10:05:35 AM
  I have never been anyone but ME.  I don't hide under assumed names, nor have I ever been in a Yahoo club before.  Sorry.....Again you are wrong... ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: AGRBear on April 21, 2005, 10:05:37 AM
Quote

This was actually an issue with Gertrud's daughter Margarete, who, at first, refused to give a blood sample because she was worried that she could be held accountable for Anna Anderson's activities.
However, I do believe she later gave a sample to Maurice Phillip Remy, a German TV producer. So, if the first generation knew they wouldn't be held accountable for AA, (which  I'll leave open to question, as I am not that knowledgble about German laws either) this seems to have been lost on the second generation. (And, strange that there would be lingering doubt that she may have been their aunt after all ;))  

From what I could find so far,  Franzisca had , at least 5 siblings: Maria-Juliana, gertrud, Walter, Felix,
Valerian. (One more than previously documented I think).

Gertrud's children were:

1. Another Gertrud m. Maucher
     Carl Maucher's mother.

2, Hedwig Lander
    

3. Margarete
     Who lived with Carl Maucher
 
4. Magdalene m. Weber
     Had a son called Herbert Weber

Hope this all helps
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: rskkiya on April 21, 2005, 10:07:01 AM
Quote


There are people who tout the idea on here that if we don't beleive their way then we are somehow in a round about way trying to prove that AA is AN.  That is FALSE, for me.  I believe no such thing.  



Please stop complaining about the "evils" of others, and make a valid arguement explaining your views. Please stop avoiding the point.  What is your major question in this discussion ?


rskkiya
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Olga on April 21, 2005, 10:10:18 AM
Quote
Just like when he was on the attack as "Matrix" in the old Yahoo clubs some years before.


What was this?
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: AGRBear on April 21, 2005, 10:15:09 AM
Quote
These can be yes or no answers  ::)

Evidence as we know it today, Wed.  the 20 th of April.
Question #1: Does Gertrude have a birth/bap. record?
Ans.#1- Gertrude doesn't have a birth/bap. record.

Question #2-  Can you tell me who Gertrude's father was?

AGRBear


SOOOOOOOOoooooooo, this is about when those who don't have any answers started this nonsense and attacked Michael and I .

Still no answers and the so the attacks continue.

Hmmmmmmm, not surprise.

Now, we have Penny back this morning and instead of taking advantage of this,  the blustering continues.

Sad state of affairs  :'(

AGRBear
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: AGRBear on April 21, 2005, 10:19:18 AM
Michael's attempt to continue this conversation with those of us [women, men, girls and boys] this morning:

Quote
Rskkiya,

I have made no such statement, or have Vera & Annie credited me with saying that I believe in switched DNA.

I don't believe in switched DNA, or conspiracy theories in this case.

I also believe that there are differences between AA & FS that are significant enough that the DNA does not render it moot, as Vera demands.

I am a historian who just wants to investigate a bit farther.   I believe in looking at the case from the beginning from her first stay at Dalldorf, until the the
end of WW II.  

I am interested in those who knew her before the media feeding frenzy, and the agenda of the GD Of Hesse and the Gleb Botkin agenda took over.  I am interested in the testimony of the nurses, doctors, friends, descriptions of her.

As far as FS goes I am interested in the family data and clarifying the marriages and the siblings from each, and who FS really was.  However I am sure that information from this source will be more limited.  The family is extremely private and I am sure that source materaial from this end is also limited.

I am also interested in the Grossman case.  What brought the Berlin Police to the conclusions that they arrived to & how.

Rskkiya, I am just looking at who she originally was, and
if she is FS then FINE, I have no problem with that, but it would help me understand how she became who she was.  I don't think it is too much to ask.  I just want to be able to decide for myself, without this screaming shrew Vera, who has decided what I think, how think it and when....
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: AGRBear on April 21, 2005, 10:21:39 AM
And Michael wrote:
Quote
Bear, at this point we should "assume" that she is also the daughter of Anton (?) Schanzkowska, as she is included in lists of the siblings.  

It depends on where the family was residing when Gertrude was born in 1898.  If birth registration was required at that time where they lived, it would be registered civilly as well as canonnically at the time of baptism in the church.  

There could be other factors and issues involved, in this situation.  

Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: AGRBear on April 21, 2005, 10:22:49 AM
So, now, I'm asking:

Where is Gertrude listed as being part of the siblings?

AGRBear
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: rskkiya on April 21, 2005, 10:23:11 AM
Quote

Please stop complaining about the "evils" of others, and make a valid arguement explaining your views. Please stop avoiding the point.  What is your major question in this discussion ?


rskkiya

Agrbear
Yes let's get back on topic.

rskkiya
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Olga on April 21, 2005, 10:26:35 AM
Quote
SOOOOOOOOoooooooo, this is about when those who don't have any answers started this nonsense and attacked Michael and I


You have not attacked anyone, AGRBear, I'll give you credit for that. But Michael has.

Quote
Now, we have Penny back this morning and instead of taking advantage of this,  the blustering continues.


No offense to Penny, but she is not the be all and end all to this discussion.
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Olga on April 21, 2005, 10:31:34 AM
Quote
Where is Gertrude listed as being part of the siblings?


No Bear, she flew in from Outer Space and shacked up with the Schanzkowskys. Honestly.
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Mgmstl on April 21, 2005, 10:31:59 AM
Olga, you have been asked to these personal attacks to PM, why don't you have the coutesy to do so?  

And now an attack on Penny....I see how this is going to go.... Another thread shut down, which is what you and the others obviously want.  
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Mgmstl on April 21, 2005, 10:36:16 AM
Rskkiya,

I was responding to a line in Helen's reponse to Lexi concerning, those of us who don't necessarily believe AA is FS.   She stated that our goal is to prove that she is some how AN.  

I don't see where I was complaining about the "evils" of others, I was making a valid response to a point made
about what I think or believe.  

Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Vera_Figner on April 21, 2005, 10:38:00 AM
Quote
 I have never been anyone but ME.  I don't hide under assumed names, nor have I ever been in a Yahoo club before.  Sorry.....Again you are wrong... ;D ;D ;D


;) Your reputation precedes you.
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Mgmstl on April 21, 2005, 10:40:39 AM
Well and your mental faculties are obviously impaired as I have NEVER been on Yahoo.  Please stop wasting board space on this inane BS.  Take it to PM......
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: rskkiya on April 21, 2005, 10:41:18 AM
Michael
You accept the DNA - but you still doubt the AA/FS connection, is that it?

Please explain this.

rskkiya
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: AGRBear on April 21, 2005, 10:42:14 AM
Quote

No Bear, she flew in from Outer Space and shacked up with the Schanzkowskys. Honestly.


No birth certificate or bap. document, so,  as I've explained earlier, she could have been born in Wales [I assume everyone knows Gertrude wasn't born in outer space], adopted, brought to Poland by her adopted parents, who died, and the Schanzkowsky family took pity on this tiny infant orphan and took her into their home.  [My scenario of the person I mentioned in a previous post but given in reverse with a twist to land her in the S. family ;D ].



AGRBear
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Mgmstl on April 21, 2005, 10:48:20 AM
Rskkiya,

I have explained why I have questions about the FS/AA
connection in my lengthy response to Lexi

Refer to that please.  Thanks.
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: rskkiya on April 21, 2005, 10:53:13 AM
Michael
Your other post really did not explain the point to me, so I would be grateful if you would elaborate on your doubts.

rskkiya
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: AGRBear on April 21, 2005, 10:59:08 AM
ryskkyia and others, please, do go back and reread Michael's posts because I know all of you are smart enough to understand what he is saying because Michael articulates  his thoughts very well.

If you still do not, the PMs would work niecely.

TOPIC PLEASE!

AGRBear

Copy of TOPIC:

Quote
If the DNA evidence had shown that AA was unrelated to both FS and AN then I think I'd go with the 'mundane' hypothesis - but the fact that the DNA evidence seems to show AA  WAS related to FS raises the whole question to a new level.

I'd like to ask everyone to bear with this newbie and think about it for a minute: .....

Everyone agrees that identifying AA as FS was probably  done for  propaganda; that pics were doctored and that AA was more or less 'set up'. Yet,  now, more that fifty years later the DNA comes along and supports this identification.

This means 1 of 3 things:


1. That the people who tried to discredit AA by claiming she was FS were amazingly lucky and by chance she really WAS this obscure girl they just plucked out of the air.

OR

2. That they were really lucky in a different way and AA's DNA just concidentally (with at best a 1 in 300 chance)
resembles FS.

OR

3. The DNA tets were set up too[/list]

It has to be one of these three, doesn't it? And when you think about it none of them are mundane. They all require either huge  (almost unbelievable) coincidences or actual real deception.

So, doesn't the whole thing about the DNA  versus the non-physical evidence actually raise more (many more) baffling questions?

Sokolova


Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Olga on April 21, 2005, 11:02:04 AM
Rskkiya is on topic.  ::)
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: AGRBear on April 21, 2005, 11:03:31 AM
Quote

...[in part]...

Just keep in mind that a missing birth certificate/baptismal record does not a half sister make! :)


In fact, it means you can't prove she is even a sister to FS or AA or anyone.

AGRBear
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Penny_Wilson on April 21, 2005, 11:05:06 AM
Quote
So, now, I'm asking:

Where is Gertrude listed as being part of the siblings?

AGRBear


In conjunction with the Fate of the Romanovs project -- which started as a book on the Anastasia phenomenon -- Greg and I examined the birth and baptismal records of the Schanzkowsky children in Poland, as they existed in the summer of 2000.  At that time, there were no records for Gertrude at any level -- church, villlage, town, county -- for the area surrounding Butow/ Borowy Las.

It is possible that she was born elsewhere in Poland, though a short search turned up nothing.

At the point where the FOTR project turned its focus to the last days of the Romanovs, we abandoned our focus on the Schanzkowskys -- though they remain an avenue of periodic research as they will figure in the "Pretenders" book.

The most we -- Greg and I -- are able to say about Gertrude is that her records do not exist in the same places where we found her alleged siblings' records -- nor are they located in any immediately reasonable location, though they might exist further afield in Poland, or perhaps even in Germany.

On the subject of her date of birth, Gertrude herself claimed 12 November 1898.

I don't expect anyone else here to take my word for this. Go ahead and get your own research started.  But this is what Greg and I found in Poland, for those who are interested.
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: rskkiya on April 21, 2005, 11:05:49 AM
Quote
ryskkyia and others, please, do go back and reread Michael's posts because I know all of you are smart enough to understand what he is saying because Michael articulates  his thoughts very well.

If you still do not, the PMs would work niecely.

TOPIC PLEASE!
AGRBear


I would be grateful if Michael would elaborate on his points. That is on topic. OK?

rskkiya
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: AGRBear on April 21, 2005, 11:08:10 AM
So very glad you found a moment  you could post the following Penny:

Quote

In conjunction with the Fate of the Romanovs project -- which started as a book on the Anastasia phenomenon -- Greg and I examined the birth and baptismal records of the Schanzkowsky children in Poland, as they existed in the summer of 2000.  At that time, there were no records for Gertrude at any level -- church, villlage, town, county -- for the area surrounding Butow/ Borowy Las.

It is possible that she was born elsewhere in Poland, though a short search turned up nothing.

At the point where the FOTR project turned its focus to the last days of the Romanovs, we abandoned our focus on the Schanzkowskys -- though they remain an avenue of periodic research as they will figure in the "Pretenders" book.

The most we -- Greg and I -- are able to say about Gertrude is that her records do not exist in the same places where we found her alleged siblings' records -- nor are they located in any immediately reasonable location, though they might exist further afield in Poland, or perhaps even in Germany.

On the subject of her date of birth, Gertrude herself claimed 12 November 1892*.

I don't expect anyone else here to take my word for this. Go ahead and get your own research started.  But this is what Greg and I found in Poland, for those who are interested.


Thanks.

AGRBear

Correction*
Quote

Thus far, this is what we have -- though perhaps you should add that Gertrude claimed a birth-date in 1898.  I have somewhere around here Frau Schanzkowsky's maiden name and the dead-dates of some of the other kids.  
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Mgmstl on April 21, 2005, 11:16:03 AM
Jeremy & Annie & Helen (I think Helen claimed to, possibly not) claim to have records or proof of Gertrude's birth, or something to that nature, perhaps
they will provide the evidence they were speaking of yesterday to the forum...  

I will be anxiously awaiting, & be objective to what is
presented.
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Mgmstl on April 21, 2005, 11:17:29 AM
Penny, thank you for your input and sharing on this issue.  
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: rskkiya on April 21, 2005, 11:37:17 AM
Michael
Please elaborate on your comments re DNA and your questions about possible idenitities ... I still don't understand your point.

patiently waiting
rskkiya
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: AGRBear on April 21, 2005, 11:41:24 AM
Michael and those interested, while doing your genealogy research, what do you do if you can't find a birth/bap record in the village or area you are searching?

AGRBear
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Mgmstl on April 21, 2005, 11:53:53 AM
Well I check all available civil records, probate, (for a list of heirs) look for a family bible, check the census for proof of this child,  if these prove nothing, of course there are birth and death certificates available that could lead us to the correct parentage for the person.
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Mgmstl on April 21, 2005, 11:57:19 AM
Rskkiya,

Please PM with questions you have regarding this issue in specific, PLEASE.  Thank you.
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Penny_Wilson on April 21, 2005, 11:59:26 AM
Quote
Michael and those interested, while doing your genealogy research, what do you do if you can't find a birth/bap record in the village or area you are searching?

AGRBear


I generally go to one or both of these two places:  Census records (though they are notorious for recording incorrect ages) or the Latter Day Saints.  I'm currently doing a little on-and-off research with an SLC researcher on the Schanzkowsky genealogy.

There are the odd cases that require a little more work -- like tracing the alleged(for the sake of argument) descendants of Grand Duke George.  In that case, it is necessary to employ a researcher with specialist knowledge of the subject and area --  and that can take more time and be a little more expensive.

Serendipity plays into research from time to time, also.  Just last week, when I was at the Hoover Institution, and working in an archive of unpublished manuscripts, I found two photographs sandwiched between two pages of business correspondence:  They were remarkably clear and fairly "close up" photos of the recovered bodies of Grand Duchess Elizabeth and Prince Ioann -- obviously from the Sokolov series, but still, the most clear and detailed images of the remains that I have ever seen -- and certainly not where I had any idea that I might find them!
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: AGRBear on April 21, 2005, 12:08:12 PM
Quote
Well I check all available civil records, probate, (for a list of heirs) look for a family bible, check the census for proof of this child,  if these prove nothing, of course there are birth and death certificates available that could lead us to the correct parentage for the person.


Have you ever discovered a birth certificate where a child's parents are listed as Mrs. X and Mr. X but the death certificate of this same child/ adult saids  Mrs. Y and Mr. X?

AGRBear
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: AGRBear on April 21, 2005, 12:14:56 PM
Quote

I generally go to one or both of these two places:  Census records (though they are notorious for recording incorrect ages) or the Latter Day Saints.  I'm currently doing a little on-and-off research with an SLC researcher on the Schanzkowsky genealogy.

There are the odd cases that require a little more work -- like tracing the alleged(for the sake of argument) descendants of Grand Duke George.  In that case, it is necessary to employ a researcher with specialist knowledge of the subject and area --  and that can take more time and be a little more expensive.

Serendipity plays into research from time to time, also.  Just last week, when I was at the Hoover Institution, and working in an archive of unpublished manuscripts, I found two photographs sandwiched between two pages of business correspondence:  They were remarkably clear and fairly "close up" photos of the recovered bodies of Grand Duchess Elizabeth and Prince Ioann -- obviously from the Sokolov series, but still, the most clear and detailed images of the remains that I have ever seen -- and certainly not where I had any idea that I might find them!


Penny:>>Serendipity plays into research from time to time<<
Bear Ans:  I agree, again.

Penny:>>There are the odd cases that require a little more work -- like tracing the alleged<<
Bear Ans:  Yes

And, remember, some of us are interested in learning everything we can which can help solve the mystery that has entangled not just the families involved but all of us here reading these posts.

Thanks, again, Penny.

AGRBear
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: rskkiya on April 21, 2005, 12:37:00 PM
Quote

Michael, I don't think you understood my point, I probably wasn't that clear. I am not arguing that the reported differences exist. My point is, that these differences can be explained away reasonably, now that the DNA showed us what the real answer is. This is a subtle concept, but pretty understandable.

DNA gave us the answer - and while other things may appear to exist that contradict this answer, they can be explained away without negating the DNA results. While the DNA results cannot be explained away in order to negate these other things. That's all.

But when someone tries to provide possible explanations for these things (explanations that are pretty reasonable and not "out there" at all), this person is usually accused of having an agenda.



My questions seem to be similar to Helen A's ... and to Annie's. Please clarify your views - as many other posters may be equally illuminated by your explanation.

rskkiya
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Penny_Wilson on April 21, 2005, 12:42:15 PM
Quote
My questions seem to be similar to Helen A's ... and to Annie's. Please clarify your views - as many other posters may be equally illuminated by your explanation.

rskkiya


To borrow from Helen:  Michael's views may be subtle in concept, but they're pretty understandable.

Is there perhaps another question you'd like to ask in order to elicit the response you require?
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Mgmstl on April 21, 2005, 12:49:48 PM
Rskkiya,

I think my views have been well stated.  Now again if you have any SPECIFIC questions, please PM and I will
answer them to the best of my ability.

To you respond with another lengthy message is just a waste of space on the board.  

Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Mgmstl on April 21, 2005, 12:54:22 PM
Bear,

I have found that specific instance in several cases.  Most recently while doing some research for someone
I ran across a birth record for his grandfather, which
gave a different father for him, than was listed on his
death certificate.  The solution was obvious from the birth record, the child (grandfather) was conceived out of wedlock, growing up he took the name of the man his mother married, however he was 4 years of age at the time his mother married his stepfather.

It can be confusing.  Especially when people do assume surnames that are their step parents or of a subsequent marriage of their mother.
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: rskkiya on April 21, 2005, 01:17:35 PM
Michael,
    If you accept the  DNA evidence for what it is, all other evidence, which is not definitive in any case, becomes irrellevant. Since various testimonies about all the things you have previously mentioned were always contradictory to each other, we had no way of knowing which was correct. But DNA came along and put a rest to that. DNA evidence showed, unbiasely, where the answer lies.
     For those who understand the DNA and accept it, that should pretty much be clear - unless out of curiousity you just want to find explanations for all the other evidence that contradicts it.  And obviously there are explanations to issues such as language, shoe size, etc. But that doesn't mean that it can effectively contradict the DNA evidence. So if someone continues doubting the answer that DNA gave us by bringing other evidence in, it shows that this person does not fully accept the DNA evidence.
 
    If you accept the DNA, it means you now have your answer - within 0.00025%, regardless of all the other, much less compelling, evidence.
    If you accept the other evidence, that means you are rejecting  the DNA results, which means you don't trust them for whatever reason. It seems to me that you can't accept the DNA results and also accept the other evidence. If you accept one then that means you reject the other, there is nothing in between.

I may be mistaken in my understanding of your post.
Please clarify here - NOT in a PM post - OK?

Sorry if my posts are too "long"
rskkiya




Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Annie on April 21, 2005, 01:33:16 PM
Quote
Michael,
     If you accept the  DNA evidence for what it is, all other evidence, which is not definitive in any case, becomes irrellevant. Since various testimonies about all the things you have previously mentioned were always contradictory to each other, we had no way of knowing which was correct. But DNA came along and put a rest to that. DNA evidence showed, unbiasely, where the answer lies.
      For those who understand the DNA and accept it, that should pretty much be clear - unless out of curiousity you just want to find explanations for all the other evidence that contradicts it.  And obviously there are explanations to issues such as language, shoe size, etc. But that doesn't mean that it can effectively contradict the DNA evidence. So if someone continues doubting the answer that DNA gave us by bringing other evidence in, it shows that this person does not fully accept the DNA evidence.
  
     If you accept the DNA, it means you now have your answer - within 0.00025%, regardless of all the other, much less compelling, evidence.
     If you accept the other evidence, that means you are rejecting  the DNA results, which means you don't trust them for whatever reason. It seems to me that you can't accept the DNA results and also accept the other evidence. If you accept one then that means you reject the other, there is nothing in between.

I may be mistaken in my understanding of your post.
 Please clarify here - NOT in a PM post - OK?

Sorry if my posts are too "long"
rskkiya




Oh, dear, you're saying exactly what the rest of us have (as any rational thinking person would see it that way) so don't expect a real answer. You will just soon be called names and put on the list of people with a 'jihad', 'agenda' or those who 'will never change his mind' along with us.  :-/
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Mgmstl on April 21, 2005, 01:40:49 PM
 Annie putting you in the realm of rational thinkers, is a far stretch of the imagination....go ahead keep fanatasizing.... ;D
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Annie on April 21, 2005, 01:44:23 PM
Quote
Annie putting you in the realm of rational thinkers, is a far stretch of the imagination....go ahead keep fanatasizing.... ;D


Oh but you do it so well (fantasizing, not thinking rationally)
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: AGRBear on April 21, 2005, 02:07:35 PM
Ingore them Michael and focus on what we're talking about here and that is the absence of a birth certificate for Gertrude.

You said, in answer to my question:

Quote
Bear,

I have found that specific instance in several cases.  Most recently while doing some research for someone
I ran across a birth record for his grandfather, which
gave a different father for him, than was listed on his
death certificate.  The solution was obvious from the birth record, the child (grandfather) was conceived out of wedlock, growing up he took the name of the man his mother married, however he was 4 years of age at the time his mother married his stepfather.

It can be confusing.  Especially when people do assume surnames that are their step parents or of a subsequent marriage of their mother.


I bet you can give me other examples?

Only one of my four grandparents have a record of birth in Russia so I can give you three different examples if anyone is interested on how they proved they were who they were.  Fortunately, two of them had other proof as to who they were but not the third. So, I took it upon myself to search and find.  It was just before he died that he discovered when he was born, where he was born and who is real father was.  It took a lot of digging on my part and a great deal of expense.  It was worth it when I saw the smile on his face.

So, I'm sure if people keep digging, we will be lucky in the case of Gertrude to discover when she was born, who her parents were and siblings, if she had any  8).

Meanwhile, what kind of evidence do we have?

We know she has told us her date of birth:  12 Nov 1898* [correction, originally had wrong date of 1892]

Can we agree on this date?

AGRBear

Correction *
Quote

Thus far, this is what we have -- though perhaps you should add that Gertrude claimed a birth-date in 1898.  I have somewhere around here Frau Schanzkowsky's maiden name and the dead-dates of some of the other kids.  
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Mgmstl on April 21, 2005, 02:11:45 PM
Bear as Penny stated they could have moved to a different area outside of where their other children were born, it is quite possible, people at least in America
did that, moved to different villages or town when work was scarce or crops bad, then move back when the work returned.

Perhaps Gertrude was born outside of the area in which they did their search.  

Perhaps she was not christened as the family could not make it to the church, weather, illness, etc.  There are all kinds of factors that could cause this to happen.
Usually catholic (if they were catholic, my assumption at this point) parishes kept good records.

That is another question, exactly what religion were the Schanzkowska's and did AA practice orthodoxy and what was her knowledge of it at that point in time?
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Penny_Wilson on April 21, 2005, 02:14:43 PM
Quote
Meanwhile, what kind of evidence do we have?

We know she has told us her date of birth:  12 Nov 1892

Can we agree on this date?

AGRBear


This is certainly a point of reference that I would use in a broader (geographically speaking) search for Gertrude's birth and baptismal records.

Except now that I look at it, I don't think it was 1892.  My memory clearly failed me this morning.  Whatever I first posted a few weeks ago is correct as it came from my notes -- maybe 12 November 1898.  Bear?
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Annie on April 21, 2005, 02:14:45 PM
Bear, I thought the last most credible date, and the one she claimed, was 1898?
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: AGRBear on April 21, 2005, 02:21:35 PM
Quote

Thus far, this is what we have -- though perhaps you should add that Gertrude claimed a birth-date in 1898.  I have somewhere around here Frau Schanzkowsky's maiden name and the dead-dates of some of the other kids.  


I'll go back and correct.  

AGRBear
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Helen_Azar on April 21, 2005, 02:24:01 PM
Quote
Jeremy & Annie & Helen (I think Helen claimed to, possibly not) claim to have records or proof of Gertrude's birth


Michael, I never claimed to have any proof regarding Gertrude. If I did have it, everyone would have already seen it.
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Helen_Azar on April 21, 2005, 02:26:59 PM
Quote
 Whatever I first posted a few weeks ago is correct as it came from my notes -- maybe 12 November 1898.  Bear?

Yes, Penny, you originally said it was 1898, which I believe, fits right between FS and Felix. If this is the case, then it would be safe to assume that Gertrude is their full sister - unless their father got married, had FS, got divorced and remarried to someone else, had Gertrude, got divorced, and remarried FS's mother and had Felix. Isn't this the way it would have to go in order to fit the different mothers theory?  
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: AGRBear on April 21, 2005, 02:41:04 PM
Quote
Yes, Penny, you originally said it was 1898, which I believe, fits right between FS and Felix. If this is the case, then it would be safe to assume that Gertrude is their full sister - unless their father got married, had FS, got divorced and remarried to someone else, had Gertrude, got divorced, and remarried FS's mother and had Felix. Isn't this the way it would have to go in order to fit the different mothers theory?  


You always tell me anything is possible but is it probable.

In this case, the answer may be yes, it is probable if Gertrude was born in 1898.

However, if Gertrude is like my mother's sister  [remember that scenario I voiced way back when between merry-go-'round rides] who lied about her age.  Gertrude could have lied to be younger, like my aunt,  and if she did,  she might have been born 4 years earlier.  If this is the case,  I think that places her birth under Anton S.'s other wife.

Quote
 
CHART TWO:  
   
Anton Schanzkowsky m. (1) to 1890 to Josefina Peek
 Issue:  [unknown]
 
   
Anton Schanzkowsky m. (2) 1894  to  Marianna __NN__ b. 1866.   Marriage ended in divorce abt 1910/1912.  Both remarried.  [Mother remarried to ___NN___]  
     Issue:  
    2. Martin Christian S. b. 16 November 1895
    3. Franziska S.  b. 16 December 1896 [date from Penny]  also listed in some books as  22 December 1896, baptized 24 December 1896
    ?.  ** Gertrude S. b. possibly 12 Nov 1898
    4.  Michael S.  b. 16 December 1899
    5.  Valerian S.  (AKA Walther) b. 25 April 1901
    6.  Felix b. 17 February 1903
    7. Juliane Marianna S. (AKA Maria Juliana) b. 30 April 1905
 
 ---
Anton Schanzkowsky m. (3) to  ___NN3___  
 Issue:  
   1. [unknown]  
 
*Gertrude S.  [birthdate unknown and place in families above is at this time is not known]
** Gertrude claimed her birthdate was 12 Nov 1898



AGRBear
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Helen_Azar on April 21, 2005, 02:43:30 PM
I am going to try to see what I can do about getting this info through the Mormon genealogists. It may take a few weeks, and I may not find anything, but I will give it a shot. I think we have enough info now to have a good basis. I am curious enough to spend some time in order to dig this out...
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Helen_Azar on April 21, 2005, 02:45:35 PM
BTW, does anyone know where Gertrude died (I am assuming she is now deceased)? Her death certificate may also give us the year of her birth, and once she was dead, there would no longer be any reason for her to lie about her age, would there.
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Penny_Wilson on April 21, 2005, 02:50:46 PM
Quote
Yes, Penny, you originally said it was 1898, which I believe, fits right between FS and Felix. If this is the case, then it would be safe to assume that Gertrude is their full sister - unless their father got married, had FS, got divorced and remarried to someone else, had Gertrude, got divorced, and remarried FS's mother and had Felix. Isn't this the way it would have to go in order to fit the different mothers theory?  


No. There are other -- fairly obvious -- possibilities.
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: AGRBear on April 21, 2005, 02:51:44 PM
While you are looking, you'll need to know the family's religion because most of the older records are in the churches.

Since they were not found by Penny's researchers in the area then the knowledge of their religion becomes even more important. All you might find is a bap. certificate.

AGRBear
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: AGRBear on April 21, 2005, 02:56:37 PM
Quote
BTW, does anyone know where Gertrude died (I am assuming she is now deceased)? Her death certificate may also give us the year of her birth, and once she was dead, there would no longer be any reason for her to lie about her age, would there.


Death records, as I've tried to explain, do not always have the correct data.  Why?  Because the living sometimes doesn't know the information and it's the living who provides the information.  So, that is why it always better to have both, the birth and death records.

And, good luck Helen.  Hope you can find something.  

AGRBear
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Annie on April 21, 2005, 02:57:29 PM
I want to know:

WHY do some of you still doubt the wholeness of the sisterhood of FS and Gertrude?

is it because if you can prove they weren't maternally related you can say the DNA was rigged?

and if the DNA was rigged it was all a conspiracy?

and who and why would cause such a conspiracy for an anonymous woman...

so this all makes me think....

that somewhere deep in there (or maybe not as deep as some of you would like us to think) that some of you still hold out hope for AA to be AN?

what else could it be?
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: AGRBear on April 21, 2005, 03:05:03 PM
Annie:  How can you complain if there is proof  found in  a simple birth/bap certificate that Gertrude was the full sister of FS?

Please, explain.

AGRBear

Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Helen_Azar on April 21, 2005, 03:18:20 PM
Quote
Annie:  How can you complain if there is proof  found in  a simple birth/bap certificate that Gertrude was the full sister of FS?

There has been no proof found, other than in your own imagination, and unless there is proof, we shouldn't even be discussing it in a manner that leads anyone to believe that this is fact. The different mothers theory is complete fairy tale at this point. And as much as you, Bear, like fairy tales, it won't become reality just because of you want it to. If anyone ever finds a certificate that says they had different mothers, then this will be an issue, until then, it is a non-issue.
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: AGRBear on April 21, 2005, 04:07:57 PM
Quote
There has been no proof found, other than in your own imagination, and unless there is proof, we shouldn't even be discussing it in a manner that leads anyone to believe that this is fact. The different mothers theory is complete fairy tale at this point. And as much as you, Bear, like fairy tales, it won't become reality just because of you want it to. If anyone ever finds a certificate that says they had different mothers, then this will be an issue, until then, it is a non-issue.


There is no proof, such as a birth/bap certificate found, so, we shouldn't even be discussing it in a manner that leads anyone to believe that this is fact.  The different mother theory is something Helen and others wish us to avoid.  And, yes, Bear does like fairtales but that has nothing to do with finding a birth/bap certificate.  Until someone does find a birth/bap certificate [and I do hope someone does] then this will be an issue, until then....

AGRBear
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Penny_Wilson on April 21, 2005, 04:27:09 PM
Quote
The different mothers theory is complete fairy tale at this point. And as much as you, Bear, like fairy tales, it won't become reality just because of you want it to. If anyone ever finds a certificate that says they had different mothers, then this will be an issue, until then, it is a non-issue.


It's actually not a fairy tale.  It's based on ground-breaking research performed by Klier and Mingay, and followed up by our good friend MP Remy.

Like the DNA, this is a piece of evidence which must be run to ground with actual research, not with off-the-cuff  antithetical categorizations.  

It may prove to be false -- but we won't know until research is complete.
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: rskkiya on April 21, 2005, 04:27:29 PM
Quote
Annie putting you in the realm of rational thinkers, is a far stretch of the imagination....go ahead keep fanatasizing.... ;D



Michael
   Were you refering that vulgar comment to me or to Annie?
   I am growing so terribly disappointed in this sad sort of behaviour - Michael, prove than you are better than those you call shrews and 'toadies" (to paraphase a vulgarity about noses up bumms) and please try to elaborate on what appears to be your 'occasional faith' in DNA.
   Once again I may have understood your whole arguement, so I will ask again, politely, for you to explain yourself here NOT in a "Private Message."  

rskkiya
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Mgmstl on April 21, 2005, 04:36:37 PM
I was referring to Annie, Ryskkia, not you, as Annie stated or inferred that we did not have the ability to think rationally if we didn't think as she did.

Regardless, I apologize for offending you.  However I was going to post an apology for being so angry yesterday, and letting my anger get to me, however I have decided to postpone it.

As soon as I can get the post together I will reply in full to you.
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Denise on April 21, 2005, 05:04:51 PM
Wow!  Been busy today folks?  I take a couple weeks off the board to start a home business and the fur flies.  

rskkiya, I will give you my viewpoint on the DNA evidence and what kind of answers I am looking for.  Michael and I (and Bear, I think) all are pretty much on the same boat here.  

I am perfectly willing to accept the DNA evidence involving AA and KM being related through mtDNA.  I agree that there AA was most likely FS, as DNA and statistical inferences don't lie (I am married to a statistician).  The most important thing about the DNA is it answered the question about whether AA was AN.  And it certainly suggests that the PI hired by the Duke of Hesse was not a waste of money.

However, as they are numerous SUBJECTIVE reports of differences between AA and FS.  (Note that I agree they are subjective.)  I would like the freedom to discuss and explore these items on the board with like-minded scholars WITHOUT being repeatedly told that I am not facing reality.  Well, in my reality, life is in the details, and I like to have the details worked out.  

And if the time comes that these questions can't be answered, by myself, Penny, Michael or Joe Historian, then I will just go on.  Lexi asked why it still matters whether AA was FS or not.  Well, it may not to many people, but it is a historical question I would like answered.  But again, my life does not depend on it.   8)

Denise
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: lexi4 on April 21, 2005, 05:08:43 PM
Quote
Lexi, let me try to answer some of your questions.


On some other related threads, various testimony was presented (contradictory from both sides). Things like shoe size, teeth, pregnancies, language abilities, general appearance, etc, was compared between the two women (AA and FS). Even a story about a serial killer named Grossman who allegedly killed FS, and also a story about FS having a different mother than her sister Gertrude was introduced. All these things were brought in to prove that AA could not have been FS (even though DNA showed that she was FS with more than 0.000125% certainty). All of these testimonies were contradicted by other testimonies, that told us the complete opposite, but neither side could be proven or disproven for a long time. Then DNA results come along and confirmed some of these testimonies, but negated the others.
Some people still want to hold on to the testmonies that conradict the DNA results, even though it makes no sense. These people feel that the DNA results were not enough and that these contradictory testimonies carry just as much weight as DNA so they should still be given just as much consideration.

Penny Wilson is the co-author of Fate of the Romanovs. She is/was a big supporter of the theory that AA was AN and is now a big supporter of the theory that AA is not FS. She used to present all sorts of evidence to show that AA was AN, disregarding the DNA results, and recently she started doing the exact same thing with AA and FS case. Her goal is to prove that AA could not have been FS. She is writing a book that promotes this idea.


Theoretically, they don't, since we have the DNA results. Just like all that convincing evidence in the AA/AN case no longer matters because DNA has proven she was not AN. There is no difference between the two cases really, but some people feel there is.


Because there are people who would like us to believe that this is not the case, because it supports their claims that AA was not FS.

For the former (or maybe present) AA=AN supporters to try to show that AA was not the Polish peasant FS, since they now can no longer publically argue that she was a Russian grand duchess. A couple of their followers have now taken over the "cause" and continue arguing about this. This keeps interest in this subject alive which is a good thing as far as they are concerned, for obvious reasons.




Helen, Thank you for clearing this up for me and doing so in a professional and civilized manner. It was getting hard to get the context of the discussion with all the bantering back and forth. Thank you again.
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: AGRBear on April 21, 2005, 05:33:57 PM
Helen: >>Because there are people who would like us to believe that this is not the case, because it supports their claims that AA was not FS. <<

Count me out of this list, please.  Why?   Because I  [probably  Michael, Denise and others] don't claim AA was not FS.  We just don't know if AA was FS.  There is a HUGE difference.

So to prove or disprove this problem,  I've asked for Gertrude's birth/bap certificate.

Penny has told us that so far no one has found Gertrude's birth/bap in the village where the other children of Anton S. were born, nor in the area.....

Quote

In conjunction with the Fate of the Romanovs project -- which started as a book on the Anastasia phenomenon -- Greg and I examined the birth and baptismal records of the Schanzkowsky children in Poland, as they existed in the summer of 2000.  At that time, there were no records for Gertrude at any level -- church, villlage, town, county -- for the area surrounding Butow/ Borowy Las.

It is possible that she was born elsewhere in Poland, though a short search turned up nothing.

At the point where the FOTR project turned its focus to the last days of the Romanovs, we abandoned our focus on the Schanzkowskys -- though they remain an avenue of periodic research as they will figure in the "Pretenders" book.

The most we -- Greg and I -- are able to say about Gertrude is that her records do not exist in the same places where we found her alleged siblings' records -- nor are they located in any immediately reasonable location, though they might exist further afield in Poland, or perhaps even in Germany.

On the subject of her date of birth, Gertrude herself claimed 12 November 1892*.

I don't expect anyone else here to take my word for this. Go ahead and get your own research started.  But this is what Greg and I found in Poland, for those who are interested.


AGRBear

* Date was later corrected to 1898
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Penny_Wilson on April 21, 2005, 05:44:04 PM
OK.  I went back and corrected the original post.
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Denise on April 21, 2005, 05:55:15 PM
One thing I would like to add about the subject of Gertrude's birthdate.  I have read (either Massie "RFC" or Klier & Mingay "QFA") that Gertrude was the younger sister of FS and she lived in Berlin as her sister Franziska's roommate until the munitions factory incident.  The full quote is posted somewhere in one of the FS threads, but I haven't the time or energy to dig for it.   ;)

Denise
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Helen_Azar on April 21, 2005, 06:19:50 PM
Quote

No. There are other -- fairly obvious -- possibilities.


Was she illegitimate then? I thought the idea originally was that Anton was married three times, not just that he had children with 3 different women.  ???
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Penny_Wilson on April 21, 2005, 06:33:48 PM
Quote

Was she illegitimate then? I thought the idea originally was that Anton was married three times, not just that he had children with 3 different women.  ???


Thus far, I have that he was married twice -- first to Josefina Peek, and the second time to Franziska's mother Marianna. This is on paper.  The rest of what I know of Anton's personal life is hearsay and local lore: That there was a third marriage, and that he had several women "on the side," as he travelled for a living at one time...
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Helen_Azar on April 21, 2005, 06:34:22 PM
Quote

I am perfectly willing to accept the DNA evidence involving AA and KM being related through mtDNA.  I agree that there AA was most likely FS, as DNA and statistical inferences don't lie (I am married to a statistician).  The most important thing about the DNA is it answered the question about whether AA was AN.  And it certainly suggests that the PI hired by the Duke of Hesse was not a waste of money.

However, as they are numerous SUBJECTIVE reports of differences between AA and FS.  (Note that I agree they are subjective.)  I would like the freedom to discuss and explore these items on the board with like-minded scholars WITHOUT being repeatedly told that I am not facing reality.  Well, in my reality, life is in the details, and I like to have the details worked out.  



It seems that we have all misunderstood each other. I certainly don't have any problem with wanting to investigate why there were so many discrepencies in the descriptions between AA and FS if they were one and the same person, and I find that somewhat interesting too. The problem I have is that people who say they accept the DNA results and statistics, but still doubt that AA and FS were the same person. To think that it's still possible that AA was not FS would mean that you don't buy into the DNA results/stats (not you per say, Denise, the general "you")... I am not saying that these discrepencies should not be discussed - within the context of how they can be explained in view of what we know to be the answer, but to say that AA may not have been FS and at the same time say that you believe the DNA results makes no sense. It is a contradiction.

I am not saying that this is what you are doing, Denise, but can others clarify if this is how they feel? Do we just want to discuss these discrepencies to try to figure them out, or are we still debating whether AA was FS or not, even with DNA results and statistics. This is the part I seem to be confused about...

Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Helen_Azar on April 21, 2005, 06:35:31 PM
Quote

Thus far, I have that he was married twice -- first to Josefina Peek, and the second time to Franziska's mother Marianna. This is on paper.  The rest of what I know of Anton's personal life is hearsay and local lore: That there was a third marriage, and that he had several women "on the side," as he travelled for a living at one time...


Is there any indication anywhere, that Gertrude was illegitimate or is it just speculation?
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Denise on April 21, 2005, 06:46:36 PM
Quote

It seems that we have all misunderstood each other. I certainly don't have any problem with wanting to investigate why there were so many discrepencies in the descriptions between AA and FS if they were one and the same person, and I find that somewhat interesting too. The problem I have is that people who say they accept the DNA results and statistics, but still doubt that AA and FS were the same person. To think that it's still possible that AA was not FS would mean that you don't buy into the DNA results/stats (not you per say, Denise, the general "you")... I am not saying that these discrepencies should not be discussed - within the context of how they can be explained in view of what we know to be the answer, but to say that AA may not have been FS and at the same time say that you believe the DNA results makes no sense. It is a contradiction.

 I am not saying that this is what you are doing, Denise, but can others clarify if this is how they feel? Do we just want to discuss these discrepencies to try to figure them out, or are we still debating whether AA was FS or not, even with DNA results and statistics. This is the part I seem to be confused about...



Thanks Helen.  I think the problem lies in terminology--glass half full/half empty as you will.  You say "wanting to investigate why there were so many discrepencies in the descriptions between AA and FS if they were one and the same person" but others are starting with the opposite tack--"wanting to investigate the differences as if they are not the same person."  If we can all disregard the terminology and just try to EXPLAIN these differences.  For instance, assuming that FS shoes couldn't have accurately been 3 times larger because they were probably hand me downs and she couldn't afford her own (Annie's statement, I believe) is as big an assumption as saying FS and GS had separate mothers.  We just don't know--the whole discussion is hypothetical.  Let's try to stay civil and not get our knickers in a twist.

Maybe there are those of us who also want to explore the thought that FS and GS were not full sisters.  OK.  That's cool for them.  But you know, it is really irrelevant to my mind at this time, as it would seem that IF they had different moms then mom1 and mom2 would have to be maternally related somewhere to get that mtDNA match.  

Anyway, as I constantly assert, this board and the items we discuss should not be important enough to get as rude as I have seen today.  I love the discussions here and hope to keep learning from them.

Denise  
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Mgmstl on April 21, 2005, 06:50:11 PM
Denise an excellent explanation and very well put.  What the people who live & breath DNA don't realize is that a discussion and research on these subjective issues can indeed make their case stronger and put this to bed once and for all.        


Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: AGRBear on April 21, 2005, 07:09:00 PM
To those who live and breath DNA, while looking for the Gertrude, younger sister source, I was reading Massie's THE ROMANOVS, THE FINAL CHAPTER and found this:

When looking for information,  I had to read a few pages of Massie's THE ROMANOVS, THE FINAL CHAPTER.

In it,  Massie tells us that Remy was looking for possible samples that would produce DNA p. 234:

Remy found a Professor Stefan Sadkuhler, who is is said, examined AA on 6 June 1951.  He had drawn blood to see if AA was a carrier of hemophila...  Sadkuhler gave Remy the slide which Remy broke in half.  He sent one piece to Professor Herrmann and the other to Dr. Ginther.  Apparently Herrmann was able to get some DNA and sent it to Ginther.  And this is what Massie wrote and I quote:
"Ginther found that this DNA did not match the Hessian profile (that is, the doner of the blood was not related to Empress Alexandra), nor did it match the Schanzkowski profile as dervied from Margareth Ellerick."  Then Massie talks about possible contamination, etc. etc..

Margareth Ellerick was FS's niece.

Why hasn't this information been brought up as evidence?

AGRBear
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: AGRBear on April 21, 2005, 07:15:37 PM
Where do I place  Margareth Ellerick ???

Anton Schanzkowsky m. (1) to 1890 to Josefina Peek  
 Issue:  [unknown]  
 
   
Anton Schanzkowsky m. (2) 1894  to  Marianna __NN__ b. 1866.   Marriage ended in divorce abt 1910/1912.  Both remarried.  [Mother remarried to ___NN___]    
     Issue:  
    2. Martin Christian S. b. 16 November 1895  
    3. Franziska S.  b. 16 December 1896 [date from Penny]  also listed in some books as  22 December 1896, baptized 24 December 1896  
     *  Gertrude b. poss. 1898
    4.  Michael S.  b. 16 December 1899  
    5.  Valerian S.  (AKA Walther) b. 25 April 1901  
    6.  Felix b. 17 February 1903  
    7. Juliane Marianna S. (AKA Maria Juliana) b. 30 April 1905  
   
 ---  
Anton Schanzkowsky m. (3) to  ___NN3___    
 Issue:    
   1. [unknown]    
 
NOTES
*Gertrude S.'s official birthdate unknown and place in families above is at this time is not known, however, Gertrude did tell people her birthdate was 1898 which would place her fourth between FS and Michael.
PS:  jeremy had the answer:
Quote

This was actually an issue with Gertrud's daughter Margarete, who, at first, refused to give a blood sample because she was worried that she could be held accountable for Anna Anderson's activities.
However, I do believe she later gave a sample to Maurice Phillip Remy, a German TV producer. So, if the first generation knew they wouldn't be held accountable for AA, (which  I'll leave open to question, as I am not that knowledgble about German laws either) this seems to have been lost on the second generation. (And, strange that there would be lingering doubt that she may have been their aunt after all ;))  

From what I could find so far,  Franzisca had , at least 5 siblings: Maria-Juliana, gertrud, Walter, Felix,
Valerian. (One more than previously documented I think).

Gertrud's children were:

1. Another Gertrud m. Maucher
     Carl Maucher's mother.

2, Hedwig Lander
    

3. Margarete
     Who lived with Carl Maucher
 
4. Magdalene m. Weber
     Had a son called Herbert Weber

Hope this all helps


Margareth/Margaret was Gertrude's third child.
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Helen_Azar on April 21, 2005, 08:36:45 PM
Quote
Why hasn't this information been brought up as evidence?
 

The blood from this slide was not an appropriate sample to use as evidence, in answer to your question. The slide could have easily gotten contaminated because it was handled by many people. If there was any legitimate question as to why this slide was not used, you would have already heard about it from the AA supporters. Since the DNA from this slide did not match the other two samples confirmed to be AA's (the intestine and the hair) this means that it was contaminated with someone else's DNA, so the DNA sequence they got from theblood on the slide is meaningless.
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Penny_Wilson on April 21, 2005, 11:24:32 PM
Too tired!  My answer's not coming out as I want it to -- I'll amend again tomorrow -- watch this space!
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Annie on April 22, 2005, 07:01:20 AM
Quote

And if the time comes that these questions can't be answered, by myself, Penny, Michael or Joe Historian, then I will just go on.  Lexi asked why it still matters whether AA was FS or not.  Well, it may not to many people, but it is a historical question I would like answered.  But again, my life does not depend on it.   8)

Denise


While I have found reasonable explainations for all the 'subjective' stuff, if you want to keep guessing, go for it. But that's all we can do now is guess, everyone is dead and there is no proof. But Denise, I do NOT think you, bear and michael are on the same page, as bear will ask questions about anything, and michael doesn't accept that she was FS. I do applaud you and bear for doing this in a civil way, without personal insults to those who post things you don't like. But as  you say, your historical life, and your career, don't depend on this. Mine either.
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Denise on April 22, 2005, 08:07:48 AM
Quote

While I have found reasonable explainations for all the 'subjective' stuff, if you want to keep guessing, go for it. But that's all we can do now is guess, everyone is dead and there is no proof. But Denise, I do NOT think you, bear and michael are on the same page, as bear will ask questions about anything, and michael doesn't accept that she was FS. I do applaud you and bear for doing this in a civil way, without personal insults to those who post things you don't like. But as  you say, your historical life, and your career, don't depend on this. Mine either.


Thanks Annie!!  Michael and I are actually fairly close in thought, but I don't have the resources to research this myself, hence my relaxing on my standards of proof, so to speak.  I think you have a point about the bear--she does explore things a bit beyond my view of credibility at times  :).  But OK--that is her prerogative.

And as far as finding reasonable answers to our questions, you arer correct in that we each have to decide what it will take to rest the case.  It would be beautiful if we were to wake up tomorrow with a detailed explanation of all these questions but as it is unlikely to happen, we will all just have to muddle through....
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Mgmstl on April 22, 2005, 09:10:27 AM
No, Denise and I are in the same boat, and I think Bear is there along with us also.      Denise hit the nail
on the head.
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: rskkiya on April 22, 2005, 09:21:25 AM
Michael G
I sent you a private message - did you receive it?

rskkiya
Title: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: AGRBear on April 22, 2005, 09:21:53 AM

Helen:>>If there was any legitimate question as to why this slide was not used, you would have already heard about it from the AA supporters<<
Bear Ans.: I am not a AA supporter and I'd like to hear more about it over on the DNA thread.

And, yes, Denise,  I to stretch the limits.  By the time you are my age, you will realize anything is possible, so, if you don't look around at everything, you can't be surprised later.

AGRBear
Title: Re:  the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a pro
Post by: Denise on April 22, 2005, 09:32:03 AM
Quote

And, yes, Denise,  I to stretch the limits.  By the time you are my age, you will realize anything is possible, so, if you don't look around at everything, you can't be surprised later.

AGRBear


I like some of your stretches Bear--it gets me outside the box.  But others sometimes make me go "huh?"  ;)

Denise
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Annie on April 22, 2005, 09:42:08 AM
I don't think Michael and Denise are in the same boat at all. Denise never called anyone names or said someone was up anyone else's backside as he did. Denise, what we have been fighting with him lately about is, he claims to accept the DNA without question, yet still thinks AA may not have been FS. What many of us have said is, if you believe the DNA, then none of the other stuff has any significance, because we have our answer, and any 'differences' were simply mistakes or mixups. They had to be. So if a person claims to believe the DNA but still question's AA's identity, they couldn't possibly truly accept the DNA or they wouldn't do that.  But if you are only looking for answers to those mysteries while accepting she is FS, that is different.

However, I did not mean to say I think it's okay for everyone to have their own 'truth' because as I've said many times, that's impossible, because there is only one right answer, and the DNA gave that to us. All of the subjective stuff had contradictions on both sides, but now that we have the DNA tests we know for sure which reports were right and which ones were wrong.

I don't have a problem with people investigating mysteries surrounding the case, such as who told her what and when, how did she learn a language and when, where did those shoes come from, etc. I'm interested in that too, that's why I started the 'How Fransiska did it' thread. As long as we can all agree that she was FS because the DNA proved that, with less than .000025% margin of error.
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: AGRBear on April 22, 2005, 09:45:22 AM
Does the request to see Gertrude's birth/bap certificate make you you go: "Huh?"  ???

AGRBear
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Annie on April 22, 2005, 09:47:24 AM
Bear, you know no one has that (unless someone really did find it and got rid of it because it didn't support their theory and they wanted the speculation to continue)

But really, I don't think even that will satisfy those who want this game to go on forever.
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: AGRBear on April 22, 2005, 10:04:45 AM
Theory???

Asking for a birth/bap certificiate is what I do almost everyday.  

There are people everyday trying to be a part of certain families, especially if the families have  known names and money.

Let me give you a different kind of example.

If you were to inherit a million dollars from your friend Joe [made up character who thinks he hasn't any heirs] then along came someone and said,  "No, you can't have the million because I'm  Joe's son.".  Naturally,  you'd ask for proof which would be, of course,   the claimants DNA but in doing the testing it is discovered your friend Joe's DNA samples were contaminated accidently and no DNA tests can be made.  So, what would you ask for next?  His birth certificate?  And, on this birth certificate it does have your friend Joe's name.  So, do you give Joe's son the money after alittle more investigation to see if this fellow is really Joe's son.  Or would you just turn a blind eye to the birth certificate with Joe's name on it and with all it's stamps and signitures and take this problem into the courts?  

AGRBear
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Denise on April 22, 2005, 10:14:32 AM
Annie, I know what everyone has been fighting about.  I (unfortunately) read all the pages of bickering.  What I don't understand is why it has to descend to that level (this is for you, Vera, Michael and everyone else who was involved too).  If you (generic you here, no one specifically) don't like someone's viewpoints, then take it to PM if it will become personal attacks.  If the argument has annoyed you, and you have stated your beliefs elsewhere in the thread, rather than attack, leave the thread.  

I can really see the point of those who say you people will never be satisfied.  I understand there frustration, as I have felt it in other places.  

(Back to topic...)

The paradox of AA is indeed a mystery. I still am amazed at the many (almost coincedental at times) similarities that existed to make people think she was AN.  And for some, now the same diligence that existed to "prove" her AN has been turned to "proving" (or disproving) her FS.  

It almost seems at times that she was MORE like AN than FS.  This is probably because our info about AA has been filtered through sources trying to prove her to be AN.  Because of so many trying to disprove the FS connection, I think the corroberating evidence of that ID has been sifted out.  I hope we can find some primary sources (like the Berlin transcripts) that have better FS documentation that have not been cherry picked by authors trying to "prove" AA as AN.  

Anyway, just my thoughts on the whole AA phenomenon.
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Annie on April 22, 2005, 10:20:23 AM
Quote
Annie, I know what everyone has been fighting about.  I (unfortunately) read all the pages of bickering.  What I don't understand is why it has to descend to that level (this is for you, Vera, Michael and everyone else who was involved too).  If you (generic you here, no one specifically) don't like someone's viewpoints, then take it to PM if it will become personal attacks.  If the argument has annoyed you, and you have stated your beliefs elsewhere in the thread, rather than attack, leave the thread.  


No one but Michael made it personal. Vera and I and some others were only stating a position, it was Michael who changed it from a discussion over beliefs to something personally insulting. I don't understand why anyone can't debate and state their case without hating the person personally. Luckily very few posters do this.
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: AGRBear on April 22, 2005, 10:24:58 AM
Annie, WE KNOW, WE KNOW, WE KNOW, WE KNOW, WE KNOW exactly how you feel, REALLY WE DO KNOW.

Quote

in part.....

(Back to topic...)

The paradox of AA is indeed a mystery. I still am amazed at the many (almost coincedental at times) similarities that existed to make people think she was AN.  And for some, now the same diligence that existed to "prove" her AN has been turned to "proving" (or disproving) her FS.  

It almost seems at times that she was MORE like AN than FS.  This is probably because our info about AA has been filtered through sources trying to prove her to be AN.  Because of so many trying to disprove the FS connection, I think the corroberating evidence of that ID has been sifted out.  I hope we can find some primary sources (like the Berlin transcripts) that have better FS documentation that have not been cherry picked by authors trying to "prove" AA as AN.  

Anyway, just my thoughts on the whole AA phenomenon.


Since I was never an AA supporter in the first place,  and, so when reading the various books, I always kind of skip over the chapters about AA.  However, since I've been reading the posts on this forum, I do see the phenomenon Denise mentions in her post.  And, now, I have a lot of questions [in case no one has notice, I thought I'd bring it your your attenion ::) ] .

AGRBear
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Helen_Azar on April 22, 2005, 10:34:38 AM
Quote
...our info about AA has been filtered through sources trying to prove her to be AN.  Because of so many trying to disprove the FS connection, I think the corroborating evidence of that ID has been sifted out.  I hope we can find some primary sources (like the Berlin transcripts) that have better FS documentation that have not been cherry picked by authors trying to "prove" AA as AN.  
 

Denise, I think you are absolutely right, this is exactly what happened, and this is why so many contradictory descriptions and testimonies. Which means we have to take all of it with a huge grain of salt, unless as you say, we can get some primary sources. Unfortunately, even those primary sources will contain testimony which is subjective, depending on what the person who gave it felt about the case. People were just as biased in this case back then as they are today, as was, inevitably, their testimony. So the only objective evidence we have here is ....  once again DNA and statistics. Sorry Michael, I know you don't like that idea, but that's just how it is....
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: rskkiya on April 22, 2005, 10:34:48 AM
Annie -
     You are correct. Michael G's comments on the DNA do not seem to agree with those posted here. It appears that sometimes he accepts the DNA - yet he seems to doubt the fact that AA was not AN (?) (This may well be my misinterpretation of his statements!)
     I have asked him repeatedly to clarify this point and he has yet to do so on this thread. I have sent him a pm message and I have asked him to apologize for certain statements made here.  
    Whether he will oblige me or not is yet to be seen.

rskkiya
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Helen_Azar on April 22, 2005, 10:40:58 AM
Quote
.. yet he seems to doubt the fact that AA was not AN (?)


No, Michael never said that he thought that AA was AN, he accepts that she is not. He thinks that she may not be FS though (unless I am not interpreting what he has been saying correctly).
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Vera_Figner on April 22, 2005, 10:55:37 AM
Quote
Theory???

 Asking for a birth/bap certificiate is what I do almost everyday.  

There are people everyday trying to be a part of certain families, especially if the families have  known names and money.

Let me give you a different kind of example.

If you were to inherit a million dollars from your friend Joe [made up character who thinks he hasn't any heirs] then along came someone and said,  "No, you can't have the million because I'm  Joe's son.".  Naturally,  you'd ask for proof which would be, of course,   the claimants DNA but in doing the testing it is discovered your friend Joe's DNA samples were contaminated accidently and no DNA tests can be made.  So, what would you ask for next?  His birth certificate?  And, on this birth certificate it does have your friend Joe's name.  So, do you give Joe's son the money after alittle more investigation to see if this fellow is really Joe's son.  Or would you just turn a blind eye to the birth certificate with Joe's name on it and with all it's stamps and signitures and take this problem into the courts?  

AGRBear


What if the DNA tests could be and WERE done, would you still be looking for a birth certificate...hmm?
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Helen_Azar on April 22, 2005, 11:00:12 AM
Quote

What if the DNA tests could be and WERE done, would you still be looking for a birth certificate...hmm?



Birth certificates and other documents and testimonies can be forged, DNA results - if done correctly cannot be. This is the whole point here.
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: AGRBear on April 22, 2005, 11:28:02 AM
In the case I presented, if there was DNA for both the father and the son, then more than likely, after a little more invesigation [we are talking about a million dollars in this scenario], yes, I probably would. [NOTE: Let's say it's not a case like AA's.]  Why?  There is no missing link between father and son in this case.  However, in the case of Joe and the claiment, there isn't any DNA.  

And, now, you think that the birth certificate is forged.

What would you do next if it were you inheriting the million dollars from Joe and there is this claiment who has a birth certificate which you think is forged?

AGRBear
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: rskkiya on April 22, 2005, 11:33:15 AM
Helen A
Thanks for that clarification on AN (my bad) but I still don't fully understand his doubts about FS AA.
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: AGRBear on April 22, 2005, 11:48:10 AM
Quote


Birth certificates and other documents and testimonies can be forged, DNA results - if done correctly cannot be. This is the whole point here.


No, I'm not missing the point.
There is no mtDNA link which connects  AA to FS if Gertrude and FS did NOT have the same mothers.  So, in court, your DNA wouldn't even be given unless you find other evidence.  What would that evidence be?  Give me three examples.

AGRBear
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: jaa on April 22, 2005, 02:09:32 PM
Quote
something like less than 1 in 8000 or 0.000125%

Reading through this thread there is a basic math error, which a least a couple of posts have repeated (with typos). Just in case these numbers end up in someone's academic paper, a chance of 1 in 8000 does not equal .000125%. The decimal equivalent of 1/8000 = .000125. That is not a percentage. 1/8000 = .0125%.
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: lexi4 on April 22, 2005, 02:18:27 PM
Quote

No, I'm not missing the point.
There is no mtDNA link which connects  AA to FS if Gertrude and FS did NOT have the same mothers.  So, in court, your DNA wouldn't even be given unless you find other evidence.  What would that evidence be?  Give me three examples.

AGRBear


I thought the it was esstablished that there was a mtDNA connection between AA and FS. Is this incorrect?
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Mgmstl on April 22, 2005, 02:47:34 PM
Rskkiya,

I don't have time to answer as I would like to.  I have two nurses a physical and occupational therpaist that have descended on the house today en masse.  Which is fine, it means I haven't even had time to have lunch
or get my Mother hers.    It's just been BUSY..Plus had
to clean before they got here....

So please be patient, a little while longer....

Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: jaa on April 22, 2005, 02:48:20 PM
There is a connection between AA and Karl Maucher, Gertrude's grandson. The birth certificate and other records that would establish Gertrude's relationship to FS are missing. This is inconsistent with the records for FS' other siblings.
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Helen_Azar on April 22, 2005, 03:11:51 PM
Quote
Reading through this thread there is a basic math error, which a least a couple of posts have repeated (with typos). Just in case these numbers end up in someone's academic paper, a chance of 1 in 8000 does not equal .000125%. The decimal equivalent of 1/8000 = .000125. That is not a percentage. 1/8000 = .0125%.


Sorry about that, my mistake. Ok the chances are 0.0125%, or less than 0.01 of a percent, that AA was not FS.  

Which means that it is 99.9875% certain that AA was FS. Do you like these odds better?  ;)
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Helen_Azar on April 22, 2005, 03:34:20 PM
Quote

I thought the it was esstablished that there was a mtDNA connection between AA and FS. Is this incorrect?


Lexi, yes it has been established that there was an exact match between the mtDNA sequence of AA and that of Carl Maucher, Gertrude Schankowska's maternal grandson.

But some people want to prove that AA was not FS, so a rumor was started that Gertrude was not really FS's full sister. There appears no basis for this rumor, other than the fact that it is wishful thinking. Just because we allegedly don't have the birth certificate does not mean they were not full siblings, it just means we do not have the birth certificate.

The DNA evidence speaks for itself: chances that AA was maternally related to Gertrude are more than 99.98%, so who else could she have been other than FS? A long lost cousin whom no one knew was related to the Schankowskis? Again chances are less than 0.01% of that being a random case. So for a reasonable person there is only one possibilty of who AA was, she had to be no one other than FS.    :)
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: lexi4 on April 22, 2005, 03:45:03 PM
Quote

Lexi, yes it has been established that there was an exact match between the mtDNA sequence of AA and that of Carl Maucher, Gertrude Schankowska's maternal grandson.

But some people want to prove that AA was not FS, so a rumor was started that Gertrude was not really FS's full sister. There appears no basis for this rumor, other than the fact that it is wishful thinking. Just because we allegedly don't have the birth certificate does not mean they were not full siblings, it just means we do not have the birth certificate.

The DNA evidence speaks for itself: chances that AA was maternally related to Gertrude are more than 99.98%, so who else could she have been other than FS? A long lost cousin whom no one knew was related to the Schankowskis? Again chances are less than 0.01% of that being a random case. So for a reasonable person there is only one possibilty of who AA was, she had to be no one other than FS.    :)

Again, thank you Helen.
After reading the posts, I was a little confused. But alas, I am finally getting the picture. This discussion may be a little to speculative - for lack of a better word - for me.
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: AGRBear on April 22, 2005, 04:16:33 PM
Quote

Lexi, yes it has been established that there was an exact match between the mtDNA sequence of AA and that of Carl Maucher, Gertrude Schankowska's maternal grandson.

But some people want to prove that AA was not FS, so a rumor was started that Gertrude was not really FS's full sister. There appears no basis for this rumor, other than the fact that it is wishful thinking. Just because we allegedly don't have the birth certificate does not mean they were not full siblings, it just means we do not have the birth certificate.

The DNA evidence speaks for itself: chances that AA was maternally related to Gertrude are more than 99.98%, so who else could she have been other than FS? A long lost cousin whom no one knew was related to the Schankowskis? Again chances are less than 0.01% of that being a random case. So for a reasonable person there is only one possibilty of who AA was, she had to be no one other than FS.    :)


Helen: >>Lexi, yes it has been established that there was an exact match between the mtDNA sequence of AA and that of Carl Maucher, Gertrude Schankowska's maternal grandson. <<
Bear Ans: Not  a perfect match.  There is still some wiggle room. If  it can be proven that  Gertrude's mother  and FS's mother were cousins  the mtDNA would still be fine as giving us proof that FS might have been AA.

Helen:>>But some people want to prove that AA was not FS, so a rumor was started that Gertrude was not really FS's full sister. There appears no basis for this rumor, other than the fact that it is wishful thinking. Just because we allegedly don't have the birth certificate does not mean they were not full siblings, it just means we do not have the birth certificate<<
Bear Ans:  Not true.  No one started a rumor that Gertrude was not FS's sisster.  This question started when the Grossmann serial killer [or was it before, it might have been before I was around, anyway] was noted in a book as having murdered FS back in 1920.  And, no one is "allegedly" states that there is not birth certificate.  At this time, no one has found the certificate of a birth or bap. certificate/record of Gertrude's birth in or around where the other siblings were born, but they have found FS's and other siblings.  Without a birth/bap certificate we can't tell when Gertrude was born or  who here mother and father were.  We can assume Gertrude's father was Anton S., who was the father of FS, but that is an assumption.  Since Anton S. had more than one wife, Gertrude could have been the daughter of Anton S.'s first wife. Or she could have been brought into the family by Anton or one of his wives....

Helen>>The DNA evidence speaks for itself: chances that AA was maternally related to Gertrude are more than 99.98%, so who else could she have been other than FS? A long lost cousin whom no one knew was related to the Schankowskis? Again chances are less than 0.01% of that being a random case. So for a reasonable person there is only one possibilty of who AA was, she had to be no one other than FS<<
Bear Ans:  Yes, it appears AA and Gertrude are related as shown in the DNA test with her grandson Karl Maucher but not with Gertrude's daughter Margareth's DNA..... [A new mystery which will probably clear up and show the same results as it did for Karl... ] So, who else could AA be if she is related to Gertrude and we can't connect Gertrude to FS...  I honestly don't have a clue at this time accept that these two women, Gertrude and AA, apparently  had a common ancestor who passed down the same mtDNA.   Of course, I can assume, like Helen and others, that Gertrude and FS were either full sister or half sister,  since there appears in everything we've read that there is some kind of family connection.  But I don't think my assumption would hold much weight in a court of law.

In genealogy we cannot assume someone is the daughter/son of a person especially if there is a million dollars to inherit which is to be divided among the siblings/heirs.  You'd be amazed at what stories I could share when it comes to personal greed among siblings/heir who will turn on someone they've called sister or brother or auntie Meg all their lives.

AGRBear
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: jaa on April 22, 2005, 05:37:38 PM
Quote
Ok the chances are 0.0125%, or less than 0.01 of a percent

.0125% is not less than .01%.

Quote
Which means that it is 99.9875% certain that AA was FS. Do you like these odds better? :Wink

I like the arithmetic better.;) FWIW, I think it is likely that AA is FS. But there are so many bizarre coincidences in this case that one more wouldn't surprise me.

I am not at sure that it's responsible to characterize questions about Gertrude's relationship to AA as "rumor." All I know about Gertrude's records is this:

Quote
The most we -- Greg and I -- are able to say about Gertrude is that her records do not exist in the same places where we found her alleged siblings' records -- nor are they located in any immediately reasonable location, though they might exist further afield in Poland, or perhaps even in Germany.

I think it's reasonable to assume that her records were lost. But I don't know what, if any, significance to attach to the fact that her records were not in the same places as her siblings'. I can't imagine how that's part of any conspiracy; I think it more than possible that it's just another coincidence in a case full of coincidences. I'd just be happier knowing that her records were just scattered further afield, and that she is, in fact, FS' biological full sister.
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Helen_Azar on April 22, 2005, 06:06:10 PM
Quote
.0125% is not less than .01%.

It could very well be if the original numbers are less than 1 chance in 8000  ;).

Quote
.0125% is not less than .01%.

I like the arithmetic better.;) FWIW, I think it is likely that AA is FS. But there are so many bizarre coincidences in this case that one more wouldn't surprise me. I am not at sure that it's responsible to characterize questions about Gertrude's relationship to AA as "rumor." All I know about Gertrude's records is this: I think it's reasonable to assume that her records were lost. But I don't know what, if any, significance to attach to the fact that her records were not in the same places as her siblings'. I can't imagine how that's part of any conspiracy; I think it more than possible that it's just another coincidence in a case full of coincidences. I'd just be happier knowing that her records were just scattered further afield, and that she is, in fact, FS' biological full sister.


You may like the arithmetic better, but most others understand percentages better, I think, so it was for their benefit I converted these numbers.

So what you are trying to say here is that you think that the 1 in 8000 or less chance was a coincidence in this case? Surely you understand how absurd that sounds?  8)

Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: jaa on April 22, 2005, 07:54:13 PM
Quote
It could very well be if the original numbers are less than 1 chance in 8000

Less than 1/10000.

The statement, "Ok the chances are 0.0125%, or less than 0.01 of a percent," is wrong.

Quote
You may like the arithmetic better, but most others understand percentages better, I think, so it was for their benefit I converted these numbers.

Arithmetic is addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division. These are the basic skills used for percentages and ratios - and more advanced subjects later, but these are fundamental skills for the understanding of percentages.

There is no "conversion" in which these are correct, no benefit to anyone. These are wrong:
1/8000=.000125%
.0125%<0.01%

Quote
So what you are trying to say here is that you think that the 1 in 8000 or less chance was a coincidence in this case?

No.

I was just trying to make sure the students who use this forum as part of their research wouldn't get downgraded for simple math errors.

I said that I wouldn't be surprised by yet one more coincidence in a case full of coincidences.
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Annie on April 22, 2005, 09:13:48 PM
Quote
Helen A
Thanks for that clarification on AN (my bad) but I still don't fully understand his doubts about FS AA.


I don't think you were bad, some of his posts do make it look as if he hasn't ruled the AN possibility out. While he officially denies it, I wonder, since he's made so many comments about GD Ernst of Hesse and Olga Alexandrovna possibly lying or having ulterior motives for denying AA was AN. WHY would that even be a factor if he doesn't believe she was AN?

And I still don't believe anyone who fully accepts the DNA results could even consider AA might not be FS. It doesn't make any sense.  :P
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Annie on April 22, 2005, 09:22:03 PM
Quote
Denise, I think you are absolutely right, this is exactly what happened, and this is why so many contradictory descriptions and testimonies. Which means we have to take all of it with a huge grain of salt, unless as you say, we can get some primary sources. Unfortunately, even those primary sources will contain testimony which is subjective, depending on what the person who gave it felt about the case. People were just as biased in this case back then as they are today, as was, inevitably, their testimony. So the only objective evidence we have here is ....  once again DNA and statistics. Sorry Michael, I know you don't like that idea, but that's just how it is....


Yes that is a good point, and such a shame, that so much of the story is told by those who believed AA was FS. I believe there is a lot of other evidence out there that we just don't know because the negative things to the case were likely avoided by these people (as a lawyer would not present evidence that harmed his client) That is why I feel so frustrated to think that the only people really on this case are more who lean toward the AA=AN or AA isn't FS (most likely so she can still somehow be AN) camp. I am looking forward to research and work by other authors, like Jeremy, who will more accurately tell this story without an agenda.
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Mgmstl on April 22, 2005, 09:28:01 PM
Annie, again you are stating that I said Olga lied or that Ernie lied.  I never stated they lied.  


The testimony in the AA case regarding whether or not AA could or could not speak German prove that Olga was
capable of lying.

Ernie had a secret , his visit to N & A in 1916 during the war which he had to hide, as it could be clearly detrimental to him if it became public knowledge.   So while we know she wasn't AN, it doesn't absolve your much beloved royals of lying, nor does it  confirm the approaching sainthood status you wrap them in.


CLEARLY it shows that you are capable of twisting the facts to fit what ever version of the truth you are promoting, or what fits your agenda.  If you have any problems with anything else take it to PM...
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Denise on April 22, 2005, 09:28:59 PM
Quote
That is why I feel so frustrated to think that the only people really on this case are more who lean toward the AA=AN or AA isn't FS (most likely so she can still somehow be AN) camp. I am looking forward to research and work by other authors, like Jeremy, who will more accurately tell this story without an agenda.


Out of curiousity--why is it you seem to feel that if someone is looking for more info on FS or doubts that she was AA, then OBVIOUSLY they must feel she is AN?  I know that Michael, Bear (at least as of her latest series of questions  ;)), and myself all trust the DNA that says AA did not match the Victorian mtDNA.  I don't want to speak for Penny, but I think she has accepted this as well (please correct me if I'm wrong, Penny  :)).  

Who exactly has stated that AA couldn't be FS as she was AN?  I don't recall anyone with that type of post.  Thanks!!  Just wondering, as I know I haven't been on as much lately....

Denise


Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Mgmstl on April 22, 2005, 09:41:39 PM
Denise,

The problem all along has been this CONSTANT misstating of people's belief's or quotes.

It's an old game and we see it often especially in politics.
You know if you want to destroy someone lie about their statements often enough and put it out there and people will or may eventually believe it.  That is what she does.

I don't recall any of us making that statement.  All I can recall is the constant stream of bull, because we dare to want to look just a bit deeper.

Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Annie on April 22, 2005, 09:43:38 PM
Quote

Out of curiousity--why is it you seem to feel that if someone is looking for more info on FS or doubts that she was AA, then OBVIOUSLY they must feel she is AN?  


Read my post again, I never said obviously, just possibly.


Quote
I know that Michael, Bear (at least as of her latest series of questions  ;)), and myself all trust the DNA that says AA did not match the Victorian mtDNA.


Those DNA tests also proved she matched the Schanskowska family, and Fransiska of that family was always the only other suspect as to who AA may have been other than AN. So if you truly believe the DNA tests, you would no longer question her identity, you would have the answer, and know that the conflicting  hearsay 'subjective evidence' were mistakes.


Quote
 I don't want to speak for Penny, but I think she has accepted this as well (please correct me if I'm wrong, Penny  :)).  

Who exactly has stated that AA couldn't be FS as she was AN?  I don't recall anyone with that type of post.  Thanks!!  Just wondering, as I know I haven't been on as much lately....

Denise




Well, I DO recall those kinds of posts, (not from you) but I am not dragging them out tonight and starting a fight.
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Denise on April 22, 2005, 09:46:20 PM
Ah, Annie, but remember, mtDNA cannot prove who someone WAS, only who she WAS NOT.  ;)
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Annie on April 22, 2005, 09:48:25 PM
Quote
Denise,

The problem all along has been this CONSTANT misstating of people's belief's or quotes.




Like you have done many times to me, no matter how much I try to explain myself, you ignore me. One of the most aggravating ones is that I only believe Olga A. and Ernie because they are 'exalted royalty' ::) I have said many times, this is not true, Gilliard was not royal and I believe him, and I'd never believe anything Kyril said no matter how royal he was. You also accuse me of having an agenda. What is my agenda? I'm not the one trying to keep stringing this mystery along so future books will still be interesting, I'm trying to do my best to put it to bed so we can move onto something that hasn't yet been solved, like what really happened to those 2 missing bodies?
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Annie on April 22, 2005, 09:56:32 PM
Quote
Ah, Annie, but remember, mtDNA cannot prove who someone WAS, only who she WAS NOT.  ;)



But your chances she was not are only .000125%
Are you really seeing a miniscule opening here? I don't know about the others, but I have always taken you as someone far too smart for that.
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Denise on April 22, 2005, 10:01:13 PM
Quote

One of the most aggravating ones is that I only believe Olga A. and Ernie because they are 'exalted royalty' ::) I have said many times, this is not true, Gilliard was not royal and I believe him, and I'd never believe anything Kyril said no matter how royal he was. You also accuse me of having an agenda. What is my agenda? ... I'm trying to do my best to put it to bed so we can move onto something that hasn't yet been solved, like what really happened to those 2 missing bodies?


I believe you Annie.  All of us on the board, to more or less degrees, have no agenda, other than a defence of our personal beliefs.  And I do not really classify that as an "agenda" as you refer to it above.  

After the revolution, I think all of those involved with the IF, be they former employees or exiled royals, had one agenda: self preservation.  I think Olga, Gilliard, Ernie etc all made mistakes, may have said some things they regretted and followed their beliefs in order to keep their sanity after witnessing what they did.  Seeing an interloper like AA come forward and claim to have been part of that lost world must have been extraordinarily hard.  So regardless of AA's true identity, those involved with her were placed in a very difficult position--think about the possible strain on Gilliard's marriage--Shura believed AA was Anastasia.

Anyway, you are right about the 2 bodies.  I think that by this time they have decomposed to the point that they won't be found, like Michael and his secretary.  WE have an account of his death too, just like AN/MN and Alexei, yet no one is arguing they lived.  Why is that?
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Denise on April 22, 2005, 10:08:28 PM
Quote


But your chances she was not are only .000125%
Are you really seeing a miniscule opening here? I don't know about the others, but I have always taken you as someone far too smart for that.


I am too smart for that.  Just a tiny joke (obviously, right  :-/?)  I was thinking about this the other day.  

If FS was killed by Grossman(or Gertrude and FS were half sisters), then the only way the AA mtDNA would match that of KM would be if FS had a lookalike maternally related female cousin of the same age.  This cousin would be unknown to the rest of the family (as Felix never said that isn't Franziska, that's my cousin Josephine).  This unknown cousin would have to be in Berlin around the same time as Franziska disappeared.  

Not likely.  Another thought I have kicked around is the fact that NOT ONCE in the AA trial did the "real" FS show up saying that AA was not her.  You would think that would happen.  And since it didn't, one of two possibilities is open.  1.  FS was killed by Grossman (and her identical cousin is AA) or 2. AA was FS.  

And as you all tell me, choose the easiest path!!  However, I still need to reconcile the differences between AA and FS that have been reported by many...
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Mgmstl on April 22, 2005, 10:21:30 PM
Annie I have never misstated your views...

You constantly have come back to state I believe AA is AN.  Which I don't.  Which I have never said, so that is a lie.

Olga was caught lying in her testimony in the 1950's as was Gilliard, so their testimony is suspect.

You have an agenda, an obsession about this.  After all if after investigating these subjective differences, it turns out that she is indeed FS, it has just made your case stronger.  So then what is your problem with us discussing or investigating it?  

Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Michelle on April 23, 2005, 12:07:16 AM
Annie, you cease to amaze me with your apparent paranoia.  Why is it that you have a screaming fit whenever someone wants to investigate the bizarre mysteries of the AA/FS case?  What are you so afraid of?
You treat this as a life and death matter and it really gets on a lot of people's nerves.  Plus, you always using the word "hate" is suggestive of an inferiority complex, acting as if everyone's out to get you.  Why, oh why do you conduct yourself in this (very unlikeable) manner?  Or are you not capable of answering that question?
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Helen_Azar on April 23, 2005, 07:34:33 AM
Quote
Annie, you cease to amaze me with your apparent paranoia.  Why is it that you have a screaming fit whenever someone wants to investigate the bizarre mysteries of the AA/FS case?  What are you so afraid of?
You treat this as a life and death matter and it really gets on a lot of people's nerves.  Plus, you always using the word "hate" is suggestive of an inferiority complex, acting as if everyone's out to get you.  Why, oh why do you conduct yourself in this (very unlikeable) manner?  Or are you not capable of answering that question?


Michelle, if you have something substantial to add to this discussion, then post that. You were not part of the discussion up until this point, so please don't just join in in order to add to the fighting. There is enough of that here without you adding to it. So as difficult as it may be for you to resist a good fight, restrain yourself please.  
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Helen_Azar on April 23, 2005, 07:59:48 AM
Quote

Olga was caught lying in her testimony in the 1950's

Olga was also caught lying on other occasions not related to AA, such as when she lied about not being acquainted with Madame Wolfert - her brother Michael's wife, while there were several photos that proved otherwise.

My point has always been, is that you cannot believe anyone's testimony 100% - no matter who they are. So regardless of what anyone testifies or swears, they could be lying or confused. And this is why I always say that scientific evidence is a lot more valuable and the only thing that can be accepted as absolute proof.... Science does not lie and in this case, where there are so many contradictions, it is the only thing we can accept 100% as evidence.
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: rskkiya on April 23, 2005, 08:56:00 AM
     In my poor opinion Annie have not used the word hate in excess, although I don't go about memorizing other peoples posts ...(why are people jumping all over Annie all the time?)

    I must agree with Helen A's well thought out comment-  no one be they peasant, White, Red, or Tsar, can present a perfectly reliable testimony people forget and subconciously reimagine things all the time - its part of being a human!

rskkiya
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: rskkiya on April 23, 2005, 09:03:22 AM
Quote
Annie I have never misstated your views...

You constantly have come back to state I believe AA is AN.  Which I don't.  Which I have never said, so that is a lie.

You have an agenda, an obsession about this.  


MICHAEL G
STOP ATTACKING ANNIE
!

    I RSKKIYA was the one to misunderstand your remarks- so if you find it so neccessary to ridicule someone - then I am the one that you should be addressing!
I have been accused of "having an agenda" but I doubt that it's the same as Annie's.

CIVILTY MICHAEL PLEASE!
(still hoping for a further explanation of your theories.)

rskkiya
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Annie on April 23, 2005, 09:11:38 AM
THANK YOU RSKKIYA for those last 2 posts! You are absolutely right, and you do not have an agenda either!
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Olga on April 23, 2005, 09:15:17 AM
Isn't it funny that Michael is never reprimanded.
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: jaa on April 23, 2005, 09:23:59 AM
Quote
But your chances she was not are only .000125%

1/8000=.0125%

Round this down to .01% for convenience. That 8000 number comes from incorrect rounding off anyway.
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Annie on April 23, 2005, 09:28:52 AM
Quote
Isn't it funny that Michael is never reprimanded.


Yes it is. Can't help but wonder why he and a certain other person get away with anything while the rest of us get lectured for saying anything back to them.  :-/
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: rskkiya on April 23, 2005, 09:36:34 AM
Oh dear - are you talking about me? (not so innocent blush hehe)  :D

Just my poor opinion, but I think that the FA has some "special friends" who can get away with murder at this place...but as it's his site he can populate it with monkeys and sheep (NO NAMES ATTACHED) and there is nothing we can do.

BaaBaa  

rskkiya
black sheep
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Olga on April 23, 2005, 09:43:28 AM
Quote
Just my poor opinion, but I think that the FA has some "special friends" who can get away with murder at this place...but as it's his site he can populate it with monkeys and sheep (NO NAMES ATTACHED) and there is nothing we can do.


BaaBaa............
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Mgmstl on April 23, 2005, 10:03:51 AM
 Rskkiya, oh please................... ::) ::) ::)
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: rskkiya on April 23, 2005, 10:09:42 AM
Quote

MICHAEL G
     I RSKKIYA was the one to misunderstand your remarks- so if you find it so neccessary to ridicule someone - then I am the one that you should be addressing!

(still hoping for a further explanation of your theories.)
 
rskkiya

I am eager for the promised explanation... and you would prove yourself a true gentleman if you would apologize to Annie!

rskkiya
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: AGRBear on April 23, 2005, 10:53:52 AM
Quote

Michelle, if you have something substantial to add to this discussion, then post that. You were not part of the discussion up until this point, so please don't just join in in order to add to the fighting. There is enough of that here without you adding to it. So as difficult as it may be for you to resist a good fight, restrain yourself please.  


Helen, how dare you, or anyone else,  tell Michelle or anyone else she / they  is/are not part of this discussion!  


It's time EVERYONE takes a step back and get back to
THE TOPIC, please.

AGRBear
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Vera_Figner on April 23, 2005, 10:59:29 AM
Quote
Annie, you cease to amaze me with your apparent paranoia.  Why is it that you have a screaming fit whenever someone wants to investigate the bizarre mysteries of the AA/FS case?  What are you so afraid of?
You treat this as a life and death matter and it really gets on a lot of people's nerves.  Plus, you always using the word "hate" is suggestive of an inferiority complex, acting as if everyone's out to get you.  Why, oh why do you conduct yourself in this (very unlikeable) manner?  Or are you not capable of answering that question?


There is one valid point in Michelle's tirade: and that is, Annie, while I totally agree with you, some of us must recognize that we are wasting our time.  The people on this thread who wish to continue investigating a non-issue are doing it based on feelings, not facts, on attempting to solve a mystery that science has already solved.  They do so for one of three reasons: 1. They know nothing of DNA science and refuse to learn 2. They do know a little of DNA science but want to remain in denail (probably subconscious) or 3. They seek to keep the "story" alive so that they may publish books that will undoubtedly continue to sell to those in groups 1 and 2.

The final point is, these people are either unarmed, in denial, or possess a profit motive. In their minds they are entirely justified. They are right. They cannot or will not be convinced, and so you and anyone else who attempts to point to the facts truly are wasting time that could be spent far more productively and in far better company.

The insults that have been flung in your direction (and others) are immature and point to some rather deep-seated insecurities on the parts of some who post here. Do you, Annie, really believe these people are worth your time, or do you get something out of being pummeled with their irrationality?

Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Vera_Figner on April 23, 2005, 11:10:45 AM
Quote

Yes it is. Can't help but wonder why he and a certain other person get away with anything while the rest of us get lectured for saying anything back to them.  :-/


P&P  ::)

Enough said.
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: AGRBear on April 23, 2005, 11:13:42 AM
Quote

There is one valid point in Michelle's tirade: and that is, Annie, while I totally agree with you, some of us must recognize that we are wasting our time.  The people on this thread who wish to continue investigating a non-issue are doing it based on feelings, not facts, on attempting to solve a mystery that science has already solved.  They do so for one of three reasons: 1. They know nothing of DNA science and refuse to learn 2. They do know a little of DNA science but want to remain in denail (probably subconscious) or 3. They seek to keep the "story" alive so that they may publish books that will undoubtedly continue to sell to those in groups 1 and 2.

The final point is, these people are either unarmed, in denial, or possess a profit motive. In their minds they are entirely justified. They are right. They cannot or will not be convinced, and so you and anyone else who attempts to point to the facts truly are wasting time that could be spent far more productively and in far better company.

The insults that have been flung in your direction (and others) are immature and point to some rather deep-seated insecurities on the parts of some who post here. Do you, Annie, really believe these people are worth your time, or do you get something out of being pummeled with their irrationality?



Vera:  >>...some of us must recognize that we are wasting our time...<<
Bear Ans.:  Hark, me thinks I hear a murmmer of truth 'cause you are right Vera some of us are not going away and will continue to ask questions


Vera:>>  They do so for one of three reasons: 1. They know nothing of DNA science and refuse to learn 2. They do know a little of DNA science but want to remain in denail (probably subconscious) or 3. They seek to keep the "story" alive so that they may publish books that will undoubtedly continue to sell to those in groups 1 and 2.<<
Bear Ans:
(1) If we do not know anything about DNA and we agree with the results, I'm not sure what that means.  Does it mean none of us know anything about DNA?
(2)  We haven't denied DNA even though we're constantly told we do which in itself is curious.  Why do you keep doing that?
(3) Seeking to keep the  "story" alive to publish books.  I think this is suppose to mean we  shouldn't be writing books because Vera doesn't agree with our opinions...


Vera:>>The insults that have been flung in your direction (and others) are immature and point to some rather deep-seated insecurities on the parts of some who post here. Do you, Annie, really believe these people are worth your time, or do you get something out of being pummeled with their irrationality?
Bear Ans:  I am the most honest, respectful, secure and mature old Bear you'll ever meet.  So, you are going to have to find another reason why I keep asking questions about the evidence.  And, yes, words have flown back and forth but there is an old saying, "Don't toss rocks if you live in a glass house."   ;D

AGRBear
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Vera_Figner on April 23, 2005, 11:17:07 AM
Bear, you are backpedaling to beat the band. And once again, you will convince only those who already support your views.  

Your remarks make little to no sense except that they display all the hallmarks of irratrionality, which is of course, your forte.
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: AGRBear on April 23, 2005, 11:28:19 AM
What information do you have on the DNA taken from Margareth Ellerick, daughter of Gertrude, which didn't match the DNA of the Schanzkowska family?

Do you have any information on where we could find Gertrude's birh/bap certificate?

Can you explain why there is a 3 shoe size difference between AA and FS?

Do you know when FS had a child because she did if she was AA?

TOPIC PLEASE

AGRBear
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Mgmstl on April 23, 2005, 11:29:12 AM
Vera,

Why waste board space with these sob sister litanies
that are only designed to start further arguments, and not take it to PM??

Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Vera_Figner on April 23, 2005, 11:30:55 AM
Quote
Vera,

Why waste board space with these sob sister litanies
that are only designed to start further arguments, and not take it to PM??



Annie was attacked publicly. So were several others. You are worthy of public counterattack.
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: AGRBear on April 23, 2005, 11:32:53 AM
Quote
What information do you have on the DNA taken from Margareth Ellerick, daughter of Gertrude, which didn't match the DNA of the Schanzkowska family?

Do you have any information on where we could find Gertrude's birh/bap certificate?

Can you explain why there is a 3 shoe size difference between AA and FS?

Do you know when FS had a child because she did if she was AA?

TOPIC PLEASE

AGRBear
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Vera_Figner on April 23, 2005, 11:33:40 AM
Quote
What information do you have on the DNA taken from Margareth Ellerick, daughter of Gertrude, which didn't match the DNA of the Schanzkowska family?

Do you have any information on where we could find Gertrude's birh/bap certificate?

Can you explain why there is a 3 shoe size difference between AA and FS?

Do you know when FS had a child because she did if she was AA?

TOPIC PLEASE

AGRBear


The answers to these questions are irrelevant due to the facts in this case.  They are NON ISSUES. It is these non issues that rational people should not discuss with people such as yourself. You cannot be convinced otherwise. The rational and irrational do not partner in this or any case.  And so do not expect a response, since it is well established you cannot accept the logical, rational answer.
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: rskkiya on April 23, 2005, 11:37:50 AM
Quote
Vera,

Why waste board space with these sob sister litanies
that are only designed to start further arguments, and not take it to PM??


Michael
I am still waiting for the information promised so long ago and now I think that I must remind you again to prove yourself to be a gentleman and apologize to Annie ( I think Vera deserves an apology too but you have refused that simple request in the past)
Have you read any of my earier posts?
Please?

rskkiya
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Mgmstl on April 23, 2005, 11:38:16 AM
Rskkiya,

Here is my answer to you, and I have shortened it to the best of my ability.   I beleive the subjective differences between the two identitites  FS & AA quantify to make an investigation into these differences
warrented.

I don't dispute the DNA evidence.  I also don't feel that in this case which has went on for almost a century now
that we can afford NOT to just overlook the differences
as others feel we should do. In fact they should be in favor of it, as it may just make their DNA case stand stronger, if things go the way I think they will.

I myself have no stake or claim as to how the investigation comes out, I just want it done, to clear up the issues once and for all, if she comes out being FS
then I am fine with that conclusion.  I personally want
to see this settled completely.  Regardless of the outcome.

There you have my explanation.

Michael
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: rskkiya on April 23, 2005, 11:50:13 AM
Quote
Rskkiya,

Here is my answer to you, and I have shortened it to the best of my ability.   I beleive the subjective differences between the two identitites  FS & AA quantify to make an investigation into these differences
warrented.

I don't dispute the DNA evidence.  I also don't feel that in this case which has went on for almost a century now
that we can afford NOT to just overlook the differences
as others feel we should do. In fact they should be in favor of it, as it may just make their DNA case stand stronger, if things go the way I think they will.

I myself have no stake or claim as to how the investigation comes out, I just want it done, to clear up the issues once and for all, if she comes out being FS
then I am fine with that conclusion.  I personally want
to see this settled completely.  Regardless of the outcome.

There you have my explanation.

Michael

So then as I understand your point you will never be satisfied for if I comprehend this correctly -  AA is dead and as far as I can tell FS is dead too. I am under the impression that they were the same person but as some people doubt that fact, unless a very elderly FS were to appear magically, there is no way to provide you with the proof you want-- or am I still confused?

No apologies then Michael?
Please, you could be such a true hero if you would be a gentleman about this....


rskkiya
PS : Vera/ Annie/ Agrbear et al, as I have grown to loathe the vulgarity at this sort of chat site and if Michael will not bend then --
PLEASE ACCEPT MY HUMBLEST APOLOGIES FOR ANY OFFENCES THAT I MAY HAVE GIVEN YOU

That was not so hard
rskkiya
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Mgmstl on April 23, 2005, 11:51:41 AM
Rskkiya,

I feel no need to apologize to Vera nor to Annie. Other than my anger which I have apologized for, and the offending word, which I have removed from the post,
they were as much to blame for what went on as I was.

In other words, it takes TWO to tango...

Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: AGRBear on April 23, 2005, 11:56:11 AM
Bear's shoulders are big and I'll carry all this burden if it makes everyone happy.  I apologize for everyone!!!!!!!!

TOPIC PLEASE.

AGRBear
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: rskkiya on April 23, 2005, 11:57:22 AM
Michael
Did you follow my last post, or once again have I failed to understand your theory?

rskkiya
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: AGRBear on April 23, 2005, 11:57:39 AM
Let me see.  Was there an answer to one or any of  the differences mentioned:

(1) What information do you have on the DNA taken from Margareth Ellerick, daughter of Gertrude, which didn't match the DNA of the Schanzkowska family?

(2) Do you have any information on where we could find Gertrude's birh/bap certificate?

(3) Can you explain why there is a 3 shoe size difference between AA and FS?

(4) Do you know when FS had a child because she did if she was AA?




AGRBear
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: rskkiya on April 23, 2005, 12:02:05 PM
Quote
Michael
Did you follow my last post, or once again have I failed to understand your theory?

rskkiya


Michael? Hello?

Agrebear I cannot offer you any new information about shoe size.


rskkiya
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Denise on April 23, 2005, 12:05:54 PM
Quote

The answers to these questions are irrelevant due to the facts in this case.  They are NON ISSUES. It is these non issues that rational people should not discuss with people such as yourself. You cannot be convinced otherwise. The rational and irrational do not partner in this or any case.  And so do not expect a response, since it is well established you cannot accept the logical, rational answer.


Vera, I just want to remind you that it is not up to you what people can and cannot discuss on this forum.  If it is such a NON ISSUE for you, don't read the thread.  Don't post and ignore Bear's discussions.  There is no need to be rude and call names.  

And if you disagree that you were name calling. look at your statement "It is these non issues that rational people should not discuss with people such as yourself."  You don't know Bear personally, and I find your attitude arrogant.  

You may be a very nice person when not online, but that post shows no evidence of it.
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Mgmstl on April 23, 2005, 12:07:16 PM
No Rskkiya, you don't understand, it's not that I will never be satisfied,  where have I ever said that? (Annie must be at it again somewhere, probably PM)  I am not satisfied until these subjective differences are looked into and possibly cleared up.

If it turns out that after these issues are looked at and cleared up if she is FS then I have no problem with that.
(HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO SAY THIS AND IT CONSTANTLY GETS IGNORED???)

Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Denise on April 23, 2005, 12:11:04 PM
Quote
If it turns out that after these issues are looked at and cleared up if she is FS then I have no problem with that.
(HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO SAY THIS AND IT CONSTANTLY GETS IGNORED???)



Michael, if it is any consolation, I have heard you the last 6 times this was brought up.  

And can we please return to topic?  It has been sounding like a 3rd grade lunchroom in here with the bickering.  

I will share Bear's burden--I apologize to ANYONE I may have offended on the board at any time.  Please let's talk TOPIC!  :)

Denise
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: rskkiya on April 23, 2005, 12:15:29 PM
Quote
No Rskkiya, you don't understand, it's not that I will never be satisfied,  where have I ever said that? (Annie must be at it again somewhere, probably PM)  I am not satisfied until these subjective differences are looked into and possibly cleared up.

If it turns out that after these issues are looked at and cleared up if she is FS then I have no problem with that.
(HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO SAY THIS AND IT CONSTANTLY GETS IGNORED???)

Thanks Michael...
Exactly how can your questions be cleared up? More DNA?  More second hand rumour and gossip? Please explain - I am not trying to be difficult - I just don't follow the logic.

(It certainly does help me to understand you Michael  - when you yell at me. (caps))

rskkiya

PS Uummm  --what was that about Annie? I am not Annie! I have not gotten any pms from her in some time (weeks...)
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: AGRBear on April 23, 2005, 12:19:34 PM
Let me see.  Was there an answer to one of  the differences mentioned:

(1) What information do you have on the DNA taken from Margareth Ellerick, daughter of Gertrude, which didn't match the DNA of the Schanzkowska family?

(2) Do you have any information on where we could find Gertrude's birh/bap certificate?

(3) Can you explain why there is a 3 shoe size difference between AA and FS?

(4) Do you know when FS had a child because she did if she was AA?

ryskkyia, the shoe size was part of the evidence in AA's trial.  Her lawyers gave evidence that there was three size differences in AA's shoe size than FS's shoe size.  I can see one size but three sizes, that is a difference.  Even hand-me-down shoes with paper stuffed in the toes would be hard to walk with... Anyone remember if AA was smaller or larger?


AGRBear

PS  I suggest taking DNA over to the DNA thread just as I have so follow me if that is what and all you need as evidence.
http://hydrogen.pallasweb.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=anastasia;action=display;num=1106338507;start=0
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Mgmstl on April 23, 2005, 12:25:04 PM
Rskkiya, wasn't yelling at YOU, just frustration in general that is all.  Sorry for any offense.
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Denise on April 23, 2005, 12:25:30 PM
The sizing issue is not as big an issue as you are suggesting Bear, if you take into account the difference between American and European shoe sizes.  (I am a 10.5 W American, but a 43 Euro.)

If you had thought of this already, I apologize.  I think I read that AA was a 36 and FS was a 39.
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Vera_Figner on April 23, 2005, 12:41:52 PM
Quote

Vera, I just want to remind you that it is not up to you what people can and cannot discuss on this forum.  If it is such a NON ISSUE for you, don't read the thread.  Don't post and ignore Bear's discussions.  There is no need to be rude and call names.  

And if you disagree that you were name calling. look at your statement "It is these non issues that rational people should not discuss with people such as yourself."  You don't know Bear personally, and I find your attitude arrogant.  

You may be a very nice person when not online, but that post shows no evidence of it.


NOWHERE in anything I have posted has demanded what may or may not be discussed in this or any forum.  Since you apparently have trouble with reading comprehension let me restate:  THOSE PEOPLE who disagree with OTHERS who wish to explore what scientifically IS a NON ISSUE should refrain from enjoining the latter in conversation, IF THEY WISH.

It was advice intended for one particular person, Annie, and for any others who continue to attempt to discuss this case (which is scientifically CLOSED, btw) with those who see it otherwise.
It was ADVICE, Denise, to take or leave.
NOT a demand.

And it is completely irrelevant (to me and the topic at hand) that you find me arrogant.
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: AGRBear on April 23, 2005, 12:42:27 PM
So, if we take the shoe sizes, AA was smaller than FS.  If it was the other way around we'd have something like Cinderella's step sisters trying to fit their foot into the glass slipper scenario.

And, you're right, the shoe size isn't important as some of the other differences.

I was just giving one real easy question in hope to get us back onto the topic  ;D.  Thank you Denise.

AGRBear
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: AGRBear on April 23, 2005, 12:46:03 PM
Please, anyone, everyone, no more posts unless it's on TOPIC.

Thank you very much for cooperating because I know you will be adult enough to set aside the past squabbles, if not,  

:P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P

Farther reponce to remarks off of TOPIC will hopefully me nothing more than reply of a ":P".

All those in favor click your :P s, PLEASE

AGRBear
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Helen_Azar on April 23, 2005, 01:21:10 PM
Quote

Helen, how dare you, or anyone else,  tell Michelle or anyone else she / they  is/are not part of this discussion!  


It's time EVERYONE takes a step back and get back to
THE TOPIC, please.

AGRBear


Excuse me Bear, why don't you once again practice what you preach? You are the one who is always preaching about "TOPIC PLEASE" and
EVERYONE PLEASE STICK TO PMs IF NOT ON TOPIC", but I am no allowed to do that? When someone just drops into a topic in order to go on an insult tirade, I call that going off topic. If it were something you didn't like then you would be the first jumping down that person's throat. You are such a hypocrite...   ::)
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: rskkiya on April 23, 2005, 01:48:36 PM
Quote
Thanks Michael...
Exactly how can your questions be cleared up? More DNA?  More second hand rumour and gossip? Please explain - I am not trying to be difficult - I just don't follow the logic.  
rskkiya

Is the shoe size really critical here Michael?
About shoes... well people usually borrow shoes that are bigger rather than smaller. Or sometimes in an impoverished situation people make do...  (Charlie Chaplin?)  

(Also I have recently lost about 60-70 lbs and some of my shoes no longer fit - but whether this is due to the fact that they were old stretched out shoes, or whether I really lost a shoe size I cannot state- not that it's a relevant TOPIC point. )

rskkiya
Title: VeRe: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Mgmstl on April 23, 2005, 03:05:59 PM
Denise your post was absolutely correct and on the mark.   Thanks for having the courage to say so.

Vera, clever little game you all have going.  Tell us it's ok to think what we think but then completely deride someone for thinking it.  .  Of course we must remember that anyone who disagrees is immature, or full of deep set insecurities, or goes on a tirade, or has problem with reading comprehension, or their post is so full of "hate"...etc. or are in denial, unhinged or posess a profit motive....  What a load of disengenuous crap you all manage to dish out.  

Although I was out of line the other day with my anger, there are those who are out of line just as much in other ways.   For the past two weeks I have watched them abuse Bear and treat her horribly.  Today being no exception, and I am appalled at it.  Just the digs at her expense are rotten & uncalled for.  

If you don't agree with someone that is fine,we are all here to discuss or debate,  but let's all calm down, and that does include ALL OF US.  If you have a problem with someone take it to PM.

Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Mgmstl on April 23, 2005, 03:15:19 PM
Rskkiya, shoe size is not overly important.  

IF the discussion could continue uinterrupted from certain parties perhaps a conclusion can be reached.

Why not explain to me what you mean by second hand rumor and gossip?
Title: Re: VeRe: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a pro
Post by: Vera_Figner on April 23, 2005, 04:23:51 PM
Quote
Denise your post was absolutely correct and on the mark.   Thanks for having the courage to say so.

Vera, clever little game you all have going.  Tell us it's ok to think what we think but then completely deride someone for thinking it.  .  Of course we must remember that anyone who disagrees is immature, or full of deep set insecurities, or goes on a tirade, or has problem with reading comprehension, or their post is so full of "hate"...etc. or are in denial, unhinged or posess a profit motive....  What a load of disengenuous crap you all manage to dish out.  

Although I was out of line the other day with my anger, there are those who are out of line just as much in other ways.   For the past two weeks I have watched them abuse Bear and treat her horribly.  Today being no exception, and I am appalled at it.  Just the digs at her expense are rotten & uncalled for.  

If you don't agree with someone that is fine,we are all here to discuss or debate,  but let's all calm down, and that does include ALL OF US.  If you have a problem with someone take it to PM.



And when will you ever take your own advice, Michael?
Let's see..."cut the crap," and now your most recent offering, "take it to PM"
Well, why haven't you?
Your angry responses over the past several days, in which you went on relentless personal attacks not only will not be forgotten, but YES they ARE indications of insecurities.  As long as you assault HERE, expect to receive returning volleys.
The only person on three of these threads I have observed in the past several days who needs to calm down (with the possible exception of Michelle, but most realize she is far beyond hope), is YOU.
Take your own advice.
Title: Re: VeRe: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a pro
Post by: Denise on April 23, 2005, 04:43:00 PM
Quote


The only person on three of these threads I have observed in the past several days who needs to calm down (with the possible exception of Michelle, but most realize she is far beyond hope), is YOU.
Take your own advice.


So, you know Michelle personally, do you Vera?  Funny, she has been posting here a LOT longer than you.
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: rskkiya on April 23, 2005, 05:45:55 PM
Denise,
   A person may observe here without posting for qiuite some time - or perhaps Vera F only recently joined the site but previously was using a guest id ...Is that on topic?

Michael
   I was under the impression that the problem lay in such things as different shoe sizes and questions regarding language such as "X knew polish/russian/english but not Y"  or other remarks such as - X could not play the piano but Y is very proficient, X was left handed Y was right...etc. Once again I may not be up to speed with you, Denise and Agrbear _ so I must beg you to be a wee bit charitable!

I am very disapointed in the crude remarks being expressed by certain individuals here...

rskkiya
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Denise on April 23, 2005, 05:50:35 PM
Quote
Denise,
    A person may observe here without posting for qiuite some time - or perhaps Vera F only recently joined the site but previously was using a guest id ...Is that on topic?

rskkiya


No it wasn't on topic in the slightest, and I will be the first to admit it.  But neither are all the personal snipes and innuendo "on topic."  It is getting really old to come on these boards and sift through the study hall chit chat and backstabbing to get to the faintest hint of Russian history.  And everyone has been guilty of it so I'm not pointing fingers.  Half of the last 4-5 pages on this thread should have been PM'd.  And I find it odd that a few people who never frequent the survivor board come in to makes some of the accusatory posts but DO NOT contribute to the actual subject of the thread.  Then they leave again.

Sorry to let off steam, but it does get old.
:-/
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: rskkiya on April 23, 2005, 06:07:46 PM
Denise
   Perhaps you could try to ignore those people that you find inappropriate or - even better ignore the offensive remarks, but look for the pearls that these people (who are often witty and wise) may express- then you will get the best of both situations.

rskkiya
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: CuriousOne on April 23, 2005, 06:16:16 PM
I had not realized that no one had found the birth record of Gertrude's.

Quote
There is a connection between AA and Karl Maucher, Gertrude's grandson. The birth certificate and other records that would establish Gertrude's relationship to FS are missing. This is inconsistent with the records for FS' other siblings.



Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Denise on April 23, 2005, 06:18:15 PM
Quote
Denise
    Perhaps you could try to ignore those people that you find inappropriate or - even better ignore the offensive remarks, but look for the pearls that these people (who are often witty and wise) may express- then you will get the best of both situations.

rskkiya


Oh I do!! Some of the folks that have been forced into the corners are VERY smart, funny people.  I have learned a lot from Annie, Helen Azar, Michael and Bear, for example.  I dislike that ALL of us lose when it starts getting mean.  

Denise
(but I still love your sarcastic wit, rskkiya!  ;))


I wonder why the topic of AA is so hard for all of us to put to bed?  Even those who say it is answered for themselves are still passionate.   And then those with doubts still hang on to the ideosyncracies of the case.  

I remember when Penny posted the pix of the Schanzkowsky family, I looked through them but saw little resemblance to AA.  AA was a woman who aged terribly.  Photos in her old age bear no resemblance to young AA.  Heck, some photos taken in the 30's bear little resemblance to the photo of FS.  There are some early pictures of AA that are remarkable in their resemblance to FS though.  But the DNA doesn't lie.  


Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Annie on April 23, 2005, 06:50:26 PM
Quote
No Rskkiya, you don't understand, it's not that I will never be satisfied,  where have I ever said that? (Annie must be at it again somewhere, probably PM)


Huh? What, have you made me some omnipresent villan? ??? Get a clue and realize that other people say the same things as me not because they are me, or that I told them to, but because THEY CAN SEE THE SAME THINGS I SEE FOR THEMSELVES! I really don't understand why everyone can't, (well most of us do)


 
Quote
I am not satisfied until these subjective differences are looked into and possibly cleared up.


THERE YOU  GO AGAIN! You continue to say you accept the DNA, but turn around and say you are still not sure. THEN YOU  COULDN'T POSSIBLY ACCEPT THE DNA!

Quote
If it turns out that after these issues are looked at and cleared up if she is FS then I have no problem with that.
(HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO SAY THIS AND IT CONSTANTLY GETS IGNORED???)


You are not being ignored, you keep saying that, yet most of your posts make it appear as if you still have questions as to AA's identity, which means you DO NOT totally believe the DNA! How many times do many of us have to point that out before you finally see it?!

Also, though you declare you don't think she was AN, when you call Olga A. and Ernie liars and accuse them of unscrupulous financial motives you sure make it look as though you must consider she was, or why would you think they'd do that?

One more time: all the subjective stuff had conflicting stories on both sides.  We didn't know what to believe. But when the tests came back, we knew then that the reports contradictory to her being FS were mistaken, or lies, or mixups, or inaccurate memories. There is  no big mystery left. Screw the shoes, they probably weren't even hers but someone else who stayed at the boarding house,  or they were borrowed, or charity shoes.

Every piddly little 'difference' fades away as an obvious error (or intentional lie) by someone since we now have our answer to her identity.

Yes, I think it's terrible you feel no need  to apologize to me or Vera. Yes, I wonder how you get by with some of your behavior. Sigh, there is so much I want to answer here but this thread is hardly loading now and my space bar is sticking and making each paragraph a chore. I will post more  later!
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: lexi4 on April 23, 2005, 07:08:44 PM
Quote

No it wasn't on topic in the slightest, and I will be the first to admit it.  But neither are all the personal snipes and innuendo "on topic."  It is getting really old to come on these boards and sift through the study hall chit chat and backstabbing to get to the faintest hint of Russian history.  And everyone has been guilty of it so I'm not pointing fingers.  Half of the last 4-5 pages on this thread should have been PM'd.  And I find it odd that a few people who never frequent the survivor board come in to makes some of the accusatory posts but DO NOT contribute to the actual subject of the thread.  Then they leave again.

Sorry to let off steam, but it does get old.
 :-/


Denise
I couid not agree with you more. I have only been coming to the palace for a couple of months. I have tried to keep up with the topics and enjoyed most of the discussions. Inititally, I was interested in this post.I usually like to watch and read to get a good idea of the topic before I post. However, this board wears me out. I have all but given up after reading page after page of attacks. Passionate discussion is one thing, but backstabbing is another. I am surprised it has been allowed to go so far and sorry that it has happened at all. I was glad to read what you said. I initially came here because I thought this would be an interesting topic. Sadly, I was wrong.
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Mgmstl on April 23, 2005, 07:23:00 PM
Annie,

Again all of the subjective issues "fading away" is just your opinion, NOT FACT.   Nothing that you or Vera can do makes these issues go away, except YOUR OPINION,
and you know where your opinion stands in my book.

Oh I know how terrible you think it is I won't aplologize to you.... :'( :'( :'(  Poor Annie, it's everyone else's fault but yours...... There are numerous reasons I won't apologize to you.

However I cannot and will not back down from what I
think until the subjective differences are settled.  
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: rskkiya on April 23, 2005, 07:35:05 PM
Michael
Did you read my last post about second hand statements? Was I clear? Could you follow my statements?


{If you will not apologize to certain people here - then at least have the decently to not comment on your refusal to do it!}

rskkiya
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: jaa on April 23, 2005, 07:49:26 PM
Quote
I had not realized that no one had found the birth record of Gertrude's.

Not yet, although I don't know if anyone is looking. Here is Penny's post about this:

http://hydrogen.pallasweb.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?action=display;board=anastasia;num=1113073580;start=150#154

"In conjunction with the Fate of the Romanovs project -- which started as a book on the Anastasia phenomenon -- Greg and I examined the birth and baptismal records of the Schanzkowsky children in Poland, as they existed in the summer of 2000.  At that time, there were no records for gertrude at any level -- church, villlage, town, county -- for the area surrounding Butow/ Borowy Las.

"It is possible that she was born elsewhere in Poland, though a short search turned up nothing.

"At the point where the FOTR project turned its focus to the last days of the Romanovs, we abandoned our focus on the Schanzkowskys -- though they remain an avenue of periodic research as they will figure in the "Pretenders" book.

"The most we -- Greg and I -- are able to say about gertrude is that her records do not exist in the same places where we found her alleged siblings' records -- nor are they located in any immediately reasonable location, though they might exist further afield in Poland, or perhaps even in Germany."
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Annie on April 23, 2005, 08:00:36 PM
Quote
Annie,

Again all of the subjective issues "fading away" is just your opinion, NOT FACT.   Nothing that you or Vera can so makes these issues go away, except YOUR OPINION,
and you know where your opinion stands in my book.


I guess it's hopeless, many others but me have tried to explain THE DNA RESULTS ARE NOT MY OPINION! They are fact! It's YOU who's putting YOUR 'opinion' above proven historical and scientific fact! Get a clue, if the DNA tests are accurate, and you continually claim you think they are, then all the subjective stuff HAD to be simple human error, that is not my opinion, that is fact, IF you truly accept the DNA, which told us her identity was FS! Where's my headbanging smilie?

Quote
Oh I know how terrible you think it is I won't aplologize to you.... :'( :'( :'(  Poor Annie, it's everyone else's fault but yours...... There are numerous reasons I won't apologize to you.


Who ever said anything was anyone's 'fault' ??? Must be your own insecurities. And all those crying faces, what is that supposed to do, upset me? What a third grade bully tactic. I have never insulted you as you have me, much as I've felt like it, I didn't.

Quote
However I cannot and will not back down from what I
think until the subjective differences are settled.  


Then you do not believe the DNA results are conclusive.

And the subjective stuff will NEVER EVER be 'settled' because it was all just hearsay from this or that person and they all took their secrets to their graves. Oh and those old shoes are long since trashed.
Title: Re:  the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a pro
Post by: rskkiya on April 23, 2005, 08:06:47 PM
Quote

And the subjective stuff will NEVER EVER be 'settled' because it was all just hearsay from this or that person and they all took their secrets to their graves.

Michael
These comments of Annie's express my confusion about your theory ... Hopefully, you will have read my earlier post and will be able to clarify.

rskkiya
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Mgmstl on April 23, 2005, 08:39:50 PM
Rskkiya,

The subjective issues are NOT necessarily "second hand" issues as Annie claims they are.

Things such as a differing appearance, the ability to speak Russian...

Also FS being one of Grossman's victims, clearly these are just a FEW of what Annie terms as "second hand" issues.  

While she accepts the statements of Felix Schanzkowska's niece which are "second hand" source,
she claims as second hand all of the nurses and doctors
who gave testimony or sworn affadavits at some point during the case....
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Annie on April 23, 2005, 08:51:16 PM
Quote
Rskkiya,

The subjective issues are NOT necessarily "second hand" issues as Annie claims they are.

Things such as a differing appearance, the ability to speak Russian...


All of which came from comments, mostly second hand, all hearsay. She spoke it, she didn't. She was this height, she was that. Everyone had a different story. That's why it's so good to have the DNA to finally answer the question of her identity, for now we know which reports were mistaken.

Quote
Also FS being one of Grossman's victims, clearly these are just a FEW of what Annie terms as "second hand" issues.  


There is absolutely NO PROOF she was murdered, only put 2 and 2 together at the time (missing girl + serial killer = possible victim) This was never a factor until it was brought up on this forum. None of AA's supporters even used it in her trial to explain away FS, must not have meant much!

However, there IS proof she is FS, the DNA! (unless you still believe the 'silly' (as Jeremy rightfully called it) anonymous missing identical cousin theory!

Quote
While she accepts the statements of Felix Schanzkowska's niece which are "second hand" source,
she claims as second hand all of the nurses and doctors
who gave testimony or sworn affadavits at some point during the case....


"sworn" doesn't  mean much, considering her only family lied to cover themselves from responsibility (they are still afraid of being held accountable for her escapades, as Jeremy posted, Karl Maucher's mother wouldn't give her blood for this reason!) Also, people who get facts wrong are not necessarily lying. I'd have sworn that tub was pink, but I was wrong, it was beige. 10 different people standing next to a rock star report his height anywhere from 5'2" to 5'8". Our memories fail us on details sometimes, and the mind's eye distorts. Some people were simply wrong. But they are dead now, we'll never be able to ask them!


Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Denise on April 23, 2005, 09:09:05 PM
Quote

"sworn" doesn't  mean much, considering her only family lied to cover themselves from responsibility (they are still afraid of being held accountable for her escapades, as Jeremy posted, Karl Maucher's mother wouldn't give her blood for this reason!)



My only objection to this statement is that unless I heard it from the family (or read an interview to that effect with a researcher) that "we lied to protect Auntie Fran" I am afraid that I will not trust inferences into motive.  If all we are going on here is their written words, that we do not have the correct context of, I will not say that the family lied to basically CYA.  Felix was told before he first met her that he would not in any way be held responsible for her and he listed a number of differences between AA and FS.  Since she seems to have been his sister, he simply may have been confused.  We do have the DNA (and I agree that the identical cousin theory is silly to put it mildly) but the so called differences between the women are as lost without context as the Schanzkowsky's reaction to AA.

Denise
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Mgmstl on April 23, 2005, 09:29:09 PM
Annie, I have NEVER stated that I "beleived" the identical cousin theory.  PLEASE and for the last time,
STOP ATTRIBUTING STATMENTS OR BELIEFS TO ME THAT I HAVE CLEARLY NOT MADE OR DO NOT HAVE!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The problem I have with your statement about Grossman is Annie, the Berlin Police were obviously much more equipped in judging who was murdered by Grossman, than YOU.  They (THE POLICE) went to the Schanzkowski family and told them that their daughter was Grossman's victim.  The police felt they had enough evidence to approach the family with this, and tell them
what they felt happened to their sister & daughter.

So Annie are sworn statements and testimony ALL heresay evidence in this case according to you and your obviously SUPERIOR knowledge of legal matters.

However the differnce is some one such as the Nurse
at Dalldorf,  Erna Bucholz who testified or deposed about her time with Anastasia, and their conversations
togethor.    This is NOT second hand testimony or heresay.

SECOND HAND testimony would be another nurse on the same shift saying"  Well Erna told me. that the patient, blah blah blah...that is SECOND HAND  

The interviews and statements of Felix's daughter are
second hand and heresay.

Unless the person relating the story or deposing is involved in the event, then it is second hand evidence
or heresay.
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: rskkiya on April 23, 2005, 10:00:58 PM
Michael
If you cannot communicate civily with Annie - then please just ignore her posts (why do I feel that I am in preschool?)  

Could you clarify - is there an individual or a source that you would accept as far as the language question goes?


rskkiya
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Mgmstl on April 23, 2005, 10:35:34 PM
Rskkiya,

I am communicating with Annie more than civilly, I just do not appreciate of having statements and beliefs or assumptions, attributed to me that I did not make or have.  This is  a continual problem along with a certain other persons  continuous insults of: immature, or full of deep set insecurities, or goes on a tirade, or has problem with reading comprehension, or their post is so full of "hate"...etc. or are in denial, unhinged or posess a profit motive....  with the possible exception of Michelle, but most realize she is far beyond hope  (This just in  2 days!!).

I am more than willing to respond to Annie in a civil manner, when she agrees to STOP with the fact twisting, innuendo, and misstatement of facts, and a disregard for any facts or issues other than the DNA.

I am willing to accept the statements of Erna Bucholz, nurse at Dalldorf in regards to the fact that she could
converse fluently & understood Russian.  I will post most of this statement tomorrow.




Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Jutte on April 24, 2005, 01:09:50 PM
from something someone mentioned in this thread, i've managed to ascertain that someone has the theory that schankowska was AA's practically identical cousin. this is an interesting theory. i was wondering how popular this theory is or how many people agree?
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Denise on April 24, 2005, 01:23:19 PM
Quote
from something someone mentioned in this thread, i've managed to ascertain that someone has the theory that schankowska was AA's practically identical cousin. this is an interesting theory. i was wondering how popular this theory is or how many people agree?


No, not that she was an identical cousin.  AA's mtDNA matched that of Karl Maucher (Franziska's nephew). Plus Anna Anderson and Franziska looked alike.  The DNA showed that AA did not match anyone in the Romanov family, but she did match the Schanzkowsky family.  Plus, Franziska disappeared in Berlin about the same time that AA was pulled from the canal.  

What was said about an "identical cousin" was that the only way AA WAS NOT FS was if she had a cousin who looked just like her, same age, and same mtDNA.  As this person does not exist, then Anna Anderson was Franziska Schanzkowsky.

Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Jutte on April 24, 2005, 02:22:42 PM
ah, thank you for clearing that up.
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Annie on April 24, 2005, 04:44:10 PM
Quote
Rskkiya,


I am more than willing to respond to Annie in a civil manner, when she agrees to STOP with the fact twisting, innuendo, and misstatement of facts, and a disregard for any facts or issues other than the DNA.


Thanks rskkiya. He is not being civil, he hates me because he hates my position, which is something bear doesn't do to people. I am not fact twisting, only presenting things you don't want to hear. I have REPEATEDLY addressed every issue other than DNA here, from the shoes to the languages to the family to the pics and everything in between, and there are many posts to prove this. So it is you who is misrepresenting me to say that I only talk DNA! Heck I even started that whole thread REASONS OTHER THAN DNA to list my points! Sheesh!If you're gonna bash me get it right!

edit to add: I just went looking for that thread to bump it and found it had fallen off the page and had been locked, ironically, you were involved. So surely you'd remember that thread, and that I do not just talk DNA?

However it is true that after the DNA nothing else matters, because her identity was scientifically proven.


Quote
I am willing to accept the statements of Erna Bucholz, nurse at Dalldorf in regards to the fact that she could
converse fluently & understood Russian.  I will post most of this statement tomorrow.


There are still many others who say she did not understand it.

Why do you keep bringing up the Russian thing, if you don't believe she was AN? See, I am not misquoting you, I realize you state time and time again you don't, yet some of the things that pop up in your posts make me wonder.





Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Alice on April 24, 2005, 05:47:12 PM
Quote
I am willing to accept the statements of Erna Bucholz, nurse at Dalldorf in regards to the fact that she could
converse fluently & understood Russian.  I will post most of this statement tomorrow.


The problem is that she was also observed speaking Polish, a language the real Anastasia didn't understand.

Furthermore, someone (I can't recall who, I'm quite sure it was a Romanov) said that her accent was not Russian.

Edited because I can't spell.  ::)
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Mgmstl on April 24, 2005, 06:54:10 PM
Annie,

She did clearly speak and understand Russian, but that is according to the testimony of her nurses at Dalldorf,
but WAIT, it came out of Kurth's book, and not Massie's so darn, it must be made up then..., because you know how Kurth lies.   LMAO!!!

This discussion has NOTHING to do with whether or not she was AN, as that is a settled issue, it is WHO could she be if she was not FS, and clearly according to her brother. HIS SISTER  (FS) spoke A LITTLE POLISH and GOOD GERMAN....

Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Michelle on April 24, 2005, 09:10:32 PM
Quote

Helen, how dare you, or anyone else,  tell Michelle or anyone else she / they  is/are not part of this discussion!  
AGRBear


Thank you, Bear. :)  You've really put up with a LOT of BS here and you've been taking it quite gracefully.  I applaud you. :)

I'm astonished at how horrid this thread has become.  ESPECIALLY when someone says that "we all know Michelle is beyond hope."  Of course I know who that person is, and I ask that person who does she think she is?  Somene who demands civility and yet makes a most irrational and highly disagreed upon statement by many which is intentionally hurtful.  And Helen, your comments on this thread (and others) never cease their arrogance *snubby nose smiley stuck in here*  And believe it or not, I DO read these threads and I had to break my silence because they are simply UNBEARABLE now!!!!! :P :P :P  I swear, commenting on these threads is like jumping off a cliff!!!  Risky and deadly.  There should be a sign on the beginning page that says "Post at your own risk." ::)  

Denise---I also applaud you for your courage. :)
Micheal---I've heard you loud and clear; others choose not to hear you because they live and breathe confrontation and feast on the energy of the argument.  I'm sorry you're having such a frustrating time.
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Mgmstl on April 24, 2005, 09:22:28 PM
Michelle, thank you.  I was definitely angered when I read those lines about you....but, in this case you should consider the sources for what it is and in this case ignore them, which is what I intend on doing.

Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Michelle on April 24, 2005, 09:27:05 PM
Thank you, Micheal.  Just keep plugging away. :)
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Olga on April 24, 2005, 10:07:14 PM
Quote
And Helen, your comments on this thread (and others) never cease their arrogance *snubby nose smiley stuck in here*


Helen is always polite and civil, which is more than can be said for others, myself included.
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Annie on April 24, 2005, 10:33:18 PM
Quote

Helen is always polite and civil, which is more than can be said for others, myself included.


I don't know how she does it!
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Annie on April 24, 2005, 10:48:11 PM
Quote

Thank you, Bear. :)  You've really put up with a LOT of BS here and you've been taking it quite gracefully.  I applaud you. :)

I'm astonished at how horrid this thread has become.  ESPECIALLY when someone says that "we all know Michelle is beyond hope."  Of course I know who that person is, and I ask that person who does she think she is?  Somene who demands civility and yet makes a most irrational and highly disagreed upon statement by many which is intentionally hurtful.  And Helen, your comments on this thread (and others) never cease their arrogance *snubby nose smiley stuck in here*  And believe it or not, I DO read these threads and I had to break my silence because they are simply UNBEARABLE now!!!!! :P :P :P  I swear, commenting on these threads is like jumping off a cliff!!!  Risky and deadly.  There should be a sign on the beginning page that says "Post at your own risk." ::)  

Denise---I also applaud you for your courage. :)
Micheal---I've heard you loud and clear; others choose not to hear you because they live and breathe confrontation and feast on the energy of the argument.  I'm sorry you're having such a frustrating time.


Helen was right, in this case, Michelle did not post in order to  add to the discussion topic but to bash me!

Michelle, it sure is interesting how you say I am the one causing arguments! Michael is the one being nasty here, I am only discussing and making points. But of course, you, like him, hate me for what I say. This should not be personal/kill the messenger, but it is with you two and Penny. Bear isn't that way, nor is Denise or anyone else I've seen here. You attack ME other than my  position, and you get very rude about it. But of course you are going to twist this to say I did it to him, as you back his position and not mine, aka, it's personal.
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Olga on April 25, 2005, 04:40:48 AM
Like Anie said, I must also give credit to Bear for being always being courteous. Denise too.  ;)
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Alice on April 25, 2005, 05:35:12 AM
OK, people . . . let's get back to the topic, shall we?  :) Let's not ruin an interesting discussion with bickering.

Quote
This discussion has NOTHING to do with whether or not she was AN, as that is a settled issue, it is WHO could she be if she was not FS, and clearly according to her brother. HIS SISTER  (FS) spoke A LITTLE POLISH and GOOD GERMAN....  


Is it common for Poles to only speak "a little" of their native language? Does anyone know?  ???
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Helen_Azar on April 25, 2005, 07:55:15 AM
Quote
OK, people . . . let's get back to the topic, shall we?  :) Let's not ruin an interesting discussion with bickering.


Is it common for Poles to only speak "a little" of their native language? Does anyone know?  ???
 


It probably depends on where they were born and lived.  FS lived in Pomerania which was part of Germany, so her native language would probably have been German, and she probably would have spoke at least some Polish. But again, if her parents' first language was Polish and they spoke Polish to her, then she would have known Polish pretty well. There is so much conflicting information and misinformation in this case, that it's hard to say what is true and what has been "fiddled with"!
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Michelle on April 25, 2005, 08:25:38 AM
Quote

Helen was right, in this case, Michelle did not post in order to  add to the discussion topic but to bash me!

Michelle, it sure is interesting how you say I am the one causing arguments! Michael is the one being nasty here, I am only discussing and making points. But of course, you, like him, hate me for what I say. This should not be personal/kill the messenger, but it is with you two and Penny. Bear isn't that way, nor is Denise or anyone else I've seen here. You attack ME other than my  position, and you get very rude about it. But of course you are going to twist this to say I did it to him, as you back his position and not mine, aka, it's personal.


I went on this discussion because I couldn't stand the crap anymore!  Annie, there's nothing anyone can ever say to you to make you see how nasty and vitriolic you can be. *smiley icon slamming into huge brick wall*  And let's see, you know how I mentioned that you mention the word "hate" so much?  I've counted at least two posts since then where you've cried "So and so hates me so of course they attack me" blah blah blah.  I don't know how your whining is put up with here so well.  And Annie, YOU'RE the one who's making it personal with all these little "you hate me so it's personal" comments.  At least I agree with you on one account---Bear and Denise are great and civil contributors to this thread.  I don't know how they put up with the utter crap that goes on here so much. *applause*
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Michelle on April 25, 2005, 08:27:08 AM
Quote

It probably depends on where they were born and lived.  FS lived in Pomerania which was part of Germany, so her native language would probably have been German, and she probably would have spoke at least some Polish. But again, if her parents' first language was Polish and they spoke Polish to her, then she would have known Polish pretty well. There is so much conflicting information and misinformation in this case, that it's hard to say what is true and what has been "fiddled with"!


Okay, so FS may not have even known that much Polish anyway?
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Helen_Azar on April 25, 2005, 08:31:24 AM
Quote

I went on this discussion because I couldn't stand the crap anymore!  Annie, there's nothing anyone can ever say to you to make you see how nasty and vitriolic you can be. *smiley icon slamming into huge brick wall*  And let's see, you know how I mentioned that you mention the word "hate" so much?  I've counted at least two posts since then where you've cried "So and so hates me so of course they attack me" blah blah blah.  I don't know how your whining is put up with here so well.  And Annie, YOU'RE the one who's making it personal with all these little "you hate me so it's personal" comments.  At least I agree with you on one account---Bear and Denise are great and civil contributors to this thread.  I don't know how they put up with the utter crap that goes on here so much. *applause*


Michelle, once again I am going to ask you to try to restrain yourself from confronations and try to stick to the topic. We are now all trying to stay on topic here, remember, and you are not helping. So far I have not seen you post one thing on this thread that has to do with the subject at hand. If you have anything to add to the discussion on this topic, great - please do, but if you just want to mouth off, that's what PMs are for.
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Helen_Azar on April 25, 2005, 08:32:38 AM
Quote

Okay, so FS may not have even known that much Polish anyway?

Thank you for finally posting on topic. No body really knows what FS knew or didn't know, there are various reports, it seems.
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Denise on April 25, 2005, 08:43:20 AM
Quote
Thank you for finally posting on topic. No body really knows what FS knew or didn't know, there are various reports, it seems.


Let's look at this another way.  Does anyone know what languages Felix or Gertrude spoke as young adults?  It is probable that the language skills of the 3 siblings the closest in age would be similar.  I have no idea where to even begin researching this idea, but it is a start....
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: rskkiya on April 25, 2005, 08:56:31 AM
Michelle
   You are free to contribute here -- We simply seem to  have developed a bad habit of attacking each other in this highly charged post, so I hope that you will be  willing to help us keep the peace.
   If you have nothing new to share - thats ok too- just enjoy the ride, so to speak.
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Helen_Azar on April 25, 2005, 09:10:33 AM
Quote

Let's look at this another way.  Does anyone know what languages Felix or Gertrude spoke as young adults?  It is probable that the language skills of the 3 siblings the closest in age would be similar.  I have no idea where to even begin researching this idea, but it is a start....


One thing we can probably say with some amount of certainty is that probably they both spoke German, and  most likely at least some Polish. But I am not sure if there is any way to find out how much Polish, since this concept is so subjective. To some people, what seems like fluent may be very minimal to others. This is the same problem as we faced when discussing AA and Russian. How do you measure fluency of a language? I think everyone has different criteria, it just depends on whom you are talking to. So in a way, we will never get a definite answer. But maybe if we can find out where FS parents were born, was it Poland or the German territory too? Based on that, you can make some assumptions as what they language they would have spoken at home. If they spoke Polish at home, then even though the kids were born in Germany, they would know Polish pretty well.

I read somewhere that when a person gets old and senile, they often revert back to a language they spoke in early childhood (if they spoke a different one). This would be consistent with someone overhearing AA talking Polish in church, when she was very old and senile. This could have happened even if she didn't speak it for many years from her young adulthood until old age. If she had some sort of organic brain syndrome, or Alzheimers, etc., for some reason it just works that way...
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: AGRBear on April 25, 2005, 09:10:49 AM
BEAR's LIST

Differences between AA and FS:
 
I. Photographs:
Photograph comparisons won't make everyone happy as to their looking alike....  
 
II.  Shoe sizes
FS wore shoes that were three sizes larger than AA  
 AA wore shoes that were three sizes smaller than FS
 
Shoes sizes still doesn't accomplish any agreement even though at the trial  there  shown that there was three size difference.
 
III. Pregnancy
AA- Evidence of a pregnancy but no proof of when.  Claimed to have had a son.
FS- No pregnancy known.  
 
IV. Scars.
FS -  no unusual scars remembered by family; no scars inflicted in factory accident
AA - scars which were claimed to have been inflicted by a bayonet;  small scar on finger claimed to have been from a door; scar from removal of a mole..... Some scar may have been caused by tb and surgery.  Penny mentioned that AA had a "grove" on the side of her head which may prove to be a injury of some kind had occured....
 
IIV. Height
FS is reported to have been 5'6", which is about 4 inches taller than AA - Helen was th source on this fact.
AA was about 5'2"" tall  
 
IIIV.  Knowledge of Languages
FS - knew German and Katchoubian.  Did not know Russian or English.
AA - knew Russian, German and English
 
IX.  Ears pierced  [no one cares about ears]
FS - one retouched photo shows earrings and pierced ears but this may be in error
AA - doesn't appear to have pierced ears

X:  DNA
FS - Do not have her DNA
        NOTE:  FS's sister/half sister/no sister was  Gertrude and    
        we have two of her children's DNA  [PLEASE take
         discussion over to DNA thread if you need to make
         comments.
             a.  Karl Maucher's DNA  matched AA's
              b.  Margareth's DNA did not match AA's DNA [see discussion over
                   in DNA thread; possibility of contamination of AA's
                     source used in test so more information is needed
AA - DNA information from intestines and hair which are said to be hers through hospital records shows relationship to Karl Maucher, grandson of Gertrude S.  Very little dispute about this test and match being legitimate and a close match


_____

My list has been up on this thread and others.  According to sources FS spoke Katchoubian as her first language, not Polish.

AGRBear
 
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Helen_Azar on April 25, 2005, 09:17:30 AM
Quote
AA - DNA information from intestines and hair ...a close match...

 


Correction: an exact match. This is the most important and the most conclusive piece of evidence in this case. It, along with some other "coincidences" showed with more than 99% certainty (and I am being generous here) that AA had to be FS and no one else.
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Mgmstl on April 25, 2005, 09:29:42 AM
The "brother" of FS stated that his sister Franziska spoke a little Polish & good German.
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Helen_Azar on April 25, 2005, 09:49:26 AM
Quote
The "brother" of FS stated that his sister Franziska spoke a little Polish & good German.


But see, that's my point, Michael, what is a "little Polish" exactly? It could be a few words, or it could be being able to speak it but not as good as another language (liek German in this instance).... I can say that I speak a little Polish too (very little), but to some I don't speak it at all, or to others, I do sort of. This is what I was trying to say before, there is really no way to know what that means...

Also, if FS spoke Polish in childhood, perhaps at home, and then stopped speaking it and maybe forgot a lot of it, it could be true that in very old age and senility she would all over sudden start speaking it again. It seems to have happened when AA was allegedly overheard speaking it in church, without any context. But again, we don't know and we never will know because this is all so extremely subjective.
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Annie on April 25, 2005, 09:49:33 AM
Quote
BEAR's LIST

Differences between AA and FS:
 
 
II.  Shoe sizes
FS wore shoes that were three sizes larger than AA  
 AA wore shoes that were three sizes smaller than FS
 
Shoes sizes still doesn't accomplish any agreement even though at the trial  there  shown that there was three size difference.


If  you're going to post the same old list again, I will post my same old rebuttals again! We have no proof those were even her shoes. There could be a mistake. In fact, this is very likely considering the amount of time that had passed. Even if they were hers, they could have been borrowed, or gotten from charity (those were hard times, you had to take what you could get!)

Also the size difference could be attributed to a weight loss, or bones shrunken up due to TB of the bones (which AA had) But I'm still betting they weren't even her shoes to begin with.
 
Quote
III. Pregnancy
AA- Evidence of a pregnancy but no proof of when.  Claimed to have had a son.
FS- No pregnancy known.  


Again, we are talking about a time when out of wedlock pregnancies were not something people proudly announced or kept records of. It is very likely FS gave a child up for adoption or it was stillborn, or she may have had a miscarriage or abortion that was far enough along to still leave a scar on her uterus. Once it was found out through examination that AA had been pregnant, it was advantagous to her to use the missing baby as part of her story. But that does not mean FS wasn't pregnant, obviously she was, but the details were hidden, as many unwed mothers tend to do with their secrets.
 
Quote
IV. Scars.
FS -  no unusual scars remembered by family; no scars inflicted in factory accident
AA - scars which were claimed to have been inflicted by a bayonet;  small scar on finger claimed to have been from a door; scar from removal of a mole..... Some scar may have been caused by tb and surgery.  Penny mentioned that AA had a "grove" on the side of her head which may prove to be a injury of some kind had occured....


Finger in door- was Maria on a train, not Anastasia in a carriage, remember that story was told wrong?

Injuries in munitions factory- well accepted up until recent 'new' medical records suddenly surface, so I seriously question these 'new' documents and would need much more proof to disregard all the stories from the past.
 
Quote
IIV. Height
FS is reported to have been 5'6", which is about 4 inches taller than AA - Helen was th source on this fact.
AA was about 5'2"" tall  


And as I said, many fans standing next to the same rock star after the same concert all reported him anywhere from 5'2" to 5'8". They all swore they were right, but obviously most of them were simply mistaken. Same here. This is nothing even credible enough to discuss.

Quote
IIIV.  Knowledge of Languages
FS - knew German and Katchoubian.  Did not know Russian or English.
AA - knew Russian, German and English


Again, varying conflicting reports on all of these, leading me to disregard ALL language reports on BOTH sides.
 
Quote
IX.  Ears pierced  [no one cares about ears]
FS - one retouched photo shows earrings and pierced ears but this may be in error
AA - doesn't appear to have pierced ears


Yes, the retouched picture looks like they're painted on. And even if they were pierced, they could have grown over.

I will ignore the half sister business, as there is absolutely no evidence of this.
 
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: AGRBear on April 25, 2005, 09:49:42 AM
Michael do you have the source [book, page] so I can add Polish to FS list.

Thanks.

AGRBear
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Annie on April 25, 2005, 09:54:08 AM
Quote

I went on this discussion because I couldn't stand the crap anymore!  Annie, there's nothing anyone can ever say to you to make you see how nasty and vitriolic you can be. *smiley icon slamming into huge brick wall*  And let's see, you know how I mentioned that you mention the word "hate" so much?  I've counted at least two posts since then where you've cried "So and so hates me so of course they attack me" blah blah blah.  I don't know how your whining is put up with here so well.  And Annie, YOU'RE the one who's making it personal with all these little "you hate me so it's personal" comments.  At least I agree with you on one account---Bear and Denise are great and civil contributors to this thread.  I don't know how they put up with the utter crap that goes on here so much. *applause*


The only time I mention 'hate' is saying that you, Michael and Penny 'hate' me,  it's fairly obvious the way you have all at times jumped venomously on my posts, making it PERSONAL instead of about the topic. You don't like me because of the things I  post, you don't even know me, so don't bother to analyze me, I might have a few theories on you as well dearie.

Again, if you want to post on topic, no one is stopping you, regardless of what you want to say. However, to join in a thread you have been silent in just to verbally attack me personally (not what I said but me as a person) I don't think that is acceptable on any message board.
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: AGRBear on April 25, 2005, 09:54:31 AM
When I posted a scenario about a birth/bap record which proved Gertrude was FS's half sister and that they did not have the same mothers,  Helen wrote the following post in reply:

Quote

....[in part]....

If Penny produced this certificate, and that's a HUGE "IF", and we could then somehow make sure that this certificate is authentic - then we would have to figure out what sort of a relationship FS had to Gertrude. The existance of such certificate wouldn't mean that AA was not FS, it would just mean that they probably had maternally related mothers.

...


The DNA discussion is over under the DNA thread.  

There is also a discussion about the languages FS and AA spoke.



AGRBear

PS - AA and the Russian language debate:
http://hydrogen.pallasweb.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=anastasia;action=display;num=1110177984;start=0#0

PSS -  DNA Science Papers:
http://hydrogen.pallasweb.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=anastasia;action=display;num=1108948411;start=0#0

PSSS - DNA thread:
http://hydrogen.pallasweb.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=anastasia;action=display;num=1106338507;start=0#0
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Helen_Azar on April 25, 2005, 09:57:46 AM
All this just tells us is that there could be a few rather reasonable explanations for all the contradictory evidence, but there is no explanation as to how AA's mtDNA could have coincidentally matched that of FS's grand nephew. No explanation at all, other than that she had to be FS. And this is really the only point I ever tried to argue about this case.
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: AGRBear on April 25, 2005, 10:02:15 AM
Quote
All this just tells us is that there could be a few rather reasonable explanations for all the contradictory evidence, but there is no explanation as to how AA's mtDNA could have coincidentally matched that of FS's grand nephew. No explanation at all, other than that she had to be FS. And this is really the only point I ever tried to argue about this case.


Please see DNA threads and the posts which talk about coinincidences.

AGRBear
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Helen_Azar on April 25, 2005, 10:02:25 AM
Quote

The DNA discussion is over under the DNA thread.  
AA and the Russian language debate:
 

No, Bear, both of these issues are part of this debate, so please don't try to exclude them. DNA in particular always should be part of this debate because this is what gave us the most final and conclusive answer. To try to exclude it, as some would like to do, is to exclude by far the most important piece of evidence.
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Annie on April 25, 2005, 10:02:46 AM
Quote
All this just tells us is that there could be a few rather reasonable explanations for all the contradictory evidence, but there is no explanation as to how AA's mtDNA could have coincidentally matched that of FS's grand nephew. No explanation at all, other than that she had to be FS. And this is really the only point I ever tried to argue about this case.


Same here, though obviously my intentions have been mistaken by a few for something much more sinister ::) I guess I just don't have a gift for putting things as tactfully as you do, Helen. You say some of the same exact things I do, yet you can put it better than me :-/
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Helen_Azar on April 25, 2005, 10:08:09 AM
Quote

Please see DNA threads and the posts which talk about coinincidences.

AGRBear


Bear, to be honest, I haven't the slightest idea of what you were talking about when you made the references to "coincidences" on the DNA thread. We are talking about statistical probability, I am not sure what you are talking about...
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Mgmstl on April 25, 2005, 10:09:09 AM
Bear,

I will gladly provide those pages for you:

Riddle Of Anna Anderson  by Peter Kurth,  pgs 173-174

Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: AGRBear on April 25, 2005, 10:09:55 AM
Quote

If  you're going to post the same old list again, I will post my same old rebuttals again! We have no proof those were even her shoes. There could be a mistake. In fact, this is very likely considering the amount of time that had passed. Even if they were hers, they could have been borrowed, or gotten from charity (those were hard times, you had to take what you could get!)

Also the size difference could be attributed to a weight loss, or bones shrunken up due to TB of the bones (which AA had) But I'm still betting they weren't even her shoes to begin with.
 

Again, we are talking about a time when out of wedlock pregnancies were not something people proudly announced or kept records of. It is very likely FS gave a child up for adoption or it was stillborn, or she may have had a miscarriage or abortion that was far enough along to still leave a scar on her uterus. Once it was found out through examination that AA had been pregnant, it was advantagous to her to use the missing baby as part of her story. But that does not mean FS wasn't pregnant, obviously she was, but the details were hidden, as many unwed mothers tend to do with their secrets.
 

Finger in door- was Maria on a train, not Anastasia in a carriage, remember that story was told wrong?

Injuries in munitions factory- well accepted up until recent 'new' medical records suddenly surface, so I seriously question these 'new' documents and would need much more proof to disregard all the stories from the past.
 

And as I said, many fans standing next to the same rock star after the same concert all reported him anywhere from 5'2" to 5'8". They all swore they were right, but obviously most of them were simply mistaken. Same here. This is nothing even credible enough to discuss.


Again, varying conflicting reports on all of these, leading me to disregard ALL language reports on BOTH sides.
 

Yes, the retouched picture looks like they're painted on. And even if they were pierced, they could have grown over.

I will ignore the half sister business, as there is absolutely no evidence of this.
 


Shoe sizes were given in AA's trial.  Evidently AA's lawyers thought this was important.  I do not know how large or how thin FS was so cannot make a comment on weight loss.  I'm not sure it's the length which changed but the width would.

The height was, also, brought up in the trial.  My mother's  friend had the same kind of tb  AA had and there was no bone mass lost.

Child or no child is a nine month window and I'm not sure there is one for FS in the timelines known

Languages in chart may be changed and one added to FS's list as being "Polish".

Photos are not agreed upon as I've mentioned in my list.

The finger scar could have also happen to FS and AA because kids get their fingers caught in doors all the time....

AGRBear
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: AGRBear on April 25, 2005, 10:12:21 AM
Quote
Bear,

I will gladly provide those pages for you:

Riddle Of Anna Anderson  by Peter Kurth,  pgs 173-174



Thanks.  I'll add "Polish to my list".

BEAR's LIST

Differences between AA and FS:
 
I. Photographs:
Photograph comparisons won't make everyone happy as to their looking alike....  
 
II.  Shoe sizes
FS wore shoes that were three sizes larger than AA  
 AA wore shoes that were three sizes smaller than FS
 
Shoes sizes still doesn't accomplish any agreement even though at the trial  there  shown that there was three size difference.
 
III. Pregnancy
AA- Evidence of a pregnancy but no proof of when.  Claimed to have had a son.
FS- No pregnancy known.  
 
IV. Scars.
FS -  no unusual scars remembered by family; no scars inflicted in factory accident
AA - scars which were claimed to have been inflicted by a bayonet;  small scar on finger claimed to have been from a door; scar from removal of a mole..... Some scar may have been caused by tb and surgery.  Penny mentioned that AA had a "grove" on the side of her head which may prove to be a injury of some kind had occured....
 
IIV. Height
FS is reported to have been 5'6", which is about 4 inches taller than AA - Helen was th source on this fact.
AA was about 5'2"" tall  
 
IIIV.  Knowledge of Languages
FS - knew German, "a little" Polish and Katchoubian [family's first language].  Did not know Russian or English.
AA - knew Russian, German and English
 
IX.  Ears pierced  [no one cares about ears being pierced]
FS - one retouched photo shows earrings and pierced ears but this may be in error
AA - doesn't appear to have pierced ears

X:  DNA
FS - Do not have her DNA
        NOTE:  FS's sister/half sister/no sister was  Gertrude and    
        we have two of her children's DNA  [PLEASE take
         discussion over to DNA thread if you need to make
         comments.
             a.  Karl Maucher's DNA  matched AA's
              b.  Margareth's DNA did not match AA's DNA [see discussion over
                   in DNA thread; possibility of contamination of AA's
                     source used in test so more information is needed
AA - DNA information from intestines and hair which are said to be hers through hospital records shows relationship to Karl Maucher, grandson of Gertrude S.  Very little dispute about this test and match being legitimate and a close match




AGRBear
 
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Helen_Azar on April 25, 2005, 10:19:56 AM
Quote
 Margareth's DNA did not match AA's DNA  


Can you please give us the source for this statement, or are you just assuming that this was the case? The last I heard, we didn't know one way or another because no comparisons were made.
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Helen_Azar on April 25, 2005, 10:22:07 AM
Quote

Very little dispute about this test and match being legitimate and a close match
 

Once again, it was not a "close match" it was an "exact match". With DNA, the sequences either match or they don't -  there is no such thing as "in between" or "close".
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Mgmstl on April 25, 2005, 10:26:51 AM
Helen, we don't exactly "what" a little Polish might be.
It could have been that the area they were in had such a German influence that it was predominant language.

Regardless of where you stand on this FS/AA issue, we must take a look at Felix's statements, and if we do so
Felix stated "His sister spoke a little polish & good german". Their dialect could have been smattered with Polish.

I am also wondering at this point, since the meetings took place Wasserburg near Castle Seeon, and Hannover in 1938, would that not indicate at that point the other siblings OBVIOUSLY had to speak German well,
if they didn't someone would have to be interpreting between Polish & German at these meetings, and there is no indication of that in the 1927 meeting or the 1938 meeting at which all of the siblings were present.
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Helen_Azar on April 25, 2005, 10:30:31 AM
Quote
Regardless of where you stand on this FS/AA issue, we must take a look at Felix's statements, and if we do so Felix stated "His sister spoke a little polish & good german". Their dialect could have been smattered with Polish.

Michael, I am not disputing that Felix made this statement and that he meant it. All I am saying is that we just don't know what he meant by "a little Polish", that's all... Which is exactly what you said too. So his statement doesn't help us  too much.
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: AGRBear on April 25, 2005, 10:34:33 AM
 AA and the Russian language debate:
http://hydrogen.pallasweb.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=anastasia;action=display;num=1110177984;start=0#0

DNA Science Papers:
http://hydrogen.pallasweb.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=anastasia;action=display;num=1108948411;start=0#0

DNA thread:
http://hydrogen.pallasweb.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=anastasia;action=display;num=1106338507;start=0#0

Helen, please return to DNA thread about Karl Maucher's  sister's DNA not matching AA's DNA for my comments.  Thank you.

AGRBear
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Helen_Azar on April 25, 2005, 10:49:39 AM
Quote
  Helen, please return to DNA thread about Karl Maucher's  sister's DNA not matching AA's DNA for my comments.  Thank you.

AGRBear


Bear, I am aware that there was a discussion regarding this on the DNA Evidence thread. But there is no answer to my question there. So again, do you have a source for your statement about Karl Maucher's  sister's DNA not matching AA's DNA from the intestine sample, or are you just assuming that it didn't match? Thank you.
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: jaa on April 25, 2005, 11:22:59 AM
Quote
Felix stated "His sister spoke a little polish & good german". Their dialect could have been smattered with Polish.

I don't know if this helps, but from a few web sites:

"There are still many misconceptions concerning the status of Kashubian language. The fact that Kashubia was politically and economically dependent on the German states for a long period of time resulted in some German loan words to be incorporated into the Kashubian language. Therefore, the language is often thought of as having its origins in the Germanic family of languages, which is not true. In reality, Kashubian language belongs to the Western Slavonic family of languages. Apart from the 24 letters of the Latin alphabet, Kashubian language has several additional ones: n, o, ó, o, u, l, z, a, a, e, and e.

(my note: the letters above are as they appear in my browser.)

Kashubian language differs considerably from Polish language and people from other parts of Poland do not understand Kashubian at all. It is even more difficult when it comes to pronunciation. Kashubian lexis is also very rich and diversified. The diversity results from the fact that within the Kashubian language there are several dialects and also loan words. It is no wonder then that the Kashubian language is so difficult to understand by people from other parts of Poland."
http://www.forum-identitaet.de/030720.html

"The number of languages listed for Poland is 10."
<snip>
"KASHUBIAN (CASHUBIAN, CASSUBIAN) [CSB] 200,000 (1993 Johnstone). The left bank of the Lower Vistula in north central Poland, near the Baltic coast, west of the Bay of Gdansk, and a narrow strip inland, southwest from Gdynia. Also spoken by possibly 10,000 to 20,000 as second language in Canada, Northern Ontario, around Barry's Bay west of Ottawa. Indo-European, Slavic, West, Lechitic. Dialects: KASHUBIAN PROPER, SLOVINCIAN. Heavily Germanicized. There are transitional dialects between Kashubian Proper, Slovenian, and Polish. Survey needed."
http://www.christusrex.org/www1/pater/ethno/Pola.html

"Kashubian is a member of the West Slavic group of Slavic languages with about 200,000 speakers and used as an everyday language by about 53,000 people. Most Kashubian speakers live in north central Poland in the region of Pomerania on the southern coast of the Baltic Sea between the Vistula and Oder rivers. There are also some Kashubian speakers in Canada.

"Kashubian began to emerge as a distinct language during the 14th century. Until recently though, most Polish linguists considered the language a dialect of Polish."
http://www.omniglot.com/writing/kashubian.htm

Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Michelle on April 25, 2005, 11:23:24 AM
Quote

The only time I mention 'hate' is saying that you, Michael and Penny 'hate' me,  it's fairly obvious the way you have all at times jumped venomously on my posts, making it PERSONAL instead of about the topic. You don't like me because of the things I  post, you don't even know me, so don't bother to analyze me, I might have a few theories on you as well dearie.

Again, if you want to post on topic, no one is stopping you, regardless of what you want to say. However, to join in a thread you have been silent in just to verbally attack me personally (not what I said but me as a person) I don't think that is acceptable on any message board.


Oh gee, and we were getting back on topic so nicely.  Take your grief to PM.  I'd just LOVE to hear what your "theories" about me are. ROFL ::)
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Denise on April 25, 2005, 11:30:47 AM
Quote

Can you please give us the source for this statement, or are you just assuming that this was the case? The last I heard, we didn't know one way or another because no comparisons were made.


As I stated on another thread, the reason the AA did not match that of ME is that the AA sample was from a 1951 blood smear on a glass slide that had been stored without a coverslip.  The only ID was the name AA scratched into the glass.  Remy, who had initially located the intestine sample, was never given access to the sample for testing so he acquired the slide (which was made after AA was tested as a carrier of hemophilia for the trial in 1951).  He divided the sample between Ginther and Herrmann to do the tests.  Ginther found no match to the Hessian line or to ME.  

The sample, being old and unprotected for 43 years was contaminated.  Per Massie.  Bear, read the whole chapter, not just the "it didn't match the ME sample."  I have provided the info twice now.
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Helen_Azar on April 25, 2005, 11:56:16 AM
Quote

As I stated on another thread, the reason the AA did not match that of ME is that the AA sample was from a 1951 blood smear on a glass slide that had been stored without a coverslip.  The only ID was the name AA scratched into the glass.  Remy, who had initially located the intestine sample, was never given access to the sample for testing so he acquired the slide (which was made after AA was tested as a carrier of hemophilia for the trial in 1951).  He divided the sample between Ginther and Herrmann to do the tests.  Ginther found no match to the Hessian line or to ME.  

The sample, being old and unprotected for 43 years was contaminated.  Per Massie.  Bear, read the whole chapter, not just the "it didn't match the ME sample."  I have provided the info twice now.


The Bear has this unfortunate recurring tendency to pick out selective phrases that fit her way of thinking, instead of looking at the whole evidence as it stands...

When the Bear stated that Margarethe's DNA did not match AA's DNA, I naturally assumed that she was refering to the confirmed DNA sequence which came from AA's intestine, not some questionable blood slide that was laying around open to all sorts of contamination for almost 50 years. This is why I was asking her for her source. It is obvious that this is once again "fiddling" on her part. Thank you Denise for posting this again.

Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Denise on April 25, 2005, 12:00:08 PM
Quote

The Bear has this unfortunate recurring tendency to pick out selective phrases that fit her way of thinking, instead of looking at the whole evidence as it stands...

When the Bear stated that Margarethe's DNA did not match AA's DNA, I naturally assumed that she was refering to the confirmed DNA sequence which came from AA's intestine, not some questionable blood slide that was laying around open to all sorts of contamination for almost 50 years. This is why I was asking her for her source. It is obvious that this is once again "fiddling" on her part. Thank you Denise for posting this again.



What frustrates me the most is that she is taking this out of the same book I have.  There are  about 4-5 pages I had to read to get the background on Remy and his sample.  Not too technical either....
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Mgmstl on April 25, 2005, 12:00:16 PM
Bear, I believe the slide was contaminated and they could not get any DNA off of it, which was why there was no match.
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Penny_Wilson on April 25, 2005, 12:03:31 PM
Quote

As I stated on another thread, the reason the AA did not match that of ME is that the AA sample was from a 1951 blood smear on a glass slide that had been stored without a coverslip...

The sample, being old and unprotected for 43 years was contaminated.  Per Massie...


According to Remy, who invited Greg and I to spend two days in his film and personal archives in July 2000, Massie is incorrect in this assertion.  Remy further stated that he was never interviewed by, or even contacted by, Massie in the course of his research, nor, to the best of his knowledge, was Dr. Sandkuhler.

Dr. Sandkuhler was still alive and had a small medical practice in the summer of 2000.  Greg and I saw his blood-slide archives, and they are not as Massie described.

This is my experience, take it or leave it (not you personally, Denise, but anyone reading this thread, pro or anti.  I have no intention of being embroiled in any more of the personal bs that goes on in this forum, but I am throwing this out there for you all to make what you will of it).
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Denise on April 25, 2005, 12:04:38 PM
Quote
Bear, I believe the slide was contaminated and they could not get any DNA off of it, which was why there was no match.


Per page 234 of Massies "RTFC" Herrmann was able to get a DNA profile from his half of the sample.  He thenm sent the DNA material to sequesnce and get a profile.  It did not match the Hessian or the ME sample.  Ginther realized that since the sample did not match the 2 profiles he was using as comparison, he concluded it was a contaminated slide.
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Denise on April 25, 2005, 12:07:09 PM
Quote

According to Remy, who invited Greg and I to spend two days in his film and personal archives in July 2000, Massie is incorrect in this assertion.  Remy further stated that he was never interviewed by, or even contacted by, Massie in the course of his research, nor, to the best of his knowledge, was Dr. Sandkuhler.

Dr. Sandkuhler was still alive and had a small medical practice in the summer of 2000.  Greg and I saw his blood-slide archives, and they are not as Massie described.

This is my experience, take it or leave it (not you personally, Denise, but anyone reading this thread, pro or anti.  I have no intention of being embroiled in any more of the personal bs that goes on in this forum, but I am throwing this out there for you all to make what you will of it).


Nice to see you Penny.  Do you have any information on the tests that Ginther and Herrmann performed?  And have the Ellerik samples been compared to the known intestinal AA sample since the initial test?

Where does that leave Dr. Ginther's observation that the slide he received "was an open slide. It could have been contaminated. It didn't even have a cover slip on it.  Somebody had just smeared blood which dried."
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Helen_Azar on April 25, 2005, 12:08:46 PM
Quote
Bear, I believe the slide was contaminated and they could not get any DNA off of it, which was why there was no match.


I think that they did get DNA from it, which wouldn't be unusual, they just didn't know whose DNA it was. It could have been a combination of different people's DNA's, which is what contamination is. The fact that the chain of custody of this slide was so ambiguous would completely disqualify it from being accepted as a valid sample. Unlike the intestine sample, the chain of custody of which (not to mention sterile condition it was kept it) had been very well documented at the hospital and could be proven to belong to AA.
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Helen_Azar on April 25, 2005, 12:15:27 PM
Quote
Where does that leave Dr. Ginther's observation that the slide he received "was an open slide. It could have been contaminated. It didn't even have a cover slip on it.  Somebody had just smeared blood which dried."


Denise, if this slide was kept without a cover slip for all those years, or even for a short period of time, it would have been contaminated, even if we knew for sure that it was AA's blood to begin with. After all the discussions that involved all the thorough questioning of the intestine sample - which was foolproof, why are some people so ready to accept the results from this very questionable slide? Because it fits their theory better. Talk about hypocritical. How sad.
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Helen_Azar on April 25, 2005, 12:25:38 PM
Quote
...have the Ellerik samples been compared to the known intestinal AA sample since the initial test?


Denise, if the Ellerik sample had been compared to the known AA sample and the sequences didn't match, I can guarantee that we would have heard about it by now  ;).
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Denise on April 25, 2005, 12:39:02 PM
Quote

Denise, if this slide was kept without a cover slip for all those years, or even for a short period of time, it would have been contaminated, even if we knew for sure that it was AA's blood to begin with. After all the discussions that involved all the thorough questioning of the intestine sample - which was foolproof, why are some people so ready to accept the results from this very questionable slide? Because it fits their theory better. Talk about hypocritical. How sad.


Well, Helen , I ask because Dr. Sandkuhler that Penny mentions is the one that took the blood sample from AA in 1951.  If the rest of his slide samples were not kept in this kind of condition, then something is fishy.  

I think there are hypocrites on both side of this argument.  If Massie wanted to know more about the provenance of the slide he certainly could have contacted Sandkuhler or Remy.  As stated earlier, an author with an agenda (or thesis is a better word) will focus on the data that supports his supposition.  

I agree that we would have heard if the Ellerik sample did not match the intestinal sample though.  
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: AGRBear on April 25, 2005, 12:54:28 PM
This was my original post in case anyone is wondering exactly what Bear said.

Quote
When looking for information,  I had to read a few pages of Massie's THE ROMANOVS, THE FINAL CHAPTER.

In it,  Massie tells us that Remy was looking for possible samples that would produce DNA p. 234:

Remy found a Professor Stefan Sadkuhler, who is is said, examined AA on 6 June 1951.  He had drawn blood to see if AA was a carrier of hemophila...  Sadkuhler gave Remy the slide which Remy broke in half.  He sent one piece to Professor Herrmann and the other to Dr. Ginther.  Apparently Herrmann was able to get some DNA and sent it to Ginther.  And this is what Massie wrote and I quote:
"Ginther found that this DNA did not match the Hessian profile (that is, the doner of the blood was not related to Empress Alexandra), nor did it match the Schanzkowski profile as dervied from Margareth Ellerick."  Then Massie talks about possible contamination, etc. etc..

Margareth Ellerick was FS's niece.

Why hasn't this information been brought up as evidence?

AGRBear


After some comments from Helen and others Bear  wrote:

Quote

I was assuming this contamination was possible the way Massie described it in his book because the slide wasn't handled perhaps as carefully as some would have liked.  However, they did have Margareth's mtDNA.  So, I had two questions. (1) Who is telling us that Dr. Ginther's tests was not useable; and, (2) Did anyone match Margareth's mtDNA into the test of Karl Maucher and AA's.  Seems it would be in Gill's best interest to have shown Maragareth's [direct female DNA] and Karl Maucher's which would show us their match with AA's.

AGRBear


Denise made a lot of interesting posts and over here on this thread Penny replied:
Quote

According to Remy, who invited Greg and I to spend two days in his film and personal archives in July 2000, Massie is incorrect in this assertion.  Remy further stated that he was never interviewed by, or even contacted by, Massie in the course of his research, nor, to the best of his knowledge, was Dr. Sandkuhler.

Dr. Sandkuhler was still alive and had a small medical practice in the summer of 2000.  Greg and I saw his blood-slide archives, and they are not as Massie described.

This is my experience, take it or leave it (not you personally, Denise, but anyone reading this thread, pro or anti.  I have no intention of being embroiled in any more of the personal bs that goes on in this forum, but I am throwing this out there for you all to make what you will of it).


Anway, Curious One, who lives near CAL said she was going to call over there and see if she could find Dr. Ginther for us and see what he has to say.

AGRBear
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: AGRBear on April 25, 2005, 01:17:34 PM
As usual, jaa give us excellent data:

Quote
I don't know if this helps, but from a few web sites:

"There are still many misconceptions concerning the status of Kashubian language. The fact that Kashubia was politically and economically dependent on the German states for a long period of time resulted in some German loan words to be incorporated into the Kashubian language. Therefore, the language is often thought of as having its origins in the Germanic family of languages, which is not true. In reality, Kashubian language belongs to the Western Slavonic family of languages. Apart from the 24 letters of the Latin alphabet, Kashubian language has several additional ones: n, o, ó, o, u, l, z, a, a, e, and e.

(my note: the letters above are as they appear in my browser.)

Kashubian language differs considerably from Polish language and people from other parts of Poland do not understand Kashubian at all. It is even more difficult when it comes to pronunciation. Kashubian lexis is also very rich and diversified. The diversity results from the fact that within the Kashubian language there are several dialects and also loan words. It is no wonder then that the Kashubian language is so difficult to understand by people from other parts of Poland."
http://www.forum-identitaet.de/030720.html

"The number of languages listed for Poland is 10."
<snip>
"KASHUBIAN (CASHUBIAN, CASSUBIAN) [CSB] 200,000 (1993 Johnstone). The left bank of the Lower Vistula in north central Poland, near the Baltic coast, west of the Bay of Gdansk, and a narrow strip inland, southwest from Gdynia. Also spoken by possibly 10,000 to 20,000 as second language in Canada, Northern Ontario, around Barry's Bay west of Ottawa. Indo-European, Slavic, West, Lechitic. Dialects: KASHUBIAN PROPER, SLOVINCIAN. Heavily Germanicized. There are transitional dialects between Kashubian Proper, Slovenian, and Polish. Survey needed."
http://www.christusrex.org/www1/pater/ethno/Pola.html

"Kashubian is a member of the West Slavic group of Slavic languages with about 200,000 speakers and used as an everyday language by about 53,000 people. Most Kashubian speakers live in north central Poland in the region of Pomerania on the southern coast of the Baltic Sea between the Vistula and Oder rivers. There are also some Kashubian speakers in Canada.

"Kashubian began to emerge as a distinct language during the 14th century. Until recently though, most Polish linguists considered the language a dialect of Polish."
http://www.omniglot.com/writing/kashubian.htm



Your clarification on this subject was far better than mine would have been.

 Thanks.

AGRBear
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Penny_Wilson on April 25, 2005, 02:20:07 PM
Quote

Denise, if this slide was kept without a cover slip for all those years, or even for a short period of time, it would have been contaminated, even if we knew for sure that it was AA's blood to begin with. After all the discussions that involved all the thorough questioning of the intestine sample - which was foolproof, why are some people so ready to accept the results from this very questionable slide?


Because the possibility exists that this slide is equally as "foolproof" as the intestine sample; the German team believed it to be even moreso.  And the reality of Dr Sandkuhler's archive differs from the scenario provided by Massie.  

Quote

Because it fits their theory better. Talk about hypocritical. How sad.


This is a particularly arrogant personal opinion, and has nothing to do with the matter under discussion.  Please refrain from including your editorialism in future.
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Helen_Azar on April 25, 2005, 03:00:06 PM
Quote

Because the possibility exists that this slide is equally as "foolproof" as the intestine sample; the German team believed it to be even moreso.  And the reality of Dr Sandkuhler's archive differs from the scenario provided by Massie.  


Are we back to saying then that the intestine was switched?  Because it seems that they can't both be correct, can they.


Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: AGRBear on April 25, 2005, 03:01:42 PM
Quote

..[in part]..

Because the possibility exists that this slide is equally as "foolproof" as the intestine sample; the German team believed it to be even moreso.  And the reality of Dr Sandkuhler's archive differs from the scenario provided by Massie.  

...


Sometimes a person just never knows what a question will bring forth.

AGRBear
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Helen_Azar on April 25, 2005, 03:03:49 PM
And Penny, instead of going on the offense with me, why not answer Denise's questions?

Quote
Do you have any information on the tests that Ginther and Herrmann performed?  And have the Ellerik samples been compared to the known intestinal AA sample since the initial test?

Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Penny_Wilson on April 25, 2005, 03:16:12 PM
Quote
And Penny, instead of going on the offense with me, why not answer Denise's questions?



I will, once I have found answers for her among my notes.
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Denise on April 25, 2005, 03:29:37 PM
Quote

I will, once I have found answers for her among my notes.


Thanks Penny!!

I am getting interested in researching this myself a bit more.  I am wondering why we have never heard more about it.  Even if it were a contaminated sample, you's think someone would mention it...
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Helen_Azar on April 25, 2005, 03:40:50 PM
Has any of this been published anywhere (the results of the slide test, Margarethe's DNA sequence, etc.)? It will be kind of hard to research if it hasn't been published because once again all the info will be second-hand...

P.S. No one answered me yet: are we back to suspecting that the AA intestine sample at the hospital had  been switched? This is where this seems to be going again....  
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Denise on April 25, 2005, 03:58:48 PM
Rest assured Helen, that I am not in the least bit suspicious of "switched intestines" (cue film noir music here).   Just another avenue to look at.  Sort of like all those other guys who were really the authors of Shakespeare's plays.

Seriously though, I am bery satisfied with the security measures at Martha Jefferson hospital.  I can't imagine how someone would breach that system to do a switch AND have the new piece of intestine match the Schanzkowsy mtDNA.  I can see someone giving blood for a DNA test, but not donating a sliver of intestine in order to prove AA was FS.  From what I understand FS was something of a family embarassment, so why would they want to ID AA as the black sheep of the family?
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: AGRBear on April 25, 2005, 04:00:22 PM
Hey gang, I thought it best I answer here.

My shoulders are big and I can carry the weight of all us toward truth, no matter where it takes us.

A GRrrrrining ;D Bear
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Helen_Azar on April 25, 2005, 04:02:35 PM
Quote
Hey, gang,  I thought it best I answered here.

My shoulders are big and I can carry the weight of all us toward truth, no matter where it takes us.

A GRrrrr ;D Bear


I think this means the answer is "Yes"  ;)
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Helen_Azar on April 25, 2005, 04:07:56 PM
Quote
Seriously though, I am bery satisfied with the security measures at Martha Jefferson hospital.  I can't imagine how someone would breach that system to do a switch AND have the new piece of intestine match the Schanzkowsy mtDNA.  I can see someone giving blood for a DNA test, but not donating a sliver of intestine in order to prove AA was FS.  From what I understand FS was something of a family embarassment, so why would they want to ID AA as the black sheep of the family?


So if we accept that the intestinal DNA sequence definitely belongs to AA, then the DNA sequence from the slide definitely does not. Both sequences can't belong to her.

Which means there is nothing else to research about the slide... it was obviously contaminated. We don't even have to humor anyone by pretending that there is still something to look into... It's either we believe that the intestine was switched or that the slide was contaminated - one or the other, but not both.  
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: AGRBear on April 25, 2005, 04:11:05 PM
Quote

I think this means the answer is "Yes"  ;)


I haven't the slightest idea.  So, let's learn more about a birth/bap certificates,  the slide of blood, a team of Germans, Massie, Remy and whatever else we discover before we hang "conspriacy" onto anyone door knob.

AGRBear
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Helen_Azar on April 25, 2005, 04:14:10 PM
Quote

I haven't the slightest idea.  So, let's learn more about a brith/bap certificate,  the slide of blood, a team of Germans, Massie, Remy and whatever else we discover before we hang "conspriacy" onto anyone door knob.

AGRBear


Admit it Bear, you still think that the intestine was switched, otherwise you would give a direct "yes" or "no" answer  like Denise did ;).
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Denise on April 25, 2005, 04:15:24 PM
Quote

Which means there is nothing else to research about the slide... it was obviously contaminated. We don't even have to humor anyone by pretending that there is still something to look into... It's either we believe that the intestine was switched or that the slide was contaminated - one or the other, but not both.  


Helen, where's your sense of adventure? What I would like to know about this is WHY the AA 1951 slide is a scientist's nightmare whereas, per Penny's eye-witness visit to the doctor, he had a much more sophisticated slide storage/protection system.  Why would AA's records have been treated differently?  
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Denise on April 25, 2005, 04:17:32 PM
Quote

Admit it Bear, you still think that the intestine was switched, otherwise you would give a direct "yes" or "no" answer  like Denise did ;).


I think she is pleading the fifth, considering the fur that his been flying around here lately!   ;)

In any case, it all makes for an interesting discussion, the peripheries of the case.  Admit it, at least we haven't talked the Slide Sample to death as we have almost everything else?
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Helen_Azar on April 25, 2005, 04:22:12 PM
Quote
What I would like to know about this is WHY the AA 1951 slide is a scientist's nightmare whereas, per Penny's eye-witness visit to the doctor, he had a much more sophisticated slide storage/protection system.  Why would AA's records have been treated differently?  


It doesn't really matter if they were treated differently or not (if they in fact were) because the story with the slide is quite obvious.  Sense of adventure or no, the DNA sequence from the slide obviously does not belong to AA, unless you want to revisit the intestine switcheroo theory again!  ;)  ;D

P.S. Denise, as a teacher, remember what we talked about before,  the kids who are reading this thread and getting "fantasy" information instead of real facts...  :)
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Helen_Azar on April 25, 2005, 04:24:03 PM
Quote
...at least we haven't talked the Slide Sample to death as we have almost everything else?


Oh don't worry, I am sure that's coming. Leave it to the Bear, et al  :D
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Denise on April 25, 2005, 04:36:00 PM
Quote

P.S. Denise, as a teacher, remember what we talked about before,  the kids who are reading this thread and getting "fantasy" information instead of real facts...  :)


It is not fantasy to verify that the sample was in a state of contamination.  I don't think it is misleading to ANYONE to suggest an author, like Massie, could have researched his book more carefully.  As we have seemed to agree that the intestinal sample was real and we accept the AA DNA findings, then people reading this post shall realize this is a side issue.  

AS a teacher, I do try to clarify my posts as I write them, because of misunderstandings.  I can't speak for anyone else....
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Penny_Wilson on April 25, 2005, 04:41:29 PM
Quote

So if we accept that the intestinal DNA sequence definitely belongs to AA, then the DNA sequence from the slide definitely does not. Both sequences can't belong to her.



I don't know if this is anything that's possible, but what if she was a chimera?  I think that's the word, though there's another one skipping around on the tip of my tongue... something to do with mosaic, maybe?  In either case, I am meaning a situation where one person has two DNA sequences -- from memory of the case I saw, one from tissue and the other from blood.  My problem is that I can't recall if this information came from a scientific documentary or from an episode of CSI.  :D

Edited to add: http://blogspace.com/freeculture/Chimera

"It sometimes happens that the eggs of twins fuse in the mother's womb. That fusion produces a "chimera." A chimera is a single creature with two sets of DNA. The DNA in the blood, for example, might be different from the DNA of the skin. This possibility is an underused plot for murder mysteries. "But the DNA shows with 100 percent certainty that she was not the person whose blood was at the scene. . . ."

"Before I had read about chimeras, I would have said they were impossible. A single person can't have two sets of DNA. The very idea of DNA is that it is the code of an individual. Yet in fact, not only can two individuals have the same set of DNA (identical twins), but one person can have two different sets of DNA (a chimera). "

There are other sites out there, but this one seemed to have the neatest and simplest explanation...
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Helen_Azar on April 25, 2005, 04:43:21 PM
Quote

It is not fantasy to verify that the sample was in a state of contamination.  I don't think it is misleading to ANYONE to suggest an author, like Massie, could have researched his book more carefully.  As we have seemed to agree that the intestinal sample was real and we accept the AA DNA findings, then people reading this post shall realize this is a side issue.  

AS a teacher, I do try to clarify my posts as I write them, because of misunderstandings.  I can't speak for anyone else....


Denise, I am not talking about any of this, your posts are not the ones we should be concerned about, it's what 's coming - the mountain that will be made from this tiny molehill. Well, you know what I mean... I give up...  
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: AGRBear on April 25, 2005, 04:45:08 PM
Penny: LOL  
Speaking of CSI....

No, just kiding.


AGRBear

PS  Helen, sometimes Bears dig holes larger than moles do  ;)
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: jeremygaleaz on April 25, 2005, 04:49:41 PM
Quote
My only objection to this statement is that unless I heard it from the family (or read an interview to that effect with a researcher) that "we lied to protect Auntie Fran" I am afraid that I will not trust inferences into motive.


Well, where did you think  these statements come from, if not from an interview?I guess I'm just not understanding the assumption about "trust" that you're making.

Quote
 If all we are going on here is their written words, that we do not have the correct context of, I will not say that the family lied to basically CYA.  Felix was told before he first met her that he would not in any way be held responsible for her and he listed a number of differences between AA and FS.


With all due respect Denise, let's try looking at it a different way. So, Felix was not under any obligation, legally, to care for his sister. But, what of the question of moral obligation? Felix did love his sister. It really is that simple.

So what sort of life would have awaited her if this charade had ended? She basically lived her life as a free loader (all consistent with AA being FS if we take into consideration comments made regarding FS being shiftless and lazy) So, his sister could not hold down a job, was mentally unstable, and, likely, to resent her family for the rest of her life for ending her free ride. Sounds like a canditate for life on the streets.
All, good reasons, as Felix himself stated "To leave her to her career as Anastasia..."  

And we've already gone over the strange "differences" between AA and FS that Felix listed before...  




Quote
 Since she seems to have been his sister, he simply may have been confused.  We do have the DNA (and I agree that the identical cousin theory is silly to put it mildly) but the so called differences between the women are as lost without context as the Schanzkowsky's reaction to AA.
Denise


Again, he wasn't confused. He knew darn well who she was. But you're not obliged to believe any of this (And I'm not trying to start an argument her, I do like you, and think you are a very cool lady! ;) And, I wish you had been my literature teacher, mine were all.... well.... I don't think the FA likes it if we print bad words here! ;)
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Helen_Azar on April 25, 2005, 04:49:44 PM
Quote

I don't know if this is anything that's possible, but what if she was a chimera?  


I know exactly what you are talking about, but what does it prove? Even if AA were a chimera, which is extremely unlikely (more like grasping at straws for an explanation) then she would still be a chimera with Carl Maucher's mtDNA, in addition to another sequence... Besides, I am not so sure that chimera applies to mtDNA, I think that would only be in nuclear. The sequences from both the intestine and the slide were mtDNA.

Good try though, I was wondering how long it would take you guys to find out about that one  :D.
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: AGRBear on April 25, 2005, 04:54:58 PM
SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOoooooooooooo, Helen, that is the answer you danced around when I asked you what you meant way way back when you said there was a way but you weren't going to be the one to tell us.....  

AGRBear
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Helen_Azar on April 25, 2005, 05:00:54 PM
Quote
Penny: LOL  
Speaking of CSI....

No, just kiding.


AGRBear

PS  Helen, sometimes Bears dig holes larger than moles do  ;)


And also make much higher mountains  ;)
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Helen_Azar on April 25, 2005, 05:04:20 PM
Quote
SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOoooooooooooo, Helen, that is the answer you danced around when I asked you what you meant way way back when you said there was a way but you weren't going to be the one to tell us.....  

AGRBear


Very good, Bear. I wanted to see how long it would take for anyone else to come up with it. Unfortunately when you really think about it you realize that it just doesn't work in this case, no matter which way you dance. Sorry, Bear.  8)
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Penny_Wilson on April 25, 2005, 05:06:28 PM
Quote

I know exactly what you are talking about, but what does it prove? Even if AA were a chimera, which is extremely unlikely (more like grasping at straws for an explanation) then she would still be a chimera with Carl Maucher's mtDNA, in addition to another sequence... Besides, I am not so sure that chimera applies to mtDNA, I think that would only be in nuclear. The sequences from both the intestine and the slide were mtDNA.

Good try though, I was wondering how long it would take you guys to find out about that one  :D.


Sure, she'd have the Maucher mtDNA sequence along with another -- we're not arguing that she was GD Anastasia.  We just don't think that she's Franziska.  This chimerism would help to explain the discrepancy between two different sets of DNA results.  
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Helen_Azar on April 25, 2005, 05:17:24 PM
Quote

Sure, she'd have the Maucher mtDNA sequence along with another -- we're not arguing that she was GD Anastasia.  We just don't think that she's Franziska.  This chimerism would help to explain the discrepancy between two different sets of DNA results.  


As I said previously, I don't think that mtDNA applies in chimeras, only nuclear. Someone would have to confirm that, but I doubt it. The DNA from the slide and fromthe intestine was mtDNA, not nuclear.

But even if it did apply to mtDNA, it still doesn't change anything: AA's mtDNA still shows that she was maternally related to Carl Maucher, at more than 99% certainty. The fact that she may have had an additional DNA sequence changes nothing in this argument...

It is a lot more likely that the DNA on the slide was contaminated than that AA was a chimera. Now we are really getting into the realm of science fiction here...  

As fascinating as this discussion is becoming, I must go to class now. Have fun.
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: AGRBear on April 25, 2005, 05:19:36 PM
Quote

Sure, she'd have the Maucher mtDNA sequence along with another -- we're not arguing that she was GD Anastasia.  We just don't think that she's Franziska.  This chimerism would help to explain the discrepancy between two different sets of DNA results.  


Is this "chimerism" caused by  an illness which changes the structure of the DNA during one's life time  or is this something a person is born with....[genic engineering] which is caused by what?

AGRBear

PS  Bear sees better from high mountains then from holes in the ground  ;)
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Penny_Wilson on April 25, 2005, 05:30:10 PM
Quote

But even if it did apply to mtDNA, it still doesn't change anything: AA's mtDNA still shows that she was maternally related to Carl Maucher, at more than 99% certainty. The fact that she may have had an additional DNA sequence changes nothing in this argument...


No, it doesn't.  But it provides us with a situation where all participants in the DNA "struggle" are allowed to be honest and correct.  And I think that that is a step forward.

Quote
It is a lot more likely that the DNA on the slide was contaminated than that AA was a chimera. Now we are really getting into the realm of science fiction here...


I disagree.  Chimeras exist, therefore, are most decidedly NOT science fiction.

Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Penny_Wilson on April 25, 2005, 05:35:07 PM
Quote

Is this "chimerism" caused by  an illness which changes the structure of the DNA during one's life time  or is this something a person is born with....[genic engineering] which is caused by what?

AGRBear



From what I understand, chimerism is caused when fraternal twins are intended, but don't happen.  One fertilized egg is absorbed by the other, leaving the resultant person with his or her own DNA sequence, plus the DNA sequence of the absorbed fraternal twin.  Most often, these different DNA sequences are located in different places:  a chimera might have one DNA sequence in their skin -- or organic tissue --  and another in the blood.

I believe it's called mosaicism when two types of DNA exist in one place, i.e. one DNA sequence in the skin on the arm, and another in the skin on the face.  I don't know what causes mosaicism.
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Denise on April 25, 2005, 07:11:00 PM
Quote

Well, where did you think  these statements come from, if not from an interview?I guess I'm just not understanding the assumption about "trust" that you're making.



The one I refer to is the Letter from a niece joking with Felix about his famous sister.  If you do have a reference to interviews with the family, I'd love to read them.  I was never aware that the family gave any, as I know that they value their privacy about the FS situation.

Quote

Well, where did you think  these statements come from, if not from an interview?I guess I'm just not understanding the assumption about "trust" that you're making.


With all due respect Denise, let's try looking at it a different way. So, Felix was not under any obligation, legally, to care for his sister. But, what of the question of moral obligation? Felix did love his sister. It really is that simple.

 So what sort of life would have awaited her if this charade had ended? She basically lived her life as a free loader (all consistent with AA being FS if we take into consideration comments made regarding FS being shiftless and lazy) So, his sister could not hold down a job, was mentally unstable, and, likely, to resent her family for the rest of her life for ending her free ride. Sounds like a canditate for life on the streets.
All, good reasons, as Felix himself stated "To leave her to her career as Anastasia..."  

And we've already gone over the strange "differences" between AA and FS that Felix listed before...  



My question being then (and these are simple questions, not trying to start anything with you either  ;) but you seem to have more knowledge of the family) if he loved her so much did they ever have any contact again?  I guess one of my questions about this case is that why FS would create this life as AA/AN and never see her family again, who she was apparently that fond of.  It seems a lonely life...

And why the comment about his sister being sausages?  I guess if the Schanzkowsky family has made statements admitting that they deliberately hid FS/AA pretence I would like to read them.  

The points you make are very interesting and convincing.  I would like to read more about the Schanzkowsky family, most definitely...

Quote

I do like you, and think you are a very cool lady! ;) And, I wish you had been my literature teacher, mine were all.... well.... I don't think the FA likes it if we print bad words here! ;)


Awww...  ::)  :-* :-[  Thanks so much.  I really enjoy your posts too--you have a lot of knowledge to share about this case, and I hope we questioners don't frustrate you to the point you stay away...

And I was a kick butt teacher.  How many English classes did you get to watch Scooby Doo? (Don't even ask  ;D)

Denise

Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Mgmstl on April 25, 2005, 08:54:31 PM
Jeremy,

A couple of quick questions.  Are these interviews you are speaking of with Felix's daughter?  

Are the interviews containing correspondence between Felix and his daughter or niece as I remember?

What is interesting to me is this.  We have been ridiculed for accepting what is termed as "subjective" or heresay evidence, which is exactly what this is.

I believe the last time Felix saw his sister was in 1916 or 1918.  She disappeared in 1920.  The first meeting was in 1927 almost 10 years later, then another 10 years had passed.  I definitely think it is hard to assign motives to someone who said officially that this was not his sister.   If one of the siblings had come foreward after the fall of the third reich, and said this is our sister we were forced into saying she was not.  I wouldn't have so much of a problem accepting what you are saying.  

We can assign motives to them all we want, but they are dead, left no written or recorded statement of any kind to say that they had changed their minds about the identity of this woman.

Also I believe Penny did a thorough job addressing these letters/interviews in a previous thread.  I will try and link to those later tonight or tommorrow.
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Helen_Azar on April 25, 2005, 09:43:29 PM
Quote
 But it provides us with a situation where all participants in the DNA "struggle" are allowed to be honest and correct.  


In nuclear DNA cases maybe, but not in this one. I confirmed what I already knew - that chimera condition does not affect the individual's mtDNA at all.

Which means that in this particular case what I posted earlier still stands: either the DNA from the slide was contaminated or the intestine from Martha Jefferson Hospital was switched. There is no other way to see this...

It was definitely a good try, but you have to come up with something else...  ;)
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Penny_Wilson on April 25, 2005, 10:37:09 PM
What about mosaicism?  How does that come to be, and how does that work?  Does anyone know?
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Helen_Azar on April 26, 2005, 08:11:56 AM
What about if AA's mother, who was a Russian noble woman living at Russian Court, was articifically inseminated with a zygote which, by coincidence, came from a maternal relative of Gertude Schankowska? That would explain how AA was related to the Schankowskis and not related to them at the same time! Neatly explains everything! Or better yet, maybe Empress Alexandra was articially inseminated with the same zygote! That way, AA was Nicholas'a and Alexandra's child but at the same time she was biologically related to the Schankowskis! Why didn't we think of this earlier!  ::)  ;)
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: jeremygaleaz on April 26, 2005, 08:15:09 AM
Quote
What about if AA's mother, who was a Russian noble woman living at Russian Court, was articifically inseminated with a zygote which, by coincidence, came from a maternal relative of Gertude Schankowska? That would explain how AA was related to the Schankowskis and not related to them at the same time! Neatly explains everything! Or better yet, maybe Empress Alexandra was articially inseminated with the same zygote! That way, AA was Nicholas'a and Alexandra's child but at the same time she was biologically related to the Schankowskis! Why didn't we think of this earlier!  ::)  ;)


I want the publishing rights! How much?! Have your people call my people! ;)
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: rskkiya on April 26, 2005, 08:29:38 AM
Quote
What about if AA's mother, who was a Russian noble woman living at Russian Court, was articifically inseminated with a zygote which, by coincidence, came from a maternal relative of Gertude Schankowska? That would explain how AA was related to the Schankowskis and not related to them at the same time! Neatly explains everything! Or better yet, maybe Empress Alexandra was articially inseminated with the same zygote! That way, AA was Nicholas'a and Alexandra's child but at the same time she was biologically related to the Schankowskis! Why didn't we think of this earlier!  ::)  ;)


Aliens we need Alien involvement! Brilliant!
(It's more logical than any other magical premise presented here so far ...) Helen_A thanks so much for this giggle!  

rskkiya
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: jeremygaleaz on April 26, 2005, 08:42:05 AM
Quote
Jeremy,

A couple of quick questions.  Are these interviews you are speaking of with Felix's daughter?  

Are the interviews containing correspondence between Felix and his daughter or niece as I remember?

What is interesting to me is this.  We have been ridiculed for accepting what is termed as "subjective" or heresay evidence, which is exactly what this is.

I believe the last time Felix saw his sister was in 1916 or 1918.  She disappeared in 1920.  The first meeting was in 1927 almost 10 years later, then another 10 years had passed.  I definitely think it is hard to assign motives to someone who said officially that this was not his sister.   If one of the siblings had come foreward after the fall of the third reich, and said this is our sister we were forced into saying she was not.  I wouldn't have so much of a problem accepting what you are saying.  

We can assign motives to them all we want, but they are dead, left no written or recorded statement of any kind to say that they had changed their minds about the identity of this woman.

Also I believe Penny did a thorough job addressing these letters/interviews in a previous thread.  I will try and link to those later tonight or tommorrow.


Michael,

Not trying to start an argument here by bringing up the D word , but I'll try this again...

If these interviews/private comments were all we had to go on, then it would all be a very hard sell. But, we do know, as a result of the DNA tests/statistics showing just how rare   AA's mtDNA sequence really is, that the odds are 99% that AA was their sister/aunt FS. (Not to mention the strong photographic resemblance!)

It takes accepting/understanding one (DNA tests/statistics) in order to accept the other (interviews/private comments)
 
So....

Interviews/comments-DNA tests/statistics= not very strong argument to accept family comments

Interviews/comments+ DNA tests/statistics= very strong argument in favor of accepting family comments.

(I would add the photographic resemblance, but I'll leave it out as some argue that they don't see a resemblance at all  ::))  

And, I honestly don't care whether you have a problem accepting what I'm saying or not. Take it or leave it.

And, if Penny did a thorough job addressing, to your satisfaction, these interviews/letters then simply take her word for it. But, if these interviews are "subjective" as you say, then how do you know her interpretation is the correct one? Believe what you want.  ;)
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: jeremygaleaz on April 26, 2005, 08:46:27 AM
Quote

Aliens we need Alien involvement! Brilliant!
(It's more logical than any other magical premise presented here so far ...) Helen_A thanks so much for this giggle!  

rskkiya


Aliens! Well, you know in those pictures Helen posted, AA had RED skin, and FS had GREEN skin, so maybe there's something to the whole alien thing!
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Annie on April 26, 2005, 09:07:37 AM
Quote

I want the publishing rights! How much?! Have your people call my people! ;)


Wow, a mixture of Science Fiction and Historical fiction, destined to be a best seller for sure! Awesome idea!  ;)
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Helen_Azar on April 26, 2005, 09:31:44 AM
Quote

...a mixture of Science Fiction...


I disagree.  Artificial insemination does exist, therefore, this is most decidedly NOT science fiction.  

Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Annie on April 26, 2005, 09:39:21 AM
Quote

I disagree.  Artificial insemination does exist, therefore, this is most decidedly NOT science fiction.  



Okay, when I said SciFi I was really talking about some other scientific stretches that have recently been posted, not just your post. While all of those things may exist, I still would consider a book or movie on AA being explained this way to be SciFi, since it did not really happen ;)
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: jeremygaleaz on April 26, 2005, 09:43:50 AM
Quote

I disagree.  Artificial insemination does exist, therefore, this is most decidedly NOT science fiction.  



Well, what if we add a tap dancing, backwards talking dwarf? We can also throw in a giant who talks in riddles, a white horse, and a murdered prom queen. We can call it....

Anastasia goes to Twin Peaks

What about a talking monkey? Can we add a talking monkey?
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Annie on April 26, 2005, 09:47:39 AM
Oh, please, no, I don't like monkeys! How about a wise cracking, streetwise talking mule? :D
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Helen_Azar on April 26, 2005, 09:57:59 AM
Quote
Okay, when I said SciFi I was really talking about some other scientific stretches that have recently been posted, not just your post.

Quote
I disagree.  Chimeras exist, therefore, are most decidedly NOT science fiction.


Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: AGRBear on April 26, 2005, 10:15:24 AM
Quote

Very good, Bear. I wanted to see how long it would take for anyone else to come up with it. Unfortunately when you really think about it you realize that it just doesn't work in this case, no matter which way you dance. Sorry, Bear.  8)


I am sorry, too, Helen, but not for the same reasons.  I am sorry that you felt it necessary to hide this "chimerism" from us.  And, I am also sad that you toss out the blood side and Dr. Ginther's results without knowing anything about it.

Perhaps all this time I was wrong.  I thought Helen and others were interested in knowing the truth.

But at times they appear to be afraid of evidence that might change what they already have set their minds into believing.

Here is what I think.  I assume that once all the puzzle pieces are placed properly that the DNA, mtDNA, birth/bap. certificates and all will make one big picture.  At the moment we may have  some of the puzzle pieces in the wrong places.  We don't need to throw away  the puzzle pieces we don't like.  That would be like throwing the baby out with the bath water.  We keep all the pieces, stand back and place the puzzle pieces where they belong.

Sure, some of you may be frustrated.  Sure some of you will just say you give up.  But not this old Bear.  I have faith we can get this huge puzzle completed before I get so old I can't remember where the computer is.

AGRBear
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Helen_Azar on April 26, 2005, 10:18:59 AM
Quote

I am sorry, too, Helen, but not for the same reasons.  I am sorry that you felt it necessary to hide this "chimerism" from us.  


Actually Bear, one of the main reasons I didn't want to put forward the chimera theory (beside the fact that it doesn't make any sense in this case) is because I didn't want to come off as completely bonkers...  ;)
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: AGRBear on April 26, 2005, 10:23:11 AM
Giving us all the options is NOT making you appear as if you had gone "bonkers"???  It would tell me that you're honestly trying to head in the same direction as myself and that's toward the truth.

AGRBear
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Helen_Azar on April 26, 2005, 10:29:15 AM
Quote
Giving us all the options is NOT making you appear as if you had gone "bonkers"???  It would tell me that you're honestly trying to head in the same direction as myself and that's toward the truth.

AGRBear


Oh, ok. I will try to do better next time!

P.S. BTW, do you like my "artificial insemination" theory? It makes up for withholding the chimera information, doesn't it?
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Mgmstl on April 26, 2005, 10:43:06 AM
Quote

Actually Bear, one of the main reasons I didn't want to put forward the chimera theory (beside the fact that it doesn't make any sense in this case) is because I didn't want to come off as completely bonkers...  ;)


Helen I assure you that no one would have thought you were bonkers.   This is a hard instance to explain, chimerism, and I was wondering when & if someone would get around to it.
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Penny_Wilson on April 26, 2005, 10:43:48 AM
Two minutes of googling this morning gave me several hundred scientific papers that suggest that chimerism is possible in the mtDNA of pigs, mice and baboons.  I have not yet winnowed through the listings for papers on chimerism in human mtDNA.

Here -- from the first paper on the google list:

In the overt male chimera, mtDNA clearly showed chimerism in spleen, pancreas, brain, kidney, lung, liver, heart, testis, and small intestine. The overt female chimera showed chimerism not only in blood but also in germ line according to a progeny test.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=7888485&dopt=Abstract

In addition, the American Journal of Medicine states that: "... chimerism in human multiple births is not rare."  American Journal of Medicine, Genet. 61, 264–268.

So laugh it up, people -- it seems that things that you think are impossible may actually be very possible...
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Penny_Wilson on April 26, 2005, 10:51:23 AM
In response to your deleted question, Helen: My point is that you told us yesterday that chimerism was not possible in human mtDNA.

My further point is that it might therefore be inappropriate to continue the foolishness of accusing either the American or the German forensics teams of subterfuge or "substitution" or "contamination."  Both could be right in their results.

Another point is that in Anastasia Manahan, we may be looking at a person far more interesting than we -- those of us who are interested in her beyond her "connection" to Anastasia and Franziska -- already thought.

Who knows where this piece of info might take us?  It solves some issues, but it raises more questions.  Which leads me to my final point -- that it just might be that much more interesting to some of us because you attempted to hide it from us, and you fed us misinformation yesterday about chimerism in mtDNA.

Those are my points.
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Helen_Azar on April 26, 2005, 10:55:36 AM
Quote
In response to your deleted question: My point, Helen, is that you told us yesterday that chimerism was not possible in human mtDNA.

My further point is that it might therefore be inappropriate to continue the foolishness of accusing either the American or the German forensics teams of subterfuge or "substitution."  Both could be right in their results.

Another point is that in Anastasia Manahan, we may be looking at a person far more interesting than we -- those of us who are interested in her beyond her "connection" to Anastasia and Franziska -- already thought.

Who knows where this piece of info might take us?  It solves some issues, but it raises more questions.  Which leads me to my final point -- that it just might be that much more interesting to some of us because you attempted to hide it from us, and you fed us misinformation yesterday about chimerism in mtDNA.

Those are my points.


I still kind of like the artificial insemination theory better.  It would explain a lot more and maybe... even prove that AA was AN :)  . Give it up, Penny, you are are not going to get anywhere with this.  I and the other scientists who are involved in this conspiracy against poor AA will make sure of it!!! (evil laugh)...
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Penny_Wilson on April 26, 2005, 11:04:00 AM
Quote

I still kind of like the artificial insemination theory better.  It would explain a lot more and maybe... even prove that AA was AN :)  . Give it up, Penny, you are are not going to get anywhere with this.  I and the other scientists who are involved in this conspiracy against poor AA will make sure of it!!! (evil laugh)...


We'll see...
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: AGRBear on April 26, 2005, 11:48:20 AM
Quote

I still kind of like the artificial insemination theory better.  It would explain a lot more and maybe... even prove that AA was AN :)  . Give it up, Penny, you are are not going to get anywhere with this.  I and the other scientists who are involved in this conspiracy against poor AA will make sure of it!!! (evil laugh)...


If this was meant to be funny, it wasn't.

In fact, this kind of statement makes my stomach turn sour and that's pretty hard considering all the honey and berries down in there.

AGRBear :-X
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Inquiring_Mind on April 26, 2005, 11:49:18 AM
 I am guilty of lurking here. I haven't had anything to add until now. I didn't read all the way thru the DNA topic so this may have already been addressed. If so, sorry in advance.

A friend told me she watched a crime show where a man had different blood DNA than that which was taken from his saliva because he had blood transfusions due to an illness.  

I wonder first if this is true. And then, I wonder if AA had a blood transfusion at some point.  She was often ill, sometimes gravely ill.

It could explain the blood DNA not matching the tissue DNA.

Just a thought!
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: AGRBear on April 26, 2005, 11:52:54 AM
Welcome Inquiring_Mind.

I hope you get a proper and respectful answer.

AGRBear
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Penny_Wilson on April 26, 2005, 12:18:09 PM
Quote
I am guilty of lurking here. I haven't had anything to add until now. I didn't read all the way thru the DNA topic so this may have already been addressed. If so, sorry in advance.

A friend told me she watched a crime show where a man had different blood DNA than that which was taken from his saliva because he had blood transfusions due to an illness.  

I wonder first if this is true. And then, I wonder if AA had a blood transfusion at some point.  She was often ill, sometimes gravely ill.

It could explain the blood DNA not matching the tissue DNA.

Just a thought!


I think this must have been the CSI episode I saw too...

However, in the non-fiction world, after a little more noodling around in various genetic sites, it is clear that chimerism -- while congenital in some -- can also be caused in some form later in life following an organ transplant or a serious transfusion of blood.

Anastasia Manahan had at least one major transfusion of blood. We will have to check her medical records for the date of this transfusion.

So -- although there is probably no way of proving that Anastasia Manahan was chimeric -- we have a plausible explanation for the different DNA sequences -- even mtDNA sequences -- extracted from the blood and the intestinal tissue.

See what happens when research goes forward despite the nay-sayers?
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Mgmstl on April 26, 2005, 12:23:12 PM
Quote

I think this must have been the CSI episode I saw too...

However, in the non-fiction world, after a little more noodling around in various genetic sites, it is clear that chimerism -- while congenital in some -- can also be caused in some form later in life following an organ transplant or a serious transfusion of blood.

Anastasia Manahan had at least one major transfusion of blood.

So -- although there is probably no way of proving that Anastasia Manahan was chimeric -- we have a plausible explanation for the different DNA sequences -- even mtDNA sequences -- extracted from the blood and the intestinal tissue.

See what happens when research goes forward despite the nay-sayers?



I had wondered about this before CSI as I had read about it, not in reference to the Anastasia Manahan case, and wondered how long it would take for our DNA people to pooh-pooh it's mere existance, and ridicule any chance of it happening here....It seems was not wrong in my thoughts.

Thanks again Penny....
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Penny_Wilson on April 26, 2005, 12:39:01 PM
Quote


I had wondered about this before CSI as I had read about it, not in reference to the Anastasia Manahan case, and wondered how long it would take for our DNA people to pooh-pooh it's mere existance, and ridicule any chance of it happening here....It seems was not wrong in my thoughts.

Thanks again Penny....


Oh please -- not at all!   :D

I think this is just another tiny episode that illustrates the importance of trusting your own intelligence and instincts in the face of popular ridicule.

I am still not quite sure where this takes us with Anastasia Manahan and her ultimate identity.  I suppose there are now a few more parameters to play with -- perhaps she was a multiple birth; perhaps it was all caused by blood transfusions; perhaps there is something inherent in this condition that we don't know yet that might give a clue to her identity.

But at least it's a way of explaining the DNA issue without having to point fingers of accusation or conspiracy at one party or another.
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Mgmstl on April 26, 2005, 01:24:35 PM
Quote

Oh please -- not at all!   :D

I think this is just another tiny episode that illustrates the importance of trusting your own intelligence and instincts in the face of popular ridicule.

I am still not quite sure where this takes us with Anastasia Manahan and her ultimate identity.  I suppose there are now a few more parameters to play with -- perhaps she was a multiple birth; perhaps it was all caused by blood transfusions; perhaps there is something inherent in this condition that we don't know yet that might give a clue to her identity.

But at least it's a way of explaining the DNA issue without having to point fingers of accusation or conspiracy at one party or another.


Can't you just in your WILDEST dreams imagine the PM's that are flying back & forth on this one!!!  ::) ::)

You are correct on this conspiracy theory issue that certain parties keep floating around this thread.


Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Penny_Wilson on April 26, 2005, 01:29:36 PM
It's very quiet and empty here now, isn't it?  You can almost see the tumbleweeds blowing by...  8)

Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: CuriousOne on April 26, 2005, 02:07:29 PM
I tracked down Dr. Ginther and asked him some questions.  He promised to get in contact with me with the answers after he looks at his notes to make sure his memory is correct about the glass slide and if he thought there was any contamination.

C1
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Denise on April 26, 2005, 02:34:25 PM
Quote
I tracked down Dr. Ginther and asked him some questions.  He promised to get in contact with me with the answers after he looks at his notes to make sure his memory is correct about the glass slide and if he thought there was any contamination.

C1


Wow!!  Way to go C1.  This is the first concrete lead all day.   ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Vera_Figner on April 26, 2005, 03:48:09 PM
Quote
It's very quiet and empty here now, isn't it?  You can almost see the tumbleweeds blowing by...  8)



Yes! But not for the reasons you likely suspect.
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: AGRBear on April 26, 2005, 03:55:49 PM
Apparently, Maples had used Dr. Gill and a Dr. King at CAL who's associate Dr. Ginther did the tests of DNA on the  teeth and bone fragments of the IF in 1993.

THE ROMANOV, THE FINAL CHAPTER by Robert Massie pps. 109-10

AGRBear
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Helen_Azar on April 26, 2005, 04:03:19 PM
Penny,

Before you make an even bigger fool of yourself with this chimera theory, do yourself a favor and find a scientist who will explain the papers you found to you. You are completely off base and your scientific ignorance shines through like the desert sun.

Before you throw accusations at people, you should make sure you know what you are talking about, but then again - why would this be any different than anything else you come up with. I am not even going to bother trying to explain this in detail to you, because frankly, your statements are getting to be scary and I want to stay away from you.

I am just going to say that you have misinterpreted everything. These scientists created artificial chimeras by injecting cells into blastocysts. Human chimeras are totally different. They are natural chimeras - between fraternal siblings.  A human cannot be a "true" chimera as they mean it in these papers (a hybrid of two different animals or two different persons) - unless somebody did a Josef Mengele-like human experiment (which will probably be your next theory)...

So go ahead, knock yourself out, discuss all these conspiracy theories and come up with more of your pseudo scientific theories, until the cows come home. I am bailing from this thread because frankly, all this lunacy has become extremely disturbing.
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: rskkiya on April 26, 2005, 04:25:46 PM
    This whole discourse has devolved in a "chimera" (sp) a fantastic illusatory creation an illusion...
    If one must refere to "CSI" tv episodes to justify ones arguement - then this is not a serious scientific discussion...It's just chatter!
   What about that "Twilight Zone" episode.... hmmmm?

I trust Helen A's logic far beyond Penny's claims.

rskkiya

Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Mgmstl on April 26, 2005, 04:31:18 PM
Quote
   This whole discourse has devolved in a "chimera" (sp) a fantastic illusatory creation an illusion...
     If one must refere to "CSI" tv episodes to justify ones arguement - then this is not a serious scientific discussion...It's just chatter!
    What about that "Twilight Zone" episode.... hmmmm?

I trust Helen A's logic far beyond Penny's claims.

rskkiya




You have the right to your opinion Rskkiya, as do we.
I do wish Helen would not abandon this thread, however, we cannot stop her.

Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: AGRBear on April 26, 2005, 04:32:43 PM
Quote
...[in part]...
 Give it up, Penny, you are are not going to get anywhere with this.  I and the other scientists who are involved in this conspiracy against poor AA will make sure of it!!! (evil laugh)...


I guess you weren't joking.

:-/

Gosh, I thought we [those of us asking all these questions] were the conspirators but it appears it's the reverse.  I just hadn't "thunk" it of Helen or Annie and others.  I just thought they were stuborn and stuck in their little boxes.

Isn't it odd how sometimes truth just jumps right out and nips us in the nose.  

Feeling let down by Helen, I went back to Massie's book and read everything it had about Maples, King and Ginther.    I thought Dr. Ginther was  a small player in this DNA because Helen down played him and said she didn't even know about him.  Now, I find that hard to believe, too.  Darn!  This is a sad day for Bear.

Helen come back and tell me it isn't true. Tell me I've misunderstood and that you're emotions caused by frustation just got the better of you this afternoon.

AGRBear :'(
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Mgmstl on April 26, 2005, 04:33:37 PM
Quote

Yes! But not for the reasons you likely suspect.



In this particular case I doubt that very much. ::)
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Denise on April 26, 2005, 04:37:59 PM
Whatever happened to Occam's Razor here?  Why are people grasping at straws like this "Chimera Theory" rather than simply accepting that the sample on the slide may have been contaminated?  Seems like a stretch to me, and I am a fairly open minded person.  I don't watch CSI, as I prefer the FACTUAL reality forensic shows like Cold Case Files and Forensic Files which discuss real cases with the scientists who conduct the testing.  

Come on folks, let's get back to a realistic topic.  This is starting to get silly.  If the chimera theory looks good, Helen's artificial insemination theory will deserve closer examination soon... ;)
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: AGRBear on April 26, 2005, 04:49:26 PM
Denise,   we don't know if the glass slide was contaminated as Massie has told us  but hopefully, we will learn this from Dr. Ginther who was part of the tests.

AGRBear
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Denise on April 26, 2005, 04:56:44 PM
Quote
Denise,   we don't know if the glass slide was contaminated as Massie has told us  but hopefully, we will learn this from Dr. Ginther who was part of the tests.

AGRBear


Well, Bear, Massie's book uses a direct quote from Dr Ginther to state contamination.  Further elaboration on this is going to be most welcome.  
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: AGRBear on April 26, 2005, 05:18:10 PM
Here was what Massie said:

THE ROMANOVS, THE FINAL CHAPTER: p. 234:

>>Ginther found this DNA did not match the Hessian profile...nor did it match the Schanzkowska profile as derived from Margaret Ellerick.  Because the blood on the slide did not match, as Ginther put it, "any of the characters of interest," he wonder about the integrity and origin of the slide.  "It was an open side.  It could have been contaiminated.  It didn't even have cover slip on it.  Somebody had just smeared blood which dried," he said.<<

AGRBear
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Denise on April 26, 2005, 05:23:54 PM
Exactly!  :) I remember typing that quote in yesterday, myself.  

I think since nothing has ever been heard since about that aspect of the case, it was dropped.  

I would be interested in seeing if the ME profile is available to compare to the intestinal sample, which we know is available online.  It would verify KM results.
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Alice on April 26, 2005, 05:42:49 PM
Oh wow . . . I don't check this thread for 48 hours and all hell breaks loose!  :D

I didn't even know what a "Chimera" was, so I Googled for a definition, and had to laugh when this came up:

- (Greek Mythology) fire-breathing she-monster with a lion's head and a goat's body and a serpent's tail; daughter of Typhon

- A grotesque product of the imagination


So which are we discussing here, the former or the latter?  :D
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Inquiring_Mind on April 26, 2005, 05:45:44 PM
Quote
I am guilty of lurking here. I haven't had anything to add until now. I didn't read all the way thru the DNA topic so this may have already been addressed. If so, sorry in advance.

A friend told me she watched a crime show where a man had different blood DNA than that which was taken from his saliva because he had blood transfusions due to an illness.  

I wonder first if this is true. And then, I wonder if AA had a blood transfusion at some point.  She was often ill, sometimes gravely ill.

It could explain the blood DNA not matching the tissue DNA.

Just a thought!


I decided to look for the answer.

From what I understand, a blood transfusion would not change the DNA of the recipient's blood because red blood cells are used and they contain no nucleus.

Even if AA had a transfusion with whole blood, rare today, the DNA of the donor would  not be detected regardless of how much blood was transfused.

The crime show wasn't the CSI show. In this case the bad guy had had a bone marrow transplant. He received the machinery to produce someone else's blood. So he would have different DNA in his blood then from other cells in his body.

Unless AA had a bone marrow transplant, my theory was impossible.


Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Vera_Figner on April 26, 2005, 05:54:18 PM
Quote


In this particular case I doubt that very much. ::)


I am positive you do not possess the mental acuity to elaborate on your feeble-minded snide commentary, but why not try?

It would be SO amusing.
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Vera_Figner on April 26, 2005, 05:59:52 PM
Quote

I guess you weren't joking.

 :-/

Gosh, I thought we [those of us asking all these questions] were the conspirators but it appears it's the reverse.  I just hadn't "thunk" it of Helen or Annie and others.  I just thought they were stuborn and stuck in their little boxes.

Isn't it odd how sometimes truth just jumps right out and nips us in the nose.  

Feeling let down by Helen, I went back to Massie's book and read everything it had about Maples, King and Ginther.    I thought Dr. Ginther was  a small player in this DNA because Helen down played him and said she didn't even know about him.  Now, I find that hard to believe, too.  Darn!  This is a sad day for Bear.

Helen come back and tell me it isn't true. Tell me I've misunderstood and that you're emotions caused by frustation just got the better of you this afternoon.

AGRBear :'(


For %&$# sake, Bear, EMOTION  and ~~~feeeelllliinnnggss~~~ are a major part of your remarkable ability of avoiding FACTS!  

Helen, on the other hand, deals with the facts and the science surrounding this case, and you have the nerve to even suppose her statements this afternoon are based in EMOTION?!

This thread has descended from lala land to utterly pathetic and worthy of great contempt.  Oddly enough, your suppositions and emotional pleas are reminicent of certain portions of the Divine Comedia!  Get a grip, will you?
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Vera_Figner on April 26, 2005, 06:01:13 PM
Quote
Oh wow . . . I don't check this thread for 48 hours and all hell breaks loose!  :D

I didn't even know what a "Chimera" was, so I Googled for a definition, and had to laugh when this came up:

- (Greek Mythology) fire-breathing she-monster with a lion's head and a goat's body and a serpent's tail; daughter of Typhon

- A grotesque product of the imagination


So which are we discussing here, the former or the latter?  :D



Decidedly the latter, but brought to us by...the former!
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Mgmstl on April 26, 2005, 06:06:12 PM
Quote

I am positive you do not possess the mental acuity to elaborate on your feeble-minded snide commentary, but why not try?

It would be SO amusing.


It's very simple (like you dear),it is just your asinine remarks about our intelligence and what we know, etc., will illicit a timely response, & your attitude will be remarked on each time.

I thought you were going to make a list of ALL of my conflicting statements?  Hmmmmmmmmmmm..........,
and were also going to prove that I was someone on a Yahoo Message Board or Group...
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Mgmstl on April 26, 2005, 06:09:14 PM
Quote
Oh wow . . . I don't check this thread for 48 hours and all hell breaks loose!  :D

I didn't even know what a "Chimera" was, so I Googled for a definition, and had to laugh when this came up:

- (Greek Mythology) fire-breathing she-monster with a lion's head and a goat's body and a serpent's tail; daughter of Typhon

- A grotesque product of the imagination


So which are we discussing here, the former or the latter?  :D


Either will do...... ;) Hmmm....the description puts me in mind of someone on this thread, but I just can't remember what their name is. 8)
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Penny_Wilson on April 26, 2005, 06:12:16 PM
Alice wrote:

I didn't even know what a "Chimera" was, so I Googled for a definition, and had to laugh when this came up:

- (Greek Mythology) fire-breathing she-monster with a lion's head and a goat's body and a serpent's tail; daughter of Typhon  

- A grotesque product of the imagination

So which are we discussing here, the former or the latter?  


Quote
Decidedly the latter, but brought to us by...the former!


Nice, Vera, very nice.  You reveal yourself rather too much, I think.  Especially as I had not said one cross word to you -- yet here you are, flinging your bile and insults at me.  Terribly sorry that my research has caused you to have a temper tantrum...
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Mgmstl on April 26, 2005, 06:12:37 PM
Quote

I decided to look for the answer.

From what I understand, a blood transfusion would not change the DNA of the recipient's blood because red blood cells are used and they contain no nucleus.

Even if AA had a transfusion with whole blood, rare today, the DNA of the donor would  not be detected regardless of how much blood was transfused.

The crime show wasn't the CSI show. In this case the bad guy had had a bone marrow transplant. He received the machinery to produce someone else's blood. So he would have different DNA in his blood then from other cells in his body.

Unless AA had a bone marrow transplant, my theory was impossible.




Inquiring mind welcome aboard, stick around for a while and no matter which way you lean in the discussion, don't be afraid to ask questions no matter how choppy the waters get in here....

Well I was also under the assumption that DNA could not be altered by a blood transfusion and have spent some time looking all of this up, and of course it cannot,
so where does this leave us with the chimeria theory?

Any thoughts?  
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Vera_Figner on April 26, 2005, 06:14:51 PM
Quote

It's very simple (like you dear),it is just your asinine remarks about our intelligence and what we know, etc., will illicit a timely response, & your attitude will be remarked on each time.

I thought you were going to make a list of ALL of my conflicting statements?  Hmmmmmmmmmmm..........,
and were also going to prove that I was someone on a Yahoo Message Board or Group...


Ah, what a quick response...I knew you couldn't stay away.  But yes, I believe that some of you here are a few bricks short of a load. My opinion, my very much informed opinion, and I'm entitled to it.  

Your attitude will ALWAYS ALWAYS be remaked upon as well, isn't that fun?

Your conflicting statements...yes. Perhaps in a couple of weeks, as I am working on a major academic project at the moment which must take precedence. It does deal with a specific aspect of Russian history, but not nearly fantastical enough to your liking, so I will refrain from elaboration.  However, I do have a few moments several times a day to check in and yank your simian chain, yes I DO!

And I never said I was going to "prove" you were someone from Yahoo. Yes, you do write a great deal like someone from a few years back over there, his name is also Michael (tho I realize that may not even be your real name) and well, your style is remarkably similar and I have no time nor interest to even begin to look into proving it. I know you must be very let down by all of this, especially since you've brought it up again (I know this kind of attention does great things for you) but you will get over it.
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Mgmstl on April 26, 2005, 06:16:36 PM
Quote


Don't get upset about it Penny, it isn't worth the effort.
Trust me on this one.  I have been down this road with this person.   In fact so has Denise, Michelle, & Bear...
It isn't worth the effort.

Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Penny_Wilson on April 26, 2005, 06:17:40 PM
Quote
Penny,

Before you make an even bigger fool of yourself with this chimera theory, do yourself a favor and find a scientist who will explain the papers you found to you. You are completely off base and your scientific ignorance shines through like the desert sun.

Before you throw accusations at people, you should make sure you know what you are talking about, but then again - why would this be any different than anything else you come up with. I am not even going to bother trying to explain this in detail to you, because frankly, your statements are getting to be scary and I want to stay away from you.

I am just going to say that you have misinterpreted everything. These scientists created artificial chimeras by injecting cells into blastocysts. Human chimeras are totally different. They are natural chimeras - between fraternal siblings.  A human cannot be a "true" chimera as they mean it in these papers (a hybrid of two different animals or two different persons) - unless somebody did a Josef Mengele-like human experiment (which will probably be your next theory)...

So go ahead, knock yourself out, discuss all these conspiracy theories and come up with more of your pseudo scientific theories, until the cows come home. I am bailing from this thread because frankly, all this lunacy has become extremely disturbing.


And yet, Helen, and yet.... you have admitted here that your earlier reference to a possible answer was indeed to a chimera.  So you were lying then, or you're lying now -- but to me it doesn't matter.  You've lost your credibility with me as a dispassionate scientist because of the games you've played with us here -- specifically hiding this piece of information because it discolors your favored theory of history.

However, and despite your childish tantrums and accusations and attempts to read my mind and the future (is that how desperate you are?), I will, indeed, feel free to pursue my investigations into all avenues of DNA and genetic science.  I am sorry if this is disturbing to you.  I can only imagine how large a nerve I have hit.
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Vera_Figner on April 26, 2005, 06:18:54 PM
Quote
Alice wrote:

 I didn't even know what a "Chimera" was, so I Googled for a definition, and had to laugh when this came up:
 
- (Greek Mythology) fire-breathing she-monster with a lion's head and a goat's body and a serpent's tail; daughter of Typhon  
 
- A grotesque product of the imagination
 
So which are we discussing here, the former or the latter?  



Nice, Vera, very nice.  You reveal yourself rather too much, I think.  Especially as I had not said one cross word to you -- yet here you are, flinging your bile and insults at me.  Terribly sorry that my research has caused you to have a temper tantrum...


Surely even you must admit such a comeback is FAR too irresistable! And I wasn't referring to you specifically, sorry to disappoint!
Temper tantrum? No. Very strange reaction, however. A combination of nausea mixed with hilarity!  I am stunned that this chimera theory (wasn't that your 2-minute google research earlier today?) is being taken the least bit seriously.

But I realize with some only the fantastical will do.
It certainly sells better than truth!
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Mgmstl on April 26, 2005, 06:23:22 PM
Quote

Ah, what a quick response...I knew you couldn't stay away.  But yes, I believe that some of you here are a few bricks short of a load. My opinion, my very much informed opinion, and I'm entitled to it.  

Your attitude will ALWAYS ALWAYS be remaked upon as well, isn't that fun?

Your conflicting statements...yes. Perhaps in a couple of weeks, as I am working on a major academic project at the moment which must take precedence. It does deal with a specific aspect of Russian history, but not nearly fantastical enough to your liking, so I will refrain from elaboration.  However, I do have a few moments several times a day to check in and yank your simian chain, yes I DO!

And I never said I was going to "prove" you were someone from Yahoo. Yes, you do write a great deal like someone from a few years back over there, his name is also Michael (tho I realize that may not even be your real name) and well, your style is remarkably similar and I have no time nor interest to even begin to look into proving it. I know you must be very let down by all of this, especially since you've brought it up again (I know this kind of attention does great things for you) but you will get over it.



I am not let down by your lack of ability or shall we say time to do it....however perhaps what amuses me the most is your habit of saying absolutely nothing with the exception of personal insults, something you accuse everyone else of.   Now you show your true colors by attacking Penny also.  

Perhaps Vera you need to attend some anger management classes or find some personal fullfilment within your own life, before you start trying to tear down everyone else.
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Penny_Wilson on April 26, 2005, 06:23:44 PM
Quote

Perhaps in a couple of weeks, as I am working on a major academic project at the moment which must take precedence. It does deal with a specific aspect of Russian history, but not nearly fantastical enough to your liking, so I will refrain from elaboration.


Ah yes.  A MAJOR academic project.  I'll keep my eye open for its publication.

Quote

However, I do have a few moments several times a day to check in and yank your simian chain, yes I DO!



And someone called ME "scary" and "disturbing".... This sounds quite threatening, and I do hope that the FA will take note of the frightening turn in events heralded in this thread every time Vera Figner posts.
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Vera_Figner on April 26, 2005, 06:26:36 PM
Quote

Ah yes.  A MAJOR academic project.  I'll keep my eye open for its publication.


And someone called ME "scary" and "disturbing".... This sounds quite threatening, and I do hope that the FA will take note of the frightening turn in events heralded in this thread every time Vera Figner posts.


What rampant insecurities are observed here! You guys are WAY too funny. Thanks for the laughs.

I will let you know how the Bolshevichki project goes, Penny. So kind of you to inquire!
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Mgmstl on April 26, 2005, 06:30:41 PM
Quote

Ah yes.  A MAJOR academic project.  I'll keep my eye open for its publication.


And someone called ME "scary" and "disturbing".... This sounds quite threatening, and I do hope that the FA will take note of the frightening turn in events heralded in this thread every time Vera Figner posts.



Perhaps someone dropped a house on her sister ;)
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Vera_Figner on April 26, 2005, 06:32:47 PM
Quote


Perhaps someone dropped a house on her sister ;)


Actually, it was your mother who FELL on her.

Michael, do you really want to continue in this vein?
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Mgmstl on April 26, 2005, 06:42:15 PM
Quote

Actually, it was your mother who FELL on her.

Michael, do you really want to continue in this vein?


No, but then it is up to you, since you are the one dishing out most of the abuse.  As I stated earlier it takes two to tango, and you have managed to tango with everyone on here.  


Perhaps Vera you need to find a sense of humor, did you notice the smilie after the remark, I was joking. Penny didn't deserve what you wrote to her, neither did Denise or Michelle, but you literally blitzkrieged them.
You should take your issue with this & me & the theories discussed on this thread  to PM and we all wish you would.
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Alice on April 26, 2005, 06:43:59 PM
I retract my earlier statement about all hell breaking loose - it seems I spoke too soon.

Hell has, now, broken loose on this thread.

OK, putting aside my earlier definitions of a "Chimera", I'm assuming (seriously, this time) that we are discussing:

- An individual containing cells of two or more different tissues.

Is this the allegation? That Anna Anderson was a "Chimera"? How frequently does this occur in humans?

Edit: It seems, with further Googling, that I found the answer to my own question about the frequency:

Quote
An extremely rare person composed of cells derived from different zygotes. Blood group chimerism is shown by mixed field agglutination when antigen typing red cells. Chimerism can be caused by dizygotic twins exchanging hematopoietic stem cells in utero and continuing to form blood cells that are genetically different, or by dispermic chimerism in which two separate zygotes develop into one person.


Source: http://brie.medlabscience.med.ualberta.ca/de/genetics/70gen-term.html

So the condition is extremely rare (a ratio would be handy, but I have't found one), and yet, it is possible. If I'm interpreting this information correctly, then AA would have to be a twin for this to be possible?
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Inquiring_Mind on April 26, 2005, 06:45:58 PM
Quote

Inquiring mind welcome aboard, stick around for a while and no matter which way you lean in the discussion, don't be afraid to ask questions no matter how choppy the waters get in here....

Well I was also under the assumption that DNA could not be altered by a blood transfusion and have spent some time looking all of this up, and of course it cannot,
so where does this leave us with the chimeria theory?

Any thoughts?  


Thank you for the welcome and also you, Bear.

Frankly, after reading most of the more recent threads in this particular section over the last few weeks...I have yet to figure out what exactly we are theorizing about?

When I hear "a possible answer is that AA was a chimera" does it pertain to:

Different results from the blood sample and the tissue sample

Different DNA labs and experts disputing each others findings.

Whether or not the findings prove  AA is FS

Or something completely different.

I cannot form an opinion because I am not sure what is being referenced.
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Vera_Figner on April 26, 2005, 06:53:21 PM
Quote

Either will do...... ;) Hmmm....the description puts me in mind of someone on this thread, but I just can't remember what their name is. 8)


Are you referring to this?  Ok, sooo...smiley faces make everything alright? They diffuse insult?

I am telling you they do not.  

If you want to split hairs, we are equally guilty, though, the play on words "latter," and "former" was simply too perfect to ignore (and that has nothing whatsoever to do with Penny! It would have been funny whomever had brought in the theory, it has more to do with word play, something writers enjoy...er...well, most writers, anyway).

And to back this up a bit further, you assaulted me earlier by responding snidely to my response to why this thread got SO very quiet for a while.

Well, first of all, some people are too busy to be online constantly, some people don't care to be online constantly, but the REAL reason the tumbleweeds began to blow through has to do with the stunned reaction of those better acquainted with scientific matters. My response was short because there is no way I could possibly say what I think about the ancient slide, the chimera, etc, ad nauseum, PUBLICLY.

i.e.: my short response to the tumbleweed remark was merely being polite.  But you had to, as usual, pick it up and run with it.
And every time you do that, I promise you, if I am online and see it, it won't get ignored.
So, if you don't like what I have to say, and do NOT wish to do battle, do what you said you'd do on another thread: IGNORE IT.
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Penny_Wilson on April 26, 2005, 07:00:57 PM
Quote


When I hear "a possible answer is that AA was a chimera" does it pertain to:

Different results from the blood sample and the tissue sample

Different DNA labs and experts disputing each others findings.

Whether or not the findings prove  AA is FS

Or something completely different.



For me, stating that Anastasia Manahan may have been a chimera (and note I say MAY since it seems only a possibility) is a way of reconciling the conflicting results of the American and German DNA analyses IF both pieces of physical evidence were uncontaminated.

I don't know myself what else it might mean at this time.

PS.  Thanks for giving me a chance to state all in one place what my actual thoughts on this are...
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Mgmstl on April 26, 2005, 07:07:16 PM
Quote

Are you referring to this?  Ok, sooo...smiley faces make everything alright? They diffuse insult?

I am telling you they do not.  

If you want to split hairs, we are equally guilty, though, the play on words "latter," and "former" was simply too perfect to ignore (and that has nothing whatsoever to do with Penny! It would have been funny whomever had brought in the theory, it has more to do with word play, something writers enjoy...er...well, most writers, anyway).

And to back this up a bit further, you assaulted me earlier by responding snidely to my response to why this thread got SO very quiet for a while.

Well, first of all, some people are too busy to be online constantly, some people don't care to be online constantly, but the REAL reason the tumbleweeds began to blow through has to do with the stunned reaction of those better acquainted with scientific matters. My response was short because there is no way I could possibly say what I think about the ancient slide, the chimera, etc, ad nauseum, PUBLICLY.

i.e.: my short response to the tumbleweed remark was merely being polite.  But you had to, as usual, pick it up and run with it.
And every time you do that, I promise you, if I am online and see it, it won't get ignored.
So, if you don't like what I have to say, and do NOT wish to do battle, do what you said you'd do on another thread: IGNORE IT.


How do you respond to this, except for, get over yourself, the rest of us already have.  Conceited, egotistical woman, we all have something valuable to add to this thread, and this discussion not just you.

You may be impressed with what you consider your academic prowress, however it doesn't impress me one iota,  but when you use it to brow beat others with your opinion than that is tyranny, and should not be done and I for one will not stand for it being done to me or the others here.

You want to battle, then do it by PM, otherwise take the personal degrading remarks about others out of your comments.

Oh & BTW I wasn't referring to you with that comment, but since you have a guilty conscience.... I was referring to it being quiet in general....
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Penny_Wilson on April 26, 2005, 07:08:55 PM
Quote

If you want to split hairs, we are equally guilty, though, the play on words "latter," and "former" was simply too perfect to ignore (and that has nothing whatsoever to do with Penny! It would have been funny whomever had brought in the theory, it has more to do with word play, something writers enjoy...er...well, most writers, anyway).



Sorry, Vera, but I don't buy it.  I was the only person to raise the issue of chimera, and so I must have been the "former" that you referred to.  You backpedal now lest you have gone too far.  My conviction in this is borne out by your last sentence referring to "writers"  -- who else here is a writer (though actually I am an author)?  You must again be slamming me, because I am a "writer" and because I am the one who thinks you meant bald-faced insult rather than word-play.

I don't understand the continual hostility, Vera, but please, in future, don't mistake vulgarity for wit.
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Mgmstl on April 26, 2005, 07:16:24 PM
Quote

Thank you for the welcome and also you, Bear.

Frankly, after reading most of the more recent threads in this particular section over the last few weeks...I have yet to figure out what exactly we are theorizing about?

When I hear "a possible answer is that AA was a chimera" does it pertain to:

Different results from the blood sample and the tissue sample

Different DNA labs and experts disputing each others findings.

Whether or not the findings prove  AA is FS

Or something completely different.

I cannot form an opinion because I am not sure what is being referenced.


I have been reading some genetic sites about DNA and the chimeria issue.  My background is not at all in science.  

I know you have been lurking but here is the basic argument, some of us feel that  subjective issues, the differences between FS & AA as notes in previous threads etc., need to be discussed.  Penny's original thought was if she wasn't FS then who was she.

That has led down several paths and then to this thread
where the issue of the chimeria, within the DNA has been brought up as a possiblity.  

I truly wish I had a better answer for you.  This case has deserved deep investigation for quite a long time, and hopefully Greg & Penny's latest book will help us come to some kind of conclusion.

Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Vera_Figner on April 26, 2005, 07:17:53 PM
Quote

How do you respond to this, except for, get over yourself, the rest of us already have.  Conceited, egotistical woman, we all have something valuable to add to this thread, and this discussion not just you.

You may be impressed with what you consider your academic prowress, however it doesn't impress me one iota,  but when you use it to brow beat others with your opinion than that is tyranny, and should not be done and for one will not stand for it being done to me or the others here.

You want to battle, then do it by PM, otherwise take the personal degrading remarks about others out of your comments.



You didn't read a word I wrote, did you? You owe it to yourself, seriously, do go back and pay close attention to my last post, Michael.

What about YOUR personal degrading remarks, hmmm? Those are EASY to locate and more than plentiful. And WHY is it you don't take those to PM, yet you demand others do?
Get used to disappointment, because if you continue to degrate ME publicly, I will continue to retaliate relentlessly in the same manner.

So, I am assuming you will take your own advice and I will see you on PM?
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Vera_Figner on April 26, 2005, 07:29:15 PM
Quote

Sorry, Vera, but I don't buy it.  I was the only person to raise the issue of chimera, and so I must have been the "former" that you referred to.  You backpedal now lest you have gone too far.  My conviction in this is borne out by your last sentence referring to "writers"  -- who else here is a writer (though actually I am an author)?  You must again be slamming me, because I am a "writer" and because I am the one who thinks you meant bald-faced insult rather than word-play.

I don't understand the continual hostility, Vera, but please, in future, don't mistake vulgarity for wit.


It is immaterial to me whether or not you "buy" anything, Penny. Now pay attention, carefully, I do not care.

As to writers, I suspect there are a number who post on this board.
You are also not the only author here.
But...you knew that, didn't you?

As to your last comment, something about continual hostility, vulgarity vs. wit: this is ENTIRELY your misinterpretation.

I deny, vehemently deny, that I was hostile.

Yuck, I can't believe I've allowed this sort of waste of time.

Off to things that actually matter!


Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Alice on April 26, 2005, 07:30:57 PM
Sigh . . . OK, another attempt to steer folks back to the subject . . .

Now, everyone knows my position on the AA issue. I do NOT believe that AA was AN, and I DO believe that AA was FS.

However, for the sake of the discussion:

IF AA was a "Chimera", that would mean that she would have to be a twin. (Please, correct me if I'm wrong).

So if AA was FS's twin (and we have said that FS could've had an identical twin, jokingly!), this could explain why AA had many scars, etc that FS didn't have. I think it's far-fetched, but it's a thought.

That's where we hit a dead end, because there's no proof whatsoever that FS had a twin sister.

Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Penny_Wilson on April 26, 2005, 07:41:04 PM
Quote
Sigh . . . OK, another attempt to steer folks back to the subject . . .

Now, everyone knows my position on the AA issue. I do NOT believe that AA was AN, and I DO believe that AA was FS.

However, for the sake of the discussion:

IF AA was a "Chimera", that would mean that she would have to be a twin. (Please, correct me if I'm wrong).

So if AA was FS's twin (and we have said that FS could've had an identical twin, jokingly!), this could explain why AA had many scars, etc that FS didn't have. I think it's far-fetched, but it's a thought.

That's where we hit a dead end, because there's no proof whatsoever that FS had a twin sister.



Identical twins have identical DNA -- so if AA was a multiple birth, her situation would have to have been fraternal.  BUT -- from what I understand, the pregnancy starts out with fraternal twins -- two fertilized eggs with different DNA -- and in the course of gestation, one egg is absorbed by the other, leaving one gestating entity with two sets of DNA.  So only one child is born, though the pregnancy started out with two fertilized eggs.

This afternoon, I read the account of a set of fraternal twins, one of whom is chimeric -- the conclusion was that there must have been a fraternal triplet who was absorbed into one of the two siblings who were eventually born.

There is no evidence whatsoever that Franziska Schanzkowska was a multiple birth -- though obviously, what happened in the womb, I can't possibly comment on.

Anastasia Manahan has -- for me -- an unestablished "real" identity.
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: rskkiya on April 26, 2005, 07:43:32 PM
Vera F  -a rapier wit vcan be blunted by the wrong kind of use ...You are being wasted here!

Micheael
Please don't send me pms full of fulsome explanations for your behaviour, if you then constantly refuse to pm the people you so disagree with rather than voice your comment here!

Penny a career in sf/ historical fiction is waiting for you...seriously! It's a possibility!

The chimera theory is the weakest yet proposed.
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Penny_Wilson on April 26, 2005, 07:53:36 PM
Quote

Penny a career in sf/ historical fiction is waiting for you...seriously! It's a possibility!


Keep your impertinent remarks to yourself, please.  I didn't ask you to come in here like the "board police" and dispense your opinions about what I ought to do.

Quote
The chimera theory is the weakest yet proposed.


Of course you think so.  What else could you think, having taken your lead from your favored posters?

When will you be proposing a theory? Or are you limiting your time here to demanding apologies and ordering people around?

I've told you before, rsskiya -- do not run your act on me.
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: rskkiya on April 26, 2005, 08:01:25 PM
PENNY
       Please this is not an attack or an insult! I do think that historical fiction would be a good opportunity for you... what does "run my act" mean?
      WHY must you take everything as an attack?
      So far I happen to agree with Helen A 's take on this. Should any evidence change this I will tell you.


The WHOLE WORLD is NOT out to get you Penny REALLY!

rskkiya
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Penny_Wilson on April 26, 2005, 08:05:59 PM
Quote
PENNY
        Please this is not an attack or an insult! I do think that historical fiction would be a good oportunity for you...
        WHY must you take everything as an attack?
       So far I happen to agree with Helen A 's take on this. Should any evidence change this I will tell you.


The WHOLE WORLD is NOT out to get you Penny REALLY!

rskkiya


Not the "whole world," rsskiya -- just a handful of women on this forum.

And how could you possibly, realistically think that suggesting to an author of historical biography that she should switch to fiction would be ANYTHING other than insulting?  You are too, too disingenuous...
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Vera_Figner on April 26, 2005, 08:43:08 PM
Quote

Not the "whole world," rsskiya -- just a handful of women on this forum.

And how could you possibly, realistically think that suggesting to an author of historical biography that she should switch to fiction would be ANYTHING other than insulting?  You are too, too disingenuous...


Please, please do not flatter yourself in this way, Penny. And remember, when you express your views on whatever subject, some are going to disagree, and that does not -- PLEASE pay attention -- that does NOT mean anyone is remotely out to get you, I mean, come on, do you really think you're so special and tempting a target that those who MERELY disagree with you would take time from our lives to "go after you"??  And, how do you precisely define "going after" someone? Do you mean disagreeing? Do you flatter yourself to the extent that it means something sinister?? As if anyone would invest that sort of time in you?
If this is the case, you are really a sad case. Maybe counseling would help?
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Denise on April 26, 2005, 08:54:10 PM
I am not being the board police here.  I am asking nicly that we talk about ANYTHING related to the mystery of Anastasia Manahan, even how often she washed her hair, rather than this constant bickering!!  

Ladies (and the occasional gent), I understand there seems to be animosity here, but I would like to be able to post and exchange ideas with like minded history buffs and scholars, not learn new ways to call names.  

Can we move the chimera topic to its own thread, at any rate, so I know which threads to avoid?

ON TOPIC:

Penny, did you ever find your notes from your discussion with Remy and Sandkuhler?  That sounded most interesting.  :)

Thanks!
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Forum Admin on April 26, 2005, 08:59:11 PM
E N O U G H!
GENUGH!
NYET!

I honestly do not have to repeat myself again ad nauseum about this behavior from all quarters?

Ladies and Gentlemen to your respective corners. A five minute break and civility please.

You each and every one know better and are better than this.

FA
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Mgmstl on April 26, 2005, 09:02:24 PM
My apologies FA.. Sorry
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Penny_Wilson on April 26, 2005, 09:29:04 PM
Quote

ON TOPIC:

Penny, did you ever find your notes from your discussion with Remy and Sandkuhler?  That sounded most interesting.  :)

Thanks!


Yes, I did -- but tell me, Denise, FA, anyone:  What's the point of posting any of it?  What is the point in me continuing to contribute to this board at all?  As soon as someone doesn't like or doesn't agree with something that I post, all hell will break loose again, names will be called, insults will be flung, and I will be left here again, feeling at fault for raising an issue for discussion.  I do not believe that my contribution is valued -- and I DO contribute from a slightly different vantage point then normal.

So let's just drop it all.  Let's let Helen Azar be Queen of the Science Castle, and let's all stroke Annie and tell her how wonderful she is, and let's let rsskiya tell us how we should be and who we should apologize to for what. And Vera Figner or Dashkova or whoever she is can steam-roller all over what's left --  because that seems to be the only thing that will keep these people happy.  And guess what, people?  That isn't history.
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Mgmstl on April 26, 2005, 09:54:31 PM
Quote

Yes, I did -- but tell me, Denise, FA, anyone:  What's the point of posting any of it?  What is the point in me continuing to contribute to this board at all?  As soon as someone doesn't like or doesn't agree with something that I post, all hell will break loose again, names will be called, insults will be flung, and I will be left here again, feeling at fault for raising an issue for discussion.  I do not believe that my contribution is valued -- and I DO contribute from a slightly different vantage point then normal.

So let's just drop it all.  Let's let Helen Azar be Queen of the Science Castle, and let's all stroke Annie and tell her how wonderful she is, and let's let rsskiya tell us how we should be and who we should apologize to for what. And Vera Figner or Dashkova or whoever she is can steam-roller all over what's left --  because that seems to be the only thing that will keep these people happy.  And guess what, people?  That isn't history.


You are correct Penny, it's not history.  Penny let's not drop it all, there has to be a way for us to discuss this on this forum without being steam rolled or ridiculed.  

I am with Denise I would like to hear about the discussion with Remy & Sandkuhler.

Your postings are valuable and insightful to those of us that are interested in this. While you have every right to be frustrated as the rest of us do.

Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Vera_Figner on April 26, 2005, 10:12:50 PM
Quote

Yes, I did -- but tell me, Denise, FA, anyone:  What's the point of posting any of it?  What is the point in me continuing to contribute to this board at all?  As soon as someone doesn't like or doesn't agree with something that I post, all hell will break loose again, names will be called, insults will be flung, and I will be left here again, feeling at fault for raising an issue for discussion.  I do not believe that my contribution is valued -- and I DO contribute from a slightly different vantage point then normal.

So let's just drop it all.  Let's let Helen Azar be Queen of the Science Castle, and let's all stroke Annie and tell her how wonderful she is, and let's let rsskiya tell us how we should be and who we should apologize to for what. And Vera Figner or Dashkova or whoever she is can steam-roller all over what's left --  because that seems to be the only thing that will keep these people happy.  And guess what, people?  That isn't history.


Hell breaks loose because you can never handle it when others disagree with you! Why can't you see that? If you are not constantly agreed with and coddled, trouble brews.  Please accept that some are going to vehemently disagree with you! It doesn't make you wrong, but you cannot possibly claim to be a historian and expect your views to go unquestioned! That is a major part of the profession, but you seem not to notice this, certainly not to accept it!

And this chimera theory is neither science (as applies to this case), and certainly it is not history.
It is myth! By every definition!

Vera, not Dashkova

(though we do share quite a few opinions, classrooms, sometimes desk space, and more than a few laughs at this website! She sends her best wishes for "getting over...whatever it is" and is so pleased you remembered her!)

Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Denise on April 26, 2005, 10:14:49 PM
I am of the opinion that if you drop it Penny, it gives them what they want.  I say post it--we will create a thread for it (as frankly I find it unpleasant to come to this one).  

And just ignore the comments if they come.  I know it is hard to do that, but if we don't respond to their jabs, then they have nothing to escalate.  

And Penny, at least in my opinion (and I'm sure that Michael and Bear agree) your research experience is invaluable to this forum.  Despite the fact that others may disagree with your arguments, your first hand knowledge of primary resources is something they obviously don't have.  

So please, let's talk about the topic at hand and not give anyone reason to find us at fault in these arguments.  
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Denise on April 26, 2005, 10:17:26 PM
Quote

Hell breaks loose because you can never handle it when others disagree with you! Why can't you see that? If you are not constantly agreed with and coddled, trouble brews.  Please accept that some are going to vehemently disagree with you! It doesn't make you wrong, but you cannot possibly claim to be a historian and expect your views to go unquestioned! That is a major part of the profession, but you seem not to notice this, certainly not to accept it!

And this chimera theory is neither science (as applies to this case), and certainly it is not history.
It is myth! By every definition!

Vera, not Dashkova

(though we do share quite a few opinions, classrooms, sometimes desk space, and more than a few laughs at this website! She sends her best wishes for "getting over...whatever it is" and is so pleased you remembered her!)



Please Vera, let's keep the board on topic. THe FA has asked us to keep things civil.  These types of discussions will only raise more ire.  Can we ALL try to take this type of thing to PM?

(Including me, after this one.) OOPS!
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Vera_Figner on April 26, 2005, 10:30:43 PM
Quote

Please Vera, let's keep the board on topic. THe FA has asked us to keep things civil.  These types of discussions will only raise more ire.  Can we ALL try to take this type of thing to PM?

(Including me, after this one.) OOPS!


Denise,
Much earlier today, I made a very brief post on this thread. Utterly noncombative. Non-jabbing.
And guess what?
I was jabbed! (it's on this thread for all to see)

I'm not one to turn the other cheek.

So, I fire back. The jabb-er is shocked! And outraged! How dare I jab!?  I am told to "take it to PM"
i.e.: "Don't you know it is only I who may insult YOU publicly?"

Can you see what is wrong with this?

I deserve to defend myself as much as anyone else here.

Best advice, which you have alluded to already: If someone disagrees, either AGREE to disagree, or IGNORE.  I have suggested this approach on numerous occasion.  To no avail.


Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: LisaDavidson on April 26, 2005, 10:32:15 PM
I offer the following as a suggestion - because I've seen this pattern repeat over and over on the Forum. Someone reads something they don't like/agree with/think is worthwhile - and responds. And then a "war" starts with people posting back and forth - and the discussion is lost. Nearly everyone feels badly in such situations - we moderators, posters, and lurkers. There are never any winners.

My suggestion is, if you read something and it upsets you for some reason - or you think someone is insulting or degrading you - IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO RESPOND.  Sometimes silence is a very powerful statement. I realize that this is asking a great deal, but I have found this is the very best policy for the Forum.

Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: lexi4 on April 26, 2005, 11:10:15 PM
Quote
I offer the following as a suggestion - because I've seen this pattern repeat over and over on the Forum. Someone reads something they don't like/agree with/think is worthwhile - and responds. And then a "war" starts with people posting back and forth - and the discussion is lost. Nearly everyone feels badly in such situations - we moderators, posters, and lurkers. There are never any winners.

My suggestion is, if you read something and it upsets you for some reason - or you think someone is insulting or degrading you - IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO RESPOND.  Sometimes silence is a very powerful statement. I realize that this is asking a great deal, but I have found this is the very best policy for the Forum.


Thank you Lisa. I come here to learn.
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Mgmstl on April 26, 2005, 11:12:32 PM
Quote
Thank you Lisa. I come here to learn.



Thanks, Lexi.  I agree, we all do come here to learn, and to share if we can.  It gets bad when things get out of hand.

Thanks to Lisa also, good suggestion.
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Denise on April 27, 2005, 06:34:43 AM
Quote
Thank you Lisa. I come here to learn.


I totally agree.  
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Annie on April 27, 2005, 06:47:21 AM
Quote

Hell breaks loose because you can never handle it when others disagree with you! Why can't you see that? If you are not constantly agreed with and coddled, trouble brews.  Please accept that some are going to vehemently disagree with you! It doesn't make you wrong, but you cannot possibly claim to be a historian and expect your views to go unquestioned! That is a major part of the profession, but you seem not to notice this, certainly not to accept it!




This is EXACTLY the root of the problem. (it is with Michael too) Whenever someone disagrees or challenges them, they become vicious, post personal insults, to which the person insulted responds, then the ones who started it claim THEY are attacked and play the victim. While they love to blame me, this last fight (and a couple others) have brewed and ensued without me even being here! So it's clear what/who the catalysts of this are, regardless of who else is involved.
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Vera_Figner on April 27, 2005, 07:47:49 AM
Quote

This is EXACTLY the root of the problem. (it is with Michael too) Whenever someone disagrees or challenges them, they become vicious, post personal insults, to which the person insulted responds, then the ones who started it claim THEY are attacked and play the victim. While they love to blame me, this last fight (and a couple others) have brewed and ensued without me even being here! So it's clear what/who the catalysts of this are, regardless of who else is involved.


I am so very delighted to have been a participant in making this EXTREMELY accurate point.  Unfortunately, their character will require this point to be made again, and again.  Unless by some miracle they have learned that the world does not revolve around their opinions and that some people WILL ALWAYS bite back when assaulted.
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Helen_Azar on April 27, 2005, 07:54:42 AM
Although I wasn't going to post on this ridiculous thread again, I am going to add this post:

Penny Wilson has made some very serious public slanderous (or libelous if you prefer) accusations  against me and my professional integrity yesterday. This woman falsely accused me of lying about "mtDNA in human chimeras" and implied that I am out to sabotage her "research", etc.

Quote
My point is that you told us yesterday that chimerism was not possible in human mtDNA....Which leads me to my final point -- that it just might be that much more interesting to some of us because you attempted to hide it from us, and you fed us misinformation yesterday about chimerism in mtDNA.
 
 
I would like an equally public apology and retraction from Penny Wilson for those statements.

These accusations of course are laughable to most reasonable people, but since I use my real name on these boards, this is not a joke, especially since it was obviously meant to undermine my professional reputation.

This is not the first time that Penny Wilson has insulted me, but this is the first time that it was done so blatantly and publicly. I hope that this never occurs again, and I will insist that FA please enforce this, since this is taking place on a  privately owned public board.


P.S. I am also going to ask AGRBear to please refrain from making her half-witted "conspiracy" accusations against me. Even though very few people take AGRBear seriously, I still do not wish to see those kinds of remarks about me here.
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: PucknDC on April 27, 2005, 08:04:05 AM
Lordy Lordy.....You know, I come here to learn and exchange ideas with people that have the same likes as myself. It's not like I can walk around the office and say: " So what do you think about Anastasia....or how about them Tiara's on the Queen"? You are all acting like children in a sandbox....BASTA!!!!!
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Vera_Figner on April 27, 2005, 08:18:07 AM
Quote
Lordy Lordy.....You know, I come here to learn and exchange ideas with people that have the same likes as myself. It's not like I can walk around the office and say: " So what do you think about Anastasia....or how about them Tiara's on the Queen"? You are all acting like children in a sandbox....BASTA!!!!!


Yes, and the bullies of this sandbox are getting some much-deserved comeuppance.
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: PucknDC on April 27, 2005, 08:37:20 AM
LOL Vera...I always like to think that I let all of my spirited discussions be they this site or religion or politics by this maxim: ( I'm paraphrasing) ...." I don't agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it!"  ;)
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Annie on April 27, 2005, 09:39:06 AM
Quote

I am so very delighted to have been a participant in making this EXTREMELY accurate point.  Unfortunately, their character will require this point to be made again, and again.  Unless by some miracle they have learned that the world does not revolve around their opinions and that some people WILL ALWAYS bite back when assaulted.


*applause!* Thank you for helping point this out!

The problem will not go away until they heed your advice.
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Annie on April 27, 2005, 09:46:09 AM
Quote
Penny Wilson has made some very serious public slanderous (or libelous if you prefer) accusations  against me and my professional integrity yesterday. This woman falsely accused me of lying about "mtDNA in human chimeras" and implied that I am out to sabotage her "research", etc.


She has indeed done this, and other things like this, not just now, and not just to you. She has made some very bad statements to a lot of members here, and I am stumped as to why she is allowed to continue. I have seen 13 year olds on other boards banned for much less than she has done here. I know you have seen the same things I have, I'm just pointing this out to anyone who needs to know.

 
Quote
This is not the first time that Penny Wilson has insulted me, but this is the first time that it was done so blatantly and publicly. I hope that this never occurs again, and I will insist that FA please enforce this, since this is taking place on a  privately owned public board.

 


Helen I realize this is your business and I don't mean to interfere, but this action is something that needs to be done for you, for all of us, and for the good of the board. Thank you for taking a stand.
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Forum Admin on April 27, 2005, 09:55:20 AM
Quote

I was jabbed! (it's on this thread for all to see)

I'm not one to turn the other cheek.

So, I fire back. The jabb-er is shocked! And outraged! How dare I jab!?  I am told to "take it to PM"
i.e.: "Don't you know it is only I who may insult YOU publicly?"

Can you see what is wrong with this?

I deserve to defend myself as much as anyone else here.

Best advice, which you have alluded to already: If someone disagrees, either AGREE to disagree, or IGNORE.  I have suggested this approach on numerous occasion.  To no avail.




THIS is the root of the problem on BOTH sides. I have been put into an unfair and untenable position by ALL of you. I am supposed to take sides now. Well guess what. I won't.
Why? Because none of you will just STOP. You all take things too personally, get too worked up and jab/poke/ridicule etc etc etc ad nauseum back to fuel the flames.

I asked for it to stop last night. Woke up this morning, to long private messgaes/emails etc about this very thread. and I come back to 2 more pages of this crap YET AGAIN.

Helen A, Penny you BOTH make valuable contributions to the thread as do many many others. I won't choose anybody over anybody else. ever.

Lincoln said it best: It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak up and remove all doubts.

LET ME BE CRYSTAL CLEAR: THE PERSONAL CRAP STOPS HERE AND NOW ONCE AND FOR ALL.

WHY must I be forced over and over again to say this to grown up, educated adults?  EVERY SINGLE ONE OF YOU should be ashamed that the genuine children on this forum are acting with far more civility than I see here.

If you don't like the other opinion, fine, disagree, BUT STOP MAKING YOUR DISAGREEMENT PERSONAL.
PERIOD.

an EXTREMELY angry
FA
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Penny_Wilson on April 27, 2005, 10:07:44 AM
Rob, as I told you, I'm going to make this easy for everyone.  I don't want to spoil this place for people who want to post without acrimony.  You can color me gone. I'm out of here; I'm a dot.

I know I have left before, but always have thought to give it one more chance after things settled down.  But there are additional reasons that I am going this time, which include some "bcc" terrorism from a certain quarter.  So I don't think I'll be back.

To AGRBear, Denise, Michael, Michelle --and anyone else I've considered a friend here -- please accept my thanks for a pleasant experience with you.  Good luck with your own work!

To everyone else -- I'm sure I have made you very happy this morning, so my work here is done.  ::)

Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Helen_Azar on April 27, 2005, 10:26:21 AM
What exactly is "bcc terrorism"?  ???
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Vera_Figner on April 27, 2005, 10:42:53 AM
Quote
What exactly is "bcc terrorism"?  ???


Got to be the radical arm of a vast conspiratorial plot...
(Get out your cloak and dagger, the Illuminati is probably watching, too!  :o)
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: lexi4 on April 27, 2005, 10:53:17 AM
Quote
Lordy Lordy.....You know, I come here to learn and exchange ideas with people that have the same likes as myself. It's not like I can walk around the office and say: " So what do you think about Anastasia....or how about them Tiara's on the Queen"?are

Ditto PucknDC. I don't even know what this thread is about anymore.
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: AGRBear on April 27, 2005, 10:57:00 AM
Quote

..[in prt]...

Give it up, Penny, you are are not going to get anywhere with this.  I and the other scientists who are involved in this conspiracy against poor AA will make sure of it!!! (evil laugh)...


Helen has gain sucess but at the expense of others.


Knowledge comes from all kinds of people  and is often times modest and wary; it is the ignoranant who are bold, loud, obnoxius and rather know half of a truth then all the truth.


AGRBear
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Annie on April 27, 2005, 11:08:06 AM
Quote

Helen has gain sucess but at the expense of others.


What success? She didn't even get her deserved retraction and apology.


Quote
it is the ignoranant who are bold, loud, obnoxius and rather know half of a truth then all the truth.


AGRBear


This certainly does NOT describe Helen!
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Helen_Azar on April 27, 2005, 11:15:18 AM
Quote

Helen has gain sucess but at the expense of others.



Bear, once again I am going to ask you to stop slandering me. I MEAN IT. FA has asked for all the personal comments to stop but you are obviously ignoring his request. So please, once again, in case if you did not understand it the first time stop the personal attacks on me.
Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Vera_Figner on April 27, 2005, 11:15:42 AM
Quote

Helen has gain sucess but at the expense of others.


Knowledge comes from all kinds of people  and is often times modest and wary; it is the ignoranant who are bold, loud, obnoxius and rather know half of a truth then all the truth.


AGRBear


Bear, you mustn't say unkind things about Michael and Penny.
BTW, you misspelled "ignorant"  :-/

"Boldness has genius, power, and magic in it."
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe


Title: Re: the 'mundane' idea - a paradox and a problem
Post by: Forum Admin on April 27, 2005, 11:16:29 AM
*SUBSTANTIAL EXPLETIVES DELETED*

You people JUST CAN'T STOP THE PERSONAL CRAP.  Im done with it.
THREAD LOCKED.

GO**AMN IT...
FA