Alexander Palace Forum

Discussions about the Imperial Family and European Royalty => The Myth and Legends of Survivors => Topic started by: AGRBear on May 06, 2005, 12:20:48 PM

Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: AGRBear on May 06, 2005, 12:20:48 PM
AA's nose:

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v471/AGRBear/AANose1.jpg)

Are there any photographs of FS family or even the Romanovs which have a side view showing a nose which might match that of AA???

And let me note, this is not a thread to prove AA was FS or GD Anastasia.

This is just about noses.

AGRBear

Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: AGRBear on May 06, 2005, 12:30:28 PM
Quote
... [ in part]...
Here are the photos  of some of the members of the Schankowski family from Penny. I thought this would the appropriate thread to post them, but anyone feel free to copy them to other threads as needed.

This is Gertrude Schanzkowsky Ellerik in late middle age:
(http://img201.exs.cx/img201/8595/gertrude3iz.jpg) This is Maria Juliana: (http://img201.exs.cx/img201/5407/juliana5te.jpg)

...
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: AGRBear on May 06, 2005, 12:32:37 PM
Quote
Thanks, Bear for transporting the Fiat photo to the right thread. I am going to now take it out of here, since it doesn't really belong....

Here is one more picture that I was missing, of Felix Schankowski (taken some time in the 1950's):

(http://img39.exs.cx/img39/4383/felix1ls.jpg)
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: AGRBear on May 06, 2005, 12:34:54 PM
Ella's nose:
Quote

...[in part]...

1905
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v393/lyzotchka/190525fev.jpg)
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: AGRBear on May 06, 2005, 12:44:12 PM
Alexandra's nose:
Quote
new colorized photos:

...[in part]....


(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v393/lyzotchka/01alix.jpg)

Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: Helen_Azar on May 06, 2005, 12:45:16 PM
This is getting a bit silly.

Is someone going to now start a new thread for AA's chin or her eyelid, or maybe her knee?  ::)
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: AGRBear on May 06, 2005, 12:51:59 PM
What side view did AA's attorney's or others, like Lovel,  use to show AA was GD Anastasia?

This one?  Hmmm, don't think so.
Quote
(http://img93.exs.cx/img93/2977/anastasiaclose-up.png)


AGRBear
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: Mgmstl on May 06, 2005, 04:42:20 PM
Quote
This is getting a bit silly.

Is someone going to now start a new thread for AA's chin or her eyelid, or maybe her knee?  ::)



Why is this wrong Helen?  These comparisons are valid in the use of the Schanzkowska family, but as to Ella & AF, I don't think, there is anyone who believes that AA is AN.  So the use of those pictrues aren't valid, but the ones of the Schanzkowska family IMHO are, and invite an honest comparison.
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: AGRBear on May 06, 2005, 06:03:39 PM
Quote
...[in part]...
Nicholas II's nose:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v239/Isabelle21/tsar3.jpg)


AGRBear

PS  Photo of Nicholas II vanished so with help I placed another photo in Post #48....
Quote
Nicholas II's nose.

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v471/AGRBear/NicholasIINose.jpg)

'Tis a nose on nice man whom fate demanded  to be last Emperor of all the Russias.
 
AGRBear
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: AGRBear on May 06, 2005, 08:11:39 PM
Tatiana's nose, I think, resembles the nose of her father.  And, I think her sisters and Alexei had similar noses.

Quote
Here are my newest pics. I'm very proud of the Tatiana one.
(http://img222.exs.cx/img222/773/tatiana19065qy.jpg)
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: AGRBear on May 06, 2005, 08:14:43 PM
The reason I have shown the noses of Nicholas II, Empress and her sister, and Tatiana is because I don't see any comparison to AA or FS.

Anyone see any noses in FS's family that looks like AA's???
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: Michelle on May 06, 2005, 11:05:21 PM
Good grief!  The Shanzkowskys certainly weren't an attractive family. :P  Rather creepy looking---especially Maria Juliana. :o  AA looks nothing like them.
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: Lanie on May 07, 2005, 01:11:33 AM
Well, since she was AA, who cares. :P

Too bad the photos of AA/FS's relatives are photocopy quality--it'd be interesting to see the real photographs.
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: etonexile on May 07, 2005, 06:15:34 AM
Waves his ickle DNA test flag.... ::)
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: AGRBear on May 07, 2005, 10:48:05 AM
It seem like the DNA group would relish this kind of thread which would help show there is more than just DNA to  AA =FS.

AGRBear
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: Annie on May 07, 2005, 11:29:49 AM
Quote
It seem like the DNA group would relish this kind of thread which would help show there is more than just DNA to  AA =FS.

AGRBear


I'm sure you label me as "DNA group" but don't forget I started the 'Reasons OTHER than DNA' thread, and have listed my reasons many times.

BTW, none of my siblings have similar noses to me, that really doesn't mean we're not related.
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: Lanie on May 07, 2005, 01:39:44 PM
Quote
BTW, none of my siblings have similar noses to me, that really doesn't mean we're not related.


Look at OTMA!  They, IMO, did not look like siblings at all.  Since I have no siblings I can't comment, though I know if you put me side by side with my mother you'd go, "What?  That's your mom?"  Haha.
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: Michelle on May 07, 2005, 10:30:48 PM
Quote

Look at OTMA!  They, IMO, did not look like siblings at all.  Since I have no siblings I can't comment, though I know if you put me side by side with my mother you'd go, "What?  That's your mom?"  Haha.


Well, OTMA certainly looked more alike than AA did to the Shanzkowskys.  If AA was FS then she was lucky she didn't get any of Maria Juliana's genes. :P   (Since I'm not totally convinced that AA was FS yet that's why I put "if")
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: etonexile on May 07, 2005, 10:35:08 PM
Pushes DNA flags into coat...

Erm...FS,AA,AM never looked like more than a commoner to me from the get-go....But I don't judge her...she was just a sad,unloved,frightened creature who tried to commit suicide....I hope her belief that she was one of the GD's brought her some happiness....
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: Michelle on May 07, 2005, 10:45:18 PM
Quote
Pushes DNA flags into coat...

Erm...FS,AA,AM never looked like more than a commoner to me from the get-go....But I don't judge her...she was just a sad,unloved,frightened creature who tried to commit suicide....I hope her belief that she was one of the GD's brought her some happiness....


Sorry, etonexile, but I'm not quite sure which part of my post you're trying to argue... ???
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: etonexile on May 07, 2005, 10:58:43 PM
As the DNA evidence shows that AA,AM,FS were essentially the same person...It would seem that matching body parts(to AN or which ever GD she was claiming to be ) show how invalid such "Proof" can be....
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: Annie on May 08, 2005, 10:07:20 PM
Quote
Pushes DNA flags into coat...

Erm...FS,AA,AM never looked like more than a commoner to me from the get-go....But I don't judge her...she was just a sad,unloved,frightened creature who tried to commit suicide....I hope her belief that she was one of the GD's brought her some happiness....


I think it did. Oh the irony, while trying to destroy herself with suicide, she made a whole new life for herself. So, in a way, FS did 'die' that night she jumped into the canal. She still survived, same body, different life.
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: lexi4 on May 08, 2005, 10:10:47 PM
I never thought about it that way Annie, but you are right. She jumped into the river and came out a different person.
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: Denise on May 09, 2005, 08:58:11 AM
That is a very good analogy, Annie.  :D

I like it almost as much as your Sommersby theory.  

(perhaps it is the literature major coming out in me!)
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: Annie on May 09, 2005, 09:18:59 AM
Thanks Lexi and Denise :)
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: AGRBear on May 09, 2005, 11:13:23 AM
What has jumping into the canal have to do with noses?

Did the cold water in Berlin change the shape of noses?  ;)

AGRBear
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: AGRBear on May 14, 2005, 12:40:50 PM
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v471/AGRBear/FSAAComp6.jpg)  (http://img39.exs.cx/img39/4383/felix1ls.jpg)

I think FS's nose is similar to that of Felix's nose.

Of course, it's hard to tell because it's such a bad copy of his photograph.  And, we don't have a good copy of FS....

AGRBear
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: AGRBear on May 25, 2005, 11:46:57 AM
Quote

...[in part]...
BTW, none of my siblings have similar noses to me, that really doesn't mean we're not related.


I assume noses are inherited from the ancestoral gene pool so someone in your family has your nose, or rather, you have his/her nose.

AGRBear
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: RealAnastasia on June 11, 2005, 09:35:32 PM
Quote


Well; that's true. But if AA was FS...Why she didn't have the same nose, eyes and mouth than her? Watching the photos that Bear posted it seems clear to me that AA and FS have a certain ressemblance but very different features.  ::)

RealAnastasia.
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: etonexile on June 12, 2005, 03:38:12 PM
Quote
What has jumping into the canal have to do with noses?

Did the cold water in Berlin change the shape of noses?  ;)

AGRBear


The noses didn't change....but the soul of a mad woman did....and the nose itself....as someone said....doesn't always match in families....my brother and sister don't have the same nose as me....and I'm more than willing to believe that we are actually related....White, European folk are likely to have similar features...especially in bad photos.....and I know that Bear accepts the DNA evidence....
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: AGRBear on June 12, 2005, 04:34:19 PM
I agree, at this time, that there are differences between AA and FS with the data we've been given.

As to the DNA,  I have no reason to deny the fact that the tests with the intestines and  Karl Maucher show a match.

We are told the intestine and hair were AA's.

We are told Karl Maucher was the grandson of Gertrude S. and that their mtDNA testing matched the intestine and hair which we are told are AA's.

I am not convinced that Gertrude S. was the full sister of FS.  If they had different mothers than we can not link AA's DNA to FS.

I do not know if FS and AA are the same person.

Therefore, the questions I've asked are to discover if FS and AA are or are not the same person.

AGRBear

Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: Lanie on June 12, 2005, 04:38:56 PM
Quote
I am not convinced that Gertrude S. was the full sister of FS.  If they had different mothers than we can not link AA's DNA to FS.


*sigh* Not to bring this up again, Bear, but don't you understand that if they were half-sisters, the DNA would not have turned up a match?  :-/
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: AGRBear on June 27, 2005, 12:26:26 PM
If FS and Gertrude were not sisters, they might have been first cousins [through the mother's lineage because we're talking about mtDNA] or second cousins or third cousins..... If there wasn't a mutation, the cousinship could be up to tenth .....  Even as far back as twenty five.

That covers a lot of people which of course would be filtered down to a woman born about the same time as AA.

There is no need to deny the DNA tests.  All we really know at this time is  AA was related to Gertrude S.  who's sister/half sister was FS.  And, they apparently didn't all have the same noses  ;D.

AGRBear
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: Candice on June 27, 2005, 03:35:22 PM
AA and FS look like the same person to me.

Taking photos from one angle and then a different angle of a same individual, the noses can give the impression of difference.  AA and FS have the same shape nose just different angle. Same with the eyes.  Visually the hairline, the angle and distance of the ears, the distance between the eyes are  the same. Even her neck and shoulders are the same shape and length.
 
If AA and FS were different people the facial characteristics, shape angle and width etc. would be totally different.  Even if there were some resemblances between the two.

However, in the case of the above two photos of AA and FS they are one and same person.

Candice
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: AGRBear on June 29, 2005, 08:19:04 PM
Could someone, please, tell me where the photographs of Anna Anderson which were taken at Dalldorf  [front view and side view] can be found?

Thanks

AGRBear
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: Val289 on June 29, 2005, 08:51:45 PM
Hi Bear - I believe that both photos can be found in Peter Kurth's Tsar   :)

Kind Regards,
Val :)

modified to say :  Oops - maybe we're not talking about the same ones.  The ones I am thinking of were actually taken by the Berlin police.  If those will help you they are on page 210 in Tsar in my edition :)
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: AGRBear on June 29, 2005, 09:03:09 PM
That's them.  Thanks.  
AGRBear
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: Val289 on June 29, 2005, 09:06:08 PM
You're very welcome :)   Glad those were the ones you were looking for!
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: AGRBear on June 30, 2005, 10:50:26 AM
I assume the Berlin police didn't take her away from the asylum but probably took her outside where they photographed her, but, I may be wrong.  Anyone know for sure?

I scan the photo and placed it back into my first post, page 1, first post.

Again, thanks.

Now, I see Nicholas II's photo, which showed his profile,  is missing.  Guess I need to find one.  Any suggestions?

AGRBear
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: Val289 on June 30, 2005, 06:03:49 PM
Quote
I assume the Berlin police didn't take her away from the asylum but probably took her outside where they photographed her, but, I may be wrong.  Anyone know for sure?
..........


AGRBear


Bear-

In the first few pages of Kurth's Riddle of Anna Anderson he states that the Berlin police came back to Dalldorf in the beginning of June (of 1920) to take those pictures.    The doctors at Dalldorf had actually summoned the police there and asked them to make a serious effort to find out who AA was, because the doctors felt they weren't equipped to.  Hope this helps :)

Kind Regards,
Val :)
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: etonexile on June 30, 2005, 08:59:37 PM
Quote
AA and FS look like the same person to me.
 
Taking photos from one angle and then a different angle of a same individual, the noses can give the impression of difference.  AA and FS have the same shape nose just different angle. Same with the eyes.  Visually the hairline, the angle and distance of the ears, the distance between the eyes are  the same. Even her neck and shoulders are the same shape and length.
  
If AA and FS were different people the facial characteristics, shape angle and width etc. would be totally different.  Even if there were some resemblances between the two.

However, in the case of the above two photos of AA and FS they are one and same person.

Candice


And DNA tells us they were the same person....hey,presto....!!!
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: Finelly on June 30, 2005, 09:08:34 PM
Eton, honey, PLEASE stop jumping to such rash conclusions!  
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: etonexile on July 01, 2005, 08:56:35 AM
T-heezer...OK...AA and FS are 99% certain to be the same person...Or were there several members of FA's family gone missing in WWI....?
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: AGRBear on July 01, 2005, 09:57:43 AM
Quote

Bear-

In the first few pages of Kurth's Riddle of Anna Anderson he states that the Berlin police came back to Dalldorf in the beginning of June (of 1920) to take those pictures.    The doctors at Dalldorf had actually summoned the police there and asked them to make a serious effort to find out who AA was, because the doctors felt they weren't equipped to.  Hope this helps :)

Kind Regards,
Val :)


After taking these photographs they sent them all around Germany, including Posen area, and asked if anyone reconzed Miss Unknown [AA] but no one did,  then they sent to these same photographs to asylums.... Not even the one AA had been in a number of times -- one for a good lenght of time-- reconized the photographs of Miss Unkown [AA].

At this time, DNA can not tell us that AA was FS.  

The DNA can tell us that AA was related to Gertrude S..

At this time, we do not know if Gertrude S. was a full sister, half sister or even related to FS.....

And, yes, it's difficult to match noses of AA to the old small photo of FS which may or may not have been altered.  We're not sure the one we've been duplicating is from the original.

AGRBear
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: Finelly on July 01, 2005, 10:35:17 AM
Maybe Gertrude is Olga!!!! That would explain the similarities.....
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: AGRBear on July 01, 2005, 10:58:09 AM
You've forgotten, the DNA doesn't match the Romanovs  :-/

wrote AGRBear with big  ;D
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: Finelly on July 01, 2005, 11:13:25 AM
Whoah.....here's a thought...maybe it's the ROMANOVS who were the fakes!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: etonexile on July 01, 2005, 07:58:52 PM
FAKE ROMANOVS?....that Lenin...endlessly cunning..... ::)
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: AGRBear on July 01, 2005, 08:24:08 PM
Nicholas II's nose.

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v471/AGRBear/NicholasIINose.jpg)

'Tis a nose on nice man whom fate demanded  to be last Emperor of all the Russias.



AGRBear
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: etonexile on July 01, 2005, 08:29:24 PM
yes...definately a nose there...
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: Finelly on July 01, 2005, 09:03:19 PM
Ah, but is it a REAL nose?  

And if a REAL nose, is it on a REAL Romanov?
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: Inquiring_Mind on July 01, 2005, 09:25:42 PM
Bear, in the pictures the police took of AA, she looks  
healthy and has some weight to her....

I have looked at many pictures of her and she can look so different ..one from the other. I guess it had a lot to do with her health. But sometimes I question if it is the same person.

Bone structure has to do with heredity but it also has a lot to do with how your mom's health was while she was carrying you and her diet.

When I look at Felix and the younger sister of the FS family I see some common "birth defects" if you can call them that caused by vitamin deficiency. The weak chin for example. I think that is a B vitamin problem.

We have better looking kids today I believe in part because of pre natal care and those horse vitamins they give us.

I have no clue why I am siting this! I guess if AA was FS then mom ate better during that pregnency. She has a fuller formed chin.

Now back to noses...




Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: Finelly on July 01, 2005, 10:52:44 PM
A weak chin is caused by a vitamin deficiency?
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: Inquiring_Mind on July 02, 2005, 11:09:13 AM
Yes, same for being "bow legged".  That's a vitamin D deficiency during gestation.

When I was pregnant, I kept choking on the horse pill that was a super vitamin you get by prescription. I eat healthy and was thinking about not taking them.

Then a friend pointed out all the things that don't happen to unborn babies because of mom's swallowing huge vitamins ;D

In this link it talks alittle about a weak chin being caused by a B deficiency.

http://www.mold-survivor.com/face.htm
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: Kimberly on July 02, 2005, 12:49:00 PM
What a peculiar web site. Never heard of B deficiency causing weak chins before. I am very puzzled ??? ::) ::)
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: Inquiring_Mind on July 02, 2005, 01:31:29 PM
Sorry to puzzle you all. I was looking at the pictures of FS's family and noticed some features I thought were worth mentioning.

Please don't paint the whole site as peculiar because you might find me to be so. ;D

Actually according to the link I posted

" a weak chin may be caused by poor quality foods during pregnancy especially calcium deficiency resulting in insufficient jaw bone formation"



Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: Inquiring_Mind on July 02, 2005, 02:39:00 PM
Kimberly,

I believe you have a medical background so I will take your word on it.
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: Finelly on July 03, 2005, 08:58:10 AM
Ah, I see.  SOMETIMES it is caused by a vitamin deficiency.

But of course, sometimes it is a genetic characteristic which runs in families.

You bring back memories of my attempts to take those darned prenatal vitamins!  I was literally unable to deal with them, so I didn't.  Four healthy, intelligent, strong-chinned children later, we're all ok!  But I still wonder why they can't make those pills SMALLER.......lol
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: ChristineM on July 03, 2005, 10:33:21 AM
Watching the wonderful Roger Federer win the Wimbledon Singles Title with the Duke of Kent presenting him with the trophy makes me wonder if the late Princess Marina, Dowager Duchess of Kent, omitted to take Vitimin B during her pregnancy?

tsaria
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: Kimberly on July 03, 2005, 03:03:30 PM
Bless you Inquiring mind.Yep i am a registered nurse and registered paediatric nurse with25 years experience of neonates. Oh, and smelly feet cos i have just finished a 14 hour shift. :o :o
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: RealAnastasia on July 03, 2005, 05:31:53 PM
And we are speaking about "scientific evidence" to destroy "dreamers theories"?  ;D So, she died to became another person?

RealAnastasia.
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: Inquiring_Mind on July 03, 2005, 05:52:22 PM
Quote
And we are speaking about "scientific evidence" to destroy "dreamers theories"?  ;D So, she died to became another person?

RealAnastasia.


Not at all on my part! I happen to love the dreamers of this world ;D  My favorite song I sang to my children was a promise that when I grow to old to dream I would have them to remember.

I was being dreamy and pointed out that Ms Unknown looked a lot healthier than the FS family.  Not only did she have a nicer nose but a firmer chin..HE HE.

Have a good 4th of July.

Susie
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: RealAnastasia on July 03, 2005, 07:05:27 PM
I was just kidding, like the others...  ;D

RealAnastasia.
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: Inquiring_Mind on July 03, 2005, 09:04:12 PM
Quote
Bless you Inquiring mind.Yep i am a registered nurse and registered paediatric nurse with25 years experience of neonates. Oh, and smelly feet cos i have just finished a 14 hour shift. :o :o


After a 14 hour shift caring for the most at risk there should be a spa certificate when you punch out.

I vote for a massage.
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: Kimberly on July 04, 2005, 03:58:35 PM
A large gin and tonic usually workssssssss  ;D
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: RealAnastasia on July 04, 2005, 05:35:09 PM
May we have a weak chin without having vitaminic deficiences? I don't know anything about this!

RealAnastasia.
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: Kimberly on July 05, 2005, 02:33:21 AM
Realanastasia, "weak chins" can be familial..." oh look he's got his daddy's chin". Sometimes  weak chins can be part of a syndrome but these are usually dramatic and affect the baby's breathing and feeding such as Pierre-Robin syndrome and sometimes people have small chins  ;) sorry if this is wandering off topic. hugs Kim.
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: Finelly on July 05, 2005, 08:55:27 AM
Most often a family characteristic.

And I don't believe for a minute that you are the REAL Anastasia!
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: Margarita Markovna on July 05, 2005, 11:08:13 AM
fin, why not? if you're the daughter of nicholas II...
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: Finelly on July 05, 2005, 11:09:39 AM
The REAL Anastasia wouldn't have to advertise it so blatantly.
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: Margarita Markovna on July 05, 2005, 01:06:07 PM
She very possibly could. OR she could really be Maria and hiding under the guise of her sister!
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: RealAnastasia on July 05, 2005, 07:12:34 PM
Quote
Most often a family characteristic.

And I don't believe for a minute that you are the REAL Anastasia!



Of course I'm not the Real Anastasia! LOL! I'm only 33 years old...and a weak chin. I choose this screen name, only for I'm interested in the pretenders stories. Anastasia is NOT my favorite Grand Duchess, but Olga.

RealAnastasia.
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: Inquiring_Mind on July 05, 2005, 08:45:57 PM
Quote


Of course I'm not the Real Anastasia! LOL! I'm only 33 years old...and a weak chin. I choose this screen name, only for I'm interested in the pretenders stories. Anastasia is NOT my favorite Grand Duchess, but Olga.

RealAnastasia.


I don't for an minute believe you have a weak chin! How would you be able to "take it on the chin" since you started to post here?

If you need any help in translation....IM me ;D

Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: Finelly on July 05, 2005, 08:58:06 PM
{{{{gives it to RA on the chin}}}}}
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: etonexile on July 06, 2005, 11:44:11 AM
Quote


Of course I'm not the Real Anastasia! LOL! I'm only 33 years old...and a weak chin. I choose this screen name, only for I'm interested in the pretenders stories. Anastasia is NOT my favorite Grand Duchess, but Olga.

RealAnastasia.


I'm the "REAL" etonexile...and I have the DNA testing to prove it....Teddy...erm...well...the testing seemed to be a tad...off...it seems he's 99% vodka....most odd... ???
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: Finelly on July 06, 2005, 12:08:10 PM
Vodka is a good preservative.  Perhaps that's the reason.
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: RealAnastasia on July 07, 2005, 06:24:30 PM
And what about white wine?  ::) I'm Grand Duchess Real White Whine Romanov.

RealAnastasia (even if the DNA proofs that I am not me!  ;D)
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: AGRBear on July 08, 2005, 08:51:57 AM
A nose is a nose, not a chin  ;)

Nor is the Romanov noses in wine [white, red or blush] or vodka ;D....

Along with this enjoyable humer some of you have displayed, do any of you have addtions to this thread on noses???

AGRBear  8)
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: JonC on July 08, 2005, 02:06:18 PM
HI Bear,

I think you are on the right track! '...dazzle them with your footwork.' Comparing noses is a good start! Finally! After all if it looks like a nose its got to be a nose! lol! AA definitely has a nose, and what a big nose! AN has a nose also but its length, width and ect., doen't match that of AA. I've seen many different sides to the 'NOSES' in question and the story is the same! NO MATCH!

You could also compare their ears. I read somewhere that AA's ear matched that of AN's. I've done the comparison and AA's right ear is bent on the top and has folds in the middle which do not match that of AN at all! Check for yourself!

We could also talk about the size of their respective forheads, the distance between the eyes, the size of the eyes...HELLO! IS ANYONE LISTENING????? THERE IS NO MATCH ! AND THERE NEVER HAS BEEN!!!!!!!!!! Sorry, it just came out. Bear I know you know this but others don't. As far as AA=FS, I don't really care about that. Peace, JonC.
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: etonexile on July 08, 2005, 04:33:53 PM
We could also do the AA/AN thumb comparison....if we had the pics...
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: RealAnastasia on July 08, 2005, 07:26:35 PM
It is you that are not listening (or reading). We are questioning HOW COULD IT BE that, if all evidence was saying that AA was not FS ONLY the DNA (this one, made with very questionated tissue samples) said she was, and try to convince us, esceptics that she indeed was.

I'm reasoning, a thing you seems to ignore. You read in a newspapers that DNA said X and you repeats X. If tomorrow newspapers said to you that scientiphics found out that earth is romboid you'll believe it.

Simply basical reasons must said you that AA was NOT FS, and a DNA , wouldn't destroy all the former evidence I had. I'm not a stupid and reading some newspapers would'n keep me to think my own way (not capriciously, but after a lot of analysis, and info...very serious info I must said) . I'm a free mind woman, do you know?

And keep in mind another thing: I'M NOT A DREAMER WANTING A FAIRY TALE. Anna Anderson's one IS NOT a fairy tale. Is a patethic, tragic story (even if she wasn't Anastasia). If I would have been Anastasia, I would'   like to die along with my family rather than live without people I loved so much, and in a way that the real Anastasia wouldn't have like a bit. The world has changed so much after 1918...

I'm angry with people who wants to remain in peace with themselves saying all the mysteries are closed. If you think that AA was not AN but FS and didn't want further discussion about this subject, so, don't keep consulting those threads to mess the friendly info exchanges we have so nicely here. You have your mind made in this subject, right? Good for you! Keep those ideas, and be happy with them. But someone of us, wants to keep discussing the whole affair. Are we guilible? Yes, if you want. Are we idiots? Perhaps...Are we dreamers? Oh, Maybe...But let us to be all this if we are happy. This is a free world after all. And stop with those snide and agressive comments. I can't bear you said all time: (In capital letters!): " ...AA WAS FS! WHY DIDN'T YOU ACCEPT THIS? THE DNA SAID SHE WAS FS AND NOT FS; SO STOP DISCUSSING HER..." and blah, blah...

Well, no: I'll keep my mind. Even if you didn't want it or want  to deny my right to post it.

And if you wants I state things you command the others to think, fine: AA was FS. (Even if lots of info deny it); AA couldn't be AN (even if lots of info shows she could have been her); the tissues tested for the DNA proofs are excellent, they belonged to AA, and the whole proof was fairly done...Oh, well...

However, I have my own mind in this, and if other evidences didn't show me otherwise I have my right to doubt about AA being FS and not AN. Oh...And this thread has nothing to do with the DNA issue. >:(e

RealAnastasia.

P.S: I'm also very angry when I re-read the threads where you said awful things to Penny Wilson and Greg King, without mentioning your really meaness toward Peter Kurth. They are historians, you know? And if they keep searching more info about AA (and other pretenders cases) is for they think there is evidence to keep researching: an historian didn't lost his/her time and money (for research is a VERY expensive thing) researching a case without any future and that they know in advance it's fake...
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: rskkiya on July 08, 2005, 07:39:57 PM
RA
Please, could you direct me to any pictures of FS that are not also identified as pictures of  AA...
I am not trying to be difficult - but I haven't got the evidence that you must have...New photos? Portraits? descriptions?

rs
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: JonC on July 08, 2005, 09:45:44 PM
RealAnastasia, '...are you talking to me...' lol..a bit of Al Pacino...anyway...WHAT are you talking about????

I have never said anything even sideways to Penny or Greg or to Peter Kurth about anything. You must be reading someone else's posts. I doooo declare!

The only thing I ever said to Greg was a question asking him where he got the quote in his book ' Empress Alexandra' which mentions that Alice felt the baby kicking, during her pregnancy with Alexandra in 1872. He quoted Gerard Noel's book Noel quoted Alices's writings and low and behold I read everything and there isn't any mention of her being pregnant at all in 1871-2. Greg never responded. Personally, I think he made it up.

Now if he can show me where he got the refference, page number and everything I will appologize but not until.

Hey, you want to make a mountain out of a mole hill with this AA does or does not equal FS be my guest. I have the right to say I don't care about that issue. My stance doesn't/ shouldn't belittle your beliefs so lighten up. My interest is in AN and AN does not equal AA or FS she equals someone else to the nth degree. Lets just say that I don't have to hold my breath about that. JonC.
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: Finelly on July 09, 2005, 09:22:12 AM
Ok, but this thread is about the nose of AA compared to that of FS.  Not about AN.
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: etonexile on July 09, 2005, 10:29:35 AM
Dear All...the "Great Nose Debate" over AA/FS seems to involve comparisons between a few grainy photos....Sherlock Holmes wouldn't be impressed...




Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: RealAnastasia on July 09, 2005, 09:51:16 PM
Quote
RealAnastasia, '...are you talking to me...' lol..a bit of Al Pacino...anyway...WHAT are you talking about????

I have never said anything even sideways to Penny or Greg or to Peter Kurth about anything. You must be reading someone else's posts. I doooo declare!

The only thing I ever said to Greg was a question asking him where he got the quote in his book ' Empress Alexandra' which mentions that Alice felt the baby kicking, during her pregnancy with Alexandra in 1872. He quoted Gerard Noel's book Noel quoted Alices's writings and low and behold I read everything and there isn't any mention of her being pregnant at all in 1871-2. Greg never responded. Personally, I think he made it up.

Now if he can show me where he got the refference, page number and everything I will appologize but not until.

Hey, you want to make a mountain out of a mole hill with this AA does or does not equal FS be my guest. I have the right to say I don't care about that issue. My stance doesn't/ shouldn't belittle your beliefs so lighten up. My interest is in AN and AN does not equal AA or FS she equals someone else to the nth degree. Lets just say that I don't have to hold my breath about that. JonC.



Yes. You are right. I was referring to another person. Not you JonC. You gave arguments and ideas. Other people only make ridicoulous comments and put scorn on other posters analysis. This persons know exactly who they are. Your post are intelligent to read as are those of Helen_Azar (she doesn't believe in AA, but she defend her possition intelligently). But other people only said little offensive phrases meaning that those who still believes in the case are stupid or so.

RealAnastasia (Vanesa)
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: Greg_King on July 14, 2005, 09:24:27 AM
Quote
The only thing I ever said to Greg was a question asking him where he got the quote in his book ' Empress Alexandra' which mentions that Alice felt the baby kicking, during her pregnancy with Alexandra in 1872. He quoted Gerard Noel's book Noel quoted Alices's writings and low and behold I read everything and there isn't any mention of her being pregnant at all in 1871-2. Greg never responded. Personally, I think he made it up.

Now if he can show me where he got the refference, page number and everything I will appologize but not until then.


I am no longer on this board, and am only back now to address your above, erroneous, and libelous statement.  Before you post such inaccuracies that attempt to undermine my professional reputation, I suggest you do your homework.  The letter is indeed, as I said, quoted on page 175 of Gerard Noel’s “Princes Alice: Queen Victoria’s Forgotten Daughter,” trade paperback edition published by Constable in London in 1985.  You will find it on the first page of Chapter Eleven, page 175, on the 14th line down from the beginning sentence.  The letter was written on December 12, 1871, to her husband.  This is the exact same reference given in my biography of Alix, and the same reference I gave in response to your query.  Clearly you didn't read closely enough before accusing me of fabricating information.

Presumably your public apology will be forthcoming, but this is yet another example of the insidious and deliberately malicious assertions, innuendo, mockery, slights, and tone that keep me from posting further.  The vast majority of members are honorable, decent people, and it is a shame that a very small, vocal handful who treat posting as a bloodsport have driven more than a few knowledgable contributors from further participation.

Greg King
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: JonC on July 14, 2005, 10:32:28 PM
Hi Greg.

Indeed if it is as you say I will appologize to you publicly. Unfortunately I have to go back to my library to request the book so that I can look up the exact page you mentioned.

Just a note here on your reply. If your referenced letter, dated December 12, 1871, mentioned that she felt the baby kicking it would seem kind of an impossible event since Princess Alice would have been at most one and a half to two months pregnant. I don't think a fetus that small would be able to kick or have anything long enough to move which could be felt by the mother.

I don't doubt your truthfulness therefore I will look up the reference.

If I remember correctly you quote Noel's book and do give the said reference. Noel, though, does not say that Princess Alice 'felt the baby kicking' but that she was pregnant. Now even though Noel references Princess Alice's biographical sketches/letters he doesn't give a page number nor does he state exactly where, from her book/writings, he got his information.

I could not find from Princess Alice's letters where she ever said that she was pregnant. Noel doesn't give a page number.

I accused you of compounding Noel's error by saying that 'she felt the baby kicking' on top of him saying that she was pregnant without looking to see if Noel was correct in the first place.

In fairness to you I will go back and re-read all the above references and will get back to the forum. JonC.
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: Lanie on July 14, 2005, 10:35:06 PM
Quote
Hi Greg.

Indeed if it is as you say I will appologize to you publicly. Unfortunately I have to go back to my library to request the book so that I can look up the exact page you mentioned.

Just a note here on your reply. If your refferenced letter, dated December 12, 1871, mentioned that she felt the baby kicking it would seem kind of an impossible event since Princess Alice would have been at most one and a half to two months pregnant. I don't think a fetus that small would be able to kick or have anything long enough to move which could be felt by the mother.

I don't doubt your truthfulness therefore I will look up the reference and get back to you. JonC.


Regarding this: as Alix was born in June, Alice would have in December been around three months pregnant.
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: jeremygaleaz on July 14, 2005, 10:48:33 PM
Quote

Regarding this: as Alix was born in June, Alice would have in December been around three months pregnant.


I think that 3 months still would've been to young. But, does anyone else know for sure?
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: JonC on July 14, 2005, 11:02:29 PM
Actually,Princess Alice could have given birth prematurely by a couple of weeks to a month (a possibility)

If she gave birth on June 6th, 1872 it was the biginning of the month. Full term would mean she would have gotten pregnant no earlier than October 6th. From October 6th to December 12 is still closer to two months not three. That fetus had to be too small to notice...just a thought. JonC.
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: Finelly on July 14, 2005, 11:32:58 PM
First pregnancy, I didn't feel the baby kick until about 18 weeks.

Second, at about 16 weeks.

Third and fourth, at about 13 weeks.

Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: Inquiring_Mind on July 15, 2005, 03:15:03 PM
It could even have been a bit of "wishful thinking" on Alice's part.

Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: Kimberly on July 15, 2005, 05:00:26 PM
Or gas (and i am NOT being facetious)
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: Finelly on July 15, 2005, 05:06:47 PM
You are so right, Kimberly.  If one adores having babies and is pregnant as many times as Alice, one will interpret lots of things as having to do with the baby inside you.
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: RealAnastasia on July 15, 2005, 06:06:59 PM
Quote
First pregnancy, I didn't feel the baby kick until about 18 weeks.

Second, at about 16 weeks.

Third and fourth, at about 13 weeks.



I didn't know this, Finelly. Thank you for sharing. To know how a mother feel their babies inside them...Nothing better than asking mothers themselves. And since Alix was not Alice first child, I think it was possible than she could felt Alix kicking inside her, after all.
However, I don't know where Noel read this.

RealAnastasia.
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: AGRBear on July 15, 2005, 06:13:49 PM
Babies kicking???

I'm going to have to turn back the pages to discover how noses [see subject line] turned into babies.  ;)

AGRBear
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: Finelly on July 15, 2005, 06:21:33 PM
Bear - you don't KNOW?  Well, it's obvious to the REST of us.....

But since you don't know, we won't tell.  You'll have to figure it out for yourself.

Hopefully, you will do it before babies turn into toenails.....
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: JonC on July 19, 2005, 09:40:40 AM
Greg,

I haven't forgotten the situation. Yesterday I was able to go to the library and put an order in for the books in question and I will get back to this issue as soon as I get them. I have reviewed my notes and so far I stand by what I've said. JonC.
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: Finelly on July 20, 2005, 09:47:19 AM
Well, I got my copy right here, and Greg's citation is correct.  It's right there.....
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: lexi4 on July 20, 2005, 03:48:29 PM
Coming in clueless...what citation is correct   ???
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: Finelly on July 20, 2005, 04:57:10 PM
The one about Alice feeling the baby moving.
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: lexi4 on July 21, 2005, 12:22:55 AM
Was this the baby she miscarried or am I on the wrong thread. ;D ;D
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: JonC on July 21, 2005, 12:06:15 PM
Finelly,

Could you ellaborate on what you found? Thanks.JonC.
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: Finelly on July 21, 2005, 12:15:54 PM
I appear to have the same copy of the book that Greg does.  

Greg said:  "The letter is indeed, as I said, quoted on page 175 of Gerard Noel’s “Princes Alice: Queen Victoria’s Forgotten Daughter,” trade paperback edition published by Constable in London in 1985.  You will find it on the first page of Chapter Eleven, page 175, on the 14th line down from the beginning sentence. "

It's right there............
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: Finelly on July 21, 2005, 12:17:14 PM
However, I do believe that anyone who accuses a published author of "making it up" on a public message board will have to see it for himself, and then make a very public apology.

The disrespect shown is really something I cannot fathom.......
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: rskkiya on July 21, 2005, 12:37:39 PM
Quote
The disrespect shown is really something I cannot fathom.......


Hmmmm.... ;D ;D ;D :) :) :) [insert zen-like icon here]
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: JonC on July 21, 2005, 12:39:26 PM
OK,...I know that, but does Gerard Noel give a reference? If he does, have you checked it? His reference would come from the following book;

'Princess Alice, Grand Duchess of Hesse. Biographical Sketches and letters. GP Putnam and Sons. 1884.

Did you check Noel's reference? Let me know what you find. Thanks JonC.
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: Finelly on July 21, 2005, 07:23:48 PM
So whose credibility are you questioning here?
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: RealAnastasia on July 21, 2005, 07:28:16 PM
I think it's Noel credibility that is questioned.

RealAnastasia.
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: Finelly on July 21, 2005, 07:32:28 PM
Interesting.  I thought Greg was the one called a liar.
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: Helen_Azar on July 21, 2005, 07:48:11 PM
Quote
Interesting.  I thought Greg was the one called a liar.


Finelly, please stop trying to instigate a fight - you know that this is what is going to happen. Let it go. Practice what you preach.
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: Finelly on July 21, 2005, 07:55:59 PM
Relax.  I don't start fights.  I seek facts in order to better understand the task that is asked of me. :)
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: lexi4 on July 21, 2005, 08:01:59 PM
Quote
OK,...I know that, but does Gerard Noel give a reference? If he does, have you checked it? His reference would come from the following book;

'Princess Alice, Grand Duchess of Hesse. Biographical Sketches and letters. GP Putnam and Sons. 1884.

Did you check Noel's reference? Let me know what you find. Thanks JonC.

Why don't you just go the the library and get the book?
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: Mgmstl on July 22, 2005, 05:44:20 PM
Quote
Why don't you just go the the library and get the book?



Can someone PLEASE explain to me why the discussion of Alice of Hesse's pregnancy is relevant to a thread discussion on the difference of the nose between FS & AN, and why the uncalled for insults to Greg King???  Come on folks hasn't there been enough crapola & personal vendetta's on this thread.  Back to topic PLEASE!!
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: lexi4 on July 22, 2005, 06:02:40 PM
 :)
You are right Michael. Thank you.
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: JonC on July 24, 2005, 10:18:33 PM
Hi Michael_G.

I'm going to try and post this again.

There is no insult intended from my end to Greg King. I certainly have no 'vendetta'. I don't belong to the group of posters you are implying about who might have those intentions. My angle is strictly intellectual. I could not find any mention in Alices's letters published in 1884 referenced by Gerard Noel and Greg King which mention that Alice felt the baby kicking.

I have placed an order for the said books to be obtained by my library from outside its system since it doesn't own these books. If anyone has the book with Alice's letters then maybe they can look up the said reference.

This thread is about 'noses'. This other topic came about unintentionally and maybe it should have its own thread. JonC.
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: Finelly on July 24, 2005, 10:39:23 PM
JonC -

First you said:  "The only thing I ever said to Greg was a question asking him where he got the quote in his book ' Empress Alexandra' which mentions that Alice felt the baby kicking, during her pregnancy with Alexandra in 1872. He quoted Gerard Noel's book Noel quoted Alices's writings and low and behold I read everything and there isn't any mention of her being pregnant at all in 1871-2. Greg never responded. Personally, I think he made it up."  

Now you say:  "There is no insult intended from my end to Greg King. I certainly have no 'vendetta'"

If you intended no insult, then apologize to Mr. King immediately, because he WAS insulted, and its pretty easy to see why.  You have alleged that he invented facts, and as a published non-fiction author, he has every right to be upset.

Would you talk this way in person to someone?
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: lexi4 on July 24, 2005, 10:50:01 PM
Way to go Finelly.
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: JonC on July 24, 2005, 11:03:25 PM
Finelly...

I believe its still a little premature for me to appologize.  I haven't had the chance to proof my notes on this subject. I promised I would appologize if I were wrong and I will.

Finelly I understand Greg was insulted. Still I believe anyone has the right to criticize, with facts, a published book. My facts are that I can't find the reference Noel used to justify his coments about Princess Alice's pregnancy. He claims he got his material from Alice's letters and gives a book reference. BUT there is no page number with his reference. I can't find his material. Greg King uses the same reference for his comments about Alice's pregnancy.

This would all blow over if you or Greg or anyone interested would simply give me the referenced page from Princess Alice's letters, where Greg and Noel got their material, and my appology would be forthcoming ASAP.

If not then I have to wait for my books from the library.JonC.
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: Finelly on July 24, 2005, 11:11:32 PM
JonC -

So you basically, without actually having access to the books in question, accused a published author of inventing facts.  And then you ask other people to locate the books in question to speed up your ability to prove or disprove your own accusation.  And in the meantime you refuse to apologize for publically insulting the author.

Some day in your life, you will be accused of committing a wrong.  At least once, the accusation will be based on an assumption by an ignorant person.  When that day comes, I hope you remember this incident.

I have the books you are seeking.  I  am now going to decline your request to find the info you accuse Mr. King of inventing.  And in the event that he decides to sue you for libel, I'll be happy to be of assistance.  
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: lexi4 on July 24, 2005, 11:45:58 PM
My crystal ball is warning of another locked thread.
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: JonC on July 25, 2005, 12:12:15 AM
Finelly...!

I have done my work! I have read those books! I gave Greg the courtesy of reviewing my notes by re-reading the said books in the hope that I was wrong. I am waiting for my books.

My present conclusion is that there is no page reference given by Noel. That Greg used Noel's reference without checking Princess Alice's letters to verify Noel's work. A mistake is a mistake. I am not saying Greg did it maliciously. He relied on Noel's accuracy.

When an author does this he runs the risk of adding information that doesn't exist in the original text.

Finelly you sound like that gossip that stands, from a distance, between two unintentioned rivals to see how much blood you can make each one shed from the other. Back off Finelly! Go stir someone else's pot!
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: Finelly on July 25, 2005, 01:21:00 AM
This is my final comment.  I do not wish to disrupt this thread.  
After this comment, i will ignore anything that JonC posts, as I consider him to be malicious.

One cannot hide behind "didn't intend to insult" and "thought he just made a mistake" when one states, to a published author, "I think you made it up."  It's a blatant lie.

Now, on to better topics.  Related, I believe, to noses.
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: Penny_Wilson on July 25, 2005, 11:46:48 AM
Quote
Finelly...

I believe its still a little premature for me to appologize.  I haven't had the chance to proof my notes on this subject. I promised I would appologize if I were wrong and I will.  


It was also "a little premature" for you to accuse Greg of "making it up."

It seems to me that you came to your conclusion -- that Greg was lying -- first, and now you're doing your research in an attempt to support that conclusion.  That's putting the cart before the horse: If you had been acting correctly, you would have done a little research -- even contacting Mr Noel's side if you had to -- and you would have "proofed your notes"  before levelling professional accusations against an author.

Quote
Finelly I understand Greg was insulted. Still I believe anyone has the right to criticize, with facts, a published book. My facts are that I can't find the reference Noel used...


So, the fact is that you have no facts at this point.  According to your own assertion above, you should be criticizing the book "with facts."  Where are they?  You should bring them to the table with your accusation.  You should have contacted Mr Noel and asked him for clarification.  You could also have contacted Windsor Archives and the Staatsarchiv Darmstadt for information.

But you didn't.  You came here and you "criticized" without facts.  Perhaps you don't realize this, but unfounded accusations of this sort can damage an author's reputation -- especially one working in the field of historical biography.  And this, in turn, can damage the author's livelihood.  Did you really mean to attack Greg's ability to make a living just because you can't find a reference made in a book he didn't write?

Unbelievable.

Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: lexi4 on July 25, 2005, 04:51:58 PM
So, how about AA's nose????? ;D
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: JonC on July 25, 2005, 06:41:06 PM
Finelly...! I believe the malicious one is you.

I will definitely enjoin you in establishing a mutual moratorium against communicating with each other. Thank You!

Penny,

You are right. I should have thought wisely and if I intended ( and I should have realized that my initial accusation would appear as a deliberate intended attack on Greg) to attack Greg I should have definitely had the books in my possession to quote from immediately. I, though, had no such thought in mind.

Nevertheless its been done and I am sorry that it was done that way, BUT, I deferred to reading the books requested from the library because I wanted to make sure I didn't compound a situation needlessly.

My notes which I made sometime ago specifically mention that there was no reference in Princess Alice's letters that the baby ever kicked or that she felt the baby comming to life or that she was pregnant at all. I have asked everyone reading these posts including Greg to show the Forum where in Alice's writings I, we, anyone can find this information.

Why are you and others getting all indignant and threatening. I promised Greg that I would appologize if he tells me the page(s) number(s) that he got this info., not from Noel's book which he did but from Alice's writings.

I would be happy for him and appologize repeatedly. JonC.
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: lexi4 on July 25, 2005, 06:46:09 PM
I'll try again.....
About those noses? Remember those? Before this thread gets locked down too.
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: Inquiring_Mind on July 25, 2005, 07:07:21 PM
Quote
I'll try again.....
About those noses? Remember those? Before this thread gets locked down too.


Noses....very few people like theirs. So unique to an individual and/or their plastic surgeon :P

I looked at all our noses recently at a family gathering and decided none looked alike and I had the nicest one ;D




Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: Finelly on July 25, 2005, 10:23:51 PM
I have Lexi's nose.  And I have hidden it and won't tell anyone where it is.
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: lexi4 on July 25, 2005, 10:34:58 PM
You might as well tell Finelly, it doesn't match AA or FS's nose.
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: Finelly on July 25, 2005, 10:48:53 PM
True, but it bears a striking resemblence to the FA's nose.

Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: JonC on July 29, 2005, 11:02:26 PM
Greg,

I asked the FA for guidance on how to proceed with this in pm but I have not received any reply.

I want to tell you that I am not looking to harm your career or anything about you at all. I nevertheless have personal, historical and professional reasons to get at the truth concerning Alice's pregnancy. I would also like someday, soon I hope, to write my own ideas down about the Romanovs.

I have received the book 'Princess Alice, Queen Victoria's forgotten daughter, by Gerard Noel. On page 175 Noel writes;

" And on 12 December, when anxiety over the Prince of Wales was at its highest point, she wrote to Louis: ' I think the child is coming to life; If only this does not harm it.' "

In your book you quote the above from Noel's book and ad that Alice felt the baby ' kicking'. Noel references a letter written by Alice dated 12th December 1871 where he got his information but doesn't say where that specific letter can be found. Do you know where it could be found?

I still haven't received the second book with Alice's letters. Hopefully I will find in it the letter written on the 12th of December to her husband Louis.

I would still like to know where you got that the baby was 'kicking'. It would mean a lot to me. You can pm me if you like, in confidence. JonC.
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: AGRBear on July 31, 2005, 07:23:29 PM
I don't think Greg plans on returning here soon, so, back to the dull and boring NOSES.

I remember the first time I traveled to Germany  I hoped  I'd reconize relatives by their noses which is quite dominate in our family.  No luck in the village of origin even thought family still lives in this village.  Needless to say, I was Ssssssoooooooo disapointed,  u-n-t-i-l  I saw a bronz figure of a woman who had lived in different but a very old German village in front of a museum.  And, guess what?  This bronz lady had my nose and the nose found so often on my paternal side.

Course, done of our paternal family noses have anything to do with the Romanov nose.  But,  this post is about noses. ;D

AGRBear
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: Finelly on July 31, 2005, 09:36:51 PM
All four of my kids have different noses, and none of them have my nose, their father's nose, or any of their grandparents' noses.

Go figure.  MY nose doesn't even resemble anyone in the family's nose.....
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: JonC on August 13, 2005, 10:41:40 PM
A final note on my accusatory statement that Greg King made up facts in his book 'The Last Empress'.

I am thoroughly disappointed that I could not get a straight answer from him or anyone else in this forum. I would think that with respect to scholarship no-one should be given a pass.

A simple request to any author concerning his/her source(s) concerning a 'factual' statement made in his/her book should not unleash a barrage of insults by that author, and supporters to the one making that simple request.

Greg you were wrong to say in your book that Alice 'felt the baby kicking' because there is no proof from her writings ( unless you have a secret letter that only you are privy to) that she made that statement or that she was pregnant at all. Noel's source..the December 12th 1871 letter..I can't find it! So, it probably doesn't exist! Do you have it? Show it to me by putting it on the this thread. If not you were therefor wrong to use Noel's source without finding out if it existed in the first place. If the letter is a lie you compounded it further.

Subsequently you should be the one to appologize for your uncalled for remarks. JonC.
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: Louis_Charles on August 14, 2005, 12:03:45 AM
Unfreakingbelievable

I am posting in response to this because of the a) tone, which is unworthy of someone engaged in intellectual discourse and b) because, as we are constantly and correctly reminded, this board is a resource for students of history.

Alice wrote that she felt the baby coming to life. In most pregnancies from time immemorial, this meant that the child had quickened, i.e. moved in the womb. This is sometimes referred to as "kicking", although I think most people do not think that the baby is driving its' foot against the uterine wall.

But that is really beside the point, as Finelly posted. You accused a reputable historian in a public forum of "making it up."  The clear implication of a nasty little remark like that is that his book is a tissue of unsupported facts. Mr. King is right to be angry, and this lame attempt at turning the issue back on him is simply pouring gasoline on the fire.

This is not how historians work. And for the record, I hold a degree in history from a major American public university. I hold a degree in common courtesy from the school of hard knocks.
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: Finelly on August 14, 2005, 12:31:02 AM
Well said, Louis Charles.

When a person comes to a board (or any place for that matter) and announces that he doesn't have the books in question, but that he feels sure that an author lied in a cite of a source, one must wonder.

When that accuser than demands that OTHER people on the board PROVIDE HIM with the evidence of the lie, one wonders more.

When the accuser then demands that the AUTHOR come up with evidence one way or the other, we no longer wonder.  

Of course, Greg King is not going to respond.  He does respond to respectful questions about sources, something of which I have first hand knowledge.  I emailed him a few days ago about a source he used and he replied within 10 hours.  Answered my question quite articulately. Of course, I didn't accuse him of LYING, and perhaps that had something to do with his willingness to answer my questions.





Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: lexi4 on August 14, 2005, 12:55:42 AM
Louis Charles has it right. Any woman who has ever been pregnant will tell you what "come to life means." In this century we use the word kicking. Because that is what if feels like. But it is a moment when you know the baby is alive. Greg used a word  commonly used today is all. Get over it.
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: JonC on August 14, 2005, 11:39:53 AM
words, words, exasperation, ridicule..,etc,etc,...Show me the SOURCE! Where is the reference?

As far as 'the baby kicking' is concerned, according to the Discovery Science channel which had a whole show on the creation of a baby from sperm & egg to birth it clearly mentioned that a baby starts with spasms, which seem like kicking, from 12 weeks on. On December 12, 1871 when she 'wrote' the letter and not necessarily when she had felt the 'spasms' she would have been  at most 9 weeks pregnant. According to the program the difference between 9 and 12 weeks for a fetus is a whole new metamorphosis. Its a fantastic jump, gas considered. Alice, having had children before would have known the difference. She could not have been pregnant at all.

Please note that it's not just about 'the baby kicking' that we are talking about here or about Greg King. The belief that she was the mother of Alexandra is key for me and any student of history. My discovery commences with debunking the belief that she was ever pregnant by demanding sources from Greg and by whoever writes the same content. If a source cannot be given well then it doesn't exist! If it doesn't exist then it is possible that Alice was not Alexandra's mother.

In October of 1871, when Alice was supposed to get pregnant Louis 4th, her husband, had left for Darmstadt not willing to be around while his wife was taking care of Queen Victoria's ailments. They had gone to Sandringham for the festivities there but when Edward got sick with Typhoid Fever he decided to go home. Now if he left in October how did Alice get pregnant?

No one interested in history can dismiss these points. Also does Alexandra have a birth certificate or record of birth in some fashion or other? My questions are legitimate and should be allowed discussions.

In any case where is the source? Show me the source!JonC. FA why don't you put this discussion on its own thread?
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: Louis_Charles on August 14, 2005, 12:19:08 PM
Quote
words, words, exasperation, ridicule..,etc,etc,...Show me the SOURCE! Where is the reference?

As far as 'the baby kicking' is concerned, according to the Discovery Science channel which had a whole show on the creation of a baby from sperm & egg to birth it clearly mentioned that a baby starts with spasms, which seem like kicking, from 12 weeks on. On December 12, 1871 when she 'wrote' the letter and not necessarily when she had felt the 'spasms' she would have been  at most 9 weeks pregnant. According to the program the difference between 9 and 12 weeks for a fetus is a whole new metamorphosis. Its a fantastic jump, gas considered. Alice, having had children before would have known the difference. She could not have been pregnant at all.

Please note that it's not just about 'the baby kicking' that we are talking about here or about Greg King. The belief that she was the mother of Alexandra is key for me and any student of history. My discovery commences with debunking the belief that she was ever pregnant by demanding sources from Greg and by whoever writes the same content. If a source cannot be given well then it doesn't exist! If it doesn't exist then it is possible that Alice was not Alexandra's mother.

In October of 1871, when Alice was supposed to get pregnant Louis 4th, her husband, had left for Darmstadt not willing to be around while his wife was taking care of Queen Victoria's ailments. They had gone to Sandringham for the festivities there but when Edward got sick with Typhoid Fever he decided to go home. Now if he left in October how did Alice get pregnant?

No one interested in history can dismiss these points. Also does Alexandra have a birth certificate or record of birth in some fashion or other? My questions are legitimate and should be allowed discussions.

In any case where is the source? Show me the source!JonC. FA why don't you put this discussion on its own thread?

If it doesn't exist then it is possible that Alice was not Alexandra's mother.???

Okay, I'm out.
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: AGRBear on August 14, 2005, 12:27:44 PM
Jon C and others who are not talking about Noses, you can start your own thread then copy the quotes you wish to address over to the new thread.

If you do not know how to accomplished this,  let me know,  I'd be glad to help you get one started.

But then,  noses isn't as interesting and wasn't going anywhere.  If I change the title then people will get confused.  So that's not a good option....

Wonder where our noses will take us next  :)

AGRBear
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: AGRBear on January 24, 2006, 05:54:43 PM
Bumping up because we're talking about FS's family and this thread has photographs of some of her siblings.

AGRBear
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: dmitri on August 22, 2007, 07:34:31 AM
He also he likes a range of opinions on this topic as well. His own shows a variance as do many others. It is good that a range of opinions are accepted here.
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: AGRBear on August 22, 2007, 10:03:46 AM
A photo of FS was taken in 1916.  The one shown here is a retouched copy of the original which is no longer reachable since no one knows who purchased it.  We, therefore,  do not know how similar of disimilar this copy is to the original.

In 1916,  FS would have been 20 in Dec. and this doesn't appear to be taken in the winter, therefore,  my guess is,  she was not yet 20.


There was a photo that was taken of her when FS was 16?

There are several threads about this photo and has nothing to do with this thread which is about the intestines used for testing the DNA / mtDNA.

AGRBear

I believe this is the photo they are referring to, the only known photo of FS before she transformed into "Anna Anderson":

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v225/helenazar/FS-1.jpg)

She looks just about 20 years old...

Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: dmitri on August 22, 2007, 10:41:59 AM
Wrong thread Bear. Maybe you have a photo of the intestines?
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: Olishka~ Pincess on August 22, 2007, 01:31:00 PM
Yes we were off topic but, most of the posters were not talking about DNA testing they were talking about AA and A looks.Many started to talk about Kurth's book. I guess this topic is suppose to have some opinions, concerns and questions relating about the way the Americans did the DNA testing on the Romanovs bones.
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: LisaDavidson on August 22, 2007, 01:40:21 PM
Yes we were off topic but, most of the posters were not talking about DNA testing they were talking about AA and A looks.Many started to talk about Kurth's book. I guess this topic is suppose to have some opinions, concerns and questions relating about the way the Americans did the DNA testing on the Romanovs bones.

You are exactly correct.
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: AGRBear on August 23, 2007, 04:40:05 PM
Wrong thread Bear. Maybe you have a photo of the intestines?

My post was in ref. to #43 and #44 that was discussed earlier on this same thread.

I believe someone said there are slides of the intestines  which I suppose someone could take a photo if you'd like.

AGRBear
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: dmitri on August 23, 2007, 08:46:46 PM
DNA evidence has proved all of this. Greater minds than yours AGR Bear have worked on this. Give it a rest.
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: Lemur on August 24, 2007, 09:43:12 AM
DNA evidence has proved all of this. Greater minds than yours AGR Bear have worked on this. Give it a rest.

and go, go go DNA testing on these newfound bodies!! Maybe all talk of survivors should be suspended pending the outcome of these tests but I don't think it's ever going to stop the AA fans.
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: dmitri on August 24, 2007, 10:00:01 AM
I agree. It is time for the ridiculous survivor fantasies to cease. Their time is now over.
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: Helen_Azar on August 24, 2007, 10:05:53 AM
DNA evidence has proved all of this. Greater minds than yours AGR Bear have worked on this. Give it a rest.

and go, go go DNA testing on these newfound bodies!! Maybe all talk of survivors should be suspended pending the outcome of these tests but I don't think it's ever going to stop the AA fans.

IMO, the talk of survivors will not be ceased during or after the DNA results come out on the newly found remains, even if they show that these bodies indeed belong to the Romanov children. It's not going to stop the AA fans and other conspiracy theorists. They don't trust DNA science nor do they understand it, they believe in conspiracies and they will never accept these results, no matter what. Mark my words.

Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: Annie on August 24, 2007, 10:32:38 AM
No the AA fanatics will never admit they were wrong. I hope at least the 'survivor' section can be renamed the 'pretender' board because that's what it is!
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: dmitri on August 24, 2007, 10:39:28 AM
Yes ''pretender'' or ''fraudster'' would be most appropriate.
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: ferrymansdaughter on August 24, 2007, 10:53:42 AM
[

IMO, the talk of survivors will not be ceased during or after the DNA results come out on the newly found remains, even if they show that these bodies indeed belong to the Romanov children. It's not going to stop the AA fans and other conspiracy theorists. They don't trust DNA science nor do they understand it, they believe in conspiracies and they will never accept these results, no matter what. Mark my words.

[/quote]

Actually Helen, we do understand it, which is why we know it is not infallible. 

If I am proven to be wrong, I will be happy to say so, on this board.

Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: Forum Admin on August 24, 2007, 10:56:49 AM
Ferryman's Daughter,

No offense meant, but to say the "mtDNA" testing was "not infallible" actually demonstrates that you indeed do NOT understand the science.  Please to demonstrate exactly HOW the mtDNA test on the AA sample is in fact subject to doubt.
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: Tsarfan on August 24, 2007, 11:22:25 AM
They don't trust DNA science nor do they understand it, they believe in conspiracies and they will never accept these results, no matter what. Mark my words.

On page 1 of another thread reporting this discovery, I put up a joking post about all the conspiracy theories that would emerge to explain away these findings if they, in fact, pan out.  One of the cracks I made was that sooner or later someone might even claim they were the bones of a freakishly-mutated cow.

Lo and behold . . . I have already found a post on the internet today -- written in all seriousness -- by someone saying these could be cow bones that have been found.

If these findings turn out to warrant common acceptance, they will only settle matters in the minds of people who understand history, science, and probability theory.  The minds of conspiracists work on a different track entirely, and nothing -- no test, no documents, no examinations, no corroborating evidence -- will be met by them with acceptance.  Instead, we'll hear about switches of evidence, thefts in the dark of night, murky plots involving major governments, threats, bribes, forensics conducted in drunken stupors by incompetent scientists, real truths kept hidden for all sorts of nefarious reasons.

At least the cow theory will provide more fun than tedium . . . right up there with Heino Tammet's famously undescended testicle.
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: Helen_Azar on August 24, 2007, 11:29:25 AM
They don't trust DNA science nor do they understand it, they believe in conspiracies and they will never accept these results, no matter what. Mark my words.

On page 1 of this thread, I put up a joking post about all the conspiracy theories that would emerge to explain away these findings if they, in fact, pan out.  One of the cracks I made was that sooner or later someone might even claim they were the bones of a freakishly-mutated cow.

Lo and behold . . . I have already found a post on the internet today -- written in all seriousness -- by someone saying these could be cow bones that have been found.

If these findings turn out to warrant common acceptance, they will only settle matters in the minds of people who understand history, science, and probability theory.  The minds of conspiracists work on a different track entirely, and nothing -- no test, no documents, no examinations, no corroborating evidence -- will be met by them with acceptance.  Instead, we'll hear about switches of evidence, thefts in the dark of night, murky plots involving major governments, threats, bribes, forensics conducted in drunken stupors by incompetent scientists, real truths kept hidden for all sorts of nefarious reasons.

At least the cow theory will provide more fun than tedium . . . right up there with Heino Tammet's famously undescended testicle.

The Undescended Testicle theory was my favorite. No, I'm lying, the *Chimera Theory* was my personal favorite, at least it got the Most Creative award in my bookr. But the cow bone theory could be entertaining for a few minutes, in that uncomplicated way... This is only the beginning, Tsarfan... Things will get a lot more amusing, I fear. No, I don't really fear, I actually look forward to it :-).
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: ferrymansdaughter on August 24, 2007, 11:48:47 AM
Ferryman's Daughter,

No offense meant, but to say the "mtDNA" testing was "not infallible" actually demonstrates that you indeed do NOT understand the science.  Please to demonstrate exactly HOW the mtDNA test on the AA sample is in fact subject to doubt.

No offence taken.  I said that on the basis that NOTHING in life is infallible and that does include DNA.  We all know that there have been many questions about DNA testing in recent years.  (Incidentally,  I do not believe in a conspiracy either.  I am not convinced  about the AA results but  I certainly don't think the scientists were anything other but honest.)

My opinion may differ from most people on this board, but like all of you I look forward to the results of any tests done on these bones. 

Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: Forum Admin on August 24, 2007, 11:53:10 AM
OK,
So you weasel out of answering my direct question by saying "nothing in life is infallible".  The probability that the AA mtDNA came from a descendent of Queen Victoria is ZERO. Period.  There is no chance that the mtDNA from the Anna Manahan sample was a maternal descent from Queen Victoria. This is actually not up to even the most remote question.

The fact that you can even say such a thing is the evidence that you genuinely do not understand the underlying science.

Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: dmitri on August 24, 2007, 11:56:29 AM
Ferrymansdaughter you are terribly curious and most amusing in your comments. I trust you will soon do more research and come back to reality soon.
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: ferrymansdaughter on August 24, 2007, 11:58:54 AM
Ferrymansdaughter you are terribly curious and most amusing in your comments. I trust you will soon do more research and come back to reality soon.

Dmitri,  I am indeed curious and that is why I question things.  There are just too many contradictions for me to accept the "standard" version.

I am however, glad that I amuse you.   ;D
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: ferrymansdaughter on August 24, 2007, 12:01:52 PM
OK,
So you weasel out of answering my direct question by saying "nothing in life is infallible".  The probability that the AA mtDNA came from a descendent of Queen Victoria is ZERO. Period.  There is no chance that the mtDNA from the Anna Manahan sample was a maternal descent from Queen Victoria. This is actually not up to even the most remote question.

The fact that you can even say such a thing is the evidence that you genuinely do not understand the underlying science.



FA, I have never pretended to be a scientist but as long as I know that there are some scientists who do question the accuracy of DNA, logic tells me that it cannot be infallible. 


Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: Helen_Azar on August 24, 2007, 12:29:31 PM
I know that there are some scientists who do question the accuracy of DNA

Have you actually read any of the discussions about these scientists and exactly how they were questioning the accuracy of the results? We discussed all this in detail here, and several articles have been written by myself and my colleague to address their "concerns". One of these articles was published in The Atlantis, a magazine that was run by Penny Wilson and Greg King - ask them about it - I am sure they can point you to it. If you have indeed read these things and still feel this way, then it makes it even more obvious that you don't really understand the science of DNA. If you haven't read these things, you probably should...
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: Helen_Azar on August 24, 2007, 12:46:53 PM
They may know well enough about the Romanovs and Russian history, but they certainly don't know much about science... However, they THINK they know about science, and this is a very dangerous thing...
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: LisaDavidson on August 24, 2007, 01:16:16 PM
I would like to remind posters of a few things.

First, we have a policy here regarding DNA testing and Grand Duchess Anastasia. The management accepts that the numerous DNA tests done on AA have firmly established that AA could not possibly be related to Nicholas or Alexandra. Because of this, we regard discussions regarding the possible identity of AA as a member of the Imperial Family as inappropriate. There are many forums where this may be discussed, just not here.

Second, we also have a policy of requiring that everyone be treated respectfully, and this includes those with whom you may disagree. Please avoid overgeneralizing about those with whom you differ - I see far too many references to "AA supporters" as if these individuals exist as a monolithic bloc. It is, I would like to point out, disrespectful to tell someone their views are "amusing". A more respectful tone would be - "we'll have to agree to disagree".
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: ChristineM on August 24, 2007, 01:46:01 PM
That is a very well considered and admirable response, Lisa. 

This a subject which engenders much passion.   We have two friends - both very eminent gentlemen - Desmond Morris, the behaviourist and author of The Naked Ape and numerous other serious, scientifically based books and Professor Ian Grimble emeritus Professor of Ancient Persian at the university of Teheran before the overthrow of the Shah - a highly respected historian and sadly is now dead.   Both these men were convinced Anna Anderson and the Grand Duchess Anastasia Niocholaevna were one in the same person.   Ian even attended the German trials, bought the vast transcripts and had them translated into English at enormous personal cost.   With due respect to the posters on the pro and on the anti side of this debate, I doubt if one of them is off the starting block when it comes to the erudition of either of these eminent men.

I have to say I agree with Ferryman's Daughter.   We have had a number of tragic cases in the UK where DNA results have resulted in innocent men being imprisoned for 'life' for murders with which they had no connection.   One that springs to mind was of a middle aged man who lived with his devoted mother.   He was a delightful, always smiling, but 'simple' man.   He was jailed purely on the grounds of DNA evidence for a murder he did not commit.   For seven years this poor soul was imprisoned alongside real thugs, murderers and drug addicts.   He was bullied, mocked and derided.  His mother's heart was broken.   He was eventually released with a full pardon and, of course, grounds for a vast sum of compensation.   Within days of his release, he died.   This one instance has left my mind very open when it comes to DNA evidence.   To quote someone else - and it is a fact - nothing in this world is fallible.

tsaria
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: Helen_Azar on August 24, 2007, 01:52:31 PM
He was jailed purely on the grounds of DNA evidence for a murder he did not commit. 

Tsaria, when you say he was "jailed purely based on DNA evidence", can you be a little more specific? It's possible you may be confusing something in this story. There are many many many cases where people had been jailed based on various evidence, and then later exonerated once the DNA evidence became available. I never heard of a case where the opposite was true. If you would please kindly provide the specifics of this incident, that would be great. Thank you.
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: Annie on August 24, 2007, 01:53:07 PM
Quote
There are many forums where this may be discussed, just not here.

I have an honest question. "Here" is the "survivor" forum (which IMO should be renamed 'pretenders') so if this isn't the forum where this can be discussed, what is, and if it's not okay to discuss it on AP forums at all then why are the "AA supporters" allowed to make such allegations? Just wondering perhaps you can clarify.

Personally I thought "AA supporters" was much kinder than calling someone out by name or using a more insulting term.

As far as the accuracy of the results, I agree with Helen, if you totally understand it then you know some of the theories just don't make any sense. In the case of the Romanovs and AA, there have been numerous tests by several labs and there was a match every time. The chances of this happening four or more times in error is not likely. This is what leads some of us to believe that either some 'AA supporters' don't understand the science, or that perhaps they actuallly believe in a conspiracy theory such as the intestine switch and are using the attack on accuracy of DNA as not to admit to such extreme theories. There is no other way out of it, either they don't trust science, or they think there was tampering. That's not being unkind, it's obvious. At one time all discussion of tampering was disallowed unless there was proof, so perhaps those who still choose to deny the test results are using a different path to the same conclusion, that being that AA could still be AN despite all the contrary evidence.  This is why it's so frustrating.
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: Forum Admin on August 24, 2007, 01:57:32 PM
I am afraid that on this one point, I must disagree with Tsaria.

The distinction here is being lost between the TWO kinds of DNA testing.  The UK DNA issues are related to NUCLEAR DNA, the scientists who call DNA testing as "not-infallible" are referring to NUCLEAR DNA.

Mitochondrial DNA is different.  Mitochondrial DNA requires far shorter sequencing than Nuclear DNA.  mtDNA can do one thing and one thing only, to a degree of absolutely 100%.

mtDNA will 100% EXCLUDE someone from a possible maternal relationship. THERE IS ZERO ROOM FOR DOUBT in a mtDNA test where the samples are intact, as in the AA case.

If you doubt the mtDNA testing, you simply have not done any research into the question whatsoever.

There "is" some room for discussion about nuclear DNA testing, for example, it can not always distinguish between siblings (this is what has occurred in the UK).

Once again, I remind everyone that it is specious to make blanket statements about ALL DNA testing, without addressing the specific forms.

mtDNA is WITHOUT DOUBT 100% reliable as to excluding someone from a relation. I have, for six years now, made the public challenge for anyone who claims otherwise to provide citation to any single scientist in the field who is on record in a peer review journal who can support the notion that mtDNA testing is not 100% relaible for this purpose.  So far, nada. Am still waiting....

FA
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: Forum Admin on August 24, 2007, 02:01:46 PM
He was jailed purely on the grounds of DNA evidence for a murder he did not commit. 

Tsaria, when you say he was "jailed purely based on DNA evidence", can you be a little more specific? It's possible you may be confusing something in this story. There are many many many cases where people had been jailed based on various evidence, and then later exonerated once the DNA evidence became available. I never heard of a case where the opposite was true. If you would please kindly provide the specifics of this incident, that would be great. Thank you.

Helen,

The case Tsaria is referring to is a recently "famous" one where a rape/murder occurred. The nDNA was sequenced and a gentleman was arrested and convicted based on his match to the crimescene nDNA, despite exonerating evidence that he was actually nowhere near the crime scene at the time.  He had (I believe, tho may be mistaken) four brothers, one of whom was in fact the actual murderer. It took a much more thorough testing of DNA to distinguish between the two.

Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: Helen_Azar on August 24, 2007, 02:04:33 PM
There "is" some room for discussion about nuclear DNA testing, for example, it can not always distinguish between siblings (this is what has occurred in the UK).

Hmmm... As far as I am aware, nuclear DNA is unique to each individual, save identical twins (of course there is that "chimera phenomenon, but lets not go there). So it definitely distinguishes between siblings (other than identical twins). Honestly, I have no idea what tsaria is talking about... I wish she would give some more details on the case she mentioned.
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: Helen_Azar on August 24, 2007, 02:05:28 PM
He was jailed purely on the grounds of DNA evidence for a murder he did not commit. 

Tsaria, when you say he was "jailed purely based on DNA evidence", can you be a little more specific? It's possible you may be confusing something in this story. There are many many many cases where people had been jailed based on various evidence, and then later exonerated once the DNA evidence became available. I never heard of a case where the opposite was true. If you would please kindly provide the specifics of this incident, that would be great. Thank you.

Helen,

The case Tsaria is referring to is a recently "famous" one where a rape/murder occurred. The nDNA was sequenced and a gentleman was arrested and convicted based on his match to the crimescene nDNA, despite exonerating evidence that he was actually nowhere near the crime scene at the time.  He had (I believe, tho may be mistaken) four brothers, one of whom was in fact the actual murderer. It took a much more thorough testing of DNA to distinguish between the two.

Was he an identical twin?
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: Annie on August 24, 2007, 02:08:18 PM


He had (I believe, tho may be mistaken) four brothers, one of whom was in fact the actual murderer. It took a much more thorough testing of DNA to distinguish between the two.



Several years ago in my area, a little girl was abducted from a skating rink, raped, murdered and mutilated by a pedophile. There was much evidence against him and he was convicted. He had a twin brother, and he tried in vain to try to get out of it saying the DNA could have been his brother's instead, nobody bought his excuse because he was the child molester and there was other evidence against him. But what a terrible thing to do to your brother! Of course murderers just aren't very nice people.
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: Forum Admin on August 24, 2007, 02:15:47 PM
He was not an identical twin, I'll try to google the story again, but it had something to do with the number of loci points sequenced
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: Helen_Azar on August 24, 2007, 02:25:56 PM
He was not an identical twin, I'll try to google the story again, but it had something to do with the number of loci points sequenced

That was my next question: in some instances, by coincidence, if they only sequence very few loci points, they may match in siblings, but this is why when they do these test, they don't limit them to only a couple of loci points. Two or three may match, but once you do more, chances are they won't. The more you do, the less chance for a match if these are different individuals. Past something like 6, it is almost impossible. In this case, it sounds like they just didn't finish sequencing and jumped to conclusions too fast. It had nothing to do with the unreliablity of DNA science but more with incompetence/laziness of the staff on the case... Once again, the lack of complete understanding of DNA science may lead to the wrong conclusions about the unreliability of these tests...
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: Forum Admin on August 24, 2007, 02:50:37 PM
I found this, of interest:

UNITED STATES v. EWELL and ADAMS, Defendants
US District Court for the District of New Jersey
00-697 GEB (2003)

3. Known or Potential Error Rate
The testimony introduced at the hearing demonstrated that the FBI has established protocol to be followed in performing the PCR amplification and typing of the thirteen core STR loci using the Profiler Plus and COfiler kits in order to produce consistently reliable results. 1T121. The protocol provides a procedure for performing each stage of the of the amplification and typing process. Id. at 122. The testimony indicates that if an
analyst follows the FBI protocol and uses properly calibrated instruments, there is essentially zero rate of error, i.e., obtaining a wrong result, within established measurement conditions. Id. at 124-25. The Government concedes, however, that this result is subject to human error.

The defendant argues that the Government has not offered evidence as to how often the laboratory actually reaches the wrong result due to human errors, instrument errors and errors due to the failure to follow FBI protocol. Defense expert Dr. Kessis has broadly estimated this rate of error at 1 in 200, but admitted that it could be somewhere in between 1 in 20 and 1 in 20,000. 3T39; 3T81. Therefore, defendant claims that the
Government has not satisfied this criterion.
Laboratory error may only form the basis for exclusion of an expert opinion if "a reliable methodology was so altered ... as to skew the methodology itself...." Paoli, 916 F.2d at 858; accord Beasley, 102 F.3d at 1448. As noted, however, the defendant's argument is not based on evidence of actual errors by the laboratory, but instead has simply challenged the Government's failure to quantify the rate of laboratory error. To the
contrary, the Government has demonstrated the scientific method has a virtually zero rate of error, and that it employs sufficient procedures and controls to limit laboratory error and thus, maintain the integrity of the method.

...

Dr. Budowle testified persuasively that the techniques set forth in the FBI protocol are valid and reliable for performing STR typing. Id. at 122-23. Dr. Budowle maintained that the protocol has been widely disseminated to the scientific community, and to his knowledge no peer-reviewed articles have concluded that the protocol is invalid or inadequate
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: LisaDavidson on August 24, 2007, 03:13:33 PM
Quote
There are many forums where this may be discussed, just not here.

I have an honest question. "Here" is the "survivor" forum (which IMO should be renamed 'pretenders') so if this isn't the forum where this can be discussed, what is, and if it's not okay to discuss it on AP forums at all then why are the "AA supporters" allowed to make such allegations? Just wondering perhaps you can clarify.

Personally I thought "AA supporters" was much kinder than calling someone out by name or using a more insulting term.

As far as the accuracy of the results, I agree with Helen, if you totally understand it then you know some of the theories just don't make any sense. In the case of the Romanovs and AA, there have been numerous tests by several labs and there was a match every time. The chances of this happening four or more times in error is not likely. This is what leads some of us to believe that either some 'AA supporters' don't understand the science, or that perhaps they actuallly believe in a conspiracy theory such as the intestine switch and are using the attack on accuracy of DNA as not to admit to such extreme theories. There is no other way out of it, either they don't trust science, or they think there was tampering. That's not being unkind, it's obvious. At one time all discussion of tampering was disallowed unless there was proof, so perhaps those who still choose to deny the test results are using a different path to the same conclusion, that being that AA could still be AN despite all the contrary evidence.  This is why it's so frustrating.

I'll try to answer your questions as best I can.

1. If and when there is conclusive proof that there were no survivors, we will have to consider a name change - to perhaps "The Search for Survivors". By the way, a pretender is not just someone who "pretends", it is also used (in the case of royalty) to describe someone who aspires to a throne. So, I think it's very confusing to call a faux royal a "pretender".

2. We decided to open up the Forum somewhat so that topics of interest can be discussed. What's off limits is discussion about AA being related to the Imperial Family for reasons that have been outlined here in great detail by Rob. Other than this, at this moment, all other discussion is permitted.

3. I think it would be better to refer to a member by name or names, as an example: "Blowhard believes that AA was a space alien" as opposed to "All AA Supporters believe that AA was a space alien". The term "AA Supporters" sounds as if they have a club. AFAIK, they don't. So please do not lump everyone who questions some of the results together - it's all part of that respect thing that is so important to everyone.

4. I get that you are frustrated with those who do not accept the DNA evidence about the family as conclusive or even correct. Human beings have a remarkable capacity to disagree with one another. The civilized solution is to agree to disagree. Most of my friends do not agree on everything, and none of us expects to agree. Discussions are far more interesting when there are areas of disagreement.

5. If a member posts something you feel violates forum rules or is completely out of line, please PM me.

If I left anything out or have not been clear, also PM me.
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: Annie on August 24, 2007, 03:35:13 PM


I'll try to answer your questions as best I can.

1. If and when there is conclusive proof that there were no survivors, we will have to consider a name change - to perhaps "The Search for Survivors". By the way, a pretender is not just someone who "pretends", it is also used (in the case of royalty) to describe someone who aspires to a throne. So, I think it's very confusing to call a faux royal a "pretender".

If we'll know for sure there are no survivors, how about calling it claimants?

Quote
2. We decided to open up the Forum somewhat so that topics of interest can be discussed. What's off limits is discussion about AA being related to the Imperial Family for reasons that have been outlined here in great detail by Rob. Other than this, at this moment, all other discussion is permitted.

This is where I'm getting a double standard here and I don't understand when you do or don't draw a line. If it's not okay to discuss her being related to the royal family, but when people continually post pics of AA and AN and say ,that's the same person, or say, AA had a scarred lip so it could have come from AN being bayonetted, or inisisting that nobody told her any memories because they were her own genuine memories, and saying her family denied "AN" for greed and money, isn't it basically the same thing without saying it in so many words AA IS RELATED TO THE IF? If they are making posts backing up the position that AA was AN and expecting it to be validated as a respectable opinion, isn't that what they're doing?

Quote
3. I think it would be better to refer to a member by name or names, as an example: "Blowhard believes that AA was a space alien" as opposed to "All AA Supporters believe that AA was a space alien". The term "AA Supporters" sounds as if they have a club. AFAIK, they don't. So please do not lump everyone who questions some of the results together - it's all part of that respect thing that is so important to everyone.

Because I hate getting accused of 'blanket statements' I make it a point never to say ALL and almost always include 'most' 'some' or 'many' in my comments. Since this news has been released I may not have because the things I have been saying about AA supporters do indeed apply to all I have known here, that they do think there was a switch and conspiracy and/or they deny the DNA science. I don't see what's so bad about saying that since it's obviously the truth and if any AA supporter finds it offensive, it's only their own position they are taking exception to not me.

Quote
4. I get that you are frustrated with those who do not accept the DNA evidence about the family as conclusive or even correct. Human beings have a remarkable capacity to disagree with one another. The civilized solution is to agree to disagree. Most of my friends do not agree on everything, and none of us expects to agree. Discussions are far more interesting when there are areas of disagreement.

Sure people disagree about everything from politics to what to get on their pizza. You may love to paint your house red with purple shutters and your neighbor might think it's so horrible it's an eyesore. Those are natural opinions, but when something has been proven to be false, such as the earth being flat or AA being AN, how can anyone expect to still go around weilding that stance and expect not to be challenged on it, sometimes in humorous ways? Realize it's an unpopular position and don't take personal offense.

Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: Forum Admin on August 24, 2007, 03:47:23 PM
He was not an identical twin, I'll try to google the story again, but it had something to do with the number of loci points sequenced

snip:  It had nothing to do with the unreliablity of DNA science but more with incompetence/laziness of the staff on the case... Once again, the lack of complete understanding of DNA science may lead to the wrong conclusions about the unreliability of these tests...

Helen, I think this is the crux of the "misunderstanding" Ferrymans and Tsaria may have here.  After doing a lot of research trying to find the case I was mentioning, I ended up reading much written recently about the "unreliability" of DNA testing.  The bottom line is, as you said, the science itself is 100% reliable.  The problems are in the application of the science or interpretation of the results, NOT the testing itself.
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: Annie on August 24, 2007, 04:03:46 PM
the problems are in the application of the science or interpretation of the results, NOT the testing itself.

So doesn't this mean they believe in tampering, switch, etc?

The Romanov and AA tests have been done more than once and by different people, so shouldn't that put them in another category than something tested only once? If there were 'error' why would all the results be the same?
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: Forum Admin on August 24, 2007, 04:57:07 PM
Annie, that is exactly why we take the position that the testing was/is accurate and the results conclusive.  To date NOT ONE PERSON has ever produced a specific statement from a single expert in the field that says the original testing is incorrect which has stood up to peer review.  The only paper ever produced on the subject was the Knight et al paper, which failed the peer review test and was shown to itself be flawed and to have been produced by someone who wanted to dispute the Gill et al work for personal gain because they themselves wanted to press a claim.

Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: Terence on August 24, 2007, 07:37:41 PM

I have to say I agree with Ferryman's Daughter.   We have had a number of tragic cases in the UK where DNA results have resulted in innocent men being imprisoned for 'life' for murders with which they had no connection.   One that springs to mind was of a middle aged man who lived with his devoted mother.   He was a delightful, always smiling, but 'simple' man.   He was jailed purely on the grounds of DNA evidence for a murder he did not commit.   For seven years this poor soul was imprisoned alongside real thugs, murderers and drug addicts.   He was bullied, mocked and derided.  His mother's heart was broken.   He was eventually released with a full pardon and, of course, grounds for a vast sum of compensation.   Within days of his release, he died.   This one instance has left my mind very open when it comes to DNA evidence.   To quote someone else - and it is a fact - nothing in this world is fallible.

tsaria

This brings to mind something that has bothered me since I started reading here and I don't recall that has ever been addressed.  I may be wrong, and if so I apologize.

There is a world of difference between the science of DNA analysis and how it is interpreted in court and by a jury of laymen.  I'm not familiar w/ the case tsaria cited, but the misuse of DNA evidence in a legal proceeding does not invalidate it's scientific accuracy.  The fact that DNA connects a specific person to some organic material they left in a specific place does in no way establish their actions at that place.  That is all done by other methods, sometimes very speculative.  DNA analysis in and of itself is not the speculative part of a case, it's what is done w/ it by lawyers.  :o

Am I making any sense here?

T

edit: I guess this has been addressed, perhaps a mod can delete this please
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: Annie on August 24, 2007, 09:25:26 PM
Annie, that is exactly why we take the position that the testing was/is accurate and the results conclusive.  To date NOT ONE PERSON has ever produced a specific statement from a single expert in the field that says the original testing is incorrect which has stood up to peer review.  The only paper ever produced on the subject was the Knight et al paper, which failed the peer review test and was shown to itself be flawed and to have been produced by someone who wanted to dispute the Gill et al work for personal gain because they themselves wanted to press a claim.



How terrible anyone would want to distort science and history for their own agenda. I'm glad the peer review showed them up.
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: LisaDavidson on August 25, 2007, 01:13:50 AM
Annie, please excuse me for not copying your earlier post. Here is my response.

1. I think once and if it is conclusively proven that there were no survivors, referring to those who claimed to be survivors as claimants is fair.

2. There is no double standard. If you or anyone else finds a post on this Forum that violates policy, all you have to do is report it. While we are extremely tolerant of most discussions, where we draw the line is on the matters I've outlined. We insist on respectful treatment of others. We insist that the subject of AA being ANR is closed.

3. I really don't see that we have anyone who could be classified as an "AA supporter" left on this Forum. It is, however, a label and you may be correct that this will all become moot if this week's news becomes conclusive. I do not, however, think that continued harping about people who are no longer here is really very interesting nor does it foster discussion.

4. It's fine to challenge someone's views, it's quite another to not respect their right to hold an opinion that differs from the one most hold.
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: ChristineM on August 25, 2007, 04:21:54 AM
Sorry Helen A, I cannot answer when I am asleep - believe it or not, I'm usually awake when I post on the Forum!

Firstly, I cannot remember the identity of this particular gentleman.   Although English-speaking, his surname was Eastern European and he was a giant of a man - abnormally large.   He lived alone with his mother and there were no brothers or sisters.   I'm hoping Kimberley might be able to remember details.

Anyway, perhaps the DNA was contaminated, but as I recall the poor soul was no where near the scene of the crime.   You are right FA it was rape and murder, but I think you are referring to a different case.

As I wrote earlier, I have known a number of eminent people who have been 'taken in' by the Anna Anderson story but nobody has any right anywhere to mock other peoples' genuinely held opinions - anywhere - especially on an honourable forum such as this.     

As for myyself, I remain indifferent.   A stance I have always taken.   Although I think Anna Anderson is a fascinating subject in her own right.   In fact she probably was a much more interesting human being and certainlyh led a much more interesting life than the poor girl, the Grand Duchess Anastasia Nicholaevna, would have had the opportunity to live.

I just hope that if the remains recently discovered do prove to be those of the missing children and that the remains are delivered to repose in peace alongside their nearest and dearest.   

However, having followed the 'searches' for years and having visited the sites, I have to say I remain highly sceptical as to how this burial site was missed - particularly given Yurovsky's evidence.   Every part of that area has been dug over and sifted, time and time again over the last twenty five years.   There's just something that doesn't quite hold together for me in these 'findings'.   I also find it strange that certain people - on the opposite side of the world - are made privy to these findings before Russianofficialldom even has the opportunity to release any kind of statement.   This is not only not scientific.   It is not professional.

tsaria

Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: dmitri on August 25, 2007, 06:04:25 AM
Yes the Forum Administrator is spot on yet again. To doubt the DNA that proved AA was not the Grand Duchess Anastasia would be a touch silly in this day and age. That's being diplomatic and yet there are still people who display extreme foolishness. I guess it is a case that everybody has the right to have an opinion although not everyone has the right to be heard.
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: Annie on August 25, 2007, 06:51:57 AM
I can think of two "AA supporters" by name who post almsot daily so they are not all gone. And I agree Dmitri, it's impossible to 'respect' someone's opinion when the opinon has been proven wrong as fact. I can respect that someone prefers onions on their pizza or Bach to the Beatles though I don't, but I cannot respect the belief that AA was AN because it's not an opinion anymore once it's been proven not to be true. Even these news stories from all over the world we keep seeing state right out that AA was proven to be FS. It's the truth! So when somene still claims she might have been AN for some conspiracy theory that is not respectable, nor can I respect the right to hold such a view when it is incorrect and it is NOT just 'my opinion let others come to their own conclusion' it IS incorrect. It is the position that is not respected and challenged, not the poster personally. "AA supporters" (some) need to learn this. I've seen it on music forums too, some people whine and say you have wounded their inner child for not 'respecting' their view of their favorite album, but if I personally dislike it and say so, that's my right too, and if they want me to supress my views so they won't have to be upset by hearing an alternate view, that's not fair. Over time that is what 'some' 'AA supporters' have done, they want to list their lists and put their view out there witout challenge or opposition, and if anyone does that, then we are 'bashing' 'attacking' etc. It's not like that. No matter how much we may feel like it I have never seen anyone say 'you are an idiot for believing that' or 'ha ha ha don't tell me you buy that'. About the worst I've seen is stuff like comparing belief in AA being AN to believing in the Easter Bunny as an adult, and yes I've said it myself, but I use only the belief and not the poster as the issue. If someone takes it that way it's not my fault. I have seen on other forums how 'many' 'AA supporters' complain about their 'bad' threatment on this forum, but it's only because they were told things they didn't want to hear.
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: Forum Admin on August 25, 2007, 09:54:55 AM
Just found this "blog" entry posted on the Law Professors' Blog Network,  by David H. Kaye, Regents' Professor of Law, Arizona State Univ. College of Law.  I think it really cuts to the chase of this discussion...


April 24, 2007
The Meaning of Error

I am sitting at a meeting of a National Academy of Science Committee on Identifying the Needs of the Forensic Science Community. Forensic scientists addressing the committee have said that it is not a "false positive" or not an "error" when a test (such as microscopic hair comparison or ABO blood typing) is "correct" in the sense that it gives the best result it can (two hairs really are indistinguishable under the microscope, the blood really is type A). Judge Harry Edwards, the co-chair of the committee, disputed this terminology, saying that if more discriminating mitochondrial DNA testing correctly establishes that the hairs actually come from different people, then the microscopic comparison was an error.

Who is right? Well, both. The laboratory has not erred in the sense that it has applied the test correctly. This is an internal perspective on the process. Judge Edwards also is right. The test has erred from an external perspective. If a court convicts an innocent man because the microscopic features of his hair  match, that is a substantive error. Would the forensic scientists insist that an eyewitness who looks carefully and has a good memory but nevertheless misidentifies an assailant has not erred?

The point is that there are different sources of possible error. If we are interested in the error rates of a properly performed test, then the external perspective is appropriate. Such a test has a measurable sensitivity and specificity, and we need to know these statistics to evaluate its validity and utility. If we are interested in proficiency or reliability, however, the internal perspective applies.

Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: Annie on August 25, 2007, 01:24:08 PM
I don't get it. It seems like he's saying that because possibility of error exists, either in testing or handling, no test can ever be relied on as true proof? I'm sure that's not what you intended to show, is it?
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: LisaDavidson on August 25, 2007, 01:48:04 PM
I don't get it. It seems like he's saying that because possibility of error exists, either in testing or handling, no test can ever be relied on as true proof? I'm sure that's not what you intended to show, is it?

No. It's not saying that. It's discussing which perspective is most appropriate in evaluating these tests.
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: Kimberly on August 25, 2007, 04:04:29 PM
Tsaria, its been bugging me but I think you are referring to the Stefan Kiszko case.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan_Kiszko (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan_Kiszko)
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: Forum Admin on August 25, 2007, 04:29:44 PM
No Annie,

Lisa got it. What he is saying is this: IF one test leads to one conclusion and another test CONTRADICTS the first test, is the first test "erroneous"? For example, take the AA case.  All those earlier "tests" ear shape, etc lead to one conclusion. Then DNA came along and showed the opposite conclusion, AA could not possibly have been ANR.  Were those earlier tests "erroneous"? No.

The genuine point I wanted to make though is this: "IF" a DNA test is INTERPRETED incorrectly, leading to a bad result, is the TEST ITSELF ERRONEOUS OR INVALID? The answer is no...I wanted to demonstrate to those who call DNA testing "invalid" or "unreliable" don't understand that the TEST is 100% reliable, it is the interpretation of the test by humans which can be unreliable, but not the science.

Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: Annie on August 25, 2007, 04:43:30 PM
I wanted to demonstrate to those who call DNA testing "invalid" or "unreliable" don't understand that the TEST is 100% reliable, it is the interpretation of the test by humans which can be unreliable, but not the science.



So you're talking about people misunderstanding DNA and not tests being wrong, right? Well if I was too dense to see that I'm afraid some AA supporters might have taken it the way I did, and make them assume that DNA could be wrong sometimes and it's not. Thanks for explaining.

Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: dmitri on August 26, 2007, 12:05:34 AM
Well it is proven that Anna Anderson was not Anastasia. DNA testing is wonderful isn't it?
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: Belochka on August 26, 2007, 12:54:45 AM
Well it is proven that Anna Anderson was not Anastasia. DNA testing is wonderful isn't it?

Indeed DNA profiling is a superior analytical laboratory tool in the hands of trained professionals who in 99.9% of the time get it right.

No matter how many years ago the technique was applied to a given sample the results were reliable then as they are today.

I have worked for many years in medical research laboratories and I know what I am talking about here.

Margarita
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: dmitri on August 26, 2007, 01:13:29 AM
Talk? Sounds more like bizarre rants. It well and truly proven that Manahan/Anderson was Schankowska. ALL the articles on the recent recovery of bones refer to the imposter Anderson as the Polish peasant Schankowska. 
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: Tsarfan on August 26, 2007, 11:00:09 AM
As for myself, I remain indifferent.   A stance I have always taken.   Although I think Anna Anderson is a fascinating subject in her own right.   In fact she probably was a much more interesting human being and certainlyh led a much more interesting life than the poor girl, the Grand Duchess Anastasia Nicholaevna, would have had the opportunity to live.

I just hope that if the remains recently discovered do prove to be those of the missing children and that the remains are delivered to repose in peace alongside their nearest and dearest.   

However, having followed the 'searches' for years and having visited the sites, I have to say I remain highly sceptical as to how this burial site was missed - particularly given Yurovsky's evidence.   Every part of that area has been dug over and sifted, time and time again over the last twenty five years.   There's just something that doesn't quite hold together for me in these 'findings'.   I also find it strange that certain people - on the opposite side of the world - are made privy to these findings before Russianofficialldom even has the opportunity to release any kind of statement.   This is not only not scientific.   It is not professional.

A very measured and balanced viewpoint, Tsaria . . . something this whole discussion needs right now.  I've been watching this topic discussed across the internet, and the vast majority of posts seem to be emanating from people on both sides of the question who are less interested in the establishment of the truth than in having their own pre-existing views corroborated.

At different times, I have held different opinions about whether anyone could have survived the massacre or, if anyone did, whether it could have been Anastasia.  However, the general trend was that the more I came to understand the history of that period, the less likely anyone's survival appeared to be.  However, the question was finally laid to rest for me by the finding of the larger grave and the DNA tests establishing Anna Anderson's lineage.  It was interesting, but neither my life nor my general perspective on Russian history altered as a result.

Your caution about jumping to any early conclusions based on press reports is spot on.  My guess is that they have, in fact, found the two missing Romanov bodies, that DNA tests will bear that out, and that tenable explanations will be given (I have already seen one possbility) for why the spot was missed earlier.  But I also recognize that this is Russia, where a confluence of agendas can make the truth a very difficult thing to determine dispositively.

So my plan is to wait for independently-corroborated DNA tests.  That will answer the question for me, no matter how unlikely the circumstances of the find otherwise appear.  If DNA cannot be obtained, I will pay some attention to at least the less-bizarre arguments that the find is suspect.  If DNA is obtained and independently tested, then I will pay no attention (except possibly to ridicule them) to the inevitable arguments that it was switched, or that lab personnel were bribed, or that Queen Elizabeth pulled strings, or that . . . . . . .

Let's just all settle down and see what the DNA tells us.  It's way too early to be battling over the circumstantial evidence, when it may soon be mooted -- at least in the minds of all but the conspiracists who gather around such events as flies to shi honey.

Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: Annie on August 26, 2007, 12:55:23 PM
Great new name for the forum! It had to change since there are no more 'questions!'
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: dmitri on August 26, 2007, 06:30:00 PM
Well the US testing can't have been 100% accurate. Bob doesn't think Maples was completely accurate. I tend to agree with him. The Russians are highly skilled and hardly incompetent. Soon it will all be over and only the fanatical imposter supporters will continue clutching ever more desperately at their broken straws. Thank goodness it is coming all to an end. What is important is the testing, not the country where it occurs. 
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: LisaDavidson on August 26, 2007, 11:40:43 PM
Well the US testing can't have been 100% accurate. Bob doesn't think Maples was completely accurate. I tend to agree with him. The Russians are highly skilled and hardly incompetent. Soon it will all be over and only the fanatical imposter supporters will continue clutching ever more desperately at their broken straws. Thank goodness it is coming all to an end. What is important is the testing, not the country where it occurs. 

Maples did no testing, Maples examined the remains. Bob may or may not agree with Maples. The only thing I know about this is that Bob also examined the remains and felt that as an artist he could recognize Anastasia's skull. On this particular point, you could say he disagrees with Maples.

The US testing that was done was on the identity of Anna Anderson and Tsar Nicholas. Do you now believe that the Ekaterinburg remains aren't genuine? Do you now believe that Anna Anderson was Anastasia? I'm a little confused, I thought you did believe in the accuracy of the tests done in the US.
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: dmitri on August 27, 2007, 12:17:56 AM
Don't worry about being confused. I'm not. I know you rarely are. It's great news and it will all come out in the wash. It puts to bed a load of nonsense that has been blurring the real significance of Russian history for ages. Perhaps the word testing is something that has been not understood.
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: Helen_Azar on August 27, 2007, 12:34:34 PM
The term "AA Supporters" sounds as if they have a club. AFAIK, they don't.

Well, that's sort of arguable ;-)  :-)
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: Helen_Azar on August 27, 2007, 12:41:27 PM
The bottom line is, as you said, the science itself is 100% reliable.  The problems are in the application of the science or interpretation of the results, NOT the testing itself.

Yes, exactly. This is why this whole thing can be (and has been) twisted, whether intentionally or not, to make it sound otherwise... And for those who have a shakey understanding of DNA science in the first place, it sounds reasonable that it isn't reliable. I think they sincerely believe it, but instead of trying to really educate themselves more on the subject, they just close their minds and accept that's it's "unreliable" and can't give us any definite answers, which of course is completely false - it can and does give definite answers - it's really the only thing that can do that.
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: Helen_Azar on August 27, 2007, 12:43:49 PM
... make them assume that DNA could be wrong sometimes and it's not.

No, DNA is never wrong when the tests are done properly (and there are various ways to ensure that including reproducing the results by someone else). The interpretations may be wrong, but not the results. DNA never lies.
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: Helen_Azar on August 27, 2007, 12:45:42 PM
So my plan is to wait for independently-corroborated DNA tests.  That will answer the question for me, no matter how unlikely the circumstances of the find otherwise appear.  If DNA cannot be obtained, I will pay some attention to at least the less-bizarre arguments that the find is suspect.  If DNA is obtained and independently tested, then I will pay no attention (except possibly to ridicule them) to the inevitable arguments that it was switched, or that lab personnel were bribed, or that Queen Elizabeth pulled strings, or that . . . . . . .

I say it's an excellent plan...
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: LisaDavidson on August 27, 2007, 04:22:55 PM
And we are now off topic. I respectfully request that everyone take their thoughts, questions, and the like to "The Final Chapter" section, and not discuss this in the Survivor Forum.
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: dmitri on August 28, 2007, 05:35:26 PM
I wonder what there is to question about the DNA results? They were readily available and thoroughly researched and examined. I guess it must have been just evidence that vindicated what Anastasia's family knew all along that this was a woman that was no relation of theirs at all. I guess Grand Duchess Olga Alexandrovna's views are the most telling of all. Princess Irene as well also found nothing that connected AA with her niece. I doubt two Aunts could have been wrong. 
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: Olishka~ Pincess on September 01, 2007, 07:59:20 AM
I wonder what there is to question about the DNA results? They were readily available and thoroughly researched and examined. I guess it must have been just evidence that vindicated what Anastasia's family knew all along that this was a woman that was no relation of theirs at all. I guess Grand Duchess Olga Alexandrovna's views are the most telling of all. Princess Irene as well also found nothing that connected AA with her niece. I doubt two Aunts could have been wrong. 
That is right, since they at least actually seen Anastasia a couple of times, not often and known her well. I would think Irene and Olga can tell if AA was their neice or not it is pretty simple. They did not have and other evidence signifigant back then other than that. There is nothing to question about the DNA tests. I know that some may want to question the DNA tests and make sure it is correct and accurate and disbelieve in it and start questioning it.
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: Richard_Schweitzer on October 11, 2007, 11:39:06 PM
Talking about "intestines" might alert some of the "scholars" here to recall the medical reports that Anastasia Manahan had in an earlier time given birth to a child. There is no record that FS has done so.
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: Annie on October 11, 2007, 11:46:08 PM
Quote
Talking about "intestines" might alert some of the "scholars" here to recall the medical reports that Anastasia Manahan had in an earlier time given birth to a child. There is no record that FS has done so.

Oh yes, this has been discussed a lot, too. Just because there is no record of a child being born to FS doesn't mean she didn't have one. In those days, it was 'disgraceful' to have an 'out of wedlock' child, so it could well have been abandoned, put on a doorstep, stillborn, and/or thrown in a trash can (desperate young girls still do that to this day, I still see it on the news sometimes) or given up for adopted anonymously. Nowadays, girls who are not married who have babies readily announce it in the newspapers, not even giving a father's name. But it was not so back then. It was a 'shame' on them, their reputation, and their families. It's very possible her own family didn't even know, or that they denied it because of the 'embarrassment.' Believe me I have known old fashioned families who felt this way and have spoken of such things happening in those days. I'm sure you must have known this to be true in earlier times.

In addition to this, the baby may not have been carried to term. My Grandmother lost a child at about 4 to 5 months gestation in a fall down the stairs, but in her old age, a doctor examining her told her he could tell she'd had FIVE children when she had given birth only four times and had four children. He explained that the scar from the umbilical cord left on the uterus from the miscarried child was the same as for those delivered full term and alive. So it's also possible AA as FS could have had a mid to late term miscarriage or even abortion and it would have shown up in the exam.  I have always thought that whatever happened to that baby must have been a big factor in the depression that led FS to try to commit suicide. She must have had a terribly miserable life, and actually ended up much better off as AA.
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: Richard_Schweitzer on October 12, 2007, 12:03:26 AM
However the conjectures may run, whatever is known about FS, her course in Germany, medical treatments, observations, her landlady and landlady's daughter, her own family, nothing supports her having had a child. But of course we really don't know do we?
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: Forum Admin on October 12, 2007, 09:23:49 AM
and these posts have WHAT to do with the Anna Manahan intestiinal samples? topic PLEASE....
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: Annie on October 12, 2007, 09:38:48 AM
Yes, that's true, sorry FA. Since Mr. Schweitzer is the one involved in the whole thing maybe if he has time he can run us through the whole intestine story.
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: Richard_Schweitzer on October 12, 2007, 01:56:23 PM
I am so terribly sorry, I did not realize the thread had been about histology.

And perhaps the intent was to limit to a specific designated organ, the "small bowel."

Although I had the privilege of talking directly with the surgeon, Richard Schrum, Sr. M.D., who did the resection, I am not qualified to review the procedure.
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: AGRBear on October 12, 2007, 02:20:47 PM
Often times these threads jump from one subject to another.

Glad to see you've return to the forum.

AGRBear
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: Richard_Schweitzer on October 12, 2007, 04:08:55 PM
On the histology side, an interesting anecdote:

The technician at MJH who extracted the "slices" from the tissue sample, was the same person who drew the blood samples from Anastasia for the premarital test required by Virginia.
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: Richard_Schweitzer on October 12, 2007, 05:11:28 PM
Now that I have had time to scan the entire thread, I will contribute the following:

As I have reported elsewhere on this site, I quietly, at Peter Gill's urging, arranged (with great bureacratic difficulty) and paid expenses for the testing done by AFIP. That ruled out any compromise of the FSS specimen.
I understand that the AFIP and FSS profiles were derived by differing techniques, but were totally congruent.

I did talk to Tom Dudley, M.D., at the time of the first taking, and from him I learned nothing to lead one to believe that any compromise occurred by reason of his earlier pathology (histology ID) confirmation (which, of course was cellular and did not encompass either form of DNA verification, so far as I am aware).

One other thing people overlook.  Was the tissue tested from a female?  Don't be surpirised if you didn't think of that. In fact it was not determined in the first report to us from FSS; and on my question, Gill and Sullivan went back, and came back with a yes it was. But, mtDNA, alone does not give a complete answer to every issue about tissue.
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: Forum Admin on October 12, 2007, 06:46:28 PM
So, Mr. Schweitzer, you do or do NOT believe the sample tested was the sample taken from Anna Manahan? yes or no, please.
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: Alixz on October 13, 2007, 12:03:27 AM
Again from Massie The Final Chapter  Chapter 18 page 341: 

Schweitzer made clear that he did not challenge Peter Gill's finding that the Charlottesville tissue Gill had tested was unrelated to Empress Alexandra and probably was related to the Schanzkowska family.  Instead, he challenged the legitimacy of the samples Gill had tested.

"To say that Gill was correct, but that Anna Anderson was not Schanzkowska, means that the tissue tested was not Anna Anderson's," Schweitzer explained while he was still in London.  "We now feel that there had to be some form of manipulation or substitution.  Specifically, that means that somehow, somebody got in and switched or substituted tissue at Martha Jefferson Hospital."


Ouch!  Does he truly need to answer that questions in the forum?  He seems to have answered it quite well in Mr. Massie's book.
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: Richard_Schweitzer on October 13, 2007, 02:53:04 AM
Well, I presume Bob Massie quoted me correctly at that occassion, especially since we invited him to be with us on the dias, as he was, and at meals with us, etc.

I also said a lot more.  But yes, Bob, I still think that is a possibility, and as I recall the specific language used by Peter Gill in the report published in Nature,Genetics, after peer review, he was careful to refer to the tissue as "putative."

Given the difficulties of the techniques at that time, as we understood from Peter Gill there was no assurance that mtDNA could be extracted, then amplified by PCR, let alone be "good enough" for comparisons, so we would not have been surpised at no match to the mtDNA that had been extracted from hard tissue. What was unfathomable to us was the "matchM to the Maucher profile. Incidentally, an additional blood sample from Maucher was kept in safe keeping for us to have separately profiled by other scientist. Although that might also be a way to get a match (make the Muacher sample match what was extracted from the tissue sample) we have never felt it necessary to do that, and don't have any reason to believe that would have occurred. But, if one was a "conspiracy theorist," they would want that added verification. It has never been done. It would have been much simpler to make the Maucher sample match the tissue than the other way around. Sorry if that disturbs the positivists.

So, we have concentrated on the tissue and possible compromise. It would require great expertise, technology and resources that seem to me would require sponsorship by some governemnt. But, that is pure conjecture.

Does that answer your question,  Bob?
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: Alixz on October 13, 2007, 08:19:48 AM
Mr. Schweitzer, you continue to obfuscate.

A simple yes or no was all that was asked.

Well, I presume Bob Massie quoted me correctly at that occasion, especially since we invited him to be with us on the dais, as he was, and at meals with us, etc.

I also said a lot more.  But yes, Bob, I still think that is a possibility, and as I recall the specific language used by Peter Gill in the report published in Nature,Genetics, after peer review, he was careful to refer to the tissue as "putative."

Given the difficulties of the techniques at that time, as we understood from Peter Gill there was no assurance that mtDNA could be extracted, then amplified by PCR, let alone be "good enough" for comparisons, so we would not have been surprised at no match to the mtDNA that had been extracted from hard tissue. What was unfathomable to us was the "matchM to the Maucher profile. Incidentally, an additional blood sample from Maucher was kept in safe keeping for us to have separately profiled by other scientist. Although that might also be a way to get a match (make the Muacher sample match what was extracted from the tissue sample) we have never felt it necessary to do that, and don't have any reason to believe that would have occurred. But, if one was a "conspiracy theorist," they would want that added verification. It has never been done. It would have been much simpler to make the Maucher sample match the tissue than the other way around. Sorry if that disturbs the positivists.
So, we have concentrated on the tissue and possible compromise. It would require great expertise, technology and resources that seem to me would require sponsorship by some government. But, that is pure conjecture.

Does that answer your question,  Bob?

I don't know if it answers FA's question, but it certainly does answer mine.  How could you believe that these scientists would compromise their own reputations by falsifying test results or getting a result by "backing into" the testing from the Maucher end?

(Throws hands up in the air, and slowly hits head against wall)  If this line of reasoning goes on we will all be seeing "men in black".
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: Forum Admin on October 13, 2007, 08:52:00 AM
It would have been much simpler to make the Maucher sample match the tissue than the other way around. Sorry if that disturbs the positivists.

The only problem Dick, with this statement is that the Anna Manahan tissue was sequenced first, BEFORE the Maucher sample, so there was no way to know HOW the tissue was supposed to sequence.

Does it answer my question? Not really, as I asked for a yes or no answer, and got an essay that really said nothing other than "we don't know so we can't really say..." I'm a lawyer (retired) myself, and can see that you don't want to give a definitive answer.
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: Richard_Schweitzer on October 13, 2007, 03:47:28 PM
Gee, people do not read what is writ!  I plainly said, we had no reason to believe the Maucher blood tissue profile had been compromised. I merely pointed out that to mitigate the constanrt references to my being "conspiracy theory" oriented. I knew we had back up samples of Maucher's blood, set aside outside FSS in a lockbox for our security.

However, I had no concern with the "order" in which the sequencing was done, and have no way without further search to find out if the FA is correct, which I see no need to do. Anyway, if one thought there might be a "conspiracy" at the FSS lab, certainly technicians could have assured by preliminaries that the Maucher profile when expanded, would match that of the Manahan profile, regardless of order - but, I am satisfied that did not happen, as I made clear initially.

If my answer about the tissue source was not definite enough, I will say that yes it think the tissue tested did not come from the body of Anasatasia Manahan, as the name entered on the histology records of MJH; but, further, that if it did come from that person's body, it was otherwise compromised.

The principal weight for my conclusions, not as advocacy for anyone else's thinking, is not that the mtDNA profile from that tissue did not match the profile from Prince Phillip, but that it was matched to that of Maucher. Whereas, the weight of so much other evidence is against the conclusion that Anastasia Manahan had the physical characteristics, origins and background of  FS. That does not gainsay the statistical probability established by the mtDNA science applied. It simply questions that to which the science was applied.
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: Richard_Schweitzer on October 13, 2007, 04:20:48 PM
Bob,

This is a pure hypothetical for lawyers:
 
I am not a litigator, though I managed some large litigations. You are quite possibly more experienced than I, but if you were contesting the way probative evidence was developed and being presented to show that  the qualities of A and B matched, and you were aware that technicians knew the qualities of A first, would it not seem simpler that in subsequently examining B, things could be rigged to make B match those already known qualities of A? Whereas, if the qualities of B were known first,  and the technicians had no way to know or affect the qualities of A ( even adding that it would require rigging to make A match those of B) how would you present the issue to a weighor of facts?

Of course neither occurred in this case.
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: Forum Admin on October 13, 2007, 04:42:10 PM

However, I had no concern with the "order" in which the sequencing was done, and have no way without further search to find out if the FA is correct, which I see no need to do. Anyway, if one thought there might be a "conspiracy" at the FSS lab, certainly technicians could have assured by preliminaries that the Maucher profile when expanded, would match that of the Manahan profile, regardless of order - but, I am satisfied that did not happen, as I made clear initially.

Dick

First, I"m Rob actually. Bob atchison posts under his own name.  I bring this up because I believe it far more critical than you seem to feel it to be.  Please go read the original article by Gill on the testing.  They make it quite clear in the article that the Anastasia Manahan tissue was sequenced first. Why is this important? One can not "rig" one sample to produce a pre-determined result. Please contact any forensic scientist who is familiar with the way mtDNA is sequenced and they will confirm that the sequence can not be rigged in advance. Secondly, because the Anna sample was sequenced first, nobody would actually KNOW what the Maucher sequence would have to be. There was simply no known sequence of the DNA itself yet in existence for the Maucher sample at the time the Anna sample was sequenced.  The ONLY genuine possibility to create the results as we know know them to be, aside from the logical conclusion that there is a 98.5% likelihood that Anna Manahan was maternally related by common female ancestor to Maucher,  was for a deliberate switch of the Maucher sample to replace the one labelled Anna Manahan.
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: Richard_Schweitzer on October 13, 2007, 08:06:38 PM
Rob,

First, I apologize for this misidentification.

Second, where I am I cannot go into our archives and read again that "first article" which I presume you mean is the one cocerning the comparitive profiles of the Putative tissue from MJH. Basically the report given in London at our press conference.

They are in Virginia in storage and I am far away.

Did I not make it clear that all this is not an issue in the actual case?

But, I gather you are positing that technicians cannot "create" a profile matching another when they have in hand material from which they derived the first profile. I don't think that was covered by the report of Gill and Sullivan in Nature, Genetics, but I am not able to refute whether it was or not. Actually, so far as I know, it never came up, other than the assurances they gave us that there would be an "unhandled" specimen from Maucher. So, maybe at that time they were not so sure as you seem to be now.

But, if I had a client to defend, whether I were in the sand of the arena or not, i would surely check the forensics of that hypothetical.
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: Forum Admin on October 13, 2007, 08:22:38 PM
Dick,
I am now confused. First you say that you indeed believe that the Anna Manahan sample was either compromised or switched. THEN you say that "this is not an issue in the actual case".  You see, I beg to differ. There is no physical way that the Maucher DNA sequence COULD have been in any way manipulated or switched to result in the sequences which we now have. That is very much the point in the actual case. No one had ever used mtDNA BEFORE the Anna manahan case to prove or disprove familial relationship.  Nobody could POSSIBLY have known what mtDNA sequence the Maucher sample would reveal prior to sequencing. Similarly, the same goes for the Anna sample.You can say that theywer then "not so sure" however the Gill published study says in so many words that Anna Manahan was not related to the Queen Victoria line of descent to a probability exceeding 99.9% AND was a maternal relation to Maucher with a probablilty of 98.5%. I'd say that is rather "sure"....
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: Richard_Schweitzer on October 13, 2007, 10:32:42 PM
Heavens, Rob, I must need to go back and take Remedial English Composiition.

The "that is not the case here" was only in reference to the hypothetical about the Maucher sample example; meaning, it did not happen.
That was the subject at hand, or so I thought. Or, did I miss something.
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: Richard_Schweitzer on October 13, 2007, 10:58:04 PM
But, Rob,  your statement about the use of the Anasatasia Manahan (that is its title) tissue to determine a relationship vel non by mtDNA was a first instance is a surprise to me.

To the best of my knowledge, the mtDNA of the Hessen Darmstadt line from the blood tissue of Prince Phillip was used to create a profile to compare with profiles of of mtDNA extracted from hard tissue of anthropologically determined female remains to establish the likelihood of a relational connection of those remains to the maternal lineage of the Hessen Darmstadt line.  If you are referring to an extraction from long-preserved soft tissue, then that indeed was probably a first instance, as we understtood at the time. There was also the earlier investigation of the mtDNA of Nicholas II, (anomoly and all), though right off I can't recall the source used to link back to his maternal side.

However, I will remind you also of the prior work of Dr. Marie Clair King in the U.S., as well. There was also the work of the Finnish scientist (principally in archeology) whose name I can recall now only in part - Paavo.S.....?

But then, I am neither an historian nor pretender to expertise in that field.
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: Richard_Schweitzer on October 13, 2007, 11:14:08 PM
Rob, going back over the exchanges, I note that you seem to be refering only to the sequencing, not the entire process of what is involved in obtaining a profile, and that may be a delimeation I missed.

The sequencing follows after the extraction of the mtDNA from whatever tissue source, as I understand. If I am wrong please correct me, Extraction is followed by amplification (PCR in the Anasatasia case), then the sequencing.
So, yes, once you get to the sequencing stage there is probably no room for "manipulation."  But, I am not so sure about the possibilities at the prior steps, and if I had a defense case, I would want to know.

That possibility of  manipulation of the Maucher specimen, at any step, was not an issue in the actual case.

Do I need to do another re-write? I am willing to try.
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: Richard_Schweitzer on October 13, 2007, 11:24:45 PM
I apparently need to make a reply to #131:

"How could you believe that these scientists would compromise their own reputations by falsifying test results or getting a result by "backing into" the testing from the Maucher end?"

The answer, as I plainly stated, if you will read what I wrote, is that we did not believe the scientists would. After all, we chose them to be given access and litigated for months to get it for them, and had previous cooperation in testing with them.

I think there may be  a lot of preconception that may be clouding clear reading of what I post.  I don't "obfuscate."
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: Richard_Schweitzer on October 13, 2007, 11:36:44 PM

Let us re-read together what I wrote that gave rise to #131:

" Although that might also be a way to get a match (make the Maucher sample match what was extracted from the tissue sample)

 we have never felt it necessary to do that,

and don't have any reason to believe that would have occurred.

 But, if one was a "conspiracy theorist," they would want that added verification.

 It has never been done."

 It would have been much simpler to make the Maucher sample match the tissue than the other way around. Sorry if that disturbs the positivists"
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: Alixz on October 14, 2007, 08:42:08 AM
I apologize for the use of the word "obfuscate".  However, I am in no way an expert as is FA or Bob in this field.  Bob hasn't checked in so much, but FA is here and it appears to me that he is seeing what I am seeing.

One the one hand you say,

Let us re-read together what I wrote that gave rise to #131:

" Although that might also be a way to get a match (make the Maucher sample match what was extracted from the tissue sample)

 we have never felt it necessary to do that,

and don't have any reason to believe that would have occurred.

 But, if one was a "conspiracy theorist," they would want that added verification.

 It has never been done."

 It would have been much simpler to make the Maucher sample match the tissue than the other way around. Sorry if that disturbs the positivists"

You claim that there was "no reason to have the Maucher sample "match" the tissue sample" (the backing in as I said) and  "don't have any reason to believe that would have occurred"  But instead of ending it there, you say, "if one was a "conspiracy theorist," they would want that added verification.  It has never been done." 
 
OK, since it has never been done, then it sounds as if you aren't a conspiracy theorist.  But you open a door for those who still want to believe. Its like leaving a small bump in the fact that will have someone gnawing away at it to find the real story.

However, you then said "So, we have concentrated on the tissue and possible compromise".

Now if you are looking for a "possible compromise" then you are a conspiracy theorist!  How else could any compromise have happened without a conspiracy by a person or persons unknown to "adjust" the findings which you find " unfathomable to us was the "matchM to the Maucher profile".

The only other reason for a compromise would be negligence that is gross negligence on the part of the hospital personnel and the messengers who carried the samples to the lab for testing.  Those who received the tissue samples at the lab and the scientists who did the actual testing and their assistants and the witnesses who were there to verify the accuracy and the legality of everything listed above.

You never truly come right out and say any of this, but you leave the thought dangling like a carrot in front of  person inclined to believe in conspiracy theories.

You may never have said directly that there was a conspiracy, however there is enough innuendo to have those who still want to believe that AA was ARN (as you do) salivating. 

Forgive my crass observation, and my apologies to every other lawyer who posts on this forum, but to me this is "lawyer speak".  You may not be a litigator, but I am sure you would have a jury so confused by the time that you were done with your summation that they would never be able to come to a 100% conclusion on a murder or a jay walking.  Even with a video of the defendant crossing the street against the light and three car accidents caused by his failure to obey the law shown in brilliant video imaging, you would still tell the jury to remember "reasonable doubt"

Actually ,if one thinks about it, I just complimented you on your skills as a lawyer.  Because isn't that what we all want if we need a lawyer? 

So please, Mr. Schweitzer, simple answers to simple questions.  We have been asked to simplify our questions to you would you please simplify your answers to us and leave the dangling...
 
And please, Mr. Schweitzer, we address you by your name as a consideration, please use our names as well instead of Post #131 etc.
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: Forum Admin on October 14, 2007, 10:47:47 AM
Rob, going back over the exchanges, I note that you seem to be refering only to the sequencing, not the entire process of what is involved in obtaining a profile, and that may be a delimeation I missed.

The sequencing follows after the extraction of the mtDNA from whatever tissue source, as I understand. If I am wrong please correct me, Extraction is followed by amplification (PCR in the Anasatasia case), then the sequencing.
So, yes, once you get to the sequencing stage there is probably no room for "manipulation."  But, I am not so sure about the possibilities at the prior steps, and if I had a defense case, I would want to know.

That possibility of  manipulation of the Maucher specimen, at any step, was not an issue in the actual case.

Do I need to do another re-write? I am willing to try.

No Dick, so far you're spot on. Here is what I think you are missing. You posit the possibility of manipulation after "extraction" of the mtDNA at some point prior to "PCR sequencing".  There IS no possibility here, short of a total switch of the sample. Why? because at this point, the actual "sequence" of the DNA is STILL NOT KNOWN.  mtDNA at the point of extraction is too small to actually read the sequence at this point.  It is literally only at the molecular level. Polymer Chain Reaction is the process which makes the DNA sequence readible so that it can be compared.

1. Since the Anna sample sequence is still unknown prior to PCR, it could not be manipulated. Period.  Why? because a. the Anna sequence was still unknown. and b. The Maucher sequence was also unknown.  How could anyone manipulate ONE unknown to match a second unknown? Please explain? Am trying to keep this simple, please call a specialist for the more specific science if you want more.

The second option of a switch. NOT POSSIBLE. Why? the Maucher sample did not match the Anna sample EXACTLY, there was one mis-match. This is why maternal relationship possibility was only 98.5%.  IF the Maucher was switched for the Anna sample, it would HAVE to have been a 100% match. Res Ipsa Loquitor, Dick...

Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: BobAtchison on October 14, 2007, 11:13:20 AM
Despite all that has been written here this is really a simple story.

It has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt that Anna Anderson could not have been related to Nicholas or Alexandra,  Anna Anderson was not Anastasia Romanov as she claimed.

Anna Anderson was either lying about who she was or she was mentally ill.  Perhaps it was both.  It is very, very likely - almost certain - that Anna Anderson was FS all along.  Anna Anderson/Anastasia is a fraud.

There are a few people who will never be persuaded that AA was not a Romanov Princess.  They will never accept AA was FS.  Nothing anyone can say, no scientific evidence will ever change their minds.  AA's advocates twist the truth, call serious, reputable scientists liars and conspirators, anything or anyone who undermines AA's claims comes under attack.
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: Richard_Schweitzer on October 14, 2007, 11:23:59 AM
Rob,

What seems to have happened here is that I digressed into the A & B hypothetical as I imagined someone like the Innocence Project might.

It was not my intent to draw any analogy to the comparisons made of the tissue from MJH, although I used those circumstances (where there was back-up) to raise those points. We did not ask for back-ups, and never thought it necessary to use the back-ups, though the scientists (not us) apparently thought it advisable they be available.

As you properly note, and I have stated, I am not an expert. But, if I had another and different  case for which to  arrange defense,  where there were not safeguards or back-ups for the specimens, I would look to expert tesimony on what could happen in the procedures.
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: Richard_Schweitzer on October 14, 2007, 11:30:29 AM
Bob Atchison:


You write:

"AA's advocates twist the truth, call serious, reputable scientists liars and conspirators, anything or anyone who undermines AA's claims comes under attack."

Is that your judgement of me and my continuing investigations?

R. Richard Schweitzer
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: Forum Admin on October 14, 2007, 11:34:11 AM


If my answer about the tissue source was not definite enough, I will say that yes it think the tissue tested did not come from the body of Anasatasia Manahan, as the name entered on the histology records of MJH; but, further, that if it did come from that person's body, it was otherwise compromised.

The principal weight for my conclusions, not as advocacy for anyone else's thinking, is not that the mtDNA profile from that tissue did not match the profile from Prince Phillip, but that it was matched to that of Maucher. Whereas, the weight of so much other evidence is against the conclusion that Anastasia Manahan had the physical characteristics, origins and background of  FS. That does not gainsay the statistical probability established by the mtDNA science applied. It simply questions that to which the science was applied.

Dick, THIS is what I am discussing not any of your "hypotheticals".  You have made a real world assertion and it is that assertion we are trying to discuss, whilst you attempt to avoid the jist of the discussion with first year law school hyptheticals.
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: BobAtchison on October 14, 2007, 11:37:49 AM
Richard:

As I posted in the Q and A thread I am asking if you question the recent discoveries in Yekaterinburg.  If you do can you say so clearly and what is the basis for your opinions?

Bob
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: Richard_Schweitzer on October 14, 2007, 11:52:32 AM
Bob,

I Answered what you asked in that post over in that thread. Now, you ask me something additional here about that, which I shall answer there.
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: Richard_Schweitzer on October 14, 2007, 11:56:44 AM
Bob,

I ask again, is that your judgement of me?
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: Helen_Azar on October 14, 2007, 01:01:12 PM
Mr. Schweitzer, you continue to obfuscate.

He can't help it, he is an attorney ;-).
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: Helen_Azar on October 14, 2007, 01:01:50 PM
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: Helen_Azar on October 14, 2007, 01:05:50 PM
Mr Schweitzer, can't you just answer the question with a "yes" or a "no", do you believe that Anderson's tissue sample that Dr Gill tested was somehow substitued for someone else's? Jus yes or no please. We can just take it from there.
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: Forum Admin on October 14, 2007, 01:10:15 PM
Helen,

I think Mr Slippery has already answered that question, by saying that yes he believes the sample tested by Gill "belonged to someone other than Anna Manahan". 

Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: Helen_Azar on October 14, 2007, 01:12:25 PM
Helen,

I think Mr Slippery has already answered that question, by saying that yes he believes the sample tested by Gill "belonged to someone other than Anna Manahan". 

Oh, he did? Sometimes it's hard to tell what he is saying exactly... Not a bad tactic to answer a question with another question, Mr Schweitzer, but really, a bit transparent...
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: Forum Admin on October 14, 2007, 01:16:16 PM
Here is what he said Helen:


If my answer about the tissue source was not definite enough, I will say that yes it think the tissue tested did not come from the body of Anasatasia Manahan, as the name entered on the histology records of MJH; but, further, that if it did come from that person's body, it was otherwise compromised.

The principal weight for my conclusions, not as advocacy for anyone else's thinking, is not that the mtDNA profile from that tissue did not match the profile from Prince Phillip, but that it was matched to that of Maucher. Whereas, the weight of so much other evidence is against the conclusion that Anastasia Manahan had the physical characteristics, origins and background of  FS. That does not gainsay the statistical probability established by the mtDNA science applied. It simply questions that to which the science was applied.
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: Richard_Schweitzer on October 14, 2007, 01:17:59 PM
Rob,

As to your #141:

The ad hominem doesn't bother me.  In responding, not oferring any arguments as advoccay, I explained what motivates my continuing investigations.

Bob has asked me straight questions. I tried to give straight answers.

I don't always get back straight answers to my questions.

So, to sort things out, if you think I have left something "hanging," lay it out as a straight question and I will answer.

As an aside: There is nothing wrong with First Year Law School, I passed and was admitted to the Virginia Bar by the end of my second year, and U.Va. did not concentrate on Virginia Law. I will twit you, and ask that you say from what other point in my over 55 years at  the Bar (and not just in one jurisdiction) I should frame responses?
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: Richard_Schweitzer on October 14, 2007, 01:23:52 PM
# 152 make a good point:

Look up the meaning of Attorn.  Not Attorney, who is someone who attorns.
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: Helen_Azar on October 14, 2007, 01:29:48 PM
# 152 make a good point:

Look up the meaning of Attorn.  Not Attorney, who is someone who attorns.

What??
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: Helen_Azar on October 14, 2007, 01:32:38 PM
Here is what he said Helen:

If my answer about the tissue source was not definite enough, I will say that yes it think the tissue tested did not come from the body of Anasatasia Manahan, as the name entered on the histology records of MJH; but, further, that if it did come from that person's body, it was otherwise compromised.

The principal weight for my conclusions, not as advocacy for anyone else's thinking, is not that the mtDNA profile from that tissue did not match the profile from Prince Phillip, but that it was matched to that of Maucher. Whereas, the weight of so much other evidence is against the conclusion that Anastasia Manahan had the physical characteristics, origins and background of  FS. That does not gainsay the statistical probability established by the mtDNA science applied. It simply questions that to which the science was applied.

Mr Schweitzer, whose intestine do you think it was?
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: Forum Admin on October 14, 2007, 01:36:50 PM
Here is as possibly plain as I can make it, so lets see how plain of an answer I will get:



If my answer about the tissue source was not definite enough, I will say that yes it think the tissue tested did not come from the body of Anasatasia Manahan, as the name entered on the histology records of MJH; but, further, that if it did come from that person's body, it was otherwise compromised.

The principal weight for my conclusions, not as advocacy for anyone else's thinking, is not that the mtDNA profile from that tissue did not match the profile from Prince Phillip, but that it was matched to that of Maucher. Whereas, the weight of so much other evidence is against the conclusion that Anastasia Manahan had the physical characteristics, origins and background of  FS. That does not gainsay the statistical probability established by the mtDNA science applied. It simply questions that to which the science was applied.

Very well. Since you say that 1. you think the tissue tested did not come from the body of Anastasia Manahan.
Who's body could it have come from?
If it was not Anastasia Manahan's, then there are very few alternatives.
a.It was mis-labelled at MJH.  Do you believe this is the case? yes or no.
b.It was deliberately switched. Do you believe this is the case? yes or no.

2. "that if it did come from that person's body, it was otherwise compromised." Please elaborate with specificity exactly how, when and where and by whom it was so compromised.

3. "The principal weight for my conclusions, not as advocacy for anyone else's thinking, is not that the mtDNA profile from that tissue did not match the profile from Prince Phillip, but that it was matched to that of Maucher."  As demonstrated, it was a virtual impossibility that the Anastasia Manahan sample DNA sequence was unknown prior to PCR.  It was sequenced first. The Maucher DNA sequence was thus also unknown at the time the AM sample was sequenced and was still unknown until the Maucher DNA was subject to PCR.

Please explain HOW a match to the Maucher DNA would occur, that was NOT an exact match, (ie: indicia of a switch of the DNA) but rather with ONE haplytype mis-match, which is in fact the exact thing one would occur in a familial relationship that was not maternal?

I am NOT asking for hypotheticals of any kind. I am asking you to make specific answers to support the statements you have made.  IS THIS CLEAR ENOUGH?
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: Forum Admin on October 14, 2007, 01:45:19 PM
# 152 make a good point:

Look up the meaning of Attorn.  Not Attorney, who is someone who attorns.

What??

Not sure either Helen, makes less sense when you look it up:

Blacks Law Dictionary:
Attorn:  To turn over; to transfer to another money or goods; to assign to some particular use or service.  To consent to the transfer of a rent or reversion.  To agree to become tenant to one as owner or landlord of an estate previously held of another, or to agree to recognise a new owner of a property or estate and promise payment of rent to him.

HUH??
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: Richard_Schweitzer on October 14, 2007, 02:27:20 PM
Important things first:

 Attorn:  Try Webster's or a standard dictionary for the v i.

 Ad Hominem:  The use of which usually discloses more about the user than its subject.

Back to you soon Bob.
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: Helen_Azar on October 14, 2007, 02:28:23 PM
# 152 make a good point:

Look up the meaning of Attorn.  Not Attorney, who is someone who attorns.

What??

Not sure either Helen, makes less sense when you look it up:

Blacks Law Dictionary:
Attorn:  To turn over; to transfer to another money or goods; to assign to some particular use or service.  To consent to the transfer of a rent or reversion.  To agree to become tenant to one as owner or landlord of an estate previously held of another, or to agree to recognise a new owner of a property or estate and promise payment of rent to him.

HUH??

OOOkay....

Moving right along, Mr Schweitzer, your posts would be a lot more convincing if you had some realistic theories to share with us... For example:

1. Whose intestine segment did the conspirators use to substitute for the tissue sample which was supposed to belong to Mrs Manahan?
    
    a. did the intestine segment belong to a recently deceased Maucher/Schanzkowski family member*?
    b. was the intestine segment excized from a living donor from the Maucher/Schanzkowski family?
    c. was a long deceased Maucher/Schanzkowski family member exhumed for this purpose?
    d. was any Maucher/Schanzkowski family member involved in the conspiracy (it seems they would have to be in order to get the sample)?

2. What is your proposed theory as to how the switch was performed by the conspirators at the hospital?
    
    a. assuming that it would have to be done after it got to Dr Gill's lab since he was not involved in this conspiracy (or was he?)
    b. if the swtich was done after the sample was transferred to Dr Gill's lab, then was a member of Dr Gill's staff possibly involved in the conspiracy, but not Dr Gill himself?
    c. did someone else (an outsider) gain access to Dr Gill's lab after the sample was transferred there and make the switch (substituting the sealed sample with an identical fake)?

Thank you in advance for sharing your theories with us, perhaps we will be convinced when we hear them.

* It would have to come from a Maucher/Schanzkowski family member in order to ensure the match to Karl Maucher - since that was the entire point of this conspiracy.
    
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: Helen_Azar on October 15, 2007, 01:49:10 PM
Mr Schweitzer, are you there?
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: Annie on October 15, 2007, 02:29:53 PM
Quote
* It would have to come from a Maucher/Schanzkowski family member in order to ensure the match to Karl Maucher - since that was the entire point of this conspiracy.

Not necessarily, if the Queen paid the scientists to lie ::) ::)

You know I don't believe that, and I have always said the switch was impossible because there's no way they could have cut out a piece of a Schanzkowska family member. But unfortunately, because some believe so strongly in a conspiracy, they wouldn't have to explain how they got the tissue from FS's relative, because in their minds, all the results were bogus and paid off by the queen :-X

If I am wrong, I do hope someone who disbelieves the autheticity of the sample will please explain otherwise.

1. The sample was stolen and switched out somehow somehow from a mysteriously obtained sample from a member of FS's family, (options listed by Helen) and switched (please explain how this was done in two samples stored and labeled differently)
2. The results never mattered because the Queen and/or other 'people for whom money was no object' made sure they were rigged to discredit AA.
3. Other, please specify________________________________________
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: Helen_Azar on October 15, 2007, 03:01:49 PM
Quote
* It would have to come from a Maucher/Schanzkowski family member in order to ensure the match to Karl Maucher - since that was the entire point of this conspiracy.

Not necessarily, if the Queen paid the scientists to lie ::) ::)


No, Mr Schweitzer said that Dr Gill was not involved and that he trusts Dr Gill, so it had to be someone else.

I think Mr Schweitzer can answer our questions and perhaps convince us the switch was possible. Mr Schweitzer?
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: Annie on October 15, 2007, 04:05:52 PM
Quote
* It would have to come from a Maucher/Schanzkowski family member in order to ensure the match to Karl Maucher - since that was the entire point of this conspiracy.

Not necessarily, if the Queen paid the scientists to lie ::) ::)


No, Mr Schweitzer said that Dr Gill was not involved and that he trusts Dr Gill, so it had to be someone else.

I think Mr Schweitzer can answer our questions and perhaps convince us the switch was possible. Mr Schweitzer?

But if they gave the samples directly to Gill, and he held them in the plane, and he did the work, how can this be? Are we back to the switch in the hospital, which would take us back to kidnapping a member of the FS family and cutting parts out of him/her? What about the comment that for some people money would be no object to discredit AA? Who is that and what and when did they do..what? I would welcome an answer from any AA supporter, including Ilya Borrisovich, who at one time here openly accused the queen by name.
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: Alixz on October 15, 2007, 04:09:29 PM
I think that Mr. Schweitzer was convinced that the DNA results would return in favor of AA being ANR and when they didn't he created the "conspiracy theory" himself with the words that he spoke at the time of the presentation and also the words that he spoke to Robert Massie which are included in The Romanovs - The Final Chapter  chapters 17 and 18.

I think we can rule out Bob Massie as being someone who would make up or "massage" the facts and if he cited Mr. Schweitzer, then I think we can believe that is what Mr. Schweitzer said.

The fact the Mr. Schweitzer does not have his "books and sources" to look into is a shame, but I think that one would remember what one said and did and not have to "go look it up" as if it happened to someone else.

I am not posting anything that has not been in print, especially in TFC.  I am not slandering or libeling.  (Slander being the spoken word and libel being the written word).  It is only my opinion, but that is what I read and posted here at least four times.  Chapter 17 page 238 and 239.  Chapter 18 page 243.

I think I believe that there were three shooters in Dallas more strongly than I believe that there was a conspiracy to defraud Anna Manahan/FS or her true place as Grand Duchess Anastasia Romanova.  At least the Kennedy conpirarists have forensic evidence and bullet trajectories and the Zapruter film to work with.

Here we have one man who desperately wanted to believe that his father-in-law was not a con man who "mooched" off of him and his wife while supporting a woman who was also "mooching" off anyone whom she could.

Perhaps because, as Bear pointed out, I did not know either Gleb Botkin or Anna Manahan/FS I do not have to right to feel the way I do.  However, I am entitled to my opinion and my opinion is supported by the information gleaned from the books I have read, one of which quotes Mr. Schweitzer himself.

I still think it too convenient that Anna/Franczeska was cremated.  I can't get it out of my mind that cremation was going to be a way to foil any investigations as to her identity (finger prints - dental records - foot structure- etc), but the MJH pathology department spoiled all that by keeping the tissue samples.

According to dates, Gleb Botkin was a year older than Anastasia as he was born in 1900.  Even with his father being the personal physician to the Imperial Family, I sincerely doubt that Gleb was given the run of the palace.  Just how well did he know the real Anastasia Romanova?  Perhaps we will never know.

Mr. Schweitzer with his convoluted answers to our (instructed to be) simple questions is never going to give away any information that we can't already get else where.

There are some here who seem to "deify" Mr. Schweitzer and honor him because he knew Gleb Botkin and through him Anna/Franczeska.  I respect him, but "honor" no one just because of an accident of life and history.
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: Helen_Azar on October 15, 2007, 04:45:19 PM
But if they gave the samples directly to Gill, and he held them in the plane, and he did the work, how can this be?

A staff member at the lab could have been paid off to do it or someone (an outsider) could have broken into the lab and made the switch. Mr Schweitzer, what do you think of this theory?

P.S. Mr Schweitzer, are you still with us?
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: Belochka on October 15, 2007, 11:06:40 PM
... I still think it too convenient that Anna/Franczeska was cremated.  I can't get it out of my mind that cremation was going to be a way to foil any investigations as to her identity (finger prints - dental records - foot structure- etc),

You are not the only person who expresses such a concern.

Had Mrs Manahan been the Grand Duchess Anastasiya Nikolayevna then her remains would have been respected as one who was entitled to have received the funeral and burial rites of the Russian Orthodox Church.

The incineration of a body as a choice and means to dispose of the remains is against the precepts of the Orthodox Church.

Mrs Manahan's cremation is evidence enough that the lady was not who she was purported to be.

Margarita
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: Annie on October 16, 2007, 06:51:59 PM
http://www.marthajefferson.org/about.php

Here is the contact info for MJH, in case anyone wants to ask for themselves.
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: Richard_Schweitzer on October 16, 2007, 08:26:58 PM
Since my time for these postings is becoming limited, and I can only scan the topics from time to time now, What I will do is post responses or such information as I have on the one thread that someone set up with my name. I will put this on all the threads that have put recent statements about my replies or questions to me. Earlier, I had copied out only one set of questions from “Rob,” that I will transfer to the single thread. Anyone else who wants follow-up will have to transfer their post to that thread. No guarantees of satisfaction.

I recognize that there is an effort to assure me that I am not Don Quixote, and that there are no windmills. I do not propose to “convince” anyone of anything. I do not advocate. When asked, I have stated my views. Such facts as I have, I share. I state them, I don’t try to prove them.

My reason for posting again, was being drawn in by the calumnies against those now dead; then drifting into two other threads of related topics. For a broader overview, some might consider going back over my posts to various threads on this site over years past. I think they will find they make up a consistent whole. If not, the fault is mine.

Dick Schweitzer

 
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: Alixz on October 23, 2007, 11:12:37 PM
Isn't the very definition of a fact the "fact" that it can be proven?

Anything else is theory or conjecture.  Theories can be stated, but should be backed up by a decent line of logic and source material.  Conjecture is conjecture and most likely can not be proven.

I am, of course, not the forum police.  But I have been put in my place many times by those who ask for "just the facts ma'am" and the sources to back up those facts.

Otherwise one should post in the "Just for Fun" section. 

Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: Belochka on October 24, 2007, 01:14:55 AM
Isn't the very definition of a fact the "fact" that it can be proven?

Anything else is theory or conjecture. ... Conjecture is conjecture and most likely can not be proven. 

A conjecture can be just a simple "guess" or a "suspicion" or an expression of one's creative "imagination" that can be supported by defective evidence and uncertainties.

The onus lies with the person who offered their conjecture by submitting more than just a point of view.

Margarita
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: Belochka on October 24, 2007, 02:37:19 AM
Introducing Mr Schweitzer's conjecture on this thread:

Question # 1

In "The Romanovs The Final Chapter" (1995) written by Robert Massie it is stated at p 243:

... "Schweitzer explained ... "We now feel that there had to be some form of manipulation or substitution. Specifically, that means that somehow, somebody got in and switched or substituted tissue at Martha Jefferson Hospital."

1a. Do you Sir, still maintain this published opinion?

1. a. Yes, that is my best conjecture. Admmitedly, it is conjecture. Is it rational? I think so. ...

Your "conjecture" based on hearsay requires the presentation of evidence on your part.

and Mr Schweitzer's response:


No it does not.

I can have, or make whatever conjectures occur to me.

Thus where does the quoted conjecture regarding the alleged "substitution" leave us?

I recommend that the quoted conjecture (as a point of view, suspicion or a guess) shall always remain no more than a diminutive footnote in publishing.

Margarita
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: Alixz on October 24, 2007, 08:27:35 AM
It may also remain as a "cry in the dark" by someone who was thwarted by the scientific truths presented by the tissue sampling and testing.  Some one who, since he has no irrefutable proof of his conjecture in the face of the positive identification of his  father-in-law's friend, will continue to muddy the journalistic waters by creating a "conspiracy theory" as a balm for his ego and an excuse for all of the fraud and duplicity that was generated by either his father-in-law or AA/FS or both.
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: Forum Admin on October 24, 2007, 09:26:23 AM
Alixz and Belochka are both quite right.  I gave Dick the opportunity on numerous occassions to show some, nay ANY small genuine evidence to support his supposition. He refuses, either by deliberate obfuscation or retreating to the vacuous "I know it to be true" with nothing more.

I'm afraid that this has now, for Mr. Schweitzer, become simply a tautology in the strictest definition:  Logic An empty or vacuous statement composed of simpler statements in a fashion that makes it logically true whether the simpler statements are factually true or false; for example, the statement Either it will rain tomorrow or it will not rain tomorrow.

He won't provide any evidence, he doesn't HAVE the evidence to provide.  I hear a fat lady singing....
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: AGRBear on November 02, 2007, 12:51:25 PM
Here is my  first  post when I started this thread:

AA's intestines specimens and questions that may surround them.


THE QUEST FOR ANASTASIA by John Klier and Mingay wrote on p. 225 about Martha Jefferson Hospital in Charlottesville where the specimens of AA was stored, found and later sent out to be tested for DNA / mtDNA:

"Was tampering possible?  The Martha Jefferson Hospital in Charlottesville has been storing specimens from patients since 1978, when it opened a pathology department.  The basement department was relatively easy to enter, according to visitors.  When the Manahan biopsy became the subject of such intense interest, the hospital authorites moved it to a safer place for storage, suggesting some concern by the hospital managment that the existing site was not secure."


At this point in the thread this is not about the matching of mtDNA with samples from Karl Maucher or Marg. Ellerick.    This is just about the possibility of someone  [matters not who] could have tampered with this evidence which is so important in proving AA was not GD Anatasia.

Let me add:  This is not a thread which has any purpose of condeming the hospital, it's staff, it's doctors or anyone responsible for the safe keeping of the specimen.  From reliable sources, I understand the hospital has an excellent reputation.

So let the discussion begin.

AGRBear

At this time,  all there are are theories because no one has evidence which they can provide  which proves a switch occured.

No one has disproved  the theory that it  was possible in those times for  an expert someone,  who was not connected with the hospital,  and,  knew the hospital's  habbits and processors,  to have  switched everything invovled with the samples of AA.

I don't believe anyone has suggested that the actual tests  on the samples provided by Dr.  Gill and  Dr. King  was in question.

Therefore,  those who   believe  AA was FS and not  GD Anastasia will   continue to  use the DNA/mtDNA tests from the intestine samples  to support  their conclusion.

Those who believe AA was GD Anastasia will continue to have doubts about the tampering or  switiching of the  intestine samples because they believe there were people who  had motive,  the money,  and the  opportunity to make it appear that AA was not GD Anastasia  and  added to this made it appear that AA and Karl Maucher were related.

The line was drawn deeper   in 2007   when  Russia announced that  the remains of Tsarvich Alexei and GD Maria may have been found  in July.

I doubt FA or Bob  will allow the thread  to continue much longer since they are convinced that  GD Anastasia was found in the mass grave and that the newly found remains are that of  GD Marie and Alexei.

Before this thread is  locked down,   I want to thank all for having  participating in this discussion.

AGRBear

Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: Annie on November 02, 2007, 01:11:06 PM
Quote
No one has disproved  the theory that it  was possible in those times for  an expert someone,  who was not connected with the hospital,  and,  knew the hospital's  habbits and processors,  to have  switched everything invovled with the samples of AA.

Bear, the problem is there is nothing to disprove, because there is NO evidence ANY wrongdoing or mixup occured other than the desires and fantasies of AA supporters who would prefer to believe that way. Therefore, the burden of proof is not on 'disproving' a switch, but PROVING one, and apparently no one can do that (because it didn't happen!)
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: Forum Admin on November 02, 2007, 01:31:32 PM
Annie is right, Bear.

ANYONE who has the notion (and that is all it is, after all) that the tissue sample of Anna Manahan was switched has the burden of proof to show otherwise.  Those who accept that the MJH kept accurate records and followed normal safety protocols, and accept that the sample labelled as Anastasia Manahan was indeed what Anna Manahan's have NOTHING to prove. 

The Schweitzers accepted it to be her pathology sample prior to the testing, Dr. Gill et al had no reason to question the accuracy of the label.  Scheitzer NOW disputes the label because he doesn't like the results of the test. Dr. Gill, however, continues to publish papers stating without reservation that the "mystery" off Anna Anderson Manahan has been "solved" (the words quoted are directly from Dr. Gill's published work.)  Since those who performed the testing are quite comfortable and have no doubts that the sample was indeed Anna Manahan's, the clear onus is on those who claim otherwise to show clear, genuine and convincing EVIDENCE otherwise.

Further, you are mistaken that Bob and I are "convinced that  GD Anastasia was found in the mass grave and that the newly found remains are that of  GD Marie and Alexei."  Bob is "convinced" that Anastasia was found in the mass grave, because he was there and saw the skulls for himself. I personally believe it is more likely than not as I feel Bob knows far more about the issue than I do, however, I also believe that we must wait for the recent remains to be tested and the results published and reviewed before we can "close the book" on the entire Anna Manahan charade.
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: AGRBear on November 02, 2007, 04:53:31 PM
.....[in part]...

I doubt FA or Bob  will allow the thread  to continue much longer since they are convinced that  GD Anastasia was found in the mass grave and that the newly found remains are that of  GD Marie and Alexei.


AGRBear


...[in part]....

Further, you are mistaken that Bob and I are "convinced that  GD Anastasia was found in the mass grave and that the newly found remains are that of  GD Marie and Alexei."  Bob is "convinced" that Anastasia was found in the mass grave, because he was there and saw the skulls for himself. I personally believe it is more likely than not as I feel Bob knows far more about the issue than I do, however, I also believe that we must wait for the recent remains to be tested and the results published and reviewed before we can "close the book" on the entire Anna Manahan charade.

I stand corrected on Bob and Rob's  points of view on the new discovery.

AGRBear
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: dmitri on November 02, 2007, 05:27:15 PM
Yes roll on the results. The absurd AA/FS charade has well and truly reached its use by date already.
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: LisaDavidson on November 11, 2007, 09:37:00 PM
.....[in part]...

I doubt FA or Bob  will allow the thread  to continue much longer since they are convinced that  GD Anastasia was found in the mass grave and that the newly found remains are that of  GD Marie and Alexei.


AGRBear


...[in part]....

Further, you are mistaken that Bob and I are "convinced that  GD Anastasia was found in the mass grave and that the newly found remains are that of  GD Marie and Alexei."  Bob is "convinced" that Anastasia was found in the mass grave, because he was there and saw the skulls for himself. I personally believe it is more likely than not as I feel Bob knows far more about the issue than I do, however, I also believe that we must wait for the recent remains to be tested and the results published and reviewed before we can "close the book" on the entire Anna Manahan charade.

I stand corrected on Bob and Rob's  points of view on the new discovery.

AGRBear

Also, Forum members should note that Bob Atchison's personal opinion about the remains have not resulted in his being any less committed to free speech with certain caveats on this Forum.

While Bob does believe he saw Grand Duchess Anastasia's skull among the 1991 remains, he nonetheless permits responsible discussion of many other points of view. I might add, the funding for the APTM and this Forum comes out of his own pocket.
Title: Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
Post by: Alixz on May 25, 2009, 08:46:51 PM
This thread is going to combine all of the physical evidence and DNA evidence and any other scientific evidence about Anna Anderson