Alexander Palace Forum

Discussions about the Imperial Family and European Royalty => The Myth and Legends of Survivors => Topic started by: CuriousOne on May 18, 2005, 01:52:16 PM

Title: Dr.Ginther- Questions To Ask Him
Post by: CuriousOne on May 18, 2005, 01:52:16 PM
I picked up the telephone this morning to make another attempt to contact Dr. Ginther and as I was about to dial the number I thought,  I should have written down the questions I had in my head the other day, so I put the phone down and started a list.  Then I went off to take a shower and as I turned on the water I thought, why not ask you, the other people in this chat room, for questions because  I'm sure your DNA questions would be better than mine just as  I'm sure Penny might have a few I haven't thought up to this point in time.  So, here I am, starting a thread about:
                         
What should I ask Dr. Ginther?

C1
Title: Re: Dr.Ginther- Questions To Ask Him
Post by: AGRBear on May 19, 2005, 10:04:13 AM
Quote
When looking for information,  I had to read a few pages of Massie's THE ROMANOVS, THE FINAL CHAPTER.

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

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

Margareth Ellerick was FS's niece.

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

AGRBear


1) Massie tells us that it was Dr. Ginther who who said the slide may have been contaminated.  Did Massie talk to Ginther?  If Dr. Ginther thought it was contaminated, why did he think it was?
2) Did the DNA of Margareth match Gertrude's mtDNA and did it match AA's mtDNA?
3) Is there an offical report which our DNA people could read Dr. Ginther's findings on the tests he did which pretains to AA?

AGRBear

PS Going to bring posts over here so other posters can get an understanding of what C1 is trying to understand and then ask questions of Dr. Ginther.
Title: Re: Dr.Ginther- Questions To Ask Him
Post by: AGRBear on May 19, 2005, 10:24:45 AM
Quote
Ok.  From what I am reading in this book, the Ellerik blood sample didn't match the slide of blood as the slide was contaminated--the blood sample was from 1951, and had been smeared on an open slide, no cover slip.  

Remy was never given access to the tissue sample DNA in order to compare it to the Ellerik sample.  However, even though Remy had been the one to find the sample at Martha Jefferson Hospital, it was Gill the Schweitzers commisioned to test the sample for DNA, not Remy's doctor's.  

I am assuming that the Ellerik tissue was not compared to the KM and AA tissue Gill had because it was done by a different lab.  Remy had Ginther and Herrmann do the testing on the slide, and Ginther was the one who had the Ellerik sample.  


Anything else Bear?   ;)
Title: Re: Dr.Ginther- Questions To Ask Him
Post by: AGRBear on May 19, 2005, 10:28:18 AM
Quote

Bear, you assume too much. I can't possibly have all the answers in this case, I just have all the answers I need.  :)


Nor can I have all the answers and that is why I keep asking questions after ALL these years because nothing about FS and AA is ever just all black or white.

And, of course, as I've come to expect these days, there is always another viewpoint:

Quote

According to Remy, who invited Greg and I to spend two days in his film and personal archives in July 2000, Massie is incorrect in this assertion.  Remy further stated that he was never interviewed by, or even contacted by, Massie in the course of his research, nor, to the best of his knowledge, was Dr. Sandkuhler.

Dr. Sandkuhler was still alive and had a small medical practice in the summer of 2000.  Greg and I saw his blood-slide archives, and they are not as Massie described.

This is my experience, take it or leave it (not you personally, Denise, but anyone reading this thread, pro or anti.  I have no intention of being embroiled in any more of the personal bs that goes on in this forum, but I am throwing this out there for you all to make what you will of it).


This information seems quite important to my pondering on the slide and the DNA testing:

Penny: >>Remy further stated that he was never interviewed by, or even contacted by, Massie in the course of his research, nor, to the best of his knowledge, was Dr. Sandkuhler.<<

AGRBear
Title: Re: Dr.Ginther- Questions To Ask Him
Post by: AGRBear on May 19, 2005, 10:33:54 AM
on Apr 25th, 2005, 12:15pm, Helen_Azar wrote: 
Denise, if this slide was kept without a cover slip for all those years, or even for a short period of time, it would have been contaminated, even if we knew for sure that it was AA's blood to begin with. After all the discussions that involved all the thorough questioning of the intestine sample - which was foolproof, why are some people so ready to accept the results from this very questionable slide?
------
 
Penny Wilson's Ans: Because the possibility exists that this slide is equally as "foolproof" as the intestine sample; the German team believed it to be even moreso.  And the reality of Dr Sandkuhler's archive differs from the scenario provided by Massie.    
 ---------

This is from a locked down tread so I can't pull these posts over here as quotes.  
Title: Re: Dr.Ginther- Questions To Ask Him
Post by: AGRBear on May 19, 2005, 10:44:05 AM
Penny's post: >>
...[in part]...
 
My further point is that it might therefore be inappropriate to continue the foolishness of accusing either the American or the German forensics teams of subterfuge or "substitution" or "contamination."  Both could be right in their results.
 
Another point is that in Anastasia Manahan, we may be looking at a person far more interesting than we -- those of us who are interested in her beyond her "connection" to Anastasia and Franziska -- already thought.
 .......<<

« Last Edit: Apr 26th, 2005, 10:53am by Penny_Wilson »
Title: Re: Dr.Ginther- Questions To Ask Him
Post by: AGRBear on May 19, 2005, 10:48:37 AM
C1 posted information on her first conversation with Dr. Ginther:

>>When I first talked to Dr. Ginther, he immediately closed down and said that before he'd make a comment that he'd have to review his notes.  I left with him my e-mail but he has not responded to this date.  I assume since he's in the middle of some pretty exciting breast cancer research, he's forgotten or just has not had time. Like Bear said, he was part of the testing on the bones of Nicholas II from Pig's Meadow.  However, he was not in charge.  His superior at the time was Mary-Claire King at UC. Remy tried to get a sample, which there was plenty, from the intestines but this was refused. He couldn't understand why he couldn't.  That is why he sought other samples and how he came upon Professor Stefan Saandkuhler, a former hematologist from Heidelberg University, who had exaimined Anna Anderson on June 6, 1951. Unlike what Massie indicates,  Saandkuhler was meticulous, as expected of all the HU profs,  with his slides which he felt were important in his studies.  By the way, my family has been connected with this U. since the 1500s and it's reputation is high in their research of any kind.
 
 Massie tells us  >> " the blood on the side did not match, as Ginther put it,  "any of the characters of interest" , he wondered about the integrity and origin of the slide. "It was and open slide.  It could have been contaminated.  It didn't even have a cover slip on it. Somebody had just smeared blood which dried," he said.
Did Massie contact Ginther?  Did Ginther actually say this in the way Massie has us believe?  Since Massie had said he had contacted Remy, and he had not [Penny told us this], I was wondering, as I was reading, if Massie had contacted Ginther and if so what had he actually said.  Those few words on such an important matter bothered me.  Especially since Ginther's tests shows no match between Margarethe Ellrich, the sister of Karl Maucher, the one who's mtDNA would perfectly match her mother's, Gertrude's,  mtDNA.
 
So after reading what Bear had said,  I having dug out the Massie book, because I hadn't recalled this test by Ginther and at the time didn't know anything about DNA,  it struck me,   I live a hop skip and a jump from UC, so, why not contact Dr. Ginther and speak to him personally and get the results of his findings directly from him.  I did speak to him for about four minutes.
 
Hopefully, I will be able to contact Dr. Ginther, again, and get some answers about the Ellrich test and anything else that may pretain to this testing and what exactly were  his remarks about contamination.
 
Wish I had more to tell you this bright lovely California sunny Monday morning, but I don't.
 
And, yes, Bear, who is an old friend of mine,  is pushing me so I won't forget.
 
C1  



« Last Edit: May 16th, 2005, 11:56am by CuriousOne »
Title: Re: Dr.Ginther- Questions To Ask Him
Post by: AGRBear on May 19, 2005, 11:08:20 AM
Penny posted:

on May 16th, 2005, 5:30pm, AGRBear wrote:
Curious One is hoping to contact Dr. Ginther, again, about those test results.  She talked to him a short while a couple of weeks ago and said he needed to look at his notes before making any remarks about the tests with Ellrick.

 Penny's Replied:
I'll be very interested to read what Dr Ginther says. I have heard a multitude of rumors about the results of the tests he ran, but I would rather hear from him -- as I did from Remy -- his version of events, without adding to the stew.
 -----
on May 16th, 2005, 5:30pm, AGRBear wrote:
To be fair with Massie, as some of us know, sometimes a editor crosses stuff out and the author doesn't catch it until after a book is published and those crossed out words needed to in that sentence or paragraph but it's not and so it's there in it's state of "can't change it now" and there the error lies ..... lays.... stays.
 AGRBear

Penny replied: 
Agreed.  Especially in the case of this book, which, as I've said, I think was rushed to publication in order to capitalize on the publicity surrounding the recently-released DNA test results.
------
Title: Re: Dr.Ginther- Questions To Ask Him
Post by: Arianwen on May 19, 2005, 10:53:56 PM
So I'm going to break my vow of silence on AA/FS on the boards...::) Just to suggest a few questions in addition to those by Bear, though.

1) Does Dr Ginther have an opinion regarding the Karl Maucher match to the intestine sample as opposed to his lack of match with Margarethe Ellerick and the blood sample?

2) How clear a profile was Dr Ginther able to create from the DNA extracted by Dr Herrmann? How long a sequence was he able to obtain?

3) What percentage would Dr Ginther give the likelihood, from his test, that AA was NOT related to Margarethe Ellerick? (If the Maucher test was a 99.9% probability that AA was a maternal relative of Maucher, what would the percentage of the opposite result be?)

4) To Dr Ginther's knowledge, has the Ellerick sample been tested to match the Maucher sample?

5) If we assume neither the blood nor the intestine sample were contaminated or switched, does Dr Ginther have any idea how the tests came up with contradictory results?

6) What is Dr Ginther's opinion on the DNA material extracted by Dr Herrmann? Legitimate, fabricated, etc?

7) Has Dr Ginther read the book by Massie? If so, would he say that Massie has accurately summed up the results of his test in pp 233-234?

8) What is Dr Ginther's opinion of how well the blood sample was preserved? Was the slide well-kept from exposure and contamination? Was it an open slide? Etc...

9) Does Dr Ginther believe Gertrude to have been the full-blooded sister of Franziska? Does he have proof of this?

That's really all I can think of right now, so if anything else occurs to me, I'll be sure to add them. :) CuriousOne, thanks for making the effort to get in touch with Dr Ginther and get our questions answered!

Regards,
Arianwen
Title: Re: Dr.Ginther- Questions To Ask Him
Post by: Helen_Azar on May 22, 2005, 12:27:48 PM
I just wanted to clarify a few things about Arienwen's questions.

Quote
1) Does Dr Ginther have an opinion regarding the Karl Maucher match to the intestine sample as opposed to his lack of match with Margarethe Ellerick and the blood sample?


I was just wondering where you got the information about ME's mtDNA not matching Karl Maucher's? It was not really discussed one way or another - the only thing we know for sure is that it did not match the mtDNA from the blood on the slide. Beyond that nothing else was not discussed as it pertained to KM. I believe that it did, otherwise we would have heard about it not matching (is ME Karl Muacher's maternal aunt?) . If you have information that no one else does about the lack of match there, please let us know.

Quote
2) How clear a profile was Dr Ginther able to create from the DNA extracted by Dr Herrmann?


Can you elaborate a little what you mean by 'how clear a profile'?

Quote

3) What percentage would Dr Ginther give the likelihood, from his test, that AA was NOT related to Margarethe Ellerick? (If the Maucher test was a 99.9% probability that AA was a maternal relative of Maucher, what would the percentage of the opposite result be?)


I am afraid that this question doesn't make that much sense, unless I am misunderstading it. The DNA sequence either matches or it does not match. If it matches, you can say it is with 99.9% certainty, or whatever. If it doesn't match - it doesn't match. You really can't say with what percent certainty it doesn't match - it just doesn't work that way.  ???

Quote
5) If we assume neither the blood nor the intestine sample were contaminated or switched, does Dr Ginther have any idea how the tests came up with contradictory results?


One of these samples had to be switched or contaminated - and we already agreed that it could not have been the intestine.





Title: Re: Dr.Ginther- Questions To Ask Him
Post by: Arianwen on May 22, 2005, 02:23:18 PM
Quote
I just wanted to clarify a few things about Arienwen's questions.


AriAnwen, actually...;) Sorry, just trying to inject some good humour into this.

Quote
I was just wondering where you got the information about ME's mtDNA not matching Karl Maucher's? It was not really discussed one way or another - the only thing we know for sure is that it did not match the mtDNA from the blood on the slide. Beyond that nothing else was not discussed as it pertained to KM. I believe that it did, otherwise we would have heard about it not matching (is ME Karl Muacher's maternal aunt?) . If you have information that no one else does about the lack of match there, please let us know.


I never once suggested that the Maucher and Ellerick mtDNA didn't match. If you re-read my original post, you'll even find that was one of my questions, if to Dr Ginther's knowledge, the Maucher and Ellerick profiles had ever been compared and matched/mismatched (question #4, to be specific). In my question, I said only that Maucher matched the intestine sample, and Ellerick did NOT match the blood sample, asking for Dr Ginther's opinion on that subject. From the genealogical info posted on other threads, Ellerick was Maucher's maternal aunt, though I've yet to do much genealogical research on my own.

Quote
Can you elaborate a little what you mean by 'how clear a profile'?


Dr Ginther was initially unable to extract DNA from his half of the slide (it was cut in half, and the other half was sent to Dr Herrmann of Göttingen University). Dr Herrmann WAS able to extract DNA and sent the raw material to Dr Ginther, who then sequenced the DNA and obtained the profile. My question was were there gaps in the sequence, or was it complete? I'm not sure what kind of 'raw material' Dr Herrmann passed along or how the process of sequencing is carried out, which is part of my question. Perhaps I should have phrased this a bit more clearly, and I apologise if it wasn't clear enough.

Quote
I am afraid that this question doesn't make that much sense, unless I am misunderstading it. The DNA sequence either matches or it does not match. If it matches, you can say it is with 99.9% certainty, or whatever. If it doesn't match - it doesn't match. You really can't say with what percent certainty it doesn't match - it just doesn't work that way.  ???


Again pulling out my copy of Massie, my source for the above (pp 233-234 above), Dr Gill announced that his probability for the Ekaterinburg bones being the IF as 98.5%. 99.9% is the figure most often quoted for the intestine sample belonging to a maternal relative of Maucher. Factoring in margin of error, my question was what percentage would Dr Ginther give the likelihood that according to the blood sample, that the owner of the blood was NOT a maternal relative of Ellerick. As everyone keeps pointing out, science can tell us things with almost certainty, but never absolute certainty. There's always a percentage of certainty involved, and my question was what that percentage in this case would be. (Massie, pp 104-106)

Quote
One of these samples had to be switched or contaminated - and we already agreed that it could not have been the intestine.


As I was not a part of the discussion regarding the likelihood of contamination of the intestine sample, I can't be included in the 'we', though I'm certainly not a conspiracy theorist. There are too many variables in both cases, and until I have proof that either sample was switched and/or contaminated, I'm assuming that both samples are valid. However, an equal argument could be made for the impossibility of contamination of the blood sample, given some other sources of material that were found by others than me, so I don't feel I can post them here. Read through some of the other threads, in particular some that have been locked. Therefore, I phrased my question to assume that neither sample had been contaminated or switched. There ARE other factors, such as the way the test was done, whether a sequence had gaps that had to be filled in or not, etc, other than switching or contamination.

Further than this, I refuse to put on the forum, due to some recent bad experiences. As it is, to ask these questions was breaking my own vow of silence on this topic. If you want to discuss this more, please feel free to PM me.

Regards,
Arianwen

Note: All Massie pages cited above are from 'The Romanovs: The Final Chapter'
Title: Re: Dr.Ginther- Questions To Ask Him
Post by: AGRBear on May 23, 2005, 01:33:56 PM
Massie went into the Schweitzer legal battle over the tissue of AA found in the Martha Jefferson Hospital in Charlottesville, Virigina.
They wanted to have it tested by Dr. Gill to discover if AA was GD Anastasia.

30 Sept 1993 - entered court

Another group, The Russian Nobility Association, didn't want just Dr. Gill to have rights to the tissue, they wanted the person, Dr. Mary-Claire-King of UC whom Dr. Mapes wanted as part of the testing of the remains of the IF bones found in the mass grave of Pig's Meadow.

Lawyers pulled back and forth....

Dr. King of UC wrote:  "I have been working for the past seven months on the identification of the skeletal remains of the the nine indiviauls believed to include Tsar Nicholas II and members of his family, " she said, "I have also received blood and tissue samples from descendants of Tsar Nicholas and his wife, Alexandra.  I am in te process of preparing a report on my findings.  I am familiar with DNA research into the remains from Ekaterinburg being conducted by Dr. Peter Gill.  If there is sufficient mtDNA bearing materinal, it would be ideal to have two qualified laaboratories carry out the mtDNA testing and compare the results.  I have spoken with Dr. Gill and ould like the opportunity to work collaborateively with him in the analysis of the samples."

There was the complication of another party entering the lawsuit.  A Mrs. Kailing-Romanov who claimed to be the daughter of GD Anastasia....  p. 210-11....  See if you want farther information on her.

21 Jan. 1994 Ulrich von Gienanth, who had been one of the four who had been one of AA's legal executors, was still acccetting this right and so he, now, entered the lawsuit....

Lawsuit dropped and von Gienanth was in temporarily in control of the hospital tissue 1 March 1994.

New lawsuit - 18 March 1994 by Russian Nobility Association, who challenged von Gienanth's rights.  They sought parallel testing of Dr. King's and Dr. Gill's.

Andrew and Kurth and been part of all these suits.  They seem to represent Dr. Willi Korte an investigator.  No one knew at this time that Maurice Remy was in the background and in charge.

Obsure Virigina law was discovered to challenge ownership of tissue which states that anyone can petition for the rights of ownership of AA's tissue.  Ed Deets, a friend of Richard Schweitzer, agreed to be named as the person in charged of the tissue sample under this obsure law in this new lawsuit.

30 March 1994 all involved were back in Judge Swett's courtroom.

Final hearing 11 May 1994.  Judge Swett's dismissed this last case and this was filed on 19 May 1994.  Anyone who opposed had 30 days to appeal.

19 June 1994 Dr. Gill collected the tissue p. 226.

Ed Deets was in charge of the tissue.

Because Remy wasn't given the rights to AA's tissue, he went to find his own tissue, hair or blood sample.

Continued next post.
Title: Re: Dr.Ginther- Questions To Ask Him
Post by: AGRBear on May 23, 2005, 01:59:42 PM
Maurice Remy continued to work to get AA's tissue into the hands of  Mary-Claire King at UC.

When Remy asked for the results of the Ekaterinuburg test from King but done came forth.

It was discovered that King had not done the testing but her someone else in King's lab.  The person was Dr. Ginther, who had extracted mtDNA fro the Ekaterinburg material.

Ed Deets, who was in control of the tissue, was contacted to see if he'd release some of AA's tissue to Dr. Ginther.

Meanwhile, Dr. Ginther, who didn't want to do anything without Dr. King's approval, waited until she approved of his testing and released the compartive samples.  Dr. King approved and released the samples.

Dr. Ginther discovered Dr. King had not turned all he samples over to him so he worked with what she gave him.

Dr. Ginther for the second time, derived mtDNA from the Hessian and the Romanov materials.  Hee, also, extracted mtDNA from Margaret Ellerick, the daughter of Gertrude S., who is thought to be FS's sister.

By July of 1994 Ginther did not have the AA tissue.

Remy went to find another source and he found Professor Stefan Sandkuhler, a former hematologist from Heidelberg University, who had exaimined Anna Anderson on 6 June 1951.

Sandkuhler had tested AA's blood for hemophia and therefore had AA's blood samples on glass slide.  It was this slide Remy broke in half.  He sent one half to Dr. Ginther and the other half to Prof. Bend Herrmann, a specialist in short tanden repeat (STR).  Hermann did get DNA from his half and sent his material to Ginther.

Ginther found p. 234 of Massie:  "..this DNA did not match the Hessian pofile... nor did it match the Schazkowska profile as derived from Margaret Ellerick."

There is mention of the slide as having been contaminated and that is why C1 is going directly to Dr. Ginther to understand what happen and if Massie's conclusion was accurate.

AGRBear
Title: Re: Dr.Ginther- Questions To Ask Him
Post by: Mgmstl on June 05, 2005, 10:49:38 PM
Quote
Maurice Remy continued to work to get AA's tissue into the hands of  Mary-Claire King at UC.

When Remy asked for the results of the Ekaterinuburg test from King but done came forth.

It was discovered that King had not done the testing but her someone else in King's lab.  The person was Dr. Ginther, who had extracted mtDNA fro the Ekaterinburg material.

Ed Deets, who was in control of the tissue, was contacted to see if he'd release some of AA's tissue to Dr. Ginther.

Meanwhile, Dr. Ginther, who didn't want to do anything without Dr. King's approval, waited until she approved of his testing and released the compartive samples.  Dr. King approved and released the samples.

Dr. Ginther discovered Dr. King had not turned all he samples over to him so he worked with what she gave him.

Dr. Ginther for the second time, derived mtDNA from the Hessian and the Romanov materials.  Hee, also, extracted mtDNA from Margaret Ellerick, the daughter of Gertrude S., who is thought to be FS's sister.

By July of 1994 Ginther did not have the AA tissue.

Remy went to find another source and he found Professor Stefan Sandkuhler, a former hematologist from Heidelberg University, who had exaimined Anna Anderson on 6 June 1951.

Sandkuhler had tested AA's blood for hemophia and therefore had AA's blood samples on glass slide.  It was this slide Remy broke in half.  He sent one half to Dr. Ginther and the other half to Prof. Bend Herrmann, a specialist in short tanden repeat (STR).  Hermann did get DNA from his half and sent his material to Ginther.

Ginther found p. 234 of Massie:  "..this DNA did not match the Hessian pofile... nor did it match the Schazkowska profile as derived from Margaret Ellerick."

There is mention of the slide as having been contaminated and that is why C1 is going directly to Dr. Ginther to understand what happen and if Massie's conclusion was accurate.

AGRBear



Whatever became of these questions for Dr. Ginther???
Does anyone know???
Title: Re: Dr.Ginther- Questions To Ask Him
Post by: AGRBear on June 06, 2005, 11:22:23 AM
Curious One has had some personal problems [aging parents] and will get back to us on  Dr. Ginther.

She apologizes for the delay.

AGRBear
Title: Re: Dr.Ginther- Questions To Ask Him
Post by: CuriousOne on June 08, 2005, 07:59:15 PM
Dr. Ginther's reply:

"Got your e-mail.  Sorry, I had lost your e-mail address literally the day you previously called.  I did find my folder on the Anna Anderson case, and will send you what I can within two weeks.
Chuck Ginther"

C1
Title: Re: Dr.Ginther- Questions To Ask Him
Post by: CuriousOne on July 06, 2005, 05:49:15 PM
I am quite excited because today I received an E-mail from Dr. Ginther which is about five pages in length. After I receive permission to post all of it or in part here,  I will.   Meanwhile I'll have to read it two or five times to make sure I understand everything he is telling us.   This will be the first time that some of it will be made public.

Hope the permission comes quickly so you can read what I'm reading.

C1
Title: Re: Dr.Ginther- Questions To Ask Him
Post by: lexi4 on July 07, 2005, 12:19:34 PM
That is amazing! Good work. How did you ever find out how to contact him and then get a reply?
Title: Re: Dr.Ginther- Questions To Ask Him
Post by: Inquiring_Mind on July 07, 2005, 07:07:24 PM
Curious One,

Your perserverance paid off! Wonderful.

Are you waiting for permission from Dr Ginther?
Title: Re: Dr.Ginther- Questions To Ask Him
Post by: JonC on July 08, 2005, 07:44:35 PM
This is very interesting.

I would like to know what results did Dr. Ginther get from his MtDNA analysis of the 'Romanov'  bone samples he got from Dr. King?

Also, where did Dr. King get the samples to give to Dr. Ginther for his study?
Title: Re: Dr.Ginther- Questions To Ask Him
Post by: JonC on July 08, 2005, 08:01:38 PM
CuriousOne, Dr. Ginther is going to send you the MtDNA study of AA's tissue, right?

What about his results of the MtDNA study on the 'Romanov' bones? Since it was supposed to be a second independent study to Dr. Gill's work do you know if he finished the study? If so could you ask him to e-mail that also to you so that everyone can see it.

I am interested to see how the two MtDNA studies of the Koptiaky forest remains compare.
Title: Re: Dr.Ginther- Questions To Ask Him
Post by: JonC on July 08, 2005, 08:09:55 PM
Can someone enlighten me...I'm not up to the University abbreviations..but what university is 'UC'?
Title: Re: Dr.Ginther- Questions To Ask Him
Post by: Lanie on July 08, 2005, 08:15:14 PM
Quote
Can someone enlighten me...I'm not up to the University abbreviations..but what university is 'UC'?


University of California univ. system... University of Colorado univ. system... I can't think of anything else...
Title: Re: Dr.Ginther- Questions To Ask Him
Post by: lexi4 on July 08, 2005, 08:19:03 PM
Can anyone tell me where to go to read more about Dr. Ginther?
Title: Re: Dr.Ginther- Questions To Ask Him
Post by: CuriousOne on July 09, 2005, 09:23:05 AM
July 6, 2005

Dear J.A. Hubert,

I realize from going through my files that there is a large amount of "Romanoff" material there.  In addition, I have copies of lab notebooks that have details of the work (and that I have not been able to find yet.)  Since your questions pertained mostly to the Anna Anderson slide, I will send you the information that surrounds that part of the data.  I do have some caveats.  This work was done over 10 years ago, and so many details are vague to me.  To be completely honest, I had forgotten about some of the experiments and only had my memory jogged by the documents in my files.  In addition, this work was done when DNA forensics was experimental in the truest sense of the word.  Of the workers active in mtDNA identification at the time, I would generally believe the work of Mark Stoneking (Penn State), Mark Wilson  (FBI),, Mitch Holland (US Army), Peter Gill and Kevin Sullivan  (Forensic Sci. Service, UK), Also note, the Anderson sequence often referred to is the standard sequence used for most mtDNA comparisons,  It was the first mtDNA sequence done, and Anderson refers to the scientist who led that work, and has nothing to do with Anna Anderson.  So here is the material from my two folders that relates to Anna Anderson:
(See next post)

Title: Re: Dr.Ginther- Questions To Ask Him
Post by: CuriousOne on July 09, 2005, 09:23:57 AM
(See post above)
I. The sequencing of Sofia Princess of Hanover (maternally related to Alexandra):  

Doc. S1:  A fax indicating that blood from Sofia was received September 27, 1993, from Dr. Med. E. Pittrof, Internist.  

Doc. S2:  Sequence sheet for mtDNA isolated from Sofia:  Examined nucleotides 16083-16369.  Changes relative to the Anderson sequence: 16111 (G->A), 16357 (A->G).

ASIDE:  I never sequenced Prince Philip, and that was done by Dr. Peter Gill.  Instead, I sequenced Sofia, also a maternal relative of Alexandra.  The sequences of Sofia and Philip  matched.  As will be shown below, the none of the various "Anna Anderson sequences" isolated matched Sofia’s sequence.  This data is believable.
(See Next Post)
Title: Re: Dr.Ginther- Questions To Ask Him
Post by: CuriousOne on July 09, 2005, 09:24:49 AM
(See posts above)
II. The sequencing of Margarete Ellerick:  

Doc. EM1:  Fax letter from me to Mr. Philip Remy dated July 11, 1994.  "…I am sending you the data that I have for "Willi sample-M.E" [Margarette Ellevik sample provided by Willi Korte].  Nucleotides 16024-16474 were determined.  In that region, variations from the Anderson sequence were found at 16126 T->C, 16266 C->T, 16294 C->T, and 16304 T->C.  Base 161146 could not be determined on the gels…"

Doc. EM2:  Letter from Dr. Kevin Sullivan, Forensic Sci. Service, UK, dated July 21, 1994, to Julian Nott of Canalot Studios.  Forwarded to me by Mr. Philip Remy on August 1, 1994.  "ANNA ANDERSON DNA TESTING. I confirm that the mitochondrial sequence of Karl Maucher ("Schanzkowska") matches exactly that of Margarete Ellerick, which you provided in your communication of 12 July.  Nucleotides 16021 to 16400 inclusive, were determined.  Variations compared to the Anderson sequence were as follows: 16126 C (Anderson=T), 16266T (Anderson=C), 16294T (Anderson=C), 16304C (Anderson=T).  Base 16146 is A and therefore matches the Anderson sequence at this position…"  

ASIDE:  The sequence of Margarete Ellerick was clear, and also did not match any of the various "Anna Anderson sequences" that were done. This data is believable.
(See  Next Post)
Title: Re: Dr.Ginther- Questions To Ask Him
Post by: CuriousOne on July 09, 2005, 09:25:51 AM
(See posts above)
III. The sequencing of material from Anna Anderson blood slide.

Doc.AA1: "RECEIPT FOR MATERIAL BEARING BLOOD SAMPLE"  a notarized document dated February 14, 1994, stating that we received via Federal Express from C. Derschka of MPR, one glass slide containing blood to be used for scientific study.  A sealed envelop with a tag bearing the number 431/94, contained a clear plastic container with the slide and a document written in Germany.  Although I do not read German, the document appears to state that notary Hans G. Hervol verified that the enclosed slide was received from Prof. Dr. Stefan Sandkuhler and it contained blood claimed to be taken from Anna Anderson in June, 1951.  

Doc. AA2: Fax letter from me to Philip Remy of MPR, dated Sept. 30, 1994. "To repeat the information that I gave you last night: 1. The Anna Anderson sequence was obtained for nucleotides 16252-16397, a total of 146 bases.  There were variations at sites 16278 (C->T), 16294 (C->T), and 16311 (T->C) relative to the Cambridge (or comparison Anderson sequence…). 2. The Margarete Ellerick mtDNA sequence contained three nucleotide variations relative to the Cambridge sequence in the 16252-16397 region: 16266 (C->T), 16294 (C->T), and 16304 (T->C).  Clearly the Anna Anderson and Ellerick sequences are not identical.  Assuming that the mtDNA isolated from the  slide was authentic DNA from Anna Anderson, and not a contamination (an important assumption,) the data suggests that Anna Anderson is not related to the Schanzkowska family.  3. You asked about the sequence isolated from the needle case.  I did the DNA isolation and the sequencing was done by Beth Stevens on Mary-Claire King’s lab, according to my notes.  The isolation was very difficult and I would not put great faith in the results.  The sequence obtained differed from the Cambridge sequence in the region 16252-16355 at 16266 (C->T), and 16311 (T->C).  This is not identical to either of the above sequences. 4. As you know from the Gill paper, the maternal side of the Russian royal family differed only at base 16357 (T->C) in region 16252-16397.  This does not match Anna Anderson …"

Doc. AA3: "RECEIPT AND SHIPMENT OF BLOOD SAMPLE.  Signed letter dated June 22, 1994, stating that the blood sample received Feb. 1.4, 1994, was securely stored at the lab and that no third parties had access to the slide.  Also that I would separate the slide and sent parts to another lab via Federal Express to Notar Josef Poelsterl in Munich, Germany.  

ASIDE:  I sent fragments of the slide containing blood purported to be from  Anna Anderson to Drs. Hummel and Rameckers of the Institut fur Anthropologie der Georg-August-Universtat Gottingen (I presume at the request of Mr. Philip Remy) along with the mtDNA primers used for PCR: L16208 x H16401 (biotinylated) and H16246 x L16040 (biotinylated).  They isolated mtDNA fragments using PCR from material on the slide.  The fragments were send back to me for sequencing (see Doc. AA6).

Doc. AA4: Letter from Susanne Hummel, Institut fur Anthropologie der Georg-August-Universtat Gottingen, dated September 22, 1994.  Letter showed a picture of PCR fragments produced from using the "Anna Anderson blood" sample.  Only a single PCR, using primers L16040 x H16246 produced a band of the correct size. This was sequenced by me (see Doc. AA6).

Doc. AA5:  "mt-DNA amplification of samples from A. Anderson" a letter dated Feruary 16, 1995, from Jens Rameckers of the Institut fur Anthropologie der Georg-August-Universtat Gottingen.   "as agreed on the phone with Susanne Hummel, we now send you PCR samples for sequencing the A. Anderson products (A1-A3) including all controls.  The controls consist of no template controls (X1, X2,…,X6) and amplifications of my own (JR) and Susanne’s DNA (SH).  We were the only two persons in our lab who were in contact with the Anderson slides (extraction,, PCR setup, etc.) Enclosed are also photographs of all six PCR runs for your orientation…"  Original photos of agarose gels containing the PCR mtDNA products were enclosed.  

The gel of PCR1 displayed DNA bands in the no template controls, indicating that the reagents were contaminated with exogenous DNA that was not from the slide sample.  Similar problems occurred in PCR2 controls using H6401 x L16208 primers, but the H16246 x L16040 controls seemed fine.  I could go on with each PCR, but to make a long story short, some of the experiments were clearly contaminated with DNA that was not from the slide, while others seemed alright.  In the samples that had good controls, the PCR amplification products in the "Anna Anderson blood" samples were very light.  

Doc. AA6: "Sequences of the Anna Anderson Blood Smear Slide"  a report of the sequencing results of PCR fragments produced  by Drs. Hummel and Rameckers.  The note presented the methodology used and the sequence results for the mtDNA fragments.  The data was not pretty:  Without going into detail, the PCR samples produced 9 different  sequences.  None of the sequences were identical to those of Sofia of Hanover or Magarette Ellevik.  The only possible conclusion is that the results from these PCR experiments are not very meaningful and did nothing to clarify the status of Anna Anderson.  

Doc. AA7:  This is added as an aside since nothing ever came of it.   Receipt for materials bearing blood samples. From Dietmar Wulff, Federal Repulic of Geremany…delivered the following materials to the Receiving Party: 1. Three needles; 2. Three syringes; and 3. Two metal pan pieces.  These materials contain blood which is to be used in scientific study.  As I remember, this material was supposed to have been used to perform some operation on Anna Anderson.  I was not able to get anything from the material.  I signed for these items on November 4, 1993.  Wille Korte signed as witness.  

ASIDE:  As to your question about what I think happened.  Clearly the Anna Anderson slide did not contain enough high quality DNA from the original donor to produce consistent results.  The sequences obtained varied from one PCR experiment to the next, and thus cannot even be attributed to Anna Anderson or any other single individual.  I would presume that the slide was both contaminated and contained little, if any, of the original donor DNA.  Any data from that slide is, in my opinion, not believable.
(See Next Post)
Title: Re: Dr.Ginther- Questions To Ask Him
Post by: CuriousOne on July 09, 2005, 09:26:49 AM
(See posts above)
IV. Sequence of Xenia, daughter of Felix and Irina (maternally related to Nicholas).

Doc. X1:  I have a data sheet for "Xenia Sfiri"  that stands alone, and I do not remember how I received the sample.  Perhaps I will be able to find information in my lab notebooks.  Her sequence included nucleotides 16030 to 16335.  Changes relative to the Anderson sequence were 16126 A->G, 16169 (G->A), 16294 (G->A) and 16296 (G->A).

You asked about the work of Karl Maucher.  Since I have not followed this case for 10 years, I am not familiar with it.  I also have not read the Massie book and so am not familiar with its conclusions.  

You also asked about the relationship of Gertrude to Margarete Ellerick.  I never wanted to know any more than necessary about any sample because I feared that knowledge might prejudice my result.  I do not remember being told anything about Margarete’s family.  

I hope this answers your questions.

(XXXXXX Personal information to J.A. Hubert and not given hereXXXXXX)

Thanks,

Charles Ginther, Ph.D.
Title: Re: Dr.Ginther- Questions To Ask Him
Post by: Finelly on July 09, 2005, 09:34:50 AM
Ok, now can you summarize that?  
Title: Re: Dr.Ginther- Questions To Ask Him
Post by: Inquiring_Mind on July 09, 2005, 11:36:10 AM
What I got out of it was that AA's mitochondrial DNA didn't match Prince Phillip or Sophia of Hanover. Phillip and Sophia's did match. Thus AA wasn't AN.

Margarite Ellerick 's mitochondrial DNA matched Karl Maucher's exactly. Margarite's did not match AA. Thus AA may not have been FS.
Title: Re: Dr.Ginther- Questions To Ask Him
Post by: Arianwen on July 09, 2005, 11:59:21 AM
Quote
What I got out of it was that AA's mitochondrial DNA didn't match Prince Phillip or Sophia of Hanover. Phillip and Sophia's did match. Thus AA wasn't AN.

Margarite Ellerick 's mitochondrial DNA matched Karl Maucher's exactly. Margarite's did not match AA. Thus AA may not have been FS.


Was Ellerick's mtDNA compared to both the blood slide AND the intestine sample to find the lack of match? That was a bit unclear to me. There's a reference to Ellerick's mtDNA being matched to 'various Anna Anderson samples' and found not to match...

Regards,
Arianwen
Title: Re: Dr.Ginther- Questions To Ask Him
Post by: lexi4 on July 09, 2005, 12:15:16 PM
Help me out here. Who was Margarite Ellerick and how was she connected to AA?
It sounds like Dr. Ginther is not convinced AA was FS, am I reading this right?
Title: Re: Dr.Ginther- Questions To Ask Him
Post by: Inquiring_Mind on July 09, 2005, 12:40:06 PM
I believe Margarite was a descendant of FS's sister Gertrude. Somebody jump in here...can't remember if it was her daughter or granddaughter? Carl was FS's brother.

There was some discussion that Gertrude was a half sister or maybe had been adopted. But if Carl and Margarite matched then I believe that means they came from the same maternal line. If Gertrude was only a half sister, than their mothers would have to be maternally related. As example, their father would have been married to sisters.

I believed when I read the notes by Dr Ginther that the tests were on the tissue. I got that the slide with the blood on it was contaminated for the most part and didn't produce acceptable results.

That ,for all it's worth, is my take on what I read.
Title: Re: Dr.Ginther- Questions To Ask Him
Post by: Mgmstl on July 09, 2005, 12:46:42 PM
Quote
Help me out here. Who was Margarite Ellerick and how was she connected to AA?
It sounds like Dr. Ginther is not convinced AA was FS, am I reading this right?



I believe that Marguerite Ellerick is supposed to be the daughter of Gertrude Schanzkowska.  Karl Maucher is a descendant of Gertrude.

What I also obtained from this is that the DNA of Marguerite Ellerick and AA did not match.

Interesting.  
Title: Re: Dr.Ginther- Questions To Ask Him
Post by: Mgmstl on July 09, 2005, 12:50:40 PM
Doc. AA6: "Sequences of the Anna Anderson Blood Smear Slide"  a report of the sequencing results of PCR fragments produced  by Drs. Hummel and Rameckers.  The note presented the methodology used and the sequence results for the mtDNA fragments.  The data was not pretty:  Without going into detail, the PCR samples produced 9 different  sequences.  None of the sequences were identical to those of Sofia of Hanover or Magarette Ellevik.  The only possible conclusion is that the results from these PCR experiments are not very meaningful and did nothing to clarify the status of Anna Anderson.  


What I am getting from this is that there is no clear definition from this sample or these tests on what matches the DNA of AA.  However is he saying that the sample was not good enough or could be contaminted?
Just curious.
Title: Re: Dr.Ginther- Questions To Ask Him
Post by: lexi4 on July 09, 2005, 01:04:17 PM
What I am getting, and I am probably not accurate, is that there was no match between AA and AN. But that AA was probably not FS. Is that right??? ??? ???
Title: Re: Dr.Ginther- Questions To Ask Him
Post by: Inquiring_Mind on July 09, 2005, 01:30:03 PM
Forgive me ..I was wrong about who Karl was so everything I surmised about Gertrude was wrong. :o

If Gertrude was FS's sister, then the DNA should have matched Karl's and Margarite's.

If it didn't then either AA was not FS or Gertrude was not a sister to FS.

Sorry again.

Title: Re: Dr.Ginther- Questions To Ask Him
Post by: Arianwen on July 09, 2005, 02:58:33 PM
So now, we have something that completely divides the DNA 'evidence'. Ellerick's mtDNA was tested against both the intestine sample and the blood slide, and failed to match both. The Ellerick mtDNA was tested against Princess Sophie of Hanover, whose profile exactly matched to Prince Phillip, and there was no match. The Ellerick mtDNA was exactly matched with the Maucher mtDNA.

mtDNA results thusfar:

Hesse line - no match to AA
Maucher mtDNA - match to AA
Ellerick mtDNA - no match to AA
Prince Phillip - Princess Sophie - match
Ellerick - Maucher - match

So which test was done wrong? Ellerick and Maucher match, so there's no contamination on that one, and Dr Ginther did NOT just test the blood slide. He pretty much discounts that, but he also tested the intestine sample. One FS relative matched AA, one did not, and we're dealing with the same AA sample. Somehow, on top of it, Ellerick and Maucher still match.

???  ???  ???  ???  ???  ???  ???

Regards,
Arianwen
Title: Re: Dr.Ginther- Questions To Ask Him
Post by: Inquiring_Mind on July 09, 2005, 03:15:03 PM
Quote
July 6, 2005

 Also note, the Anderson sequence often referred to is the standard sequence used for most mtDNA comparisons,  It was the first mtDNA sequence done, and Anderson refers to the scientist who led that work, and has nothing to do with Anna Anderson.  So here is the material from my two folders that relates to Anna Anderson:


 


I think when you read the first report you have to consider the above. That the Anderson has nothing to do with AA.
Title: Re: Dr.Ginther- Questions To Ask Him
Post by: Inquiring_Mind on July 09, 2005, 03:18:31 PM
Quote
(See posts above)
II. The sequencing of Margarete Ellerick:  

Doc. EM1:  Fax letter from me to Mr. Philip Remy dated July 11, 1994.  "…I am sending you the data that I have for "Willi sample-M.E" [Margarette Ellevik sample provided by Willi Korte].  Nucleotides 16024-16474 were determined.  In that region, variations from the Anderson sequence were found at 16126 T->C, 16266 C->T, 16294 C->T, and 16304 T->C.  Base 161146 could not be determined on the gels…"

Doc. EM2:  Letter from Dr. Kevin Sullivan, Forensic Sci. Service, UK, dated July 21, 1994, to Julian Nott of Canalot Studios.  Forwarded to me by Mr. Philip Remy on August 1, 1994.  "ANNA ANDERSON DNA TESTING. I confirm that the mitochondrial sequence of Karl Maucher ("Schanzkowska") matches exactly that of Margarete Ellerick, which you provided in your communication of 12 July.  Nucleotides 16021 to 16400 inclusive, were determined.  Variations compared to the Anderson sequence were as follows: 16126 C (Anderson=T), 16266T (Anderson=C), 16294T (Anderson=C), 16304C (Anderson=T).  Base 16146 is A and therefore matches the Anderson sequence at this position…"  

ASIDE:  The sequence of Margarete Ellerick was clear, and also did not match any of the various "Anna Anderson sequences" that were done. This data is believable.
(See  Next Post)


I don't think it says anything about a comparison to Carl Maucher. Only that Carl matched Margarite but Margarite didn't match AA.


Title: Re: Dr.Ginther- Questions To Ask Him
Post by: Arianwen on July 09, 2005, 03:21:15 PM
Quote

I don't think it says anything about a comparison to Carl Maucher. Only that Carl matched Margarite but Margarite didn't match AA.


I was referring to the known Gill tests, not Dr Ginther's work.

Regards,
Arianwen
Title: Re: Dr.Ginther- Questions To Ask Him
Post by: Inquiring_Mind on July 09, 2005, 03:21:34 PM
I have heard many times that AA matched Carl's MTDNA on these boards.

It must have been a comparison run at a different lab.
Title: Re: Dr.Ginther- Questions To Ask Him
Post by: Inquiring_Mind on July 09, 2005, 03:24:07 PM
Quote

I was referring to the known Gill tests, not Dr Ginther's work.

Regards,
Arianwen


We both posted at the same time! Thanks.

So this is confusing. :-[

I want to also thank Curious One for taking all the time to get this info and post it.
Title: Re: Dr.Ginther- Questions To Ask Him
Post by: Arianwen on July 09, 2005, 03:29:55 PM
Quote

We both posted at the same time! Thanks.

So this is confusing. :-[

I want to also thank Curious One for taking all the time to get this info and post it.


Yes, thank you SOOOOOOOOOOOo much, CuriousOne! It does punch quite the hole in the DNA activists' case that AA=FS, don't you think? ;) *looks for the '99.9% certainty' flag*

Regards,
Arianwen
Title: Re: Dr.Ginther- Questions To Ask Him
Post by: Mgmstl on July 09, 2005, 03:35:36 PM
Quote

I don't think it says anything about a comparison to Carl Maucher. Only that Carl matched Margarite but Margarite didn't match AA.





This is what I am getting after rereading the report.
Karl Maucher matched Marguerite, but Marguerite Ellerick did not match AA.  

Arianwen is this what you are coming up with, would appreciate ANY input?
Title: Re: Dr.Ginther- Questions To Ask Him
Post by: AGRBear on July 09, 2005, 03:47:24 PM
What it looks like to me, Dr. Ginther didn't have an agenda and didn't care who was who are what the results would be, therefore, the tests were just as they should be, tests of comparisons.

I aplaud him for having taken the time from his breast cancer research to give us this information.

And thank you my friend, Curious One, for finding him and having the patience needed for a person as busy as Dr. Ginther.

I'm just reading all of this for the first time, so,  I'm going to have to back and reread what Dr. Ginther sent  before I make any comments.

AGRBear
Title: Re: Dr.Ginther- Questions To Ask Him
Post by: Inquiring_Mind on July 09, 2005, 04:10:37 PM
I just went back and reread everything. Would have been smarter on my part if I had done this before I posted ::)

AGRbear gave alot of background info.

Arianwen's questions were very appropriate and well thought out.

I now understand more about this complicated undertaking.

So is it then correct to say that two different well respected labs can come up with conclusions that contradict one another?

Title: Re: Dr.Ginther- Questions To Ask Him
Post by: Arianwen on July 09, 2005, 04:23:46 PM
Quote
This is what I am getting after rereading the report.
Karl Maucher matched Marguerite, but Marguerite Ellerick did not match AA.  

Arianwen is this what you are coming up with, would appreciate ANY input?


It is indeed. *wicked, evil grin* From the intestine sample, no less, so no 'blood slide is contaminated!' outcry would work. I'm REALLY curious to see where this ends up going on the other threads...;)

Regards,
Arianwen
Title: Re: Dr.Ginther- Questions To Ask Him
Post by: AGRBear on July 09, 2005, 04:32:14 PM
Been awhile since I've looked at the pedigree chart so I'm not sure if this is the one that is correct but I think it is.  So, I pulled it over from another thread so I can keep who is who.....

Remember: Most people believe that Gertrud, nee Schanzkowska, Ellrich is the full sister of Franziska Schanzkowka [FS], however, we do not have a birth or death certificate which tells us that Gertrud and FS had the same mother or father, Anton Schanzkowska.  Gertrude was raised as a sibling in FS's father's home.

CHART:    
   
Anton Schanzkowsky m. (1) to 1890 to Josefina Peek  
 Issue:  [unknown]  
 
   
Anton Schanzkowsky m. (2) 1894  to  Marianna __NN__ b. 1866.   Marriage ended in divorce abt 1910/1912.  Both remarried.  [Mother remarried to ___NN___]    
     Issue:  
    2. Martin Christian S. b. 16 November 1895  
    3. Franziska S.  b. 16 December 1896 [date from Penny]  also listed in some books as  22 December 1896, baptized 24 December 1896  
     *  Gertrude b. poss. 1898
    4.  Michael S.  b. 16 December 1899  
    5.  Valerian S.  (AKA Walther) b. 25 April 1901  
    6.  Felix S. b. 17 February 1903  
    7. Juliane Marianna S. (AKA Maria Juliana) b. 30 April 1905  
   

Anton Schanzkowsky m. (3) to  ___NN3___    
 Issue:    
   1. [unknown]    
  ------
NOTES
*Gertrude S.'s official birthdate unknown and place in families above is at this time is not known, however, Gertrude did tell people her birthdate was 1898 which would place her fourth between FS and Michael.
-------

Gertrud, nee Schanzkowska,  Ellrick children were:
 
1. [Another] Gertrud  Ellrick m. Maucher
     +Carl Maucher's mother.
 
2. Hedwig Ellrick m. Lander
    
 
3. +Margarete  Ellrick
     Who lived with Carl Maucher
 
4. Magdalene Ellrick m. Weber
     Had a son called Herbert Weber

Note: + tested mtDNA
 
Title: Re: Dr.Ginther- Questions To Ask Him
Post by: Inquiring_Mind on July 09, 2005, 04:55:24 PM
So then Margarite was Carl's aunt?
Title: Re: Dr.Ginther- Questions To Ask Him
Post by: Helen_Azar on July 09, 2005, 05:02:44 PM
It seems that everyone is a little confused here. Let me try to summarize this a little better.

No, the two labs did not come up with different conclusions, they had two different samples. One was the sequence extracted from the MJ Hospital intestine sample, a sample which had extremely tight and reliable chain of custody and which was kept in sterile conditions. The other was the sequence extracted from a blood slide which was reportedly not kept in sterile conditions for many years, and which reportedly was not even covered, and for which the chain of custody was not clearcut.

The sample from the intestine, which we know for a fact belonged to AA, matched Carl Maucher's sequence 100%. Which of course means that it also matches Margarethe Ellerick's 100%, since ME's matches CM's 100%. Lets call this sample number one.

And remember, there was also sample number two: the sequence extracted from AA's hair which was given to Peter Gill by Peter Kurth. The sequence extracted from that sample was identical to the intestine sequence and also identical to Carl's sequence (and thus Margarethe's). All these sequences were consistent with each other - i.e. identical i.e. 100% match.

On the other hand, the sequence extracted from the blood slide did not match any of the above, not the intestine, not the hair, not Carl Maucher, not Margarethe. In other words, the sequence in the slide did not match  Anna Anderson's confirmed DNA sequence, which was its own control. Because of this, all bets are off for this slide. This is a very important point, in fact, the most important point in this whole story. Because of this point, we can safely conclude that the blood on the slide either did not belong to AA or was contaminated with extraneous DNA.

Of course we can also try to convince everyone that it wasn't contaminated but that Anna Anderson was a *chimera* or other such nonsense, as someone tried to do before, but these kinds of theories belong in a bad science fiction novel, not in real science.

The important question which should be asked of Dr Ginther is whether the slide was uncovered at some point and time, and also what was the chain of custody for this slide, can it be accounted for at all times? If the answer is no, then the blood slide is not an appropriate sample. To me, it all sounds very iffy, and the fact that out of all three AA samples, two matched each other and also to the FS relatives exactly, while the third - the blood slide was the odd one out, and this tells us a lot.

Of course some people will choose to ignore all this, perhaps because it doesn't fit into their theories, or perhaps because they don't have the ability to think analytically, but there is nothing much we can do about that...   Hope this helps.  :)
Title: Re: Dr.Ginther- Questions To Ask Him
Post by: AGRBear on July 09, 2005, 05:26:52 PM
Quote
(See posts above)
II. The sequencing of Margarete Ellerick:  

Doc. EM1:  Fax letter from me to Mr. Philip Remy dated July 11, 1994.  "…I am sending you the data that I have for "Willi sample-M.E" [Margarette Ellevik sample provided by Willi Korte].  Nucleotides 16024-16474 were determined.  In that region, variations from the Anderson sequence were found at 16126 T->C, 16266 C->T, 16294 C->T, and 16304 T->C.  Base 161146 could not be determined on the gels…"

Doc. EM2:  Letter from Dr. Kevin Sullivan, Forensic Sci. Service, UK, dated July 21, 1994, to Julian Nott of Canalot Studios.  Forwarded to me by Mr. Philip Remy on August 1, 1994.  "ANNA ANDERSON DNA TESTING. I confirm that the mitochondrial sequence of Karl Maucher ("Schanzkowska") matches exactly that of Margarete Ellerick, which you provided in your communication of 12 July.  Nucleotides 16021 to 16400 inclusive, were determined.  Variations compared to the Anderson sequence were as follows: 16126 C (Anderson=T), 16266T (Anderson=C), 16294T (Anderson=C), 16304C (Anderson=T).  Base 16146 is A and therefore matches the Anderson sequence at this position…"  

ASIDE:  The sequence of Margarete Ellerick was clear, and also did not match any of the various "Anna Anderson sequences" that were done. This data is believable.
(See  Next Post)


Dr. Ginther: >>ASIDE:  The sequence of Margarete Ellerick was clear, and also did not match any of the various "Anna Anderson sequences" that were done. This data is believable.

Which test was he telling us that there wasn't a match with Margarete and AA?

AGRBear
Title: Re: Dr.Ginther- Questions To Ask Him
Post by: AGRBear on July 09, 2005, 05:33:15 PM
Quote
So then Margarite was Carl's aunt?


Yes, Margarite was Carl Maucher's aunt.

AGRBear
Title: Re: Dr.Ginther- Questions To Ask Him
Post by: Helen_Azar on July 09, 2005, 05:33:20 PM
Quote

Which test was he telling us that there wasn't a match with Margarete and AA?
 


It was the sequence from the slide that didn't match Margarethe Ellerick. Ginther did not do the tests on the intestine, Gill did, so Ginther can not make any statments or conclusions about the intestine sequence. Gill's results showed that the intestine matched Maucher's sequence 100%.

So lets try to use a little logic, shall we? If we know that the sequence from the intestine matched Carl Maucher 100%, and Carl Maucher's sequences matched Margarethe Ellerick's 100%, then this means that the sequence from the intestine matched Margarethe Ellerick 100%. This is just common sense.

The sequence that Ginther is talking about which did not match Margarethe's (or Carl's) was the one from the blood slide, and of course this means that it also did not match the intestine, which we know for a fact belonged to AA, nor it did match the hair which was consistent with the intestine. This is why we can say with confidence that the slide was contaminated, or that the blood on the slide belonged to someone other than AA. This is really not very complicated at all...
Title: Re: Dr.Ginther- Questions To Ask Him
Post by: lexi4 on July 09, 2005, 05:52:26 PM
Thank you Helen. Your posts, as ususal, are reasoned and helpful.
Title: Re: Dr.Ginther- Questions To Ask Him
Post by: Helen_Azar on July 09, 2005, 05:57:40 PM
Quote
Thank you Helen. Your posts, as ususal, are reasoned and helpful.


You're welcome Lexi, I am glad I could help. I hate to see people misled by faulty reasoning...
Title: Re: Dr.Ginther- Questions To Ask Him
Post by: AGRBear on July 09, 2005, 05:58:20 PM
Ginther talks about
>>III. The sequencing of material from Anna Anderson blood slide. <<
NOT in
>>II. The sequencing of Margarete Ellerick<<

AGRBear
 
Title: Re: Dr.Ginther- Questions To Ask Him
Post by: lexi4 on July 09, 2005, 06:04:21 PM
Quote

You're welcome Lexi, I am glad I could help. I hate to see people misled by faulty reasoning...

So, if I am understanding, what we know about FS/AA has not really changed. These are just the results from Ginther on the slide only. Is that correct Helen?
Title: Re: Dr.Ginther- Questions To Ask Him
Post by: Helen_Azar on July 09, 2005, 06:23:15 PM
Quote
So, if I am understanding, what we know about FS/AA has not really changed. These are just the results from Ginther on the slide only. Is that correct Helen?


Exactly, Lexi, these were just the results from a questionable blood sample which was inconsistent with anything else we have. A serious scientist would dismiss these results immediately because of all the inconsistencies with the control. Dr Ginther did his job, he sequenced what he had and compared it to some other sequences. It was not part of his job to make decisions as to what the results really mean since he did not have the original control sequence, i.e. from the intestine...

I am sure that you have noticed that we are just basically just going around in circles with this. People who are trying to prove that AA was not FS are coming up with all this to try to plant doubt on the original results. They even went as far as to try to push the absurd theory that AA was a chimera - I would call that "grasping at straws".  Gill's original results are still accepted as valid in the science world, more than ten years later, and they showed that AA had to be FS with a very high certainty, something like over 99%, based on her DNA profile. For people who don't know the science well, a little confusion like we have here is all it takes to start doubting the results. For people who do understand the science well, it is pretty obvious that the slide was contaminated. Samples get contaminated all the time in labs, and it is very easy to tell when they are because you end up with an inconsistent or inconclusive results - and that's what we have here and this is how we know. This is not anything unusual or sinister or mysterious... And that's all there is to this.    
Title: Re: Dr.Ginther- Questions To Ask Him
Post by: Finelly on July 09, 2005, 06:42:43 PM
So..........is there anyone else out there like me who believes that the DNA evidence is incontrovertible, yet finds Kurth's book so compelling that they find themselves still wondering, despite the fact that the wonderings are illogical?

I almost threw away Kurth's book after the DNA came out, but didn't.  Still had no desire to ever read it again, but I picked it up the other night and got into it again.  And there I was, saying to myself "well.....?.....no......well???............no.........." until I finally fell asleep and dreamed of Oompa Loompas.
Title: Re: Dr.Ginther- Questions To Ask Him
Post by: Inquiring_Mind on July 09, 2005, 07:35:38 PM
I read everything over yet again.

Dr Ginther was not given anything but the slide according to what Bear posted. He was given samples from Margarite.

Dr Ginter said the results from the blood were probably contaminated.

So AA was FS.

Title: Re: Dr.Ginther- Questions To Ask Him
Post by: lexi4 on July 09, 2005, 07:57:03 PM
Quote

Exactly, Lexi, these were just the results from a questionable blood sample which was inconsistent with anything else we have. A serious scientist would dismiss these results immediately because of all the inconsistencies with the control. Dr Ginther did his job, he sequenced what he had and compared it to some other sequences. It was not part of his job to make decisions as to what the results really mean since he did not have the original control sequence, i.e. from the intestine...

I am sure that you have noticed that we are just basically just going around in circles with this. People who are trying to prove that AA was not FS are coming up with all this to try to plant doubt on the original results. They even went as far as to try to push the absurd theory that AA was a chimera - I would call that "grasping at straws".  Gill's original results are still accepted as valid in the science world, more than ten years later, and they showed that AA had to be FS with a very high certainty, something like over 99%, based on her DNA profile. For people who don't know the science well, a little confusion like we have here is all it takes to start doubting the results. For people who do understand the science well, it is pretty obvious that the slide was contaminated. Samples get contaminated all the time in labs, and it is very easy to tell when they are because you end up with an inconsistent or inconclusive results - and that's what we have here and this is how we know. This is not anything unusual or sinister or mysterious... And that's all there is to this.    


Thank you again Helen. I have another question, who is Dr. Ginther anyway? And exactly what was his involvement?
Title: Re: Dr.Ginther- Questions To Ask Him
Post by: Finelly on July 09, 2005, 08:48:34 PM
This absurd theory that AA was a "chimera".....can someone elaborate?  Not the lion-headed fire breathing monster of Greek myth, I take it.....but a figment of the imagination?  Hers?  Ours?  What exactly IS this theory?
Title: Re: Dr.Ginther- Questions To Ask Him
Post by: jeremygaleaz on July 10, 2005, 12:05:55 AM
Quote
So..........is there anyone else out there like me who believes that the DNA evidence is incontrovertible, yet finds Kurth's book so compelling that they find themselves still wondering, despite the fact that the wonderings are illogical?

I almost threw away Kurth's book after the DNA came out, but didn't.  Still had no desire to ever read it again, but I picked it up the other night and got into it again.  And there I was, saying to myself "well.....?.....no......well???............no.........." until I finally fell asleep and dreamed of Oompa Loompas.


What the heck is Oompa Loompas? ??? ;)

 
Title: Re: Dr.Ginther- Questions To Ask Him
Post by: Finelly on July 10, 2005, 12:11:52 AM
Little creatures who help run the Chocolate Factory.

(Willie Wonka and the Charlie and the Chocolate Factory book...)
Title: Re: Dr.Ginther- Questions To Ask Him
Post by: Mgmstl on July 10, 2005, 12:16:46 AM
Quote
So..........is there anyone else out there like me who believes that the DNA evidence is incontrovertible, yet finds Kurth's book so compelling that they find themselves still wondering, despite the fact that the wonderings are illogical?

I almost threw away Kurth's book after the DNA came out, but didn't.  Still had no desire to ever read it again, but I picked it up the other night and got into it again.  And there I was, saying to myself "well.....?.....no......well???............no.........." until I finally fell asleep and dreamed of Oompa Loompas.


For me it is NOT only Kurth's book, while it is compelling, the differences between AA & FS are what has made me so curious about this case.  

I am not a DNA expert by an stretch of the means nor do I pretend to be, IMO the circumstantial evidence needs to be investigated and if it turns out that she is FS, then oh well I was wrong, but I want my reasonable doubt quashed.
Title: Re: Dr.Ginther- Questions To Ask Him
Post by: jeremygaleaz on July 10, 2005, 12:20:11 AM
Quote
Little creatures who help run the Chocolate Factory.

(Willie Wonka and the Charlie and the Chocolate Factory book...)


Gotcha! :D I seem to recall those creatures now...

Anyway, in answer to your other question about Kurth's book...
There really isn't a case in which subjective evidence does not point in a different direction than scientific DNA testing. (Another example, Shay Mcneal was still able to write about the "rescue" of the tsar and his family, based on subjective evidence, while not understanding the DNA .)

It's just that Kurth misinterpreted the evidence that he was looking at (Alot of it is based on human memory, which can be very inacurate, he said/she said, style gossip, etc.)

Such misunderstandings  happen  all the time.  
Title: Re: Dr.Ginther- Questions To Ask Him
Post by: Mgmstl on July 10, 2005, 12:29:50 AM
Quote


There really isn't a case in which subjective evidence does not point in a different direction than scientific DNA testing.


Why not be specific and tell us with your vast investigative experience in historical research what cases you are referring to?    

Kurth met the woman, knew the woman, and wrote this book in the 1980's BEFORE the DNA experiments were done.  My copy is a first run print I believe in 1982. He was looking at the evidence available at the time.

Kurth used trial transcripts, notes, affadavits, and did as accurate a job as possible with the evidence available.
He did not indulge in speculative journalism as did the writers of  File On The Tsar.   Kurth put forward a VERY CONVINCING case, based on the testimony of actual persons involved, and did interview those surviving at the time.  

As far as how he amended his later copy, I cannot be for certain, but why not try to be a bit honest for once.


Title: Re: Dr.Ginther- Questions To Ask Him
Post by: lexi4 on July 10, 2005, 12:33:48 AM
Quote
So..........is there anyone else out there like me who believes that the DNA evidence is incontrovertible, yet finds Kurth's book so compelling that they find themselves still wondering, despite the fact that the wonderings are illogical?

I almost threw away Kurth's book after the DNA came out, but didn't.  Still had no desire to ever read it again, but I picked it up the other night and got into it again.  And there I was, saying to myself "well.....?.....no......well???............no.........." until I finally fell asleep and dreamed of Oompa Loompas.


I understand what you are saying here. I think there is something inside all of us that would like for the IF to have survived. Kurth is very convincing, but then there is that pesky DNA thing.
Title: Re: Dr.Ginther- Questions To Ask Him
Post by: jeremygaleaz on July 10, 2005, 12:39:22 AM
Quote

I understand what you are saying here. I think there is something inside all of us that would like for the IF to have survived. Kurth is very convincing, but then there is that pesky DNA thing.


That's just it. We WANT someone to survive this. Regardless of who murdered them, it's the same as the story of the Princes in the Tower, or the "Lost King" of France, the Dauphin Louis. We want them, especially children, to survive something like this. At least, that's my take on it.  
Title: Re: Dr.Ginther- Questions To Ask Him
Post by: Mgmstl on July 10, 2005, 12:52:55 AM
Quote

I understand what you are saying here. I think there is something inside all of us that would like for the IF to have survived. Kurth is very convincing, but then there is that pesky DNA thing.


I have always thought it was a terrible fate for the children, however, I don't have as much problem with the parents being executed, they were the heads of government, they bore responsibility, but the children did not. while I don't believe she was AN,  I have a nagging doubt on whether or not she was FS.

I have no doubts though about the accuracy of the Bolshevik firing squads.
Title: Re: Dr.Ginther- Questions To Ask Him
Post by: Finelly on July 10, 2005, 09:47:44 AM
Actually, I'm not one of those people who would want one of them to have survived.  I can't think of anything more horrible than for one of the kids to have lived after seeing everyone go down.

Well, anyway....it's a mystery...but a different kind of mystery than existed when Kurth published the book!
Title: Re: Dr.Ginther- Questions To Ask Him
Post by: Helen_Azar on July 10, 2005, 10:11:38 AM
Quote
This absurd theory that AA was a "chimera".....can someone elaborate?  Not the lion-headed fire breathing monster of Greek myth, I take it.....but a figment of the imagination?  Hers?  Ours?  What exactly IS this theory?


Hi Finelly,

This transpired before you got here, maybe about 4 months ago, on a thread which has been locked (justifiably so and none too soon) due to the usual nastiness that accompanied these AA/FS discussions when certain posters were present. The thread was called "So who was she then"(meaning "so if AA was not AN then who was she")...
On her desperate quest to prove that AA was not FS, Penny Wilson came up with a theory that AA must have been a chimera, which means, simply, someone who has two different DNA sequences that are inconsistent with each other. Penny Wilson obviously has very little understaning of molecular biology and DNA science and should have stayed away from theorizing on the subject, but when I tried to explain to her that her theory is not valid because even in the extremely unlikely event AA was indeed a chimera (which does exist), AA's mtDNA would still remain the same. PW then accused me of lying and of sabotaging her research, and generally slandered me simply because she did not like what I was saying since it put a lot of huge holes in her theories about AA.  

After she finally realized that the chimera theory did not have a leg to stand on, PW once again threw a fit and  threatened to leave the forum, as she had done many times in the past, and deleted her posts. In this case, I don't think anyone bought into the chimera theory, because it was too outlandish for even the people on this forum who buy almost any theory, no matter how bizarre!

If you are interested to read exacty what transpired when the chimera theory was discussed, you can probably find this thread among the old locked threads in this topic. It may have been "So who was she then, part II" because the first part was also locked... I can't remember now, nor do I want to remember, since I have no inclination of revisiting that whole incident, which was extremely unpleasant... But it is one of the reasons why I am very reluctant to take part in these discussions these days, even though I can contribute a lot to those who truly want to understand facts.

My point is, this just goes to show you the extreme lengths some people will go to in order to try to prove themselves correct in this AA/FS saga, even coming up with theories that don't come close to reality in anyone's wildest dreams. So please be careful of what you read here, even if it comes from someone who seems to be a credible source... Sad, but true.
Title: Re: Dr.Ginther- Questions To Ask Him
Post by: Mgmstl on July 10, 2005, 10:26:00 AM
Quote

Hi Finelly,

This transpired before you got here, maybe about 4 months ago, on a thread which has been locked (justifiably so and none too soon) due to the usual nastiness that accompanied these AA/FS discussions when certain posters were present. The thread was called "So who was she then"(meaning "so if AA was not AN then who was she")...
On her desperate quest to prove that AA was not FS, Penny Wilson came up with a theory that AA must have been a chimera, which means, simply, someone who has two different DNA sequences that are inconsistent with each other. Penny Wilson obviously has very little understaning of molecular biology and DNA science and should have stayed away from theorizing on the subject, but when I tried to explain to her that her theory is not valid because even in the extremely unlikely event AA was indeed a chimera (which does exist), AA's mtDNA would still remain the same. PW then accused me of lying and of sabotaging her research, and generally slandered me simply because she did not like what I was saying since it put a lot of huge holes in her theories about AA.  

After she finally realized that the chimera theory did not have a leg to stand on, PW once again threw a fit and  threatened to leave the forum, as she had done many times in the past, and deleted her posts. In this case, I don't think anyone bought into the chimera theory, because it was too outlandish for even the people on this forum who buy almost any theory, no matter how bizarre!

If you are interested to read exacty what transpired when the chimera theory was discussed, you can probably find this thread among the old locked threads in this topic. It may have been "So who was she then, part II" because the first part was also locked... I can't remember now, nor do I want to remember, since I have no inclination of revisiting that whole incident, which was extremely unpleasant... But it is one of the reasons why I am very reluctant to take part in these discussions these days, even though I can contribute a lot to those who truly want to understand facts.

My point is, this just goes to show you the extreme lengths some people will go to in order to try to prove themselves correct in this AA/FS saga, even coming up with theories that don't come close to reality in anyone's wildest dreams. So please be careful of what you read here, even if it comes from someone who seems to be a credible source... Sad, but true.


You know Helen, Penny is not here to defend herself and I think some of these comments in you post are  totally uncalled for, regardless of your past dealings with Penny. I thought you were above this sort of thing, and in all fairness to Penny and her outstanding work on FOTR with Greg King (sorry) , all of the evidence needs to be looked at, not just the DNA side of it, can't we do it without the disparaging of character & motive.

Title: Re: Dr.Ginther- Questions To Ask Him
Post by: lexi4 on July 10, 2005, 10:35:15 AM
How about back to the topic. Maybe then we can keep this thread from being locked.
Title: Re: Dr.Ginther- Questions To Ask Him
Post by: Helen_Azar on July 10, 2005, 10:55:09 AM
Quote

You know Helen, Penny is not here to defend herself...
 


I wouldn't be so sure, Michael  ;)

Quote

You know Helen, Penny is not here to defend herself...

 
Quote
...I think some of these comments in you post are  totally uncalled for, regardless of your past dealings with Penny.


They are very called for, for one thing, someone asked about the chimera theory and I told them what happened. Perhaps you feel that I can be slandered and accused of unethical behavior on a public forum where I use my real name, but don't have the right to defend myself? You know very well Michael that I was not the instigator of all the nastiness, I was just trying to relay accurate information, for which I was attacked. Believe me, there is a lot more I can say about this, but of course I won't...

Quote
...in all fairness to Penny and her outstanding work on FOTR with Greg Wilson, all of the evidence needs to be looked at, not just the DNA side of it...


It's Greg King BTW, unless those two have now fused into one being... (a chimera perhaps?;D)

But, seriously folks, we were talking about DNA, and this is why I brought this up. People need to be aware of what had been brought up in the past when this subject was discussed, that's all. I didn't say anything about anyone which was not true or slanderous, just recounted facts...

And this is all I am going to say, as I have no intention of getting dragged into these discussions again.

And now back to the topic, sorry for digressing a bit, but it was sort of inevitable when the question about chimeras was asked.





Title: Re: Dr.Ginther- Questions To Ask Him
Post by: etonexile on July 10, 2005, 10:57:54 AM
But a CHIMERA theory...?...Grasping at Oompa-Loopas there... ::)
Title: Re: Dr.Ginther- Questions To Ask Him
Post by: Finelly on July 10, 2005, 11:03:57 AM
I tend to disregard the subjective content of the discussion and focus on the issues....so I'd be very interested to hear from all sides.

Passionate people have passionate ideas.  And passionate arguments.  I'm just utterly fascinated by the ideas....
Title: Re: Dr.Ginther- Questions To Ask Him
Post by: AGRBear on July 10, 2005, 11:13:37 AM
Quote
....[in part]....

My point is, this just goes to show you the extreme lengths some people will go to in order to try to prove themselves correct in this AA/FS saga, even coming up with theories that don't come close to reality in anyone's wildest dreams. So please be careful of what you read here, even if it comes from someone who seems to be a credible source... Sad, but true.


Here we are trying to clearify a point and we're being attacked....

Yes, I place myself with Penny, Michael and others who still are not convinced that AA and FS are the same person.

Just go over and look at the threads of the Differences between AA and FS which has evidence that there are differences and then go and look at the thread with the Similarities between AA and FS and there is hardly anything that is the same accept a similar look from one photo of FS and other a few of AA.

Both of those threads eliminate the DNA question.  And if FS and AA are the same person than one would think the Similarity thread would overwhelm the thread on Differences, but, it doesn't.

I for one think that the DNA testing as well as all the other evidence should take us to the same point that AA and FS are the same person, so, why doesn't it?  Are we missing something important?  If we are, what is it?

When I discovered there wasn't a birth certificate for Gertrude Ellrick,   I stepped back and viewed what everyone had been saying from a different angle.

At this time, without a birth or baptismal certificate, we do not know if Gertrude and FS had the same mother.  If we do not know this important fact then we can not prove FS and Gertrude had the same mtDNA.

Yes, we can assume that Gertrude and FS had the same mother since they were both raised in Anton Schanzkowska's home as sisters.

However, during my 30 years of  doing family history, it has not been unsual to find a thought-to-be-a-sibling not a sibling.   Nor was it unsual for the person, who had been raised in a family,  not know they were not a sister or a brother to the other children being raised in the same household.

How was this possible?  One has to understand that death was common place when there wasn't any miracle drugs.  Entire familes died from the flu or typoid.....  If a child managed to survive it was usually taken in by an old sister or brother  OR and aunt or uncle.....  Sometimes a friend's family .... Sometimes by someone who had just lost their own baby and had plenty of breast milk to care for a baby....

No, it's no unsual for one child out of ten to not be recorded, however, if the family is religious, then there is usually found a certificate of baptism.  

Penny and others have sent in researchers to find Gertrud's information.  They have found the other children's records of Anton Schanzkowska but not Gertrud's.

Unfortunately, all we have of mtDNA are from Gertrud's desc. .

Let me, again, say,  I have no agenda.  I have thought AA and FS were the same person.  But,  I'm not ready to close this case because at this time,  my thoughts are still open and I'm still willing to study this theory that AA and FS might not be the same person.

Just because I haven't reached the same conclusion as Helen and others who take mtDNA and close their eyes to other evidence and make assumptions about Gertrud's mother,  doesn't make me a wild extremist.  I think my hestitation is genuine and I see no reason I need to make up my mind today or tomorrow.  Heck,  I've been doing research on this family since the 1950s and a few more days or months or years isn't a big deal.

So, let's get back to Dr. Ginther's tests because that is why this thread was created.

AGRBear
Title: Re: Dr.Ginther- Questions To Ask Him
Post by: AGRBear on July 10, 2005, 11:40:33 AM
As for the "chimera" theory.  That is what it is at the moment a theory.  Penny introduced the theory.  If it turns out wrong, it turns out wrong and we move foreward.   Since Helen think's the theory as absolutely ludicrous, that's fine.  My only problem with this was when I asked Helen a long time ago if there was a possible answer to this DNA linking AA to Gertrude without them being related, she voiced that there WAS one way it was possible.  When I asked Helen about more detail,  she said she had been  pulling our leg and did not explain farther.  When I went back to find this particular post, she had removed it.  Months later, when Penny introduced the theory of "chimera", Helen admited this was the one possible but improbable theory she had hinted at earlier.  And,  I voiced my disapointment in Helen.  Why not?  I had thought she was open and honest about all of this DNA stuff.  

To me, this "chimera" theory doesn't seem probable, and, if Helen had just told us about it, given us all the reasons it wasn't  probable,  I would have just thought "okay" and forgotten about it, but Helen didn't and went as far as eliminating her post, so,  my trust in Helen was shaken, so,  I wasn't  sure what to think. After some thought,  I tend to think that  this was just a error in judgement on Helen's part and not anything more.   However her attacks on Penny in this thread,  makes me nervous and apprehensive....

Being a very honest bear who is just looking for the truth,  I do hope we don't end up locking up another thread, but this is what I experienced, and, this is what I feel.

And, yes,  I've jumped off topic right after I tried to direct us back on to the topic.  But glancing over the "chimera" posts,  I have gotten quite upset, again, by the way  posters, who have a great deal to offer ALL of us, are chased awayby other posters, and, I'm not just talking about Penny and Greg having  fallen as victim.  :'(    There have been many many others who were attacked and left with a bitter taste in their mouths because the majority of them had been  honest and had had facts and experiences to offer us  so we could have  a better understanding of the various subjects from their perspective.   Gosh, when I first posted I was a target and almost didn't return after my first post and every now and then I'm still lampooned, but,  I find it important to keep vigilance over the "truth box", so,  I'm here and hope to hang around for a long time.

AGRBear
Title: Re: Dr.Ginther- Questions To Ask Him
Post by: Finelly on July 10, 2005, 11:45:54 AM
One problem I am experiencing is that nobody has written and published anything about this entire thing, as far as I know, in a long time.

I read Kurth's website and am unsure what it is he believes at this point.  Penny and Greg haven't published their book.  I can't find any good summaries of the various theories that aren't accompanied by opinions of the summarizer.

Title: Re: Dr.Ginther- Questions To Ask Him
Post by: Mgmstl on July 10, 2005, 11:54:29 AM
Quote



They are very called for, for one thing, someone asked about the chimera theory and I told them what happened. Perhaps you feel that I can be slandered and accused of unethical behavior on a public forum where I use my real name, but don't have the right to defend myself? You know very well Michael that I was not the instigator of all the nastiness, I was just trying to relay accurate information, for which I was attacked. Believe me, there is a lot more I can say about this, but of course I won't...  



Helen, while I admit you were attacked, so was she, & not just by one, by three, four or five people.  Yes it got nasty, and I don't think you were wrong for defending yourself, it's just that as I remember, and I may be wrong her posts are no longer on line to show evidence of this, so why don't we just bury it, the fight is over.  I will say that I have had no argument with you, and have always respected your opinion, and I realize it upset you, just as I was upset about what Vera did to me, but we survived it didn't we????  
Title: Re: Dr.Ginther- Questions To Ask Him
Post by: Mgmstl on July 10, 2005, 11:56:09 AM
Quote
One problem I am experiencing is that nobody has written and published anything about this entire thing, as far as I know, in a long time.

I read Kurth's website and am unsure what it is he believes at this point.  Penny and Greg haven't published their book.  I can't find any good summaries of the various theories that aren't accompanied by opinions of the summarizer.



I don't think that Kurth has made a statement of his current beliefs on the case, and the validity of AA=FS
or not, it would be interesting to find out, however I understand he is ill, so that may be preventing him from making further statements.
Title: Re: Dr.Ginther- Questions To Ask Him
Post by: lexi4 on July 10, 2005, 12:08:26 PM
Was Dr. Ginther involved with the original team that did the DNA testing when the IF bodies were found??? What exactly was his role? I can see that he did testing on the blood slide, but have no idea how involved he was in any other testing. Can anyone help me out here?
Title: Re: Dr.Ginther- Questions To Ask Him
Post by: AGRBear on July 10, 2005, 12:18:13 PM
Dr. Ginther in the early time frame was working under Dr. King:
Dr. King of UC wrote:  "I have been working for the past seven months on the identification of the skeletal remains of the the nine indiviauls believed to include Tsar Nicholas II and members of his family, " she said, "I have also received blood and tissue samples from descendants of Tsar Nicholas and his wife, Alexandra.  I am in the process of preparing a report on my findings.  I am familiar with DNA research into the remains from Ekaterinburg being conducted by Dr. Peter Gill.  If there is sufficient mtDNA bearing materinal, it would be ideal to have two qualified laboratories carry out the mtDNA testing and compare the results.  I have spoken with Dr. Gill and ould like the opportunity to work collaborateively with him in the analysis of the samples."

Quote
Maurice Remy continued to work to get AA's tissue into the hands of  Mary-Claire King at UC.

When Remy asked for the results of the Ekaterinuburg test from King but done came forth.

It was discovered that King had not done the testing but her someone else in King's lab.  The person was Dr. Ginther, who had extracted mtDNA fro the Ekaterinburg material.

Ed Deets, who was in control of the tissue, was contacted to see if he'd release some of AA's tissue to Dr. Ginther.

Meanwhile, Dr. Ginther, who didn't want to do anything without Dr. King's approval, waited until she approved of his testing and released the compartive samples.  Dr. King approved and released the samples.

Dr. Ginther discovered Dr. King had not turned all he samples over to him so he worked with what she gave him.

Dr. Ginther for the second time, derived mtDNA from the Hessian and the Romanov materials.  Hee, also, extracted mtDNA from Margaret Ellerick, the daughter of Gertrude S., who is thought to be FS's sister.

By July of 1994 Ginther did not have the AA tissue.

Remy went to find another source and he found Professor Stefan Sandkuhler, a former hematologist from Heidelberg University, who had exaimined Anna Anderson on 6 June 1951.

Sandkuhler had tested AA's blood for hemophia and therefore had AA's blood samples on glass slide.  It was this slide Remy broke in half.  He sent one half to Dr. Ginther and the other half to Prof. Bend Herrmann, a specialist in short tanden repeat (STR).  Hermann did get DNA from his half and sent his material to Ginther.

Ginther found p. 234 of Massie:  "..this DNA did not match the Hessian pofile... nor did it match the Schazkowska profile as derived from Margaret Ellerick."

There is mention of the slide as having been contaminated and that is why C1 is going directly to Dr. Ginther to understand what happen and if Massie's conclusion was accurate.

AGRBear



The following was the start of Dr. Ginther's letter:

Quote
July 6, 2005

Dear J.A. Hubert,

I realize from going through my files that there is a large amount of "Romanoff" material there.  In addition, I have copies of lab notebooks that have details of the work (and that I have not been able to find yet.)  Since your questions pertained mostly to the Anna Anderson slide, I will send you the information that surrounds that part of the data.  I do have some caveats.  This work was done over 10 years ago, and so many details are vague to me.  To be completely honest, I had forgotten about some of the experiments and only had my memory jogged by the documents in my files.  In addition, this work was done when DNA forensics was experimental in the truest sense of the word.  Of the workers active in mtDNA identification at the time, I would generally believe the work of Mark Stoneking (Penn State), Mark Wilson  (FBI),, Mitch Holland (US Army), Peter Gill and Kevin Sullivan  (Forensic Sci. Service, UK), Also note, the Anderson sequence often referred to is the standard sequence used for most mtDNA comparisons,  It was the first mtDNA sequence done, and Anderson refers to the scientist who led that work, and has nothing to do with Anna Anderson.  So here is the material from my two folders that relates to Anna Anderson:
(See next post)

 
Title: Re: Dr.Ginther- Questions To Ask Him
Post by: AGRBear on July 10, 2005, 12:25:48 PM
UC = University of California at Berkeley which has a UC system which touches other universities such as UCLA [Universty of California at LosAngles].  UC is number one in public schools in the USA.

Someone asked this earlier in this thread.

The symbol of UC is  the California grisely bear.... GO BEARS!

AGRBear
Title: Re: Dr.Ginther- Questions To Ask Him
Post by: Forum Admin on July 10, 2005, 01:42:14 PM
Quote
UC = University of California at Berkeley which has a UC system which touches other universities such as UCLA [Universty of California at LosAngles].  UC is number one in public schools in the USA.

Someone asked this earlier in this thread.

The symbol of UC is  the California grisely bear.... GO BEARS!

AGRBear


Excuse me, BUT, the symbol of UC Berkely is the bear. We at UCLA are BRUINS! Go BRUINS!! Blue and Gold is a much nicer combination.

;D
FA (UCLA class of '81)
Title: Re: Dr.Ginther- Questions To Ask Him
Post by: AGRBear on July 10, 2005, 02:46:49 PM
UCLA Bruins are "baby" bears in powder blue and gold.

UC Papa Bear is Oski who wears navy blue and gold.

We may be in the same school system but we are competitive against each other.  ;D.

AGRBear from Bear Territory
Title: Re: Dr.Ginther- Questions To Ask Him
Post by: lexi4 on July 10, 2005, 04:46:39 PM
Do we know why King did not give all the samples to Ginther? Did she ever turn them over? That seems curious. Did King actually do any of the testing?
Go Bears!
Title: Re: Dr.Ginther- Questions To Ask Him
Post by: Inquiring_Mind on July 10, 2005, 07:52:07 PM
Quote
Do we know why King did not give all the samples to Ginther? Did she ever turn them over? That seems curious. Did King actually do any of the testing?
Go Bears!


Yes,would it have been no less then a minor miracle if Dr Ginther had been given BOTH the tissue and the slide?

Maybe there wasn't enough medium to do this.

What amazes me to this day....and I have had people explain it to me...but it still amazes me...

Is that the hospital kept AA's biopsy tissue AND syringes AND broken metal dish parts?

I am of the belief that my appendix and pieces of my bowel..YUCK...were disposed of when the time limit that I could sue the doctor and/ or hospital was exceeded.

I have been told that these samples are kept by reputable hospitals indefinately. Who has the space or the resources to do this?

I know my appendix ended up in a dumpster. And probably before anyone was concerned with the spread of disease from medical waste.

I remember a summer on the Jersey shore in the mid 80's when we couldn't get in the water because the weather pattern pulled all the medical waste into the beach.

No, I am not screaming conspiracy.....yes, the hospital had the sample of AA. Still hard for me to comprehend. But there were other medium like syringes? Very very hard for me to comprehend.

Have a great night everyone. Back to work tomorrow.


Title: Re: Dr.Ginther- Questions To Ask Him
Post by: jeremygaleaz on July 10, 2005, 11:13:44 PM
Quote


Why not be specific and tell us with your vast investigative experience in historical research what cases you are referring to?


Every single bloomin case that DNA science has solved. There is never a time when subjective evidence can not be interpreted to arrive at a different conclusion than the one shown by DNA. Otherwise, defence lawyers wouldn't have a job.

Unless your vast investigative experience in historical/criminal research can find something different?  

 
Quote
 
Kurth met the woman, knew the woman, and wrote this book in the 1980's BEFORE the DNA experiments were done.  My copy is a first run print I believe in 1982. He was looking at the evidence available at the time.


Right.... all things that have already been said...and he arrived at the wrong conclusion.


 
Quote


Kurth used trial transcripts, notes, affadavits, and did as accurate a job as possible with the evidence available.
He did not indulge in speculative journalism as did the writers of  File On The Tsar.   Kurth put forward a VERY CONVINCING case, based on the testimony of actual persons involved, and did interview those surviving at the time.


Well, given that you wrote "very convincing" in capitals, in does seem to me like you are trying to tie in that she may have been Anastasia...hhhhmmm? ;). Sometime , you and I will have to talk about Santa Claus too. ;)


Title: Re: Dr.Ginther- Questions To Ask Him
Post by: Finelly on July 10, 2005, 11:20:25 PM
Be nice to each other, or I will start to write about my theory, which is....

FS was not AA

AA was not AN

BUT.....FS was AN.

And you really don't want me to do that, because.....well.....it's complicated by the fact that I have absolutely not one jot of evidence.

Title: Re: Dr.Ginther- Questions To Ask Him
Post by: jeremygaleaz on July 10, 2005, 11:23:30 PM
Quote

but why not try to be a bit honest for once.



Trying to bait me with another arugment while preaching peace? ;) Ah-ah, Naughty boy! Teddy2 sends many kisses to his favorite " Simpsons " comic book guy" :-*  :-* :-*

Title: Re: Dr.Ginther- Questions To Ask Him
Post by: Finelly on July 10, 2005, 11:25:50 PM
I'm warning you..........
Title: Re: Dr.Ginther- Questions To Ask Him
Post by: jeremygaleaz on July 10, 2005, 11:26:45 PM
Quote
Be nice to each other, or I will start to write about my theory, which is....

FS was not AA

AA was not AN

BUT.....FS was AN.

And you really don't want me to do that, because.....well.....it's complicated by the fact that I have absolutely not one jot of evidence.



Ahhh,,,,no please! :o :o point taken!

Don't worry, I take just about all of it with a grain of salt and just laugh!  ;) 
Title: Re: Dr.Ginther- Questions To Ask Him
Post by: Finelly on July 10, 2005, 11:28:48 PM
Well, ok then.

But the threat still stands........
Title: Re: Dr.Ginther- Questions To Ask Him
Post by: jeremygaleaz on July 10, 2005, 11:31:37 PM
Quote
Well, ok then.

But the threat still stands........


Just no more crazy theories!! :o :o :o
Title: Re: Dr.Ginther- Questions To Ask Him
Post by: Inquiring_Mind on July 10, 2005, 11:57:59 PM
Yes the thread still stands...

Have you not learned your lesson on other threads ? The ones that made you think twice about posting? The ones that didn't want you back?

Hijacking a thread...

Explanation...someone who takes the thread off topic to cause posters to fight amongst themselves.

I don't give a care if I can never post here again for what I  say here today.  I will live without this forum. I will lose alot of valuable info in the process but ...oh well!

But it is totally exhausting to try to have any kind of thought provoking conversation here.

You are not funny, nor witty. Not productive.

You chase away people who have valuable info whether it be research or personal experience.

Again, why do we even bother coming here if it is not to share info and enchange ideas?





For me, I come here because there are posters here that I can learn from. People I respect. I can't see there faces, I have not met them, but every word they type is worth my reading.











Title: Re: Dr.Ginther- Questions To Ask Him
Post by: jeremygaleaz on July 11, 2005, 12:14:27 AM
Quote
Yes the thread still stands...

Have you not learned your lesson on other threads ? The ones that made you think twice about posting? The ones that didn't want you back?

Hijacking a thread...

Explanation...someone who takes the thread off topic to cause posters to fight amongst themselves.

I don't give a care if I can never post here again for what I  say here today.  I will live without this forum. I will lose alot of valuable info in the process but ...oh well!

But it is totally exhausting to try to have any kind of thought provoking conversation here.

You are not funny, nor witty. Not productive.

You chase away people who have valuable info whether it be research or personal experience.

Again, why do we even bother coming here if it is not to share info and enchange ideas?


For me, I come here because there are posters here that I can learn from. People I respect. I can't see there faces, I have not met them, but every word they type is worth my reading.



??? ???
I think there's someone else Teddy2 needs to kiss! :-*

Here's the deal lady...no one's arguing, everything is taken with a grain of salt (at least, by me) ... and it takes two to argue, so if you don't like something, simply don't respond. It's simple, and works very well!

And, if you think Chimera theories  (among other more wild ones) are worth reading about no one is stopping you from doing just that, are they?


Title: Re: Dr.Ginther- Questions To Ask Him
Post by: lexi4 on July 11, 2005, 12:24:30 AM
So, back to Dr. Ginther.......
Title: Re: Dr.Ginther- Questions To Ask Him
Post by: jeremygaleaz on July 11, 2005, 01:37:10 AM
Quote
So, back to Dr. Ginther.......


Good point, but there is one more issue that Bear brings up again and again, as she did here on the Dr. Ginther thread,  and many people  wonder about....  the "half sister" issue....and even though bringing it up in the first place is a bit of topic,  it deserves a response...

The Kleir and Mingay book, "The Quest for Anastasia" is usually quoted as the source for this topic by Penny mostly, but also by Bear and other posters.  During a recent interview, Proff Kleir was asked, specifically, about the sibling relationship between Gertrude and FS.

He was quite shocked as he had never heard of the "theory" about them being half sisters  before based on the writings in his book, and neither did his wife. The only argument they presented in their book was that FS'S father had two marriages. Not that Gertrude was a half sister, nor did they have any other evidence to place the children in the first marriage. They never raised the "half sister" issue,   and certainly had no items of interest that caused them to speculate that Gertrude was anything less than a full sibling.  Both Kleir and Mingay (his wife) laughed at the idea that Gertude and FS had different mothers,  feel it is "nutters" and believe that AA was FS "110%" .

So, not intending to go far off topic, but just throwing this out there for those interested as this "possibility" is often brought up, and the source for this is often quoted as being "Quest",  and people back it up with the "abscence" of Gertrude's birth/ baptismal records (hardly unique, given those "minor" skirmishes called WWI and WWII and the destruction they brought)

And, it's worth noting that the Schankowsky family fully accepts AA as FS. Perhaps when I get back from Europe I'll post English translations of Waltraud's interviews, as well as some of these pictures I promised awhile ago.

In the meantime, if anyone would like to start another thread on this issue, feel free.

   
Title: Re: Dr.Ginther- Questions To Ask Him
Post by: jeremygaleaz on July 11, 2005, 02:15:15 AM
Quote

When I discovered there wasn't a birth certificate for Gertrude Ellrick,   I stepped back and viewed what everyone had been saying from a different angle.

At this time, without a birth or baptismal certificate, we do not know if Gertrude and FS had the same mother.  If we do not know this important fact then we can not prove FS and Gertrude had the same mtDNA.

Yes, we can assume that Gertrude and FS had the same mother since they were both raised in Anton Schanzkowska's home as sisters.

However, during my 30 years of  doing family history, it has not been unsual to find a thought-to-be-a-sibling not a sibling.   Nor was it unsual for the person, who had been raised in a family,  not know they were not a sister or a brother to the other children being raised in the same household.

How was this possible?  One has to understand that death was common place when there wasn't any miracle drugs.  Entire familes died from the flu or typoid.....  If a child managed to survive it was usually taken in by an old sister or brother  OR and aunt or uncle.....  Sometimes a friend's family .... Sometimes by someone who had just lost their own baby and had plenty of breast milk to care for a baby....

No, it's no unsual for one child out of ten to not be recorded, however, if the family is religious, then there is usually found a certificate of baptism.  

Penny and others have sent in researchers to find Gertrud's information.  They have found the other children's records of Anton Schanzkowska but not Gertrud's.

Unfortunately, all we have of mtDNA are from Gertrud's desc. .

....and others who take mtDNA and close their eyes to other evidence and make assumptions about Gertrud's mother....


This is Bear's post, in part, that I was referring to..
Title: Re: Dr.Ginther- Questions To Ask Him
Post by: Penny_Wilson on July 11, 2005, 02:29:50 AM
Quote

The Kleir and Mingay book, "The Quest for Anastasia" is usually quoted as the source for this topic, by Penny mostly, but also by Bear, as well as other posters. During a recent interview, Proff Kleir was asked, specifically, about the sibling relationship between Gertrude and FS.

He was quite shocked as he had never heard of the "theory" about them being half sisters  before based on the writings in his book, and neither did his wife. The only argument they presented in their book was that FS'S father had two marriages. Not that Gertrude was a half sister, nor did they have any other evidence to place the children in the first marriage. They never raised the "half sister" issue,   and certainly had no items of interest that caused them to speculate that Gertrude was anything less than a full sibling.


"Anna had been confronted by members of the Schanzkowski family twice -- first by Franziska's brother Felix in 1927 and secondly by four of her siblings in 1938.  On both occasions, they did not identify her as their sister.  Franziska Schanzkowska was born on 16 December 1896, in Bororwihlas, a small town in Kashubia, one of the Polish provinces at that time forming part of the German Empire.  ... Her father married twice, and she was a child of the second marriage and close to her brother Felix.  The first family were very religious and straitlaced, while Franziska and Felix were more open-minded..."  (The Quest for Anastasia, by John Klier and Helen Mingay.  London: Smith Gryphon, 1995.  Page 223)

Quote
Both Kleir and Mingay (his wife) laughed at the idea that Gertude and FS had different mothers,  feel it is "nutters" and believe that AA was FS "110%" .


I doubt very much if John and Helen were as ill-advised to make comments like this for publication in a public arena -- did you get their permission to quote them thusly?

Title: Re: Dr.Ginther- Questions To Ask Him
Post by: jeremygaleaz on July 11, 2005, 02:34:26 AM
So, you spoke with them directly on this "half sister" issue  Penny? Not arguing, simply asking.
Title: Re: Dr.Ginther- Questions To Ask Him
Post by: Penny_Wilson on July 11, 2005, 02:41:45 AM
Quote
So, you spoke with them directly Penny?


I spoke with Helen Mingay and in a follow-up conversation, Greg spoke with at least Helen Mingay and possibly John Klier also.  This was in late 1999/early 2000, prior to us beginning the project that engendered both the FOTR and our future work on Pretenders.  We made them fully aware at that time of the passage in their book that caught our attention.  Neither of them ridiculed or otherwise disabused us of the nascent idea that Gertrud may have been a half-sister.

Neither one of them treated us -- nor have they treated any other colleague or researcher that we know --  as "nutters."  
Title: Re: Dr.Ginther- Questions To Ask Him
Post by: jeremygaleaz on July 11, 2005, 03:13:24 AM
Quote

I spoke with Helen Mingay and in a follow-up conversation, Greg spoke with at least Helen Mingay and possibly John Klier also.  This was in late 1999/early 2000, prior to us beginning the project that engendered both the FOTR and our future work on Pretenders.  We made them fully aware at that time of the passage in their book that caught our attention.  Neither of them ridiculed or otherwise disabused us of the nascent idea that Gertrud may have been a half-sister.

Neither one of them treated us -- nor have they treated any other colleague or researcher that we know --  as "nutters."  


Now, now, we're referring to the "idea" not the indvidual. There are no stupid questions as far as I'm concerned (only funny ones) , and we all want to learn.

But, leaving room for the possibility of lapse of memory if such is the case, and the Shankowskys and AA were the main point of conversation , John Kleir had no memory of you, and Helen Mingay didn't seem to know who you were either when the subject of FOTR was finally brought up. And neither had heard of the whole "half sister" issue. Do you have transcripts of your conversation with them? Notes, perhaps?
Title: Re: Dr.Ginther- Questions To Ask Him
Post by: Penny_Wilson on July 11, 2005, 03:31:52 AM
Quote

Do you have transcripts of your conversation with them? Notes, perhaps?


Yes.
Title: Re: Dr.Ginther- Questions To Ask Him
Post by: Finelly on July 11, 2005, 08:31:36 AM
It does seem odd that they would have no recollection of Penny and Greg.  

In fact, it seems SO odd to me that I would have to discount anything they said after that......
Title: Re: Dr.Ginther- Questions To Ask Him
Post by: Mgmstl on July 11, 2005, 10:48:31 AM
Quote

Every single bloomin case that DNA science has solved. There is never a time when subjective evidence can not be interpreted to arrive at a different conclusion than the one shown by DNA. Otherwise, defence lawyers wouldn't have a job.

 Unless your vast investigative experience in historical/criminal research can find something different?  

 

Right.... all things that have already been said...and he arrived at the wrong conclusion.


  

Well, given that you wrote "very convincing" in capitals, in does seem to me like you are trying to tie in that she may have been Anastasia...hhhhmmm? ;). Sometime , you and I will have to talk about Santa Claus too. ;)





You are obviously blind or lacking in reading comprehension, nowhere, and at no time I have ever stated she was AN.  

My question is why do you keep insulting Kurth's research, which at the time (pre DNA) was groundbreaking, in his use of original source material. 

I thought you were staying off of the survivor thread forever, perhaps I can find your post where you stated that??
Title: Re: Dr.Ginther- Questions To Ask Him
Post by: Mgmstl on July 11, 2005, 10:58:52 AM
Quote

Trying to bait me with another arugment while preaching peace? ;) Ah-ah, Naughty boy! Teddy2 sends many kisses to his favorite " Simpsons " comic book guy" :-*  :-* :-*



No not trying to bait you child, just stating an obvious fact concerning your statement about Kurth and his book.   Isn't it time to go back to your playpen or sandbox?  

Title: Re: Dr.Ginther- Questions To Ask Him
Post by: AGRBear on July 11, 2005, 11:00:21 AM
 Dr. Ginther doesn't have the slighest idea who Curious One was.  So,  I assumed next month, next year or five years from now he will not remember her name.

This does not and will not mean the e-mail he sent her which she has given us for this thread [the topic of this thread] was not sent.

Please, there is no need to question Penny's or Greg's integrity.  Nor is there need to question the memory of the other two authors.   As we've learn in these various threads, memory is a delicate factor and not often reliable.  This is why lawyers prefer evidence than having to depend on memories.

Jay-Ro-Mee  [*incorrectly had Finelly incerted]  for some reason seems to be baiting Penny even after Penny gave her answer.  If you have a problem with Penny or Greg, please,  the rest of us wish you'd take this problem to PMs.

Penny and Greg's investigators are not the only ones who have not found Gertrud's birth data.  Such records are open to the public and Finelly and anyone else who has the know-how can reach these records themselves or hire someone who will help you go through these records.

AGRBear

*Apologize Finelly for having incorrectly directed my post to you. Sorry.  Sorry. Sorry.
Title: Re: Dr.Ginther- Questions To Ask Him
Post by: Finelly on July 11, 2005, 11:00:40 AM
I realize that it may be fun for people to engage in back and forth insults and name-calling and put-downs.

Unfortunately, the rest of us who read these threads find it utterly annoying, disrespectful, and disruptive.

If you want to do it, perhaps you can take it to ims.  
Title: Re: Dr.Ginther- Questions To Ask Him
Post by: Mgmstl on July 11, 2005, 11:03:23 AM
Quote
I realize that it may be fun for people to engage in back and forth insults and name-calling and put-downs.

Unfortunately, the rest of us who read these threads find it utterly annoying, disrespectful, and disruptive.

If you want to do it, perhaps you can take it to ims.  



My apologies Finelly.
Title: Re: Dr.Ginther- Questions To Ask Him
Post by: jeremygaleaz on July 11, 2005, 11:09:30 AM
Quote



As Bear stated before quite plainly this thread is not about DNA issues.  That should be discussed on the DaveK  DNA thread.  



No, she said  that on another  thread. This one also relates to DNA issues, and Dr. Ginther's tests  ;)
Title: Re: Dr.Ginther- Questions To Ask Him
Post by: Forum Admin on July 11, 2005, 11:09:53 AM
You have all been cautioned about personal sniping, attacks and straying off topic. Need I say more?
FA
Title: Re: Dr.Ginther- Questions To Ask Him
Post by: AGRBear on July 11, 2005, 11:18:13 AM
Michael,  you've heard me say toooooooooooooo many times that a thread isn't about DNA.   ;D

I do think we can talk on this thread about DNA and mtDNA and glass slides, syringes, etc. since Dr. Ginther was asked about these things and did reply about these things.

And, yes, it was Dr. Ginther, who was under  Dr. King's watch, who worked on the Romanov bones as well as AA's DNA but then became independent of Dr. King while working for Remy.

AGRBear

Title: Re: Dr.Ginther- Questions To Ask Him
Post by: Finelly on July 11, 2005, 11:29:31 AM
"Finelly for some reason seems to be baiting Penny even after Penny gave her answer.  If you have a problem with Penny or Greg, please,  the rest of us wish you'd take this problem to PMs."

Heavens, I have no idea how I gave that impression!  I feel absolutely no animosity toward Penny or Greg.  I actually am so glad that Penny posted again, as I would like to hear more from her.  I certainly don't know enough about any theories she has even to criticize them.

Penny - if I have offended in any way, I apologize.  It was not my intention.

I like to think that I do not "bait" people, as I tend to stick to issues and am pretty open to considering anything.  Especially on the topic of AA, FS, and AN, since I remain fascinated by the entire story.
Title: Re: Dr.Ginther- Questions To Ask Him
Post by: Finelly on July 11, 2005, 11:34:17 AM
I also pmmed a private apology to Penny Wilson.

Title: Re: Dr.Ginther- Questions To Ask Him
Post by: Mgmstl on July 11, 2005, 11:36:19 AM
Quote
"Finelly for some reason seems to be baiting Penny even after Penny gave her answer.  If you have a problem with Penny or Greg, please,  the rest of us wish you'd take this problem to PMs."

Heavens, I have no idea how I gave that impression!  I feel absolutely no animosity toward Penny or Greg.  I actually am so glad that Penny posted again, as I would like to hear more from her.  I certainly don't know enough about any theories she has even to criticize them.

Penny - if I have offended in any way, I apologize.  It was not my intention.

I like to think that I do not "bait" people, as I tend to stick to issues and am pretty open to considering anything.  Especially on the topic of AA, FS, and AN, since I remain fascinated by the entire story.


Finelly I don't think it was you who Bear was referring to.    I read the other thread where you introduced yourself to Penny.   I don't think you have done or said anything that could be considered baiting.
Title: Re: Dr.Ginther- Questions To Ask Him
Post by: Mgmstl on July 11, 2005, 11:37:51 AM
Quote
Michael,  you've heard me say toooooooooooooo many times that a thread isn't about DNA.   ;D

I do think we can talk on this thread about DNA and mtDNA and glass slides, syringes, etc. since Dr. Ginther was asked about these things and did reply about these things.

And, yes, it was Dr. Ginther, who was under  Dr. King's watch, who worked on the Romanov bones as well as AA's DNA but then became independent of Dr. King while working for Remy.

AGRBear




My apologies to Bear, Finelly , I was somewhat confused thinking I was on the FS similarities thread.   Yes this is also a DNA  oriented thread.
Title: Re: Dr.Ginther- Questions To Ask Him
Post by: Penny_Wilson on July 11, 2005, 11:42:49 AM
Quote
"Finelly for some reason seems to be baiting Penny even after Penny gave her answer.  If you have a problem with Penny or Greg, please,  the rest of us wish you'd take this problem to PMs."

Heavens, I have no idea how I gave that impression!  I feel absolutely no animosity toward Penny or Greg.  I actually am so glad that Penny posted again, as I would like to hear more from her.  I certainly don't know enough about any theories she has even to criticize them.

Penny - if I have offended in any way, I apologize.  It was not my intention.

I like to think that I do not "bait" people, as I tend to stick to issues and am pretty open to considering anything.  Especially on the topic of AA, FS, and AN, since I remain fascinated by the entire story.



Gosh, no!  I'm not offended by anything -- I think I read your post as you intended it to be read, so I had to go back just now and LOOK for something.  I think it was just a misunderstanding over pronouns.  De nada!

And thank you for your nice pm!
Title: Re: Dr.Ginther- Questions To Ask Him
Post by: Penny_Wilson on July 11, 2005, 11:54:43 AM
Quote


Please, there is no need to question Penny's or Greg's integrity.  Nor is there need to question the memory of the other two authors.   As we've learn in these various threads, memory is a delicate factor and not often reliable.  This is why lawyers prefer evidence than having to depend on memories.

AGRBear


I totally agree with this assessment.  John Klier and Helen Mingay may well have forgotten a couple of conversations that took place just over five years ago.

It may also be that they didn't want to be involved in discussing FOTR -- or us --  if they perceived the atmosphere of the interview as adversarial or agendized.  It's a professional courtesy not to engage in that sort of thing -- there was a time a year or so ago, when someone from this board asked a certain famous author at one of his lectures about FOTR.  This author later told us that he thought that the person was going to start a fairly emotional diatribe against us in public -- and so he simply said, "No, haven't read it, don't know about it" -- and moved on.

In any event, this interview is a non-event as far as I'm concerned.  John and Helen were polite and professional and most helpful to Greg and I when we approached them five years ago.  We remain most grateful, as it was their work that specifically inspired ours.
Title: Re: Dr.Ginther- Questions To Ask Him
Post by: AGRBear on July 11, 2005, 12:08:09 PM
Sorry Finelly,  I misidentified you in my earlier post.  It is, now, directed at the correct poster, Jay-Ro-Mee.

Thanks Michael for pointing out my error.

I, also, apologize to Jay-Ro-Mee, also, because I may have misread your post.

I was careless and should have read the posts more carefully.

AGRBear
Title: Re: Dr.Ginther- Questions To Ask Him
Post by: Penny_Wilson on July 11, 2005, 12:23:58 PM
Quote
As for the "chimera" theory.  That is what it is at the moment a theory.  Penny introduced the theory.  If it turns out wrong, it turns out wrong and we move foreward.   Since Helen think's the theory as absolutely ludicrous, that's fine.  My only problem with this was when I asked Helen a long time ago if there was a possible answer to this DNA linking AA to Gertrude without them being related, she voiced that there WAS one way it was possible.  When I asked Helen about more detail,  she said she had been  pulling our leg and did not explain farther.  When I went back to find this particular post, she had removed it.  Months later, when Penny introduced the theory of "chimera", Helen admited this was the one possible but improbable theory she had hinted at earlier.  And,  I voiced my disapointment in Helen.  Why not?  I had thought she was open and honest about all of this DNA stuff.  

To me, this "chimera" theory doesn't seem probable, and, if Helen had just told us about it, given us all the reasons it wasn't  probable,  I would have just thought "okay" and forgotten about it, but Helen didn't and went as far as eliminating her post, so,  my trust in Helen was shaken, so,  I wasn't  sure what to think.

 AGRBear


If I may, I would like to recap for the record my take on the "chimera theory"...

Way back in 2000, I was working on the US Census here in Riverside.  My district covered UCRiverside (the local campus of the University of California), and I worked with a doctoral student who had lived in -- I think -- Finland for a few years previously, in order to work on the project that was mapping the human genome.  One thing leads to another, and before long, I was talking to him about this case, and our upcoming research trip.  I remained in touch with him for quite some time -- at least until he moved to Bulgaria in winter 2002/2003 -- and took note of several pieces of advice he gave me, one of which was to look into the possibility of chimerism in Anna Anderson.

A couple of years later -- this must have been just about six or seven months ago -- my memory was jogged when I was watching an episode of CSI and chimeras were mentioned.  I did a small -- SMALL -- amount of research on it, and rather liked what I saw insofar as a theory that explains everything goes.  

Chimerism is a condition wherein a person has different DNA in different tissues:  the DNA in a chimera's blood is different from the DNA in the chimera's skin or intestinal tissue or organic tissue or whatever.  There is also a condition called mosaicism, wherein the person's DNA distribution looks like a mosaic across all tissues -- the DNA in the skin of the upper arm is different than the DNA in the skin of the lower arm, the DNA in one bone is different from the DNA in another bone.

Now, I don't know how reasonable or unreasonable this theory is -- what I do know is that it fits all the DNA results that we have without any scientist having to be accused of incompetence, or anyone having to be accused of malfeasance of some sort with the intestinal or blood-slide evidence.

Having seen with my own eyes how well Dr Sandkuhler's archives were conserved, and knowing MP Remy as a stand-up guy, and not doubting that the Martha Jefferson Hospital and the staff at Peter Gill's lab and the Armed Forces lab are all competent and well-meaning -- I don't like to doubt any of them without cause.  Chimerism in Anna Anderson allows everyone to be right -- IF the DNA in her intestine is different from the DNA in her blood.  

And chimerism COULD happen -- it DOES happen -- though we don't know quite how often it does.  Who here has had their blood DNA matched against DNA taken from another tissue in their body?  When is this ever necessary?  Who on this board could absolutely say for certain that he or she is NOT a chimera?

And all this is not to say that I know or even necessarily believe that Anna Anderson WAS a chimera.  I don't think that it's anything that could ever be proven at this point.  But it's a THEORY -- which doesn't necessarily have to be true.  It's just something that explains everything without pointing fingers of conspiracy or blame, which is not something that I like to do -- and that's why I personally like it.

Q.E.D.
Title: Re: Dr.Ginther- Questions To Ask Him
Post by: lexi4 on July 11, 2005, 02:24:40 PM
Thank you Penny. I learned new things!
Title: Re: Dr.Ginther- Questions To Ask Him
Post by: AGRBear on July 11, 2005, 02:33:23 PM
Learning new things and discussing old things is why this forum is so great.

Thanks Bob and Everyone else!

AGRBear
Title: Re: Dr.Ginther- Questions To Ask Him
Post by: JonC on July 11, 2005, 02:45:30 PM
OK Guys, I'm a lot frustrated here....This thread is about question to ask Dr. Ginther and all I get is information about AA and FS.

Now for someone who is waiting on the Dr. Ginther discoveries concerning AN and the Imperial family... I"m on edge here. So...Dr. Ginther did or didn't get enough sample to study the Romanovs?

How did his study compare with Dr. Gill's?

Helen_Azar since we know I'm a dud at the scientific aspect of this could you please explain what the results were in Xenia Sfiri? She was maternally linked to Tsar Nicholas, I know, but Dr. Ginther said that position 16126 she had (A->G) or something like that. Is this a range of values because from the Nature Genetics magazine I see she had a 'C' at this position just like Nicholas.

Some of you seem to interpose AA and or FS with AN in your conversation when responding to Dr. Ginther's work. I don't think that's reality. JonC.
Title: Re: Dr.Ginther- Questions To Ask Him
Post by: jeremygaleaz on July 11, 2005, 04:59:21 PM
Quote

In any event, this interview is a non-event as far as I'm concerned.  John and Helen were polite and professional and most helpful to Greg and I when we approached them five years ago.  We remain most grateful, as it was their work that specifically inspired ours.


Would you mind showing us your notes on the subject then? John Kleir said he never heard of you, and Helen Mingay didn't seem to know who you were either. (She was on the phone talking to her husband, Mr. Kleir as the interview was taking place.)

And, more to the point, neither had ever heard of the whole half sister issue. Even if we allow them room for having forgotten who you were, the fact is that they  said they never promoted a "half sister theory" (in fact, the interview was the first time John Kleir had ever heard of this sibling question. And his wife gave it no credit either. And, both were aware that notes were being taken down during the interview) and had no evidence to support such claims, they only had evidence to support two marriages for FS'S father.(It was Helen Mingay who did the research for AA's family, her husband stuck mainly to the topic of Russian History.) No evidence to say what children belonged where in the arrangement.


And both believe AA was FS "110%"

But, in the past you've used Kleir and Mingay as a source for the half sister issue (I'll see if I can find the posts)

Here we go:




The half-sister issue was raised by the Kliers, who had done research above and beyond questioning the family.  As has been stated elsewhere on these forums, family can often be mistaken or misinformed.


(They said they never raised this issue. All Helen Mingay said she had was info that FS'S father had two marriages...and had no evidence to support any theory as to what children belonged to which mother.




"Klier and Mingay speculated that Gertrude -- and possibly the other children -- were from a previous marriage or relationship because of several items of interest that they did not include in their book."  



(they said they had no items of interest, and never speculated such)



. And there are many people here interested in the history of FS'S family. So, for the interest of the people on this thread, would you mind posting your notes on the subject?        
Title: Re: Dr.Ginther- Questions To Ask Him
Post by: jeremygaleaz on July 11, 2005, 05:05:04 PM
Quote

Helen_Azar since we know I'm a dud at the scientific aspect of this could you please explain what the results were in Xenia Sfiri? She was maternally linked to Tsar Nicholas, I know, but Dr. Ginther said that position 16126 she had (A->G) or something like that. Is this a range of values because from the Nature Genetics magazine I see she had a 'C' at this position just like Nicholas.



Hopefully Helen will be back on in a few days to talk more about the DNA, as well as her recent interview with John Klier
Title: Re: Dr.Ginther- Questions To Ask Him
Post by: jeremygaleaz on July 11, 2005, 05:09:22 PM
Quote
.

I, also, apologize to Jay-Ro-Mee, also, because I may have misread your post.

I was careless and should have read the posts more carefully.

AGRBear


No offence taken at all Bear. When we receive new and interesting information it is always good to question old sources who say things that contradict what these new sources are saying... or how else to we learn the truth? It's never good to blindly accept something. ;)
Title: Re: Dr.Ginther- Questions To Ask Him
Post by: Penny_Wilson on July 11, 2005, 05:28:50 PM
Quote
Would you mind showing us your notes on the subject then?


You HAVE to be joking!   I don't have their permission to reproduce their five-year-old words here.  Ours was a private conversation not intended for publication.

Quote

John Kleir said he never heard of you, and Helen Mingay didn't seem to know who you were either. (She was on the phone talking to her husband, Mr. Kleir as the interview was taking place.)


If this is an issue for John Klier and Helen Mingay, they can contact either me or Greg directly.  We will privately provide them with information regarding our contact with them.

This rather odd little issue will not play out in a public arena.

Quote
And, more to the point, neither had ever heard of the whole half sister issue.


That's funny, because they wrote about it.  Don't believe the quote I excerpted above -- do go and check it out for yourself.  When they refer to "first family" and Felix and Franziska being issue of the second marriage, I don't see how it can be denied that half-sibling relationships are evident.

Quote
No evidence to say what children belonged where in the arrangement.


Again:  They say that Felix and Franziska were of the second marriage, and refer to a "first family."

Quote
And both believe AA was FS "110%"


They are perfectly free to do that -- but it doesn't mean that they are correct.

Quote
But, in the past you've used Kleir and Mingay as a source for the half sister issue (I'll see if I can find the posts) .


You don't have to.  I freely admit it.  Back in 1999/2000, spurred on by the excerpt of Klier and Mingay quoted above, Greg and I embarked on an investigation of the Schanzkowsky family as part of a wider project.  Today, we know that FS's father did, indeed, marry twice, the first time to Josefina Peek, with whom he apparently had no children.  His second marriage, to FS's mother Marianna, produced these children -- from memory: Franziska, Martin, Valerian, Felix and Maria Julianna.  Gertrud's birth information has not been located -- unlike that of the others -- and therefore she cannot been placed definitely as a child of either marriage.

So what we know has changed in the ten years since the Kliers published -- and even in the five years since we spoke with them, which is why I won't publish here details of old conversations without permission.  But it was they who first introduced the idea of two marriages and two families.

Quote
And there are many people here interested in the history of FS'S family. So, for the interest of the people on this thread, would you mind posting your notes on the subject?        


Just out of interest, Jeremy, let me ask you this:  Why on earth, after you've treated me with ridicule, juvenile mockery and disrespect almost since the day I registered here, should I do anything for you?
Title: Re: Dr.Ginther- Questions To Ask Him
Post by: jeremygaleaz on July 11, 2005, 05:54:14 PM
Quote

You HAVE to be joking!   I don't have their permission to reproduce their five-year-old words here.  Ours was a private interview.


Write to them and ask them, or I can do it for you.. I can provide John Klier's email for you if you like. They're very nice people, and I'm sure they wouldn't mind. John Klier also enjoys talking about Russian History alot, and is a highly repected Proff. in good old London. In fact, he heads the Jewish studies department I believe.  

Quote

If this is an issue for John Klier and Helen Mingay, they can contact either me or Greg directly.  We will privately provide them with information regarding our contact with them.


This isn't an issue for them. They've learned to ignore stuff like this, as they feel it is best.



Quote
That's funny, because they wrote about it.  Don't believe the quote I excerpted above -- do go and check it out for yourself.  When they refer to "first family" and Felix and Franziska being issue of the second marriage, I don't see how it can be denied that half-sibling relationships are evident.


The arugment  has always , specifically, been about half sister relationships with Gertrude...and they have said they have no evidence to support that idea. Only two marriages. Nothing that says which child went where.
They also said that they wrote the book rather quickly (their publisher wanted them to get it out before Robert K. Massie's "Final Chapter" came out. So, perhaps their editor didn't proof read? Don't know how it works yet in the publishing  world)

In fact, no where in that quote are the words "half sister" or "Gertrude" even mentioned. And one of your posts has them referring to Gertrude specifically when they're contradicting that, and saying they said no such thing.

 
Quote

Again:  They say that Felix and Franziska were of the second marriage, and refer to a "first family."


Again, with no specific evidence to say what children went where. In fact, they have no evidence to say that there were childen from the first marriage at all. A very important fact that has been upheld by present day research, right?


Quote
They are perfectly free to do that -- but it doesn't mean that they are correct..


Well, there's still that less then one percent margin of error...which works better if we forget the total acceptance of AA as FS by the Schankowsky family today.

Quote
Just out of interest, Jeremy, let me ask you this:  Why on earth, after you've treated me with ridicule and disrespect all over this thread, should I do anything for you?


Well, I think a Ditto is in order, and this isn't about me and you know it.  I'm doing my own research, and arriving at my own conclusions. But there are people who are interested in this topic who read and post on this forum...and when a new source totally contradicts just what an old source has been saying for some time now....well, that's interesting to people.  No one is attacking you and there is no reason to get defensive .

People here would like to know just what your side of the argument is. So, if you like, feel free to publish your notes for their benefit and interest.
Title: Re: Dr.Ginther- Questions To Ask Him
Post by: etonexile on July 11, 2005, 05:59:55 PM
I have this feeling that AA WAS AN...and possibly FS...and that it had something to do with "alien abductions"...I know these things can happen...Don't laugh at me....just support me....
Title: Re: Dr.Ginther- Questions To Ask Him
Post by: jeremygaleaz on July 11, 2005, 06:06:41 PM
Quote
I have this feeling that AA WAS AN...and possibly FS...and that it had something to do with "alien abductions"...I know these things can happen...Don't laugh at me....just support me....


I agree. I think the humor of your posts are very helpful. I wish I still had my British sense of humor. But I lost it with the accent since I moved back with the Yanks...
Title: Re: Dr.Ginther- Questions To Ask Him
Post by: etonexile on July 11, 2005, 06:10:42 PM
Quote

I agree. I think the humor of your posts are very helpful. I wish I still had my British sense of humor. But I lost it with the accent...


Chuck...then you need some R and R in the UK.... ;)

...and it's humo(u)r ;) ;) ;)
Title: Re: Dr.Ginther- Questions To Ask Him
Post by: Penny_Wilson on July 11, 2005, 06:12:46 PM
Quote

Well, I think a Ditto is in order, and this isn't about me and you know it.  


Dear me... this is entirely about you Jeremy, and your insatiable need to devalue and denigrate me and my work.

However, I decline to have you insert yourself, busy-body-like, into my research, past or present.

Quote
No one is attacking you and there is no reason to get defensive .


Let's just say, then, Jeremy, that given your past record with me, that I am cautious enough about you and your agenda to shut you down immediately when you try to intrude in my business.

Quote
People here would like to know just what your side of the argument is. So, if you like, feel free to publish your notes for their benefit and interest.


There is no argument here, Jeremy -- except the one you're trying to start between Greg and I and the Kliers.  

Now, off you go, and on with whatever "research" you're doing.
Title: Re: Dr.Ginther- Questions To Ask Him
Post by: Penny_Wilson on July 11, 2005, 06:15:48 PM
Quote

They've learned to ignore stuff like this, as they feel it is best.



As do Greg and I.
Title: Re: Dr.Ginther- Questions To Ask Him
Post by: jeremygaleaz on July 11, 2005, 06:16:03 PM
Quote

Chuck...then you need some R and R in the UK.... ;)

...and it's humo(u)r ;) ;) ;)


So, true...in fact, I think I'll call up some ex-pat friends now. Bangers and nash sound good about now...
Title: Re: Dr.Ginther- Questions To Ask Him
Post by: jeremygaleaz on July 11, 2005, 06:34:25 PM
Quote

Dear me... this is entirely about you Jeremy, and your insatiable need to devalue and denigrate me and my work.

However, I decline to have you insert yourself, busy-body-like, into my research, past or present.


Let's just say, then, Jeremy, that given your past record with me, that I am cautious enough about you and your agenda to shut you down immediately when you try to intrude in my business.


There is no argument here, Jeremy -- except the one you're trying to start between Greg and I and the Kliers.  

Now, off you go, and on with whatever "research" you're doing.


Okay Penny. Given that you're getting defensive, refusing to even consider showing your sources on this subject  and twisting words around in an effort to start a personal exchange that I've actually been tryng to avoid.... and then  accusing me of having an "agenda".... trying to "insert" myself into your work.....  or misunderstanding the use of my word "argument" (on accident?) I have a better understanding of the truth of the matter. You've answered the question for me... your version  of events never took place. So I will end this discussion on my part.

(In a more logical sense, who is trying to present  the idea that AA may not have been FS? Not the Kliers. They believe AA was FS  absolutely....)

True, you will always have your supporters. But, who doesn't?  


Title: Re: Dr.Ginther- Questions To Ask Him
Post by: Finelly on July 11, 2005, 06:38:23 PM
If we could stick to issues without focussing on individual personalities, there'd be less conflict.  

If we could avoid attacking and hostility and name-calling, we might have a thread that appears to be written by a bunch of adults.

Now, stop it.  Please.  It is SO utterly annoying to be fascinated by something that people are discussing and have to sift thru the personal insults, etc to get to the main point.  
Title: Re: Dr.Ginther- Questions To Ask Him
Post by: jeremygaleaz on July 11, 2005, 06:45:52 PM
Quote
If we could stick to issues without focussing on individual personalities, there'd be less conflict.  

If we could avoid attacking and hostility and name-calling, we might have a thread that appears to be written by a bunch of adults.

Now, stop it.  Please.  It is SO utterly annoying to be fascinated by something that people are discussing and have to sift thru the personal insults, etc to get to the main point.  


I totally agree.
Title: Re: Dr.Ginther- Questions To Ask Him
Post by: Forum Admin on July 11, 2005, 06:55:18 PM
Jeremy there is ZERO tolerance for this behavior. Thread locked.