Alexander Palace Forum

Discussions about the Imperial Family and European Royalty => The Myth and Legends of Survivors => Topic started by: Penny_Wilson on August 04, 2005, 12:37:50 PM

Title: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Penny_Wilson on August 04, 2005, 12:37:50 PM
(We do this on another board I'm on -- not a history board, but I think it could be a good way to keep things straight.  The rules: no discussion here -- there are other threads for that -- just a list.  I'll start....)

1.Princess Xenia of Russian recognized her.

2.Alexandra Tegleva-Gilliard confirmed identical hallux valgus.

3.Distinctive "Romanov" blue eyes
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Louis_Charles on August 04, 2005, 12:41:26 PM
(4) Gleb Botkin recognized her.
(5) the forensic evidence introduced into the German court about her ears supports her claim.
(6) damnit, we all want her to be Anastasia!
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Finelly on August 04, 2005, 12:53:43 PM
7.  "The Man with the Pockets"
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Margarita Markovna on August 04, 2005, 01:06:16 PM
8. She remembered the incident about her and her siblings throwing paper balls (?willing to be corrected) at passersby.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Val289 on August 04, 2005, 02:09:10 PM
9.  Identical Handwriting
10. Lili von Dehn recognized her
11.  She spoke Russian, French, English and (High) German
12.  Tatiana Botkin recognized her
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: lexi4 on August 04, 2005, 02:19:20 PM
13. The scars
14. Princess Martha of Sweden, Crown-Princess of Norway believed her.
15.  former prima ballerina Mathilde Kschessinska, also met the her and believed her to be AN.

Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: RussiaSunbeam1918 on August 04, 2005, 06:00:02 PM
16, Their ears were alike in many ways
17, People said she spoke Russian in her sleep (this might not count because I don't know if that was doccumented or a myth)
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: lexi4 on August 04, 2005, 07:27:18 PM
Quote
16, Their ears were alike in many ways
17, People said she spoke Russian in her sleep (this might not count because I don't know if that was doccumented or a myth)

It was documented, I post it with the source on another thread. I will try to find it later. I can't remember where I read it....senior moment here.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Finelly on August 04, 2005, 07:33:50 PM
you're a senior?  I thought you had your h.s. diploma already.....
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: lexi4 on August 04, 2005, 10:41:42 PM
18. Peter Kurth speaks of similarities of the hands.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: RealAnastasia on August 05, 2005, 08:59:38 PM
19-She had childhood memories that she couldn't have read in any way in any book (Peter Kurth; Dominique Auclères; Harriet von Rathlef; Jimmy Blair Lovell; Tatiana Botkina, many other sources)

20- She had the same wild behavior than Anastasia (This source is not very reliable. The source it's ...me.  ;D)

21- She spoke in a very similar way than some of the Romanovs- I mean the level of her voice, the way she pronounce some words, lowering her voice tone  in the end of the phrases. (This was said by Nancy Leeds. I read it in "The Riddle of Anna Anderson" by Peter Kurth)

22- She walked an moved in the same way that Anastasia and some other Romanovs did. (Xenia Leeds and her daughter Nancy- Tatiana Botkina-Gleb Botkin-  In Peter Kurth book "The Riddle of Anna Anderson")

23- She laughed with the same kind of little laugh, very similar to a "squirrel one", and watching people with the corner of her eyes and not directly in their faces (Tatiana Botkina and Felix Dassel - Peter Kurth book: "The Riddle of Anna Anderson"; Jimmy Blair Lovell's book: "Anastasia; the Lost Princess". )

24-She corrected some wrong information (about the Grand Duchess Hospital) that Felix Dassel gave her on purpose to confound her and gave the right one

25- She spoke English in her dreams and under anesthesia ( Nurses in Dalldorf said it- Doctor Rudnev said it- Zinaida Tolstaïa said it. Peter Kurth; Dominique Auclères;Jimmy Blair Lovell)

26-She spoke French, but not very correctly when she was travelling in the "Berengaria" toward the USA (Same sources than above post. Remember that the Grand Duchess spoke French but not very well. As Alexandra herself, they aren't used to this language. In the other hand, Alexei did, for he always was talking to M. Gilliard)

27- She can WRITE in Russian. The graphologist wanted her to speak in her native tongue, but she plainly refused. Whe she leaves the room, they managed to find some notebooks where there were Anna Anderson's callygraphy in Russian - yes; that's mean cyrillic alphabet- for she was teaching Russian to Mrs. Heydebrand, the old lady who was living with her in Untenlengenhardt (Peter Kurth and Jimmy Blair Lovell) She always spoke Russian to her two little parrots and said the names of the flowers, equally in Russian.

28- She put perfume in Shura Tegleva's hands, for she must know an Anastasia's little joke when she was a little girl: AN would pour perfume in Shura's hand to her to pour it in Anastasia's forehead. She wants to smell "like a bouquet of flowers" (Peter Kurth; Jimmy Blair Lovell)

29- She said to Lili Denh, who show her an Alexandra's white and black photography, that Alix was wearing a brown dress in it (Jimmy Blair Lovell- Peter Kurth quotes that Lili recognized Anastasia, but he doesn't write about the photo)

30- Pierre Gilliard (who, later, states that AA had not the slighest ressemblance to Anastasia) called her "Imperial Highnes" when he saw her for the first time, and urged the doctors to move her from the St. Mary's Hospital to the "Mommsen" (Peter Kurth, Jimmy Blair Lovell, Alain Decaux, etc)

31- Anna Anderson was found bawling her eyes out, over the Imperial Family photos. She seemed very touched when she saw a pic of tatiana and cryed "Her Face! Her Face! " as she pointed it.  She also cried watching Alexandra in a family photo, saying: "My mother! My mother!" (Peter Kurth; Jimmy Lovell, etc)

32- This is the more important reason to me: when she was over the effects of anesthesia and delirant, she NEVER betrayed herself calling any of the Schanzkowska family member. She never said she was FS, but always Anastasia. She always called out: "Veronica! Veronica!" (Veronica was Alexander Tchaykovsky's sister) or "Mother! Mother! Where is my mother?" (When she spoke about the Imperial Family, she always talked about "How wonderful Alexandra was"). She never said: "Gertrude!" or "Felix!" or "Maria Juliana" etc.  (All sources quoted above)

To be continued!  ;D

RealAnastasia.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Inquiring_Mind on August 05, 2005, 09:05:24 PM
RealAnastasia,

You amaze me sometimes. You really did your homework.

Susie
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: etonexile on August 06, 2005, 12:34:40 PM
AA was AN because Teddy says he is in contact with the MOTHER SHIP which changed Anastasia's DNA to that of an obscure Polish factory worker who thought she was at first Tatiana but then read the magazine article again and remembered she was the younger daughter.... ::)
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Rachael89 on August 06, 2005, 12:44:08 PM
Quote
AA was AN because Teddy says he is in contact with the MOTHER SHIP which changed Anastasia's DNA to that of an obscure Polish factory worker who thought she was at first Tatiana but then read the magazine article again and remembered she was the younger daughter.... ::)


Etonexile I respect your opinions, and I know I'm new here and my thoughts may not be appreciated as much as more senior members of the forum but I beleive I have the right to express my opinion.

No matter what you beleive that is no excuse to ridicule the ideas of those who may beleive differently to you, if you wish to discuss how certain you are about Anna Anderson's identity please go to a more appropriate thread to do so.

Rachael
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: etonexile on August 06, 2005, 12:53:29 PM
I'm not ridiculing anyone.....
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Rachael89 on August 06, 2005, 01:04:57 PM
I'm sorry if I seemed abit blunt etonexile, but I got the impression from your post that you were making a joke of something some people take seriously, something that might offend people.

Rachael
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: RealAnastasia on August 06, 2005, 02:59:27 PM
I only hope that we respect the subject of the thread: 101 REASONS (nor opinion) for AA being GD Anastasia (Even if she WAS NOT) . It's a common intellectual excercise that students does in University when studying Human Sciences. I remember very well when I was studying History. One proffessor made us wrote 100 reasons to said that Communism was right, and 100 to said it was wrong. He did the same with all other ideologies. And he warned us: If I read a SINGLE opinion in your works, they will be reproved right away...We must do the same exercise FIVE times until we understand that we COULDN'T write our opinions there. I think that when Penny started this thread she thought about this excercise.

I remember that we did almost the same thing in Oratorie...We must defend with CONVICTION the opposite argument than ours. And it was even more hard than to note the right reasons of it.

AGAIN: We are not discussing DNA. There is other threads were we do this. But if your wants to know my very personal opinion, you'll know it. I think the tissues could have been compromised (thank you, Dr. Schweitzer. Before I read your post I couldn't find the right word in English to said it, so I wrote "contaminated" who is the wrong word). Why? Just for all the reasons about AA could have been Anastasia. It's all this and in the other hand, the single and exclusive argument of the DNA results, saying she was the only woman in the world she couldn't have been: FS.

But it's enough opinion for today. I will not post any other opinion in this thread. Only the reasons WITHOUT OPINION. Inestead of this, I think it's more useful to open another thread: 101 reasons AA WAS NOT FS.

RealAnastasia.

P.S: If you didn't know any single reason for AA could have been GD Anastasia, please DON'T POST HERE ANY MORE. It isn't the right thread for you. There is another about AA being indeed FS. Post there if you want to do it. You are not obliged to post here. Ah...If you go there, you must notice that I posted there too.

P.S 2: Thank you, Inquiring_Mind! You are very kind. And you too, Racher. Thank you again!
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Rachael89 on August 06, 2005, 03:28:02 PM
No thankyou RealAnastasia, I've read your posts with interest and it's nice to see someone who is open minded and excepts others opinions despite their own, now hopefully we can get back to the subject of the thread!

Now I can add to it:

33.) When she met Gleb Botkin she asked him about his funny animals, drawings of animals dressed in human clothing that he drew for the Tsar's children whilst in captivity. (I hope I remembered the details right!)


Thanks again ;)

Rachael
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: RealAnastasia on August 06, 2005, 08:54:15 PM
34- Anastasia , as all the Tsar children , loved the animals. AA too. Nobody recalled that FS loved animals.(Peter Kurth-Blair Lovell-Auclères)

35- She always acted naturally as AN. People didn't notice any faking in her attitude (Decaux, Castelot, Kurth, Blair Lovell, Doctor Eitel from Stillachaus)

35-When she spoke about Ekaterinburg murder, she did it in horror, screaming: "everything, everything, horrible dreadful, hasty, hurry, dirt, blood". It correspond to that we actually know in the later years about the massacre. She seemed horrified and didn't want to speak about this matter. She believed she was guilty for her family death (a common feeling in survivors). She believed that Tatiana and her mother had died because she was guilty of it. She even denied the fact when she gets older, changing the whole story: there was not massacre. Denial is common in people who suffered accidents or traumatic experiences. (Peter Kurth-Jimmy Lovell)

36-She said that the only survivors were Alexei and her . We know today that there are two bodies missing. A Grand Duchess -perhaps Anastasia- and Alexei, for sure.(However, she mistakes his name by "Nicholas"  ;D). (Robert K. Massie: "Romanov Last Chapter")

37-She didn't made any claim. Other people did them for her. She never liked the idea of to go into any trial against her "relatives".Not liked publicity and broke with Harriet Rathlef for writing a book about her and publishing it by chapters in a popular newspaper. (Peter Kurth- Decaux-Jimmy Lovell)

RealAnastasia.

More stuff later!  ;)
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: lexi4 on August 06, 2005, 09:06:06 PM
Quote
I'm sorry if I seemed abit blunt etonexile, but I got the impression from your post that you were making a joke of something some people take seriously, something that might offend people.

Rachael

I don't think so Rachael, Extonexile offers humor when we start taking ourselves too seriously. I personally enjoy his humor, he makes me smile and I appreciate his posts. If they bother you, ignore them. That is what I do if a post bothers me.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Kransnoeselo on August 06, 2005, 09:36:30 PM
38.  AA had a small circular scar on her back-in the same location where Anastasia had a mole removed.

39.  She knew an incident which occured between the Empress, Lilith Dehn, Anna Vyrubova and the Grand Duchess Anastasia which had never been published.

Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Finelly on August 06, 2005, 10:51:13 PM
40.  AA stated that Baroness Buxhoeveden was a traitor long before Penny Wilson and Greg King discovered that fact.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: RealAnastasia on August 07, 2005, 02:27:55 PM
41-AA interest in antroposophy. She had esoteric interests, as Alexandra had. (Blair Lovell)

42-  She was very similar in features, to Maria Feodorovna, the Dowager Empress. (She was very tiny, like her, and her face was very similar) (Peter Kurth; Von Rathlef)

43-Grand Duke Andrew recognized her. (Peter Kurth; Auclères; Blair Lovell; Decaux; Castelot)

44- She was recognized scientiphically as Anastasia in 1977, by P.I.K antropologic system, invented for the German Criminalistic expert Moritz Furtamayr. (In those times, there were NO DNA, but surprisingly, people doesn't speak a word about AN being identified without the slightless possibility of doubt. Nobody said, in those times, as Anna's enemies said today: "But there is the P.I.K and nobody could discuss she was indeed Anastasia". Now, we have DNA who said otherwise. Maybe tomorrow we'll have another system that would said again she was Anastasia, and so. ) (Peter Kurth; Blair Lovell)

45- AA was completely crazy for photography, as the Romanov children were. She even took a "self snapshot" in Lugano, as Anastasia did when she was a girl in Tsarkoe Selo (You must keep in mind that those photographies are NOT KNOWN in those times. Most of the Imperial Family Albums were already in Russia in the Communist Archives- In the 1920's people couldn't see the Romanov photos in books, magazines or online, like we do now...No "Beinecke Albums" in the 1920's"!) (I saw both photographies in Peter Kurth site and in Blair Lovell's book)

46- We doesn't know Ambassador's Zahle's dossier, yet. Why? If AA was not Anastasia, it makes no sense. (Personal question)

To be continued!  ;)

RealAnastasia.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: etonexile on August 07, 2005, 03:10:19 PM
Pleasssse...the DNA of AA did not match that of any relation of AN....and they looked nothing alike.....basta!!!
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Rachael89 on August 07, 2005, 04:53:55 PM
Quote
Pleasssse...the DNA of AA did not match that of any relation of AN....and they looked nothing alike.....basta!!!


Etonexile PLEASE will you go to the 101 reasons why AA was FS thread and stay there instead of clogging up this  thread with negative comments. Each time I come back to this thread expecting to find interesting points that are in favour of AA being AN I find you making comments nothing to do with the subjec
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Rachael89 on August 07, 2005, 04:58:09 PM
 :-[ I'm really sorry I accidentally pressed post when I was moving the keyboard to finish my message:

Please will you stop posting remarks that have nothing to do with the subbject of the thread.

Kind regards

Rachael

Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: lexi4 on August 07, 2005, 05:40:20 PM
Can we all just chill? Telling someone not to post is also disruptive. Just ignore and continue the list.
Now I too have disrupted. ???
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: RealAnastasia on August 07, 2005, 07:55:31 PM
This is a very good path to follow, lexi4! If someone said some offensive thing, just don't pay attention to it, and continue to post quietly. They even opened another thread to question our documentary sources. I supposed that it would happen, for there is so many reasons to AA to be GD Anastasia, that they can't simply accept those facts. I took my sources where I could : Peter Kurth is a good source, eve if he was pro-AA; he was too honest to supprime evidence that could deny AA claims: he wrote all he knows about AA, things that would prove she was AN , and things that doesn't do it. Blair Lovell was quoted by me ONLY when his reasons were also shared for other "serious historians". I know he was not "seriuos at all"  ;D. Dominique Auclères was pro-AA , but it is the ONLY account of the trials I have. I don't know another who are even published. Harriet Von Rathlef was also pro-AA, but she studied the Schanzkovska affair very deeply, so I go there to see what she have to said. The others, Alain Decaux and André Castelot were not pro-AA, but against her claim: they said openly that AA was FS. This is also the historical position of Robert K. Massie, my other source there.

Now; let us get some peace and continue this thread. Remeber: NO DISCUSSION HERE!!! FACTS AND SOURCES.

RealAnastasia.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: etonexile on August 08, 2005, 10:14:49 AM
I'm sorry if my style of posting upsets some...but I feel that threads such as this one do a real disservice to the entire forum as they feed the beliefs of those who "just know" that AN and perhaps Alexei escaped that impossible pit-of-death....and that AA WAS AN...and Alexei "out-grew"  his illness and was a dance instructor in adulthood.....
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: AGRBear on August 08, 2005, 05:40:55 PM
If you accidently post too early or want to make changes, above your post are listed the words  
"quote"
"modify"
"remove"

Use "modify" to go back into your original post and make changes.  At the bottom it will tell other posters when you last edited your post.

TOPIC IS:
101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia

No discussion to be placed here.  Rules given my creator of this thread.  Please respect this request.

If something distrubs you or stirs your interest and you want to know more, start a thread where you can discuss the topic all you want.

AGRBear
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Finelly on August 09, 2005, 12:39:30 AM
35.  Grand Duchess Olga visited her, wrote to her, sent her gifts, called her various endearments, worried about her even after she was forced to discredit her and felt some guilt about it.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Annie on August 09, 2005, 09:33:44 AM
Quote
39.  She knew an incident which occured between the Empress, Lilith Dehn, Anna Vyrubova and the Grand Duchess Anastasia which had never been published.

 


What was this incident, and who did they ask about it? Alexandra was dead, and no one ever consulted Vyrubova. Must have been Dehn? What was it?
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Annie on August 09, 2005, 09:38:23 AM
Quote
35.  Grand Duchess Olga visited her, wrote to her, sent her gifts, called her various endearments, worried about her even after she was forced to discredit her and felt some guilt about it.


Finelly, I am sorry, but I can't let this stand as fact. Your ASSUMPTION that she was 'forced to discredit her' has NO  basis of fact at all. I have read Olga's statements, one is in my sig. She said she desperately wanted the girl to be Anastasia, but she wasn't. She had a special bond with her and it wasn't there. I hope someone can post exactly what Olga said because I don't have it. But putting your guessing of what you think happened in there is worse than what I do when you say I have no sources, I have seen them, I just can't find them. This is complete fantasy and opinion with no backup whatsoever. It's actually offensive to Olga A. to say that she would discredit her beloved niece. If she were Anastasia, she'd have accepted her no matter what. And why would you assume Olga would do this? Money? Remember Olga had no money, she was the 'black sheep' of the family with the 'wrong' husband. While Xenia lived comfortably in Frogmore cottage on the British royals, Olga lived in a squat apt. over a barber shop in Toronto. Do you really think she'd sell out her beloved niece for that? Nope, she WASN'T her niece, and sadly, she knew it.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: AGRBear on August 09, 2005, 11:15:57 AM
Quote

Finelly, I am sorry, but I can't let this stand as fact. Your ASSUMPTION that she was 'forced to discredit her' has NO  basis of fact at all. I have read Olga's statements, one is in my sig. She said she desperately wanted the girl to be Anastasia, but she wasn't. She had a special bond with her and it wasn't there. I hope someone can post exactly what Olga said because I don't have it. But putting your guessing of what you think happened in there is worse than what I do when you say I have no sources, I have seen them, I just can't find them. This is complete fantasy and opinion with no backup whatsoever. It's actually offensive to Olga A. to say that she would discredit her beloved niece. If she were Anastasia, she'd have accepted her no matter what. And why would you assume Olga would do this? Money? Remember Olga had no money, she was the 'black sheep' of the family with the 'wrong' husband. While Xenia lived comfortably in Frogmore cottage on the British royals, Olga lived in a squat apt. over a barber shop in Toronto. Do you really think she'd sell out her beloved niece for that? Nope, she WASN'T her niece, and sadly, she knew it.


There will be NO reply on this thread.  If you wish to take this to another thread and discuss it, PLEASE DO!

I believe number
40.

is next.

AGRBear

Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: RealAnastasia on August 09, 2005, 08:45:56 PM
Thank you, Bear...I don't understand why people INSIST to discuss the reasons HERE. This is not the correct thread to do this. For instance we don't realy know if Olga Alexandrovna REALLY did know that AA wasn't her niece.

40- AA always seemed very upset when someone spoke against Rasputin. (Peter Kurth; Harriet Von Rathlef; Blair Lovell)

41- AA claimed that Rasputin didn't see OTMAA very often (this seems to have been the truth) and that "He never put a finger on them" (the girls) (Blair Lovell; Von Rathlef)

42- Her German, as Anastasia's one, was badly enough. Felix Dassel said in the German trials: "...She had a sovereign disdain for articles. Masculine, feminine, neuter-they were beyond her. The verb tenses were always wrong..." (Peter Kurth; Dominique Auclères; Alain Decaux) Some people claimed that the only language that AA spoke correctly was German. In fact, she didn't speak badly all languages she knew.  Harriet Rathlef wrote: "...Anastasia's disregard for the rules of German grammar was nearly total, and she settled for the neutral 'das' when she was unsure of anything. 'Das' mean 'that', 'it', 'he' and 'she'..."."... She always chops off every 'h' in German -added a woman who met her when Anastasia had been living in Germany for seven years- and it is 'Aus' (Haus), and 'Eute' (Heute), and so on-her German is extraordinary, and she can only understand quite simple German, she could not follow a German newspaper, for example-..."

More to come!

RealAnastasia.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: jeremygaleaz on August 09, 2005, 10:42:10 PM
Quote
40.  AA stated that Baroness Buxhoeveden was a traitor long before Penny Wilson and Greg King discovered that fact.


Quick note: A number of emigrees  suspected Baroness Buxhoeveden of having betrayed the IF. AA was simply repeating what other people had talked about ( the Rodzianko family talked about it, for example) But AA didn't state this as a fact   it was just a statement she made that happened to be true. But I don't think it weighs in her favor one way or the other.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Finelly on August 09, 2005, 10:51:58 PM
Can you state your source about a number of refugees suspecting the Baroness von B?
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: jeremygaleaz on August 09, 2005, 10:53:54 PM
Quote
Can you state your source about a number of refugees suspecting the Baroness von B?


Sure, various descendants of refugees from the Russian Revolution.   I also think it may have been published somewhere. Perhaps Peter Kurth also  talks about the gossip in "Riddle"? I don't remember if he wrote about it there though.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Finelly on August 09, 2005, 10:55:13 PM
Well, without the actual sources, we have to discount your statement.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: jeremygaleaz on August 09, 2005, 10:56:39 PM
Quote
Well, without the actual sources, we have to discount your statement.


You're free to do just that ;)..unless you're suggesting that GD Xenia channelled the ghosts of the murdered IF.....
who told her about the Baroness's betrayal..... thus inspiring Xenia to write that letter to Victoria, the Empress's sister, warning her about the Baroness?...Hmmm...now that would be interesting! ;) :)

But as the IF family in Ekaterinberg never learned of the Baroness's betrayal...how exactly would AN have found out in the first place?

Anyway, back to the list!
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Mgmstl on August 10, 2005, 09:04:45 AM
Quote

You're free to do just that ;)..unless you're suggesting that GD Xenia channelled the ghosts murdered IF.....
who told her about the Baroness's betrayal..... thus inspiring Xenia to write that letter to Victoria, the Empress's sister, warning her about the Baroness?...Hmmm...now that would be interesting! ;) :)

But as the IF family in Ekaterinberg never learned of the Baroness's betrayal...how exactly would AN have found out in the first place?

Anyway, back to the list!



Finelly,

Jeremy  is correct on both counts.   See "Fate of The Romanov's"  pgs 139-144 regarding Sophia Buxhoeveden's betrayal of the Imperial Family, and
pages 505-506 tells of the resentment held by Grand Duchess Xenia in regards to the betrayal, and wrote to Victoria Milford Haven that Buxhoeveden was not to be trusted because of the betrayal.

Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: AGRBear on August 10, 2005, 09:35:47 AM
Quote
(We do this on another board I'm on -- not a history board, but I think it could be a good way to keep things straight.  The rules: no discussion here -- there are other threads for that -- just a list.  I'll start....) ...


If you wish to have a discussion on Buxhoveden, please go to her thread or start a new thread.

Here is one already started:
http://hydrogen.pallasweb.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=friends;action=display;num=1082760739;start=0#0

43.  is next.

AGRBear
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: jeremygaleaz on August 10, 2005, 11:39:11 AM
Quote

If you wish to have a discussion on Buxhoveden, please go to her thread or start a new thread.

Here is one already started:
http://hydrogen.pallasweb.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=friends;action=display;num=1082760739;start=0#0

43.  is next.

AGRBear


This is rather silly Bear. If someone makes an incorrect statement, people here have the right to correct it. And if the person making the correction is wrong, then people have the right to correct that person. Otherwise, incorrect information is put out, and  this site loses all academic credibility.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Finelly on August 10, 2005, 01:12:31 PM
Yes, I know about the GD Xenia's beliefs.  I wrote about them on the other thread.

This does not mean that others were saying the same thing.  On the contrary, the Baroness was venerated by most.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Mgmstl on August 10, 2005, 02:39:54 PM
Quote
Yes, I know about the GD Xenia's beliefs.  I wrote about them on the other thread.

This does not mean that others were saying the same thing.  On the contrary, the Baroness was venerated by most.



Finelly,

Read the pages in FOTR devoted to Buxhoeveden's betrayal of the IF, and how she absconded with funds meant for their rescue.  It was well known in Ekaterinburg, and by Gibbes & Gilliard, and there are those in the emigre community who knew of it.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: RealAnastasia on August 10, 2005, 07:32:47 PM
There is also something about this in Peter Kurth and James Blair Lovell's books about AA case.

43- Faith Lavington, the English lady who learned English to the Leuchtenberg's children and grandchildren, said she admired AA "purest and best English accent". She also said: "I feel certain it is she" (Robert K. Massie-Peter Kurth)

44-Dr. Lothar Nobel, directot of the Mommsen Clinic in Berlin, gave his opinion that "...It seems impossible that her knowledge of many smalls details is due to anything but her own personal experience. Furthermore it is psychologically scarcely conceivable that anyone who...is playing the part of another person should behave as the patient does now..." (Robert K. Massie-Peter Kurth)

45-Dr. Saathof (from the Stillachhaus) declared in 1927: "It is, in my opinion, quite unthinkable that Frau Tchaikovsky is an imposter. Even at crucial moments, she has almost always behaved in the exact opposite way from what you might excpect of an imposter" (Robert K. Massie- Peter Kurth)

46-Dr. Otto Reche, an international famous anthropologist and criminologist who had founded the Society of German Anthropologist, collected more than hundred photographs of Grand Duchess Anastasia, and then photographed Anna Anderson at the same angles and under the same lighting conditions. He compared the two faces , millimeter by millimeter, and concluded that "such coincidence between two human faces is not possible unless they are the same person or identical twins. Mrs. Anderson is no one else than Grand Duchess Anastasia" (Robert K. Massie)

47- When the final judicial verdicts were inconclusive, at Unterlengenhardt, Anna Anderson announced that she no longer cared: " I know perfectly well who I am -she said- I don't need to prove in any court of law". Whe in 1977, the systeme P.I.K of human identification concludes saying that she indeed was GD Anastasia, she don't want to re-open her cause (Robert K. Massie-Peter Kurth)

48- You may accept this one or delete it like opinion. I'm not sure if it is opinion or not. I showed the first knewn pic of AA and other of AA to an anthropologist who I know since some years (His name is Professor Kuz). He doesn't know anything about AA or AN...and besides he is a Communist. But he is an expert, and he identified possitively  many of the "missing people" of my country, Argentina (Missing people were dissident who where killed and hide. Nobody would know any more about them. People didn't know if there were alive or dead. This was in the 1970's early 80's). Well; professor Kuz said: "Why; this is the same woman. Only that in the second photo (AA's one) she is older and in very bad nutrition state". "It's not possible - I said- See at the second face. Her lips are wider and big; the nose is different. And look at the eyes and the cheeks". "Don't be silly! -said Kuz- Did you know that when a person is eating badly, their mouth and cheeks goes puffy. Not when they are starving, but only when they are developping bad nutrition. The eyes swollen too, and the nose seem different in the face". So; I show to him another AA photo, but from some time later: "Well; you are right - I said - Now, her lips are much more thin, the nose seems more straight and the eyes and the cheeks are not puffy. Yes. This girl is the same in the other two photos". "Well; you are wrong...-I said- The DNA said otherwise. This girl is not the same than the other." Of course, Professor Kuz laughed aloud, and didn't believe me. For him AA is GD Anastasia (You may delete this post, for you doesn't know Kuz)

RealAnastasia.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: RealAnastasia on August 10, 2005, 08:45:11 PM
48- AN had INDEED a scar in her finger. Volkov himself said that he made this scar in Anastasia's finger with the door of a carriage. AA had the same scar, and a finger nearly stiff, without sensibility. AA opponents always said (reading Pierre Gilliard "La Fausse Anastasie", a book full of mistakes...In fact, he commited much more mistakes than Anna herself) that the girl who caught her finger in a carriage door was...Maria. I don't know if Maria had the same scar in a finger or not. But if we believe Volkov Statement, AN had a scar in her finger, inflicted by himself. ( Harriet Von Rathlef- Peter Kurth- Pierre Gilliard "La Fausse Anastasie"-Decaux-Castelot)

49- AA stated that there was a samovar in Moguilev when she visited there...Gilliard said it was not correct, that in the Tsar Palaces there was not a single samovar. The French historian André Castelot was very surprised: "Not a samovar in a Russian home?" "Its seems incredibly -said Gilliard proudly- But it was like this!"...When the journalist Dominique Auclères started her research in AA's case, she found (Harriet Rathlef had also pointed some of the Gilliard mistakes) that the Swiss professor had simply lied: there were samovars in the Tsar Palaces, and of course, there was one in Moguilev (Pierre Gilliard: "La Fausse Anastasie"-André Castelot-Dominique Auclères)

50-AA said that she (she mean "Anastasia", of course) was Colonel in the Blue Regiment and that she had her uniform like they sisters . Gilliard laugh at her in her book and states: "The youngest Grand Duchess never had a military grade, nor an uniform". Well; he lied again. Dominique Auclères found that Anastasia was indeed Colonel in the Blue Regiment. And doctor Schweitzer emailed me to tell me that there was an exhibition in Virginia, where the Anastasia's Colonel Uniform was shown. So AA didn't lie. Gilliard did. (Pierre Gilliard-Dominique Auclères)

51-Gilliard handled the investigators who helped him in his researchs about AA only FIVE photos of Grand Duchess Anastasia, and not very clear ones. Harriet Rathlef found out that he really provided FOUR photos of AN, for the last one was a Grand Duchess Olga's photo (Anastasia's elder sister) (Harriet Von Rathlef)

52- Pierre Gilliard claimed to have "burned" all the documents proving that AA wasn't AN. Why? Was him unsure of his statesments? (Peter Kurth-Dominique Auclères- James Blair Lovell)

53- The Imperial family in exile, payed too much attention to this claimant. They make war to her and published a document denying her as a Romanov. If it was not her. Why the bothered in such a way? Other claimants were alone in their personals "fight for identity". There were many Alexei in the USA's and anyone pay attention to them in "The Family". Other Anastasias surfaced after and before AA. Nobody bothered to fight againts them. They simply let them saying "I'm a Romanov". And you may notice that we are mainly discussing AA in the "Survivors" Forum...Even after the DNA results. Again. Why? (As personal reflection, you may, of course, delete this)

RealAnastasia.

More to come! ;)
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: RealAnastasia on August 12, 2005, 07:45:52 PM
54-AA had the same political convictions that Nicholas and Alexandra had. (Peter Kurth; Harriet Von Rathlef; James Blair Lovell)

55-AA had the same red blotches in her skin when she was upset or ashamed, than the Tsarina Alexandra (Harriet Von Rathlef; Peter Kurth; James Blair Lovell; Dominique Auclères)

56- When she was living in Seeon with the Leuchtenbergs, she had some wealth problems, notabily in her back. Anastasia, as a child, suffered a lot from her back and she must receive massages one a week. (Olga Alexandrovna Romanova; Peter Kurth)

57- She remembered very neatly Russian Folksongs and was very touched when someone played them on the piano (Peter Kurth)

58-Sidney Charles Gibbes had said that "Anastasia's hair laid flat on her forehead", and AA had lots of problems to manage her hair as she would have liked. (Greg King-Penny Wilson; Peter Kurth)

59- AA wanted desperatley to go see The Dowager Empress Maria, to Denmark. When Volkov show her a pic of her, AA became red and faked not to have recognize Maria. When he left, AA said almost crying to Mrs. Von Rathlef, "Why this man showed this to me? The lady in the photo was my grandmother..." She sufffered a lot when she dead (Harriet Von Rathlef; Peter Kurth)

RealAnastasia.

More to come!
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: AGRBear on August 18, 2005, 03:23:31 PM
#60.

There was a German intelligence offier in the Ukraine, Lt. Col. Werner Hassenstein, who testified in 1953 [I assume at AA's trial] he knew about Grand Duchess Anastasia who was lying wounded in a peasant cart in Sept. 1918 and that she was taken to the grounds of the German Embassy in Bucharest.

p. 382 listed in  Sources and Notes of THE FILE ON THE TSAR by Summers and Mangold.

AGRBear
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: RealAnastasia on August 18, 2005, 08:57:38 PM
61- An Armenian peasant saw Anastasia wounded in an Orthodox convent in her way through Rumania (Peter Kurth)

62-After the first anthropological and graphological proofs, some of her "relatives" considered the possibility of being wrong (Peter Kurth)

63- She could said easily which mushrooms were good to eat and which ones were poissonous. Remember that Anastasia and her sisters went always to pick mushrooms in Finland forest, along with their father. After it, they coocked them in wine. In those times, not a single book about the Romanovs spoke about the mushrooms. And even if AA could have known the info, this wouldn't do her able to recognize good mushrooms from bad ones (Peter Kurth, Harriet Von Rathlef, James Blair Lovell)

64- She recognize some of her "relatives" merely by the voice (Peter Kurth; Harriet Von Rathlef, Von Nida, Dominique Auclères)

65- She couldn't bear the Yussupovs. She hated them just as Alexandra hated them after Rasputin murderer. She hated, of course Felix much more that poor Irina (Peter Kurth; Harriet Von Rathlef, Von Nida, Auclères; James Blair Lovell)

66- People of high society who saw her in parties and receptions said she acted as a real Grand Duchess (Peter Kurth; Harriet Von Rathlef; Dominique Auclères).

68- An Orthodox priest who performed the Easter Orthodox ceremony and who confessed her in Seeon, said that AA know the Orthodox liturgy very well. In the same way, other people who saw her in the liturgy where other witnesses has seen her "cross like a Roman Catholic" affirmed that it was a lye, and that she crossed as a perfect Orthodox would do it (You may delete this one if you wants, for even if it is true this not make AA Anastasia, but only an Orthodox woman)

69- She knows about Alejandra having an especial liking for Svastika as a pet. AA herself had a Svastika when she was in St. Mary's hospital(of course, not the Nazi symbol; the Svastika as Asian People worships until today as a symbol for good luck). (Peter Kurth; Harriet Von Rathlef)

70-She started to cry when she saw a movie with her family in it (it was in the travel where she went to see Mathilde Kshessinska in Paris) and started to say: "Must I have this? Must I have this?". She seemed very moved and sad. (Peter Kurth; DOminique Auclères)

71- She was totally unaware about housekeeping and all the house work (Remember that, when they were asked to do their own laundry in Ekaterinburg, OTMA asked for written instructions to do it!  ;D ). She never cleaned the house where she was living currently and they were a mess (Peter Kurth, Dominique Auclères; james Blair Lovell)

72- But if she was an ignorant about all the housecleaning AA liked to bath very much (as Anastasia herself). She bathed all nights and poured a lot of salt for bathing in the water (When the Tsar daughters became older, they didn't took cold showers in the morning, as they mother wanted to, but rather hot immersion baths  with salt or shower gel in them) Remember that FS "hated to bath" (Peter Kurth; James Blair Lovell -quoting Alexis Milukov-)

73-AA liked very mouch the "Yardley's" eau -de-toilette. The same one that she wore as a young girl (Harriet Von Rathlef; James Blair Lovell)

RealAnastasia

More to come!  ;)
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: AGRBear on August 21, 2005, 10:52:19 AM
I have incerted numbers in KayDee's quote to avoid confusion over on the Discussion thread.

Quote
i am kaydee from india and this is my 1st post. after reading peter kurth's book, i am convinced that AA=AN which i know goes contrary to the DNA test. but there are many other reasons which support her claim. for example,

#74. when AA talks about what happened on the "last night", she comments "everything was so sudden.........they came and told us 2 get ready....we had to follw them"(peter kurth,pg 37).this was in the 1920's when there was no information from russia and if you read edvard radzinsky's "the life and death of nicholas II", many of the guards testimonies also say the same thing. also,

#75 when she "talks of the cold wave accompanying the passing of the ice from the Neva" it shows that she had the knowledge about an obscure imperial ceremony which would'nt be the case if she wasnt a part of that world. plus ofcourse,

#76 dr.otto reche testimony at hamburg,

#77 plus the dr.moritz furtmayr who compared AA&AN's ears and concluded that they were the same person.

#78 also,it has been found that the GD elizabeth(alix's sister)'S finger DNA does not match with the imperial family DNA derived from the ekaterinburg bones which makes it seem that DNA is not as foolproof as it is supposed to be.


I repeat:  I changed KayDee post alittle by adding the numbers so it will be easier to talk about it over on the Discussion thread.

AGRBear
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: etonexile on August 21, 2005, 12:39:09 PM
As we now know that AA was "NOT" AN through DNA evidence(You know...those same DNA labs that regularly convict rapists and free the wrongly accused...Rather like finger printing in the 19th Century)...All the secondary evidence of AA is quite interesting material of her being a Russian GD... actually meaninless.....FS...the sad,mad Polish peasant factory worker who transformed herself into a "GREAT LADY" and tricked many upper-class people...and continues to capture people today.....


I try not to think of how the "semi-educated" get sucked into cults...
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: CuriousOne on August 21, 2005, 01:27:19 PM
Haven't been around for awhile.   I see posters are still having dilemma in comphrending that some of these topics  set on the side board  the DNA tests and in this lack of comphrendiing continued the attempt to create a quagmire to stop the flow of ideas, facts and theories but not for long, now, since FA has set down the "zero tolereance act", so poster like myself  don't have to wade through the quagmire any longer.  Thanks FA,

C1
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: elena_maria_vidal on November 07, 2005, 10:10:58 AM
Quote
There is also something about this in Peter Kurth and James Blair Lovell's books about AA case.

43- Faith Lavington, the English lady who learned English to the Leuchtenberg's children and grandchildren, said she admired AA "purest and best English accent". She also said: "I feel certain it is she" (Robert K. Massie-Peter Kurth)

44-Dr. Lothar Nobel, directot of the Mommsen Clinic in Berlin, gave his opinion that "...It seems impossible that her knowledge of many smalls details is due to anything but her own personal experience. Furthermore it is psychologically scarcely conceivable that anyone who...is playing the part of another person should behave as the patient does now..." (Robert K. Massie-Peter Kurth)

45-Dr. Saathof (from the Stillachhaus) declared in 1927: "It is, in my opinion, quite unthinkable that Frau Tchaikovsky is an imposter. Even at crucial moments, she has almost always behaved in the exact opposite way from what you might excpect of an imposter" (Robert K. Massie- Peter Kurth)

46-Dr. Otto Reche, an international famous anthropologist and criminologist who had founded the Society of German Anthropologist, collected more than hundred photographs of Grand Duchess Anastasia, and then photographed Anna Anderson at the same angles and under the same lighting conditions. He compared the two faces , millimeter by millimeter, and concluded that "such coincidence between two human faces is not possible unless they are the same person or identical twins. Mrs. Anderson is no one else than Grand Duchess Anastasia" (Robert K. Massie)

47- When the final judicial verdicts were inconclusive, at Unterlengenhardt, Anna Anderson announced that she no longer cared: " I know perfectly well who I am -she said- I don't need to prove in any court of law". Whe in 1977, the systeme P.I.K of human identification concludes saying that she indeed was GD Anastasia, she don't want to re-open her cause (Robert K. Massie-Peter Kurth)

48- You may accept this one or delete it like opinion. I'm not sure if it is opinion or not. I showed the first knewn pic of AA and other of AA to an anthropologist who I know since some years (His name is Professor Kuz). He doesn't know anything about AA or AN...and besides he is a Communist. But he is an expert, and he identified possitively  many of the "missing people" of my country, Argentina (Missing people were dissident who where killed and hide. Nobody would know any more about them. People didn't know if there were alive or dead. This was in the 1970's early 80's). Well; professor Kuz said: "Why; this is the same woman. Only that in the second photo (AA's one) she is older and in very bad nutrition state". "It's not possible - I said- See at the second face. Her lips are wider and big; the nose is different. And look at the eyes and the cheeks". "Don't be silly! -said Kuz- Did you know that when a person is eating badly, their mouth and cheeks goes puffy. Not when they are starving, but only when they are developping bad nutrition. The eyes swollen too, and the nose seem different in the face". So; I show to him another AA photo, but from some time later: "Well; you are right - I said - Now, her lips are much more thin, the nose seems more straight and the eyes and the cheeks are not puffy. Yes. This girl is the same in the other two photos". "Well; you are wrong...-I said- The DNA said otherwise. This girl is not the same than the other." Of course, Professor Kuz laughed aloud, and didn't believe me. For him AA is GD Anastasia (You may delete this post, for you doesn't know Kuz)

RealAnastasia.


REal Anastasia, what you say about Dr Kuz's opinion is very interesting, thank you.

Did anyone mention that AA and AN had the same foot malformation, hallux valgus, which Shura recognized when she visited AA in Berlin? (Harriet Rathlef recounts this in her book.) Sorry, if someone already mentioned it.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: RealAnastasia on November 07, 2005, 08:31:21 PM
Yes...I mentioned it before. AA had exactly the same AN scars and Shura Tegleva-Gilliard, seeing AA's in the hospital bed, said: " This is Anastasia's body". Gilliard treated Anastasia as "Her Imperial Highness", and Olga Alexandrovna called her "The Little One". But after a while, they three declared that AA had not "the sightless ressemblence to GD Anastasia. Shura Tegleva noticed in a glance that AA feet have "Hallux Valgus" and that the right foot was more deformed than the left. Too much coincidence to go on. Isn't it.

But there is DNA, and so we can't speak about these things any more. FS could have had black hair, grey eyes, no scars, no hallux valgus, beatiful teeth and didn't speak any of the languages that AA did...AA could have had light brown-reddish hair, deep blue eyes, be plenty of body-scars, hallux-valgus, bad teeth and would languages that FS didn't know.

However...DNA said that those two different persons are one and the same, and we can't discuss it, for DNA is not to be discussed but accepted like a faith. If this is not absurd, tell me what it is...

RealAnastasia. ;D
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: etonexile on November 10, 2005, 01:51:16 AM
RA...you can chat about any and all bits of "evidence" which you fancy about AA being AN...but it just WON'T make it so...DNA is science...this isn't Kansas...we can't spirit pseudo-science in through the back door...



PS...I have actually been to Kansas...great place and people...their politicians...well... ::)
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: annaanderson on December 03, 2005, 11:34:02 PM
Quote
RA...you can chat about any and all bits of "evidence" which you fancy about AA being AN...but it just WON'T make it so...DNA is science...this isn't Kansas...we can't spirit pseudo-science in through the back door...



PS...I have actually been to Kansas...great place and people...their politicians...well... ::)
You're too quick to believe anything you hear. I encourage you to research the myth of Anna Anderson and draw your own conclusion instead of saying, "DNA is always right", while not being 100% sure the tissue and hair samples were truly from Anderson.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: marina on December 15, 2005, 09:19:53 AM
79: AA knew about the meeting of IF and Alexandra's brother or cousin, (I don't remember). This meeting was highly secret because it was the first WW and the family could be accused of betrayal with the ennemy. The cousin denied but historians proved that AA was right.  
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Louis_Charles on December 15, 2005, 09:52:39 AM
Quote
79: AA knew about the meeting of IF and Alexandra's brother or cousin, (I don't remember). This meeting was highly secret because it was the first WW and the family could be accused of betrayal with the ennemy. The cousin denied but historians proved that AA was right.  



Well, no, the historians did no such thing. The "visit"  falls into the "debatable" category. In about 5 seconds AGRBear will show up to contradict this post, and you will get to see the actual debate in action! Oh, and it was Alexandra's brother that Andersen claimed had visited Russia in 1916. He was Ernst-Ludwig, the Grand Duke of Hesse.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: marina on December 15, 2005, 10:41:05 AM
In any case, thank you for giving me the name missing; I was racking my brain   :P
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: etonexile on December 16, 2005, 07:34:54 AM
Quote
You're too quick to believe anything you hear. I encourage you to research the myth of Anna Anderson and draw your own conclusion instead of saying, "DNA is always right", while not being 100% sure the tissue and hair samples were truly from Anderson.


Yes..."myth" is a most appropiate word for AA...And I can see no reason to doubt the integrity of the DNA testing. Do you have any genuine facts which should make us question, or is this just some"playing-devil's advocate" game? ???
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Forum Admin on December 16, 2005, 09:00:25 AM
I do wish all those who say "historians proved the secret meeting" would actually CITE the exact source and evidence to support the claim. We have never actually seen this evidence ourselves.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: marina on December 16, 2005, 10:33:58 AM
Quote
I do wish all those who say "historians proved the secret meeting" would actually CITE the exact source and evidence to support the claim. We have never actually seen this evidence ourselves.


My lack is that I believe in everything I read. I know I shouldn't, I am too naive.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: AGRBear on December 17, 2005, 12:53:05 PM
Quote


Well, no, the historians did no such thing. The "visit"  falls into the "debatable" category. In about 5 seconds AGRBear will show up to contradict this post, and you will get to see the actual debate in action! Oh, and it was Alexandra's brother that Andersen claimed had visited Russia in 1916. He was Ernst-Ludwig, the Grand Duke of Hesse.


A triffle slow due to the holidays   ;)

On another thread I presented evidence about the secret meeting between Nicholas II and Alexandra's brother, Ernst Ludwig of Hesse during WWI.    There was one eye witness who saw Ernst-Ludwig in the Russian royal palace during this time period and two people who claimed Kaiser Wilhelm had talked about the secret meeing.

Soon as I find the information,  I will pull it over here.

AGRBear
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Louis_Charles on December 17, 2005, 01:11:11 PM
One more time: no historian accepts this trip who has worked on the Kaiser or Ernst-Ludwig, the "witness" was recalling events nearly fifty years after the fact, and there is not outside, empirical confirmation of the trip.

That being said, have at it.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Forum Admin on December 17, 2005, 01:16:14 PM
Don't forget that there are no Russian records of the visitors to the Imperial family who can confirm the alleged "trip" either. One would think that the Bolsheviks would have GRABBED onto any eyewitness or record to prove Alexandra was a traiter to Russia and loudly publish the evidence...Yet, total silence....One wonders why?
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: AGRBear on December 17, 2005, 01:29:08 PM
First let's discover a little background to why this particular story has been constantly knocked around.

In 1925 Anna Anderson told Amy Smith [p. 218 THE FILE ON THE TSAR] who had asked when was it when she last saw Ernst Ludwig of Hesse.  And Amy Smith reported that Anna Anderson had said she had seen her "Uncle Ernie" :
>>In the war, with us at home.<<

This was the first time anyone had heard that Ernst Ludwig of Hesse had been in Russia visiting his sister, Alexandra, and Nicholas II.

To add to this,  "Uncle Ernie" was an officer in the Germany army and at that time Germany was at war with Russia.

Two things happen.  People rushed around looking for evidence that "Uncle Ernie" had made such a trip and:

>>...she declared the "Uncle Ernie" had been on a secret mission in 1916, aimed at arranging a separate peace between imperial Russia and Germany."

"Uncle Ernie" was placed in a terrible position in 1925 because of the political atmosphere in Germany at that time.  Of course,  Ernst Ludwig of Hesse denounced the remark that he had been in Russia during the time of war with Russia, and,  denounced Anna Anderson's claim to being GD Anastasia.

I am not in any position to know if Anna Anderson's remark caused Ernst Ludwig of Hesse to denounce Anna Andrson's claim or not.  

p.  219:

>>..Prince Dmitry Galitzin.  He testified on oath in 1965 that he had actually seen the Grand Duke of Hesse at Tsarskoe Selo palace in 1916;   the German visitor had been wearing civilian clothes, a detail which was marked contrast to the usual sea of Russian military uniforms.  The tsar had refused to consider his brother-in-law's proposals, and the fact that he had been received at all was kept secret.<<

I don't know if one can presume why Prince Dmitry Galitzin took so long to make this statement but let me place forth two theories:  1) Since Ernst Ludwig of Hesse had died by this time,  there was no need to deny the visit; or,  2) no one had ever asked him until the German Court did so in 1965 in AA's trial.

There are on p. 218 and p. 219 others who heard from Kaiser Wilhlem and the Austrian Emp. that there had been a secret meeting and Ernst Ludwig of Hesse had presented a proposal of peace.

If this story is true,  this was a smart move on Kaiser Wilhlem's part who could then set free  his troops from the eastern front and take care of war business against the other countries on the other fronts.

Some posters think one person's testimony is not enough.

You be the judge.

AGRBear

Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Louis_Charles on December 17, 2005, 01:31:08 PM
Quote
First let's discover a little background to why this particular story has been constantly knocked around.

In 1925 Anna Anderson told Amy Smith [p. 218 THE FILE ON THE TSAR] who had asked when was it when she last saw Ernst Ludwig of Hesse.  And Amy Smith reported that Anna Anderson had said she had seen her "Uncle Ernie" :
>>In the war, with us at home.<<

This was the first time anyone had heard that Ernst Ludwig of Hesse had been in Russia visiting his sister, Alexandra, and Nicholas II.

To add to this,  "Uncle Ernie" was an officer in the Germany army and at that time Germany was at war with Russia.

Two things happen.  People rushed around looking for evidence that "Uncle Ernie" had made such a trip and:

>>...she declared the "Uncle Ernie" had been on a secret mission in 1916, aimed at arranging a separate peace between imperial Russia and Germany."

"Uncle Ernie" was placed in a terrible position in 1925 because of the political atmosphere in Germany at that time.  Of course,  Ernst Ludwig of Hesse denounced the remark that he had been in Russia during the time of war with Russia, and,  denounced Anna Anderson's claim to being GD Anastasia.

I am not in any position to know if Anna Anderson's remark caused Ernst Ludwig of Hesse to denounce Anna Andrson's claim or not.  

p.  219:

>>..Prince Dmitry Galitzin.  He testified on oath in 1965 that he had actually seen the Grand Duke of Hesse at Tsarskoe Selo palace in 1916;   the German visitor had been wearing civilian clothes, a detail which was marked contrast to the sual sea of Russian military uniforms.  The tsar had refused to consider his brother-in-law's proposals, and the fact that he had been received at all was kept secret.<<

I don't know if one can presume why Prince Dmitry Galitzin took so long to make this statement but let me place forth two theories:  1) Since Ernst Ludwig of Hesse had died by this time,  there was no need to deny the visit; or,  2) no one had ever asked him until the German Court did so in 1965 in AA's trial.

There are on p. 218 and p. 219 others who heard from Kaiser Wilhlem and the Austrian Emp. that there had been a secret meeting and Ernst Ludwig of Hesse had presented a proposal of peace.

This was a smart move on Kaiser Wilhlem's part who could then free of his troops fomr the eastern front and take care of war business against the weaker and smaller countries on the other fronts.

Some posters think one person's testimony is not enough.

You be the judge.

AGRBear




If you accept one person's testimony in this case, what prevents you from accepting Yurovsky's?  One person, no?
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Forum Admin on December 17, 2005, 01:37:24 PM
We KNOW for a stone cold fact that no one, but NO ONE entered the Palace at Tsarskoie Selo without being recorded. PERIOD. The Tsar himself could not stop the recording of any visitor. PERIOD. There is NO record showing the visit occurred, yet the complete records are still in GARF, no gaps, no missing pages...so why believe one person's testimony fifty years later over the concrete extrinisic evidence FROM THE EXACT DATES which prove otherwise?
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: AGRBear on December 17, 2005, 01:59:15 PM
Quote

If you accept one person's testimony in this case, what prevents you from accepting Yurovsky's?  One person, no?


It is not my position to tell you who to believe and who not to believe.

Since Yurovsky is not involved in this subject,  I am not sure why you've mentioned him.

Are you asking me if I can believe one person and not another,  the answer is, yes,  of course.  I assume you do as well.

AGRBear
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: elfwine on December 17, 2005, 04:20:26 PM
Quote

It is not my position to tell you who to believe and who not to believe.

Are you asking me if I can believe one person and not another,  the answer is, yes,  of course.  I assume you do as well.

AGRBear


    This has moved beyond "plausibilty" to the realm of delusion amd insanity...OF COARSE you don't have to believe one person and not another....  AS YOU HAVE REFUSED TO RECOGNISE THE VALUE OF THE DNA EVIDENCE - so why should we expect you to believe anyone at all!

   *Anastasia Nicholevna was a human being, a biped and a mammal...so was Anna Anderson....ERGO They are the same person!! Logic! :-/

   Or is the logic that you accept that of the secret voices in your breakfast porridge?

elfwine
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Louis_Charles on December 18, 2005, 10:36:59 AM
Quote

It is not my position to tell you who to believe and who not to believe.

Since Yurovsky is not involved in this subject,  I am not sure why you've mentioned him.

Are you asking me if I can believe one person and not another,  the answer is, yes,  of course.  I assume you do as well.

AGRBear


My post does not suggest that you are telling me whom to believe. It asks how you pick and choose among your sources --- Yurovsky is one witness, Dmitri Gallitzine is one witness. Objections have been raised to both of their testimonies. Does Yurovsky's Bolshevism make his testimony more questionable?

And alas, Yurovsky is involved with any question of Anastasia's survival.
Title: RE: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: AGRBear on December 18, 2005, 11:01:50 AM
p.  219 THE FILE ON THE TSAR by Summers and Mangold:

>>..Prince Dmitry Galitzin.  He testified on oath in 1965 that he had actually seen the Grand Duke of Hesse at Tsarskoe Selo palace in 1916;   the German visitor had been wearing civilian clothes, a detail which was marked contrast to the sual sea of Russian military uniforms.  The tsar had refused to consider his brother-in-law's proposals, and the fact that he had been received at all was kept secret.<<

Is there any reason that we should doubt Dmitry Galitzin?

I assume his name is found on the list FA mentioned.

Quote
We KNOW for a stone cold fact that no one, but NO ONE entered the Palace at Tsarskoie Selo without being recorded. PERIOD. The Tsar himself could not stop the recording of any visitor. PERIOD. There is NO record showing the visit occurred, yet the complete records are still in GARF, no gaps, no missing pages...so why believe one person's testimony fifty years later over the concrete extrinisic evidence FROM THE EXACT DATES which prove otherwise?


Why would "secret" visitors be listed on any palace lists by his or her real name?

Let me add, once again:  I do not think AA was GD Anastasia, however, I think the question asked about Ernst Ludwig of Hesse's deserves an answer.  I've given some information.  It is up to each of you to make up your own minds about the visit.

AGRBear


Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Louis_Charles on December 18, 2005, 11:10:58 AM
Quote
p.  219 THE FILE ON THE TSAR by Summers and Mangold:
 
>>..Prince Dmitry Galitzin.  He testified on oath in 1965 that he had actually seen the Grand Duke of Hesse at Tsarskoe Selo palace in 1916;   the German visitor had been wearing civilian clothes, a detail which was marked contrast to the sual sea of Russian military uniforms.  The tsar had refused to consider his brother-in-law's proposals, and the fact that he had been received at all was kept secret.<<

Is there any reason that we should doubt Dmitry Galitzin?

I bet Galitzin's name is on the list which FA mentions.  Why?  He wasn't a "secret" visitor.

Speaking of the list of visitors at Tsarskoe Selo,  I wonder how many other "secret" vistors didn't have their names on the offical lists.  No one can know because they were "secret".

I have no need to compare Galitzin with Yurovsky in the question about Ernst Ludwig's "secret" visit.   Unless of course,  if  Yurovsky was there and gave testimony which contradics Galitzin's statement given under oath and in the German courts in 1965.  

AGRBear


 



Dear Bear,

One more time. I am asking in my post how you decide which person's testimony you believe. For the record, suppositions that "secret" meetings must have been "unrecorded" because otherwise testimonies cannot be true are an example of what I am talking about. You want to believe Gallitzine, so you invent evidence that doesn't exist. The lack of evidence, as someone observed, is the surest sign that the conspiracy is working.

Or that the conspiracy doesn't exist? But what would be the fun in that?

Regards,

Simon
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: AGRBear on December 18, 2005, 11:15:04 AM
Sorry, Louis Charles:  I changed my post.  Revised version:

Quote
p.  219 THE FILE ON THE TSAR by Summers and Mangold:
 
>>..Prince Dmitry Galitzin.  He testified on oath in 1965 that he had actually seen the Grand Duke of Hesse at Tsarskoe Selo palace in 1916;   the German visitor had been wearing civilian clothes, a detail which was marked contrast to the sual sea of Russian military uniforms.  The tsar had refused to consider his brother-in-law's proposals, and the fact that he had been received at all was kept secret.<<

Is there any reason that we should doubt Dmitry Galitzin?

I assume his name is found on the list FA mentioned.

Quote
We KNOW for a stone cold fact that no one, but NO ONE entered the Palace at Tsarskoie Selo without being recorded. PERIOD. The Tsar himself could not stop the recording of any visitor. PERIOD. There is NO record showing the visit occurred, yet the complete records are still in GARF, no gaps, no missing pages...so why believe one person's testimony fifty years later over the concrete extrinisic evidence FROM THE EXACT DATES which prove otherwise?


Why would "secret" visitors be listed on any palace lists by his or her own name?

Let me add, once again:  I do not think AA was GD Anastasia, however, I think the question asked about Ernst Ludwig of Hesse's deserves an answer.  I've given some information.  I did NOT invent what I wrote and gave my source.  It is up to each of you to make up your own minds about the visit.

AGRBear



Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Forum Admin on December 18, 2005, 11:19:31 AM
Bear,
Am beginning myself to think English is NOT your first language. My post explained very clearly to you that EVEN THE TSAR could NOT order a SECRET visitor. The personal secret security police and palace police had absolute authority about visitors to the Palace being recorded, watched and vetted. Period. Even Nicholas couldn't change that if he wanted to. AND he didn't want to, no exceptions, not even for Ernst-Ludwig. Why is that NOT clear to you?
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: AGRBear on December 18, 2005, 11:31:31 AM
Quote


Dear Bear,

One more time. I am asking in my post how you decide which person's testimony you believe. For the record, suppositions that "secret" meetings must have been "unrecorded" because otherwise testimonies cannot be true are an example of what I am talking about. You want to believe Gallitzine, so you invent evidence that doesn't exist. The lack of evidence, as someone observed, is the surest sign that the conspiracy is working.

Or that the conspiracy doesn't exist? But what would be the fun in that?

Regards,

Simon


It little matters to me if a person has a title or was a Bolshevik.  Each person must be judged as an individual.

If you would like,  you can start a thread which lists the good character references for both men.  Perhaps others might join us and we can continue the discussion as to which man was more believeable than the other on a new thread.

Meanwhile, this thread is  "101 Reasons AA was D Anastasia".
AGRBear
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: AGRBear on December 18, 2005, 11:41:46 AM
Quote
Bear,
Am beginning myself to think English is NOT your first language. My post explained very clearly to you that EVEN THE TSAR could NOT order a SECRET visitor. The personal secret security police and palace police had absolute authority about visitors to the Palace being recorded, watched and vetted. Period. Even Nicholas couldn't change that if he wanted to. AND he didn't want to, no exceptions, not even for Ernst-Ludwig. Why is that NOT clear to you?


It is true, the personal secret security police and palace police had absolute authority.  

AGRBear
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Louis_Charles on December 18, 2005, 11:46:54 AM
Or perhaps not. As you may or may not recall, I posted my objections to the Gallitzine testimony. You had no answer for them then, and it doesn't surprise me that you have no answers for them now.

If you want to post things on this thread that say she was Anastasia (why? You don't believe she was), then in the interests of academic freedom, these claims must be contested so that those interested in the ultimate answer can weigh the logic involved. Or the empirical evidence, if any is provided.

You might also be interested in researching the Okhrana, the Imperial secret police and forerunner of the CHEKA. If you seriously contest the official evidence in this matter, i.e the records that were kept upon all visitors to the Tsar, then please produce more of a reason than "I wouldn't have done it that way if I had been the Tsar", which, in a nutshell, is your argument. There is ample testimony in the source material that the Imperial Family was watched constantly. Surprise drop-ins from Hohenzollern Germany would have been recorded, noticed, whatever you want, and it would have been produced instantly by the Soviet or Kerensky governments as evidence of Alexandra's pro-German perfidy.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Forum Admin on December 18, 2005, 11:47:19 AM
about visitors to the Palace they sure did....as well as over ANYONE who was to get within 500 feet of the IF...
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Forum Admin on December 18, 2005, 12:31:46 PM
I'm going to elaborate just a little about the Palace workings to show how ludicrous a 'secret' meeting theory actually is.

First of all, the Alexander Palace had quite literally hundreds of people coming and going at all times. To enter the grounds, one had to pass thru the guarded gates, where the first recording of visitors occurred. The secret security police patrolled the grounds 24/7 recording the movements of everyone as part of their duties. THEN you proceeded to the palace itself, where Cossacks stood guard at all times outside ever door. THEN the visitor would be greeted by a liveried footman and conducted to be recorded again and escorted to wherever you were assigned to go, where you were greeted again by more servants, and waited to see whoever you went to see. every corridor was watched by posted guards all day long. No one other than the IF or members of the suite had the freedom to just "wander around" alone.  Anyone else would be escorted by a staff member. Every room that had a member of the IF inside had ANOTHER sentry who's job was to stand outside the door at all times. FURTHER, there were footmen who's job it was just to open and close doors for the IF and visitors. In short, ANY visitor to the AP would be SEEN by at least twenty or thirty people, not counting the palace police inside or the secret police in the grounds 24/7. Hardly the atmoshphere for an unrecorded "secret" visit.  Where would Ernst-Ludwig have STAYED? Did he just "pop in " from Darmstadt for a meeting of just a few hours to travel back again? If he stayed overnight, there would have been servants to attend him and his rooms, so they would have known.  If it WAS such a secret visit, Poor Ernie, they must not have fed him or even offered him tea! If they did, servants would have seen him. There goes the secret...or MAYBE Alix just popped down into the kitchens in the dead of night to fix him a nice little tray...OH, and don't forget that EVERY SINGLE telephone call was listened in on by the secret security police, including the Tsar's...

NOW, just imagine telling those hundred or so guards, footmen, maids, policemen, gardners, servants, door openers, message runners, chauffeurs, butlers etc etc etc to all just "ignore" the coming of Grand Duke Ernst, or even worse, summarily dismiss them for no reason for some period of time from their posts...like that alone would not arouse huge suspicion and raise many many questions and ITSELF be recorded in the daily logs and journals??

FURTHERMORE, by that time during WWI, Alexandra was being derided as a German spy, due to her heritage. It would have been impossible to keep such a visit secret for the above reasons, especially so for the members of the Suite in the Palace, who thrived on gossip. Many even in the aristocracy and Grand Dukes would have jumped on even the merest hint of such a visit as fuel against the Empress. Please please research the actual environment of the time.

Bear, your unreseached suppositions are really tiresome. Honestly you do not do NEAR enough research BEFORE spewing impossiblities as possible...
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: AGRBear on December 18, 2005, 08:51:43 PM
I find the information which FA told us in his last post was  very informative so, now,  other posters can be aware of the details of palace life and it's securities.  And I thank him.

I have no doubt what   FA tells us is quite true about the security of the palace and life which surrounded the Tsar and  that such a meeting is thought to have been impossible and that everyone would have noticed such a meeting with someone like Ernst Ludwig of Hesse.  And,why FA  can comfortably assume,  if  this had really happen this news would have run like a wild fire through the palace, out the door and through the streets of Russia.

So,  why do you think the Prince lied in the German Court under oath in AA's case?

Surly  Prince Dmitry Galitzin was more aware of the  palace's way of doing things than FA or I will ever know.  So,  why would Galitzin testify under oath that a "secret" meeting did occur if he knew it was impossible?  

I assume the judges in the German Courts must have been just as aware of such things....  SOoooooo, I can't help but wonder what questions they asked of the Prince because their words would tell us a great deal of what they thought about his testimony.  

Let me apologize to FA, I am sorry,  I do not have access to AA's court trial transcript, so,  I cannot do the research and bring forth this information, now,  or at a later time.  Nor do I have very much information on the Prince.


AGRBear



Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Forum Admin on December 18, 2005, 09:08:34 PM
Bear,
As a child of ten, my great uncle (brother to my maternal grandmother) was visiting our family, and  called me aside one day. He gave me a French Croix de Guerre, and told me an amazing tale of his exploits in France in WWI and swore me to secrecy in exchange for the gift of the medal. For years, I treasured the medal and kept his secret. Ten years after Uncle Charles died, I visited my Grandma Charlotte in Chicago, and confessed the secret of the medal, his promise, and the story. Nanny Charlotte laughed loudly. Uncle Charles, her younger brother,  never served in the army, much less WWI. He had won the medal in a card game with a veteran years before. WHY do people make up realistic stories? one never knows. However, the vast resources of known unbiased material speaks for itself, over the fifty plus year old tale of ONE lone person.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Margarita Markovna on December 18, 2005, 09:19:44 PM
That story is truly PRICELESS, FA.

(I've been lurking here, following the thread if anyone doesn't know where the heck I came from, lol.)
Title: [quote author=Forum Admin link=board=anastasia;num
Post by: AGRBear on December 18, 2005, 09:25:26 PM
Quote
Or perhaps not. As you may or may not recall, I posted my objections to the Gallitzine testimony. You had no answer for them then, and it doesn't surprise me that you have no answers for them now.


My responce was because a poster had asked about the "secret" visit which was claimed by AA which in 1965 Galitzine testified as having occured.  I gave my sources.  

So, as far as I am concern, I was just being nice to a poster who asked questions.  Just as I am quite honest about the fact that I don't think AA was GD Anastasia.

Quote
If you want to post things on this thread that say she was Anastasia (why? You don't believe she was), then in the interests of academic freedom, these claims must be contested so that those interested in the ultimate answer can weigh the logic involved. Or the empirical evidence, if any is provided.
.

I let the facts speak for themselves.  You and the other posters are old enough to draw your own conclusions.

Quote
You might also be interested in researching the Okhrana, the Imperial secret police and forerunner of the CHEKA. If you seriously contest the official evidence in this matter, i.e the records that were kept upon all visitors to the Tsar, then please produce more of a reason than "I wouldn't have done it that way if I had been the Tsar", which, in a nutshell, is your argument. There is ample testimony in the source material that the Imperial Family was watched constantly. Surprise drop-ins from Hohenzollern Germany would have been recorded, noticed, whatever you want, and it would have been produced instantly by the Soviet or Kerensky governments as evidence of Alexandra's pro-German perfidy.


What would you like to know about the Okharana?  I have a nice collection of  books about them, too.  And,  let me add,  I doubt their descendents would appreciate that you labeled them as forerunners of the CHEKA, who murdered their Tsar.

A little history of the CHEKA:  

>>Techniques, methods , and personnel of the new Soviet secret intelligence service were taken over from the underground experience and apparatus of the Russian revolutionary parties rather from the old  razvedka, intelligence agency.<<

p. 1 found in Soviet Espionage by David J. Dallin.

>>...the Soviet regime had to start from scratch to build a new system.  For reasons that lay in the realm of revolutionary emotions rather than practical requirements, the "old state machine" was to be destroyed to its foundations; only reluctantly and by way of exception were certain elements of the old agencies to be "made use of".<<

Quote
Bear,
As a child of ten, my great uncle (brother to my maternal grandmother) was visiting our family, and  called me aside one day. He gave me a French Croix de Guerre, and told me an amazing tale of his exploits in France in WWI and swore me to secrecy in exchange for the gift of the medal. For years, I treasured the medal and kept his secret. Ten years after Uncle Charles died, I visited my Grandma Charlotte in Chicago, and confessed the secret of the medal, his promise, and the story. Nanny Charlotte laughed loudly. Uncle Charles, her younger brother,  never served in the army, much less WWI. He had won the medal in a card game with a veteran years before. WHY do people make up realistic stories? one never knows. However, the vast resources of known unbiased material speaks for itself, over the fifty plus year old tale of ONE lone person.


I think it is sad that your great uncle had to make up stories so he could be important in your eyes.

AGRBear
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: etonexile on December 20, 2005, 10:41:09 AM
Quote
Bear,
As a child of ten, my great uncle (brother to my maternal grandmother) was visiting our family, and  called me aside one day. He gave me a French Croix de Guerre, and told me an amazing tale of his exploits in France in WWI and swore me to secrecy in exchange for the gift of the medal. For years, I treasured the medal and kept his secret. Ten years after Uncle Charles died, I visited my Grandma Charlotte in Chicago, and confessed the secret of the medal, his promise, and the story. Nanny Charlotte laughed loudly. Uncle Charles, her younger brother,  never served in the army, much less WWI. He had won the medal in a card game with a veteran years before. WHY do people make up realistic stories? one never knows. However, the vast resources of known unbiased material speaks for itself, over the fifty plus year old tale of ONE lone person.


Tedders says the game was fixed....He'd like his medal back....
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Forum Admin on December 20, 2005, 04:51:55 PM
and whatever the Prince may have said FIFTY THREE YEARS after the fact tells us nothing about what really happened in the palace without any extrinsic corroborative evidence.

and FYI Bear, Uncle Charles didn't have to make up stories to be special in my eyes. I loved him dearly as he was always telling jokes, funny stories and doing magic tricks.  He was a warm, fun and special person even IF he didn't serve in France in WWI. I still keep that medal as a cherished momento.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: AGRBear on December 22, 2005, 05:34:04 PM
Quote
and whatever the Prince may have said FIFTY THREE YEARS after the fact tells us nothing about what really happened in the palace without any extrinsic corroborative evidence.

and FYI Bear, Uncle Charles didn't have to make up stories to be special in my eyes. I loved him dearly as he was always telling jokes, funny stories and doing magic tricks.  He was a warm, fun and special person even IF he didn't serve in France in WWI. I still keep that medal as a cherished momento.


From what you tell us,  your great uncle Charles,  would not have told his story about the medal in courts.    So, I am a little puzzled as to what your fun loving great uncle's story has to do with the Prince's story.

In fact, I, now, know more about your great uncle Charles than I do the Prince.

What other facts do you have which reveals to me and others that  Prince Dimitry Galitzin character indicates that he would have lied about Ernst Ludwig of Hesse long after the man had died and the event, some 53 years later?

AGRBear






Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Forum Admin on December 22, 2005, 07:28:13 PM
Bear,
I see no genuine reason again to answer this. You continue to be slippery and evasive. You wish to accept the statments of "some" people, well into advanced age, yet first hand eyewitnesses who made statements less than ten years after the fact you choose to dismiss as unreliable. and then again, you bring in the "court" standards, which have zero to do with the discussion.

The plain and bald faced truth is that you have a spurious quest for the "truth". Selectively edited, to suit whatever little agenda you have, which appears to be confirming some wild fantasy story you YOURSELF were told at age ten by your own "uncle Charles" or who ever it was who spun fantasy stories themselves for you just like uncle Charles did for me.  The main difference is that I am not on some crusade to prove that the "hard evidence" of Uncle Charles' Croix de Guerre was REALLY granted to him, while YOU are out to prove your own fantasy story.

and frankly, given the huge private correspondence I keep recieving, YOU bear seem destined to be the sole reason that this entire thread will be locked. Pretty much EVERYONE, at least 95per cent of my emails, are sick, tired and bored to tears with your poorly researched, repetitive and pointless "quest for the truth".  But then, this old horrible "censor" continues to let you prattle on.....
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Louis_Charles on December 22, 2005, 09:03:43 PM
Dear Bear,

The word "forerunner" means "that which came before". In the exact sense that the Okhrana came before the CHEKA. My point was that there was a secret police under the Tsarist regime that functioned as all secret polices do.

Regards,

Simon
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: AGRBear on December 23, 2005, 02:12:33 AM
Quote
Bear,
I see no genuine reason again to answer this. You continue to be slippery and evasive. You wish to accept the statments of "some" people, well into advanced age, yet first hand eyewitnesses who made statements less than ten years after the fact you choose to dismiss as unreliable. and then again, you bring in the "court" standards, which have zero to do with the discussion.

The plain and bald faced truth is that you have a spurious quest for the "truth". Selectively edited, to suit whatever little agenda you have, which appears to be confirming some wild fantasy story you YOURSELF were told at age ten by your own "uncle Charles" or who ever it was who spun fantasy stories themselves for you just like uncle Charles did for me.  The main difference is that I am not on some crusade to prove that the "hard evidence" of Uncle Charles' Croix de Guerre was REALLY granted to him, while YOU are out to prove your own fantasy story.

and frankly, given the huge private correspondence I keep recieving, YOU bear seem destined to be the sole reason that this entire thread will be locked. Pretty much EVERYONE, at least 95per cent of my emails, are sick, tired and bored to tears with your poorly researched, repetitive and pointless "quest for the truth".  But then, this old horrible "censor" continues to let you prattle on.....


Before you lock down this thread,  I'd like to respond.   The story I was told was not a fantasy and has nothing to do with AA being GD Anastasia, which of course, you have no idea of knowing.  And, why you continue to think it does,  I can't even imagine.  

I have never even hinted that  AA was GD Anastasia just because her story matched Prince Dimitry Galitzin's story  about Ernst Ludwig of Hesse being in the palace in 1916 which he told in the German court in 1965.

Enough about the poor old Prince,  due to popular request.

Happy Holidays Everyone.
Peace on earth, good will toward all posters.


AGRBear
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: RealAnastasia on December 23, 2005, 07:58:40 PM
Dear Bear:

                   I know , since I started to write here, that you didn't believe that AA was FS and this is fine. Your opinion is that she wasn't Franziska Schanzkowska. You are your reasons to believe it and anyone could avoid you to think like this, for you arrived to these conclusions after evaluating the facts we know , including, of course, the DNA results.

                  I believe that AA was AN after knowing all the facts of this case, including the DNA results too. And this is fine too. Me and you, we have our reasons to have those opinions, and I think that anyone could avoid us to think the way we do.


Dear FA:

                   What's the matter in saying an opinion aloud? The worse in all this is that people could think we are crazy. They are not obliged to share our "crazy" ideas. I can said that Anna Anderson was really Robinson Crusoe and I think this is nonsense to lock a thread for writing down an opinion that could be or not be wrong.

                     So, please FA: let us said what we think...Even if we affirm that Anastasia didn't die this night of July of 1918 and was inestead kidnapped by U.F.Os...The people who enter at these Forums are intelligent enough to know if we are saying serious things or pure nonsense.

                       And now, following Bear example.
                      Merry Christmas to all people who read this mesage!  :D
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Robert_Hall on December 24, 2005, 09:54:44 AM
Normally, [which is a misnomer in topics such as this], I do not  partake of these discussions.
However- RA, may I ask what the hell you are rambling on about?
Your post makes no sense at all, even given your  Evita prose.
For a "historian" you have a penchant for "histrionics".
Whatever your  discomfort with other posters, if you can not at least make it private, make it coherent?
And a happy xmas to you as well,
Robert
OK, I beg pardon for saying this in the public forum. On
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: catt.sydney on December 24, 2005, 10:25:52 AM
Sarcasm warning!


It has been stated before - and I suppose I ought to say it again...
Anna Anderson was a bipedal mammal -so was Anasastia Nicholevna - and for some people this is enough evidence!

sarcasm warning over


All the 'shoe issues', all the stories, all the "ear" evidence aside - I still find the arguements made to be weak in the extream. It's all hearsay as far as I can see!
Admitedly, I really am not a follower of this thread.

happy holidays
catt
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Rachael89 on December 24, 2005, 10:28:19 AM
What dosen't make sense Robert? I understand RA's posts just fine, it's interesting to have a fresh and different opinion to the majority.

Rachael
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Lemur on December 24, 2005, 10:46:03 AM
Actually it wasn't a UFO, but Bill and Ted in their phone booth! They went back in time and were taking Anastasia and Alexei for their history report, but lost them when it broke down in prehistoric times and they had to fix it with the bubble gum and pudding cans. So they had to make do and live in the past.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Robert_Hall on December 24, 2005, 02:26:15 PM
Rachael, try reading RA's post in parsed English. You decipher the logic in the rant. These are not my  subjects, and it is well known my patience is thin when it comes to these fantasies, but pure babbling is just a waste of time. We can do that over the telephone with friends. Even in a second language, even to "LAUGH" at others, as she so often does.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Rachael89 on December 24, 2005, 03:34:18 PM
I know that taking the DNA into account and still saying that one beleives AA is AN may appear irrational but at the end of the day this is an open forum people can post their views, even if they're 'rants',and the diversity provided by people such as RA is what makes the forum interesting (to me anyway!)

I myslef have never seen an example of RA 'laughing' at others and even if she did, I wouldn't blame her considering people laugh at her views so often.

And on a happier note...Merry christmas to one and all ;D

Rachael
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: etonexile on December 25, 2005, 08:07:37 AM
I'm starting to wonder if RA isn't like that chap a few months ago....claiming to be the son of the Czarevitch....It's all a big joke.... ::)
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Robert_Hall on December 25, 2005, 08:36:13 AM
Just waiting for that big scene on the balcony of the Casa Rosada- or whatever it was called.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: etonexile on December 25, 2005, 08:59:46 AM
"Don't cry for me Argentina...It was a lie....I made it up....I was....pretending....."....
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: RealAnastasia on December 25, 2005, 01:01:40 PM
Dear Etonexile and Robert:

                                              You are very caring people, indeed! I never found people so sweet, and well behaved than you. You started insulting my country, a woman I admire very much and said me hystrionic, only for I analise facts . You are rough and harsh, and are constantly making fun of my country as an inferior one. But of course: I'm the hysterical, not you. I'm the irrational, not you.

                                             I know that even if you call me "hystrionic" you'll not be banned, and perhaps I am only for writing a word who starts with a "s".

                                              Merry Christmas again. The only ones to be ridiculed are yourself. Not me.

                                                RealAnastasia.



                     
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Rachael89 on December 25, 2005, 02:08:47 PM
Etonexile and Robert

As RA say's your posts are cruel and unneccesary, you should both feel ashamed of yoursleves, I beleive that the last few posts on this thread should be deleted it's not fair when one specific member is victimised just as RA has been.

Rachael
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Robert_Hall on December 25, 2005, 02:32:23 PM
RA- since you made this public- just where, may I ask, was Eva Peron [whom I admire GREATLY] or your country, the Silver land of juntas and generals ever dispareged ?
We were talking about the babble that you put forth, being diffucult to understand your point, if indeed, you have one. Obviously, some understand you. I for one do not.
Your sarcasim is juvenile, as is you laughter.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: calebGmoney on December 29, 2005, 05:42:39 PM
The foresnsic conclusion is that they are the same person and could not be another person. This is based on numerous exmaninations of the ears, the facial structure, and handwriting analysis.

Also, if you read "The Real Romanovs" and "The Woman Who Rose Again" by Gleb Botkin as well as the memoirs of Tatiana Botkin, they swear up and down this was the same girl they grew up with. The thought that they could have mistaken a Polish peasent to be the grand duchess is inconcievable. It is also inconcievable to think that they would purposely support a fraud, when their own father was shot with the famly.
It should also be noted that her opponents who viewed her Olga and Pierre Gilliard, did initianally recognize her.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: elfwine on December 29, 2005, 06:33:46 PM
Caleb
Your "forensic" evidence is extreamly out of date...
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: calebGmoney on December 29, 2005, 06:41:53 PM
Quote
Caleb
Your "forensic" evidence is extreamly out of date...

How can it possibly be out of date? Some of the forensic tests were conducted in 1993-94. Forensic tests are just that, and they could be performed today and have the same conclusion. Just because the DNA test contradicted it does not mean it is invaluable.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Annie on December 29, 2005, 06:43:42 PM
Olga and Gilliard did not 'intially recognize' her, there are reports of their first meetings. Neither were lying to cover for anyone, as many supporters love to claim.

We know all about the ears, a grainy black and white photo of AN's ear is no proof. And as for the Botkins, sure they could have been mistaken, or it's not out of the question they may have helped give AA memories they had from the court to help her case. You cannot prove this but you cannot disprove it. It would explain a lot, and fits the puzzle well.

We know all these things you are saying, we've heard them a million times, check the old threads.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: elfwine on December 29, 2005, 07:01:44 PM
Quote
How can it possibly be out of date? Some of the forensic tests were conducted in 1993-94. Forensic tests are just that, and they could be performed today and have the same conclusion. Just because the DNA test contradicted it does not mean it is invaluable.


   Are you talking about the 'ear' test? While it was remarkably close and strikingly similar - it was not exact ...
The other tests were rather subjective.  Statements such as "I recognized her" and "she knew so much stuff" is not  really forensicly sound material. As for the issue of scars that is also still debated. As far as I know - we don't have accurate medical records of Anastasia Nicholevna...
Do you have them Caleb? ;)
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: calebGmoney on December 29, 2005, 10:01:44 PM
Quote
Olga and Gilliard did not 'intially recognize' her, there are reports of their first meetings. Neither were lying to cover for anyone, as many supporters love to claim.

We know all about the ears, a grainy black and white photo of AN's ear is no proof. And as for the Botkins, sure they could have been mistaken, or it's not out of the question they may have helped give AA memories they had from the court to help her case. You cannot prove this but you cannot disprove it. It would explain a lot, and fits the puzzle well.

We know all these things you are saying, we've heard them a million times, check the old threads.
Olga clearly said, "My heart tells me it is she" and "Our Malanchya and Shura seem very happy to meet again". She herself never denied this. Later on, Gilliard admitted that the feet of Anna Anderson were identical to that of Anastasia, after previously declaring that her feet did not even remotely resemble that of Anastasia. Therefore, it is diffucult to take anything he states as truth. Shura herself examined Anastasia's body and stated, "This is Anastasia's body!" These are statements made by her so-called opponents (although Shura never officially made a statement).
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: calebGmoney on December 29, 2005, 10:09:41 PM
Quote

    Are you talking about the 'ear' test? While it was remarkably close and strikingly similar - it was not exact ...
The other tests were rather subjective.  Statements such as "I recognized her" and "she knew so much stuff" is not  really forensicly sound material. As for the issue of scars that is also still debated. As far as I know - we don't have accurate medical records of Anastasia Nicholevna...
Do you have them Caleb? ;)

No, Dr. Moritz Furtmayr stated that it is a positive match (as it is in German court cases) if the ears are the same in 12 anatomical. Anna Anderson's were the same in 17. And "she knew so much stuff" is not doing her justice. More like "she knew INTIMATE details of Anastasia's childhood." Simply read the many books by witnesses. As far as the issue with scars, Gilliard wrote in the book "The False Anastasia" that it was Marie who actually got her finger caught in the carriage door. Even if this were true (which Gilliard probably knew it was Anastasia this incedent occured to but wanted to cast doubt on the public), how did Anderson know the story of a grand duchess getting her finger caught in the carriage door? During the trials, several witnesses confirmed the scars Anastasia had on her head, finger, and a captain confirmed that there was indeed a mole on Anastasia where Anderson had a white scar. The feet were confirmed to be the same by Shura and Dr. Rudnev. There are far too many coincidences for an imposter. Also, the early photos of "Fraulein Unbekannt" clearly look like later photos of Grand Duchess Anastasia.Grand Duchess Anastasia:
(http://geocities.com/anastasia_grandduchess/photo/cap010.JPG)
(http://geocities.com/anastasia_grandduchess/photo/anast.png)
(http://geocities.com/anastasia_grandduchess/photo/PrettyAnastasia.gif)
(http://www.geocities.com/anastasiagrandduchess/anastasi.JPG)
(http://geocities.com/anastasia_grandduchess/photo/cap007.JPG)
(http://geocities.com/anastasia_grandduchess/photo/cap008.JPG)
(http://www.geocities.com/yosho_chan/annie.jpg)
Here is the last photo of Anastasia in Tobolsk in 1918. She was almost if not 17 in this photo. Notice the length of the hair.
(http://www.geocities.com/yosho_chan/lastphoto.JPG)
Mug shots of Fraulen Unbekannt in 1920:
(http://www.geocities.com/anastasia_grandduchess/photo/cap021.JPG)
Here she is at Dalldorf Asulym walking in the garden:
(http://www.geocities.com/anastasia_grandduchess/photo/cap023.JPG)[/


Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: catt.sydney on December 30, 2005, 06:35:26 PM
Hello Caleb,

   While I am impressed by your collection of photos, I am sad to see that you have NOT read some of the MANY backposts on this topic...All the arguements that you have made have been made by others... again and again... and sadly they are facile in the face of the overwhelming DNA evidence. Do you understand this mdna arguement? Do you question the DNA?
Do you doubt its validity? Do you think it a hoax?

     You mentioned something about 'personal intimate details' of family life...What are these? NAOTMAA were notorious about their privacy, so what exactly are you referring to? How do we (people today/non members of the imperial family) know that this
[the evidence of which you speak]  is so accurate and so private? The daughters had virtually no friends, only each other - so who could confirm this sort of story  --  they are all dead!?

Is this clear?
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: calebGmoney on December 30, 2005, 07:28:33 PM
Quote
Hello Caleb,

    While I am impressed by your collection of photos, I am sad to see that you have NOT read some of the MANY backposts on this topic...All the arguements that you have made have been made by others... again and again... and sadly they are facile in the face of the overwhelming DNA evidence. Do you understand this mdna arguement? Do you question the DNA?
Do you doubt its validity? Do you think it a hoax?

      You mentioned something about 'personal intimate details' of family life...What are these? NAOTMAA were notorious about their privacy, so what exactly are you referring to? How do we (people today/non members of the imperial family) know that this
[the evidence of which you speak]  is so accurate and so private? The daughters had virtually no friends, only each other - so who could confirm this sort of story  --  they are all dead!?

Is this clear?
What I mean by intimate details are such things like how she knew about the man with the nickname "the Man With the Pockets" which convinced Felix Dassel of her authenticity. As well as how she declared that her father had spoke of an account set aside in England for each of the grand duchesses. Lili Dehn later stated in court before meeting Anderson that the Empress had told her the same thing while imprisoned in Tsarkoe Selo. How would Anna Anderson know that? I could go on and on but it would take too much time. I also feel that Anna could not have been Franziska for many reasons and I'm currently writing an essay about it. Of course there's always a possibilty that she was not Anastasia, but if she wasn't she would probably be a child of someone at the court which of course seems highly unlikely. But I cannot agree with the I.D. of Franziska Schanzkowska because of many contradictions which makes me think the samples were either tampered with or sw*tched during the court cases over the tissue or that all 3 labs are being paid off to hide the truth of a very real survivor so that the family can be held innocent in the eyes of the public for rejecting one of their own. This is my opinion and I feel I have every reason to believe in it.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: catt.sydney on December 30, 2005, 11:25:49 PM
Quote
What I mean by intimate details are such things like how she knew about the man with the nickname "the Man With the Pockets" which convinced Felix Dassel of her authenticity. As well as how she declared that her father had spoke of an account set aside in England for each of the grand duchesses. Lili Dehn later stated in court before meeting Anderson that the Empress had told her the same thing while imprisoned in Tsarkoe Selo. How would Anna Anderson know that? I could go on and on but it would take too much time. I also feel that Anna could not have been Franziska for many reasons and I'm currently writing an essay about it. Of course there's always a possibilty that she was not Anastasia, but if she wasn't she would probably be a child of someone at the court which of course seems highly unlikely. But I cannot agree with the I.D. of Franziska Schanzkowska because of many contradictions which makes me think the samples were either tampered with or sw*tched during the court cases over the tissue or that all 3 labs are being paid off to hide the truth of a very real survivor so that the family can be held innocent in the eyes of the public for rejecting one of their own. This is my opinion and I feel I have every reason to believe in it.



Caleb
  Do you know about "Clever Hans"?

  You mentioned the "The Man with the Pockets" story?
Consider just how many comments AA may well have made in the course of one day - such as "Just like the girl with the feathers" or "just like the three legged dog"...These can mean nothing at all unless someone picks up on them and comes up with a connection...personally - I think it was a lucky guess!
   Do bear in mind that AA was considered a little 'touched' even by her true believers so no one thought it odd when she would blurt out statements that made no 'logical' sense.

You are certainly free to believe what you like...
But, so far  - you do not persuade.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: calebGmoney on December 31, 2005, 02:29:55 AM
Quote


Caleb
   Do you know about "Clever Hans"?

   You mentioned the "The Man with the Pockets" story?
Consider just how many comments AA may well have made in the course of one day - such as "Just like the girl with the feathers" or "just like the three legged dog"...These can mean nothing at all unless someone picks up on them and comes up with a connection...personally - I think it was a lucky guess!
    Do bear in mind that AA was considered a little 'touched' even by her true believers so no one thought it odd when she would blurt out statements that made no 'logical' sense.

You are certainly free to believe what you like...
But, so far  - you do not persuade.
Yes, it may be a common phrase, but she and felix dassel were looking at photographs of the hospital where they had been in 1916, and she pointed at the photograph and declared, "It's the Man with the Pockets!" Dassel said the young anastasia had given the man this name, and that no imposter could never have known such a small detail. Dassel had tried to trip her up before this, but when he couldn't. When he referred to something on the second floor, she quickly corrected him. "It was on the first floor". He of course knew that, but was trying to trip her up. Also, when Gleb Botkin showed her his pictures, she knew which ones were the ones done in Siberia. And Dr. Rudnev claimed she had remembered an incident where she and Tatiana had pelted him with paper balls back in St Petersburg, saying he had never told anyone about it. Don't forget at Xenia's estate in Long Island, when Grand Duke Dimitri had been invited over, Princess Xenia came into Anastasia's room where she stated, "You said the cousins would not come". She could not see him from her room, but she clearly recognized him by his voice. Also, Shura stated that the bodies were the same after looking at the hallux valgus on the feet as well as the finger on the left had which had been damaged by a carriage door. You're free to ignore this if you want, but it really should be considered. The pluses are endless.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Rachael89 on December 31, 2005, 06:25:55 AM
Sorry to go off topic but doesa anyone have a full version of the 6th photo of Anastasia posted by Caleb? Or know what year it was taken? Anastasia looks very adult in it!

Rachael
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: cimbrio on December 31, 2005, 09:58:59 AM
Quote
Pleasssse...the DNA of AA did not match that of any relation of AN....and they looked nothing alike.....basta!!!



I'm sorry for not posting a reason but.. hear hear Etonexile!!! DNA PROVED PROVED (subtitled: PROVED) that Anna Anderson was NOT HIH Anastasiya Nikolaievna Romanov (b. 1901, with all possibility killed by Bolsheviks in 1918)  :P nor, may I had, was she even related to royalty, since the DNA showed absolutely no connection between her genes (which are even more characteristic than finger prints, let alone "scars, ear lobes, smiles, recognition by a family member or old friend, speaking Russian or (High) German or "distinctive Romanov eyes). I know we all want them to live on but for once and for all, admit the simple facts! There are many other Romanovs that survived, concentrate on them for example! :) (I'm not being rude, it's just nonsense talking about this for the zillionth time; fine, AA looked like Anastasia, but there are plenty of look-aliked, and she was perhaps one of the best confidence trikster in the world! I'd give her a 10, but still she cannot change the afct that she was NOT the Grand Duchess, even if she believed it herself, let alone her relatives or friends...) :)  ;D
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: calebGmoney on December 31, 2005, 04:16:07 PM
Quote


I'm sorry for not posting a reason but.. hear hear Etonexile!!! DNA PROVED PROVED (subtitled: PROVED) that Anna Anderson was NOT HIH Anastasiya Nikolaievna Romanov (b. 1901, with all possibility killed by Bolsheviks in 1918)  :P nor, may I had, was she even related to royalty, since the DNA showed absolutely no connection between her genes (which are even more characteristic than finger prints, let alone "scars, ear lobes, smiles, recognition by a family member or old friend, speaking Russian or (High) German or "distinctive Romanov eyes). I know we all want them to live on but for once and for all, admit the simple facts! There are many other Romanovs that survived, concentrate on them for example! :) (I'm not being rude, it's just nonsense talking about this for the zillionth time; fine, AA looked like Anastasia, but there are plenty of look-aliked, and she was perhaps one of the best confidence trikster in the world! I'd give her a 10, but still she cannot change the afct that she was NOT the Grand Duchess, even if she believed it herself, let alone her relatives or friends...) :)  ;D

I don't believe it. I think these DNA tests were fixed. It was made plainly simple during the Hamburg trials that the whole Franziska Schanzkowska story was a lie. The opposition clearly struggled to make it appear true. She was NOT a Polish farm girl, no matter what scientists try to say. There are records of Franziska's from 1909-1920. She was not wounded in the grenade explosion nor did she ever have a baby. Anna Anderson however had been examined by docters in 1950 which concluded that she had indeed had a child as she had claimed. She could not have all the recognition by Gleb Botkin, Tatiana, Lili Dehn, have the same marks and foot deformity, look almost exactly the same if she was not indeed the person she said she was. I respect your opinion, but I don't like being told that "It can't be true because DNA said it wasn't". Why people can think that a blood sample of Nicholas's on a tissue could be contaminated but an intestine tissue by Anna Anderson could not is beyond me. I don't 'want' Anastasia to have survived, what does that matter to me? It's just an obvious fact. Please don't refer to my belief as 'nonsense'.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: RealAnastasia on December 31, 2005, 04:39:46 PM
Quote
How can it possibly be out of date? Some of the forensic tests were conducted in 1993-94. Forensic tests are just that, and they could be performed today and have the same conclusion. Just because the DNA test contradicted it does not mean it is invaluable.


Of course, Caleb! I spoke with experts about anthropological, fornesic and graphological test. They are ALL valid. They ARE NOT outdated. I spoke with experts in anthropology, forensics, genetics, photograph, medical issues, psychology, psychiatry, graphology and even to actors and Russian , Polish and German residents...I added a German resident (my brother's mother-in-Law, Anny Scheffer) to know more about Katchoubians. This was in 2005. So...OUTDATED? My info is not outdated.

Here, I was said that all this was not important, for it is imprecisse and not clear. DNA is "the only one proof " we may accepted. However, my DNA expert (they will make fun on him, but he is a serious man and said me  the truth and he is no payed to speak in favor of AA) said me that other identity proofs are still performed on people and are considered sure. If there is lots of controversy, then, they performs DNA. Even in England and the EEUU. And I know he is right for I currently watch a forensic TV Show from the Sates and they show DNA test along with all the other ones. DNA test are used when you doesn't found the murder, and, for example, they find droops of blood in the house where these crimes happened. Other identity test are yet performed in people who is find murdered, or that doesn't remember who she/he is. Why? Easy enough...If you don't know who they are, to who you'll do comparison of their DNA profile? Sometimes, police found only skulls and they reconstructs the entire face superposing photos of missing people (recorded by police) or trying to imagine how these faces were in the flesh.

Anthropology, forensic sicence, graphology, psychology, etc, still are valid sciences. They don't dissapeared for we add DNA to them.

Anna Anderson performed more than one scientific test. All of them were in her favor. Only one didn't. DNA....


RealAnastasia.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: catt.sydney on December 31, 2005, 05:14:11 PM
SO
Why does the Mdna NOT match?
Is this to be another conspiracy game ?
I will admit that I am rather tired of running about in the same circles...
Other than ambigious 'proof' which Caleb seems to never question, and the sad fact that RA  - who will understand English quite well -  only to loose all language skills at certain "convenient" times - there is no point to this.

Caleb, RA - your points have been made many times before -  and they are either simply repetitions of other 'weak arguements' or nothing new. You beleive - others doubt.

Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Forum Admin on December 31, 2005, 06:19:56 PM
Caleb, your belief is not "nonesense" however it IS UNINFORMED. PLEASE read the other numerous threads where your answers have been given many times before WHY it is impossible that the DNA test was "rigged" and WHY the AA hospital sample (held in formalin suspension in secure lab) is not contaminated and the scarf (held in a box and handled by hundreds of people in an uncontrolled environment) IS contaminated.
PLEASE do the research to understand the science behind the testing and the protocols. Your current theory shows just that you do NOT understand the underlying science and facts.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: calebGmoney on December 31, 2005, 06:48:51 PM
Quote
Caleb, your belief is not "nonesense" however it IS UNINFORMED. PLEASE read the other numerous threads where your answers have been given many times before WHY it is impossible that the DNA test was "rigged" and WHY the AA hospital sample (held in formalin suspension in secure lab) is not contaminated and the scarf (held in a box and handled by hundreds of people in an uncontrolled environment) IS contaminated.
PLEASE do the research to understand the science behind the testing and the protocols. Your current theory shows just that you do NOT understand the underlying science and facts.

I have read the threads and most importantly the book "The Romanovs: The Final Chapter". Yes, I know how they checked the tissue with the one which was held elsewhere in the hospital, but this was before the court battles. How do we know that someone in the hospital was not involved in helping a sw*tch take place? It would not be so far-fetched to place other tissue samples within formalin. The tissue is almost as valid as the Tsar's blood on a tissue and Grand Duchess Elizabeth's finger. The finger was taken from her coffin and held within a wooden box. If there's anything people should have learned about the Romanovs in past 14 years, it's that DNA can be contaminated at any stage. Please don't call me uninformed because I choose to believe in the testimonies of many who knew Anastasia. Many of the DNA tests performed with the bones gave contradicting results. Why should we pick and choose which results we are to believe in?
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Forum Admin on December 31, 2005, 11:10:31 PM
Caleb, believe your fairy tales as that is what you wish...Reality is something you clearly don't care to grasp.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: calebGmoney on December 31, 2005, 11:41:03 PM
Quote
Caleb, believe your fairy tales as that is what you wish...Reality is something you clearly don't care to grasp.

Look. It's great if you don't want to believe in the truth, that Anastasia was the sole survivor of the Ekaterinburg massacre, but it's really not fair for you to ridicule my belief. Please point out what you object to but don't simply reply with a remark like that. Please respect me and don't ridicule my beliefs as I do not do that to your's.  I feel that you are the one who cannot grasp reality, when you can look at photos and see they are clearly the same person and then hear the evidence that is purely in her favor and the evidence that clearly supports that she could not have been Franziska Schanzkowska. I reccomend you do more research on the subject of Anna Anderson and Anastasia. To think that the Royals woud never do so much as to deny a survivor her right to identity even after death is very naive thinkning. The fact is that almost everything before these DNA tests supported the conclusion that Anastasia had indeed survived. The truth is that Martha Jefferson Hospital purely denied having any remains of the operation at first. Then of course it then appeared, a tissue being held on a shelf for 14 years. How do you know it was authentic?

*Please let's try to be humane and civil towards each other. We can disagree without making fun of one another.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Annie on January 01, 2006, 12:30:28 AM
If you openly accuse the hospitals and labs of fraud, I hope you will at least consider the possibility of fraud among her supporters. Gleb Botkin was a journalist, and she did make quite a good story. We cannot rule out the chance that he helped her out with memories to help her prove her claim. He did know some things about the IF's life. Besides him, there was a LARGE Russian emigre' community in Europe at the time she surfaced, and it is very likely some of them gave her the info for her 'memories' either intentionally or incidently in conversation. What about Dassel? Can we know for sure that he hadn't already told her the 'pockets' story, maybe by phone or letter, to make it look surprising when she said it? Or maybe there was another person who had spoken to Dassell and knew the story, and told her? You wonder 'how she knew', easy, she was told by other people! If you go so far as the doubt the integrity of the doctors and scientists involved, how can you not consider that she may well have been fed memories and info in order to help her cause? If you accuse the family members of lying for money, how can you deny some people may have helped her in secret, also for money? If you really wanted to be fair, you'd consider this. It seems clear to me you have decided you are right and nothing is going to change your mind, so it's hopeless. But don't be surprised when others don't respect your views, because when something has been proven wrong, it's no longer up to opinion anymore.

BTW, in your sig picture, AA sure is biting those thick lips hard! She did that a lot, to mock AN's expression and hide the fact that her lips were much thicker and her mouth much bigger than AN's. She showed them full size in the mug shots because she wasn't yet pretending to be AN.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: calebGmoney on January 01, 2006, 01:01:31 AM
Quote
If you openly accuse the hospitals and labs of fraud, I hope you will at least consider the possibility of fraud among her supporters. Gleb Botkin was a journalist, and she did make quite a good story. We cannot rule out the chance that he helped her out with memories to help her prove her claim. He did know some things about the IF's life. Besides him, there was a LARGE Russian emigre' community in Europe at the time she surfaced, and it is very likely some of them gave her the info for her 'memories' either intentionally or incidently in conversation. What about Dassel? Can we know for sure that he hadn't already told her the 'pockets' story, maybe by phone or letter, to make it look surprising when she said it? Or maybe there was another person who had spoken to Dassell and knew the story, and told her? You wonder 'how she knew', easy, she was told by other people! If you go so far as the doubt the integrity of the doctors and scientists involved, how can you not consider that she may well have been fed memories and info in order to help her cause? If you accuse the family members of lying for money, how can you deny some people may have helped her in secret, also for money? If you really wanted to be fair, you'd consider this. It seems clear to me you have decided you are right and nothing is going to change your mind, so it's hopeless. But don't be surprised when others don't respect your views, because when something has been proven wrong, it's no longer up to opinion anymore.

BTW, in your sig picture, AA sure is biting those thick lips hard! She did that a lot, to mock AN's expression and hide the fact that her lips were much thicker and her mouth much bigger than AN's. She showed them full size in the mug shots because she wasn't yet pretending to be AN.
I don't care about lips. The top of Anastasia's face to me has never changed. In later years, her lips returned to being normal size.

But it is still an opinion, because you cannot prove or disprove the authenticity of the samples tested. I thank you for at least being respectful, but I don't know how anyone could believe anastasia was a polish farm girl, especially in times when classes were so distinct. Sure, Gleb could have fed her memories, but he did not appear until 1928, so you would have to be accusing a lot more people than just Gleb. You also have to think that Lili Dehn was promoting a fraud, which I think it inconcievable. Also, Ansastasia in the early years of the case was very withdrawn. She did not want any visitors, so she hardly ever talked with many people. I can't imagine she would let strange Russian emigres feed her information, especailly when it is quite apparent that she herslef was convinced she was anastasia.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Holly on January 01, 2006, 01:17:40 AM
IMO, It doesn't matter how much the ears are similar. The DNA is the ultimate decider. I can't believe that no matter how much evidence is put in front of someones nose, they still choose to believe in those silly fairy tales.  ::)
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Holly on January 01, 2006, 01:20:24 AM
By the way Caleb, that picture you posted is NOT the last picture of Anastasia. The last of OTM was taken on the Rus to Ekaterinburg. Your picture was taken in Tobolsk in the girls bedrooms. She wasn't close to 17 yet. Read up!
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Annie on January 01, 2006, 08:04:50 AM
Quote
I don't care about lips. The top of Anastasia's face to me has never changed. In later years, her lips returned to being normal size.


More like they whithered up in old age, as most elderly folks' do. The top of her face is the only part that ever resembled Anastasia, she always had different bone structure, mouth, nose, lips, chin and cheekbones.

Quote
But it is still an opinion, because you cannot prove or disprove the authenticity of the samples tested.


As FA has said to read about, there is evidence on this posted here. The sample was stored anonymously, matched only by a number code.

The entire switch idea is absurd when you consider these facts:

1. It was listed by number code, not name
2. It was SUPPORTERS of AA who asked for the sample and instigated the tests!
3. It would be impossible to make a switch unless a member of the Schanskowska family were kidnapped, cut open and exactly the same piece of intestine taken out. Since no one knew exactly which part this was, it's out of the question, along with the fact that no one was cut open! Besides that the hospital had security measures.
4. The labs who tested the samples did not know what was what until the results showed.


Quote
I thank you for at least being respectful, but I don't know how anyone could believe anastasia was a polish farm girl, especially in times when classes were so distinct.


What was so upper class about AA? Every tape and recording I've ever seen and heard of her she was, to put it nicely, not regal. She was kind of rough and rugged in her manner. She may have acted regal in her younger years, remember, she wanted to be an actress (FS, that is) but as she aged and her mind slipped more, she became more eccentric. She ended up living in filth surrounded by dozens of animals and their mess, rusty cans, never vacuuming the house or cleaning the yard until their place became such and eyesore she and her husband were cited for it. I'm an animal lover too, and I admire her for her love of animals, but the conditions they, and she, lived in were far from 'classy.' Wouldn't a princess rather have had an organized kennel for the pets, and an elegant, stately, clean house? They also were well known to drive around in a ragged old station wagon, the brunt of jokes of teenage boys. She didn't look, sound or seem at all to have any air of 'upperclass,' in fact, quite the opposite.

Quote
Sure, Gleb could have fed her memories, but he did not appear until 1928, so you would have to be accusing a lot more people than just Gleb.


I already did, in my post, I said it was likely many people, most whose names we will never know.

Quote
You also have to think that Lili Dehn was promoting a fraud, which I think it inconcievable.


First, Lili never saw her until she was very old, and AA herself was no spring chicken. It would be very hard to tell, and perhaps Lili's romantic memories and desire for her old life made her see things that weren't there. It is also not inconcievable that she lied. Again, you have accused Olga A. and others of lying, how do you decide who could concievably lie and who wouldn't, only by who you choose to believe? It's interesting that Anna Vyrobova, closest to the family of anyone left alive at the time of the trial, was never consulted. Could it be she would know for sure, and AA and backers didn't want to take the chance? Or, having become a nun, she was not an easy target to label as 'liar' and 'greedy' as they did poor Olga A., Ernie and others? And while you're on conspiracy theories, isn't it ironic Ernie's family were killed in a plane crash just before the trial began? I am not accusing, just saying if you wanted to get extreme, it's easily targeted. You, as all AA supporters do, make so much out of people 'lying for money' when denying her, so how can you prove that those who identified her or supported her weren't lying in hopes of money too? While it turned out not to be true, there were rumors of an enormous Romanov fortune waiting for anyone who could prove they were Nicholas's heir. How can you completely shut out the possibility people conspired to get this stash, using AA as a pawn?

Quote
Also, Ansastasia in the early years of the case was very withdrawn. She did not want any visitors, so she hardly ever talked with many people.


From all I've seen, heard and read, she had many visitors and loved attention. She may have become reclusive later. If there were people she didn't want to see, maybe it was because she knew they'd know it wasn't AN. I read that when she met some, she refused to uncover her face with a hankie! Maybe she just didn't want to meet anyone who would expose her!


Quote
I can't imagine she would let strange Russian emigres feed her information,


Why is it you can imagine an intestine switch and put terrible accusations on family members like Olga, yet you can't imagine people told her things? It really does make perfect sense. I guess you only want to 'imagine' what suits your position, not the whole story.

Quote
especailly when it is quite apparent that she herslef was convinced she was anastasia.


Do we really know this? It's been debated many times when and if she ever really believed it. IMO, she didn't originally, but came to over the years as her mind slipped away. In his old age, actor Johnny Wiesmuller came to believe he was really Tarzan, the character he played in movies, and was found roaming away from home down the streets making the Tarzan call. She may have pretended so long it became real to her, in her senility and with her unstable mental condition.

The reason I work so hard to point these things out is because I used to believe her, too. I want to help others pull their heads out of the sand and see reality, not the fantasy which is more fun. When the DNA came back, I was sad, but I didn't doubt it. Then I started looking again at the pictures and the stories, seeing things I hadn't before, seeing pieces of the puzzle I hadn't before (Like how easily it would be for someone to feed her memories.) It's easy to be blinded by wishful thinking, and selective in what you choose to believe. But when the entire story is considered, the truth is there. I have nothing against AA, I think she was an interesting person, and a nice one I would have liked to have known. But she wasn't Anastasia.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Forum Admin on January 01, 2006, 09:37:02 AM
Caleb
AGRBear has already exhausted YOUR theory ad nauseum. GO BACK AND RE READ EVERYTHING I ALREADY WROTE about Martha Jefferson Hospital and the chain of custody not to mention the genuine, yes genuine ABSURDITY that the sample was intentionally switched (please see the FACTUAL realities such a switch entails which I have posted as responses to Bear a dozen times before)

I am beyond exhausted with the SAME theories being raised over and over, being shown WHY they are not possible, then being told I'm ridiculing others when they want to keep discussing them

I will be blunt. I am on the verge of locking this entire survivors section to be read only UNLESS GENUINE NEW EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THESE THEORIES IS PROVIDED.

CALEB RA ET AL: YOU ARE ALL HEREBY ON NOTICE THAT ANY FURTHER POSTING PUTTING FORTH SWITCHING OR CONTAMINATION OF THE DNA SAMPLES THEORIES UNLESS ACCOMPANIED BY GENUINE FACTUAL SUPPORTING DATA WITH BE SUMMARILY REMOVED WITHOUT NOTICE. NO DISCUSSION.

Your questions have all been answered ad nauseum with the hard cold facts, including interviews by a member whos family worked at MJ Hospital AT THE TIME, including the fact that the sample had the name "Anastasia" and the requests were being made for "Anna" when searching for the sample in the database. Not to mention the fact that DNA testing was not even INVENTED until just a couple of years before the test was done so no one had REASON to switch the sample....much less find a FS relative and cut open his GUT to get the sample....

THIS DOG WILL STOP CHASING ITS TAIL NOW.

THIS IS FAIR. YOU demand factual proof...well so do I. PERIOD.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Sarushka on January 01, 2006, 09:56:54 AM
Quote
By the way Caleb, that picture you posted is NOT the last picture of Anastasia. The last of OTM was taken on the Rus to Ekaterinburg. Your picture was taken in Tobolsk in the girls bedrooms. She wasn't close to 17 yet. Read up!

Holly's right. Here is Anastasia's last known photograph:
Anastasia (center) on the Rus (http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y285/sarahelizabethii/100_2302.jpg)
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Rachael89 on January 01, 2006, 11:00:25 AM
It dosen't suprise me that Caleb labelled that photo as being Anastasia's last, it is widley publicised as being her last photo and she is the main of focus of it and the photo is far better quality than the one taken on the rus.

Rachael
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Louis_Charles on January 01, 2006, 01:25:54 PM
Dear Annie:

Well said, clearly articulated and very thorough.

Regards,

Simon
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: cimbrio on January 01, 2006, 01:35:11 PM
I'm sorry but I can't buy that, that the reuslts were manipulated, I don't see the logic of it all. I can't be that sceptical. Even if Anna Anderson (or any other claimant for that matter) strongly and positevely believed he/she was one of the Romanovs, the facts remains that they were all shot that night. That's that! It's a simple historical fact. I think that if we believe in survivors and fairy tales, it's because we've been watching kids movies like the recent Anastasia, or the other namesake with Ingrid Bergman. Really... just stop dreaming... They were killed... well, Nicholas had been a tyrant, so what? They lived their entire lives in luxury,a nd the people got their own way in the end, but let the story of Anna Anderson remain as such, as a STORY, which is what it is. There was no manipulation...
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: calebGmoney on January 01, 2006, 10:07:58 PM
Quote
By the way Caleb, that picture you posted is NOT the last picture of Anastasia. The last of OTM was taken on the Rus to Ekaterinburg. Your picture was taken in Tobolsk in the girls bedrooms. She wasn't close to 17 yet. Read up!
Well Holly, I owe that false information to the Alexander Palace Web Site.
http://www.alexanderpalace.org/anastasia/myth.html
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: calebGmoney on January 01, 2006, 10:26:23 PM
Quote

More like they whithered up in old age, as most elderly folks' do. The top of her face is the only part that ever resembled Anastasia, she always had different bone structure, mouth, nose, lips, chin and cheekbones.

What was so upper class about AA? Every tape and recording I've ever seen and heard of her she was, to put it nicely, not regal. She was kind of rough and rugged in her manner. She may have acted regal in her younger years, remember, she wanted to be an actress (FS, that is) but as she aged and her mind slipped more, she became more eccentric. She ended up living in filth surrounded by dozens of animals and their mess, rusty cans, never vacuuming the house or cleaning the yard until their place became such and eyesore she and her husband were cited for it. I'm an animal lover too, and I admire her for her love of animals, but the conditions they, and she, lived in were far from 'classy.' Wouldn't a princess rather have had an organized kennel for the pets, and an elegant, stately, clean house? They also were well known to drive around in a ragged old station wagon, the brunt of jokes of teenage boys. She didn't look, sound or seem at all to have any air of 'upperclass,' in fact, quite the opposite.



First, Lili never saw her until she was very old, and AA herself was no spring chicken. It would be very hard to tell, and perhaps Lili's romantic memories and desire for her old life made her see things that weren't there. It is also not inconcievable that she lied. Again, you have accused Olga A. and others of lying, how do you decide who could concievably lie and who wouldn't, only by who you choose to believe? It's interesting that Anna Vyrobova, closest to the family of anyone left alive at the time of the trial, was never consulted. Could it be she would know for sure, and AA and backers didn't want to take the chance? Or, having become a nun, she was not an easy target to label as 'liar' and 'greedy' as they did poor Olga A., Ernie and others? And while you're on conspiracy theories, isn't it ironic Ernie's family were killed in a plane crash just before the trial began? I am not accusing, just saying if you wanted to get extreme, it's easily targeted. You, as all AA supporters do, make so much out of people 'lying for money' when denying her, so how can you prove that those who identified her or supported her weren't lying in hopes of money too? While it turned out not to be true, there were rumors of an enormous Romanov fortune waiting for anyone who could prove they were Nicholas's heir. How can you completely shut out the possibility people conspired to get this stash, using AA as a pawn?


From all I've seen, heard and read, she had many visitors and loved attention. She may have become reclusive later. If there were people she didn't want to see, maybe it was because she knew they'd know it wasn't AN. I read that when she met some, she refused to uncover her face with a hankie! Maybe she just didn't want to meet anyone who would expose her!



Why is it you can imagine an intestine switch and put terrible accusations on family members like Olga, yet you can't imagine people told her things? It really does make perfect sense. I guess you only want to 'imagine' what suits your position, not the whole story.




First off, Lili not only fully recognized her, she said before even meeting Anderson said that the Empress had told her of a fortune kept for the girls in the Bank of England which was not used for the war. So therefore, you would have to be accusing Lili of lying.

As far as the bone structure, it is purely the same as it was when she was young. Just look at photographs. The anthropologists also agree with me.
As far as Olga and Pierre Gilliard, they DID intitially recognize her. Olga and Pierre both made indictions of it by their statements when first seeing her in the hospital. Pierre was spending all his time in Darmstadt, and don't forget that the first mention of ANY money in the Bank of England was by Grand Duke Alexander, the husband of Grand Duchess Xenia, saying that Gleb was attempting to get the money that Xenia was attempting to have. Obviously, Xenia did want this 'money' whether you admit it or not. It's not that I simply 'want' to believe Anastasia survived and was rejected by some money-hungry family members. It's just obvious when looking at the evidence. She knew things of Anastasia's childhood which were not written in books, she looked just like her, had the same bodily marks, and was recognized by most of the people who had known her back in Russia, with the exception of Olga, Pierre, Gibbes, Buxhoevden, and Princess Irene. She plainly knew exactly who she was. I don't understand why because of a DNA test, we are to ignore every single thing before which showed conclusively that she was Anastasia. Anastasia's body has not been found, and I don't believe that the scientists were honest in their results, because of the recent documents which show Franziska Schanzkowska's life from 1909-1920. Not only was she not wounded in the grenade explosion, she NEVER had a child. However, Anastasia obviously did according to the docters who examined her. All this concludes that Anna Anderson was not Franziska Schanzkowska, and it in my opinion, it discredits the findings of the 3 labs which did tests on a tissue sample, a tissue sample, and 3 strands of hair.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: calebGmoney on January 01, 2006, 11:15:19 PM
Oh! I almost forgot. And Annie, the Anna Virbouva question was answered by Tatiana Botkin according to Robert K. Massie's "The Romanovs: The Final Chapter". Here's an excerpt:

"*One witness who had known Grand Duchess Anastasia better than Lili Dehn, Baroness Buxhoevden, Pierre Gilliard, or Sydney Gibbes, and perhaps as well as Grand Duchess Olga or Shura Tegleva, was never asked to testify, by either the claimant's supporters or opponents. This was Alexandra's closest friend, Anna Vyrboava, whole role with respect to the Empress was something between that of a younger sister and an oldest child. ...... Her testimony was never sought in the Anna Anderson debate because she had been a friend and disciple of gregory Rasputin, whose behavior had scandalized Russian before the revolution. "It was our belief," said Tatiana Botkin, "that Madama Vyroubova's involvement... could only hurt Anastasia's casue in the eyes of the Russian emigration, which, for the most part, had profoundly despised Rasputin."
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Annie on January 02, 2006, 07:32:24 AM
Quote
Dear Annie:

Well said, clearly articulated and very thorough.

Regards,

Simon


Thank you :)
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Annie on January 02, 2006, 07:34:20 AM
Quote
Oh! I almost forgot. And Annie, the Anna Virbouva question was answered by Tatiana Botkin according to Robert K. Massie's "The Romanovs: The Final Chapter". Here's an excerpt:

"*One witness who had known Grand Duchess Anastasia better than Lili Dehn, Baroness Buxhoevden, Pierre Gilliard, or Sydney Gibbes, and perhaps as well as Grand Duchess Olga or Shura Tegleva, was never asked to testify, by either the claimant's supporters or opponents. This was Alexandra's closest friend, Anna Vyrboava, whole role with respect to the Empress was something between that of a younger sister and an oldest child. ...... Her testimony was never sought in the Anna Anderson debate because she had been a friend and disciple of gregory Rasputin, whose behavior had scandalized Russian before the revolution. "It was our belief," said Tatiana Botkin, "that Madama Vyroubova's involvement... could only hurt Anastasia's casue in the eyes of the Russian emigration, which, for the most part, had profoundly despised Rasputin."


Oh, so it was Gleb's sister who said that? Interesting. I don't buy it, especially since Lili Dehn was also a 'disciple' of Rasputin. She, along with Anna, can be seen in the pictures of Rasputin with his group of supporters. So much for that excuse!
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Annie on January 02, 2006, 08:04:47 AM
Quote
First off, Lili not only fully recognized her, she said before even meeting Anderson said that the Empress had told her of a fortune kept for the girls in the Bank of England which was not used for the war. So therefore, you would have to be accusing Lili of lying.


Not necessarily lying, but being mistaken, or overcome by her memories of happier times, and a strong desire for it to be AN. Remember that Lili was elderly at the time, and may have had age related memory problems, or she may not have been able to truly judge AA's appearance compared to the young AN she knew since AA was middle aged herself by then. I doubt at that point in both of their lives Lili could have recognized a real AN, much less a fake one like AA.

Accusing her of lying? We can't rule out the possibilty that she was, especially considering what you just mentioned about bank accounts! Perhaps she was thinking if she backed this "Anastasia" there might be something in it for her? You accuse others of lying against her to gain money, so why not consider some could have lied in favor of her for money?

Quote
as the bone structure, it is purely the same as it was when she was young. Just look at photographs. The anthropologists also agree with me.


I am looking at the photographs, that's why I said only the top of the faces match up, the rest are very different.

Quote
as Olga and Pierre Gilliard, they DID intitially recognize her. Olga and Pierre  Pierre both made indictions of it by their statements when first seeing her in the hospital.


You keep saying this, but where is the proof? In both their books, they deny this. Maybe they may have been very hopeful and optimistic when they first entered the room but those hopes were soon dashed.

Quote
Pierre was spending all his time in Darmstadt,


You are accusing the man of being paid off by Ernie? Ernie was heartbroken after losing 2 sisters, 3 nieces and a nephew to the revolution, and wanted the imposters to stop hurting the family any more. Gilliard loved AN and wasn't going to let her memory be insulted by an imposter.

Quote
don't forget that the first mention of ANY money in the Bank of England was by Grand Duke Alexander, the husband of Grand Duchess Xenia, saying that Gleb was attempting to get the money that Xenia was attempting to have. Obviously, Xenia did want this 'money' whether you admit it or not.


Obviously, Gleb and AA did too, whether you admit it or not. If Sandro accused them, perhaps he was correct!

Quote
It's not that I simply 'want' to believe Anastasia survived and was rejected by some money-hungry family members. It's just obvious when looking at the evidence. She knew things of Anastasia's childhood which were not written in books, she looked just like her, had the same bodily marks, and was recognized by most of the people who had known her back in Russia, with the exception of Olga, Pierre, Gibbes, Buxhoevden, and Princess Irene. She plainly knew exactly who she was. I don't understand why because of a DNA test, we are to ignore every single thing before which showed conclusively that she was Anastasia.


All of this is flawed, and nothing was conclusive. Remember, she never won her court case! The 'memories' are the easiest to explain away, SOMEONE TOLD HER! There were survivors who knew the family who got out and lived in Europe. It's that simple to understand. Also, as someone else brought up, if there were 'intimate details no one knew' WHO was there to verify them, since they were all dead, and AV was not asked? See the holes in the whole thing?

Quote
Anastasia's body has not been found, and I don't believe that the scientists were honest in their results, because of the recent documents which show Franziska Schanzkowska's life from 1909-1920.


Where are these 'recent documents?' Are you perhaps confusing this with the alleged new and unverified medical reports of FS in the munitions factory? There is nothing that claims she was killed by Grossman. (Grossman's diary lists the wrong name, and a date in 1921, not 1920!) It was a theory based on circumstantial evidence, but we now know it was a mistake. They even knew it was a mistake decades ago, or why would discussion of FS, and her siblings being brought in, even be a factor if she were so 'dead?' You seem to be writing your own historical fiction novel here.

Quote
Not only was she not wounded in the grenade explosion, she NEVER had a child. However, Anastasia obviously did according to the docters who examined her.


We don't know that, those reports are suspicious and stand unverified by credible, impartial sources. I find it unlikely any records of an obscure person survived the bombings of Berlin. If they existed why were they not found during the 30+ years of the trial? It doesn't make any sense. I can't even find my medical records from a doctor I went to in the 80's are we to assume these are still around after 90 years, and 2 wars? I must scoff at this suggestion until IF and when any real proof emerges, but I seriously doubt it will.

How do you know FS didn't have a child? In those days, and out of wedlock baby was a disgrace. Girls in trouble hid their pregnancies all along. FS could have had the baby and given it up to an orphanage, or it could have been stillborn and dumped (even today girls throw their babies in trash cans!) or she could have had a miscarriage or even an abortion that still left the umbilical cord scar on the uterus. (this is how they determine the number of pregnancies a woman has had, and it showed AA had one. My Grandmother had 4 children and one miscarriage at 4 months, and that lost baby showed up as a scar in her exams, too. So you see FS/AA could have lost a baby that early and it would be detected.) We do NOT know FS 'never' had a child. It is very likely she hid her 'shameful' illegitimate pregnancy from those she knew, this was not uncommon in those times.

Quote
All this concludes that Anna Anderson was not Franziska Schanzkowska, and it in my opinion, it discredits the findings of the 3 labs which did tests on a tissue sample, a tissue sample, and 3 strands of hair.


Everything you posted above proves nothing, but the DNA does.  The 'evidence' was always conflicting, a bunch of he said/she said on both sides, but the DNA answered our questions about what was true and what wasn't. We know now that AA was FS, and everything on the other side was wrong. It's over.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: AGRBear on January 02, 2006, 04:47:03 PM
Quote
Caleb
AGRBear has already exhausted YOUR theory ad nauseum. GO BACK AND RE READ EVERYTHING I ALREADY WROTE about Martha Jefferson Hospital and the chain of custody not to mention the genuine, yes genuine ABSURDITY that the sample was intentionally switched (please see the FACTUAL realities such a switch entails which I have posted as responses to Bear a dozen times before)

I am beyond exhausted with the SAME theories being raised over and over, being shown WHY they are not possible, then being told I'm ridiculing others when they want to keep discussing them

I will be blunt. I am on the verge of locking this entire survivors section to be read only UNLESS GENUINE NEW EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THESE THEORIES IS PROVIDED.

CALEB RA ET AL: YOU ARE ALL HEREBY ON NOTICE THAT ANY FURTHER POSTING PUTTING FORTH SWITCHING OR CONTAMINATION OF THE DNA SAMPLES THEORIES UNLESS ACCOMPANIED BY GENUINE FACTUAL SUPPORTING DATA WITH BE SUMMARILY REMOVED WITHOUT NOTICE. NO DISCUSSION.

Your questions have all been answered ad nauseum with the hard cold facts, including interviews by a member whos family worked at MJ Hospital AT THE TIME, including the fact that the sample had the name "Anastasia" and the requests were being made for "Anna" when searching for the sample in the database. Not to mention the fact that DNA testing was not even INVENTED until just a couple of years before the test was done so no one had REASON to switch the sample....much less find a FS relative and cut open his GUT to get the sample....

THIS DOG WILL STOP CHASING ITS TAIL NOW.

THIS IS FAIR. YOU demand factual proof...well so do I. PERIOD.


Sorry calebGmoney about having asked so many questions about "contamination" and "switching" before you joined us.

I thought I'd remind everyone that the newbies can not have read my theories on "switching" which caused nausatium for some posters because FA eliminated the entire thread.

There is a thread about "contamination" which still exists.

http://hydrogen.pallasweb.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=anastasia;action=display;num=1123024872;start=0#0

AGRBear
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: AGRBear on January 02, 2006, 05:18:00 PM
Quote

....[in part]...

All of this is flawed, and nothing was conclusive. Remember, she never won her court case!
.


AA did not win nor did she lose her case.  The last responce from the German Court of Appeals said she could submit a new appeal,  which means  she had every right to continue to prove she was GD Anastasia.

Not being familiar with present day law in Germany,  I'm not sure if someone, now,   could go into the German Courts and make an appeal for her case and provide information which may prove she was whom she claimed.

AGRBear



Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: calebGmoney on January 02, 2006, 06:26:39 PM
Quote

Oh, so it was Gleb's sister who said that? Interesting. I don't buy it, especially since Lili Dehn was also a 'disciple' of Rasputin. She, along with Anna, can be seen in the pictures of Rasputin with his group of supporters. So much for that excuse!

But I don't think the Russian people thought of Lili as a disciple. I don't know why Tatiana would make this up. It sounds like a perfectly good excuse in my opinion.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Annie on January 02, 2006, 08:32:53 PM
Quote
But I don't think the Russian people thought of Lili as a disciple. I don't know why Tatiana would make this up. It sounds like a perfectly good excuse in my opinion.


Anything sounds good to you if you want to hear it. Lili was well publicized to be a disciple of Rasputin, including this picture, where she is right across the table with the plumed hat.

http://www.alexanderpalace.org/thompson/images/19monk.jpg
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Annie on January 02, 2006, 08:44:07 PM
Quote
The DNA tests were also 'he say, she say'. I mean, none of us were there or saw what happened. And Gilliard did eventually admit to recognizing the foot deformity according to Kurth's book after previously stating it was nothing like Anastasia's, which certainly discredits other things he said.


It's a common foot problem, she's not the only person who has it!


Quote
As far as Olga, Pierre, and Alexandra Tegleva all initially recognizing Anastasia with remarks such as, "This is Anastasia's body!" This all comes from eye witness accounts. Ambassador Zahle, Harriet Rathlef and others. Of course you will probably think it is made up, but then if we eliminate every eye witness, then almost all of the history we know is false. The initial recognition is what convinces me they were after money.


They could also get money by supporting her, and having her win her claim! If they said it looked like her body at first, they may have been hopeful, or emotional, or wishful thinking, but the more they looked the more they realized it wasn't really her. This shows me they wanted it to be her, badly, and gave her every chance, but it just wasn't true. Once a friend of mine lost her dog, and I thought I saw some kids on the next street playing with him. I told her to go check it out, and she went over there, saw the dog, said it was hers, and tried to take it from the kids, who were getting upset and claiming it was theirs. She insisted he was her dog, and put him in her car. It was then she saw differences and realized  she had been wrong, and so hoping it was her dog that she made a mistake. It could be something like that.

And as for money, remember that Olga was the black sheep of the family, with a 'lowly' marriage, and did not get the money and favors others got. She lived a meager life on a dirt farm and died in a small apt. overtop a barber shop. She sure had a lot of money, huh? And Anna V., having become a nun, could not take money, and wasn't a good target to call a 'liar' or 'lying for  money' which is the excuse her supporters, and you, love to use. This is the REAL reason she wasn't asked, the Rasputin connection was just a cover, since Lili was a Rasputin pal as well!

Quote
Ernst never saw Anna Anderson and before the whole scandal about her claiming she had seen him in 1916, he purely denied that a member of the family could have escaped. this is when not much of the massacre was known. I refuse to believe Lili, Gleb, Tatiana, Cecile, Andrew, Xenia Leeds, and so many others would want to raise up a fraud,


You refuse because that's the way you want to see it, not the way it really is.

Quote
nor do I think Anna would miraculously have marks in the same places as Anastasia.


Did she?! One mole, a finger incident that never happened, what else? Where was the famous forehead scar that caused AN to wear bangs all her life? This is not evidence at all!

Quote
We don't know of any time Franziska had a child. She was never known to be pregnant any time from 1909-1920,


Sigh. I have already explained in great detail that just because there is no official record of a child doesn't mean she didn't have one, or a miscarriage. Again, unwed pregnancies were taboo and kept secret in those days, it's very likely she'd have told no one.

Quote
and Doris Wingender told the Berlin paper back in 1927 that Franziska dissappeared in march, 1920. This is contradicting the DNA tests.


How??!!


Quote
Also, the only place these Russian emigres which 'fed' Anna information appear are in the movies. There is no evidence of these people in real life.


It's not the kind of thing people go around blabbing about, now, is it? If people had secretly done this and been part of an attempt to defraud, there wouldn't be a record of it, would there? It's the kind of thing you DON'T tell, the kind of secret you take to your grave, and apparently many people did just that.


Quote
EDIT: Also, the final judgement was in 1970. In 1977, when Dr. Moritz Furtmayr identified Anna as Anastasia, the court was going to allow the case to be reopened. But Anastasia herself did not wish it to be. She was sick of the whole thing.


Very suspicious.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: calebGmoney on January 02, 2006, 10:08:32 PM
Quote

It's a common foot problem, she's not the only person who has it!



They could also get money by supporting her, and having her win her claim! If they said it looked like her body at first, they may have been hopeful, or emotional, or wishful thinking, but the more they looked the more they realized it wasn't really her. This shows me they wanted it to be her, badly, and gave her every chance, but it just wasn't true. Once a friend of mine lost her dog, and I thought I saw some kids on the next street playing with him. I told her to go check it out, and she went over there, saw the dog, said it was hers, and tried to take it from the kids, who were getting upset and claiming it was theirs. She insisted he was her dog, and put him in her car. It was then she saw differences and realized  she had been wrong, and so hoping it was her dog that she made a mistake. It could be something like that.

And as for money, remember that Olga was the black sheep of the family, with a 'lowly' marriage, and did not get the money and favors others got. She lived a meager life on a dirt farm and died in a small apt. overtop a barber shop. She sure had a lot of money, huh? And Anna V., having become a nun, could not take money, and wasn't a good target to call a 'liar' or 'lying for  money' which is the excuse her supporters, and you, love to use. This is the REAL reason she wasn't asked, the Rasputin connection was just a cover, since Lili was a Rasputin pal as well!


You refuse because that's the way you want to see it, not the way it really is.


Did she?! One mole, a finger incident that never happened, what else? Where was the famous forehead scar that caused AN to wear bangs all her life? This is not evidence at all!


Sigh. I have already explained in great detail that just because there is no official record of a child doesn't mean she didn't have one, or a miscarriage. Again, unwed pregnancies were taboo and kept secret in those days, it's very likely she'd have told no one.


How??!!


 

It's not the kind of thing people go around blabbing about, now, is it? If people had secretly done this and been part of an attempt to defraud, there wouldn't be a record of it, would there? It's the kind of thing you DON'T tell, the kind of secret you take to your grave, and apparently many people did just that.



Very suspicious.

Of course it was common, but Shura also commented on the scar on the finger on her left hand. And as far as them being hopeful, then why didn't they hope every other claimant was their beloved? Those scars and the caterized mole were claimed to have happened by a captain (the mole) and the carriage door by Shura (although Pierre later claimed it was Marie this happened to). This is not coincidence. And as far as Franziska not telling anyone about being pregnant, um... I'm pretty sure someone would notice when she's as big as a balloon. The docter confirmed she gave birth to a child. No miscarriage. As far as the Lili Dehn thing, you said yourself that Lili Dehn was old when she came to see Anastasia. Therefore, Tatiana was no longer involved in the case much at this time. And by the 60's, Anna Vyrbouva was dead. And as far as Anna being an intentional fraud, Anna clearly stated many times, "Please take me to my grandmother!" and during the trials wanted fingerprints to prove her identity. This is not the work of a fraud.  
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: calebGmoney on January 02, 2006, 10:12:11 PM
Quote

 Where was the famous forehead scar that caused AN to wear bangs all her life?

It was on her forehead obviously. It was in Dr. Rudnev's report. I'm sure you will deny it existed.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Annie on January 02, 2006, 10:27:14 PM
Quote
Of course it was common, but Shura also commented on the scar on the finger on her left hand. And as far as them being hopeful, then why didn't they hope every other claimant was their beloved? Those scars and the caterized mole were claimed to have happened by a captain (the mole) and the carriage door by Shura (although Pierre later claimed it was Marie this happened to). This is not coincidence.


Olga said it was Marie, not Anastasia, but of course you think she's a liar too. The scars on AA most likely came from the grenade explosion. No one can tell me she was standing next to a man who was blown to bits and was not hurt! It was partially this experience that led to her mental instability.



Quote
And as far as Franziska not telling anyone about being pregnant, um... I'm pretty sure someone would notice when she's as big as a balloon.


Even today, skinny teenage girls successfully hide their pregnancies from their parents. You hear about it frequently on the news when a girl abandons the baby, everyone claims they never knew.


Quote
The docter confirmed she gave birth to a child. No miscarriage.


The doctor said that AA had been pregnant. There is no record of FS, but again if it were secret there wouldn't have been. And YES you DO show the same scar in an exam for a miscarriage as early as four months as you do for a full term baby. This happened to my own grandmother, so I know. The doctor told her she'd had 5 children, but one was only a miscarriage!

Quote
As far as the Lili Dehn thing, you said yourself that Lili Dehn was old when she came to see Anastasia.


Yes she was old, and so was AA, so there is a big chance she couldn't really recognize her, or was senile, or only wishing. I don't think by that time she could have recognized the real AN either, after all those years.



Quote
Therefore, Tatiana was no longer involved in the case much at this time.


What is this about Tatiana? You mean Tatiana Romanov, or Botkin, and if Botkin, so you mean she had nothing to do with the  meeting? Who did?


Quote
And by the 60's, Anna Vyrbouva was dead.


Check your facts. Anna V. lived until 1964, she had plenty of time to meet AA if anyone tried to contact her. They didn't want her, because she was likely to not accept her, and she'd be hard to discount as a liar, the excuse they always use.

Quote
And as far as Anna being an intentional fraud, Anna clearly stated many times, "Please take me to my grandmother!" and during the trials wanted fingerprints to prove her identity. This is not the work of a fraud.  [/color]


I don't think she was an intentional fraud, I think she was a disturbed woman desperate to ditch her true identity (FS) and take on a new one, and I think in time she really came to believe her own game because she was mentally ill. I do think she was probably used by people trying to get money.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Annie on January 02, 2006, 10:29:14 PM
Quote
It was on her forehead obviously. It was in Dr. Rudnev's report. I'm sure you will deny it existed.


If it's so obvious why can't we see it in any photos?
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: calebGmoney on January 03, 2006, 02:24:36 PM
Quote

Olga said it was Marie, not Anastasia, but of course you think she's a liar too. The scars on AA most likely came from the grenade explosion. No one can tell me she was standing next to a man who was blown to bits and was not hurt! It was partially this experience that led to her mental instability.



 

Even today, skinny teenage girls successfully hide their pregnancies from their parents. You hear about it frequently on the news when a girl abandons the baby, everyone claims they never knew.



The doctor said that AA had been pregnant. There is no record of FS, but again if it were secret there wouldn't have been. And YES you DO show the same scar in an exam for a miscarriage as early as four months as you do for a full term baby. This happened to my own grandmother, so I know. The doctor told her she'd had 5 children, but one was only a miscarriage!


Yes she was old, and so was AA, so there is a big chance she couldn't really recognize her, or was senile, or only wishing. I don't think by that time she could have recognized the real AN either, after all those years.




What is this about Tatiana? You mean Tatiana Romanov, or Botkin, and if Botkin, so you mean she had nothing to do with the  meeting? Who did?



Check your facts. Anna V. lived until 1964, she had plenty of time to meet AA if anyone tried to contact her. They didn't want her, because she was likely to not accept her, and she'd be hard to discount as a liar, the excuse they always use.


I don't think she was an intentional fraud, I think she was a disturbed woman desperate to ditch her true identity (FS) and take on a new one, and I think in time she really came to believe her own game because she was mentally ill. I do think she was probably used by people trying to get money.

When did Olga state this? Where did you read this? A grenade explosion would not inflict a triangular shaped scar on her foot nor would it put scars in identical places of the person she claimed to be. I really think someone would have known if Franziska was pregnant. It's not that easy to hide. As far as Lili, it does not matter how much time has passed, you don't foget someone you know and love. You have no reason not to believe what Tatiana Botkin said, because she would not support a fraud. And if you don't think Anna was an intentional fraud, then she would not let people feed her exclusive info. I don't believe Anna was just some sad woman. And the docters who observed her plainly stated that Anna was NOT crazy or unstable as Franziska was.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: calebGmoney on January 03, 2006, 02:26:45 PM
Quote

If it's so obvious why can't we see it in any photos?

Do you honestly think you would see a small faint scar in a black and white photo? This scar was documented by Harriet Rathlef and Dr. Serge Rudnev who observed her.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Louis_Charles on January 03, 2006, 04:21:01 PM
Quote
When did Olga state this? Where did you read this? A grenade explosion would not inflict a triangular shaped scar on her foot nor would it put scars in identical places of the person she claimed to be. I really think someone would have known if Franziska was pregnant. It's not that easy to hide. As far as Lili, it does not matter how much time has passed, you don't foget someone you know and love. You have no reason not to believe what Tatiana Botkin said, because she would not support a fraud. And if you don't think Anna was an intentional fraud, then she would not let people feed her exclusive info. I don't believe Anna was just some sad woman. And the docters who observed her plainly stated that Anna was NOT crazy or unstable as Franziska was.



Do you extend this reasoning to Olga Alexandrovna and Pierre Gilliard?

Olga spoke of the differences between Andersen and her niece in a series of interviews she gave to her biographer, Ian Vorres, in 1959. His book is called --- somewhat tellingly - The Last Grand Duchess.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Annie on January 03, 2006, 05:15:24 PM
Quote
When did Olga state this? Where did you read this?


It is in her book, the one Louis just posted about. I have also seen it quoted here many times.

Quote
A grenade explosion would not inflict a triangular shaped scar on her foot nor would it put scars in identical places of the person she claimed to be.


You still haven't proven what 'identical' scars she had! We've also been through that foot stab, could have been a lot of things. As somebody else posted in they bayonet thread, the Bolsheviks were not an organized army with the same issued weapons, so that doesn't even prove anything. Also, there is no record of anyone being stabbed in the foot, the killers were more interested in hearts and heads!


Quote
I really think someone would have known if Franziska was pregnant. It's not that easy to hide.


You 'think?' I 'know' that people do it all the time, even skinny teenage girls who hide it from their parents full term! Also consider she may likely have lost the baby or had an abortion! You can't say it didn't happen!


Quote
As far as Lili, it does not matter how much time has passed, you don't foget someone you know and love.


Oh please! Could a person tell, at age 80, a person who was 60 but they hadn't seen or met since they were 15 and 35? Can't you imagine how much they'd have changed, and how memories have faded?

Quote
Do have no reason not to believe what Tatiana Botkin said, because she would not support a fraud.


This is just plain naive, immature, and ridiculous! How do you know what she would or wouldn't support? I can't even tell you for certain who my own brother would or wouldn't support! You say I have no reason not to believe it, well, I can say you have no reason to doubt Ernie of Hesse or Olga or Gilliard, yet you do! You have a set of people you 'should' and 'should not' believe, based on if they agree with you? That is just plain silly.

Quote
you don't think Anna was an intentional fraud, then she would not let people feed her exclusive info. I don't believe Anna was just some sad woman. And the docters who observed her plainly stated that Anna was NOT crazy or unstable as Franziska was.


It is plain to see that she was unstable, and her later life and living conditions proved this too. No matter how happened, somebody DID give her info, because she was not Anastasia! And if she were legit, wouldn't she have known more than she did? All she could get was some half baked memories from those who had been around the IF. And how dare you accuse those who denied her of wanting money, when accusations of greed and gold digging could much more easily be pinned on someone seeking a great phantom fortune, and those supporting her for their share of the payoff!

Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: calebGmoney on January 03, 2006, 05:32:37 PM
Quote


Do you extend this reasoning to Olga Alexandrovna and Pierre Gilliard?

Olga spoke of the differences between Andersen and her niece in a series of interviews she gave to her biographer, Ian Vorres, in 1959. His book is called --- somewhat tellingly - The Last Grand Duchess.
As I said before, Olga and Pierre CLEARLY showed signs of recognizing Anastasia.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Louis_Charles on January 03, 2006, 05:52:51 PM
It is not true that Olga and Pierre "recognized" Anna Andersen as Anastasia. They did not bitterly attack her, which may have more to do with Olga's breeding, at any rate, or even a willingness to keep an open mind about her possible identity as her niece.

There is nothing in Olga's subsequent life to demonstrate that money was enough motivation for her to do an immoral thing, i.e. recognize Andersen as Anastasia and then turn her back on her. I have made this argument several times. You should be prepared to admit that Olga did not recognize Andersen as her niece, even as those of us who believe that Andersen was Schanzkowska must admit that Lili Dehn did recognize her as Anastasia. If you want to push this, it becomes necessary to examine things like (1) the characters of the two women (2) their relative closeness to the Tsar's daughter (3) the length of time between their last experiences with Anastasia and their first encounters with Andersen, etc. etc.

I wouldn't take potshots at Olga without knowing something of her character; I recommend Vorres' book as a start. I think one might conclude that she was mistaken in her failure to recognize Andersen, but not that she suppressed a recognition for mercenary reasons.

Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: calebGmoney on January 03, 2006, 06:04:28 PM
Quote
It is not true that Olga and Pierre "recognized" Anna Andersen as Anastasia. They did not bitterly attack her, which may have more to do with Olga's breeding, at any rate, or even a willingness to keep an open mind about her possible identity as her niece.

There is nothing in Olga's subsequent life to demonstrate that money was enough motivation for her to do an immoral thing, i.e. recognize Andersen as Anastasia and then turn her back on her. I have made this argument several times. You should be prepared to admit that Olga did not recognize Andersen as her niece, even as those of us who believe that Andersen was Schanzkowska must admit that Lili Dehn did recognize her as Anastasia. If you want to push this, it becomes necessary to examine things like (1) the characters of the two women (2) their relative closeness to the Tsar's daughter (3) the length of time between their last experiences with Anastasia and their first encounters with Andersen, etc. etc.

I wouldn't take potshots at Olga without knowing something of her character; I recommend Vorres' book as a start. I think one might conclude that she was mistaken in her failure to recognize Andersen, but not that she suppressed a recognition for mercenary reasons.


Olga may appear to be a saint to many, but that dosen't change the fact that she told Rathlef, "Shura and our malynka are glad to have found one another." That's recognition to me.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Louis_Charles on January 03, 2006, 06:24:46 PM
Rathlef quotes a private conversation with Olga for that remark, to which there were no other witnesses. At no point when there were witnesses did Olga refer to Andersen as her niece or Anastasia, only as Malenkaya, or "the little one", a Russian endearment to which Anastasia did not have exclusive copywright.  In Kurth's description of the final day Olga spent with Andersen, it was clear -- to Rathlef --- that a recognition was not going to be immediately forthcoming, that something had gone wrong.

I am sorry, but this dog won't hunt. It is exactly for these reasons that one reaches for the DNA evidence. Could Olga have been mistaken? Certainly. Could Lili Dehn? Certainly. Was one of them? According to the DNA evidence, apparently so.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: calebGmoney on January 03, 2006, 06:52:15 PM
Quote
Rathlef quotes a private conversation with Olga for that remark, to which there were no other witnesses. At no point when there were witnesses did Olga refer to Andersen as her niece or Anastasia, only as Malenkaya, or "the little one", a Russian endearment to which Anastasia did not have exclusive copywright.  In Kurth's description of the final day Olga spent with Andersen, it was clear -- to Rathlef --- that a recognition was not going to be immediately forthcoming, that something had gone wrong.

I am sorry, but this dog won't hunt. It is exactly for these reasons that one reaches for the DNA evidence. Could Olga have been mistaken? Certainly. Could Lili Dehn? Certainly. Was one of them? According to the DNA evidence, apparently so.

I believe Harriet Rathlef. She herself was very convinced of Anastasia's identity and if she says that Olga identified her as her niece, I have no reason to doubt it. I can doubt the DNA 'evidence' because it's is purely not evidence when you take into consideration that the intestinal tissue's profile did not match Anna's own blood sample taken in 1951.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Annie on January 03, 2006, 07:25:16 PM
Quote
I believe Harriet Rathlef.


You   believe exactly who and what you want to believe if they suit what you want to hear. Anyone who says the 'right' thing to you is perfect and beyond any error. If they disagree, they are automatically dirty greedy liars. You  make no attempt to even be objective or realistic.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: catt.sydney on January 03, 2006, 07:36:00 PM
Caleb
So you will accept the word of someone from a mental asylum as gospel truth and you have no difficulty in suggesting that the Mdna results were manipulated in some sort of gigantic conspiracy?  After all - it would take a lot to manipulate FOUR [4] labs, ney?

Once again, Caleb I will ask you - are you familiar with 'Clever Hans'? This is not a trick. I am just wondering if you are aware of this story.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: RealAnastasia on January 03, 2006, 07:44:27 PM
Quote
I believe Harriet Rathlef. She herself was very convinced of Anastasia's identity and if she says that Olga identified her as her niece, I have no reason to doubt it. I can doubt the DNA 'evidence' because it's is purely not evidence when you take into consideration that the intestinal tissue's profile did not match Anna's own blood sample taken in 1951.



Well...We may also remember that Harriet Von Rathlef send to Olga Alexandrovna, the book she wrote about Anna Anderson. She wanted to know her opinion and to know if she would find accurate how Harriet depicted Olga's and "malenkaya's" meeting in the catholic St. Mary Hospital. Olga Alexandrovna said that events had happened exactly as Harriet wrote them.

Von Rathleff had the GD letter as proof to shown. And the fact is that she never demanded Harriet and she never went to a trial with her for the Latvian writer have stated false facts.

As for Gilliard: he also reccognized Anastasia when she saw Anna Anderson. He referred to her saying "Her Imperial Highness".

And Shura...Who may ever doubt that she recognized Anastasia and she couldn't even said it publicly? She left the hospital crying desperately. She was never consulted in the matter, and never spoke in public about Anna Anderson. I know that for her, the whole affair must have been her death, for she really loved Anastasia.

Olga, of course, loved VERY MUCH her niece, and my opinion is that she was not allowed to recognize Anastasia in Anna Anderson again. I know that she wasn't a bad woman, and that she suffered a lot. I would never liked change my life by hers.

RealAnastasia.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Merrique on January 03, 2006, 07:47:49 PM
Quote

You   believe exactly who and what you want to believe if they suit what you want to hear. Anyone who says the 'right' thing to you is perfect and beyond any error. If they disagree, they are automatically dirty greedy liars. You  make no attempt to even be objective or realistic.


You might as well give up the ghost Annie. No matter what you, me, Simon, Helen, FA or anyone else has to say we aren't going to get anyone to believe the cold hard facts of this case.The DNA has proven beyong doubt that AA wasn't Anastasia Nikolaevna, eventhough the theories of switched intestines and the like still run wild. It's a waste of my typing fingers trying to explain this over and over again.

Some people are happier living in fantasy land than in the real world.If believing AA was AN makes then happy and comfortable let them have at it. I think it is a total and complete waste of time to keep beating this dead horse.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: calebGmoney on January 03, 2006, 08:01:21 PM
Quote

You   believe exactly who and what you want to believe if they suit what you want to hear. Anyone who says the 'right' thing to you is perfect and beyond any error. If they disagree, they are automatically dirty greedy liars. You  make no attempt to even be objective or realistic.
No. I just never noticed any flaw any Harriet's conviction, as you can obviously see in Olga and Pierre.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Louis_Charles on January 03, 2006, 09:24:37 PM

I believe Harriet Rathlef. She herself was very convinced of Anastasia's identity and if she says that Olga identified her as her niece, I have no reason to doubt it. I can doubt the DNA 'evidence' because it's is purely not evidence when you take into consideration that the intestinal tissue's profile did not match Anna's own blood sample taken in 1951.[/quote]


I'm sorry, but you are not responding to my post, merely re-asserting your conviction that Harriet Rathlef was correct in her belief that Anna Andersen was Anastasia. Did I suggest she didn't actually believe that Andersen was the Grand Duchess? No.

What I said was that Olga never referred to the patient as her niece or by name during the visit. The source for this is Rathlef's own account. She called her "Malenkaya", or "little one". Since by all accounts Andersen was in terrible shape, pathetic and grossly underweight, this was understandable.

And RA, I am sorry, but the fact that she didn't contest the book might have more to do with the distaste with which she regarded the entire matter. Olga was emphatic about her belief that Andersen wasn't Anastasia.

Simon



Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Forum Admin on January 04, 2006, 08:44:33 AM
Allow me to pull over this thread directly:
http://hydrogen.pallasweb.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=anastasia;action=display;num=1101302518;start=13#13

where you will see the original copy of the following letter written BY Olga, specifically denying in writing AA being AN
:
February, 15th 1928, Hvidore  
 
Dear Miss B***,  
 
Thank you for your nice letter.  
 
Indeed, you understand like us the absurdity of this story! More and more, I see that this story is all about blackmail and money. Let’s say I’m mistaken.  
 
But how can you believe that her maid, Ms Gilliard, who knows her since she was 6 weeks (and Mr Gilliard, who was as well with the beloved family until the moment they were separated in June 1918 could be mistaken?)  
It’s ridiculous as well to say that the grand mother and I don’t want to have her close to us.  
 
What a shame to talk like that.  
 
I say openly that my cousin André must have some vile motives to side against us…  
Uncle from Hesse is also serene with the fact that the person is not our niece. He has proofs, as you may have seen or read in “L’Illustration” where the photos of the ears were, now it’s a known fact that the ears never change. (small snip)We send you our best wishes.  
 
Greetings from Mother, Xenia, Emilia Jr, Cecilia and Gustav.  
 
I kiss you heartily, dear Miss B****!  
 
Olga"
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Tsarina_Liz on January 04, 2006, 11:04:56 AM
Quote
I can doubt the DNA 'evidence' because it's is purely not evidence when you take into consideration that the intestinal tissue's profile did not match Anna's own blood sample taken in 1951.[/color]


Ah, and here's the rub.  You think the intestines are the trouble point, but it is really the blood smear on the plate!   There is no way to prove that the slide actually came from AA, it was shoddily kept in a medical office (i.e. not kept in a contaminate free area or labeled and properly recorded after it was drawn) and the smear itself was not protected which means anyone who handled it could have touched the blood thereby contaminating it.  Furthermore, the slide was created in 1951 over forty years before it was tested any matter on the slide would have been corrupted.

Finally, the blood slide did not match with the other two sources of DNA (the hair and the intestine sample which matched each other).  The odds of the blood slide actually being AAs and the other two sources being frauds  are against the blood slide.  It is improbable and completely unscientific.  Simply put, the blood slide would never stand up in court but the hair and the intestine would.  

And of course, you then have to factor in that the DNA from the intestine (and maybe the hair, I am not sure on that one) was a match with FSs DNA.  While it was not perfect, it was better than the no match with ANs DNA.  

You cannot explain certain things away.  DNA is powerful and must be taken into consideration.  Desperate people searching for their lost loved one supposed to have tragically died are prone to mistake and saddened misidentification.  They want to see what is not there.  DNA cannot be changed, cannot be effected by emotion.  
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Annie on January 04, 2006, 03:59:22 PM
Quote
Allow me to pull over this thread directly:
http://hydrogen.pallasweb.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=anastasia;action=display;num=1101302518;start=13#13


Thanks, I've been looking for this and hoping somebody would post it!

Quote
I say openly that my cousin André must have some vile motives to side against us…(from Olga A's Letter)


Andre' was a brother of Kyril, and it is no secret there was no love lost between the Vladmirvichi and the Tsar and his immediate family. I doubt Andre' knew Anastasia well enough to comment, but considering his connections, and his brother having declared himself Tsar, it seems at least a little possible he was involved in something against the remaining direct family of Nicholas.

And to AA believers, consider this: since Andre's brother  Kyril had declared himself Tsar in exile, why would he be anxious to accept or support a real Anastasia, who might try to take the throne and inheritance and an heir of the last Tsar? This makes me agree with Olga, he may have had a vile motive. It also tells me he didn't really think AA was AN!


 
Quote
Uncle from Hesse is also serene with the fact that the person is not our niece.


She and Ernie were both in the same boat,  they both had lost 2 siblings and nieces and nephews they loved and were close to in the revolution, and while deeply hurt and grief stricken, both have been so unfairly villainized by AA supporters.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: calebGmoney on January 04, 2006, 06:00:48 PM
Quote

Ah, and here's the rub.  You think the intestines are the trouble point, but it is really the blood smear on the plate!   There is no way to prove that the slide actually came from AA, it was shoddily kept in a medical office (i.e. not kept in a contaminate free area or labeled and properly recorded after it was drawn) and the smear itself was not protected which means anyone who handled it could have touched the blood thereby contaminating it.  Furthermore, the slide was created in 1951 over forty years before it was tested any matter on the slide would have been corrupted.

Finally, the blood slide did not match with the other two sources of DNA (the hair and the intestine sample which matched each other).  The odds of the blood slide actually being AAs and the other two sources being frauds  are against the blood slide.  It is improbable and completely unscientific.  Simply put, the blood slide would never stand up in court but the hair and the intestine would.  

And of course, you then have to factor in that the DNA from the intestine (and maybe the hair, I am not sure on that one) was a match with FSs DNA.  While it was not perfect, it was better than the no match with ANs DNA.  

You cannot explain certain things away.  DNA is powerful and must be taken into consideration.  Desperate people searching for their lost loved one supposed to have tragically died are prone to mistake and saddened misidentification.  They want to see what is not there.  DNA cannot be changed, cannot be effected by emotion.  

You are misinformed, because according to D. Stefan Sandkueler, who took the blood sample in 1951, the blood sample remained under his lock and key alone (unlike the Charlottesville tissue). No one else had handled it. "There was no subject to interference or contamination by others or other agents." Therefore, this was Anna Anderson's blood. It's far more easy to trust this than the Charlottesville tissue or a mat of hair that the origins of are unknown. I'm sorry, but when the tissue does not match blood that was not contaminated and kept under one person's control, it throws it's authenticity out of the window. I'm sure you'll argue with this but maybe you should actually give it some thought.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: calebGmoney on January 04, 2006, 06:04:50 PM
Quote

Thanks, I've been looking for this and hoping somebody would post it!


Andre' was a brother of Kyril, and it is no secret there was no love lost between the Vladmirvichi and the Tsar and his immediate family. I doubt Andre' knew Anastasia well enough to comment, but considering his connections, and his brother having declared himself Tsar, it seems at least a little possible he was involved in something against the remaining direct family of Nicholas.

And to AA believers, consider this: since Andre's brother  Kyril had declared himself Tsar in exile, why would he be anxious to accept or support a real Anastasia, who might try to take the throne and inheritance and an heir of the last Tsar? This makes me agree with Olga, he may have had a vile motive. It also tells me he didn't really think AA was AN!
 

 

She and Ernie were both in the same boat,  they both had lost 2 siblings and nieces and nephews they loved and were close to in the revolution, and while deeply hurt and grief stricken, both have been so unfairly villainized by AA supporters.

Ernie never even saw Anna, so no he is not in the same boat. And Shura never made a public announcement of what she believed. She stayed away, despite what Olga says. "This is Anastasia's body!" The DNA actually works against the Franziska S. myth, because the blood is more easily trusted when you consider it was kept under ONE PERSON's lock and key.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: AGRBear on January 04, 2006, 06:07:36 PM
See the following "locked down" thread which talks about the glass side and AA's blood:

http://hydrogen.pallasweb.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=anastasia;action=display;num=1116442336;start=0#0

AGRBear
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Louis_Charles on January 04, 2006, 06:27:10 PM
A salient point in Ginther's response on that thread to the slide blood sample:

Quote
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: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: calebGmoney on January 04, 2006, 06:47:09 PM
Quote
A salient point in Ginther's response on that thread to the slide blood sample:


He did not consult with Dr. Sandkueler, who kept the blood slide under his possession alone. According to him, it was carefully preserved under lock and key under his access alone. Therefore, it would produce sufficient results. Until more work is done on the blood slide, we cannot know the identity of Anna Anderson, but we do know it was not a match with Schanzkowska.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: catt.sydney on January 04, 2006, 07:17:57 PM
Caleb
As you still have not responded to my question -might I suggest that you ask one of your High School Science  teachers about "Clever Hans"?
You might be surprised at what you learn...
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Helen_Azar on January 04, 2006, 09:13:21 PM
             The Story of Clever Hans...

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v225/helenazar/mr-ed.jpg)

Clever Hans phenomenon - a form of involuntary and unconscious cuing.

The term refers to a horse (Kluge Hans, referred to in the literature as "Clever Hans") who responded to questions requiring mathematical calculations by tapping his hoof. If asked by his master, William Von Osten, what is the sum of 3 plus 2, the horse would tap his hoof five times. It appeared the animal was responding to human language and was capable of grasping mathematical concepts. It was 1891 when Von Osten began showing Hans to the public. (Hans could also tell time and name people,* but we will restrict our discussion of his amazing abilities to his mathematical skills.) It was eventually discovered (in 1904) by Oskar Pfungst that the horse was responding to subtle physical cues (ideomotor reaction) or as Ray Hyman puts it "Hans was responding to a simple, involuntary postural adjustment by the questioner, which was his cue to start tapping, and an unconscious, almost imperceptible head movement, which was his cue to stop" (Hyman 1989: 425). Yet, more than a dozen scientists observed Hans and were convinced there was no signaling or trickery (Randi 1995: 49). They were impressed that Hans performed almost as well without Von Osten as with him (Schick and Vaughn 1988: 116). But the scientists were wrong.

The horse was simply a channel through which the information the questioner unwittingly put into the situation was fed back to the questioner. The fallacy involved treating the horse as the source of the message rather than as a channel through which the questioner's own message is reflected back (Hyman 1989: 425).

Pfungst noted that when the correct answer was not known to anyone present, Clever Hans didn't know it either. And when the horse couldn't see the person who did know the answer, the horse didn't respond correctly (Schick and Vaughn, loc. cit.). This led Pfungst to conclude that the horse was getting visual cues, albeit subtle ones. It turned out that Von Osten and others were cuing Hans unconsciously by "tensing their muscles until Hans produced" the correct answer (ibid.). The horse truly was clever, not because he understood human language but because he could perceive very subtle muscle movements. More important, Pfungst discovered that people can unconsciously communicate information to others by subtle movements and that some animals can perceive these unconscious movements. It was only a matter of time before psychologists would be investigating nonverbal influence among humans. (See Robert Rosenthal 1998.)

It is often the case that animals are thought to show evidence of linguistic abilities that they do not possess. And humans are thought to be capable of grasping psychic messages when they are just sensitive to the unconscious signaling of others.

Unconscious cuing has even led to the belief in the psychic abilities of animals. James Randi relates the story of J. B. Rhine who declared that the horse Lady Wonder was psychic because she could answer questions by knocking over alphabet blocks (Randi 1995: 143). In Rhine's opinion, there was no trickery involved. He concluded that the only tenable hypothesis for the horse's abilities was that the horse was telepathic. Rhine's first test of Lady Wonder was in 1927. When he returned two years later, Rhine determined that the horse had lost its telepathic abilities in the interim (Christopher 1970: 21).


Rhine's reasoning is an example of the false dilemma fallacy.

Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Annie on January 05, 2006, 08:09:53 AM
Quote

You might as well give up the ghost Annie. No matter what you, me, Simon, Helen, FA or anyone else has to say we aren't going to get anyone to believe the cold hard facts of this case.The DNA has proven beyong doubt that AA wasn't Anastasia Nikolaevna, eventhough the theories of switched intestines and the like still run wild. It's a waste of my typing fingers trying to explain this over and over again.

Some people are happier living in fantasy land than in the real world.If believing AA was AN makes then happy and comfortable let them have at it. I think it is a total and complete waste of time to keep beating this dead horse.


I know you're right, and their belief becomes obsessive and irrational. I only keep pointing out the obvious in hope that no newbies coming here looking into the mystery will be misled by such fantasy. If I can save one person, it was worth it. If you google anything or anyone in this subject, these posts come up. I havee even, sadly, seen reports and articles written which cite a post here as a 'source!' Don't they know a lot of it is just people blowing wind and it's not, or at least not necessarily, accurate? This board is here for informational purposes, not silly games and guesses about what you hope is right.

If wishes were horses, then dreamers would ride.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Annie on January 05, 2006, 08:15:05 AM
Helen, thanks for "Clever Hans" I see how that applies to AA! Of course, there will be those who choose not to ::)

Does anyone have the quote from Olga's book where she mentions how disappointed she was to see AA and see it wasn't AN, and the bond wasn't there? That's a good quote, and it does discount this claim that she allegedly initially recognized her.

Also you have to consider that Shura yelling out 'these are AN's feet" is not actually an acceptance of AN. This person had been as close as a mother to her all her life and must have been devastated to think she was murdered. She went in there looking for any hope she could find and got a bit emotional because AA had the same foot problem and body size. I'm sure she was later heartbroken to realize it wasn't AN, and really didn't want to talk about it. There was no sinsiter plot to shut her up or pay her off.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Tsarina_Liz on January 05, 2006, 08:45:20 AM
Quote
You are misinformed, because according to D. Stefan Sandkueler, who took the blood sample in 1951, the blood sample remained under his lock and key alone (unlike the Charlottesville tissue). No one else had handled it. "There was no subject to interference or contamination by others or other agents." Therefore, this was Anna Anderson's blood. It's far more easy to trust this than the Charlottesville tissue or a mat of hair that the origins of are unknown. I'm sorry, but when the tissue does not match blood that was not contaminated and kept under one person's control, it throws it's authenticity out of the window. I'm sure you'll argue with this but maybe you should actually give it some thought.


Caleb,
 You can't argue with science.  Without proper containment and documentation, the blood sample is meaningless.  It wouldn't even be accepted in any court of law.  
 I recommend you read up on DNA, contamination and proper medical procedure and handling of body matter.  
 Also, I would be more than happy to be corrected if you or anyone else could find Herr Doktor's files and records the prove the sample was properly obtained, documented, and preserved.  Nothing fancy, just basic medical records.  Also, some photos of Herr Doktor's files/containment area would be helpful.  You should also note that all of these exist for the intestine sample.  
 

Until then, is there a biologist on the board or someone who works in a lab that can explain this to him?  I'm a Criminal Justice major so I only know the basics.    
  
- Liz
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Grand_Duke_Paul on January 05, 2006, 09:43:35 AM
Quote


Do you extend this reasoning to Olga Alexandrovna and Pierre Gilliard?

Olga spoke of the differences between Andersen and her niece in a series of interviews she gave to her biographer, Ian Vorres, in 1959. His book is called --- somewhat tellingly - The Last Grand Duchess.


I am not arguing in favor of Anna Anderson being Anastasia at all, as I person who has studied this case I am just curious, and there are many conflicting statements here, however when Olga left the Mommsen Clinic, she stated in these FAMOUS words to Ambassador Herluf Zahle, " My reason cannot grasp it, but my heart tells me that the little one is Anastasia, and because I have been raised in a faith that tells me to follow my heart, before my reason, I must believe that she is."  This is from Riddle of Anna Anderson, by Peter Kurth  pg 112

Again from page 112, we find Shura, who had began to sob even before she left the sickroom, "she wept all of the way out of the front door of the Mommsen Clinic and cried to Harriet Von Rathlef, " I loved her so much, I loved her so much! Why do I love this patient so much? Can you tell that?  If you knew how agonized I am now!"

During their visit to the clinic, Gilliard stated to Professor Rudnev, "My God how awful, what has become of Grand Duchess Anastasia?  She's a wreck, a complete wreck, I want to do everything I can to help the Grand Duchess."
and then to Professor Rudnev, " What is Her Imperial Highnesses condition?  Can she get well? "  I thought it
right to ask, which Imperial Highness he meant?" "Why the patient whose room I was just in." replied Gilliard.

Then Gilliard's testimony is most curious.  As is that of the Grand Duchess Olga, it is almost as if they are trying to hide something.  While I don't buy the fact that she was Anastasia, I have a terrible time resolving these conflicting statements and motives with facts, and that is excluding DNA.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Annie on January 05, 2006, 10:09:46 AM
That sounds like they were emotional at first, but then realized they were wrong later. They may have said those things, hoping it was her, or even being told it was her, but found out better later after looking at her and talking to her more. The comment 'what has happened to her' leads me to believe he didn't think she looked like AN at all and thought maybe it was her condition that caused this. After checking further, they found out it wasn't really her. Feeling taken by a fraud could be a reason Gilliard fought so hard against her after he realized it wasn't her, he was hurt and angry she was trying to trick people over such a tragic situation.

Again, I refer to my friend and her lost dog. She actually took a dog from some young boys, ranting he was hers, and drove off in the car with him, later only to find out all the differences, he wasn't hers after all. Her emotion, hope, love and desire to find her beloved pet made her intially see something in the dirty white Samoyed that wasn't really there. Could it not happen with a lost person too?
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: AGRBear on January 05, 2006, 11:16:30 AM
Quote

I am not arguing in favor of Anna Anderson being Anastasia at all, as I person who has studied this case I am just curious, and there are many conflicting statements here, however when Olga left the Mommsen Clinic, she stated in these FAMOUS words to Ambassador Herluf Zahle, " My reason cannot grasp it, but my heart tells me that the little one is Anastasia, and because I have been raised in a faith that tells me to follow my heart, before my reason, I must believe that she is."  This is from Riddle of Anna Anderson, by Peter Kurth  pg 112

Again from page 112, we find Shura, who had began to sob even before she left the sickroom, "she wept all of the way out of the front door of the Mommsen Clinic and cried to Harriet Von Rathlef, " I loved her so much, I loved her so much! Why do I love this patient so much? Can you tell that?  If you knew how agonized I am now!"

During their visit to the clinic, Gilliard stated to Professor Rudnev, "My God how awful, what has become of Grand Duchess Anastasia?  She's a wreck, a complete wreck, I want to do everything I can to help the Grand Duchess."
and then to Professor Rudnev, " What is Her Imperial Highnesses condition?  Can she get well? "  I thought it
right to ask, which Imperial Highness he meant?" "Why the patient whose room I was just in." replied Gilliard.

Then Gilliard's testimony is most curious.  As is that of the Grand Duchess Olga, it is almost as if they are trying to hide something.  While I don't buy the fact that she was Anastasia, I have a terrible time resolving these conflicting statements and motives with facts, and that is excluding DNA.


Interesting Grand Duke Paul.

There are these puzzle pieces that make this a mystery which has taken a life of it's own and has continued all these years and will continue.

I continue to wonder what important evidence Gilliard destroyed.  

FILE ON THE TSAR by Summers and Mangold p. 176:
>>While testifying during the "Anastasia" case in 1958, he startled the judge by admitting tht he had deliberately destroyed relevant documents.<<

Gilliard admitted destroying evidence.  Why would he have destroyed it?  Did it provide us information about GD Anasasia which may have provided information that would have helped Anna Anderson's case?

Those who think that Moscow wasn't interested, here is an example showing they were interested as late as 1921:

p. 179:

>>The trail leads back to an incident in 1921, in Germany.  That year Investigator Sokolov visited Berlin, where he stayed at te house of Colonel Freiberg.  One night is flat was raided by an armed band of Russian and German Connumists....  When the raiders left they took a set of Sokolov's papers with them.<<

Did they take anything else?

Why would the Moscow Soviets need these papers when they obviously knew more than anyone the facts of the case?  Unless, the Ural Soviets and CHEKA hadn't told them what really happen?

It makes me think that  something did happen which we still don't know about.

Something that cause Gilliard to destroy evidence before he testified in AA's trial.

Was this evidence something about  GD Anastasia escape which allowed Gilliard to be believed  at the beginning that Anna Anderson might be the Grand Duchess?

To me, this is the real question.  Did GD Anastasia escape execution?  

To others, this kind of information just sets them more firmly in the camp which believes AA was GD Anastasia.

AGRBear

Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Annie on January 05, 2006, 12:21:05 PM
Quote

Was this evidence something about  GD Anastasia escape which allowed Gilliard to be believed  at the beginning that Anna Anderson might be the Grand Duchess?



AGRBear



We don't know what he was talking about, and how it may have been taken out of context. I don't think he ever believed it was her, but went his meeting hopeful and positive, though this was crushed as he saw more of her.

As far as stories of escape, there were a lot of rumors in those days, some sadly making the rounds to this day. In those days, there were rumors Ella and the others with her had escaped, and this caused much pain to the Konstantinovich family who believed it. Misinformation is common, and, unfortunately, more interesting and more fun to believe than the truth. Look at what happened just this week in the mine in WV. Someone thought they heard someone say the miners were alive, and ran and spread the tale to all in town, who believed it. Tragically, this was incorrect, and it caused much more heartache and grief to the families. Sad as it is, it's an example of how rumors can be very wrong, but spread and believed.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Grand_Duke_Paul on January 05, 2006, 01:52:34 PM
Quote

Interesting Grand Duke Paul.

There are these puzzle pieces that make this a mystery which has taken a life of it's own and has continued all these years and will continue.

I continue to wonder what important evidence Gilliard destroyed.  

FILE ON THE TSAR by Summers and Mangold p. 176:
>>While testifying during the "Anastasia" case in 1958, he startled the judge by admitting tht he had deliberately destroyed relevant documents.<<

Gilliard admitted destroying evidence.  Why would he have destroyed it?  Did it provide us information about GD Anasasia which may have provided information that would have helped Anna Anderson's case?

Those who think that Moscow wasn't interested, here is an example showing they were interested as late as 1921:

p. 179:

>>The trail leads back to an incident in 1921, in Germany.  That year Investigator Sokolov visited Berlin, where he stayed at te house of Colonel Freiberg.  One night is flat was raided by an armed band of Russian and German Connumists....  When the raiders left they took a set of Sokolov's papers with them.<<

Did they take anything else?

Why would the Moscow Soviets need these papers when they obviously knew more than anyone the facts of the case?  Unless, the Ural Soviets and CHEKA hadn't told them what really happen?

It makes me think that  something did happen which we still don't know about.

Something that cause Gilliard to destroy evidence before he testified in AA's trial.

Was this evidence something about  GD Anastasia escape which allowed Gilliard to be believed  at the beginning that Anna Anderson might be the Grand Duchess?

To me, this is the real question.  Did GD Anastasia escape execution?  

To others, this kind of information just sets them more firmly in the camp which believes AA was GD Anastasia.

AGRBear




Who knows what Gilliard would have & did destroy, both he and Grand Duchess Olga's testimony hoisted them by their own petard, with the conflicting statements, in the beginning and then in later years.
I look at their statements and testimony with the greatest of skepticism, regarding their attitudes and motives.  The possible destruction of evidence is another mark against him or them.

After reading King & Wilson's excellent book Fate Of The Romanov's and reading the detailed reports of the executions, I think that no one could have survived that massacre, the fact that two bodies remain missing are another part of the story that needs answers.   Bodies just don't disappear off of a truck surrounded by guards in the middle of the night.

Perhaps their new book will shed some light on these subjects, and I hope it is as good as the last one.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Tsarina_Liz on January 05, 2006, 03:13:41 PM
Wait, so there is no indication of what Gilliard destroyed - only his word that he did destroy something?
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Grand_Duke_Paul on January 05, 2006, 03:31:51 PM
Quote
Wait, so there is no indication of what Gilliard destroyed - only his word that he did destroy something?


Correct we have his word that he destroyed evidence. It is in his testimony.  Now here is the interesting part, if you believe his testimony that the claimant was not Anastasia, do you believe he destroyed evidence that may have shown otherwise, or do you selectively pick & choose what we believe.  Goes straight to his crediblity, that is why I regard his statements with great skepticism.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Louis_Charles on January 05, 2006, 04:36:01 PM
Dear GD Paul,

Well, two things.

Olga's statement, made after the first encounter with Andersen, isn't "testimony" in the legal sense, which may be semantics, but . . .

The second is that it didn't take "years" for her to come to the conclusion that Andersen wasn't Anastasia. It took the length of the visit, and the same for Gilliard.

Olga was in a highly emotional situation ("my heart tells me"), and she may have been speaking her inner turmoil aloud. Had she made up her mind after the first meeting against Anna Andersen, then she would be criticized for failing to treat the claim seriously. By the end of the visit, she had come to her conclusions. Andersen was in terrible shape, and all agree that there was at least enough resemblance to the dead girl to make the claim at least viable (she managed to sustain it for the rest of her long life, after all).

What Olga and Gilliard both said when deposed was that Andersen was not Anastasia. As I said before, they could both have been wrong, but it doesn't mean that they were lying, anymore than Lili Dehn was lying when she recognized Andersen. She may simply have been wrong.

Regards,

Simon
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: calebGmoney on January 05, 2006, 05:04:47 PM
Quote

Caleb,
  You can't argue with science.  Without proper containment and documentation, the blood sample is meaningless.  It wouldn't even be accepted in any court of law.  
  I recommend you read up on DNA, contamination and proper medical procedure and handling of body matter.  
  Also, I would be more than happy to be corrected if you or anyone else could find Herr Doktor's files and records the prove the sample was properly obtained, documented, and preserved.  Nothing fancy, just basic medical records.  Also, some photos of Herr Doktor's files/containment area would be helpful.  You should also note that all of these exist for the intestine sample.  
  

Until then, is there a biologist on the board or someone who works in a lab that can explain this to him?  I'm a Criminal Justice major so I only know the basics.    
   
 - Liz

Greg King disagrees:
""...Nothing bothered me more for so many years as the ressemblance between AA and FS, though obviously as Peter says, they wouldn't have introduced a candidate who bore no ressemblance to AA in an attempt to say that it was she. Since we have only the one doctored photo, though, I'm far more interested in things which don't be mentioned or explored-or , ultimately that's what makes the case convincing to me. Not only issues like the shoe size, but that we have pretty complete month by month documentation now for FS's movements between 1912-1920, including her medical reports, which incidentally make it quite clear there were no scars involved in the munition accident. These reports indicate that FS was never pregnant during this period, which is a crucial fact-up to a few weeks before AA appeared, FS is well accounted for, and just wasn't pregnant, whereas medical examination of AA showed that she had given birth at some point (and I've confirmed this with the last doctor who actually examined her on the issue in the 1950's) So, how does one reconcile two complete discrepancies-if FS wasn't pregnant, she could not be AA, who gave birth-no two ways about it.Then, there are other issues, like AA's blood. In 1951, I think professor Stefan Sandkueler (I'm probably spelling that wrongly, but it's at the top of my head) took blood samples of AA. These samples when tested in 1993-4 DID NOT MATCH either the Schanzkowski DNA or putative AA 's Charlottesville tissue DNA profile, and yet, these samples are the ONE thing we're certain about contrary to that Massie wrote in his book, there were carefully preserved as the professor told me himself, and not contaminated, and rendered workable and accurate results, and they remained in his possesion alone, under lock and key, no subject to interference or contamination by others or by other agents, like injections of preservatives as the tissue in VA.  

There are number of these kind of things which are quite important and which to me help to provethat AA couldn't have been FS. They certainly don't prove she was Anastasia, but taken with the doubts about the mtDNA matches with Maucher, it leaves the DNA evidence, the presumed "end of the story" veredict, in the dust, and takes things back to square one-determination based in other factors.It amazed me that, when DNA results came out, almost every person came off with the same line- "She must have been a great actress"- and made absolutely no attempt to address the outstanding question of people recognizing her, physical similarities, memories, human experience, etc- all of this was simply swept aside without any mention, to embrace the DNA as the final solution. No one yet has made any systematic attempt to adress the outstanding contradictions in AA'case. How did a Polish peasant manage to fool numerous royals who , given the class distinctions of the period, would certainly have inmediately spotted someone who wasn't "one of them". The Duke of Leuchtenberg commented that it was clear, whoever she was, that she was a member of the highest social circles-how does it fit in with FS? It doesn't ,yet no one has attempted to explain it. It's all of these things which convince me that she was Anastasia..."  


Sorry, but you're the one arguing with science. The chain of custody of the bloof slide is much more reliable than the tissue, according to Dr. Sandkueler. You can't with the facts, and the comparison to Margeret Ellerick proves that Anna Anderson was in no way related to Franziska Schanzkowska. DNA has proved it not to be.

Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: calebGmoney on January 05, 2006, 05:07:51 PM
Quote
That sounds like they were emotional at first, but then realized they were wrong later. They may have said those things, hoping it was her, or even being told it was her, but found out better later after looking at her and talking to her more. The comment 'what has happened to her' leads me to believe he didn't think she looked like AN at all and thought maybe it was her condition that caused this. After checking further, they found out it wasn't really her. Feeling taken by a fraud could be a reason Gilliard fought so hard against her after he realized it wasn't her, he was hurt and angry she was trying to trick people over such a tragic situation.

Again, I refer to my friend and her lost dog. She actually took a dog from some young boys, ranting he was hers, and drove off in the car with him, later only to find out all the differences, he wasn't hers after all. Her emotion, hope, love and desire to find her beloved pet made her intially see something in the dirty white Samoyed that wasn't really there. Could it not happen with a lost person too?
But this conflicts with what you said earlier, saying that Olga and Gilliard never made any comments to suggest that this was Anastasia Nicholaevna.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: calebGmoney on January 05, 2006, 05:09:57 PM
Quote

We don't know what he was talking about, and how it may have been taken out of context. I don't think he ever believed it was her, but went his meeting hopeful and positive, though this was crushed as he saw more of her.


But yet, he stated that he had seen at first sight that this could not have possibly been the Grand Duchess.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Louis_Charles on January 05, 2006, 05:10:40 PM
So Greg King accepts Andersen was Anastasia? Is there a source for this quote, please? Does he explain why he included her in the basement shooting scenario in The Fate of the Romanovs? I am away from my copy at the moment, but I certainly don't remember the impression that long-term survivors were suggested.  I had been under the impression from things that he and Penny Wilson posted here on the board that while they may not have considered Andersen to be Schanzkowska, that they shied away from identifying her as the Grand Duchess.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Grand_Duke_Paul on January 05, 2006, 05:11:17 PM
Quote
Dear GD Paul,

Well, two things.

Olga's statement, made after the first encounter with Andersen, isn't "testimony" in the legal sense, which may be semantics, but . . .

The second is that it didn't take "years" for her to come to the conclusion that Andersen wasn't Anastasia. It took the length of the visit, and the same for Gilliard.

Olga was in a highly emotional situation ("my heart tells me"), and she may have been speaking her inner turmoil aloud. Had she made up her mind after the first meeting against Anna Andersen, then she would be criticized for failing to treat the claim seriously. By the end of the visit, she had come to her conclusions. Andersen was in terrible shape, and all agree that there was at least enough resemblance to the dead girl to make the claim at least viable (she managed to sustain it for the rest of her long life, after all).

What Olga and Gilliard both said when deposed was that Andersen was not Anastasia. As I said before, they could both have been wrong, but it doesn't mean that they were lying, anymore than Lili Dehn was lying when she recognized Andersen. She may simply have been wrong.

Regards,

Simon



I don't believe from what I have read that Olga came to a decision regarding Anna Anderson until after she had returned back to Hvidore. Those words I wrote were her parting words to Zahle when she left Berlin to return home.

As to what she & Gilliard & Shura said at the hospital, of course it is not testimony in the legal sense, as it wasn't deposed, but some of their statements were used in court.  I am not saying that any of them are lying, when ANY of the statements they made regarding the woman being Anastasia or not being Anastasia were made, like you they may have been wrong at the time, but I would myself like to know what changed between when Olga left and returned home.  

Perhaps she came to realize that something about the woman was not quite right, but it should have been stated up front that is why "I don't recognize her as my niece."  Then much of this speculation would be useless.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: calebGmoney on January 05, 2006, 05:12:42 PM
Quote
Dear GD Paul,

Well, two things.

Olga's statement, made after the first encounter with Andersen, isn't "testimony" in the legal sense, which may be semantics, but . . .

The second is that it didn't take "years" for her to come to the conclusion that Andersen wasn't Anastasia. It took the length of the visit, and the same for Gilliard.

Simon

Actually, Olga, Gilliard, and Shura visited several times. Olga sent Anastasia five letters and a scarf. So it wasn't a one time thing.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Louis_Charles on January 05, 2006, 05:19:21 PM
I apologize if I gave the impression that you said Olga lied. What I was trying to do was make the point that you did in your post, that whatever she said in Berlin was not binding, apparently.

This is a possible guess: that once she was away from the emotions of the situation, there were things about Andersen that didn't add up. These things had started to bother her before she left -- Rathlef was aware that things did not end well when the Romanov party departed.  I think that throughout the visit, and for some time after, she continued to feel sorry for Andersen, who was a wretched figure.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Louis_Charles on January 05, 2006, 05:26:06 PM
Quote
Actually, Olga, Gilliard, and Shura visited several times. Olga sent Anastasia five letters and a scarf. So it wasn't a one time thing.


Please read the letters, which are available in Kurth, Massie and several other sources. There is nothing in any of the letters that suggests Olga believed Andersen was her niece. I do not suggest that she didn't feel pity for the woman. I also did not say that she made up her mind after her first encounter with Andersen. I said that it took her the length of the visit, meaning her visit to Berlin, which was more than one day and included several meetings.

For the record, Caleb? I didn't fall off the turnip truck yesterday, have read as much of the relevant material as I could acquire during the past 40 years, and have degrees in history and library science. I am open to the possibility that Andersen wasn't Franziska Schanzkowska, although I consider it to be a remote, remote one, and I am not arguing simply to score points.
There is very little AHA! factor involved in this for me. If you want me to believe that Andersen was Anastasia, then empirical, verifiable evidence will be necessary. Not evidence that is open to interpretation.

Regards,

Simon
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: catt.sydney on January 05, 2006, 07:14:33 PM
SITE YOUR SOURCE PLEASE Caleb...
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Grand_Duke_Paul on January 05, 2006, 07:51:50 PM
Quote

Please read the letters, which are available in Kurth, Massie and several other sources. There is nothing in any of the letters that suggests Olga believed Andersen was her niece. I do not suggest that she didn't feel pity for the woman. I also did not say that she made up her mind after her first encounter with Andersen. I said that it took her the length of the visit, meaning her visit to Berlin, which was more than one day and included several meetings.

For the record, Caleb? I didn't fall off the turnip truck yesterday, have read as much of the relevant material as I could acquire during the past 40 years, and have degrees in history and library science. I am open to the possibility that Andersen wasn't Franziska Schanzkowska, although I consider it to be a remote, remote one, and I am not arguing simply to score points.
There is very little AHA! factor involved in this for me. If you want me to believe that Andersen was Anastasia, then empirical, verifiable evidence will be necessary. Not evidence that is open to interpretation.

Regards,

Simon


What about her statement to Zahle as she was leaving, I believe that is in Kurth's book, page 122, to show that at some point early on they believed she was Anastasia, as far as writing it to the patient in letters, now that is a different issue, I don't believe that ever happened, but I haven't seen the content of the letters that were exchanged either.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: calebGmoney on January 05, 2006, 09:49:08 PM
Quote
SITE YOUR SOURCE PLEASE Caleb...

"Anastasia: The Riddle of Anastasia"
"Anastasia: The Lost Princess"
"The Romanovs: The Final Chapter"
"The Real Romanovs"
Every book states that there was more than one visit.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Annie on January 05, 2006, 10:06:44 PM
Quote
So Greg King accepts Andersen was Anastasia? Is there a source for this quote, please? Does he explain why he included her in the basement shooting scenario in The Fate of the Romanovs? I am away from my copy at the moment, but I certainly don't remember the impression that long-term survivors were suggested.  I had been under the impression from things that he and Penny Wilson posted here on the board that while they may not have considered Andersen to be Schanzkowska, that they shied away from identifying her as the Grand Duchess.


While Greg has never openly stated he thought AA was AN, Penny Wilson has. Yes, I have sources.

Re: Anna Anderson and Anastasia
« Reply #81 on: Jul 12th, 2004, 11:33pm »
Penny_Wilson wrote:

One thing I can tell you absolutely and positively is that Gleb Botkin was no con-man. He truly and strongly believed in Anastasia Manahan, and he never wavered in this belief.

If she was Anastasia -- and I myself believe it likely that she was -- then Gleb and his sister Tatiana were her two truest friends.


http://hydrogen.pallasweb.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=anastasia;action=display;num=1075191962;start=75

Scroll down, it's a long interview

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.talk.royalty/browse_thread/thread/b8d96eacf3b0d5a/7e5873fc32281168?lnk=st&q=%22Fate+of+the+Romanovs%22+Gutmaker+Anastasia+Anderson&rnum=2&hl=en#7e5873fc32281168


What I'm saying is, since he is a very close associate of Wilson and Kurth, and he has been fighting so hard to prove the DNA tests wrong, it appears he is now of that belief, or has at least joined the crusade. No, I don't believe anyone would go to so much trouble to try to discount the DNA, and bring up the other things stated in that article, if they weren't out to prove it. I also am perplexed at how authors can state in their book she was dead in the basement, then fight so hard to prove she got out and lived as AA ???
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Grand_Duke_Paul on January 05, 2006, 10:09:36 PM
Quote
So Greg King accepts Andersen was Anastasia? Is there a source for this quote, please? Does he explain why he included her in the basement shooting scenario in The Fate of the Romanovs? I am away from my copy at the moment, but I certainly don't remember the impression that long-term survivors were suggested.  I had been under the impression from things that he and Penny Wilson posted here on the board that while they may not have considered Andersen to be Schanzkowska, that they shied away from identifying her as the Grand Duchess.


Louis Charles,

If you read the statement, he does not state that she is Anastasia, and says that he has no interest in the outcome of any new testing.  
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Grand_Duke_Paul on January 05, 2006, 10:18:38 PM
Quote

While Greg has never openly stated he thought AA was AN, Penny Wilson has. Yes, I have sources.

Re: Anna Anderson and Anastasia
« Reply #81 on: Jul 12th, 2004, 11:33pm »
Penny_Wilson wrote:

One thing I can tell you absolutely and positively is that Gleb Botkin was no con-man. He truly and strongly believed in Anastasia Manahan, and he never wavered in this belief.

If she was Anastasia -- and I myself believe it likely that she was -- then Gleb and his sister Tatiana were her two truest friends.


http://hydrogen.pallasweb.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=anastasia;action=display;num=1075191962;start=75



From what I understand from other forum members Penny is no longer here to defend herself nor to state what she thinks.   Isn't this a bit unfair, since she is NOT Greg King, and it seems you are trying to align what Greg thinks with this statement, sort of "guilt by association".    Greg's statement is quite clear, and he states he has interest in the outcome of any proposed new testing.  

From Greg's statement:

“It seems to me, whether one wishes to believe in Anna Anderson or not (and I don't wish either way, incidentally), it’s best to keep an open mind and at least examine the facts as known now in the DNA case against Anastasia Manahan -- as three separate issues -- rather than repeatedly refer to ten year old tests that, taken as a whole, have lost two-thirds of their validity.”

"There are a number of these kinds of things which are quite important and which to me help prove that AA could not have been FS.  They certainly don't prove she was Anastasia, but taken with the doubts about the mtDNA matches with Maucher, it leaves the DNA evidence-the supposed and presumed "end of the story" verdict-in the dust-and takes things back to square one-determination based on other factors.  It amazes me that when the DNA results came out, almost every person came off with the same line-"she must have been a great actress"-and made absolutely no attempt to address the outstanding questions of people recognizing her, physical similarities, memories, human experience, etc.-all of it was simply swept aside without any mention to embrace the DNA as the final solution.  No one yet has made any systematic attempt to address the outstanding contradictions in AA's case-how did a Polish peasant manage to fool numerous royals-who, given the class distinctions of the period-would certainly have immediately spotted someone who wasn't "one of them."  The Duke of Leuchtenberg commented that it was clear, whoever she was, that she was a member of the highest social circles-how does this fit in with FS?  It doesn't, yet no one has attempted to explain it.  It's all of these things which convince me that she was Anastasia."  


Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Annie on January 05, 2006, 10:24:06 PM
Yes, I know, and I even quoted and answered that myself in a post in the 'new info from Greg King' thread. It still looks like he sounds just like the people here who believe AA was AN.

He is a brilliant writer with so much he could be researching and exploring to bring to us, yet he is concentrating so much on AA. Why, unless he wants to prove something? It's a shame, I was so looking forward to his book on Ernst of Hesse, guess that is on hold now.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Louis_Charles on January 05, 2006, 10:27:16 PM
Grand Duke,

If you read the last sentence of the quote from Greg King that you posted from Caleb's post, the statement is that he is convinced she was Anastasia. Or am I missing something? It is enclosed by quotation marks, and not separated off as a statement by the Duke of Leuchtenberg.

Simon
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Grand_Duke_Paul on January 05, 2006, 10:41:25 PM
Quote
Grand Duke,

If you read the last sentence of the quote from Greg King that you posted from Caleb's post, the statement is that he is convinced she was Anastasia. Or am I missing something? It is enclosed by quotation marks, and not separated off as a statement by the Duke of Leuchtenberg.

Simon


I believe the last sentence was a quote from the Duke of Leuchtenberg.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Louis_Charles on January 05, 2006, 10:45:15 PM
You may be correct, but in terms of its' punctuation, it is by King. Perhaps there was an error in the transcription.

Simon
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Grand_Duke_Paul on January 05, 2006, 10:52:52 PM
Quote
Yes, I know, and I even quoted and answered that myself in a post in the 'new info from Greg King' thread. It still looks like he sounds just like the people here who believe AA was AN.

He is a brilliant writer with so much he could be researching and exploring to bring to us, yet he is concentrating so much on AA. Why, unless he wants to prove something? It's a shame, I was so looking forward to his book on Ernst of Hesse, guess that is on hold now.


He is bringing us a great deal with the Fate Of The Romanovs, there is another book coming out in March on the court of Nicholas, and I am sure that his book on Ernie will bring out the staunch royalists who have problems with Ernie's sexual proclivities, and I fear we will be hearing many negative things from Ernie's defenders on this board.  Check Borders.Com for the upcoming book.

I don't believe AA was AN, but I am all for new testing if since it could put this to rest, or it could prove some incorrect things about the previous testing.  I have no personal interest in the outcome either, nor do I pretend to have any deep understanding of DNA, but clearly King states he doesn't believe either way, and you seem to be upset when people don't believe your way, you can't state what Wilson thinks is what King thinks, because it may be totally opposite.  It does your credibility no good to make assumptions like that.

There are too many unanswered questions in this entire saga of survivors, it seems to me, this is just my opinion, that solving some of these mysteries would help us all to understand better, no matter which side of the fence you sit on.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: jeremygaleaz on January 06, 2006, 01:23:49 AM
Quote

Sorry, but you're the one arguing with science. The chain of custody of the bloof slide is much more reliable than the tissue, according to Dr. Sandkueler. You can't with the facts, and the comparison to Margeret Ellerick proves that Anna Anderson was in no way related to Franziska Schanzkowska. DNA has proved it not to be.



Are you aware that  the individual who sponsored the blood slide test, Maurice Remy, fully accepts AA as FS, and believes the slide to have been contaminated ?
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: jeremygaleaz on January 06, 2006, 01:57:34 AM
Quote
I think you should all know that the DNA tests have lost 2/3 of their validity. Greg King:

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

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

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

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

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



Do what I did and take these quotes to some of the very nice scientists and teachers who call the grounds of UCLA and Tulane University home during their working hours. You might be quite shocked.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Forum Admin on January 06, 2006, 08:57:32 AM
OK
First, this quote from Greg is NOT NEW. It was made four years ago. THAT is why I deleted it and will continue to do so.
PERIOD.

It has been addressed and discussed. Please simply do a search in the Forum for keyword "Melton" by user admin, set it to 500 days for oldest and 500 for number of posts and you will read everything.

In short, this claim by Greg (and PK) was taken directly to Dr. Teri Melton, who performed one of the original tests on the AA mtDNA. She is today the head of Mytotyping Technologies, and is considered to be one of the worlds leading experts in DNA analysis. She is recognized as such by most courts in the US, including Federal court and also in the UK. Her response was immediate and succinct:
Whoever made that statement does not understand the science involved. The test is PRECISELY the same in 2004/5 as it was in 1994. The only difference is that today a machine and computer perfoms the actual testing, while human hands did it then. PERIOD. The only difference today is that there are a larger sample of mtDNA sub groups now sequenced for comparison. BUT that in no way lessens the validity of the original testing. PERIOD. A non-match is STILL a non-match. 100%.  ONE un-matched marker is a non match. 100%.  AA had FIVE un-matching markers from the maternal relations of Alexandra.

I have researched the claim myself and can find NO peer review research work to support the statement. Rather the opposite, Gill's work on AA is cited over 100 times in the scientific journals as the benchmark standard for the science and is relied on by all experts as solid, reliable and effective. I have asked for the specific sources supporting ANY contention that the testing is no longer reliable and over the last three years of making this request NO ONE has ever provided a single report in support.

THIS SUBJECT IS CLOSED UNTIL/UNLESS A PEER REVIEW SCIENTIFIC PAPER IN SUPPORT OF THE UNRELIABLITY OF SUCH TESTING ACCOMPANIES THE STATEMENT. Clear?
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: AGRBear on January 06, 2006, 12:16:36 PM
I believe Annie quoted Penny's old posts/quotes on another thread and Penny came back with a revised statement explaining how she had   changed her mind.   I don't remember exactly what she said.

I went back to see if I could find Penny's.  I could not.  Penny has eliminated a lot of her posts which was a lost to us all because there was great information not found in books, yet,  which she was sharing with us.

I remember when Greg left,  his last post which made me nod my head up and down in agreement.  
--

Louis Charles,  Greg was quoting Leuchtenberg:

>>The Duke of Leuchtenberg commented that it was clear, whoever she was, that she was a member of the highest social circles-how does it fit in with FS? It doesn't ,yet no one has attempted to explain it. It's all of these things which convince me that she was Anastasia..."<<

---
Back to Gilliiard for a moment.

Gilliard lived in the same Paris building as Sokolov.  They saw each other often.  Gilliard had access to Sokolov's entired collection.  Evidently,  he thought it possible that AA might have been GD Anastasia.  And, according to what I read above, evidently Gilliard had the first impression that AA was GD Anastasia...  

Quote

I am not arguing in favor of Anna Anderson being Anastasia at all, as I person who has studied this case I am just curious, and there are many conflicting statements here, however when Olga left the Mommsen Clinic, she stated in these FAMOUS words to Ambassador Herluf Zahle, " My reason cannot grasp it, but my heart tells me that the little one is Anastasia, and because I have been raised in a faith that tells me to follow my heart, before my reason, I must believe that she is."  This is from Riddle of Anna Anderson, by Peter Kurth  pg 112

Again from page 112, we find Shura, who had began to sob even before she left the sickroom, "she wept all of the way out of the front door of the Mommsen Clinic and cried to Harriet Von Rathlef, " I loved her so much, I loved her so much! Why do I love this patient so much? Can you tell that?  If you knew how agonized I am now!"

During their visit to the clinic, Gilliard stated to Professor Rudnev, "My God how awful, what has become of Grand Duchess Anastasia?  She's a wreck, a complete wreck, I want to do everything I can to help the Grand Duchess."
and then to Professor Rudnev, " What is Her Imperial Highnesses condition?  Can she get well? "  I thought it
right to ask, which Imperial Highness he meant?" "Why the patient whose room I was just in." replied Gilliard.

Then Gilliard's testimony is most curious.  As is that of the Grand Duchess Olga, it is almost as if they are trying to hide something.  While I don't buy the fact that she was Anastasia, I have a terrible time resolving these conflicting statements and motives with facts, and that is excluding DNA.



It matters, of course,  what he finally concluded about AA but I'm still stuck at the point where he  thought it was possible that GD Anastasia survived and that AA might be GD Anastasia....

To me this is very important.

Why would he think it possible?

What don't we know that he knew?

Was it  some kind of the evidence showing GD Anastasia and Alexei may have escaped?   Gilliard did consider escape was possible or he would not have gone to meet AA at all.   This evidence, whatever it was,   may have helped AA's case....   Gilliard then destroyed evidence important to this case.   Today, this evidence may have given us a different look at the possibility of someone having escaped or something else, we will never know.

All we know is:  Two bodies are missing.  They are not where Yurovsky said they could be found.

Did Sokolov  place any of the documents which talked about any kind of escape/escapes in his book?  This is one book that I can't find to buy and I am  still looking for one.

Summers and Mangold  in FILE ON THE TSAR talk about the possibilities, while at the same time didn't believe AA was GD Anastasia.  

AGRBear

Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Annie on January 06, 2006, 12:24:36 PM
Quote
I believe Annie quoted Penny's old posts/quotes on another thread and Penny came back with a revised statement explaining how she had   changed her mind.   I don't remember exactly what she said.


She may have said that, but her actions and post content certainly didn't seem to bear that out. She certainly was very strong in her convictions on AA's side for someone who had 'changed her mind.'

A lot of people won't admit it, others will endlessly bore you with how it really doesn't matter to them one way or the other, yet they continue to fight tooth and nail with pro AA posts. Go figure. Like Real Anastasia once said, you should at least have the guts to openly post what you really believe and stand behind it. Because of this, I respect her as a person, though I totally disagree with her views.


Quote
back to see if I could find Penny's.  I could not.  Penny has eliminated a lot of her posts which was a lost to us all because there was great information not found in books, yet,  which she was sharing with us.




I will not speculate on why these posts were deleted, but people don't generally delete posts they are proud of. The old post I quoted was only still around because it was in a locked thread so she couldn't get in to delete it. Some may say her opinion is not important and should not be brought up, but to me, it is, because IMO such personal bias taints the credibility of a writer's work on that particular subject.

Also, maybe this stuff that was 'not in any books' was really just unverified reports, or speculation that could not be backed up. It looks to me like a large nubmer of deleted posts is very suspicious. Anyway, that's how I feel about it, and I'm not ashamed to say it. I really would rather not discuss her though, she might make herself an alias and come back and blast me.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: AGRBear on January 06, 2006, 12:29:14 PM
I don't agree  AA was GD Anastasia but I can discuss the facts, theories and speculations with an open mind.  And, this thread is about 100 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia.  And, some of the posters who do believe/ or think it's possible  AA was GD Anastasia have presented some interesting posts.

AGRBear
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Annie on January 06, 2006, 12:31:56 PM
Quote
I don't have to agree with AA being GD Anastasia but I can discuss the facts, theories and speculations with an open mind.

AGRBear


We have all done that here, but there comes a time when reality and facts must close the door and label it 'case closed, next subject.' It does no good to keep rehashing the same old stuff over and over (as you do.) And Bear, if you really wanted 'facts' and had 'an open mind' why are 99% of your posts against AA being FS, and always contradictory to those who try to prove that? You really haven't been as objective to both sides as you claim. Your posts prove this.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: AGRBear on January 06, 2006, 12:43:30 PM
I revised my statement to make it stronger than it was.

AGRBear


Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Grand_Duke_Paul on January 06, 2006, 12:45:49 PM
Quote

We have all done that here, but there comes a time when reality and facts must close the door and label it 'case closed, next subject.'


You should follow your own advice then.

Quote
It does no good to keep rehashing the same old stuff over and over (as you do.) And Bear, if you really wanted 'facts' and had 'an open mind' why are 99% of your posts against AA being FS, and always contradictory to those who try to prove that? You really haven't been as objective to both sides as you claim. Your posts prove this.


You keep rehashing this also, and constantly moving the goal posts to match the rant of the day, how seriously do you expect anyone to take what you say?  As far as Bear's posts go, I have never heard her state equivocally that she AA is AN I have posted some items that could be considered pro AA is AN, but I don't believe that she is AN.  

Many people on here make statements without sources to back them up, and they are incorrect.  Such as someone stating that Olga never said that AA was her niece.  She admitted to Zahle before leaving that she believed AA was her niece. now of course she changed her mind AFTER she returned home, but she still did say that to Ambassador Zahle, and it can't be marked off as an emotional outburst.

So if Olga can change her mind and not be ridiculed for it, then perhaps Penny Wilson can or Bear can, or you for that matter, or is there a different set of standards for this depending on you stance on the issues here?
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: AGRBear on January 06, 2006, 12:54:54 PM
Quote

We have all done that here, but there comes a time when reality and facts must close the door and label it 'case closed, next subject.' It does no good to keep rehashing the same old stuff over and over (as you do.) And Bear, if you really wanted 'facts' and had 'an open mind' why are 99% of your posts against AA being FS, and always contradictory to those who try to prove that? You really haven't been as objective to both sides as you claim. Your posts prove this.


You are missing the point.  Rehashing the old stuff  helps pull out the reasons people think the way they do.  Closing the door or pulling over your head the lid to your box doesn't stop other people from thinking, discussing and learning.

Not everyone has reached the place you've found yourself after all these years.  Many are new and some of us just never really thought about Anna Anderson as seriously as you and the others.  Some posters have a great deal of insight to Anna Anderson's life which I  find interesting and often times valuable information. And, some  believe AA was GD Anastasia and I find their posts just as interesting.

Grand Duke Paul and other posters,  don't fall into the trap which Penny and Greg and others have.  Stick to the subject and ignore the personal snips and snaps of certain posters who'd like nothing better than to lock down another thread.


AGRBear
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Annie on January 06, 2006, 12:57:31 PM
Quote

You should follow your own advice then.


The case IS closed for me, I'm just trying to make others see reason.


Quote
 As far as Bear's posts go, I have never heard her state equivocally that she AA is AN I have posted some items that could be considered pro AA is AN, but I don't believe that she is AN.  
Quote

Like I said, some will endlessly bore us with how it doesn't mean anything either way, then go on to endlessly post pro AA comments. Actions speak louder than words.

Quote
 She admitted to Zahle before leaving that she believed AA was her niece.


There is no evidence she ever positively id's her as AN!


Quote
So if Olga can change her mind and not be ridiculed for it, then perhaps Penny Wilson can or Bear can, or you for that matter, or is there a different set of standards for this depending on you stance on the issues here?


Point is, I see no evidence either have changed their minds, it's not hard to see which side someone's posts support.

And I am now convinced you are not a 'newbie' either, your comments are far too personal, deep rooted in our long standing past discussions, and your attitude is evident. I don't know which one you are, but you are for sure one of several 'newbies' we have here who are only recycled reincarnations of other AA supporters who have said the same things. Some of you may hate me for the things I say, but at least I have the courage to say it as myself. I'm not going to say I'm leaving, then go make up another name and pretend to be new. What I say, I say, I am who I am.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Grand_Duke_Paul on January 06, 2006, 01:13:23 PM
Quote

The case IS closed for me, I'm just trying to make others see reason.  


If it is closed for you then you should move on and let others discover what is truth for themselves in their own journey.

Quote
There is no evidence she ever positively id's her as AN!


That is where you are DEAD WRONG.  Pg 112. Riddle of Anna Anderson by Peter Kurth:  " The Grand Duchess's parting words to Ambassador Zahle were to become famous: "My reason cannot grasp but my heart TELLS ME THAT THE LITTLE ONE IS ANASTASIA.  (Note; an ADMISSION of identity by a Grand Duchess Olga). And because I have been raised in a faith which tells me to follow my heart before reason, I  MUST BELIEVE THAT SHE IS"  (Note; Another admission of identity of the patient by Grand Duchess Olga.)

While this is not a sworn statement or legal deposition, and holds no legal value, the statement was made none the less to Ambassador Zahle, who is a credible and believeable source, and was in the confidence of the Danish Royal Family, and Empress Marie's brother, Prince Waldemar.  


Quote
Point is, I see no evidence either have changed their minds, it's not hard to see which side someone's posts support.
 

No it is isn't.  Just because someone doesn't believe the way that you do, doesn't mean that they believe what YOU think they do.   This case is much more complex.


Quote
And I am now convinced you are not a 'newbie' either, your comments are far too personal, deep rooted in our long standing past discussions, and your attitude is evident. I don't know which one you are, but you are for sure one of several 'newbies' we have here who are only recycled reincarnations of other AA supporters who have said the same things. Some of you may hate me for the things I say, but at least I have the courage to say it as myself. I'm not going to say I'm leaving, then go make up another name and pretend to be new. What I say, I say, I am who I am.


I have read of this case and own books, and discussed it among friends for years.  I also TOOK TIME to read the threads as a lurker, and was hesitant in coming here, because of the constant personal attacks by you.  However I have made my statements, and I am new here. You really need to lighten up lady.  Hate is an emotion in which I don't invest energy, so please don't think you are that important in the scheme of things.  While I resepect your opinions, and I will continue to do so, I will not indulge in this bs. that you seem to revel in.              

I think you are very paranoid to say the least, you accused caleb of being someone else last week and now me.... Do you see black helicopters also?
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: AGRBear on January 06, 2006, 01:18:47 PM
Quote

...[in part]...

And I am now convinced you are not a 'newbie' either, your comments are far too personal, deep rooted in our long standing past discussions, and your attitude is evident. I don't know which one you are, but you are for sure one of several 'newbies' we have here who are only recycled reincarnations of other AA supporters who have said the same things. Some of you may hate me for the things I say, but at least I have the courage to say it as myself. I'm not going to say I'm leaving, then go make up another name and pretend to be new. What I say, I say, I am who I am.



Quote
....[in part]

I think you are very paranoid to say the least, you accused caleb of being someone else last week and now me....  


I was accused of being some fellow by the name of Rodgers then I was Shay McNeal and after FA said I  wasn't then I became other fairy tale like creatures, etc. etc..

This is an old pattern.  Just ignore.

AGRBear  
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Grand_Duke_Paul on January 06, 2006, 01:21:10 PM
Quote

I was accused of being some fellow by the name of Rodgers then I was Shay McNeal and after FA said I  wasn't then I became other fairy tale like creatures, etc. etc..

This is an old pattern.  Just ignore.

AGRBear  



Thank you.  Good advice.  She definitely has issues.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Rachael89 on January 06, 2006, 01:22:06 PM
Quote
And I am now convinced you are not a 'newbie' either, your comments are far too personal, deep rooted in our long standing past discussions, and your attitude is evident. I don't know which one you are, but you are for sure one of several 'newbies' we have here who are only recycled reincarnations of other AA supporters who have said the same things. Some of you may hate me for the things I say, but at least I have the courage to say it as myself. I'm not going to say I'm leaving, then go make up another name and pretend to be new. What I say, I say, I am who I am.


Wow we're all so welcoming here  ::)...

Rachael
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: AGRBear on January 06, 2006, 01:24:59 PM
A certain poster has managed to place the topic on the side track and once again gain the center of attention.

Ignore.  Ignore.  Ignore.

Back to topic.

AGRBear
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Grand_Duke_Paul on January 06, 2006, 01:26:30 PM
Quote

Wow we're all so welcoming here  ::)...

Rachael



Yes I feel the love from her.  :o
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Grand_Duke_Paul on January 06, 2006, 01:29:57 PM
Quote
I believe Annie quoted Penny's old posts/quotes on another thread and Penny came back with a revised statement explaining how she had   changed her mind.   I don't remember exactly what she said.

I went back to see if I could find Penny's.  I could not.  Penny has eliminated a lot of her posts which was a lost to us all because there was great information not found in books, yet,  which she was sharing with us.

I remember when Greg left,  his last post which made me nod my head up and down in agreement.  
--

Louis Charles,  Greg was quoting Leuchtenberg:

>>The Duke of Leuchtenberg commented that it was clear, whoever she was, that she was a member of the highest social circles-how does it fit in with FS? It doesn't ,yet no one has attempted to explain it. It's all of these things which convince me that she was Anastasia..."<<

---
Back to Gilliiard for a moment.

Gilliard lived in the same Paris building as Sokolov.  They saw each other often.  Gilliard had access to Sokolov's entired collection.  Evidently,  he thought it possible that AA might have been GD Anastasia.  And, according to what I read above, evidently Gilliard had the first impression that AA was GD Anastasia...  



It matters, of course,  what he finally concluded about AA but I'm still stuck at the point where he  thought it was possible that GD Anastasia survived and that AA might be GD Anastasia....

To me this is very important.

Why would he think it possible?

What don't we know that he knew?

Was it  some kind of the evidence showing GD Anastasia and Alexei may have escaped?   Gilliard did consider escape was possible or he would not have gone to meet AA at all.   This evidence, whatever it was,   may have helped AA's case....   Gilliard then destroyed evidence important to this case.   Today, this evidence may have given us a different look at the possibility of someone having escaped or something else, we will never know.

All we know is:  Two bodies are missing.  They are not where Yurovsky said they could be found.

Did Sokolov  place any of the documents which talked about any kind of escape/escapes in his book?  This is one book that I can't find to buy and I am  still looking for one.

Summers and Mangold  in FILE ON THE TSAR talk about the possibilities, while at the same time didn't believe AA was GD Anastasia.  

AGRBear



What Gilliard and Olga did testify to is of course legal, and recorded as to what they believed, some almost 30 years had passed between the original statements and the depositions or testimony, and they were of course conflicting.  That is what is so puzzling about this case, all of the misinformation, all of the conflicting statements.
Enough to make your head swim.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: AGRBear on January 06, 2006, 01:30:26 PM
Some posters fail to understand what makes a good discussion.

In school,  I remember our Prof. saying,  "You must learn to discuss both sides of  every issue or you will never gain the full understanding of the issue."

Quote

...[in part]...

That is where you are DEAD WRONG.  Pg 112. Riddle of Anna Anderson by Peter Kurth:  " The Grand Duchess's parting words to Ambassador Zahle were to become famous: "My reason cannot grasp but my heart TELLS ME THAT THE LITTLE ONE IS ANASTASIA.  (Note; an ADMISSION of identity by a Grand Duchess Olga). And because I have been raised in a faith which tells me to follow my heart before reason, I  MUST BELIEVE THAT SHE IS"  (Note; Another admission of identity of the patient by Grand Duchess Olga.)

While this is not a sworn statement or legal deposition, and holds no legal value, the statement was made none the less to Ambassador Zahle, who is a credible and believeable source, and was in the confidence of the Danish Royal Family, and Empress Marie's brother, Prince Waldemar.  


  

No it is isn't.  Just because someone doesn't believe the way that you do, doesn't mean that they believe what YOU think they do.   This case is much more complex.



I have read of this case and own books, and discussed it among friends for years.  I also TOOK TIME to read the threads as a lurker, and was hesitant in coming here, because of the constant personal attacks by you.  However I have made my statements, and I am new here.
....


If I have failed to offer a friendly, "Welcome",  I do, now.  If I am repeating myself,  well,  it's been a busy Holiday Season at Bear's House this year and my mind has been elsewhere.

Quote
While this is not a sworn statement or legal deposition, and holds no legal value, the statement was made none the less to Ambassador Zahle, who is a credible and believeable source, and was in the confidence of the Danish Royal Family, and Empress Marie's brother, Prince Waldemar.


Did  Ambassador Zahle ever make  a statement saying this wasn't true?

AGRBear
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Annie on January 06, 2006, 01:42:13 PM
Quote

Some posters fail to understand what makes a good discussion.


Every poster who regularly reads this forum knows exactly what's going on.

Quote
In school,  I remember our Prof. saying,  "You must learn to discuss both sides of  every issue or you will never gain the full understanding of the issue."

AGRBear


Even being a dog chasing his tail on an issue that is over? Would you continue to say the south won the Civil War even though history proves otherwise? I knew a guy once who claimed he didn't believe in history, it was all made up, and we couldn't prove any of that stuff ever happened ::) You can keep posting "File on the Tsar" and red lined pics a thousand times, the answer is never going to change.

As far as 'welcoming' a 'newbie', well, I did give it a few days before I said anything. If I weren't 99.9% sure I was right, I wouldn't have said anything. :) If I were the FA, I would openly 'out' all 'newbies' who are really reruns. Bear, at least you continue to post under your own name.

Look at it like this, how many times are we going to hear someone claim over and over that they don't believe AA is AN, and that they really don't care, yet every single post is about how Olga lied, or how nobody fed her memories, or the DNA tests were wrong, etc. What am I supposed to think? Just say what you really think, and use your own name doing it. That's a lot more honorable, regardless of your position.

Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Annie on January 06, 2006, 01:50:54 PM
Quote

If it is closed for you then you should move on and let others discover what is truth for themselves in their own journey.


Someone must speak out for reason against all this, after all this forum is used for informational purposes and I'd hate to see kids misled by fantasy. Some of your 'journies' are no more than a round trip ticket that will never end.


Quote
That is where you are DEAD WRONG.  Pg 112. Riddle of Anna Anderson by Peter Kurth:  " The Grand Duchess's parting words to Ambassador Zahle were to become famous: "My reason cannot grasp but my heart TELLS ME THAT THE LITTLE ONE IS ANASTASIA.  (Note; an ADMISSION of identity by a Grand Duchess Olga). And because I have been raised in a faith which tells me to follow my heart before reason, I  MUST BELIEVE THAT SHE IS"  (Note; Another admission of identity of the patient by Grand Duchess Olga.)


Sounds to me as if she was struggling with her emotions, then realized her strong desire for her neice to be alive just wasn't reality. As I said, this happens, like the lady who took the wrong dog.


Quote
No it is isn't.  Just because someone doesn't believe the way that you do, doesn't mean that they believe what YOU think they do.   This case is much more complex.


For the 1,000,000th time: there is a difference between 'opinion' and something that can be proven as fact.


Quote
I think you are very paranoid to say the least, you accused caleb of being someone else last week and now me.... Do you see black helicopters also?


I didn't expect you to admit it, and I understand how you must try to belittle me to throw off the suspicion that you really are a rerun. Look, I'm not naive. I've been on a lot of message boards, I can tell a real newbie, or even a lurker who decides to start posting, from an alias. The main giveaways are showing up soon after someone else with the same exact rhetoric 'leaves' and saying the same things in the same way with the same attitude. We have had several AA supporters 'leave' and now suddenly we have 'newbies' with few posts coming back in here saying the same stuff? It doesn't take a DNA scientist to see through it.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Forum Admin on January 06, 2006, 01:53:36 PM
Ahem,
more than one poster here is getting personal and not keeping to the topic. Need I say more?
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Grand_Duke_Paul on January 06, 2006, 02:02:28 PM
Quote
Some posters fail to understand what makes a good discussion.

In school,  I remember our Prof. saying,  "You must learn to discuss both sides of  every issue or you will never gain the full understanding of the issue."


If I have failed to offer a friendly, "Welcome",  I do, now.  If I am repeating myself,  well,  it's been a busy Holiday Season at Bear's House this year and my mind has been elsewhere.


Did  Ambassador Zahle ever make  a statement saying this wasn't true?

AGRBear


I don't believe that Ambassador Zahle did ever retract it, but according to Kurth's sources it came from a deposition or affadavit by Harriet Von Rathlef.

Thank you for the welcome.   I suppose that this is her normal schtick.  Everyone is someone else etc?  There can never be a newbie, because this her permanent residence, I would imagine that further investigation of the threads would find more accusations against people who were accused of being someone else by her.  What a waste of time.  

However, so far the discussion is extremely interesting.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Grand_Duke_Paul on January 06, 2006, 02:08:19 PM
Quote




Sounds to me as if she was struggling with her emotions, then realized her strong desire for her neice to be alive just wasn't reality. As I said, this happens, like the lady who took the wrong dog.


For the 1,000,000th time: there is a difference between 'opinion' and something that can be proven as fact.  



Your analogy is unapplicable in this case, surely you must realize that this at the time, and even in the present day would be considered an unequivocal statment of support?   Emotional or not she made it, and if we use that as a reason for discounting it, then couldn't her later statements be described as emotional, and not weighed in as evidence.

What is obvious though is that she did change her mind after returning home to Denmark, and she did not waiver at that point.  

The fact is that  she made the statement, and that is not an opinion.  Unless everyone else is a liar?
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Louis_Charles on January 06, 2006, 02:09:30 PM
Dear Grand Duke,

I would hope that this quote by Zahle could be verified by a statement Zahle himself gave about it, rather than only Rathlef's account. I do think that it is credible that Olga was struggling with the situation, and in my opinion, anyway, the quote as given is open to that interpretation --- almost as though she is talking herself through things. And while they weren't deposed until years later, Olga at least was writing to people quite shortly after the visit to say that she didn't think that Andersen was her niece.

I also want to make clear that when I use the word "visit" I am referring comprehensively to the whole time Olga was in Berlin, as opposed the just the first encounter with Andersen. I know that she had more than one during the visit.

Simon
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: AGRBear on January 06, 2006, 02:19:09 PM
Yes,  the issues which surround AA are complex.

I'm a 63 year old Bear and I've been reading this stuff since High School and since I've joined this forum,  I realize how much I did not know about AA,  FS and the Romanovs.

AGRBear
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Grand_Duke_Paul on January 06, 2006, 02:21:26 PM
Quote
Dear Grand Duke,

I would hope that this quote by Zahle could be verified by a statement Zahle himself gave about it, rather than only Rathlef's account. I do think that it is credible that Olga was struggling with the situation, and in my opinion, anyway, the quote as given is open to that interpretation --- almost as though she is talking herself through things. And while they weren't deposed until years later, Olga at least was writing to people quite shortly after the visit to say that she didn't think that Andersen was her niece.

I also want to make clear that when I use the word "visit" I am referring comprehensively to the whole time Olga was in Berlin, as opposed the just the first encounter with Andersen. I know that she had more than one during the visit.

Simon


Dear Louis_Charles

I would hope that this statement can be verified through someone other than von Rathlef, but I would not be wanting to be accused of bias by certain parties which is why in all fairness I mentioned that.

I think that if you use the emotional excuse to not count this statement as credible, then her later statements should be discredited also as they could be put under the emotional excuse.

While I agree with you it seems as though she was talking her way through things, perhaps that was her manner of speaking, since she was a frank some what down to earth person from all descriptions.  Then that makes you wonder what happened when she got home was pressure applied to her through her family, or did she come to the conclusion after much agonizing thought.   We cannot know their motives, or their thoughts, we can only dicuss and suggest what we think they were.

I think that the statement should be taken as it was meant at the time a statement that she made in support of this woman being her niece.  When others say things such as she "never said that",  I want to point it is obvious that she did make the statement, and shortly after returning home changed her mind.  
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Grand_Duke_Paul on January 06, 2006, 02:24:33 PM
Quote
Yes,  the issues which surround AA are complex.

I'm a 63 year old Bear and I've been reading this stuff since High School and since I've joined this forum,  I realize how much I did not know about AA,  FS and the Romanovs.

AGRBear


There is a great deal for us to learn, who knows what will come out, but I can tell you that I am interested in it no matter if there is ever new testing or not.  This case is absolutely fascinating.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: calebGmoney on January 06, 2006, 05:22:03 PM
Quote
OK
First, this quote from Greg is NOT NEW. It was made four years ago. THAT is why I deleted it and will continue to do so.
PERIOD.

It has been addressed and discussed. Please simply do a search in the Forum for keyword "Melton" by user admin, set it to 500 days for oldest and 500 for number of posts and you will read everything.

In short, this claim by Greg (and PK) was taken directly to Dr. Teri Melton, who performed one of the original tests on the AA mtDNA. She is today the head of Mytotyping Technologies, and is considered to be one of the worlds leading experts in DNA analysis. She is recognized as such by most courts in the US, including Federal court and also in the UK. Her response was immediate and succinct:
Whoever made that statement does not understand the science involved. The test is PRECISELY the same in 2004/5 as it was in 1994. The only difference is that today a machine and computer perfoms the actual testing, while human hands did it then. PERIOD. The only difference today is that there are a larger sample of mtDNA sub groups now sequenced for comparison. BUT that in no way lessens the validity of the original testing. PERIOD. A non-match is STILL a non-match. 100%.  ONE un-matched marker is a non match. 100%.  AA had FIVE un-matching markers from the maternal relations of Alexandra.

I have researched the claim myself and can find NO peer review research work to support the statement. Rather the opposite, Gill's work on AA is cited over 100 times in the scientific journals as the benchmark standard for the science and is relied on by all experts as solid, reliable and effective. I have asked for the specific sources supporting ANY contention that the testing is no longer reliable and over the last three years of making this request NO ONE has ever provided a single report in support.

THIS SUBJECT IS CLOSED UNTIL/UNLESS A PEER REVIEW SCIENTIFIC PAPER IN SUPPORT OF THE UNRELIABLITY OF SUCH TESTING ACCOMPANIES THE STATEMENT. Clear?
So because ONE scientist told you this, you are not willing to ask anyone else about it? Do you have anyone else you can ask?
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Forum Admin on January 06, 2006, 05:27:07 PM
IF you had bothered to do the Forum search I told you to do (which you clearly were too lazy to do...) you would have read further that just last spring I asked the head of Cenetron Diagnostics, the largest DNA testing lab in Texas, and himself a well respected published specialist in the field. He laughed at the very notion the tests were less valid today and his exact words were "anyone thinking that just does not understand how the testing works.  How people can question it?? (long pause) Well, I believe there still is a "Flat Earth Society" in England!" and he laughed.

NOW, praytell Caleb. HOW MANY SCIENTISTS have told YOU they are not realiable? As much as I love Greg, he is not at all a specialist in the field of mtDNA testing.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: AGRBear on January 06, 2006, 06:00:47 PM
Quote

While Greg has never openly stated he thought AA was AN, Penny Wilson has. Yes, I have sources.

Re: Anna Anderson and Anastasia
« Reply #81 on: Jul 12th, 2004, 11:33pm »
Penny_Wilson wrote:

One thing I can tell you absolutely and positively is that Gleb Botkin was no con-man. He truly and strongly believed in Anastasia Manahan, and he never wavered in this belief.

If she was Anastasia -- and I myself believe it likely that she was -- then Gleb and his sister Tatiana were her two truest friends.


http://hydrogen.pallasweb.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=anastasia;action=display;num=1075191962;start=75

Scroll down, it's a long interview

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.talk.royalty/browse_thread/thread/b8d96eacf3b0d5a/7e5873fc32281168?lnk=st&q=%22Fate+of+the+Romanovs%22+Gutmaker+Anastasia+Anderson&rnum=2&hl=en#7e5873fc32281168


 What I'm saying is, since he is a very close associate of Wilson and Kurth, and he has been fighting so hard to prove the DNA tests wrong, it appears he is now of that belief, or has at least joined the crusade. No, I don't believe anyone would go to so much trouble to try to discount the DNA, and bring up the other things stated in that article, if they weren't out to prove it. I also am perplexed at how authors can state in their book she was dead in the basement, then fight so hard to prove she got out and lived as AA ???


This was in May 2003.  

In 2005 here in this forum Penny Wilson wrote:


Quote

...[in part]....

That's not the issue with me, Annie, and you know it.  I have said several times that I accept the DNA results as they stand today; my contention here is that Anna Anderson was absolutely NOT Franziska Schanzkowska.  Stop muddying the waters.

...




AGRBear
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: catt.sydney on January 06, 2006, 07:40:53 PM
Quote
OK
First, this quote from Greg is NOT NEW. It was made four years ago. THAT is why I deleted it and will continue to do so.
PERIOD.

It has been addressed and discussed. Please simply do a search in the Forum for keyword "Melton" by user admin, set it to 500 days for oldest and 500 for number of posts and you will read everything.

In short, this claim by Greg (and PK) was taken directly to Dr. Teri Melton, who performed one of the original tests on the AA mtDNA. She is today the head of Mytotyping Technologies, and is considered to be one of the worlds leading experts in DNA analysis. She is recognized as such by most courts in the US, including Federal court and also in the UK. Her response was immediate and succinct:
Whoever made that statement does not understand the science involved. The test is PRECISELY the same in 2004/5 as it was in 1994. The only difference is that today a machine and computer perfoms the actual testing, while human hands did it then. PERIOD. The only difference today is that there are a larger sample of mtDNA sub groups now sequenced for comparison. BUT that in no way lessens the validity of the original testing. PERIOD. A non-match is STILL a non-match. 100%.  ONE un-matched marker is a non match. 100%.  AA had FIVE un-matching markers from the maternal relations of Alexandra.

I have researched the claim myself and can find NO peer review research work to support the statement. Rather the opposite, Gill's work on AA is cited over 100 times in the scientific journals as the benchmark standard for the science and is relied on by all experts as solid, reliable and effective. I have asked for the specific sources supporting ANY contention that the testing is no longer reliable and over the last three years of making this request NO ONE has ever provided a single report in support.

THIS SUBJECT IS CLOSED UNTIL/UNLESS A PEER REVIEW SCIENTIFIC PAPER IN SUPPORT OF THE UNRELIABLITY OF SUCH TESTING ACCOMPANIES THE STATEMENT. Clear?



A brief comment...
     I have NO PROBLEM AT ALL with any further DNA testing - however- I rather doubt that there is anymore *flesh* or *blood* left to be examined...
     Anastasia Manahan was cremated and as far as I know there is only the "intestine" specimen in MJ Hospital. So allowing  for the arguments made by the FA, and the evidence from various postings by geneticists and scholars here - I have some doubts about any reason for more tests.
    But if you have the "funds"  - do test away!
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Grand_Duke_Paul on January 07, 2006, 10:57:20 AM
Quote


A brief comment...
      I have NO PROBLEM AT ALL with any further DNA testing - however- I rather doubt that there is anymore *flesh* or *blood* left to be examined...
      Anastasia Manahan was cremated and as far as I know there is only the "intestine" specimen in MJ Hospital. So allowing  for the arguments made by the FA, and the evidence from various postings by geneticists and scholars here - I have some doubts about any reason for more tests.
     But if you have the "funds"  - do test away!


Who knows how much of the sample is left that they tested with if any.  Perhaps it is all a waste of time.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Annie on January 07, 2006, 11:31:19 AM
I don't see how testing again would solve a thing, since most of the people who doubt the testing results do so because they believe in a switch, and wouldn't the sample being tested again be the same one that was allegedly 'switched?' If the results came up the same, they'd still cry switch/conspiracy/paid off by the Queen etc.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: catt.sydney on January 07, 2006, 10:20:23 PM
Quote
I don't see how testing again would solve a thing, since most of the people who doubt the testing results do so because they believe in a switch, and wouldn't the sample being tested again be the same one that was allegedly 'switched?' If the results came up the same, they'd still cry switch/conspiracy/paid off by the Queen etc.


I agree that retesting is probably pointless - but for some people it is important...Some people enjoy reinventing the wheel and its not for me to
stop them ...
    Consider that I am NOT an expert on DNA or a geneticist - nevertheless I do trust the information that I have gotten fron such people at this site. This act is not made BLINDLY - IT IS BACKED UP WITH LOGICAL EXPLANATIONS AND EVIDENCE PRESENTED WITHOUT HYSTRIONICS OR NAME CALLING!

I don't create toasters but I understand the process for making toasted bread...OK?
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: calebGmoney on January 08, 2006, 12:09:21 AM
Quote
I don't see how testing again would solve a thing, since most of the people who doubt the testing results do so because they believe in a switch, and wouldn't the sample being tested again be the same one that was allegedly 'switched?' If the results came up the same, they'd still cry switch/conspiracy/paid off by the Queen etc.

I for one never have considered it a fact that there was some switch, only a theory, although I have doubted the possibility of it somewhat. But I feel it is necessary that the tissue be retested to see if the tissue would match the nuclear DNA of Nicholas and Alexandra now with the 20-point STRs that are used. If there were a match, I'd feel very hopeful. If it were not, I might accept that Anderson was not Anastasia and move on (although I would not believe she was Franziska).  Who do you think is someone I could possibly write to about this? Retesting is not pointless now that science is more advanced.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: catt.sydney on January 08, 2006, 08:21:02 AM
Quote
I for one never have considered it a fact that there was some switch, only a theory, although I have doubted the possibility of it somewhat. But I feel it is necessary that the tissue be retested to see if the tissue would match the nuclear DNA of Nicholas and Alexandra now with the 20-point STRs that are used. If there were a match, I'd feel very hopeful. If it were not, I might accept that Anderson was not Anastasia and move on (although I would not believe she was Franziska).  Who do you think is someone I could possibly write to about this? Retesting is not pointless now that science is more advanced.


OK ... :-/

   Caleb  - you may want to start saving money NOW because the testing process is rather expensive. You will also need to get legal permission to collect forensic samples - it MIGHT help if you were related to the late Mr Manahan. You see, to have this testing done, you will need a viable reason and some connection to justify the work.

   To put it bluntly- you can't really just walk to a cemetery and randomly request that the contents of of plot a-11-b-1601 be genetically compared with the body in plot ffa-62-d-9774 simply because you are curious!  

I do hope that any legal scholars will correct me if I am wrong on this.


PS-- Ummm...how much 'advancement' has this sort of  DNA testing actually undergone in less than ten years?
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Forum Admin on January 08, 2006, 10:03:35 AM
Caleb,
You don't even understand the difference between mtDNA and nuclearDNA analysis, much less the meaning of mtDNA.

The AA sample DID NOT MATCH the known mtDNA for Alexandra. Using 20 point STR is pointless because IT STILL WON'T MATCH.... Adding more markers will NOT affect the five known mis matched markers....it would only make the match EVEN more conclusively 100% not. How can you not understand this basic point?
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: calebGmoney on January 08, 2006, 05:27:05 PM
Quote
Caleb,
You don't even understand the difference between mtDNA and nuclearDNA analysis, much less the meaning of mtDNA.

The AA sample DID NOT MATCH the known mtDNA for Alexandra. Using 20 point STR is pointless because IT STILL WON'T MATCH.... Adding more markers will NOT affect the five known mis matched markers....it would only make the match EVEN more conclusively 100% not. How can you not understand this basic point?

Forum Admin, mtDNA is passed from the mother and a child of Alexandra's would have the same mtDNA as her. But let's just put that aside for a second.  The nuclearDNA should be retested because 6-point STRs have indeed produced inaccurate results in the past. That is why more markers were added. The nuclearDNA of the tissue should be compared to the nuclearDNA of Nicholas and Alexandra again now that more markers have been added. And if there is no match, the blood sample should be tested again. Also, I'm not sure if mtDNA was ever derived from the blood sample and compared to that of the Romanovs.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: catt.sydney on January 08, 2006, 05:35:17 PM
Quote
Caleb,
You don't even understand the difference between mtDNA and nuclearDNA analysis, much less the meaning of mtDNA.

The AA sample DID NOT MATCH the known mtDNA for Alexandra. Using 20 point STR is pointless because IT STILL WON'T MATCH.... Adding more markers will NOT affect the five known mis matched markers....it would only make the match EVEN more conclusively 100% not. How can you not understand this basic point?


I know why "he can not understand this basic point?"
CalebGmoney is a sophomore in an US High School. At that age - its quite easy to see things as 'black and white/yes or no'.  

At least that's what his profile suggests.
No harm done - no shame in being young - just try not to imagine that you alone know the facts.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: calebGmoney on January 08, 2006, 05:51:55 PM
Quote

I know why "he can not understand this basic point?"
CalebGmoney is a sophomore in an US High School. At that age - its quite easy to see things as 'black and white/yes or no'.  

At least that's what his profile suggests.
No harm done - no shame in being young - just try not to imagine that you alone know the facts.
Just because of someone's profile does not mean its their true age. And I never stated I alone know the facts. But I do not think that any of your opinions are any more important than mine. Everything you say is backed by evidence as everything I say is as well. Don't judge by a person's age.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: catt.sydney on January 08, 2006, 05:58:06 PM
Quote
Just because of someone's profile does not mean its their true age. And I never stated I alone know the facts. But I do not think that any of your opinions are any more important than mine. Everything you say is backed by evidence as everything I say is as well. Don't judge by a person's age.
OK
Caleb
If you are in fact NOT 16 but are actually say.. 37.4  why post a false age?
If you are 16 but don't wish to be judged as 'young' then just don't mention your personal age at all!  
As I posted there is no shame in youth!
Please reread my last post.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Georgiy on January 08, 2006, 07:17:28 PM
This makes quite an interesting point. Our profiles say exactly what we want to say, and what we want people to know/believe about us. I wonder what Fraulein Unbekampt's profile could have said about her - and how different that could have been from the real Fraulein...

(not implying Caleb that you are anyone different from your profile, but that Anna Anderson could have said anything, and a lot of people out there would believe it because that was the image she was presenting to the world.)
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Genevieve on February 26, 2006, 11:28:26 PM
Well it is interesting that they are still debating if the remains are really the IF that were buried in the royal chapel.    I still believe and always will believe that A.A.
and Anastasia were one and the same.    I wonder what would happen if they discover that they buried
the wrong group of bodies,example they said that the one they thought was Nicholas had no fillings and Nicholas had many fillings,hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm that has to be address at the very least.  A very interesting point would be what if Anastasia was who she   said she was, DNA test was faked and the rest were not who Russia said that they were?  I know most people  here believe the official story but I still have a problem with the fact that FS was 5'6 and AA was the right heigth,eye color,identical ears, mole scar,deform feet,age and it goes on and  on.    No one will ever change what I believe.    People who waitied on her  from the cradle identified her at once, Greb Boktins who knew her as children   and she knew all of the pictures in his books.    To me it was the saddest story of the
whole subject.    It seems to me that the ones who denied her story  all had something to gain from proving that she was not  AN.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Eddie_uk on February 27, 2006, 02:52:46 AM
Quote
   It seems to me that the ones who denied her story  all had something to gain from proving that she was not  AN.


Hello :) May i ask why do you feel GD Olga would have denied it was her neice if it had been so obvious AA was AN?

I think it's very very disrespectful to accuse someone, like GD Olga, of purposely denying AA was her neice in order that she would "gain something"

Anyway this has all been done to death it's so obvious that AA was not AN.
Thank you:)
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Annie on February 27, 2006, 07:56:47 AM
Quote
Well it is interesting that they are still debating if the remains are really the IF that were buried in the royal chapel.    I still believe and always will believe that A.A.and Anastasia were one and the same No one will ever change what I believe.  


Eddie boy is right, we have been through this over and over, but I want to ask WHY nobody can change what you believe, and why do you care? Does it affect your life one way or the other who she was? Why can't you just accept that she was an imposter? What's so bad about that? We all wish AN had lived, but she didn't.

Quote
I wonder what would happen if they discover that they buried the wrong group of bodies,example they said that the one they thought was Nicholas had no fillings and Nicholas had many fillings,hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm that has to be address at the very least.  A very interesting point would be what if Anastasia was who she   said she was, DNA test was faked and the rest were not who Russia said that they were?


Why the conspiracy theories? What would be the point of it? Who was this family with the fat doctor and other servants matching the ones the Romanovs had? No, the tests were not faked, and FA has said he would delete any posts saying that unless you can prove it to us, not just say it because that's what you want to think.


Quote
I know most people  here believe the official story but I still have a problem with the fact that FS was 5'6 and AA was the right heigth,eye color,identical ears, mole scar,deform feet,age and it goes on and  on.


We don't know she was 5'6", one person says that, othrs say something else. Same with the shoes. We don't even know those were her shoes! All this stuff is subjective. Their faces don't even look alike! I am constantly amazed at how people will grab onto a conflicting report of height or shoe size and ignore cold hard science ??? And what scars? The finger story was not true. She had scars, but she didn't get them from Ekaterinburg! And since we can't find the real AN's body we don't even know what scars she sustained to even compare!

Quote
on her  from the cradle identified her at once,


Okay, WHO knew her from the cradle to identified her? The only ones who knew her that well and that long who survived were Olga A., who denied her, and Anna V., who was never asked. Most of the others who 'claimed' her had very limited exposure to her and would not have known her well (I have made lists of them and why they wouldn't know her well in other threads)

Quote
 It seems to me that the ones who denied her story  all had something to gain from proving that she was not  AN.


Why does it 'seem?' No one had anything to gain, Olga was the black sheep of the family and died poor. Is this another 'greedy relatives denied her for money' thing? Well, there was no money, and the reason they denied her was because she wasn't AN! History and science have proved them correct!

Quote
Greb Boktins who knew her as children   and she knew all of the pictures in his books.


So let's see, you completely write off the ones against her as having something to gain, but refuse to even consider this may have been a motive for those who claimed her? How do you know those how id'd her weren't lying to get money? Hmmm? It can go both ways!
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Eddie_uk on February 27, 2006, 12:53:51 PM
Excellent post Annie!

Your horse is far from dead!!  ;D ;D
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Ra-Ra-Rasputin on February 28, 2006, 02:30:18 AM
Thanks Annie, I needed that! ;D Great post.

I'm reading Peter Kurth at the moment and he's one persuasive man! ;)

Rachel
xx
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Alice on March 02, 2006, 04:04:53 PM
The problem that I have with the "reasons" on this thread is that the vast majority of them rely on the accuracy of human memory . . . which we all know to be fallible. Additionally, humans can (and do) lie. As an example,  even if "Lili Dehn recognised her", Lili could either be mistaken or lying.

People also believe what they want to believe. This forum is a prime example.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Tsarina_Liz on March 03, 2006, 08:08:21 AM
Quote
The problem that I have with the "reasons" on this thread is that the vast majority of them rely on the accuracy of human memory . . . which we all know to be fallible. Additionally, humans can (and do) lie. As an example,  even if "Lili Dehn recognised her", Lili could either be mistaken or lying.

People also believe what they want to believe. This forum is a prime example.


Unfortunately, just as these threads to deify the IF so to do they deify their supporters.  Those who identified AA as AN were not lying, or driven by person gain, or attempting to console their broken hearts through disillusionment etc. they were just loyal servants trying to bring the truth to the world.    
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Eddie_uk on March 03, 2006, 01:10:09 PM
Quote

Those who identified AA as AN were not lying, or driven by person gain, or attempting to console their broken hearts through disillusionment etc. they were just loyal servants trying to bring the truth to the world.    


Can we ever know that for sure though??
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Annie on March 03, 2006, 01:19:36 PM
I agree, Eddie, we can't!

I have been wondering all morning if Liz was being sarcastic or not? :P ???
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Ra-Ra-Rasputin on March 03, 2006, 01:21:51 PM
There is certainly more than a faint whiff of sarcasm there...;)

Rachel
xx
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Helen_Azar on March 03, 2006, 01:22:29 PM
Quote

Can we ever know that for sure though??


You are forgetting that the only two things that are certain in life are death and taxes  ;)

Does it really matter?
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Tsarina_Liz on March 03, 2006, 03:25:32 PM
Quote
I agree, Eddie, we can't!

I have been wondering all morning if Liz was being sarcastic or not? :P ???


I was cranky this morning, didn't get much sleep.  So there was definite sarcasm.  I just get so frustrated when people idolize the subjects on these boards, as some people do to those who came forward and identified AA as AN.  For some reason, the issue can only be seen as black and white: those who identified AA as AN were good and those who tried to discredit her were bad.  It's not that simple, and I wish people would realize it.  There are substantial arguments on both sides of the AA/AN debate (despite the trump card most of us call DNA).  For some reason people forget that.  The argument of DNA supporters gets the AA supporters all riled up and foaming at the mouth and spouting various arguments such as graphology and anthropological definition and contamination.  And then when someone counters these with valid arguments, AA supporters foam at the mouth even more and claim their opponents are stubborn and stupid and put too much faith in DNA.  But the same goes for those who support DNA - they flip out when anyone questions it (although this is not without reason).  

To sum up: both sides of the argument (AA is or AA is not AN) are too evenly matched.  Court evidence can be dismissed because of the reputations and shortcomings of the doctors/anthropologists/graphologists etc. who conducted the tests and submitted results (see: the nefarious Dr. Reche) and because of their tainted backgrounds (post WWI Germany was far from an ideal setting to obtain an anthropological degree or any scientific degree for that matter because of the focus on racial supremacy that invaded the upper-eschelons of German intelligensia and the scientific community, unfortunately).  But there is still the matter of the missing body which is, truth be told, a successful foil for DNA evidence.        
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Helen_Azar on March 03, 2006, 03:33:41 PM
Quote

 both sides of the argument (AA is or AA is not AN) are too evenly matched.   


Actually this is wrong - the evidence is not evenly matched at all (it seems so only to those who do not understand DNA science). If you had to put the evidence from both sides on a percentile scale, the DNA side would weight 99.999% while all the other evidence put together would be about 0.0001%. Well, you get the picture.

But this is why people get riled up about it - none of the other evidence comes even close to what the DNA is worth, and this is a fact.... But all this has been said before, over and over, and still people don't seem to understand that, alas...
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Alice on March 03, 2006, 04:04:22 PM
I hear you, Helen. I suspect that's why this thread is already 11 pages long.  :D
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: AGRBear on March 05, 2006, 11:13:54 AM
 I don't think this was the discussion thread.  Here you are only to write 101 reasons AA was GD Anastasia.  There is another thread set up for discussion.

http://hydrogen.pallasweb.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=anastasia;action=display;num=1124375743;start=0#0
AGRBear

Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Tsarina_Liz on March 09, 2006, 10:31:26 PM
Quote

Actually this is wrong - the evidence is not evenly matched at all (it seems so only to those who do not understand DNA science). If you had to put the evidence from both sides on a percentile scale, the DNA side would weight 99.999% while all the other evidence put together would be about 0.0001%. Well, you get the picture.

But this is why people get riled up about it - none of the other evidence comes even close to what the DNA is worth, and this is a fact.... But all this has been said before, over and over, and still people don't seem to understand that, alas...


The DNA, though generally accepted, still has attached to it reasonable doubt resulting from the questions brought up by testing methods.  Until the questions of contamination are settled, the DNA weighs just as much as say graphology and anthropological identification of facial features (which are also flawed and carrying around quite a bit of doubt).  The DNA, theoretically, may not even be admissable in a court of law because of the questions surrounding its authenticity/purity.  Or to put it in a scenario: if it were say the DNA of a suspected murderer, the lack of certainty would probably get that defendent a get out of jail free ticked because the DNA alone failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the suspect is the perpetrator.  There's a good reason why other evidence is entered into court cases, even to this day.  DNA is important but it is still a relatively new science, in modern courts it is recognized that DNA only has to be 96-98% (maybe even lower, I have to check) accurate meaning not a perfect (100%) match.  If I am not mistaken, the certainty attached to the AA/AN is only like 96%.  This seems like a high number, but there is still a lot of room for mistake and improvement.  DNA as whole, in a perfect situation, can only be 99.9% accurate.      

I hate playing Devil's advocate, but some times it is a valid game.  

These websites may help:

http://www.forensic-evidence.com/site/EVID/DNA_Watters.html

http://www.forensic-evidence.com/site/EVID/EL_dna_instr_bad.html
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Helen_Azar on March 10, 2006, 08:50:11 AM
Quote

The DNA, though generally accepted, still has attached to it reasonable doubt resulting from the questions brought up by testing methods.  Until the questions of contamination are settled, the DNA weighs just as much as say graphology and anthropological identification of facial features (which are also flawed and carrying around quite a bit of doubt).  The DNA, theoretically, may not even be admissable in a court of law because of the questions surrounding its authenticity/purity.  Or to put it in a scenario: if it were say the DNA of a suspected murderer, the lack of certainty would probably get that defendent a get out of jail free ticked because the DNA alone failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the suspect is the perpetrator.  There's a good reason why other evidence is entered into court cases, even to this day.  DNA is important but it is still a relatively new science, in modern courts it is recognized that DNA only has to be 96-98% (maybe even lower, I have to check) accurate meaning not a perfect (100%) match.  If I am not mistaken, the certainty attached to the AA/AN is only like 96%.  This seems like a high number, but there is still a lot of room for mistake and improvement.  DNA as whole, in a perfect situation, can only be 99.9% accurate.      

I hate playing Devil's advocate, but some times it is a valid game.  

These websites may help:

http://www.forensic-evidence.com/site/EVID/DNA_Watters.html

http://www.forensic-evidence.com/site/EVID/EL_dna_instr_bad.html


You should really go over the posts in the DNA RESOURCEs thread... You seem to be confusing some of the issues (I am sure not intentionally). It's a long thread, but it's worth it if you really want to understand this business properly.

http://hydrogen.pallasweb.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=anastasia;action=display;num=1108948411;start=0#0
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Tsarina_Liz on March 10, 2006, 10:57:29 AM
I know the issues.  I understand DNA and genetic testing.  I know that DNA tests did not come out on the side of AA.  But I also know the problems associated with the DNA testing (even if they are pipe dreams on the AA side).  Even with the relative certainty of DNA evidence, it is irresponsible to ignore other evidence - even if it conflicts with personal beliefs.  Unfortunately the AA DNA tests, while important, are not proving sufficient and that is a valid conundrum and we have to look at the reasons why.  Was the specimin truly contaminated?  Was there a faulty lab procedure sometime during the testing of the sample?  And, of course, the big one: why do some people have a hard time accepting the DNA?  

Anna Anderson was not Anastasia Nicolaevna, I have concluded.  And I came to that conclusion based not only on DNA but also on the other evidence presented.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: ConstanceMarie on March 10, 2006, 11:55:00 AM
Quote
why do some people have a hard time accepting the DNA?  


IMO, from what I've seen, it's not the science they have a problem with, anyone who understands science doesn't challenge it. What it seems to be is a certain handful of people who want AA to still be AN so bady that they are trying to come up with any way this can still be possible, and that must include doubting the DNA and trying to find something to hang onto that maybe it was somehow wrong. Of course, it wasn't but they are hoping. So what I'm saying is, hope seems to have a lot more to do with it than actual scientific challenge.

Besides the DNA, there are still many other factors working against AA, such as the fact that she looks just like FS and appeared in the same time and place FS vanished. Anything else is just one person's word against another and can never be proven.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Helen_Azar on March 10, 2006, 12:09:34 PM
Quote

 anyone who understands science doesn't challenge it.


Of course you are always supposed to challenge everything, including the science. There are many examples where science does not pass the challenge, as was the case with some of the faulty forensic results, and many other examples. The problem is usually not with the science itself, but with the methods, the materials or the interpretations. If all is done and interpreted correctly then it is completely safe to say that the results are accurate.

What some still seem not to understand is that the difference in this case is that the methods, the materials, the interpretation and the science as a whole have all passed the challenges and the scrutiny, and have shown to be accurate on many levels, more than even necessary in such cases. There is nothing more to challenge or scrutinize in this particular case, we have our answer...
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Tsarina_Liz on March 11, 2006, 06:54:35 PM
Quote

IMO, from what I've seen, it's not the science they have a problem with, anyone who understands science doesn't challenge it. What it seems to be is a certain handful of people who want AA to still be AN so bady that they are trying to come up with any way this can still be possible, and that must include doubting the DNA and trying to find something to hang onto that maybe it was somehow wrong. Of course, it wasn't but they are hoping. So what I'm saying is, hope seems to have a lot more to do with it than actual scientific challenge.

Besides the DNA, there are still many other factors working against AA, such as the fact that she looks just like FS and appeared in the same time and place FS vanished. Anything else is just one person's word against another and can never be proven.


Hope also plays a crucial part in the blindness of some people to other forms of evidence.  DNA has become this Holy Grail, the be all and end all, and it causes fits of hysterical passion on the part of many believers.  Blindness, though, leads to error.  Blindness leads to ignorance.

It's like a puzzle: one piece may be much larger than all the others, but without the smaller pieces the puzzle will never be complete.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Helen_Azar on March 11, 2006, 07:34:46 PM
Quote

DNA has become this Holy Grail, the be all and end all, and it causes fits of hysterical passion on the part of many believers.  Blindness, though, leads to error.  Blindness leads to ignorance.
 



Please refer to my previous post... No one has blind faith in DNA, far from it....
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Annie on March 12, 2006, 09:52:04 AM
I have always been annoyed at the assumption that some 'blindly' follow the DNA. First, it IS the answer, the only one we need. But for me, there is MUCH more, and I have written entire diatribes and lengthy lists on why I don't believe AA was AN not even using it.

One thing about the DNA being the final answer is that it took the blinders of hope for the mystery off, and without them,  I could more clearly see how all the other 'evidence' really made sense AGAINST AA's claim when I considered everything. I had a lot of "OOOOHHHHH!" moments and lightbulbs going off, making me wonder why people couldn't see through it years before. Maybe it took the DNA to take away the last 'what if's' so we could look at it realisitically and find other explainations for the 'mysteries', things that in the long run make MUCH more sense than AA being AN!  Please, don't even question me on this, or I will write my long long list again!
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Tsarina_Liz on March 12, 2006, 05:36:59 PM
Quote


Please refer to my previous post... No one has blind faith in DNA, far from it....


Then why are so few inclined to analyze, or even acknowledge, other evidence both affirmative and to the contrary?  Just once I would like to see a DNA supporter argue against AA's claims without whipping out the DNA card.  It can be done.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Merrique on March 12, 2006, 06:03:04 PM
Quote

Then why are so few inclined to analyze, or even acknowledge, other evidence both affirmative and to the contrary?  Just once I would like to see a DNA supporter argue against AA's claims without whipping out the DNA card.  It can be done.


Honestly what is the point in debating this issue anymore?We already know AA wasn't AN.

That dead horse of yours should be a bloody pulp by now Annie. ;D :D ;)
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Louis_Charles on March 12, 2006, 06:06:37 PM
In fact, it has been done, and on this website. And remember, for many people Andersen's circumstantial evidence in support of her claim was never enough, Liz. But I can predict with 100% accuracy that if you argue against her claim without the DNA evidence, Liz, your witnesses will be impeached because they (1) had ulterior motives not to recognize her or (2) various immigrants/refugees/etc. made it out of Russia, so her story could have been true (3) the minor internal contradictions in the Ermakov/Yurovsky testimonies impeach the entire concept of the basement shootings (4) you are ignoring the evidence that she was sighted in Perm after July 17, 1918 (5) she might have, she might have, she might have. . .  fill in the blank with an improbable escape.

All of which says something about the Grand Duchess, but nothing about Anna Andersen, whose DNA puts her outside the Romanov family (and surprise, surprise, inside the Schanzkowska clan). And that's why the argument in her favor collapses, because unless the DNA evidence can be impeached --- and they have had over ten years to do that --- the DNA evidence rules out her claim without resorting to things like "Why can't you look at the photograph and see that Anna Andersen was Anastasia?"  Or conversely, "Look at the photograph --- she looks nothing like Anastasia Nikolaevna!"

No one thinks that the DNA is godlike, but it is objective. If it can be impeached, go for it. But as it exists, what is wrong with using it to settle an argument that lasted from 1920 until the sample was tested?

Simon
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Annie on March 12, 2006, 06:57:23 PM
Quote

  Just once I would like to see a DNA supporter argue against AA's claims without whipping out the DNA card.  It can be done.


It has been done MANY times on so many threads I've lost count and forgotten what they were named. Here is one, I'll find more later when I get my DSL back- too slow.

While DNA is the final answer to the question, there is really nothing in her favor that can't be explained away very easily. Here's a thread I started a long time ago because I got tired of hearing people say we only used DNA. It's called 'Reasons OTHER than DNA"

http://hydrogen.pallasweb.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=anastasia;action=display;num=1101302518

It can't be bumped because it's locked, but you can read it.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Tsarina_Liz on March 13, 2006, 06:02:24 PM
Quote
In fact, it has been done, and on this website. And remember, for many people Andersen's circumstantial evidence in support of her claim was never enough, Liz. But I can predict with 100% accuracy that if you argue against her claim without the DNA evidence, Liz, your witnesses will be impeached because they (1) had ulterior motives not to recognize her or (2) various immigrants/refugees/etc. made it out of Russia, so her story could have been true (3) the minor internal contradictions in the Ermakov/Yurovsky testimonies impeach the entire concept of the basement shootings (4) you are ignoring the evidence that she was sighted in Perm after July 17, 1918 (5) she might have, she might have, she might have. . .  fill in the blank with an improbable escape.

All of which says something about the Grand Duchess, but nothing about Anna Andersen, whose DNA puts her outside the Romanov family (and surprise, surprise, inside the Schanzkowska clan). And that's why the argument in her favor collapses, because unless the DNA evidence can be impeached --- and they have had over ten years to do that --- the DNA evidence rules out her claim without resorting to things like "Why can't you look at the photograph and see that Anna Andersen was Anastasia?"  Or conversely, "Look at the photograph --- she looks nothing like Anastasia Nikolaevna!"

No one thinks that the DNA is godlike, but it is objective. If it can be impeached, go for it. But as it exists, what is wrong with using it to settle an argument that lasted from 1920 until the sample was tested?

Simon


Obviously what you said above was part of the reason why AAs case could never be settled by the German court.    Both sides fall apart when looked at too closely, they are too similar not to.

There is no problem using DNA here, but it makes people lazy.  When new comers come to the board and make a case for AA, the first thing that gets whipped out is the DNA card.  Nothing else, despite the fact that the case (without DNA) has been argued.  Referring someone to a thread is great, but it's not as helpful as patiently sitting them down (metaphorically, of course) and outlining the case against AA without DNA.  Yes, it may cause some repetition and it may be a gigantic pain the ass to some people but it could also prevent future problems and is an intellectual exercise.  Every time you argue against AA, I can guarantee you will think of a new, maybe more helpful angle.  Find another useful piece of the puzzle.  Repetition is one of the keys to learning.    

But even then I guess it's useless because threads that are supposed to discuss evidence OTHER than DNA always denigrate into bickering over the validity of DNA.  
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Louis_Charles on March 14, 2006, 02:09:50 PM
Dear Liz,

In the best of all worlds, I would agree with this. I am a teacher, and the kind of patience you counsel is what we strive to bring to our work with pupils who are genuinely open to the truth.

In fact, there have been several discussions on these threads where this kind of thing has taken place. I think there has been more acerbity lately because so many people have bounced onto the boards with the same old claims, and a complete unwillingness to listen to counter-arguments.

I still come back to my original question. Since the DNA provides an empirical answer to the question, why not use it to answer the question? If someone wishes to believe that Anna Andersen (Franziska Schanzkowska) was Anastasia Nikolaevna in the face of it, the burden of proof is really upon them. In fact, the burden of proof was always upon the Andersen supporters, and they failed to convince the courts that she was the Grand Duchess.

Regards,

Simon
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Tsarina_Liz on March 14, 2006, 02:58:51 PM
Quote
Dear Liz,

In the best of all worlds, I would agree with this. I am a teacher, and the kind of patience you counsel is what we strive to bring to our work with pupils who are genuinely open to the truth.

In fact, there have been several discussions on these threads where this kind of thing has taken place. I think there has been more acerbity lately because so many people have bounced onto the boards with the same old claims, and a complete unwillingness to listen to counter-arguments.

I still come back to my original question. Since the DNA provides an empirical answer to the question, why not use it to answer the question? If someone wishes to believe that Anna Andersen (Franziska Schanzkowska) was Anastasia Nikolaevna in the face of it, the burden of proof is really upon them. In fact, the burden of proof was always upon the Andersen supporters, and they failed to convince the courts that she was the Grand Duchess.

Regards,

Simon


I guess, in answer to your original question, the best thing I can answer is that DNA should be used but only in conjunction with the evidence and not a stand alone golden calf.  I have no problem with the DNA, my problem is with the inability of others to see beyond the DNA tests.  
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Ra-Ra-Rasputin on March 14, 2006, 03:57:17 PM
FWIW, I used to be a die hard Anna Anderson supporter.

This was back when I was about 12 and checked the James Blair Lovell book out of the library.  I devoured it.  I believed every word of it.  I was convinced by the fortune argument, and was convinced that Anna Anderson couldn't possibly be anyone else but Anastasia.  Then I found out about the DNA, but I still thought 'there must have been a mix up'.  I was adamant.  The evidence for AA being AN was pretty strong in my mind, and I was convinced that the British Royal Family had arranged a cover up.

Now I am older and wiser, have read around the subject more and so on, I can see clearly that I was convinced by wanting to believe, and so were James Blair Lovell and Peter Kurth.  Their arguments are persuasive, but so wholly one sided.  They don't tell us about the things AA got wrong, or how often the people who identified her as AN actually saw her and so on.  Once you probe beyond the surface, you find so many anomalies that DNA aside, it's pretty hard to see how so many people can still remain convinced.

Before the DNA, when there was a strong likelihood in a lot of people's minds that AA could have been AN, people were more susceptible to be hoodwinked because there was nothing definitive that said what AA's identity was one way or another.  Now we DO know the DNA results, it's pretty difficult to say 'look beyond the DNA', because everything beyond the DNA can't be true.  Yes, there were some uncanny similarities, but that's all they were.  The anomalies outweigh the similarities even before we get to DNA: just a couple of examples; Anastasia couldn't speak German, Anastasia looked nothing like AA, Anastasia's closest family members didn't acknowledge AA and so on.  BEFORE the DNA, it was easy for people like Kurth and Lovell to brush this under the carpet, but now we know the DNA results, we can see more clearly that a lot of the 'convincing' arguments we believed before are actually very flawed.  It took a definitive answer to show up the massive irregularities in the whole case.  Now we know AA wasn't AN, we can see from an objective point of view that the reason she spoke German and not Russian was because she didn't know any other language, not because she refused to speak it and so on.  While there was a possibility AA WAS AN, it was easy to explain away the problems.  Now we do know, it's phenomenally easy to see through all of the reasons why people thought AA was AN in the first place.  At least it is for me, anyway.  'I can see clearly now the rain is gone'...seems fitting for this situation!!! ;)

Rachel
xx
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Annie on March 14, 2006, 05:20:05 PM
Quote

I guess, in answer to your original question, the best thing I can answer is that DNA should be used but only in conjunction with the evidence and not a stand alone golden calf.  I have no problem with the DNA, my problem is with the inability of others to see beyond the DNA tests.  


But since the DNA answered all the other questions, none of it matters anymore. All of the other stuff was simply incorrect, the people who said otherwise were either lying or mistaken. There's no more such thing as the DNA said it wasn't her BUT...there is no more BUT, unless you are insinuating the DNA is wrong/switched/tampered with. If you are not, then it is correct, and if it is correct, she is FS and not AN and nothing else comes close to being important. All the shoes, ears, languages, fake memories, etc. fall by the wayside.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Annie on March 14, 2006, 05:25:31 PM
Quote
FWIW, I used to be a die hard Anna Anderson supporter.

This was back when I was about 12 and checked the James Blair Lovell book out of the library.  I devoured it.  I believed every word of it.  I was convinced by the fortune argument, and was convinced that Anna Anderson couldn't possibly be anyone else but Anastasia.  Then I found out about the DNA, but I still thought 'there must have been a mix up'.  I was adamant.  The evidence for AA being AN was pretty strong in my mind, and I was convinced that the British Royal Family had arranged a cover up.

Now I am older and wiser, have read around the subject more and so on, I can see clearly that I was convinced by wanting to believe, and so were James Blair Lovell and Peter Kurth.  Their arguments are persuasive, but so wholly one sided.  They don't tell us about the things AA got wrong, or how often the people who identified her as AN actually saw her and so on.  Once you probe beyond the surface, you find so many anomalies that DNA aside, it's pretty hard to see how so many people can still remain convinced.

Before the DNA, when there was a strong likelihood in a lot of people's minds that AA could have been AN, people were more susceptible to be hoodwinked because there was nothing definitive that said what AA's identity was one way or another.  Now we DO know the DNA results, it's pretty difficult to say 'look beyond the DNA', because everything beyond the DNA can't be true.  Yes, there were some uncanny similarities, but that's all they were.  The anomalies outweigh the similarities even before we get to DNA: just a couple of examples; Anastasia couldn't speak German, Anastasia looked nothing like AA, Anastasia's closest family members didn't acknowledge AA and so on.  BEFORE the DNA, it was easy for people like Kurth and Lovell to brush this under the carpet, but now we know the DNA results, we can see more clearly that a lot of the 'convincing' arguments we believed before are actually very flawed.  It took a definitive answer to show up the massive irregularities in the whole case.  Now we know AA wasn't AN, we can see from an objective point of view that the reason she spoke German and not Russian was because she didn't know any other language, not because she refused to speak it and so on.  While there was a possibility AA WAS AN, it was easy to explain away the problems.  Now we do know, it's phenomenally easy to see through all of the reasons why people thought AA was AN in the first place.  At least it is for me, anyway.  'I can see clearly now the rain is gone'...seems fitting for this situation!!! ;)

Rachel
xx


Ra Ra, your story is very similar to mine. I also got into all this at 12, and I was also a former supporter. When the DNA came out, I was disappointed, but it took off the blinders of fantasy and let me see the details more clearly, then I saw through it all and had several 'OOOOHHH!" moments. It all made sense, AGAINST her. And the pictures look like FS.

I think we are rare, though, everyone else who is not a supporter seems to have never been one, and the ones who still support her haven't stopped. Just once I'd like to see somebody come here asking about AA, get the truth, and accept it, but it never happens. They all just keep fighting it was her, DNA switched, etc.  ::)
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Ra-Ra-Rasputin on March 14, 2006, 05:37:59 PM
Quote

Ra Ra, your story is very similar to mine. I also got into all this at 12, and I was also a former supporter. When the DNA came out, I was disappointed, but it took off the blinders of fantasy and let me see the details more clearly, then I saw through it all and had several 'OOOOHHH!" moments. It all made sense, AGAINST her. And the pictures look like FS.

I think we are rare, though, everyone else who is not a supporter seems to have never been one, and the ones who still support her haven't stopped. Just once I'd like to see somebody come here asking about AA, get the truth, and accept it, but it never happens. They all just keep fighting it was her, DNA switched, etc.  ::)



Great minds think alike, Annie. ;)

The reason people don't switch is because they don't like to admit they were wrong. ;)  I'm not afraid to say that I made a mistake in my beliefs; I was too easily persuaded and only had access to one side of the story.

I think a lot of the AA supporters know deep down that AA wasn't AN.  They just don't want to admit it.  It would be too embarrassing for them to now turn around and say 'Ok, ok, I believe you...she wasn't AN'.  I do it all the time, when I go against what a friend has said and then turn out to be wrong; I never admit I was wrong; I just keep repeating the same arguments as to why I was right to save face.  It's all about pride.  I think that's why Gleb Botkin had to keep saying he believed in AA; I think he knew by some point that she wasn't AN, but how embarrassing would it have been to admit he'd been wrong all that time!? Mortifying, I would imagine!

Rachel
xx
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Annie on March 14, 2006, 05:51:32 PM
Quote


Great minds think alike, Annie. ;)


:) ;)

Quote
I was too easily persuaded and only had access to one side of the story.

This is another big factor, I think. There are so many books and stories about AA it romanticizes it and makes it more fun than the truth. Sadly,most of the people who research AA do so on her side, nobody has ever written a 'she's not AN' book. I guess those who know/knew it wasn't her don't feel they need to prove it. But because of this, many people just getting into this see the more 'interesting' 'fun' side and 'want' to believe it more than reality.


Quote
I think a lot of the AA supporters know deep down that AA wasn't AN.  They just don't want to admit it.  It would be too embarrassing for them to now turn around and say 'Ok, ok, I believe you...she wasn't AN'.  I do it all the time, when I go against what a friend has said and then turn out to be wrong; I never admit I was wrong; I just keep repeating the same arguments as to why I was right to save face.  It's all about pride.



I think you're right about many of them, especially those who have devoted much of their careers to her cause. I really can't understand how so many people seem so personally attached to this and demand it must be her and the DNA is wrong, after all, it doesn't affec their lives one way or the other. Guys getting DNA tests to prove they are the Daddy of a baby they don't want to pay support to don't even doubt the DNA, or say the other prospective father switched it, and that DOES directly affect their lives!

Quote
 I think that's why Gleb Botkin had to keep saying he believed in AA; I think he knew by some point that she wasn't AN, but how embarrassing would it have been to admit he'd been wrong all that time!? Mortifying, I would imagine!

Rachel
xx


Well, I don't really agree here, because I am strongly leaning toward Gleb knowing all along it wasn't her and being in on the charade. I reallly can't understand the case going so long unless she had some very good backers. It would be so interesting to know what all was behind it, but we never will, because dead men tell no tales, and neither do those involved in possible fraud;) All of her supporters couldn't have been innocent, or fools, someone had to have masterminded it all. It was too successful not to have been premeditated with careful strategy IMO.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Ra-Ra-Rasputin on March 14, 2006, 06:13:23 PM
Quote

I think you're right about many of them, especially those who have devoted much of their careers to her cause. I really can't understand how so many people seem so personally attached to this and demand it must be her and the DNA is wrong, after all, it doesn't affect their lives one way or the other. Guys getting DNA tests to prove they are the Daddy of a baby they don't want to pay support to don't even doubt the DNA, or say the other prospective father switched it, and that DOES directly affect their lives!


I don't get that either.  It's not as if it matters either way, really! It wouldn't change the world!

Quote
Well, I don't really agree here, because I am strongly leaning toward Gleb knowing all along it wasn't her and being in on the charade. I reallly can't understand the case going so long unless she had some very good backers. It would be so interesting to know what all was behind it, but we never will, because dead men tell no tales, and neither do those involved in possible fraud;) All of her supporters couldn't have been innocent, or fools, someone had to have masterminded it all. It was too successful not to have been premeditated with careful strategy IMO.


Interesting.  I don't know about this though.  I honestly think that Gleb believed AA was AN, at first.  I do think that he MUST have known the truth at some point, but not before he'd got to the point of no return.  And by then, AA was too much of a financial asset to him to turn around and admit she wasn't AN.

The AA supporters who weren't part of the family or wishful thinkers living in the past, like Lili Dehn, were blatantly in it for the money.  How tantalising those rumours of untold riches hidden in coded bank accounts must have been...too tantalising not to take advantage of and plough money into, right? AA was an investment, and these people took care of their investment.  Introduced her to all the right people, made sure she told all the right stories...if only we knew all the details.  I'd so love to know if Gleb really knew all along or not.  I'm giving him slight benefit of the doubt until I can be convinced otherwise.

Rachel
xx
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Annie on March 14, 2006, 06:48:34 PM
It's the 'at first' thing that I doubt most. He had been with them in captivity, and had seen her last when they were moved from Tobolsk to Ekaterinburg. He last saw her waving at him out a window of the Ipatiev house, and he bowed to her. So only about a year and half had passed before AA showed up in Berlin. Surely his memory of the real AN would have been fresher than that and when he first saw AA he'd have known she wasn't really AN.

What makes me really feel he was 'the guy' is that:

- he knew the little things she 'knew' and could have told her,

-he was very imaginative and creative, having invented and illustrated an entire animal world, so he had the ability to create and perpetuate the charade,

-he was a writer/journalist in NYC, and she was a good story,

-and most of all the fact that her fame and her claim escalated and hit big time right after he met her. I can't believe it was a coincidence.

Father John Godl wrote an article saying pretty much what I already think. There will NEVER be any proof one way or the other, but I see no other suspects nearly as possible for the mastermind. We really can't give everyone a 'benefit of the doubt' when so much leads to him.

Lili Dehn met her once when she was old and AA was old too, so she could have been senile, or dreaming of the past, and anyway so much time had passed she probably couldn't have id'd the real Anastasia once she was that old and she hadn't seen her for so long.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: AGRBear on March 14, 2006, 09:30:33 PM
Two questions:

1) What year was it when Gleb Botkin first meet AA?

2) Where was Gleb living after he left Siberia to the time  he met with AA?

AGRBear

Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: ChatNoir on March 14, 2006, 11:31:45 PM
Quote
Two questions:

1) What year was it when Gleb Botkin first meet AA?

2) Where was Gleb living after he left Siberia to the time  he met with AA?

AGRBear



1) May 9, 1927.

2) Gleb emigrated to America where he made a living as a journalist and an artist in New York.

Kind regards
Chat Noir
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: ChatNoir on March 14, 2006, 11:39:25 PM
Quote

 Anastasia couldn't speak German, Anastasia looked nothing like AA, Anastasia's closest family members didn't acknowledge AA and so on


From Anastasia's school books we have learned that she made fewer mistakes on her German than her Russian. 3 professional photo comparisons all delivered the verdict that AA and AN was the same woman. Her "uncle" Andrew was certainly a close family member, and he acknowledged her on the spot.  And I still wonder why Olga sent her cards and greetings for months after their meeting. She gave AA her own shawl, and her personal photo album. And why would she write a friend just after the meeting in Berlin and say: How shall I tell Mama, this will kill her.
Just wondering.

Kind regards
Chat Noir
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: LisaDavidson on March 15, 2006, 12:09:03 AM
I think the death of the entire Imperial Family was an incredibly difficult thing for their family and many others to accept. I think this is the reason that so many people were anxious to believe someone survived, and later, why so many people believed in Anna Anderson.

I cannot fault Olga A. for writing her, I cannot fault Andrei V. for recognizing her, and I don't blame the Botkins for embracing her. All of these people had deep affection for the IF and in many cases intimate knowledge of its members.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Ra-Ra-Rasputin on March 15, 2006, 02:41:56 AM
Quote
It's the 'at first' thing that I doubt most. He had been with them in captivity, and had seen her last when they were moved from Tobolsk to Ekaterinburg. He last saw her waving at him out a window of the Ipatiev house, and he bowed to her. So only about a year and half had passed before AA showed up in Berlin. Surely his memory of the real AN would have been fresher than that and when he first saw AA he'd have known she wasn't really AN.

What makes me really feel he was 'the guy' is that:

- he knew the little things she 'knew' and could have told her,

-he was very imaginative and creative, having invented and illustrated an entire animal world, so he had the ability to create and perpetuate the charade,

-he was a writer/journalist in NYC, and she was a good story,

-and most of all the fact that her fame and her claim escalated and hit big time right after he met her. I can't believe it was a coincidence.

Father John Godl wrote an article saying pretty much what I already think. There will NEVER be any proof one way or the other, but I see no other suspects nearly as possible for the mastermind. We really can't give everyone a 'benefit of the doubt' when so much leads to him.

Lili Dehn met her once when she was old and AA was old too, so she could have been senile, or dreaming of the past, and anyway so much time had passed she probably couldn't have id'd the real Anastasia once she was that old and she hadn't seen her for so long.



All highly convincing arguments, Annie.  Have you thought about writing a book? ;)

I just don't know.  I like to see the good in people and I think that, at first, Gleb wanted to believe that AA was AN; it must have been pretty hard to accept that she had been murdered, and AA did seem VERY convincing to a lot of people, his sister included.  Unless you think she was in on it too? I suppose that's possible...

However, I think he figured out pretty quickly that it wasn't her; I'm talking about weeks here rather than months and years. By the time he admitted to himself that  AA wasn't AN, he could probably just hear those cash registers chinging and thought 'well, hey; I'll just carry on with the whole charade because it's not going to do me any harm'.  From what I've read about Gleb, I just don't believe that he would have intentionally gone into the whole AA circus knowing it wasn't her and intending on using her.  I think his original purpose was an honourable one, but once he had figured out that he was deluding himself, he saw the benefits AA would bring to him and saw no point in doing a Gilliard.

I also find it a bit difficult to see Gleb as the mastermind behind it all because he didn't know that much about court life himself.  He didn't live there, he wasn't family, and the amount of time he and Tatiana spent with the Imperial kids has been grossly exaggerrated.  I just don't think Gleb knew enough to intentionally use AA for his purposes as his original intent, because I don't think he could have pulled it off alone.  He didn't have enough inside knowledge or contacts.  He may have been a major contributor, but I don't think he was the instigator myself.

But I'm willing to be convinced.  What else do you have on Gleb? And any idea where I can find that article you mentioned?

Rachel
xx


Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Ra-Ra-Rasputin on March 15, 2006, 02:50:31 AM
Quote

From Anastasia's school books we have learned that she made fewer mistakes on her German than her Russian.


I made fewer mistakes in my French at school than I did in English, because I knew less French so it was easier to get it right. ;)  That's no proof of fluency in a language, I'm afraid.

And anyway, Anastasia didn't learn German.  It was never spoken in the house.  She never had occasion to speak it.  NEVER.  Her mother didn't speak German with the children, her German family members didn't speak German with the children.  The children's German was dreadful, because they were not taught it. I am pretty much 100% CERTAIN that the girls were never given German lessons; I have seen a quote from a family member somewhere on here that clearly states the fact.  I sadly can't find it; maybe someone else can.  I don't know where this German textbook crap comes from, but I don't see how there can have been one in existence anyway, as Anastasia was not given German lessons!!!

The girls were taught French, Russian and English.  Not German.  Pray tell, who could their fabled German tutor have been? I've never heard of one being mentioned.

Quote
3 professional photo comparisons all delivered the verdict that AA and AN was the same woman.


Really? Photo comparisons? How reliable.  I don't know what photos they were looking at, but they can't have been the same ones I was.  This is a highly unreliable and subjective piece of 'evidence' and so cannot be used as such.

Quote
Her "uncle" Andrew was certainly a close family member, and he acknowledged her on the spot.  And I still wonder why Olga sent her cards and greetings for months after their meeting. She gave AA her own shawl, and her personal photo album. And why would she write a friend just after the meeting in Berlin and say: How shall I tell Mama, this will kill her.
Just wondering.


Uncle Andrew was a 'close' family member? I don't think that's true.  He hadn't seen Anastasia since she was much younger, and how you can say definitively that a 20 something year old woman is the 10 year old girl you hadn't seen in ten years I don't know.

We've been over Olga's reaction umpteen times.  Would Olga really and truly have abandoned the girl she thought of as her own daughter just to protect her mother?? Olga was a nice woman and she wrote AA letters and sent her gifts because she was all alone in the world and clearly a bit wrong in the head.  Anyone would do that for someone else; it's called charity.  

Olga did not believe that AA was AN, she KNEW AA was not AN and if she HAD HAVE BELIEVED it, even for a second, she would have taken AA out of the mental institution she was in and back to Denmark with her WITHOUT QUESTION.  I don't care what she supposedly wrote to such and such a friend and so on; nobody would abandon their own niece.  Nobody.  Not for money, not for reputation, not for their own mother.  If Olga had been as convinced as you claim she was, don't you think she would have done something about it? It would be an unforgiveably cruel, callous and quite frankly evil woman who leaves her brother's child, the child she said she  loved as her own daughter, to languish in successive mental institutions and be shipped around among strangers and stared at as if she was in a zoo. Who the hell would do that? Tell me, who? It's absurd to say that Olga 'knew' AA was AN but was too afraid to do anything about it.  Absolutely absurd.  I don't believe it for one second.  There is not a shred of evidence to say that Olga was anything but a thoroughly decent person who loved her family.  She could never have done that, not for any reason.

AA was NOT AN.  Deal with it.

Rachel
xx

Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Annie on March 15, 2006, 06:04:58 AM
Quote


All highly convincing arguments, Annie.  Have you thought about writing a book? ;)


I have always wanted to write a Romanov book, but I can't deal with having to do all the notes and documentation. I can ramble on forever, and say things I heard, saw and remember, but it would be too much of  a task to have to locate every single book or article I ever read and quote the right parts. Like in school, I was always considered a good writer, and got good grades in it, but I got a D on research papers because of my notes. I find it very tedious and boring, and it ruins the fun of writing, IMO.


Quote
 Unless you think she was in on it too? I suppose that's possible...


I do think he and the sister were together on whatever they believed, or claimed to believe.

Quote
 I just don't think Gleb knew enough to intentionally use AA for his purposes as his original intent, because I don't think he could have pulled it off alone.  He didn't have enough inside knowledge or contacts.  He may have been a major contributor, but I don't think he was the instigator myself.


But the things she 'remembered' were not that intimate or detailed, just basic, like something she saw in the palace or some half wrong family story. Anything really intimate could never have been verified since the whole family was dead and no one asked AV. Also I have never claimed he acted alone, I never thought he was the first or the only one involved, but I do put him high on the list for all the reasons in my previous post, especially the timing of the escalation of her claim.

Quote
But I'm willing to be convinced.  What else do you have on Gleb? And any idea where I can find that article you mentioned?





Here it is, it's mostly just speculation like me, but it makes sense and fits the puzzle well. Somebody had to have helped her, she wasn't Anastasia.

http://www.serfes.org/royal/annaanderson.htm

Scroll down to the middle of the page.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Annie on March 15, 2006, 06:29:45 AM
Quote

I made fewer mistakes in my French at school than I did in English, because I knew less French so it was easier to get it right. ;)  That's no proof of fluency in a language, I'm afraid.


Most of what AA supporters throw up has become cliche' and taken out of context. The reason AN made less mistakes than Russian is because she wasn't good at the Cyrillic alphabet!

Quote
And anyway, Anastasia didn't learn German.  It was never spoken in the house.  She never had occasion to speak it.  NEVER.  Her mother didn't speak German with the children, her German family members didn't speak German with the children.  The children's German was dreadful, because they were not taught it. I am pretty much 100% CERTAIN that the girls were never given German lessons; I have seen a quote from a family member somewhere on here that clearly states the fact.  I sadly can't find it; maybe someone else can.  I don't know where this German textbook crap comes from, but I don't see how there can have been one in existence anyway, as Anastasia was not given German lessons!!!

The girls were taught French, Russian and English.  Not German.  Pray tell, who could their fabled German tutor have been? I've never heard of one being mentioned.


Good point, I never thought about that, I have never heard a German tutor mentioned like Gilliard and Gibbes. Even if they did learn German in some way at some point, they didn't use it much since, as you say, they had no real reason to. The German relations (Ella, Kaiser, etc.) wrote and spoke to them in English. Of the four languages popularly used by the aristocracy, German would have been by far the least known and used of AN, so the fact that it was most known and used by AA is a glaring sore thumb that points to it not being her. When Felix Y. met her in 1927, he asked her questions in all four languages and she only answered in German. It was FS's best language, but AN's worst.  And the horrible English AA picked up and used later was not at all that of a girl raised with two parents who spoke English with a British accent to each other every day, as AN would have spoken.


Quote
Really? Photo comparisons? How reliable.  I don't know what photos they were looking at, but they can't have been the same ones I was.  This is a highly unreliable and subjective piece of 'evidence' and so cannot be used as such.


They didn't have the computer comparisons we have now, and those high tech methods show her to be FS (like the Nova special)

While so many AA supporters claim those who were against her were in it for money, how can anyone rule out that those in favor of her weren't the real ones in it for money? It is very possible some of these 'experts' or 'testimonies' had been promised 'monies' in case any materialized.


Quote
Uncle Andrew was a 'close' family member? I don't think that's true.  He hadn't seen Anastasia since she was much younger, and how you can say definitively that a 20 something year old woman is the 10 year old girl you hadn't seen in ten years I don't know.


Nope, he was NOT a 'close family member.' He was 22 years older than her so they didn't grow up together. And he was not 'close' because he was a Vladimirivich, the family line N and A disliked and didn't want around, so I would say he was not invited or welcome at happy family outings and get togethers, I've never seen any pics of him with the kids or even N and A. His brother was Kyril, whom N and A intensely disliked, and Kyril's wife was Ducky, who had divorced A's brother for Kyril and was also hated at the palace. Add to this the fact that Andrew was married to Mathilde K., N's old mistress, who would certainly have been a most awkward guest to have around A and the kids, so, no, Andrew was NOT 'close' to the family at all!

Olga A. mentioned in a letter I saw here that she didn't know what Andrew was up to by 'claiming' the fraud, it must be something against their branch of the family. Again, he was a Vladimirovichi and his brother was Kyril, and Kyril had declared himself Tsar in exile, so they, of all people, would not have wanted an heir of N to show up! Olga thought that by claiming the imposter he was up to something crooked against N's branch of the family. Also, I'm pretty sure Andrew agreed with Kyril's public denouncement of AA a few years later.



Quote
Olga did not believe that AA was AN, she KNEW AA was not AN and if she HAD HAVE BELIEVED it, even for a second, she would have taken AA out of the mental institution she was in and back to Denmark with her WITHOUT QUESTION.  I don't care what she supposedly wrote to such and such a friend and so on; nobody would abandon their own niece.  Nobody.  Not for money, not for reputation, not for their own mother.  If Olga had been as convinced as you claim she was, don't you think she would have done something about it? It would be an unforgiveably cruel, callous and quite frankly evil woman who leaves her brother's child, the child she said she  loved as her own daughter, to languish in successive mental institutions and be shipped around among strangers and stared at as if she was in a zoo. Who the hell would do that? Tell me, who? It's absurd to say that Olga 'knew' AA was AN but was too afraid to do anything about it.  Absolutely absurd.  I don't believe it for one second.  There is not a shred of evidence to say that Olga was anything but a thoroughly decent person who loved her family.  She could never have done that, not for any reason.


Olga said in her book she wanted her to be AN, but her heart sank when she met her, and saw her, and didn't recognize her or feel their 'special bond.' She may have spoken to her as if she were AN to get a reaction she could judge by, but she never, ever thought this girl was AN. The idea that Olga was paid off by the family for money is ridiculous when you know that she was the black sheep of the family with the 'wrong' marriage, lived on a dirt farm and died broke in a one bedroom apt. over a barber shop. She didn't have any money. She denied AA because SHE WASN'T AN!


Quote
AA was NOT AN.  Deal with it.

Rachel
xx



It's about time, already. Let both tragic women, AN and AA/FS rest in peace.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Ra-Ra-Rasputin on March 15, 2006, 07:20:41 AM
Quote

I have always wanted to write a Romanov book, but I can't deal with having to do all the notes and documentation. I can ramble on forever, and say things I heard, saw and remember, but it would be too much of  a task to have to locate every single book or article I ever read and quote the right parts. Like in school, I was always considered a good writer, and got good grades in it, but I got a D on research papers because of my notes. I find it very tedious and boring, and it ruins the fun of writing, IMO.


Ugh, same with me.  I have to start work on my dissertation soon and I'm dreading it.  Having to back up everything you say with a source!? Who decided that was a good idea? ;)  I could never be a real non fiction writer.  Too impatient.


Quote
I do think he and the sister were together on whatever they believed, or claimed to believe.


Yes, I think so too.  If Gleb knew, Tatiana must have known.



Quote
But the things she 'remembered' were not that intimate or detailed, just basic, like something she saw in the palace or some half wrong family story. Anything really intimate could never have been verified since the whole family was dead and no one asked AV. Also I have never claimed he acted alone, I never thought he was the first or the only one involved, but I do put him high on the list for all the reasons in my previous post, especially the timing of the escalation of her claim.


That's true.  Ok, I'm coming round to your theory now.  I so wanted to think that Gleb had started out believing in AA, but it's looking less likely now.  He was also really concerned with the money, wasn't he? That seemed to be his primary interest all the time; looking for the hidden bank accounts.  Suggests he was in it for the money all along.  Ooooh...I think you've convinced me, Annie! ;)


Quote
Here it is, it's mostly just speculation like me, but it makes sense and fits the puzzle well. Somebody had to have helped her, she wasn't Anastasia.

http://www.serfes.org/royal/annaanderson.htm

Scroll down to the middle of the page.


Thanks that was really good.  I found myself nodding along with it, so it certainly convinced me. :)

Rachel
xx
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Ra-Ra-Rasputin on March 15, 2006, 07:32:18 AM
Quote
Good point, I never thought about that, I have never heard a German tutor mentioned like Gilliard and Gibbes. Even if they did learn German in some way at some point, they didn't use it much since, as you say, they had no real reason to. The German relations (Ella, Kaiser, etc.) wrote and spoke to them in English. Of the four languages popularly used by the aristocracy, German would have been by far the least known and used of AN, so the fact that it was most known and used by AA is a glaring sore thumb that points to it not being her. When Felix Y. met her in 1927, he asked her questions in all four languages and she only answered in German. It was FS's best language, but AN's worst.  And the horrible English AA picked up and used later was not at all that of a girl raised with two parents who spoke English with a British accent to each other every day, as AN would have spoken.


Exactly.  There were two tutors; Gilliard and Gibbes.  Gilliard taught French, Gibbes taught English.  So, where is this missing German tutor? He didn't exist, because they were never taught German.  Why this 'but she did speak German, her mother was German' argument persists I don't know.  Nobody in the family voluntarily spoke German to each other, so I'd be very surprised if AN and the Imperial children actually knew any German at all.

And the English thing is so true as well.  Why no-one picks up on this, I don't know.  AN spoke English probably best out of all the languages she knew, even Russian.  English was probably her first language.  How AA can have developed an atrocious accent and not been grammatically correct in a language AN spoke every day with natural ease, I don't know.  AA's accent was not British either.  Everyone knows that the IF spoke English with barely an accent; it's been well documented.  I don't see how someone's accent can magically change.

Quote
Nope, he was NOT a 'close family member.' He was 22 years older than her so they didn't grow up together. And he was not 'close' because he was a Vladimirivich, the family line N and A disliked and didn't want around, so I would say he was not invited or welcome at happy family outings and get togethers, I've never seen any pics of him with the kids or even N and A. His brother was Kyril, whom N and A intensely disliked, and Kyril's wife was Ducky, who had divorced A's brother for Kyril and was also hated at the palace. Add to this the fact that Andrew was married to Mathilde K., N's old mistress, who would certainly have been a most awkward guest to have around A and the kids, so, no, Andrew was NOT 'close' to the family at all!


Just as I thought! So much for him being a 'reliable' witness.

Quote
Olga said in her book she wanted her to be AN, but her heart sank when she met her, and saw her, and didn't recognize her or feel their 'special bond.' She may have spoken to her as if she were AN to get a reaction she could judge by, but she never, ever thought this girl was AN. The idea that Olga was paid off by the family for money is ridiculous when you know that she was the black sheep of the family with the 'wrong' marriage, lived on a dirt farm and died broke in a one bedroom apt. over a barber shop. She didn't have any money. She denied AA because SHE WASN'T AN!


Exactly.  Why all of the supporters persist with the 'Olga denied AA because of the money' is utter crap.  What money? I don't see any! Olga denied AA because, as you say, she wasn't AN, simple as.  There's no need to set up a conspiracy against the poor woman.

Quote
It's about time, already. Let both tragic women, AN and AA/FS rest in peace.


Amen to that.

Rachel
xx
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Forum Admin on March 15, 2006, 09:06:20 AM
1. I have posted the actual letter from Olga, where she specifically states that it was "horrible" that people would say that she and her mother the Dowager Empress would deliberately abandond AN, and that everyone in the family "knew" AA was NOT AN. Go look for it in these threads, its there like four times already.

2. Alexandra was VERY concerned with her girls' English accent. Remember that she changed English tutors as they were starting to speak English with a Scots accent, and she wanted them to speak English "without accent" ie: upper class British. THAT is exactly how Anastasia would have without doubt spoken English, just like both of her parents, who both have been recorded as speaking English "pefectly and without accent", Alix, of course being raised by QV....
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Tdora on March 15, 2006, 05:06:45 PM
Quote

Ra Ra, your story is very similar to mine. I also got into all this at 12, and I was also a former supporter. When the DNA came out, I was disappointed, but it took off the blinders of fantasy and let me see the details more clearly, then I saw through it all and had several 'OOOOHHH!" moments. It all made sense, AGAINST her. And the pictures look like FS.

I think we are rare, though, everyone else who is not a supporter seems to have never been one, and the ones who still support her haven't stopped. Just once I'd like to see somebody come here asking about AA, get the truth, and accept it, but it never happens. They all just keep fighting it was her, DNA switched, etc.  ::)


I began posting on AP a couple months ago  - mainly Windsor and Hesse. (I also put an intro on Forum Announcements in the new thread for this purpose yesterday).
I avoided the discussions on the IF because of the oft-cited reasons common to many: the circular nature of the arguments, entrenched positions, immature and irrelevant chat-room nonsense, hagiographic tendencies etc etc.
The main reason tho was because although my interest in pre WW2 European royalty all began with the IF after a visit to the USSR in 1983, I'd just about absorbed all there was to engage my interests by the time their remains were discovered. And verified.
I was not certain in my belief that AA was AN but took the view she was on what I told myself was the balance of probabalities of the evidence pre-DNA. I was swayed by wishful thinking however. (Since then I also got a law degree and criminal law experience which taught me a great deal about how to approach evidence).
My mind had begun to change by the time the conclusive tests were public knowledge - too many important questions unanswered. But the point is I did change my mind on this question, as on several other topics regarding the IF.
I think that the sheer pleasure and enjoyment of learning about these fascinating people and events would vanish in a mindset of absolutes. It would instead be an exhausting defensive repetition - never ending.
Lately I have been reading the posts on AF to dip my toes into the IF forums here, and wandered over to see what was hot in the world of Question of Survivors. I've really enjoyed reading the past couple of pages here and now look forward to more like it.  ;D
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: ChatNoir on March 15, 2006, 08:47:16 PM
Quote


And anyway, Anastasia didn't learn German.  It was never spoken in the house.  She never had occasion to speak it.  NEVER.  Her mother didn't speak German with the children, her German family members didn't speak German with the children.  The children's German was dreadful, because they were not taught it. I am pretty much 100% CERTAIN that the girls were never given German lessons; I have seen a quote from a family member somewhere on here that clearly states the fact.  I sadly can't find it; maybe someone else can.  I don't know where this German textbook crap comes from, but I don't see how there can have been one in existence anyway, as Anastasia was not given German lessons!!!

The girls were taught French, Russian and English.  Not German.  Pray tell, who could their fabled German tutor have been? I've never heard of one being mentioned.


The German teacher at the Imperial Court was Herr Kleinenberg who stayed with them up to the moment of the Revolution. Gilliard's own timetables, now on deposit at the University of Lausanne, demonstrate that AN had a German lesson every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday from 8 to 9 o'clock in the morning while still at Tobolsk.
The lesson books were bought at an auction in London by Ian Lilburn and used as evidence in the Hamburg trial.

Kind regards,
Chat Noir
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: ChatNoir on March 15, 2006, 10:00:27 PM
Quote
I think the death of the entire Imperial Family was an incredibly difficult thing for their family and many others to accept. I think this is the reason that so many people were anxious to believe someone survived, and later, why so many people believed in Anna Anderson.

I cannot fault Olga A. for writing her, I cannot fault Andrei V. for recognizing her, and I don't blame the Botkins for embracing her. All of these people had deep affection for the IF and in many cases intimate knowledge of its members.


Seems to me that they were not too anxious to believe that someone survived. Olga's sister Xenia told Olga not to go to Berlin and "under no circumstances acknowledge the woman in Berlin". The Dowager Empress was "so angry with me for coming", said Olga. Ernest of Hesse fought her beak and claw after she told about his not-so-secret trip to Russia in 1916, and aunt Irene was so upset by the whole thing that her husband forbade any talk about it in their home. I guess trying another meeting was just too much trouble.
I think Volkov summed it up quite nicely after meeting with AA when he said: "Think of the position I am in! If I now say that it is she, and others later claim the reverse, where would I be then?"

Kind regards
Chat Noir
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: AnaBlue on March 16, 2006, 12:55:34 AM
Hi - I'm new to this site, but not new to this subject.  I've read about AA extensively, talked about her with anyone and everyone who would humor me by listening, thought about it, even dreamed about it.  I think some things just can't be dissected and/or explained, but are true all the same.  I believe AA was GD Anastasia because, for one thing, just look at the photos -- it is her. I know it in my heart. Plus, all the other reasons which are numerous and have been gone over ad infinitum, i.e., physical similarities, memories, recognition by people who knew her (even if they recanted later), etc, bla bla.  I just wonder why so many people can't see it.  Anyway, I'm excited to have found this forum, and look forward to visiting on a daily basis.  
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Ra-Ra-Rasputin on March 16, 2006, 03:23:44 AM
Quote

The German teacher at the Imperial Court was Herr Kleinenberg who stayed with them up to the moment of the Revolution. Gilliard's own timetables, now on deposit at the University of Lausanne, demonstrate that AN had a German lesson every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday from 8 to 9 o'clock in the morning while still at Tobolsk.
The lesson books were bought at an auction in London by Ian Lilburn and used as evidence in the Hamburg trial.

Kind regards,
Chat Noir



How come this mysterious Herr Kleinenberg has managed to not make his way into any books, diary entries or so on? I've NEVER heard of him being present at court, and he certainly isn't listed as one of the members of the suite at Tobolsk.  How can this tutor have lived with the Imperial family and yet managed to keep his name out of history? We know about Gilliard and Gibbes; was 'Herr Kleinenberg' a little bit shy or something?

I doubt his existence entirely.  The children WERE NOT taught German.  Alexandra EXPRESSLY WISHED that they SHOULD NOT be taught German.   So, Anastasia did not speak German, she never had reason to, and this is why the fact that AA chose to speak German is another nail in her coffin.  Find me some evidence that AN learnt to speak German to near fluency in the seventeen years she was alive and then I'll believe you.  But I suspect you'll have some trouble doing so.

Rachel
xx
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Ra-Ra-Rasputin on March 16, 2006, 03:32:27 AM
Quote

Seems to me that they were not too anxious to believe that someone survived. Olga's sister Xenia told Olga not to go to Berlin and "under no circumstances acknowledge the woman in Berlin". The Dowager Empress was "so angry with me for coming", said Olga. Ernest of Hesse fought her beak and claw after she told about his not-so-secret trip to Russia in 1916, and aunt Irene was so upset by the whole thing that her husband forbade any talk about it in their home. I guess trying another meeting was just too much trouble.
I think Volkov summed it up quite nicely after meeting with AA when he said: "Think of the position I am in! If I now say that it is she, and others later claim the reverse, where would I be then?"

Kind regards
Chat Noir



Yeah because the Romanovs and the Hesses are such evil, nasty people.

WHAT REASON DID THEY HAVE TO DENY AA IF SHE WAS AN??

No reason at all, apart from the fact that she was an imposter, and understandably it was upsetting to be faced with someone pretending to be their dead niece/granddaughter.

The sheer idiocy of these claims never ceases to amaze me.  How anyone could think that Xenia, Olga and Marie Feodorovna cold bloodedly decided to pretend AA wasn't AN if she was AN is beyond me.  I don't know anyone who would do such a thing to their own family.  It would require such inhumanity that I find it difficult to believe that anyone but a serial killer could find it in themselves to do such a thing.  

Rachel
xx
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Ra-Ra-Rasputin on March 16, 2006, 03:34:00 AM
Quote
Hi - I'm new to this site, but not new to this subject.  I've read about AA extensively, talked about her with anyone and everyone who would humor me by listening, thought about it, even dreamed about it.  I think some things just can't be dissected and/or explained, but are true all the same.  I believe AA was GD Anastasia because, for one thing, just look at the photos -- it is her. I know it in my heart. Plus, all the other reasons which are numerous and have been gone over ad infinitum, i.e., physical similarities, memories, recognition by people who knew her (even if they recanted later), etc, bla bla.  I just wonder why so many people can't see it.  Anyway, I'm excited to have found this forum, and look forward to visiting on a daily basis.  



Oh, here we go again.

Believe what you want sweetheart, but DNA doesn't lie.

Rachel
xx
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: AnaBlue on March 16, 2006, 08:41:08 AM
Oh, I'm so happy that someone with a mutual interest actually replied -- now I don't have to bother my family with this stuff anymore.  So thank you.  Re: 101 reasons... There is a photo posted by Olga22 on March 2 (Anastasia pics pt III) of GDA in profile, wearing dark cap, ruffle blouse.  Her hand is fairly clearly shown.  Then, if you look at AA's  "favorite" photo of herself in the Lovell, where she's holding the parrots with her back to the camera, you can see that the hand is the same...can't you?  The DNA thing still has me wondering, what with all the controversy about each new method outdating the last, etc.  Admittedly, I AM loath to think AA is not GDA, after all my years of fervent believing.  Anyway, I love this forum, and have even seen some photos that were new to me.  Thanks again.   Ana  
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: ChatNoir on March 16, 2006, 08:56:33 AM
Quote


How come this mysterious Herr Kleinenberg has managed to not make his way into any books, diary entries or so on? I've NEVER heard of him being present at court, and he certainly isn't listed as one of the members of the suite at Tobolsk.  How can this tutor have lived with the Imperial family and yet managed to keep his name out of history? We know about Gilliard and Gibbes; was 'Herr Kleinenberg' a little bit shy or something?

I doubt his existence entirely.  The children WERE NOT taught German.  Alexandra EXPRESSLY WISHED that they SHOULD NOT be taught German.   So, Anastasia did not speak German, she never had reason to, and this is why the fact that AA chose to speak German is another nail in her coffin.  Find me some evidence that AN learnt to speak German to near fluency in the seventeen years she was alive and then I'll believe you.  But I suspect you'll have some trouble doing so.

Rachel
xx


I thought I just saw in one of your postings that you were reading Peter Kurth's The Riddle of Anna Anderson. Maybe you should put your glasses on, because Herr Kleinenberg made it into that book. The reason that he was not at Tobolsk, was, as I said in my previous post, he was with the IF up to the revolution. I frankly think you should pay a little more attention to what you read instead of raving and ranting like you do. It is rather embarrassing to read.

Kind regards
Chat Noir
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Forum Admin on March 16, 2006, 09:23:02 AM
Quote

I thought I just saw in one of your postings that you were reading Peter Kurth's The Riddle of Anna Anderson. Maybe you should put your glasses on, because Herr Kleinenberg made it into that book. The reason that he was not at Tobolsk, was, as I said in my previous post, he was with the IF up to the revolution. I frankly think you should pay a little more attention to what you read instead of raving and ranting like you do. It is rather embarrassing to read.

Kind regards
Chat Noir


The same can be said for you Chat Noir. M. Gilliard, who WAS with the IF until the Revolution and on into exile, and who you say included German in the "time tables" says in Thirteen Years at the Russian Court that his "pupils never had German lessons" pg. 70, and pg. 77 "Her Majesty talked English with them (her daughters), the Czar Russian only.  The Tsarina talked English or French with the members of her suite.  She never spoke in Russian (though she spoke it pretty well ultimately) except to those who knew no other language. During the whole period of my residence with the Imperial Family I never heard one of them utter a word of German, except when it was inevitable, as at a reception, etc."
pg. 76 re: Anastasia "her French accent was excellent".

pg. 227, re: lessons in captivity: "We mustfind a way out since we no longer have any tutors. The Czar is going to make himself responsible for History and Geography, the Czarina will take charge of religious instruction, the other subjects will be shared between Baroness Buxheoveden (English) Mlle. Schneider (Arithmetic), Dr. Botkin (Russian) and myself."

NOWHERE in the book is there ever a mention of a German tutor. He talks all about Gibbes, Petrov (Russian tutor) etc etc. but no German lessons.

Oh, and just WHAT would the public's reaction be, since they already were accusing Alexandra of being a German SPY if she continued to teach her children GERMAN after WWI broke out?? Why didn't the press grab onto a good German "Herr Kleinenberg" teaching German language to the Grand Duchesses in the Palace of all places, after war broke out?? THAT simply makes no sense at all...

Please explain?

Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: ChatNoir on March 16, 2006, 09:28:08 AM
Quote

The same can be said for you Chat Noir. M. Gilliard, who WAS with the IF until the Revolution and on into exile, and who you say included German in the "time tables" says in Thirteen Years at the Russian Court that his "pupils never had German lessons" pg. 70, and pg. 77 "Her Majesty talked English with them (her daughters), the Czar Russian only.  The Tsarina talked English or French with the members of her suite.  She never spoke in Russian (though she spoke it pretty well ultimately) except to those who knew no other language. During the whole period of my residence with the Imperial Family I never heard one of them utter a word of German, except when it was inevitable, as at a reception, etc."
pg. 76 re: Anastasia "her French accent was excellent".

pg. 227, re: lessons in captivity: "We mustfind a way out since we no longer have any tutors. The Czar is going to make himself responsible for History and Geography, the Czarina will take charge of religious instruction, the other subjects will be shared between Baroness Buxheoveden (English) Mlle. Schneider (Arithmetic), Dr. Botkin (Russian) and myself."

NOWHERE in the book is there ever a mention of a German tutor. He talks all about Gibbes, Petrov (Russian tutor) etc etc. but no German lessons.

Please explain?



Read Peter Kurth!!!

Kind regards
Chat Noir
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Forum Admin on March 16, 2006, 09:29:06 AM
Bad answer.
I have read Peter Kurth...I am asking YOU to answer the questions raised. Not Peter.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Ra-Ra-Rasputin on March 16, 2006, 09:36:34 AM
Quote

I thought I just saw in one of your postings that you were reading Peter Kurth's The Riddle of Anna Anderson. Maybe you should put your glasses on, because Herr Kleinenberg made it into that book. The reason that he was not at Tobolsk, was, as I said in my previous post, he was with the IF up to the revolution. I frankly think you should pay a little more attention to what you read instead of raving and ranting like you do. It is rather embarrassing to read.

Kind regards
Chat Noir



I hardly think I'm 'raving and ranting'.

I haven't actually even got to half way in Peter Kurth's book; I'm finding it hard going and I have a million and one other things to read that are more important.  Unfortunately my university course is nothing to do with the Romanovs.  The part I have read makes no mention of this Herr Kleinenberg, and I certainly don't need glasses. ;)

The presence of this mysterious Herr Kleinenberg in Peter Kurth's severely flawed book does not make it more believeable to me; quite the opposite in fact.  I find it laughable that you perpetually choose Peter Kurth's 'The Riddle of Anna Anderson' that holds Anna Anderson up as being Anastasia when we know she wasn't, to be your 'evidence'.  In the light of that, if anyone should find their comments embarrassing, it should be you, with all due respect. :)  

AND, this is what you said in your previous post:

Herr Kleinenberg who stayed with them up to the moment of the Revolution. Gilliard's own timetables, now on deposit at the University of Lausanne, demonstrate that AN had a German lesson every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday from 8 to 9 o'clock in the morning while still at Tobolsk.

Understandably I was confused by this; if 'Herr Kleinenberg' only stayed with them up until the revolution, who the hell was giving them German lessons in Tobolsk? It must have been *The Invisible Man*, then, surely??
And even if he was only with them until the revolution, how come Gilliard and Gibbes never mention this German tutor? How come no-one's ever heard of him apart from you and your beloved Peter Kurth? How come there are no mentions of him in OTMA's diaries? How come there are no photographs?

I'd also like you to offer me some actual evidence that doesn't come from the  'Riddle of Anna Anderson'.  Or perhaps you've never actually read anything else.  That seems to be the impression you're giving me.

Rachel
xx
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Ra-Ra-Rasputin on March 16, 2006, 09:37:39 AM
Thanks FA. :)

We posted at the same time.  Glad to see that I am right; this man never existed!!

Rachel
xx
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Ra-Ra-Rasputin on March 16, 2006, 09:39:22 AM
Quote

Oh, and just WHAT would the public's reaction be, since they already were accusing Alexandra of being a German SPY if she continued to teach her children GERMAN after WWI broke out?? Why didn't the press grab onto a good German "Herr Kleinenberg" teaching German language to the Grand Duchesses in the Palace of all places, after war broke out?? THAT simply makes no sense at all...

Please explain?



Yeah, I'd like to hear an explanation for that, too.  Excellent point, FA!

Rachel
xx
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Ra-Ra-Rasputin on March 16, 2006, 09:53:12 AM
Quote
Oh, I'm so happy that someone with a mutual interest actually replied -- now I don't have to bother my family with this stuff anymore.  So thank you.  Re: 101 reasons... There is a photo posted by Olga22 on March 2 (Anastasia pics pt III) of GDA in profile, wearing dark cap, ruffle blouse.  Her hand is fairly clearly shown.  Then, if you look at AA's  "favorite" photo of herself in the Lovell, where she's holding the parrots with her back to the camera, you can see that the hand is the same...can't you?  The DNA thing still has me wondering, what with all the controversy about each new method outdating the last, etc.  Admittedly, I AM loath to think AA is not GDA, after all my years of fervent believing.  Anyway, I love this forum, and have even seen some photos that were new to me.  Thanks again.   Ana  


Ok, let me tell you a few things.

I look more like Anastasia than Anna Anderson did.  And that's saying something.  Anastasia had thin lips, a long, thin nose and eyes that slanted downwards.  Anna Anderson had thick, fleshy lips that she bit in photographs to make them look thinner, a much fleshier nose and eyes that slanted upwards.  So, there goes the 'they looked identical' argument.  The only person Anna Anderson looked identical to was Franziska Shankowska, which the DNA PROVED her to be.  I have NEVER seen a photo of Anna Anderson that has looked anything like Anastasia, or anything like any member of the Romanov family.  Anyone who sees a resemblance is seeing one out of wishful thinking.  Or needs their eyes tested.

How the hell you can say someone's hand looks the same in a grainy black and white photo is laughable, and you need to realise that.  You cannot claim authenticity based on a hand.  I'm actually laughing as I write this.

As for the DNA; the accuracy of DNA testing has not changed.  DNA testing is still THE MOST ACCURATE method of identifying people.  DNA testing has improved methodologically over the years, ie. it is now done my machine rather than hand and so on, but it is not any more accurate than it was when the tests were done on Anna Anderson.  There is no shadow of a doubt that these DNA tests were not accurate.  Anna Anderson had absolutely no genetic match with Empress Alexandra, which she would have had to have done in order to be her child.  The only people Anna Anderson matched genetically with were the Shankowski family, who had said that Anna Anderson was their sister.  She was proved to be Franziska Shankowska through the DNA, and also through photographs, which show there to be an uncanny resemblance between her and AA.

Anna Anderson was Franziska Shankowska.  

Anastasia Nicholaevna died at Ekaterinburg in 1917.  Even without a body, we can be certain of that fact.

You need to do some more reading around.  I suggest you go over to 'The Final Chapter' board and read the 'Ballistics Questions' thread.  Read about the injuries the victims sustained.  Then come back here and tell me that someone could have survived being shot, stabbed and hit with a rifle butt repeatedly.  Also, why not try reading all of the pretty damning evidence AGAINST AA being AN.  

It seems to me that you're only reading the stuff that confirms what you want to believe.  You should also know that James Blair Lovell later admitted to making up a lot of his book on Anastasia.

Rachel
xx

Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: ChatNoir on March 16, 2006, 11:45:25 AM
Quote
Bad answer.
I have read Peter Kurth...I am asking YOU to answer the questions raised. Not Peter.


How interesting. You may quote from Gilliard's book, and that's OK. I quote from Peter Kurth's book, and that's "embarrassing". As Violetta Valery would have said: Estrano, estrano.

Kind regards
Chat Noir

Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: AGRBear on March 16, 2006, 12:19:01 PM
Quote

..[in part]...

From Anastasia's school books we have learned that she made fewer mistakes on her German than her Russian.
...Kind regards
Chat Noir


I do not believe AA was GD Anastasia.

And, I do like our facts accurate when proving AA was not GD Anastasia.

From what I understand,  Chat Noeir is correct about GD Anastasia's school work books with the German language.

From the time GD Anastasia was born to WWI,  how many times did the IF visit Germany and for what length of time?  Did they not visit uncle Ernst who's house was German, not English or French.... What about Kaiser Wilhlem II's homes.  German was spoken around them even if the cousins spoke to each other in English.    I assume just being in Germany,  a young child would pick up on the language being spoken around her.  

Most children when they are young are like sponages and learn languages very quickly.

What degree GD Anastasia spoke this language by July of 1918 is an unknown.  We can speculate to some degree but when all is said and done,  we can not know.  

Saying she didn't know any German is, therefore,  not  accurate.



AGRBear
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Ra-Ra-Rasputin on March 16, 2006, 12:42:26 PM
Bear,

The fact of the matter is that Anastasia was never taught German.  This is a fact.  I am sticking to the facts.

So, these school books with German in them are either not Anastasia's, have been mistakenly identified as German schoolbooks, or are simply exercise books with random German written in them.

The GDs did NOT have a German tutor.  Fact.  Alexandra did not wish for them to be taught German.  Fact.  They never spoke German with Alexandra, and nor did they speak German at family get togethers in Germany; everyone spoke the language they had in common, which would have been English.  Fact.

Seeing as the Imperial children would hardly have been left to their own devices to play with German children, I doubt very much that they would 'pick up' the language on visits.  And, the visits were not sufficiently lengthy for them to acquire fluency even if they were allowed to.  Alexandra barely let them see any children outside of the family in Russia, so how they would have been able to learn German from their surroundings during a visit to Germany, I don't know.

Yes, Anastasia might have been able to say 'Ich heiBe Anastasia, Ich bin sechsen jahre alt' or whatever (sorry, really bad schoolgirl German there), but to CHOOSE to speak it? A language she barely knew over her fluent English and Russian? Ich denke nicht.  Sorry, couldn't resist. ;)  

Rachel
xx
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: AGRBear on March 16, 2006, 12:43:02 PM
Quote

The same can be said for you Chat Noir. M. Gilliard, who WAS with the IF until the Revolution and on into exile, and who you say included German in the "time tables" says in Thirteen Years at the Russian Court that his "pupils never had German lessons" pg. 70, and pg. 77 "Her Majesty talked English with them (her daughters), the Czar Russian only.  The Tsarina talked English or French with the members of her suite.  She never spoke in Russian (though she spoke it pretty well ultimately) except to those who knew no other language. During the whole period of my residence with the Imperial Family I never heard one of them utter a word of German, except when it was inevitable, as at a reception, etc."
pg. 76 re: Anastasia "her French accent was excellent".

pg. 227, re: lessons in captivity: "We mustfind a way out since we no longer have any tutors. The Czar is going to make himself responsible for History and Geography, the Czarina will take charge of religious instruction, the other subjects will be shared between Baroness Buxheoveden (English) Mlle. Schneider (Arithmetic), Dr. Botkin (Russian) and myself."

NOWHERE in the book is there ever a mention of a German tutor. He talks all about Gibbes, Petrov (Russian tutor) etc etc. but no German lessons.

Oh, and just WHAT would the public's reaction be, since they already were accusing Alexandra of being a German SPY if she continued to teach her children GERMAN after WWI broke out?? Why didn't the press grab onto a good German "Herr Kleinenberg" teaching German language to the Grand Duchesses in the Palace of all places, after war broke out?? THAT simply makes no sense at all...

Please explain?



I added the bold print in FA's quote: >>...word of German, except when it was inevitable, as at a reception, etc." <<

Out of all the people you've mention,  which ones did not speak German?   Nicholas II knew and spoke German.  Alexandra knew and spoke German.  Buxhoevenden?  Schneider knew and spoke German.
Botkin, I assume since he was a doctor and at that time most of the literature was either Latin or German, could read and speak German. Gilliard?  Servants?

We know that GD Anastasia  secretly started to learn French before she was actually tutored in this language.  How do we know that she had accomplished German just as secretly from any of those mentioned above who knew German?  

No matter how hard we try to climb back into time and know what we can know about what occured with the IF from the time they were arrested until their execution,  we can't know everything.

And, no,  I am not adding my thought about GD Anastasia and her knowledge of the German language  to prove AA was GD Anastasia, because I don't think AA was GD Anastasia.  

AGRBear
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Ra-Ra-Rasputin on March 16, 2006, 12:53:26 PM
It's possible that she could have taught herself German if she was so inclined.  She certainly did have access to German speakers, no-one's denying that.

But, if we know she taught herself French, surely we'd know if she taught herself German? Kind of follows...and I don't see why she'd have any need or want to teach herself German, as she'd never have any occasion to use it.  Except for if she was psychic, could flash forward ten years and see herself surviving her family's execution and ending up in Berlin...

Rachel
xx
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: AGRBear on March 16, 2006, 12:57:11 PM
Back to Gleb Botkin.

Let me see if I have this right.  

Annie blames Gleb for having been the provider of all/most/some of the information AA's used in order to convince people that she was GD Anastasia.  BUT,  Gleb didn't met AA until 1927.    9 May 1927 to be more exact.  That was a little more than seven years after AA had jumped into the Berlin canal.

So,  let's back up to those seven years.

Where did she get her information before 9 May 1927?

By then,  how many people who are important to this case had NOT met AA and therefore hadn't declared their position?

And,  what was it that AA, who must have learn the information from someone other than Gleb, say to Gleb to convince him that she [AA] was GD Anastasia???

AGRBear
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: AGRBear on March 16, 2006, 01:02:16 PM
Quote
It's possible that she could have taught herself German if she was so inclined.  She certainly did have access to German speakers, no-one's denying that.

But, if we know she taught herself French, surely we'd know if she taught herself German? Kind of follows...and I don't see why she'd have any need or want to teach herself German, as she'd never have any occasion to use it.  Except for if she was psychic, could flash forward ten years and see herself surviving her family's execution and ending up in Berlin...

Rachel
xx


Speculation:
Having heard that the Germans were ploting to rescue them, perhaps, she was realistic and thought she should learn German.

Seems resaonable to me.

Unlike the others,  maybe,  she believed they could escape.

Remember,  she was a Tom-Boy and viewed the world differently than her sisters and Alexei who was confinued to his bed so much of the time.

AGRBear
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Ra-Ra-Rasputin on March 16, 2006, 01:03:17 PM
What information did AA actually know?

And who's to say that Gleb believed she was AN in the first place?

We have to answer those questions first, Bear.

1. AA's information was all pretty much public knowledge, gleaned from magazines and so on.  Also, my theory is that she worked off of other people; people drop hints they don't realise in conversations and so on.  Whatever she said about the Ipatiev House could not be corroborated, as there was no-one alive to contradict her.  She didn't actually know that much.  Even the 'amazing' fact that she knew about Ernst's visit to Russia turned out to be not such a secret after all, as Peter Kurth actually notes in his book- it was common knowledge.

2. Gleb Botkin may have known AA was not AN all along. He had two big motives; the benefit to his career and possible big money to pretend to back AA.  We'll never know for sure, but Gleb is suspicious.

I'd be interested to hear other people's thoughts.

Rachel
xx

Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Annie on March 16, 2006, 01:43:03 PM
Quote
Back to Gleb Botkin.

Let me see if I have this right.  

Annie blames Gleb for having been the provider of all/most/some of the information AA's used in order to convince people that she was GD Anastasia.  BUT,  Gleb didn't met AA until 1927.    9 May 1927 to be more exact.  That was a little more than seven years after AA had jumped into the Berlin canal.

So,  let's back up to those seven years.

Where did she get her information before 9 May 1927?


I have ALWAYS said, I don't think he was the only one, or the first one. There was a large Russian emigre community there at that time, there could have been contacts we don't even know of- even earlier contacts with Gleb.

But the very fact that they didn't officially meet until 1927 is actually part of my case against him! So for seven years not much happened, then she takes up with him in 1927, then by 1928, bam, boom, NYC, international stories, worldwide fame, a court case. Coincidence? I think not.

Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Annie on March 16, 2006, 01:52:29 PM
And about the German controversy, even if she knew a small amount of it, it still doesn't make sense that she would use German fluently and exclusively over her much more well known and used Russian, English or even French. FS, on the other hand, would have known German and not much if any of the others. So to me this is a very glaring and sore spot on AA's case, and yet more evidence she wasn't AN!

When Felix Y. met AA in 1927 he reported she only answered in German, ignoring his Russian, English and French questions. This tells me that FS/AA didn't know enough of these languages to converse in them, or even understand his questions. So it seems there is no record of her knowing English before 1927, and seemed to have a crash course later. Who taught her her atrocious English? I would bet it was not a native speaker. I wonder when and how she learned it, and whose idea it was to teach her? I wonder if it was Gleb's idea, after he met her, saying the real AN would know it, and he was taking her to NYC!

One more thing, is there any record of AA knowing or speaking French at all? Maybe this was another reason Gilliard doubted her so much, he taught AN all those years, and AA didn't know it?
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Forum Admin on March 16, 2006, 03:57:58 PM
Quote

How interesting. You may quote from Gilliard's book, and that's OK. I quote from Peter Kurth's book, and that's "embarrassing". As Violetta Valery would have said: Estrano, estrano.

Kind regards
Chat Noir



Well, Gilliard was THERE, living with the Imperial Family and teaching the Grand Duchesses. And with all due respect to Peter, he was not...he was not even close to being born, much less ever with, the Imperial Family at the time.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: AGRBear on March 16, 2006, 04:10:09 PM
Quote
And about the German controversy, even if she knew a small amount of it, it still doesn't make sense that she would use German fluently and exclusively over her much more well known and used Russian, English or even French. FS, on the other hand, would have known German and not much if any of the others. So to me this is a very glaring and sore spot on AA's case, and yet more evidence she wasn't AN!

When Felix Y. met AA in 1927 he reported she only answered in German, ignoring his Russian, English and French questions. This tells me that FS/AA didn't know enough of these languages to converse in them, or even understand his questions. So it seems there is no record of her knowing English before 1927, and seemed to have a crash course later. Who taught her her atrocious English? I would bet it was not a native speaker. I wonder when and how she learned it, and whose idea it was to teach her? I wonder if it was Gleb's idea, after he met her, saying the real AN would know it, and he was taking her to NYC!

One more thing, is there any record of AA knowing or speaking French at all? Maybe this was another reason Gilliard doubted her so much, he taught her all those years, and she didn't know it?



I know how much Annie loves to give sources, but, maybe it's possible for others to help me find the sources to the following:
1)  Who claimed AA could speak English before 1927?  And who claimed she could not?
2) Who claimed AA could speak proper German [High German] before 1927?  And who claimed she could only speak Low German which FS would have known?
3) Who claimed AA could speak Russian before 1927?  And who said AA could not speak Russian?
4) Who claimed AA could speak French before 1927?  And who said AA could not speak French?

Added to this are the accents.  But let's just deal with the actual languages first.

From what I understand, by the time AA's court trial occured,  the court heard estimony about AA's ability to speak the various languages, and, they also questioned AA in all these languages and came to the conclusion she could  speak German, English, French and Russian and  she could also converse in these languages.  Therefore,  to the court this became "moot" (no longer a need for  farther investigation).  So her ability in these languages were learned before her trial.

Let's start with AA's English before 9 May 1926......

Thanks.

AGRBear
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Forum Admin on March 16, 2006, 04:17:49 PM
To be fair, if you go look at the expenses of GD Maria, on the main website, for the year 1910 there is an entry for payment to one "Kleinenberg" for German lessons, in 1910.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Robert_Hall on March 16, 2006, 04:51:47 PM
It does make sense that they would have had at least a baisic German in their education. After all, most of their relatives were German, even though everyone spoke English & French. However, I think the point here is that it was NOT a "first" language. English was. AA spoke no language  fluently, but German did seem to be her preference, before not only English & French, but Russian as well.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Annie on March 16, 2006, 05:26:07 PM
I have always thought they learned some German, most everyone knew the same four languages back then. So proof or no proof of a tutor changes nothing for me. The German relations Ella, Ernie, Kaiser, etc. spoke and wrote to the family in English, their letters survive to prove this. The Kaiser even wrote to Nicholas in English as it was their best common language.

We know from various books by people who knew the family well (see the front page of this site for these books) that AN spoke English and Russian well and French pretty good. So I still find it strange that a woman claiming to be AA would surface knowing virtually none of the languages AN knew well. Even if she, assuming she was AN though we know she wasn't, picked up and used more German in the year she'd have allegedly been there, this does not mean she would have forgotten the others and refused to answer questions in them. Whether or not AA spoke high or low German, she did speak German as her main language, not the other 3, which is the opposite of what AN would have known.

I would also like to know if there is any record of AA speaking or knowing English or French prior to 1927. I don't think so. No matter what, this is not going to change my mind about AA being FS, I am only hoping that proof she didn't know the languages might help some who still cling to the AN belief be able to see AA wasn't her. I know it's hopeless, but it's a try. The people who research her usually bring up the things in her favor, not the things against her. I'd like to see this mentioned, too. If it could be proven that AA didn't learn English until after the went to America, or that she knew no French at all, it would be a pretty big nail in the coffin of AA's case, not as big as the DNA, but significant.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Georgiy on March 16, 2006, 08:51:53 PM
In her 1917 diary, after the Revolution,  Alexandra writes how she is giving Tatiana German lessons. Things like "Gave Tatiana a German dictation lesson" etc. I can't remember if she mentioned Olga or Maria, but I am pretty certain there is no mention of Anastasia and German. Maybe Tatiana herself asked her mother to teach her german as she was interested.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: ChatNoir on March 16, 2006, 08:57:24 PM
Quote

Well, Gilliard was THERE, living with the Imperial Family and teaching the Grand Duchesses. And with all due respect to Peter, he was not...he was not even close to being born, much less ever with, the Imperial Family at the time.


Very true, you are absolutely correct. But why does Gilliard's schedule from Tobolsk show German lessons 3 times a week? Why did the IF employ a German teacher?   Herr Kleinenberg can not just be swept under the carpet and conveniently disappear.
Seems to me like Gilliard's credibility is slipping. Wasn't he also the one who stated that the Malachite Room did not exist? And why did he burn his archives after the court ruling in 1957? Something is just not rigth here.
A little aside to other members: AA did NOT speak fluent German, she spoke it rather badly. Franziska, however, spoke good German. When Dr. Rudnev operated on AA's arm in 1925, he said that "she raved in English while under the anesthetic."

Kind regards,
Chat Noir
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Annie on March 17, 2006, 06:51:55 AM
Look, it doesn't matter if AN ever had German lessons, she still wasn't AA! And no matter how 'badly' she spoke German (though if FS spoke it well, she would have too since they were the same person) she obviously spoke English much worse, Russian worse, and I have never heard a thing about her knowing French. The 'ranting in English' while she was going under for her operation is again the word of only one person who may not know English from German, just as the nurses at the asylum may not have really known Russian from Kabouchian.(sp) It makes sense that FS would not have learned French, since she was not a member of the aristocracy who taught it to their children, and she was not in France.  I'm really tired of hearing this person said this, this person said that, none of it can be proven. And if you want to believe every little comment don't forget the person who said she called out in Polish in church!

I'm still waiting for some real proof that AA was able to speak and understand English before 1928, and French, ever.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: ChatNoir on March 17, 2006, 08:53:37 AM
Quote
I'm still waiting for some real proof that AA was able to speak and understand English before 1928, and French, ever.


You know, Annie, there are numerous people on file that confirm AA's use of English before 1927, Dr. Rudnev just happens to be one of them. But from reading your previous posts, I know very well that no matter how much proof is handed you, your attitude will always be: It-didn't-happen-because-I-say-so. That's why any argument with you is useless.

Kind regards
Chat Noir

PS: I don't think your horse died, it's just hiding from you.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Tsarina_Liz on March 17, 2006, 09:21:09 AM
Quote

You know, Annie, there are numerous people on file that confirm AA's use of English before 1927, Dr. Rudnev just happens to be one of them. .


Whatever English AA spoke, it was not (from what I have read) King's (or proper) English but rather a heavily Russian accented mess.  AN would have been taught the English of high society and from what I understand spoke it with minimal Russian accent as her father did.  
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Forum Admin on March 17, 2006, 09:30:27 AM
One of our regular users, Simon (LouisCharles) met Anastasia Manahan during her life. He has said very clearly that her accent in speaking English was decidedly heavy in an Eastern European way and not anywhere near to the upper-class Victorian accent that without doubt AN spoke in English.  We have the reports from English speaking visitors who met the Grand Duchesses and/or Alexei, and they all to a one report that their English was excellent.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Ra-Ra-Rasputin on March 17, 2006, 11:19:59 AM
When it comes down to it, as Annie quite rightly said, whether AN knew German or not doesn't actually matter, because AA wasn't AN and that's the end of the matter.

AA CHOSE to speak German, she spoke English dreadfully, and supposedly spoke Russian in her sleep, though the people who claimed she spoke Russian weren't Russian and didn't speak Russian.  

AN, if she knew German, would not have spoken it to the extent where she would choose it as her first language.  She spoke excellent, unaccented English and good French.

So, whether AN spoke German or not, we still have the massive anomalies of AA not speaking French or English to the standard AN did.  Funnily enough, because she wasn't AN.  And how do we know this? Oooh, because the DNA tells us so.

Rachel
xx
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: etonexile on March 17, 2006, 11:49:04 AM
We wish folk would stop mentioning DNA...Don't we Tedders?...We prefer strange accents,hairlines,shoe sizes and ears...the true test of an individual's identity...Am I correct Tedders?....Tedders?...Oh,no....green beer.... :-[
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Phil_tomaselli on March 17, 2006, 11:52:56 AM
Yawn............yawn.................yawn
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: etonexile on March 17, 2006, 12:05:11 PM
... :-*...
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Annie on March 17, 2006, 06:58:09 PM
Quote

You know, Annie, there are numerous people on file that confirm AA's use of English before 1927, Dr. Rudnev just happens to be one of them. But from reading your previous posts, I know very well that no matter how much proof is handed you, your attitude will always be: It-didn't-happen-because-I-say-so. That's why any argument with you is useless.

Kind regards
Chat Noir


Any argument with you is useless too. You refuse to accept that AA was not AN, no matter what anyone says.

It doesn't seem to me she knew any English before 1928, or she'd have used it and understood Felix Y. And from your lack of response, or anyone's, may I assume there is no record of AA knowing French, at any time?

Quote
PS: I don't think your horse died, it's just hiding from you.


Groovy.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: ChatNoir on March 17, 2006, 10:53:38 PM
Quote

Any argument with you is useless too. You refuse to accept that AA was not AN, no matter what anyone says.


Well, the truth be told, I don't actually think that AA was AN, the DNA is much too strong evicence for that. But there is a lot of unanswered questions here, and I would very much like to have them cleared up. I know that it's like hanging a red cloth in front of most of you, but at least the FA is putting up a good argument, and that's what I'm looking for.
Quote
It doesn't seem to me she knew any English before 1928, or she'd have used it and understood Felix Y. And from your lack of response, or anyone's, may I assume there is no record of AA knowing French, at any time?



See? After having me bring up Dr. Rudnev's testimony, you just blow it off. She did, in fact, understand Felix, but she answered back in German. Frau Rathlef testifies to her use of English long before 1927, and someone, I think it was Mr. Grünberg Jr., remembered "die kranke Dame" as someone who "spoke more English than German." As for French, both Agnes Gallagher and Dominique Aucleres testify to her speaking French. With perfect accent.


[/quote]
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: ChatNoir on March 17, 2006, 11:00:45 PM
Quote
One of our regular users, Simon (LouisCharles) met Anastasia Manahan during her life. He has said very clearly that her accent in speaking English was decidedly heavy in an Eastern European way and not anywhere near to the upper-class Victorian accent that without doubt AN spoke in English.  We have the reports from English speaking visitors who met the Grand Duchesses and/or Alexei, and they all to a one report that their English was excellent.


Faith Lavington wrote that "She spoke English with a beautiful British accent". But I do agree with you, from the little I have heard on TV, she definitely have a "Russian" accent. Strange, isn't it. Franziska Schanzkowska's first language was German, and one should expect a German accent, shouldn't one?

Kind regards
Chat Noir
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Tania+ on March 18, 2006, 02:48:28 AM
 ::)

Das ist wunderbar.

:-*

Danka !



Quote

Faith Lavington wrote that "She spoke English with a beautiful British accent". But I do agree with you, from the little I have heard on TV, she definitely have a "Russian" accent. Strange, isn't it. Franziska Schanzkowska's first language was German, and one should expect a German accent, shouldn't one?

Kind regards
Chat Noir

Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Ra-Ra-Rasputin on March 18, 2006, 04:28:13 AM
Quote

Faith Lavington wrote that "She spoke English with a beautiful British accent". But I do agree with you, from the little I have heard on TV, she definitely have a "Russian" accent. Strange, isn't it. Franziska Schanzkowska's first language was German, and one should expect a German accent, shouldn't one?

Kind regards
Chat Noir


No, AA spoke English with an 'Eastern European' accent, not specifically Russian. Seeing as FS was from Eastern Europe, I fail to see the controversy here.

Rachel
xx
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Annie on March 18, 2006, 08:33:20 AM
Quote

No, AA spoke English with an 'Eastern European' accent, not specifically Russian. Seeing as FS was from Eastern Europe, I fail to see the controversy here.

Rachel
xx


Yes, I have seen tapes of her talking, that was certainly no 'beautiful British accent.' ::) I don't see any controversy at all. AA sounded exactly the way FS would have, eastern European, because she was Polish.

And as for all the he said/she said this and that language comments, they are all just hearsay. Someone also said she hollered out in Polish in church. Is there no recording of her speaking French, or writing in it? Was she never questioned on these language skills in court where it could be recorded?
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Annie on March 18, 2006, 11:57:01 AM
I was rereading  John Godl's article, and I found this:

The fact she couldn't speak or read Russian, English or French at the time like all the tsar's daughters, was sufficient proof for former court tutor Pierre Gilliard she was an impostor

Ah, no wonder Gilliard was so against her. It was just as I suspected, he knew she couldn't read or write the languages AN knew well. This was what it was, not that he was evil and paid off by Ernst of Hesse to discredit her as AA supporters claimed.  

Before anyone tries to list a bunch of quotes by Joe Blow or Jane Doe claiming they did hear her speak or utter words of these languages, if all we have is this hearsay and no proof she was able to functionally communicate in them, this is a BIG blow against her. There is no record of her being tested and recorded speaking, reading or writing any of these languages before 1928, or even during the trial, I assume. Of course she picked up some atrocious English later, but it looks like she knew no French at all (unless somebody gave her a line to memorize and recite on the spot, even I can do that)

I also noticed this in the article, and can't believe I overlooked it before. Yet another 'OOOOHHH!' moment for me.  

The Russian Refugee Office in Berlin, presided over by Serge Botkin, represented the interests of exiles in Germany and came to the aid of Anderson (then calling herself Mrs Tschaikovsky). The organization was basically a monarchist support group and the suicidally depressed woman soon found herself embraced by sympathetic exiles, many sending or bringing her flowers, sweets and letters of encouragement.

I hadn't noticed this! Gleb's uncle the head of the Russian emigre' community in Berlin, very interesting.  

once again, the entire article:

http://www.serfes.org/royal/annaanderson.htm



Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: ChatNoir on March 18, 2006, 04:48:04 PM
Quote
I was rereading  John Godl's article, and I found this:
 
The fact she couldn't speak or read Russian, English or French at the time like all the tsar's daughters, was sufficient proof for former court tutor Pierre Gilliard she was an impostor
 
Ah, no wonder Gilliard was so against her.  
 


Brilliant, Annie, brilliant. Now I just need to know how Gilliard knew this. As far as I remember, he exclaimed at her bedside that he "would do all he could to help the Grand Duchess" and thereafter left Berlin after telling Herluf Zahle that "we are leaving without being able to say that she is NOT Anastasia." And that was the last he saw of her.
Seems to me that his decision to go against AA was fired by hot checks from Darmstadt.

Kind regards,
Chat Noir
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Lemur on March 18, 2006, 06:31:16 PM
It is very possible that Pierre and Shura said what they did out of the heat of the moment. They had been told Anastasia was alive and wanted to believe it  After meeting her and seeing her better, and learning more about her they realized she was an imposter. Perhaps he made her a French quiz and she failed it.

I have a question, who continued to 'fire hot checks from Darmstadt' after Ernie and his entire family died in a plane crash in 1937? Pierre continued to fight Anna Anderson until his death in 1962, testifying in court as late as 1960. Isn't it at all possible that this man fought against Anderson to preserve the memory of his loved and dead pupil, Anastasia, from being made a farce by n imposter? That's what I believe.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: ChatNoir on March 18, 2006, 06:59:34 PM
Quote
It is very possible that Pierre and Shura said what they did out of the heat of the moment. They had been told Anastasia was alive and wanted to believe it  After meeting her and seeing her better, and learning more about her they realized she was an imposter. Perhaps he made her a French quiz and she failed it. .


Shura cried when she left the bedside of AA and said: "I loved her so much. Why do I love this patient just as much? If you knew how torn I am now."

Quote
I have a question, who continued to 'fire hot checks from Darmstadt' after Ernie and his entire family died in a plane crash in 1937? Pierre continued to fight Anna Anderson until his death in 1962, testifying in court as late as 1960. Isn't it at all possible that this man fought against Anderson to preserve the memory of his loved and dead pupil, Anastasia, from being made a farce by n imposter? That's what I believe.


I believe the money was for "La Fausse Anastasie". Pierre Gilliard testified in court because he was asked to. And by that time he had BURNED HIS ARCHIVES.  

Kind regards
Chat Noir
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Ra-Ra-Rasputin on March 18, 2006, 07:10:55 PM
Good one, Annie!

Alarm bells went off in my head when I read about Serge Botkin in Peter Kurth.  Talk about vested interests.

Look, ChatNoir, of course everyone wanted to believe that AA was AN.  That's why on first meeting a lot of the people asked to go and see her, like Olga and Shura, got emotional and weren't sure what to think.  They didn't want to say 'No' absolutely just in case.  Shura felt pity for AA, as anyone would, and interpreted that as her old feelings for Anastasia.  Funny that she and Olga, two people you have brought up as having initial positive attitudes towards AA as being AN, became two of her most forthright detractors.  Why? Because they realised they had fallen victim to wishful thinking and wanted to put things to rights.  A brief meeting with someone refusing to talk to you can't allow you to come to a definite conclusion, and so they may have initially let themselves believe that AA was AN, but on further examination, everyone who's opinion is actually worth something declared that AA wasn't AN.  And that's all that needs to be said.

When it comes to someone you love being murdered and then possibly found alive, you're going to get emotional and let yourself be convinced because you so want to be, aren't you? That's all it was.  With time, the people who wavered at first allowed their sentiments to be overridden by sense.

Rachel
xx
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: ChatNoir on March 18, 2006, 07:33:46 PM
Quote
Good one, Annie!

Funny that she and Olga, two people you have brought up as having initial positive attitudes towards AA as being AN, became two of her most forthright detractors.  Why? Because they realised they had fallen victim to wishful thinking and wanted to put things to rights.  A brief meeting with someone refusing to talk to you can't allow you to come to a definite conclusion


Rachel, you make a very good argument.  But Shura never came out against AN, she just kept quiet because of whom she was married to. And during the visit, AA kept talking all the time, asking Olga "thousands of questions". And remember, this was the Gilliards 2nd visit to her, they were the ones who, apparently, told Olga to come to Berlin because they believed the invalid to be AA. And how did AA recognize Gilliard, even without his beard, Olga and then Shura? And what stumps me is that AA all the time asked Ms. Rathlef to bring Gilliard to Berlin because she thought he could identify her. FS would have known that he could probably unmask her in minutes.

Kind regards
Chat Noir
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Lemur on March 18, 2006, 07:38:25 PM
Quote

 And how did AA recognize Gilliard, even without his beard, Olga and then Shura?


Somebody told her?

Quote
And what stumps me is that AA all the time asked Ms. Rathlef to bring Gilliard to Berlin because she thought he could identify her. FS would have known that he could probably unmask her in minutes.

Kind regards
Chat Noir


She was in a home for the mentally ill. The mentally ill do not always think the right way.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: ChatNoir on March 18, 2006, 07:49:14 PM
Quote
She was in a home for the mentally ill. The mentally ill do not always think the right way.


No, she was not. She was in a private room in the Mommsen Clinic, a very exclusive Berlin Hospital. And NO DOCTOR ever found a trace of mental illness in her. The reason she started out in a mental hospital was because she refused to speak and no-one knew what to do with her. And, according to her own testimony, she felt safe in an asylum. Nobody would look for her there.

Kind regards
Chat Noir
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Lemur on March 18, 2006, 07:54:42 PM
Quote

No, she was not. She was in a private room in the Mommsen Clinic, a very exclusive Berlin Hospital. And NO DOCTOR ever found a trace of mental illness in her. The reason she started out in a mental hospital was because she refused to speak and no-one knew what to do with her.


Or it could be because she tried to cap herself???


Quote
And, according to her own testimony, she felt safe in an asylum. Nobody would look for her there.

Kind regards
Chat Noir


Then how come she went to so much trouble to make herself be seen and known in the public eye???
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: ChatNoir on March 18, 2006, 08:04:39 PM
Quote

Then how come she went to so much trouble to make herself be seen and known in the public eye???


???? Please elaborate.

Kind regards
Chat Noir
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Lemur on March 18, 2006, 08:06:28 PM
Quote

???? Please elaborate.

Kind regards
Chat Noir


1. She let the lady who wrote the book on her put her face all over signs and billboards

2. She had pictures made and stories all about her in America

3. She had a lot of cases in court where she was going, look at me, it's Anastasia! So I can't believe she didn't want to be found when she put herself  on display like a star!
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Lemur on March 18, 2006, 08:07:58 PM
This is a question about languages: when Anderson met with Maria daughter of Rasputin, what language did they speak to each other? Was it their native Russian? If Anderson could not speak it wouldn't Maria have thought that was weird???
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: ChatNoir on March 18, 2006, 08:15:06 PM
Quote

1. She let the lady who wrote the book on her put her face all over signs and billboards


On the contrary, she had no idea that the book was being written, and she was furious with Ms. Rathlef for publishing it.

Quote
2. She had pictures made and stories all about her in America


SHE had pictures made? Where on earth have you gotten this information???

Quote
3. She had a lot of cases in court where she was going, look at me, it's Anastasia! So I can't believe she didn't want to be found when she put herself  on display like a star!


She never filed a court case, her friends did it for her. And when the case was played out in court, she lived in seclusion in Schwarzwald, refusing to see anybody, even her friends at times. You definitely need to do your homework.

Kind regards
Chat Noir
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Lemur on March 18, 2006, 08:18:48 PM
Quote

On the contrary, she had no idea that the book was being written, and she was furious with Ms. Rathlef for publishing it.


Really? It doesn't seem like somebody could write a whole book without having to ask her questions. If she was so mad why didn't she sue or try to get it stopped?


Quote
SHE had pictures made? Where on earth have you gotten this information???


I see the pictures of her with the parakeet and the boa. They were made public and she posed for them.


Quote
She never filed a court case, her friends did it for her. And when the case was played out in court, she lived in seclusion in Schwarzwald, refusing to see anybody, even her friends at times. You definitely need to do your homework.

Kind regards
Chat Noir


Who were her 'friends' and why did they do it? She could have refused if she was so against it.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: ChatNoir on March 18, 2006, 08:20:40 PM
Quote

Who were her 'friends' and why did they do it? She could have refused if she was so against it.


As I said before: Do your homework, I am not going to do it for you.

Kind regards
Chat Noir
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Ra-Ra-Rasputin on March 19, 2006, 05:01:08 AM
Lol! Doctors never found any trace of mental illness in AA?

She spent her whole life pretending to be someone else and she wasn't mental...riiiiight....

And, ChatNoir, do YOUR homework.  AA WANTED to be known.  She WANTED to be recognised.  She WANTED the 'money' everyone said was hers in England.  She didn't object to the founding of Grandanor, did she? And if she was that upset about the court case, she could have put a stop to it.  In fact, I remember reading in Peter Kurth that she supported it.  She wanted her 'rightful' place.  

AA realised that when she took on the role of AN, she had a free ticket to a much wealthier world than she could ever have dreamed of, and also the fame and glory she had dreamed of since she was a child.  FS always wanted to be a movie star, didn't she? Well, she got her wish.

Rachel
xx
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: etonexile on March 19, 2006, 06:43:04 AM
Yes,Tedders....we wish folk would stop using that "logic" thingy...It is just toooo confusing for some...
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: ChatNoir on March 19, 2006, 10:15:52 AM
Quote
Lol! Doctors never found any trace of mental illness in AA?



And, ChatNoir, do YOUR homework.  AA WANTED to be known.  She WANTED to be recognised.  She WANTED the 'money' everyone said was hers in England.  She didn't object to the founding of Grandanor, did she? And if she was that upset about the court case, she could have put a stop to it.  In fact, I remember reading in Peter Kurth that she supported it.  She wanted her 'rightful' place.  



Keep reading, and when you have finished the book, let me know.

Kind regards
Chat Noir
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Tsarina_Liz on March 19, 2006, 11:12:53 AM
She tried to commit suicide - that's a big mental illness flag.  Her stint in the Berlin mental institution was not her last, she was institutionalized more than once for being a danger to herself and others.  AA had a habit of escaping of the houses in which she was being kept and wandering around aimlessly before sleeping in parks like a vagrant.  She was a frustrating woman with an uneven temper and a manic personality whose mood swings could be lethal.  AA also assumed the indentity of a dead royal, and seemed to encourage attention even while protesting that she hated it.  

Her supporters, in my belief, were a desperate lot.  Some were fueled by the myth of the Romanov fortune, others the attention they got by being around AA, and some just were so desperate to have the IF back they projected their feelings for them onto a pathetic mentally disturbed woman.  
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Annie on March 19, 2006, 12:23:02 PM
FS was declared insane in 1916. So AA, being FS, still had problems and always did. Another trait of mental illness is the eccentric way she lived in her later years, including having the filthy house and yard with 68 dogs and cats. I am an animal lover and I admire anyone who could take on that many, but she didn't take care of them, or herself. Animal 'collecting' or 'hoarding' is another sign of mental illness.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Tsarina_Liz on March 19, 2006, 05:03:54 PM
Quote
FS was declared insane in 1916. So AA, being FS, still had problems and always did. Another trait of mental illness is the eccentric way she lived in her later years, including having the filthy house and yard with 68 dogs and cats. I am an animal lover and I admire anyone who could take on that many, but she didn't take care of them, or herself. Animal 'collecting' or 'hoarding' is another sign of mental illness.


The use of FS's mental illness is subjective (heresay?) because she has not been definitely proven Anastasia, so I'd be wary of using that.  But AA as AA had recorded stays in mental hospitals in Germany for being a danger (if only they had been more specific about her condition...)  The testimony of people who knew her is also less than flattering and sheds an important light on her mental condition (which seems to have steadily deteriorated).  AA did not began the animal collection she became famous until she was elderly.  It's not uncommon in the geriatric crowd, many individuals experience it as they age.

So let's just keep in mind the two biggies: the suicide attempt and the adoption of an alternate identity.  Most rational people would consider that mentally unstable without knowing anything further!

The more I think about this woman, the more I admire and pity her.  She was an exceptional conartist with an impressively encyclopedic memory and the ability to charm people.  She worked with what she had to create one of the greatest controversies of all time and help resurrect interest in a lost empire.  That takes balls.  But at the heart of it was this little lost girl who forgot herself and was at the mercy of her mental demons and desperate need for attention.  She wasn't vicious or cruelly calculating.  She was pathetic.  
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Forum Admin on March 19, 2006, 06:45:26 PM
Quote

  But at the heart of it was this little lost girl who forgot herself and was at the mercy of her mental demons and desperate need for attention.  She wasn't vicious or cruelly calculating.  She was pathetic.  


I think this statement sum it up perfectly. Anna Anderson was simply someone who's "real" life was not what she wanted it to be, and it never would be, so she made up an elaborate deception, which she herself eventually believed, in order to become something more "glamorous" "famous" and "noteworthy" than she ever could have been given her lower working class origins. Pathetic is indeed the best way to describe anyone similarly driven to eventually believe their own deceptions.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Annie on March 19, 2006, 08:31:51 PM
Quote

I think this statement sum it up perfectly. Anna Anderson was simply someone who's "real" life was not what she wanted it to be, and it never would be, so she made up an elaborate deception, which she herself eventually believed, in order to become something more "glamorous" "famous" and "noteworthy" than she ever could have been given her lower working class origins. Pathetic is indeed the best way to describe anyone similarly driven to eventually believe their own deceptions.


This is exactly how I see her, and how I plan to portray her in the fictionalized novel I am writing about her.

Oh, and about her 'friends' starting a court case for her, not only is is suspicious Gleb Botkin was one of the main 'friends', I don't buy that. Don't know about Europe, but in the US your 'friends' can't start a court case on your behalf, you have to be the one to do it, sign for it, etc. You can have help but you must be the one to go through with it. And I didn't see her being dragged into the courtroom kicking and screaming with a gun to her head. Come on. She DID want the case!
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: ChatNoir on March 19, 2006, 10:32:44 PM
Quote

This is exactly how I see her, and how I plan to portray her in the fictionalized novel I am writing about her.

Oh, and about her 'friends' starting a court case for her, not only is is suspicious Gleb Botkin was one of the main 'friends', I don't buy that. Don't know about Europe, but in the US your 'friends' can't start a court case on your behalf, you have to be the one to do it, sign for it, etc. You can have help but you must be the one to go through with it. And I didn't see her being dragged into the courtroom kicking and screaming with a gun to her head. Come on. She DID want the case!


She did, on Gleb Botkin's advice, hire a lawyer to prove her identity. His name was Edward Fallows. He could not do much for her in the early months as she refused to have her claim submitted to the courts on the grounds tat her father made the courts and she was superiour to them. Only when she heard about a suit Grand Duchess Xenia had brought to recover some of the Tsar's land in Finland did AA agree to go ahead with the case, naively assuming, according to Fallows, that all she had to do was retain a lawyer and make a claim through him.

Kind regards
Chat Noir
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Kransnoeselo on March 27, 2006, 01:38:04 PM
Quote
One of our regular users, Simon (LouisCharles) met Anastasia Manahan during her life. He has said very clearly that her accent in speaking English was decidedly heavy in an Eastern European way and not anywhere near to the upper-class Victorian accent that without doubt AN spoke in English.  We have the reports from English speaking visitors who met the Grand Duchesses and/or Alexei, and they all to a one report that their English was excellent.

Interestingly reseach done in England found by analyzing AA's voice discovered a slight Yorkshire accent.   See below for a direct quote from Peter Kurth's website: Footnote 25:

"Mrs. Anderson also spoke English with a slight trace of Yorkshire, according to a reputably reliable 'voice analysis' commissioned for Channel 4’s Equinox program in London.  Sidney Gibbes, English tutor to the tsar’s children, was a Yorkshireman; Anna Anderson never went to England, and Anastasia did so only once, when the Russian and British ruling families met briefly on the Isle of Wight.  Gibbes was employed in 1908 after King Edward VII told his niece, Empress Alexandra, that her children's English was 'abominable.'"

One would think British voice experts would be able to distinguish an Eastern European accent versus one of their own.

Tim

[size=9][/size]
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Ra-Ra-Rasputin on March 27, 2006, 02:06:58 PM
Er, I'm English and I can tell you something for nothing- there was nothing English about AA's English accent.

Anyone who says otherwise is either deaf or getting paid to say so.

Also, there are about a billion sources stating that all of the GDs spoke English with 'barely an accent', meaning that they spoke the cut glass English the Royal Family would have all spoken.  I think a Grand Duchess speaking Yaaarkshire would have been enough of an unusual occurence to warrant a mention from a contemporary.  

Sidney Gibbes did not pass on a Yorkshire accent to the girls.  AA spoke English with a heavy Eastern European accent.  So, somewhere along the line, that claim just doesn't add up, does it?

Once again, you AA supporters need to do some research beyond reading 'The Riddle of Anna Anderson' and www.peterkurth.com.  There are other writers on the Romanovs, you know.  

Rachel
xx
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Annie on March 27, 2006, 07:53:04 PM
Quote
Quote
One of our regular users, Simon (LouisCharles) met Anastasia Manahan during her life. He has said very clearly that her accent in speaking English was decidedly heavy in an Eastern European way and not anywhere near to the upper-class Victorian accent that without doubt AN spoke in English.  We have the reports from English speaking visitors who met the Grand Duchesses and/or Alexei, and they all to a one report that their English was excellent.

Interestingly reseach done in England found by analyzing AA's voice discovered a slight Yorkshire accent.   See below for a direct quote from Peter Kurth's website: Footnote 25:

"Mrs. Anderson also spoke English with a slight trace of Yorkshire, according to a reputably reliable 'voice analysis' commissioned for Channel 4’s Equinox program in London.  Sidney Gibbes, English tutor to the tsar’s children, was a Yorkshireman; Anna Anderson never went to England, and Anastasia did so only once, when the Russian and British ruling families met briefly on the Isle of Wight. [size=9][/size]

She didn't need to go to England to speak English. Don't forget, Alexandra spoke English- 'without accent' (upper class British accent) as her main language, and Nicholas talked to her in English too. So, growing up in a household where both parents spoke English regularly is surely going to be a bigger influence on her than a tutor. What was bad about their English was their spelling, Alexandra often worked with them on their English spelling too. The girls also had a British nanny, and spoke English and Russian in childhood. The family used English every day. There is no way a person growing up with the strong English influence AN had would end up sounding like AA. Also, there is no proof AA knew English before she began her claim.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: AGRBear on March 28, 2006, 05:37:11 PM
Quote
Quote
One of our regular users, Simon (LouisCharles) met Anastasia Manahan during her life. He has said very clearly that her accent in speaking English was decidedly heavy in an Eastern European way and not anywhere near to the upper-class Victorian accent that without doubt AN spoke in English.  We have the reports from English speaking visitors who met the Grand Duchesses and/or Alexei, and they all to a one report that their English was excellent.

Interestingly reseach done in England found by analyzing AA's voice discovered a slight Yorkshire accent.   See below for a direct quote from Peter Kurth's website: Footnote 25:

"Mrs. Anderson also spoke English with a slight trace of Yorkshire, according to a reputably reliable 'voice analysis' commissioned for Channel 4’s Equinox program in London.  Sidney Gibbes, English tutor to the tsar’s children, was a Yorkshireman; Anna Anderson never went to England, and Anastasia did so only once, when the Russian and British ruling families met briefly on the Isle of Wight.  Gibbes was employed in 1908 after King Edward VII told his niece, Empress Alexandra, that her children's English was 'abominable.'"

One would think British voice experts would be able to distinguish an Eastern European accent versus one of their own.

Tim

[size=9][/size]

It seems that Ra Ra Rasputin and Annie have become experts on accents.  As for Louis Charles [Simon],  I believe he met AA as a young man and late in AA's life.  I don't know if he is an expert in accents although I suspect his association with acting on the stage has familiarized him with the Yorkshire accent.  What little I've heard her speak on the two television shows,  I couldn't tell.   And, that's why I'm not an expert.

Instead of  jumping to conclusion that the expert mention didn't know the difference between  English with a hint of Yorkshire or Low German with hints of Kashubian, perhaps it would be of interest to know this man's creditials and why he is/ was  considered an expert by Kurth and others.

Just saying someone isn't an expert because you don't agree with his findings isn't very good detective work as far as I'm concern.

If  this expert knew his business and AA did have a Yorkshire accent,  then who was it who taught her English between the time of the execution of 1918 and when she jumped into the Berlin canal?  All her time after she was discovered,  no one who was around her seems to have noticed AA learning English during her free time before she headed for the USA.

When did AA first speak English after Feb. 1920???

AGRBear
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Kransnoeselo on April 02, 2006, 08:29:49 PM
      I suppose I sould restate that the British voice study found a trace of a Yorkshire accent and did not state that AA spoke with a Yorkshire accent.  To assume that the Duchesses would not pick up some of their tutor's accent would seem rather silly-please recall that Mr. Gibbes was hired due to the fact that the Duchesses had picked up a Scottish accent from their English speaking nanny-It had been noticed by the King who then addressed the issue with Alexandra.

     Interestingly Gleb Botkin stated the Duchesses spoke English with a Russian accent and Russian with an English accent-(for reference read his book on the matter The Woman Who Rose Again).  

It has been stated by man on this forum that AA spoke with an Eastern European accent. Personally I would consider a Russian accent to be an Eastern European accent.    

Tim
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Annie on April 02, 2006, 09:09:52 PM
Quote
     I suppose I sould restate that the British voice study found a trace of a Yorkshire accent and did not state that AA spoke with a Yorkshire accent.  To assume that the Duchesses would not pick up some of their tutor's accent would seem rather silly-please recall that Mr. Gibbes was hired due to the fact that the Duchesses had picked up a Scottish accent from their English speaking nanny-It had been noticed by the King who then addressed the issue with Alexandra.

     Interestingly Gleb Botkin stated the Duchesses spoke English with a Russian accent and Russian with an English accent-(for reference read his book on the matter The Woman Who Rose Again).  

It has been stated by man on this forum that AA spoke with an Eastern European accent. Personally I would consider a Russian accent to be an Eastern European accent.    

Tim
 

I have heard the Yorkshire accent story countless times. Anyone who has heard the tape of her doubts this, especially British people. Her parents spoke English with an English accent and that's how she'd have picked it up. Alexandra especially. I have to question Gleb concerning his close connection to AA's case. And as someone just posted in the other thread, the real AN was famous for her ability to mimic any accent, she impressed people with her abilities. So this means if AA had been AN she'd have had the gift of using the correct accent when using a certain language. Obviously AA didn't have this talent. No surprise, since she wasn't AN.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Tania+ on April 02, 2006, 10:00:00 PM
Tim,

I agree with your statement partially quoted below :

      "Personally I would consider a Russian accent to be an Eastern European accent." End Quote

In my over 60 years, I have grown up and worked in depth with people of varied ethnicities. As to a Russian, of those speaking english and with their accent, I can tell them right away. There is usually no mistaking their accent. Lol, I usually ask [after one or two words in english] do you speak Russian, are you Russian, in Russian. They look at me shocked and say, 'why yes, how did you know'. Does my accent show ? Sometimes, they don't say a thing, but I approach them and ask are you Russian ? Or
are you German ?

I would imagine it would be the way with those whom had grown up in other communities, to be able to discern from what country they are from by their accents, and many times by the way they dress. I have also upon occasion met those whose language is Russian, or German, but they have no accent what so ever. I have met those who are not Russian, or English, but when they speak German, or Russian, their accent in that particular language, is pure, and you would not be able to denote that they spoke anything in all their life except Russian or German. Again, this varies from person to person. It is not unusual in my book. I also believe it matters how much the person has applied themself to learning the language. Some have even learned the language at home, but still you can see how much they or the teacher has advanced them by how well they have mastered the language. Thanks for you input.

Tatiana+
        
[size=10][/size]
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Annie on April 02, 2006, 10:05:03 PM
That may well be true for people in general but remember that AN had a gift for accents and voices so she would be able to speak each language with its correct accent, not the way AA spoke English. AN's English would have sounded far more upper class British than the way AA talked. AA, being FS, had to learn languages after she was an adult, making it harder for her.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Tania+ on April 02, 2006, 10:44:35 PM
You should not say remember. Neither you or I can't remember, because we did not hear it first hand, nor any of her recordings. One would have to hear the person either in person, and or a reliable first person recording. It seems though that as many whom have heard her, even they have had difficulty in assessment.

So, from our perspective, as non experts, we are merely quoting those others whom think what they think. For us, that is heresay. Other than working in the field as I have, how do you Annie know, based on any life's experience (and how long) with people with varying accents ? It seems to me that most of your assessments are based only on what has been written here on these threads. What are your sources, etc., please ?

I'm quite familiar with upper class British accents. I'm also familiar with actors whom have perfected accents that are not their own. I also can discern affectations, and have.

Again, all of this information at best, forms our perspective, and is only at best quoting what may be, imho, and until I can actually hear a tape of her voice, I can only guess as yourself what that may be. I have already stated, as you have stated, what you think. I continue to think as I do, based on the many years I have of working in various communities of ethnicities, etc. We are entitled to think as we do, without others taking varying actions of written verbal attack(s). I have worked with many types of persons who have gone through infinite trauma's, physically, psychologically, mentally, spiritually. So I really understand people even with their various accents, etc., and the infinite types of issues they have had to face, through war, revolution, gang warfare, diseases, disabling illnesses, catastrophic issues, mental exacerbations. PTSD as well presents very difficult life changing profiles in and of a person's life. So one can be sure, everything should and must be taken into understanding in the end analysis of the person in question.

Again, learning a language in adulthood, is not always a difficulty. This is a generalization you are using.
Each person is an individual, and there are people who are not as everyone else.

Tatiana+


Quote
That may well be true for people in general but remember that AN had a gift for accents and voices so she would be able to speak each language with its correct accent, not the way AA spoke English. AN's English would have sounded far more upper class British than the way AA talked. AA, being FS, had to learn languages after she was an adult, making it harder for her.
[size=9][/size]
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Ra-Ra-Rasputin on April 03, 2006, 04:12:27 AM
Quote
     I suppose I sould restate that the British voice study found a trace of a Yorkshire accent and did not state that AA spoke with a Yorkshire accent.  To assume that the Duchesses would not pick up some of their tutor's accent would seem rather silly-please recall that Mr. Gibbes was hired due to the fact that the Duchesses had picked up a Scottish accent from their English speaking nanny-It had been noticed by the King who then addressed the issue with Alexandra.

     Interestingly Gleb Botkin stated the Duchesses spoke English with a Russian accent and Russian with an English accent-(for reference read his book on the matter The Woman Who Rose Again).  

It has been stated by man on this forum that AA spoke with an Eastern European accent. Personally I would consider a Russian accent to be an Eastern European accent.    

Tim
 


I would just like to point out that although Sidney Gibbes was from Yorkshire, it is highly likely that he did not speak with a Yorkshire accent.

Sidney Gibbes, to be in a position to teach the children of the Emperor and Empress of Russia, would have been born into a wealthy family and been well educated.  Even though he may have lived and been brought up in Yorkshire, he most probably would never have adopted the Yorkshire accent, as to have a regional accent implied being of lower class.  Wealthy families living in the North always discouraged their children from picking up the local accent, and children usually managed to avoid doing so by being educated away from where their parents were living and by not associating with local children.  This also goes for wealthy British families living in Ireland- I always remember watching a television documentary on the Marquis of Londonderry who lived in Ireland, and his daughter Maire, who was brought up and educated in Ireland, spoke English with a perfect cut glass British accent, not an Irish one.  

I am English, so yes, Bear, I am an expert on English accents.  I doubt anyone else on this thread, unless they are English, would be able to accurately pinpoint a dialect down to the town a person was from? No, I thought not.  But I can, so therefore, I am entitled to make the comment that AA did NOT have a Yorkshire accent- I have heard her voice.  And, just to use an example from my personal experience to illustrate upper class people not adopting local dialects, I am at a university in the South East of England, which because of its prestige attracts students from all over the world and also from all different parts of England.  I have several friends from the North of England that, because of their education in elite private schools, do not have a discernible Northern accent, but instead speak with a Southern accent, one that an American would think of as the quintessential 'British' accent.  

In addition to the fact that Gibbes probably didn't have an accent to pass on to the girls, why, if a Scottish accent was detected from Miss Eager and so she was replaced by Gibbes, was a Yorkshire accent not detected if Gibbes supposedly gave them one? I'm sure this would have been noted by Alexandra and steps taken to stop it, but there is no evidence of this.

So, logically, the conclusion must be that there was never any Yorkshire accent to trace.  I wonder whether this so called language 'expert' would have picked up a Yorkshire accent if he had not known that Sidney Gibbes was from Yorkshire?

Plus, YOU may call an Eastern European accent Russian, Tim, but Eastern Europe is a big place, and encompasses a lot of countries.  Not to mention the fact that if AA did indeed speak English with an Eastern European accent, regardless of what country that accent was from, she couldn't possibly be AN, because AN didn't, as we have gone over and over and over, speak English with anything other than a cut glass British accent.  Not a Russian one.  Not a Yorkshire one.  But the cut glass accent of royalty, and no-one ever said anything otherwise during AN's definite lifetime.  OK?

Rachel
xx

Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Annie on April 03, 2006, 08:06:53 AM
Quote
You should not say remember. Neither you or I can't remember, because we did not hear it first hand, nor any of her recordings. One would have to hear the person either in person, and or a reliable first person recording. It seems though that as many whom have heard her, even they have had difficulty in assessment.

Actually I DO have a recording of her. It's a NOVA special, and it has a scene where the real AA is speaking. I have also seen other such spots on TV over the years, (she was quite famous, and I live in the same state she lived in) but this one is mine to keep. Also. one of our members here met her in person, and he agrees there was no trace of any English accent.

Quote
What are your sources, etc., please ?

My DVD recording of her talking. Knowing that, by numerous sources, her parents, especially her mother, spoke English with an upper class British accent every day. How do children learn to talk more than any other way? Listening to their parents!

Quote
I'm quite familiar with upper class British accents. I'm also familiar with actors whom have perfected accents that are not their own. I also can discern affectations, and have.

Read Ra-Ra's post above. She IS British and is an expert on the various accents.

Quote
Again, all of this information at best, forms our perspective, and is only at best quoting what may be, imho, and until I can actually hear a tape of her voice, I can only guess as yourself what that may be.

See if you can find a copy of the NOVA AA special at your local library on on Ebay. Then you will have proof.


Quote
Again, learning a language in adulthood, is not always a difficulty. This is a generalization you are using.Each person is an individual, and there are people who are not as everyone else.

So I assume by this comment, you are admitting that you know AA was FS and learned the languages in adulthood after she began her claim? We know AN learned them as a child.

Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Sian_Turner on April 03, 2006, 08:46:58 AM
 
Read Ra-Ra's post above. She IS British and is an expert on the various accents.


I can't see Rachel saying anywhere that she's a qualified dialectician Annie so I'd stop making wild claims on behalf of other people if I was you.

However, I don't think that what the original analysis claimed was that AA had a real eeh bah gum yorkshire accent, complete with t'coil hoil etc.  What it possibly could refer to is the flat a that a yorkshire accent has when saying words like bath (a southerner would pronounce it bahth).

People's accents change when they've been living in different places for any period of time.  Xenia Leeds spoke of AA's ability to speak perfectly acceptable Russian, had she had a thick polish/german/east european accent then I think Xenia would have noticed.  None of the other royal visitors speak of her accent so therefore it would have been perfectly acceptable to them.

Annie, your "fictionalised" account of AA's life?  Will this have any basis in truth?  Your messages certainly don't so I don't hold out much hope for your writing.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Ra-Ra-Rasputin on April 03, 2006, 09:09:40 AM
Quote

Read Ra-Ra's post above. She IS British and is an expert on the various accents.


I can't see Rachel saying anywhere that she's a qualified dialectician Annie so I'd stop making wild claims on behalf of other people if I was you.

I'm not qualified, but I can tell an English dialect with pinpoint accuracy.  It's a skill I happen to have.  I don't need a certificate in order to say so.

Quote
However, I don't think that what the original analysis claimed was that AA had a real eeh bah gum yorkshire accent, complete with t'coil hoil etc.  What it possibly could refer to is the flat a that a yorkshire accent has when saying words like bath (a southerner would pronounce it bahth).

Oh, yes, this is highly likely.  I also am not suggesting that this expert detected a broad Yorkshire accent in AA.  What I am saying is that Sidney Gibbes would not, in all likelihood, have had a Yorkshire accent to pass onto the GDs anyway.  AND, if he had have done, I'm sure someone would have said something about it when AN was alive.  Seeing as they didn't, whether a Yorkshire accent was detected in AA is neither here nor there, because AN didn't have one, so it can't be used as proof, can it?

Quote
People's accents change when they've been living in different places for any period of time.  Xenia Leeds spoke of AA's ability to speak perfectly acceptable Russian, had she had a thick polish/german/east european accent then I think Xenia would have noticed.  None of the other royal visitors speak of her accent so therefore it would have been perfectly acceptable to them.

This is also true. I have a South London accent but when I am around people not from South London for long periods of time, such as when I live at university, I lose a lot of my Sarf London inflections.  However, Xenia Leeds did not think AA was AN, so her thinking AA spoke 'perfectly acceptable Russian' is again, neither here nor there.  In addition to this, I am surprised that AA, who if she was AN, would have spoken fluent Russian, had deteriorated into having only 'acceptable' Russian by the time she met Xenia.  Yes, your accent can change, but a language you used every day becoming only 'acceptable'? Unlikely.  And Felix Yussupov said that AA's English was 'dreadful'.  AN spoke excellent English by all accounts.  I doubt she would lose the ability to speak it with the right accent and descend into a thick Eastern European accent very much.

When it comes down to it, ignoring accents and all of this palaver, AA chose to speak German as the language she felt most comfortable with.  AN did not know German.  When spoken to in English and Russian, AA may supposedly have understood what was being said, but she could not speak in those languages.  As she was around more cosmoplitan people who spoke English and Russian to her, she undoubtedly picked up a few phrases and such; this is something that anyone with an average aptitude for languages can do.  She was never declared to be fluent in Russian- her Russian was simply termed as 'gramatically acceptable'.  Her English understandably got better as she got older, as she was married to a man who spoke English.  However, for someone claiming to be a girl who was brought up fluent in Russian, English and French, NOT GERMAN, AA simply doesn't fit the bill.  

Believing AA was AN is all very well and good, but you can't ignore the evidence that says otherwise.

And I don't see how attacking Annie gets you anywhere.

Rachel
xx
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Annie on April 03, 2006, 09:16:15 AM
Quote


And I don't see how attacking Annie gets you anywhere.

Rachel
xx

Thanks, I wasn't. Sadly, it seems too many AA supporters take any challenge to their beliefs, even in a civil, academic debate to be a 'personal attack' or even 'abuse'  ::) No one is victimizing a person, just stating a reasonable and realistic opposition to certain beliefs. No one can expect not to be challenged or questioned on their position, especially one that has been proven wrong by science.

And again on the accent thing, don't forget that AN was known by all who knew her as a natural mimic with a gift for picking up accents and imitating voices. So since AA obviously didn't possess this talent, it's another good reason to assume she wasn't AN!
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Ra-Ra-Rasputin on April 03, 2006, 09:23:14 AM
Quote

Thanks, I wasn't. Sadly, it seems too many AA supporters take any challenge to their beliefs, even in a civil, academic debate to be a 'personal attack' or even 'abuse'  ::) No one is victimizing a person, just stating a reasonable and realistic opposition to certain beliefs. No one can expect not to be challenged or questioned on their position, especially one that has been proven wrong by science.

Exactly.  But anyone who disbelieves the AA was AN story, because of oh, I don't know, proven scientific evidence? must be evil and nasty. Not to mention having 'closed minds'.  Pot, kettle, black...

Quote
And again on the accent thing, don't forget that AN was known by all who knew her as a natural mimic with a gift for picking up accents and imitating voices. So since AA obviously didn't possess this talent, it's another good reason to assume she wasn't AN!

That's very true! Another nail in the coffin...

Rachel
xx
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Annie on April 03, 2006, 10:03:21 AM
Quote


Exactly.  But anyone who disbelieves the AA was AN story, because of oh, I don't know, proven scientific evidence? must be evil and nasty. Not to mention having 'closed minds'.  Pot, kettle, black...

Right! I am sorry to put it this way, but when there's something that scientific evidence has disproven, it puts that particular belief in the same category with those who believe other things that have been disproven by science, such as the Earth being flat, or all sorts of wild conspiracy theories. If a person continues to hold to such an unrealistic position, they shouldn't be suprised that others will continue to debate them and provide opposing viewpoint and evidence.

Quote
And again on the accent thing, don't forget that AN was known by all who knew her as a natural mimic with a gift for picking up accents and imitating voices. So since AA obviously didn't possess this talent, it's another good reason to assume she wasn't AN!

Quote
That's very true! Another nail in the coffin...

Rachel
xx

Yes, if AA had been AN, she'd have spoken English with an English accent, German with a German accent, etc. She was good at this! Also, living in Charlottesville, VA, she'd have picked up the local country dialect, even mocked it. So this is just one more big hole in AA's story, as AA/FS only was able to speak in that one accent, regardless of the language.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: AGRBear on April 03, 2006, 11:36:17 AM
I have already stated that I am not an expert, nor have I heard Alexandra or Nicholas II speaking English, nor have I heard any of the GD Duchesses speaking English before their captitivity as prisioners of the Prov. Govt, nor have I heard Botkin or others with whom GD Anastasia was in contact.  With that said,  since my background is German-Russian,  I can honestly say that from the few sentences AA spoke in any of her TV apperances,  her English was not similar to the English I heard in the community in which I was raised.

Any expert reading my English today would be able to see immediately the German influence.  With that said and knowing that Louis-Charles dislikes personal stories which have no bearing on actual facts on AA's spoken word,  I'll add the following:

Bryan Sykes, who is the expert in genetics through the usage of DNA and mtDNA, and known for his discovery of THE SEVEN DAUGHTERS OF EVE, tells us p. 148-9:

>>Although it is not readily apparent to any but professional linquists, there is no doubt that, with only a few exceptons, the languages spoken in Europe today all stem from a common root.  They belong to a family of languages called Indo-European.  The way in which sentences are constructed and many of the words they share betray a relationship among them that may not be obvious to most of us as we struggle with our phrase books.<<

For those of you who believe AA and FS are the same person.  Can you tell that  FS's first words were not German but Kashubian?  Some posters claim Kashubian is a  language is connected to Polish.  Is this correct?  Perhaps the two languages are connect to the same root language.

From what I understand,  AA spoke High German, which the educated Germans spoke in public or wrote when communicating with others.  Did she have an accent which would tell us her original dialect of German.  She did understand Low German.  FS heard and spoke Low German in Posen schools.

How many of you know what influence Martin Luther had on the German languages?

How many of you would be able to detect the von Hohenzollerns German was originally Swabish?  How many of you even know what Swabish is?

Let me add, that Byran Sykes uses experts because it helps him to find groups of people he can test for their DNA and mtDNA as he continues to work with his work in genetic discoveries.

Let me add the last few words of Sykes which have nothing to do with AA or languages but something I find which should be repeated:  

p. 297

>>How ironic that DNA should also be the very instrument that reconnects us to the mysteries of our deep past and enhances rather than diminishes our sense of self.<<

I do not believe AA was GD Anastasia so my questions are merely to understand the facts of AA's background discovered through her speech.

AGRBear
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Kransnoeselo on April 03, 2006, 11:45:49 AM
It appears that the breadth of AA's language skills are not as well known as they should be.

Anna spoke English in the early 1920's on many occassion-including while under morphine. (See Harriet Rathlef von Keilmann's book published in 1929)

Anna spoke French while on her voyage to America in 1928 with a woman with since their only mutual language was French. (According to Gleb Botkin's son in law)

Anastasia did know German- she studied even while in captivity in Siberia.

Anna not only spoke "grammatically correct" Russian-but Russian which would have been considered acceptable by the aristocracy- See interviews with
Princess Xenia Leeds, her sister Nina G., the Duke of Leuchtenburg etc.

AA while living in the black forest taught one of her "Ladies-in-waiting"  Russian.        

Tim

Quote
Quote

Read Ra-Ra's post above. She IS British and is an expert on the various accents.

When it comes down to it, ignoring accents and all of this palaver, AA chose to speak German as the language she felt most comfortable with.  AN did not know German.  When spoken to in English and Russian, AA may supposedly have understood what was being said, but she could not speak in those languages.  As she was around more cosmoplitan people who spoke English and Russian to her, she undoubtedly picked up a few phrases and such; this is something that anyone with an average aptitude for languages can do.  She was never declared to be fluent in Russian- her Russian was simply termed as 'gramatically acceptable'.  Her English understandably got better as she got older, as she was married to a man who spoke English.  However, for someone claiming to be a girl who was brought up fluent in Russian, English and French, NOT GERMAN, AA simply doesn't fit the bill.  
....
Rachel
xx
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Sian_Turner on April 03, 2006, 12:28:32 PM
This is also true. I have a South London accent but when I am around people not from South London for long periods of time, such as when I live at university, I lose a lot of my Sarf London inflections.  However, Xenia Leeds did not think AA was AN, so her thinking AA spoke 'perfectly acceptable Russian' is again, neither here nor there.  In addition to this, I am surprised that AA, who if she was AN, would have spoken fluent Russian, had deteriorated into having only 'acceptable' Russian by the time she met Xenia.  Yes, your accent can change, but a language you used every day becoming only 'acceptable'? Unlikely.  And Felix Yussupov said that AA's English was 'dreadful'.  AN spoke excellent English by all accounts.  I doubt she would lose the ability to speak it with the right accent and descend into a thick Eastern European accent very much.  


You're wrong here I'm afraid Rachel.  Xenia Leeds did believe that AA was AN it was her sister Nina who did not.  Also who are you to judge whether Xenia's appreciation of AA's accent is "neither here nor there"  do you have an intimate and extensive knowledge of the complexities of Upper Class St Petersburg Russian in the early 20th Century?  Do you know exactly what would be considered as "perfectly acceptable Russian by their standards" a comment Xenia Leeds made?  Have you studied the variety of inflexions and sounds which make up voice analysis?  No you have not so please don't tell me that you're an expert just because you think you can "pinpoint with accuracy" where someone comes from.  Linguistic and dialectics is a complex study for which you do need a certificate to practice in.

I am very fed up with reading the misleading personal suppositions which some people try to peddle as fact on this website.  There are many people who observe the academic propriety of providing sources for their information.  
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Tania+ on April 03, 2006, 12:33:54 PM
Dear Tim,

It is great to see you citing your references below ! I look forward to reading what you have to offer  :) on this subject matter.

I have to say though in particular on one of the posters posts, [just having a segment of a subject matters voice, to hear for a few seconds], is not enough to offer final understanding of that person's having or not having an accent, for whatever that accent is germain to of a given country. That does not as well make that person an expert. There is a lot more involved in being an expert when it comes to offering an experts stance !

Oh well, I imagine there are lots more with input, and I look forward to see what new posters have to share with us, the readers. I look forward to those who post serious statements that can and will make for those of us, who still withhold judgement, the decisive count to trust and agree with. For now my comments are general on that of accent(s), language, etc. I'm not to be pegged as yet, for a yay or nay. But, reserve the right to read everything till i choose to believe what I believe ;)

Reading what you offer, offers me more to think on. Keep up the great input. Thanks again for your great input.

Tatiana+


Quote
It appears that the breadth of AA's language skills are not as well known as they should be.

Anna spoke English in the early 1920's on many occassion-including while under morphine. (See Harriet Rathlef von Keilmann's book published in 1929)

Anna spoke French while on her voyage to America in 1928 with a woman with since their only mutual language was French. (According to Gleb Botkin's son in law)

Anastasia did know German- she studied even while in captivity in Siberia.

Anna not only spoke "grammatically correct" Russian-but Russian which would have been considered acceptable by the aristocracy- See interviews with
Princess Xenia Leeds, her sister Nina G., the Duke of Leuchtenburg etc.

AA while living in the black forest taught one of her "Ladies-in-waiting"  Russian.        

Tim

Quote
Quote

Read Ra-Ra's post above. She IS British and is an expert on the various accents.

When it comes down to it, ignoring accents and all of this palaver, AA chose to speak German as the language she felt most comfortable with.  AN did not know German.  When spoken to in English and Russian, AA may supposedly have understood what was being said, but she could not speak in those languages.  As she was around more cosmoplitan people who spoke English and Russian to her, she undoubtedly picked up a few phrases and such; this is something that anyone with an average aptitude for languages can do.  She was never declared to be fluent in Russian- her Russian was simply termed as 'gramatically acceptable'.  Her English understandably got better as she got older, as she was married to a man who spoke English.  However, for someone claiming to be a girl who was brought up fluent in Russian, English and French, NOT GERMAN, AA simply doesn't fit the bill.  
....
Rachel
xx
[size=9][/size]
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Annie on April 03, 2006, 12:42:20 PM
Quote

  And Felix Yussupov said that AA's English was 'dreadful'.

Actually, he said she refused to answer in English at all. He clearly stated that he asked her questions in Russian, English, French and German, and she only answered in German. She spoke no English in front of him to be judged.

All these people you bring up who allegedly heard her, you know, anyone can say anything, or be wrong. Was AA ever tested officially on languages, speaking and writing? If not she should have been.


Quote
AN spoke excellent English by all accounts.  I doubt she would lose the ability to speak it with the right accent and descend into a thick Eastern European accent very much.  

You can't ignore the fact that AN had an amazing gift for language, accents and voices. She could take on any accent to match the language. No way would she have sounded like AA. AA's language skills were poor compared to AN.



Quote
I am very fed up with reading the misleading personal suppositions which some people try to peddle as fact on this website.  There are many people who observe the academic propriety of providing sources for their information.

As I have said many times, you can quote all you want from AA books until the cows come home 'this person said this,' 'that person said that', give a page number and that makes it a real source? It's all just hearsay. Because you AA supporters have all these books to quote from, and because anyone involved in a fraudulent claim isn't going to leave a paper trail, even in death, you know there are things that can NEVER be proven so you keep using that for an excuse. However, we have provided you with the best source of all- the DNA- and you refuse to accept it. I doubt anything else I post will make any difference to you either. I do have a reasonable explaination for every single 'question' in AA's case, but you refuse to accept them, so I'll have to go back to the most solid proof of all. The DNA. Sorry, the truth is on my side.

Quote
 I've yet to see you or Annie do so and expect the rest of us to accept your somewhat fantastical arguments and theories as fact.  Most of the time I don't bother to reply but sometimes I feel that such complete twaddle has to be exposed.

"Complete twaddle?" At least my theories are logical and make sense to the story. If you believe that AA was AN, you must disbelieve the DNA tests, or feel they were switched. You have no right to lay 'twaddle' on anyone else's doorstep! (and before you go claiming I 'abused' you, please, look at your own doorstep first, you called my posts 'twaddle') (I've heard that unique term before;) )

Here's the only 'source' you need!

http://www.dnai.org/bioserver/clustalw_anna_and_carl.html

AA was not AN but FS. Time to move on.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Annie on April 03, 2006, 02:20:12 PM
Quote
Quote
Quote

  And Felix Yussupov said that AA's English was 'dreadful'.

In the words of Mandy Rice-Davies - well he would do wouldn't he!

My quote came from Greg King's book. I assume you are a fan of his!


Quote
No, Annie, if it's in a book and it's sourced it's not hearsay, it's a statement of fact, this is what particular people said about her, many of them on oath during the court cases.

It is STILL just one person's word against another. It is no proof.

Quote
That's what sources mean, having evidence to back up your theories.  

No, you can say somebody said something and give a page number, but you cannot prove they were correct or truthful!

I have said many times, my 'theories' are logical deduction and reasonable explainations for 'mysteries' involving this case. See, since we know that AA was not AN and was FS, there had to be a reason behind some things. I am offering very realistic ideas. But believe them or not, AA is NEVER going to be AN.


A couple of years ago a British Politician vowed to prove that he had been libelled by a newspaper using the sword of justice and the shield of truth, he was then found to be lying through his teeth and was sentenced to several years in prison, so please excuse me if I seem cynically unable to believe anyone who rants on and on about truth as you do

The only thing I am claiming as absolute 'truth' is that AA was not AN. We know this because of the DNA tests.

And speaking of 'lying through their teeth',  is it not possible some of those associated with AA didn't do just that? You all love to accuse Olga A. and Pierre G. of it. Some people may have lied, others were mistaken. How do we know who was wrong? We have the DNA tests to prove AA wasn't AN.



Please see above, your theories are not logical they are based on flimsy supposition and your own wild imaginings.  


Speaking of flimsy and wild imagining, please explain to me why you think the DNA tests are not evidence to prove AA's identity. Please provide sources proving the tests were wrong or tampered with, or just admit AA was not AN and move on.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Annie on April 03, 2006, 02:44:48 PM
Though I have seen it in several books, I have finally found a SOURCE on Anastasia's gift with accents.

Nicholas and Alexandra, by Robert K. Massie, page 127:

Witty and vivacious, Anastasia also had a streak of stubborness, mischief and impertinence. The same gift of ear and tongue that made her quickest to pick up a perfect accent in foreign languages also equipped her admirably as a mimic. Comically, sometimes cuttingly, the little girl aped precisely the speech and mannerisms of those around her.

Seems our real Anastasia had quite a gift for accents AA did not possess. Why am I not surprised, since AA was not really AN.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Rebecca on April 03, 2006, 03:00:00 PM
Quote

Bryan Sykes, who is the expert in genetics through the usage of DNA and mtDNA, and known for his discovery of THE SEVEN DAUGHTERS OF EVE, tells us p. 148-9:

>>Although it is not readily apparent to any but professional linquists, there is no doubt that, with only a few exceptons, the languages spoken in Europe today all stem from a common root.  They belong to a family of languages called Indo-European.  The way in which sentences are constructed and many of the words they share betray a relationship among them that may not be obvious to most of us as we struggle with our phrase books.<<

For those of you who believe AA and FS are the same person.  Can you tell that  FS's first words were not German but Kashubian?  Some posters claim Kashubian is a  language is connected to Polish.  Is this correct?  Perhaps the two languages are connect to the same root language.

From what I understand,  AA spoke High German, which the educated Germans spoke in public or wrote when communicating with others.  Did she have an accent which would tell us her original dialect of German.  She did understand Low German.  FS heard and spoke Low German in Posen schools.

How many of you know what influence Martin Luther had on the German languages?

How many of you would be able to detect the von Hohenzollerns German was originally Swabish?  How many of you even know what Swabish is?

AGRBear



[size=12]The term Indo-European languages denotes the largest and most widespread family of languages ont he Earth. It is true that with a few exceptions, most languages in Europe are related as they belong to the Indo-European language family. The major exceptions are Hungarian, Finnish, Estonian and Basque. However, linguistics have been unable to find if there has ever been ONE single Indo-European language, from which all the others stem, i.e. a root language. Most scholars say that such a root language may never have excisted, and if it has, we will never be able to establish it for various reasons.

And yes, AGR Bear, Kashubian and Polish are connected, as they are both Slavic languages, the Slavic languages being a branch of the Indo-European family of languages. There is, like I have said before, in another thread, debate on the subject whether Kashubian is an independent language or a dialect of Polish. German, on the other hand, belongs to the Germanic branch. As they are both Indo-European languages they share a common ancestry, which they also do with, for instance, Greek, Armenian, Hindi, Spanish, Sinhalese and Persian.

I am sure that Anna Anderson and Franziska Schanzkowska is one and the same person, but of course I cannot tell if  Franziska Schanzkowskas first words were German or Kashubian, and I doubt that anyone can - and why should it be important? She came from an area where it was very common to be bilingual or trilingual or even multilingual.

Actually, concerning her English accent, I once saw a TV-programme, of which I have forgotten most, but there was an expert on languages and dialects and he said, after having listened to several tapes of Anna Anderson speaking in ENGLISH, that her pronounciation of the phonem "r" was typical for the way this phonem is pronounced in areas in north eastern Germany, i.e. areas that are now Polish. Personally, I think her accent is definitely German.

Swabish, or Schwäbisch, is a dialect of German. If you mean the Hohenzollern branch that ruled Brandenburg and then the kingdom of Prussia, it is unlikely that they spoke Schwäbisch, as they had not lived in Schwaben (Swabia) for centuries. What, by the way, has that to do with Anna Anderson/Franziska Schanzkowska? She was definitely not a Romanov, and certainly not a Hohenzollern.  :D [/size]
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: LisaDavidson on April 03, 2006, 03:02:53 PM
Enough!

I believe this bickering was started by a bit of name calling. Kindly amend your posts to a more moderate tone, or I shall do it for you, and may in fact delete some posts.

Please do it soon.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Ra-Ra-Rasputin on April 04, 2006, 03:28:19 AM
Quote
You're wrong here I'm afraid Rachel.  Xenia Leeds did believe that AA was AN it was her sister Nina who did not.

Oops, my bad.  Always getting those two confused.  See, Sian; I can admit I'm wrong.
However, Xenia Leeds believing AA was AN is neither here nor there as far as I'm concerned, as Xenia and Nina left Russia with their mother before the first world war, making Xenia about 12 when she last saw Anastasia, and seeing as the girls spent vast periods of time outside of Russia with their mother, due to their parents being unhappily married, Xenia and Nina were not close to the Grand Duchesses at all.  So, Xenia simply does not have the credentials to be a reliable witness of AA being AN, and seeing as her sister heartily disagreed with her, I can't see where the 'proof' is in this at all.

 
Quote
Also who are you to judge whether Xenia's appreciation of AA's accent is "neither here nor there"  do you have an intimate and extensive knowledge of the complexities of Upper Class St Petersburg Russian in the early 20th Century?  Do you know exactly what would be considered as "perfectly acceptable Russian by their standards" a comment Xenia Leeds made?  Have you studied the variety of inflexions and sounds which make up voice analysis?  No you have not so please don't tell me that you're an expert just because you think you can "pinpoint with accuracy" where someone comes from.  Linguistic and dialectics is a complex study for which you do need a certificate to practice in.

Oooh, calm down, Sian.  I don't have a knowledge of the 'complexities' of 'Upper Class St Petersburg Russian' (is there such a thing?) and I never claimed to do so.  My point is that 'acceptable' NEVER equals 'fluent'.  Does it? You don't have to be an expert at anything to come to that conclusion.  Anastasia Nicholaievna spoke and wrote Russian every day.  It was her native language.  Anna Anderson only spoke broken, 'acceptable' Russian.  I don't need a certificate therefore to come to the conclusion that Anna Anderson was NOT fluent in Russian, which she would have had to be to be Anastasia.  Once again, you're focusing on points that don't matter and ignoring the stuff that does.

 
Quote
I am very fed up with reading the misleading personal suppositions which some people try to peddle as fact on this website.  There are many people who observe the academic propriety of providing sources for their information.  

Personal experience and examples of events are not 'misleading' nor irrelevant.  They help to illustrate how theories can be accurate, or on the other hand, inaccurate.  How they can be misleading, I don't know.  Seeing as I was including my personal experience to agree with you, Sian, I can't see why you'd be so upset about it.  And, as I have just explained on another thread, a lot of us don't have the means to quote from sources; I do not have an extensive Romanov library due to the strained financial circumstances being a university student enforces on those of us without wealthy parents to pay our fees.  Being able to quote from a source does not make an opinion more valid than someone who has not quoted from a source.  A source can be erroneous, after all, as has been shown so many times on this site.

Sian, I suggest, instead of slinging mud and getting overtly defensive, that you follow your own advice and give us some logical, informed argument that doesn't ignore all evidence to the contrary.  And, while you're at it, why don't you provide us all with a SOURCE to prove the DNA is wrong, because until you do that, your OPINION, according to you, is worthless.

Rachel
xx
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Ra-Ra-Rasputin on April 04, 2006, 03:42:17 AM
Thank you Rebecca for that wonderfully informative post on linguistics.  I studied that a bit at university myself. :)

Rachel
xx
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Annie on April 04, 2006, 07:35:07 AM
Quote



Personal experience and examples of events are not 'misleading' nor irrelevant.  They help to illustrate how theories can be accurate, or on the other hand, inaccurate.  How they can be misleading, I don't know.  

I find analogies and comparisons very helpful. I have had teachers who used them to help us understand things, even math. I have even seen AA supporters use them, but, I guess that's okay!


Quote
 Being able to quote from a source does not make an opinion more valid than someone who has not quoted from a source.  A source can be erroneous, after all, as has been shown so many times on this site.

Exactly. Just because a person said something and it was written in a book doesn't make it necessarily true. Just because someone comes up with a very good idea that's not in a book doesn't make it false. We need to use our own brains to sort things out. Analyze, discuss, and debate. I thought that's what this forum was for.

What would be very helpful is a book discussing why AA was NOT AN now that we have the DNA tests. Unfortunately, no one has ever bothered to write one, probably because they feel there is no need, since most people accept the truth. Such a book would be very helpful with 'sources'. Also, again, much of what I have said is logical reasoning to explain the missing pieces, things we will NEVER know because there will NEVER be any sources because no one involved in a fraudulent claim leaves a paper trail, or any quotes about how they helped AA fake being AN. Boy, wouldn't that be interesting, though! Of course, everyone involved took their secrets to their graves, and we are left to guess and figure it out. But since we do know that AA wasn't AN, we can make sense of most of it, as I have.



Quote
Sian, I suggest, instead of slinging mud and getting overtly defensive, that you follow your own advice and give us some logical, informed argument that doesn't ignore all evidence to the contrary.  And, while you're at it, why don't you provide us all with a SOURCE to prove the DNA is wrong, because until you do that, your OPINION, according to you, is worthless.

Rachel
xx

Yes, I suggested that as well. All of these AA supporters who demand sources have yet to provide even one proving that the DNA was switched or wrong, and until they do (which they can't) none of the other stuff even matters. AA wasn't AN, no matter what Jane Doe said on page 234! The DNA is the best and most solid proof and 'source' we have here, and it gets ignored. I even posted a link to the results, ignored, of course. Only shoes and hairdos matter;)

Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Ra-Ra-Rasputin on April 04, 2006, 07:53:27 AM
Annie, I think you just made me literally LMAO.  Haven't had a giggle like that in a long time.  ;D

Quote
Quote

Personal experience and examples of events are not 'misleading' nor irrelevant.  They help to illustrate how theories can be accurate, or on the other hand, inaccurate.  How they can be misleading, I don't know.  

I find analogies and comparisons very helpful. I have had teachers who used them to help us understand things, even math. I have even seen AA supporters use them, but, I guess that's okay!

Exactly! Analogies are necessary to see whether theories actually can work in application to 'real life'.  An example of this was when we were talking about scars and whether they could move/fade.  Someone claimed they could, then three people told of their personal experiences with scars and how they had not done so, disproving the theory that AA could have had the scar AN had on her forehead, but that it had moved or faded so as to be unnoticeable.  They are not misleading.  They are actually helpful.

Quote

Exactly. Just because a person said something and it was written in a book doesn't make it necessarily true. Just because someone comes up with a very good idea that's not in a book doesn't make it false. We need to use our own brains to sort things out. Analyze, discuss, and debate. I thought that's what this forum was for.

Exactly, again! By demanding sources every time someone expresses an opinion, you're basically saying 'no one can say anything without someone else's previous acknowledgement of that idea.'  That's absurd.  What about the people who wrote the book? Who did they get their ideas from? Just because they wrote them down and got them published, it doesn't mean their ideas are 'better'/more truthful/more reliable/more believable than someone's on this forum.  In order to generate new ideas, new discussions, new theories, we've got to think on our feet and come up with our own opinions, not just regurgitate what's already gone before.  



Quote
Yes, I suggested that as well. All of these AA supporters who demand sources have yet to provide even one proving that the DNA was switched or wrong, and until they do (which they can't) none of the other stuff even matters. AA wasn't AN, no matter what Jane Doe said on page 234! The DNA is the best and most solid proof and 'source' we have here, and it gets ignored. I even posted a link to the results, ignored, of course. Only shoes and hairdos matter;)

Of course! 'Science? What does that matter when AA's nose was clearly exactly six centimetres long, and so was AN's.  I don't care what the DNA says, because on page 345 of Peter Kurth, he says that AA was AN because they wore the same shoe size.  Now YOU find ME a source that disproves AA couldn't speak Russian, because Peter Kurth says on page 33 that she could so that means she must have been AA.' Such great logic these people have.  All the more reason why they're fighting a losing battle.  I have yet to meet an AA supporter on here who has logically and reasonably set down some realistic arguments as to why AA could have been AN despite the DNA without descending into a slanging match or thrusting Peter Kurth in my face.  Until they produce evidence that the DNA was switched, they've got no right to demand anything of anyone else.  

Ah, AA supporters.  So much passion, so little sense.

Rachel
xx
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Annie on April 04, 2006, 08:21:14 AM
Very true, they only use what suits them and much of it, like the shoes, is just plain silly and doesn't mean a thing! We can't even prove the shoes were hers! Those shoes are more important than the DNA, which they consistently ignore or refuse to explain why they don't accept (because it would be some nonsensical conspiracy theory that would likely get deleted) Also, when I DO quote sources, they are either ignored (like my Anastasia accent ablility post) or disregarded ("person x is lying, they were against her!')  ::) so it is all hopless to get though to them because they don't want the truth, they want the fantasy! Like my sig says, they WANT to believe the mystery. But I am always amazed at just how snappy and nasty they can get over those who oppose them. It's not a credit to the memory of poor AA/FS, I'm sure she wouldn't want anyone acting like that on her behalf, and neither would the real Anastasia.

Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Ra-Ra-Rasputin on April 04, 2006, 12:25:01 PM
Must have missed your post earlier, Tim.

Quote
It appears that the breadth of AA's language skills are not as well known as they should be.

Anna spoke English in the early 1920's on many occassion-including while under morphine. (See Harriet Rathlef von Keilmann's book published in 1929)

So she spoke a few words of English while drugged up.  That's not proof.  Also, this is just Harriet Rathlef's say so.  AA didn't even trust her.

Quote
Anna spoke French while on her voyage to America in 1928 with a woman with since their only mutual language was French. (According to Gleb Botkin's son in law)

Again, so she spoke a few words of French according to someone.  We're back to she said he saids here.  This is not evidence.    

Quote
Anastasia did know German- she studied even while in captivity in Siberia.

This is not true.  The only evidence we have of German tuition is of one appearing on the expenses of GD Maria when the family were still living in Tsarskoe Selo.  There is also some evidence that Alexandra taught Tatiana a little German while in Siberia on her request, however there is NOTHING to suggest that Anastasia was actively learning German while in Siberia.  In any case, Anastasia never spoke German to anyone; the languages spoken at home were Russian and English. If she did know any German, it would be very poor.  So, why she would choose to use it exclusively as her preferred language is beyond me.  She couldn't speak it to the standard AA could.

Quote
Anna not only spoke "grammatically correct" Russian-but Russian which would have been considered acceptable by the aristocracy- See interviews with
Princess Xenia Leeds, her sister Nina G., the Duke of Leuchtenburg etc.

No, AA's Russian was said to be 'grammatically correct' by Nina and 'perfectly acceptable' by Xenia.  This does not tally with the fluent Russian that AN would surely have spoken.  Being gramatically correct when you're speaking a few sentences does not equal fluency.[/quote]

Quote
AA while living in the black forest taught one of her "Ladies-in-waiting"  Russian.        

Yeah, according to the lady in the waiting and according to a few exercise books with Russian script in them.  The lady in waiting was not Russian so how she'd know whether what she was being taught was accurate or not is beyond me.  Someone could tell me anything meant something in Russian and I would believe them.

Let's go through the KNOWN languages spoken list again, shall we?

Anastasia Nicholaievna

Fluent in: Russian, English
Good conversational, written and reading knowledge of: French
Minimal knowledge of: German

Anna Anderson

Chose to speak in (though often grammatically incorrect in): German
Reportedly spoke with varying levels of fluency: Polish, Russian, French, English

The main anomaly here is that AN would never have chosen to speak German.  She knew three languages better than she knew German.  So why pick German to communicate in? Why refuse to speak the other three languages? It just doesn't make sense.  Plus, people who claim AA spoke Russian often didn't speak Russian themselves so how they'd know it was Russian and not Polish, very similar languages to the untrained ear, I don't know.  Broken snatches of French and English would easily have been picked up in the multilingual world of the emigre Berlin, somewhere AA lived for a long time.  

You seem like a sensible person, Tim, so hopefully you won't turn a blind eye to all the evidence I have provided against your claims like other AA supporters.

Rachel
xx
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Eddie_uk on April 04, 2006, 12:40:46 PM
I still find it absolutely unbelievable that their are still those that believe thatAA was the Grand Duchess Anastasia, I really just can't comprehend it.

To me it is just so abundantly clear she was an imposter, and was no more royal than my left foot. She did a terrible terrible thing, attempting to carry herself of as someone else, someone who had died in horrific circumstances. It's the surviving Romanovs and suite I always feel sorry for, what a terrible thing AA put them through.

Anyway, that's just my 2 cents worth! We are of course all entitled to our opinions and beliefs!!

:):)
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: AGRBear on April 04, 2006, 01:15:06 PM
Quote

...[on part]...
[size=12]The term Indo-European languages denotes the largest and most widespread family of languages ont he Earth. It is true that with a few exceptions, most languages in Europe are related as they belong to the Indo-European language family. The major exceptions are Hungarian, Finnish, Estonian and Basque. However, linguistics have been unable to find if there has ever been ONE single Indo-European language, from which all the others stem, i.e. a root language. Most scholars say that such a root language may never have excisted, and if it has, we will never be able to establish it for various reasons.

And yes, AGR Bear, Kashubian and Polish are connected, as they are both Slavic languages, the Slavic languages being a branch of the Indo-European family of languages. There is, like I have said before, in another thread, debate on the subject whether Kashubian is an independent language or a dialect of Polish. German, on the other hand, belongs to the Germanic branch. As they are both Indo-European languages they share a common ancestry, which they also do with, for instance, Greek, Armenian, Hindi, Spanish, Sinhalese and Persian.

I am sure that Anna Anderson and Franziska Schanzkowska is one and the same person, but of course I cannot tell if  Franziska Schanzkowskas first words were German or Kashubian, and I doubt that anyone can - and why should it be important? She came from an area where it was very common to be bilingual or trilingual or even multilingual.

Actually, concerning her English accent, I once saw a TV-programme, of which I have forgotten most, but there was an expert on languages and dialects and he said, after having listened to several tapes of Anna Anderson speaking in ENGLISH, that her pronounciation of the phonem "r" was typical for the way this phonem is pronounced in areas in north eastern Germany, i.e. areas that are now Polish. Personally, I think her accent is definitely German.

Swabish, or Schwäbisch, is a dialect of German. If you mean the Hohenzollern branch that ruled Brandenburg and then the kingdom of Prussia, it is unlikely that they spoke Schwäbisch, as they had not lived in Schwaben (Swabia) for centuries. What, by the way, has that to do with Anna Anderson/Franziska Schanzkowska? She was definitely not a Romanov, and certainly not a Hohenzollern.  :D [/size]

Rebecca gets to to the head of the class for knowing what Swabish is.

So,  we're back to square one.  Kurth has an expert and Rebecca talks about an expert who talked about AA's "r".

Now,  who are these experts?  And would one know more about linguistics than the other?

AGRBear
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Rebecca on April 04, 2006, 01:48:44 PM
[size=12]Ra-Ra-Rasputin, thanks for the kind words! Made my day a little sunnier here in Sweden where spring still seems to be somewhere else.  :)[/size]
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Rebecca on April 04, 2006, 02:00:24 PM
Quote
Quote

...[on part]...
[size=12]The term Indo-European languages denotes the largest and most widespread family of languages ont he Earth. It is true that with a few exceptions, most languages in Europe are related as they belong to the Indo-European language family. The major exceptions are Hungarian, Finnish, Estonian and Basque. However, linguistics have been unable to find if there has ever been ONE single Indo-European language, from which all the others stem, i.e. a root language. Most scholars say that such a root language may never have excisted, and if it has, we will never be able to establish it for various reasons.

And yes, AGR Bear, Kashubian and Polish are connected, as they are both Slavic languages, the Slavic languages being a branch of the Indo-European family of languages. There is, like I have said before, in another thread, debate on the subject whether Kashubian is an independent language or a dialect of Polish. German, on the other hand, belongs to the Germanic branch. As they are both Indo-European languages they share a common ancestry, which they also do with, for instance, Greek, Armenian, Hindi, Spanish, Sinhalese and Persian.

I am sure that Anna Anderson and Franziska Schanzkowska is one and the same person, but of course I cannot tell if  Franziska Schanzkowskas first words were German or Kashubian, and I doubt that anyone can - and why should it be important? She came from an area where it was very common to be bilingual or trilingual or even multilingual.

Actually, concerning her English accent, I once saw a TV-programme, of which I have forgotten most, but there was an expert on languages and dialects and he said, after having listened to several tapes of Anna Anderson speaking in ENGLISH, that her pronounciation of the phonem "r" was typical for the way this phonem is pronounced in areas in north eastern Germany, i.e. areas that are now Polish. Personally, I think her accent is definitely German.

Swabish, or Schwäbisch, is a dialect of German. If you mean the Hohenzollern branch that ruled Brandenburg and then the kingdom of Prussia, it is unlikely that they spoke Schwäbisch, as they had not lived in Schwaben (Swabia) for centuries. What, by the way, has that to do with Anna Anderson/Franziska Schanzkowska? She was definitely not a Romanov, and certainly not a Hohenzollern.  :D [/size]

Rebecca gets to to the head of the class for knowing what Swabish is.

So,  we're back to square one.  Kurth has an expert and Rebecca talks about an expert who talked about AA's "r".

Now,  who are these experts?  And would one know more about linguists than the other?

AGRBear


[size=12]Thank you, AGR Bear, for the nomination. :)

Well, I can not tell you the name of "my" expert, since, as I mentioned, he appeared on a documentary on TV several years ago, and I did not make a note of his name. But as I remember it, he listened to the tapes WITHOUT knowing who was speaking on them, and was supposed to analyze the accent of the person speaking, and the conclusion on the "r" was one of the things he discovered.

I do not wish to talk badly about Mr. Peter Kurth (or anybody else, for that matter) but I very seriously doubt that Mr. Kurth would quote or accept the conclusions from any expert who is not on "his" side or strongly biased in his favour.

On a another TV documentary which I watched several years ago also, about the DNA testing of the tissue taken from Anna Anderson/Franziska Schanzkowska, Peter Kurth said, before the results of the testings had came, that if the results showed that Anderson was NOT Anastasia Nicholaievna, he would have to be carried out of the room on a stretcher. Well, I can just sincerely hope that the stretcher carriers handled him gently.  :D[/size]
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: AGRBear on April 04, 2006, 04:04:54 PM
If you google Peter Kurth,  you'll come up with his web site in which he tells you exactly where he was when he heard the news about the results of the DNA and what he thinks, now.

AGRBear
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Kransnoeselo on April 04, 2006, 05:43:51 PM
Hi again everyone,

      It is documented in several places regarding Anna's ability to speak English in the early 1920's.  Yes she did speak it while under the influence of morphine, but also under other circumstances.  Harriet Rathlef von Keilmann was one of Anna's strongest supporters even though AA had a falling out with her (As AA did with all of her close friends).  The reason I mention her book is that she documents several different instances where Anna spoke English- it gives the details such as with whom, etc.   It isnt that Harriet herself testified that Anna spoke English she documents it.  Ill be glad to place some direct quotes on here soon.

In this discussion I believe that "expert" testimony should be weighed and considered.  (By expert testimony I mean testimony from those whose testimony is firsthand). Even though a DNA analysis cannot be done on testimony or interviews,
such quotes are part of the historical record and cannot be simply dismissed.  It isnt that one quote can be used to disprove the theory that AA was Franziska or that AA was not AN.  Yet the weight of such "anecdote" can indeed point to errors in such theories.  

If the contention is that AA did not speak English, Russian and French.  Then such anecdotes which show that she did speak those languages are indeed valuable.  

The statements I have read that AN did not know German are patently false and such statements were spread by Pierre Gilliard himself.  Yet the fact that AN did know German can be verified by seeing Pierre Gillard's own records. (AA's German was not good. It was very unstructured-for quotes on this see Harriet Rathlef von Keilmann's book, Peter Kurth's book and the File On the Tsar by Summers and Mangold.   "Two years after his (Gilliard's) death in 1962, the school exercise books of the Romanovs Grand Duchesses were recovered and produced in court.  They revealed that all the girls had been learning German.  Another document found amongs Gilliard's own papers was a time-table from the days of exile in Tobolsk showing that Anastasia was still receiving two German lessons each week." File on the Tsar.  

** According to Felix Schankowska his sister spoke "German" and some Polish and NOT the other way around.  **

Regarding AA's Russian in July 1922 "The doctors reported '...In her sleep she talks Russian with good pronunciation: mostly unessential things."

AA was never recorded speaking Polish.  That was never documented I have only heard one "anecdote" on this board regarding that.   Thus if one doesn't accept quotes as evidence than this cannot be considered fact.

 
Re: Ironically Anna's Russian tutorage of her "lady-in-waiting" led to one of the pieces of evidence towards her claim to be AN.  The exercise book which she used was used in a graphology study and they found that her writing of Cyrillic symbols was much more fluid than her Western characters (meaning the Russian characters came more naturally) and the handwriting matched that of AN (Again see File on the Tsar and Peter Kurth's book, as well as The Quest for Anastasia).  The Polish language uses the same alphabet as the other Romance languages not like Russian which uses the Cyrillic alphabet.


More soon.  Thanks to everyone for the lively discussions its great to have a forum to discussion this matter.

Tim

Quote
Must have missed your post earlier, Tim.

So she spoke a few words of English while drugged up.  That's not proof.  Also, this is just Harriet Rathlef's say so.  AA didn't even trust her.

Quote
Anna spoke French while on her voyage to America in 1928 with a woman with since their only mutual language was French. (According to Gleb Botkin's son in law)

Again, so she spoke a few words of French according to someone.  We're back to she said he saids here.  This is not evidence.    

Quote
Anastasia did know German- she studied even while in captivity in Siberia.

This is not true.  The only evidence we have of German tuition is of one appearing on the expenses of GD Maria when the family were still living in Tsarskoe Selo.  There is also some evidence that Alexandra taught Tatiana a little German while in Siberia on her request, however there is NOTHING to suggest that Anastasia was actively learning German while in Siberia.  In any case, Anastasia never spoke German to anyone; the languages spoken at home were Russian and English. If she did know any German, it would be very poor.  So, why she would choose to use it exclusively as her preferred language is beyond me.  She couldn't speak it to the standard AA could.

Quote
Anna not only spoke "grammatically correct" Russian-but Russian which would have been considered acceptable by the aristocracy- See interviews with
Pri
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: barishchina on April 04, 2006, 07:59:32 PM
I am so sorry 'what interview with PRI?'

I seem to have lost the last part of your most recent post, Krasnoeselo...
Could you possibly repeat it?


thanks
E. Barishchina
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Annie on April 05, 2006, 09:56:27 AM
Quote
Hi again everyone,

      It is documented in several places regarding Anna's ability to speak English in the early 1920's.  Yes she did speak it while under the influence of morphine, but also under other circumstances.  Harriet Rathlef von Keilmann was one of Anna's strongest supporters even though AA had a falling out with her (As AA did with all of her close friends).  The reason I mention her book is that she documents several different instances where Anna spoke English- it gives the details such as with whom, etc.   It isnt that Harriet herself testified that Anna spoke English she documents it.  Ill be glad to place some direct quotes on here soon.

I question all of this because it's all just hearsay and she said he said, mostly by supporters. I even wonder if these people who said she spoke something in her sleep even knew the language in question well enough to understand alleged tired mumblings of it.

Quote
In this discussion I believe that "expert" testimony should be weighed and considered.  (By expert testimony I mean testimony from those whose testimony is firsthand). Even though a DNA analysis cannot be done on testimony or interviews,
such quotes are part of the historical record and cannot be simply dismissed.  It isnt that one quote can be used to disprove the theory that AA was Franziska or that AA was not AN.  Yet the weight of such "anecdote" can indeed point to errors in such theories.  

Yes they CAN be dismissed, because they were all just hearsay, second hand tales and he said she saids, much of such comments are contradictory, and since we do know for sure that AA wasn't AN because of the DNA, we know these people were either lying or mistaken. Or, even if she did speak whatever, she still wasn't AN.


Quote
The statements I have read that AN did not know German are patently false

So she did take German lessons. It was still by far her least known and used language, and would be the one least likely to become her main form of communicaton.

Quote
and such statements were spread by Pierre Gilliard himself.

I have seen a lot credited to Gilliard that I'm not even sure he said. I doubt the hairstyle story, for instance, since he knew AN had been bald. I wonder how much has been put on him over the years that he really didn't say. I also wonder if, though he did know she wasn't AN, that he may have added other things to boost the case that have now come back to be seen as lies, hurting his credibility (a la the LAPD in the OJ case, he was guilty, but they blew it by trying to make sure he was)

Quote
Peter Kurth's book and the File On the Tsar by Summers and Mangold.  

Can AA supporters ever get beyond these two sources?


Quote
they found that her writing of Cyrillic symbols was much more fluid than her Western characters

Interesting, since other AA supporters have posted evidence that AN made less mistakes in German than Russian, and I have seen it written that she had a lot of trouble with the Cyrillic alphabet and was much better at the Western characters (which is why she made less mistakes in languages that used them in her written work, nothing to do with her ability to speak whatever language)
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Eddie_uk on April 05, 2006, 10:37:55 AM
Quote
The statements I have read that AN did not know German are patently false and such statements were spread by Pierre Gilliard himself.  .

Pierre Gilliard spreading false storys?? Oh please!!! What on earth next??

Ive heard of Grand Duke Ernie and Grand Duchess Olga lying to defraud their neice (along with similar disrespectful & outrageous slurs) but WHY Pierre Gilliard?? Please explain what possible reason he had to deny AA was AN!!
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Kransnoeselo on April 05, 2006, 11:59:51 AM
Hey

Let me clarify my statement that Monsieur Gilliard made false statements with regards to the AA case. This is no supossition-this is a well documented fact.  In his book La Fausse Anastasie he made several statements which were later proven false. (Such as his statement that there was not a Malachite room in one of the palaces as AA stated-which in fact there was.  Or his statement that there was not a samovar at the army headquarters at Stavka/Mogilev as AA stated-which is was later proven there was)  The one statement that he made that I am making reference to is that AN did not know German. *Please see my ealier post with the quote from the book File On the Tsar-which quoted German court documents which were from M. Gilliard own papers which showed the time tables for the Ducheses German lessons in Tobolsk.

 I am NOT trying to infer that M. Gilliard believed AA to be AN.  I am thoroughly convinced that he did not believe AA's claim. Wether he simply forgot about the German lessons or not is another matter altogether but he did (wether knowingly or unknowingly) promulgate the myth that the Duchesses never studied German.  This is well documented; again please refer to M. Gilliard's own book La Fausse Anastasie as well as The File on the Tsar, and Anastasia The Riddle of Anna Anderson.

Tim
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Annie on April 05, 2006, 12:11:26 PM
I really do feel that Gilliard has been misquoted by AA supporters over the years, such as the hairdo quote. There is no way he's going to accuse AA of copying AN's hairstyle in Tobolsk when AA's hair was very long and twisted up in a bun, and AN had been shaved totally bald after the March revolution due to measles and her hair was short for the rest of her life. Gilliard himself took the bald pics of the GDs so he knew better. It would be to the advantage of AA supporters to discredit him, since he was one of the main opponents and had known AN so well. Poor Ernie was dead and Olga continued to be accused of lying all her life. What happens to the guy in the movie who 'knew too much?' He's rubbed out, right? Well, if you can't rub someone out physically, the next best thing is to set out to destroy their credibility so no one will believe anything they say. I've seen this happen in real life, sadly.

IF he DID make proven false statements in his own book, there are two possibilities- one, he just plain remembered wrong, as I suspect was the case in many of the 'hesaidshesaid' pro AA comments about shoes, height, etc. It happens to the best of people. Also, it is possible, I suppose, that he said things to help boost the case against her that weren't true, though he knew she really wasn't AN, he wanted to add more to his side. This is not good, as it hurts your case in the long run. It's like the LAPD in the OJ case, they knew he did it, but in trying to make sure he was found guilty, they shot themselves in the foot and left suspicion that helped get him off. But that doesn't mean OJ is innocent,and AA was certainly not AN.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: AGRBear on April 05, 2006, 02:23:25 PM
Quote
I really do feel that Gilliard has been misquoted by AA supporters over the years, such as the hairdo quote. There is no way he's going to accuse AA of copying AN's hairstyle in Tobolsk when AA's hair was very long and twisted up in a bun, and AN had been shaved totally bald after the March revolution due to measles and her hair was short for the rest of her life. Gilliard himself took the bald pics of the GDs so he knew better. It would be to the advantage of AA supporters to discredit him, since he was one of the main opponents and had known AN so well. Poor Ernie was dead and Olga continued to be accused of lying all her life. What happens to the guy in the movie who 'knew too much?' He's rubbed out, right? Well, if you can't rub someone out physically, the next best thing is to set out to destroy their credibility so no one will believe anything they say. I've seen this happen in real life, sadly.

IF he DID make proven false statements in his own book, there are two possibilities- one, he just plain remembered wrong, as I suspect was the case in many of the 'hesaidshesaid' pro AA comments about shoes, height, etc. It happens to the best of people. Also, it is possible, I suppose, that he said things to help boost the case against her that weren't true, though he knew she really wasn't AN, he wanted to add more to his side. This is not good, as it hurts your case in the long run. It's like the LAPD in the OJ case, they knew he did it, but in trying to make sure he was found guilty, they shot themselves in the foot and left suspicion that helped get him off. But that doesn't mean OJ is innocent,and AA was certainly not AN.

I highlighted these words in Annie's post:

>>Also, it is possible, I suppose, that he said things to help boost the case against her that weren't true, though he knew she really wasn't AN, he wanted to add more to his side. This is not good, as it hurts your case in the long run.<<

I agree.

To make matters worst,  not only did Gilliard seem to be boosting his case,  he, also, destroyed evidence.  And, he admitted having done so to the Judges in AA's court trial.


AGRBear
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Eddie_uk on April 05, 2006, 02:58:53 PM
I agree with Annies point too,  thats if Gilliard did say things to boost his case.

I know it's not right, if that is the case, but I ask myself why would he of done that? He had nothing to gain by identifying AA if she really had been AN.

I think Gilliad was just so certain AA was definitely not AN he wanted to "embelish" his belief, or proof if you like, a bit more.
I can't think of any other reason. He knew she was not AA and just threw in a bit extra (which was not necessarily the truth) for good measure!! If that makes sense!!

Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Annie on April 05, 2006, 03:30:39 PM
Quote
I agree with Annies point too,  thats if Gilliard did say things to boost his case.

I know it's not right, if that is the case, but I ask myself why would he of done that? He had nothing to gain by identifying AA if she really had been AN.

I think Gilliad was just so certain AA was definitely not AN he wanted to "embelish" his belief, or proof if you like, a bit more.
I can't think of any other reason. He knew she was not AA and just threw in a bit extra (which was not necessarily the truth) for good measure!! If that makes sense!!


It does make sense, that's what I was getting at with the OJ analogy. I think he was guilty and the LAPD knew it, but when the allegations of tampering and planted evidence came out (and some of it may be true, to bolster the case) it made it look like he was innocent and framed, which of course he was not. That could be what Gilliard did, add a few things he thought would make things look worse for AA that he tried to cement it, but when (IF, I'm not sure) he was caught in lies, the AA supporters only used it as 'evidence' he was untrustworthy and 'framing' her. This is most unfortunate, because I honestly believe he was devastated by the loss of his pupils and hurt by the claimants. He fought AA until he died in 1962 at age 83, long after his alleged 'payroll boss' Ernie and his family died in 1937.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Tania+ on April 05, 2006, 03:51:02 PM
[size=9]Destroying evidence is not right, be it for any case, for any reason in those years, or to date. This was actually documented by the courts that Monsieur Gillard destroyed evidence ?

Was Gillard ever questioned Bear, of why he destroyed the evidence ? In later years did he state anything about this Bear ?

Thanks, and thanks for your stepping forward to be of assist for me. Your very kind, and a special person. I thank you for your generosity of heart, and your depth of sensitivity.

God Bless Bear !

Tatiana[/size]




Quote
Quote
I really do feel that Gilliard has been misquoted by AA supporters over the years, such as the hairdo quote. There is no way he's going to accuse AA of copying AN's hairstyle in Tobolsk when AA's hair was very long and twisted up in a bun, and AN had been shaved totally bald after the March revolution due to measles and her hair was short for the rest of her life. Gilliard himself took the bald pics of the GDs so he knew better. It would be to the advantage of AA supporters to discredit him, since he was one of the main opponents and had known AN so well. Poor Ernie was dead and Olga continued to be accused of lying all her life. What happens to the guy in the movie who 'knew too much?' He's rubbed out, right? Well, if you can't rub someone out physically, the next best thing is to set out to destroy their credibility so no one will believe anything they say. I've seen this happen in real life, sadly.

IF he DID make proven false statements in his own book, there are two possibilities- one, he just plain remembered wrong, as I suspect was the case in many of the 'hesaidshesaid' pro AA comments about shoes, height, etc. It happens to the best of people. Also, it is possible, I suppose, that he said things to help boost the case against her that weren't true, though he knew she really wasn't AN, he wanted to add more to his side. This is not good, as it hurts your case in the long run. It's like the LAPD in the OJ case, they knew he did it, but in trying to make sure he was found guilty, they shot themselves in the foot and left suspicion that helped get him off. But that doesn't mean OJ is innocent,and AA was certainly not AN.

I highlighted these words in Annie's post:

>>Also, it is possible, I suppose, that he said things to help boost the case against her that weren't true, though he knew she really wasn't AN, he wanted to add more to his side. This is not good, as it hurts your case in the long run.<<

I agree.

To make matters worst,  not only did Gilliard seem to be boosting his case,  he, also, destroyed evidence.  And, he admitted having done so to the Judges in AA's court trial.


AGRBear
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: ChatNoir on April 05, 2006, 07:56:01 PM
Quote
[size=9]
Was Gillard ever questioned Bear, of why he destroyed the evidence ? In later years did he state anything about this Bear ?[/size]

The court asked Gilliard to produce the originals of certain photographs and handwriting specimens, and he had to admit that he had burned everything. The judge then told Gilliard before he was dismissed to look well in his archives and inform the tribunal of anything found. The court never heard another word from Gilliard. He suffered a car accident on the way back to Lausanne and never recovered from his injuries. Four years later, in 1962, he died.

Kind regards,
Chat Noir
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: AGRBear on April 06, 2006, 02:00:53 PM
THE FILE ON THE TSAR  p. 176:

>>Gillard survived until 1962, and remained on of the most vociferous supporters of the massacre story.  While testifying during the "Anastasia" case in 1958, he startled the juge by admitting that he had deliberately destroyed releavnt docutments.<<

AGRBear
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: AGRBear on April 06, 2006, 02:42:23 PM
I assume that Peter Kurth wrote something but not being familar with the Anastasia's books,  I have to follow the name Gilliard from page to page until I find the quote.

Meanwhile,  I ran across this interesting tid-bit about the German Court p. 297:

>>During a civil proceeding like Anastasia's  the judges are free to hear or not hear, as they please, any witness cited by the lawyers, and they may issue a ruling whenever they fell the accumjulation of evidence warrants it.<<

>>A witness may be asked to take the oath when his testimony is finished, if the judges regard the evidence as particularly imprtant or if they hope to catch a witness in perjury.  And so the oath takes on a special significance in German law.<<

A couple of pages over  p. 299 talks about Gilliard testimony and it appeared that he had thought his book was all that he needed.  Unforntately for him, the Judges wanted know directly from him what he knew.  He was warned of being asked to swear and oath.  

>>Judge Werkmeister refused to be sidetracked:  "A book is not evidence, M. Gillard."  But now the judges did turn their attention to the contents of  The Flase Anastasia.  The wanted to exaimine some of the original documentation-- above all, the excited letter Shura Gilliard had received in 1925 from Grand Duchess Olga, the letter that had first moved the Gillards to meet Anastasia in Berlin."

"I don't have it anymore."

Then what about the Gilliard's corespondence with the Duke of Leuchtenberg:   "Is it true that you failed to reply to three of his letters?"

"Yes...no.. I don't know anymore."

The correspondence with Harriet von Rathlef?

p. 300

"No, I have nothing."

With Grand Duke Andrew?

"I have not spoken to him since the Revolution!"

"In his voice," said Dominique Aucleres, "there was nothing but distain for this one Romanov who had dared to recognize 'the actress,' "But there wasn't much point in going on.

"Refresh your memory over the weekend," Judge Werkmeister snapped.  "I have more questions to ask you."<<

Farther don the page of 300 which talks about his testimony when he returned.

>>In the The False Anastasia, said the judge to Gillard, "you published certain photographs and handwriting specimens.  We would like to see the originals.  If you don't have them with you, the tribunal asks tht they be sent."

Gilliard fairly cried the words:  "I don't have them anymore!  They're burned!  I destroyed them.  I have nothing anymore."<<

AGRBear
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Annie on April 06, 2006, 02:55:55 PM
Oh, I was not aware he was so elderly when this happened. At 79, having lived the stressful life he did, it is possible he burned them by mistake (I have a 79 year old aunt who recently, sadly threw away some very old family photos, but remembered and regretted it) It's also possible he said they were burned or gone because he was sick and tired of messing with the case, and thought if people thought they were gone, they'd leave him alone.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: AGRBear on April 06, 2006, 04:56:43 PM
Quote
Oh, I was not aware he was so elderly when this happened. At 79, having lived the stressful life he did, it is possible he burned them by mistake (I have a 79 year old aunt who recently, sadly threw away some very old family photos, but remembered and regretted it) It's also possible he said they were burned or gone because he was sick and tired of messing with the case, and thought if people thought they were gone, they'd leave him alone.

I don't have the exact dates when Gilliard testified accept that Gilliard died four years later in 1962.  So that would have been  1958.  He was born in 1879. Yep, 79.  

Does anyone know if his mind was still sharp at 79 when he was in court?

What kind of injuries did Gilliard suffer in the accident?

AGRBear

Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Tania+ on April 06, 2006, 05:12:48 PM
[size=9]Dear Bear,

Reading the German Court Transcript is a Legal standing record, not changeable of what has transpired of a given court proceeding.[Transcripts of court records have same legal standing globally i believe

My question is this : Monsieur Gilliard was very well educated, and quite knowledgeable about right and wrong, most importantly telling the truth. He achieved status to that of being educator to the Tsar's children. There is no way that I can think he 'accidently' destroyed these papers that you so kindly listed for us. I don't think the Tsar, or the Tsarina would have employed anyone that would betray truth, and ask to be tutor to their children.

Monsieur Gilliard knew specifically these were original items, and their veracity so needed by the court. For some reason, Monsieur Gilliard deliberatly destroyed everything.

It may have been partially because of the emotional connect and all the issues to date, bearing down on Monsieur Gilliard, and his having to bear the responsibility of answering to the court directly. I would imagine that this was more than he could take on. But as well, I think there were other things that entered into this view, of which we will never know. Thank you for sharing of the information.

Tatiana+ [/size]

[size=9]
Quote
I assume that Peter Kurth wrote something but not being familar with the Anastasia's books,  I have to follow the name Gilliard from page to page until I find the quote.

Meanwhile,  I ran across this interesting tid-bit about the German Court p. 297:

>>During a civil proceeding like Anastasia's  the judges are free to hear or not hear, as they please, any witness cited by the lawyers, and they may issue a ruling whenever they fell the accumjulation of evidence warrants it.<<

>>A witness may be asked to take the oath when his testimony is finished, if the judges regard the evidence as particularly imprtant or if they hope to catch a witness in perjury.  And so the oath takes on a special significance in German law.<<

A couple of pages over  p. 299 talks about Gilliard testimony and it appeared that he had thought his book was all that he needed.  Unforntately for him, the Judges wanted know directly from him what he knew.  He was warned of being asked to swear and oath.  

>>Judge Werkmeister refused to be sidetracked:  "A book is not evidence, M. Gillard."  But now the judges did turn their attention to the contents of  The Flase Anastasia.  The wanted to exaimine some of the original documentation-- above all, the excited letter Shura Gilliard had received in 1925 from Grand Duchess Olga, the letter that had first moved the Gillards to meet Anastasia in Berlin."

"I don't have it anymore."

Then what about the Gilliard's corespondence with the Duke of Leuchtenberg:   "Is it true that you failed to reply to three of his letters?"

"Yes...no.. I don't know anymore."

The correspondence with Harriet von Rathlef?

p. 300

"No, I have nothing."

With Grand Duke Andrew?

"I have not spoken to him since the Revolution!"

"In his voice," said Dominique Aucleres, "there was nothing but distain for this one Romanov who had dared to recognize 'the actress,' "But there wasn't much point in going on.

"Refresh your memory over the weekend," Judge Werkmeister snapped.  "I have more questions to ask you."<<

Farther don the page of 300 which talks about his testimony when he returned.

>>In the The False Anastasia, said the judge to Gillard, "you published certain photographs and handwriting specimens.  We would like to see the originals.  If you don't have them with you, the tribunal asks tht they be sent."

Gilliard fairly cried the words:  "I don't have them anymore!  They're burned!  I destroyed them.  I have nothing anymore."<<

AGRBear
[/size][size=9][/size]
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: ChatNoir on April 06, 2006, 08:33:47 PM
Pierre Gilliard burned his papers after the Central District Court in Berlin ruled for the first time that all of Nicholas II's children were dead and that his collateral heirs were thus entitled to anything that remained of his property in Germany. This was in 1933, making Gilliard 53 years old. Hardly senile enough to burn papers in total bewilderment like Annie's aunt.

Kind regards,
Chat Noir
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: ordino on April 07, 2006, 06:28:54 AM
So, why Gilliard did it?
 Sorry, but I don´t understand your point (about Gilliard)
I always had thought that Gilliard for some strange  motive hated AA, in the same way I think that AA was AN.
So after to read all your message the question is, Is Gilliard a correct witness for  the cause of AA=AN, I answer, not, because he was eviently against the idea that AA was AN. The existence of the Malaquita room is a good point (like much others) for the supporters of AA. By the way, are there anybody who is supporter of AA?. Thanks for the oppinions. Ordino :)
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Annie on April 07, 2006, 08:01:57 AM
Quote
So, why Gilliard did it?

IMO, because either he was sick and tired of the case and didn't want to be hounded anymore, or, being elderly, did it as an absent minded mistake. It made a lot of difference to me to find out he was so old when it happened. Old people sometimes do stuff like that because their mind slips, or they are being cantakerous. He knew AA was not AN because he knew the real AN.

 
Quote
The existence of the Malaquita room is a good point

She said it existed, but described its interior all wrong! She was coached by someone who knew a little about the family, but not enough to be detailed or accurate. (probably a lot of her info came from Gleb Botkin, her biggest supporter, who was the son of Dr. Botkin, so he had intimate, yet limited knowledge of the family and their surroundings. He was also a journalist in NYC. AA was a good story, don't you think?)
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: ordino on April 07, 2006, 11:04:20 AM
Annie, you say that Gilliard did  some things becouse he was old or was bored of the all staff about AA, becouse he knew the real AN. So, When AA described worng the malaquita room it will be maybe because also she is bored, old and of course with more traumatic experience than Gilliard.
About the help from Gleb Botkin.  He was a friend of OTMA and his sister Tatiana too. Why, when this people who were near to IF said that Yes AA=AN always we have doubts about their oppinios.
Really, I can not understand why Gilliard with 54 or 52 years old burned a papers so important for this story, the only razon I can see is that he was hidden somethig
Thanks Ordino
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Annie on April 07, 2006, 11:17:07 AM
Quote
Annie, you say that Gilliard did  some things becouse he was old or was bored of the all staff about AA, becouse he knew the real AN. So, When AA described worng the malaquita room it will be maybe because also she is bored, old and of course with more traumatic experience than Gilliard.

She told it wrong because she had never actually seen it, and the person who told her the story got it wrong. AA was never in the palace since she was FS and not AN.

Quote
About the help from Gleb Botkin.  He was a friend of OTMA and his sister Tatiana too. Why, when this people who were near to IF said that Yes AA=AN always we have doubts about their oppinios.

Because they knew AN, they could have told AA things.


Quote
Really, I can not understand why Gilliard with 54 or 52 years old burned a papers so important for this story, the only razon I can see is that he was hidden somethig
Thanks Ordino

He was nearly 80 years old when he did it.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: ordino on April 07, 2006, 12:51:22 PM
Annie, ChatNoir said in reply number 428 that Gilliard burned his papers and all staff in 1933 with 53 years old. It looks that he wanted to look the door for ever and ever. And a point that I forgot before.
Gilliard always said that he had very close to the IF or this is the impression that it do. Maybe the existence of AA destroyed this impression. So Annie Why Gilliard with 53 years old burner all the memoralia of his beloved IF?. Ordino >:(
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Annie on April 07, 2006, 04:25:44 PM
If he burned it in 1933 why did he not say it until 1958? A lot had gone on in the case over those 25 years. I don't know what to believe (Except that AA was not AN, I do know that.)
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: ordino on April 08, 2006, 12:38:11 PM
OK, Annie, I see your point but don´t you think that Gilliard is not a reliable witness for this case?
And a question because my ignorance - I m new at the forum, Im here since December 2005, more or less- You say ftp://I don't know what to believe (Except that AA was not AN, I do know that.) , and you repeat this all over the forum, I catch this but, please give at least 4 strong points to that support your point, one point is out of this, that is the ADN´s point.
Thanks is advance Annie.
Ordino :)
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Annie on April 09, 2006, 08:43:18 AM
Four 'strong points'

1. The DNA tests have proven that AA was not AN, and was 99% sure to be FS.
2. AA does not look like AN, but looks more like FS.
3. AA appeared in the same place near the same time FS vanished.
4. AA did not speak English and Russian well as AN would have and did not have AN's known gift for picking up perfect accents.


I could go on...

5. Her story of escape in a cart is absolutely ridiculous and unrealistic considering the injures and conditions they'd be traveling under, and the weather, and more. Her story of having the baby in December is crazy since AN was not pregnant in 1918 and even if she was no way would the baby survive the trauma she suffered and the cart trip. There is NO EVIDENCE of the ficticious rescuer "Alexander Tchiakovsky."

6. She really knew very little 'memories' and most of those were wrong.

I could STILL go on, but it's not going to do any good. One thing you need to know is that this is NOT up to personal opinion anymore. The DNA has proven it to be a fact that she was not AN.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Ra-Ra-Rasputin on April 09, 2006, 08:50:21 AM
Quote
Four 'strong points'

I could STILL go on, but it's not going to do any good. One thing you need to know is that this is NOT up to personal opinion anymore. The DNA has proven it to be a fact that she was not AN.

Exactly. It's all very well to say 'let's leave the DNA out of this' but that's impossible.  This is not about personal opinion it's about the FACT that the DNA PROVED AA was not AN.

Expressing a belief that AA was AN is equivalent to declaring that the sun revolves around the earth; you're going against established scientific facts.  

It's not about who said what and who may have lied, it's about a scientific test that is accepted by LAW as PROOF of identity.

If you want to go against science and the law, then go ahead.  But you're fighting a pointless battle, because the case is closed. There is no question as to AA's identity.  She was FS.  We're just here to talk about how AA managed to hoodwink people for so long.

Rachel
xx
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Ra-Ra-Rasputin on April 09, 2006, 10:20:04 AM
Thanks for the heads up, elfwine! I have modified accordingly; I wrote that post in a hurry! ;)

I agree absolutely.  Most of these threads degenerate into farce because there are some people who just can't accept the truth.

I wouldn't mind if they would have a logical discussion but they don't; everything we say is ignored and the same Peter Kurth comments are repeated ad nauseum.

I feel like I'm going round and round in circles every time.

Rachel
xx
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Annie on April 09, 2006, 04:22:47 PM
Thanks for your words of wisdom Rachel.

The only question is HOW she pulled of the charade, and WHO helped her and how, there is no more question about her identity. The DNA proved that. It's now a scientific and historical fact, and is not open to personal opinions anymore.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: ChatNoir on April 09, 2006, 10:41:37 PM
I just read an article that someone posted recently stating that both AN and AA had peculiar fingers. The three middle fingers (on each hand?) were of equal lenght.  Can anybody shed some light on this?

Kind regards
Chat Noir
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Ra-Ra-Rasputin on April 10, 2006, 06:15:58 AM
AA and AN both had two legs.

Can someone explain this miraculous similarity?

Rachel
xx
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Annie on April 10, 2006, 08:41:04 AM
Fingers, now, is it? Golly I never heard that one. What's the 'source?' There are no pictures of either of their hands layed out straight to measure so how can you prove it? I don't buy it.

I was thinking of another hole in her story. What about Alexei? We know now that his body, and one girl, presumably AN, are missing. She never had him as part of her escape or gave any details as to what happened to him or his body. Maybe that was because she wasn't really AN!
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Ra-Ra-Rasputin on April 10, 2006, 11:46:04 AM
Quote
I was thinking of another hole in her story. What about Alexei? We know now that his body, and one girl, presumably AN, are missing. She never had him as part of her escape or gave any details as to what happened to him or his body. Maybe that was because she wasn't really AN!

I have also thought that, and brought it up on another thread.

If AN escaped and we get that from the 'logic' that missing body = survival, then where is Alexei? If AN was rescued and that's why her body is missing, surely Alexei must have been too, otherwise, he'd be in the mass grave.  The fact that nothing was ever said about the survival of Alexei blows that theory completely out of the water, not to mention that Alexei would have bled to death pretty quickly.

Yurovsky said a GD and Alexei were burned separately.  A GD and Alexei are missing from the grave.  So, what Yurovsky said makes complete sense and should not still be open to question.  If Anastasia escaped, so must Alexei have done, if Yurovsky was lying about the burning to 'cover up' them going missing.  AA never said anything about Alexei, so that's another reason why all these conspiracies just don't work.  You can't clutch at one piece of 'evidence' and ignore the rest that contradicts it. The chances of two people being rescued from under the guard's noses are ridiculously slim.

Rachel
xx
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Annie on April 12, 2006, 07:46:47 AM
But Alexandra didn't have different DNA than her children, because the three in the grave had the same she had, and it all matched that of the sample from Prince Phillip, who is the grandson of Alexandra's sister Victoria (through her daughter Alice, keeping the female-female mtDNA line pure to that point, of course Phillip being a man couldn't pass it on, but he has it)

As Helen mentioned, there was an anomaly with Nicholas's DNA but it was still proven, and since he is the father not the mother, his mtDNA has nothing to do with the children who always get it from their mother.

Don't forget too that AA's DNA matched that of the Schanskowska family, making it 99% sure she was Franziska Schanskowska.

Note: you can have a 100% match on who somebody is NOT (such as, AA is NOT AN) but you can't get any higher than 99% on who they are, for ANYBODY, using mtDNA, or nuclear DNA as they do in paternity cases. If you see those 'who's the baby's Daddy' shows, you see that most paternity tests only come up 96-98%, though not even the maddest deadbeat Dad claims the DNA was switched by the other possible father, or yells 'so there's still a 2% chance, I ain't paying!' Yet, even though those these mens' lives are directly affected by these results, they don't challenge them, they accept the scientific results. So I can't understand how it affects anyone's life that AA wasn't AN enough to grab at any straw they can, or get upset over being told she wasn't AN???
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Forum Admin on April 12, 2006, 09:53:01 AM
Annie,
Don't forget that the random mutation in Nicholas II's DNA was matched EXACTLY by his brother George, thus further proving conclusively that the remains are those of Nicholas!
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: ordino on April 12, 2006, 10:10:25 AM
Good point the reply of kayDee!, I also have read in some paper (I don´t have the paper) about the DNA´s issue. I agree with you KayDee I also believe AA=AN and since I m here in this super foro I believe more and I learn more each day.
Thanks. Ordino :)
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Ra-Ra-Rasputin on April 12, 2006, 11:04:41 AM
I'm guessing there's a post missing? Has something been deleted?

I'm not following the conversation here.

Rachel
xx
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: AGRBear on April 12, 2006, 11:45:37 AM
As if often happens,  we get side tracked from the topic which is NOT 101 Reasons AA was NOT GD Anastasia.  This topic is about:
[size=18]101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia[/size].

There are plenty of DNA threads where we can post as to why some of us think AA was not GD Anastasia.

 

AGRBear
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: AGRBear on April 12, 2006, 11:51:04 AM
Post #1:

Quote
(We do this on another board I'm on -- not a history board, but I think it could be a good way to keep things straight.  The rules: no discussion here -- there are other threads for that -- just a list.  I'll start....)

1.Princess Xenia of Russian recognized her.

2.Alexandra Tegleva-Gilliard confirmed identical hallux valgus.

3.Distinctive "Romanov" blue eyes


Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: AGRBear on April 12, 2006, 11:52:54 AM
Post #2:

Quote
(4) Gleb Botkin recognized her.
(5) the forensic evidence introduced into the German court about her ears supports her claim.
(6) damnit, we all want her to be Anastasia!
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: AGRBear on April 12, 2006, 11:54:00 AM
Quote
7.  "The Man with the Pockets"
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: AGRBear on April 12, 2006, 11:55:09 AM
Quote
8. She remembered the incident about her and her siblings throwing paper balls (?willing to be corrected) at passersby.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: AGRBear on April 12, 2006, 11:56:04 AM
Quote
9.  Identical Handwriting
10. Lili von Dehn recognized her
11.  She spoke Russian, French, English and (High) German
12.  Tatiana Botkin recognized her
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: AGRBear on April 12, 2006, 11:59:20 AM
Quote
13. The scars
14. Princess Martha of Sweden, Crown-Princess of Norway believed her.
15.  former prima ballerina Mathilde Kschessinska, also met the her and believed her to be AN.

Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: AGRBear on April 12, 2006, 12:00:26 PM
Quote
18. Peter Kurth speaks of similarities of the hands.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: AGRBear on April 12, 2006, 12:01:51 PM
Quote
19-She had childhood memories that she couldn't have read in any way in any book (Peter Kurth; Dominique Auclères; Harriet von Rathlef; Jimmy Blair Lovell; Tatiana Botkina, many other sources)

20- She had the same wild behavior than Anastasia (This source is not very reliable. The source it's ...me.  ;D)

21- She spoke in a very similar way than some of the Romanovs- I mean the level of her voice, the way she pronounce some words, lowering her voice tone  in the end of the phrases. (This was said by Nancy Leeds. I read it in "The Riddle of Anna Anderson" by Peter Kurth)

22- She walked an moved in the same way that Anastasia and some other Romanovs did. (Xenia Leeds and her daughter Nancy- Tatiana Botkina-Gleb Botkin-  In Peter Kurth book "The Riddle of Anna Anderson")

23- She laughed with the same kind of little laugh, very similar to a "squirrel one", and watching people with the corner of her eyes and not directly in their faces (Tatiana Botkina and Felix Dassel - Peter Kurth book: "The Riddle of Anna Anderson"; Jimmy Blair Lovell's book: "Anastasia; the Lost Princess". )

24-She corrected some wrong information (about the Grand Duchess Hospital) that Felix Dassel gave her on purpose to confound her and gave the right one

25- She spoke English in her dreams and under anesthesia ( Nurses in Dalldorf said it- Doctor Rudnev said it- Zinaida Tolstaïa said it. Peter Kurth; Dominique Auclères;Jimmy Blair Lovell)

26-She spoke French, but not very correctly when she was travelling in the "Berengaria" toward the USA (Same sources than above post. Remember that the Grand Duchess spoke French but not very well. As Alexandra herself, they aren't used to this language. In the other hand, Alexei did, for he always was talking to M. Gilliard)

27- She can WRITE in Russian. The graphologist wanted her to speak in her native tongue, but she plainly refused. Whe she leaves the room, they managed to find some notebooks where there were Anna Anderson's callygraphy in Russian - yes; that's mean cyrillic alphabet- for she was teaching Russian to Mrs. Heydebrand, the old lady who was living with her in Untenlengenhardt (Peter Kurth and Jimmy Blair Lovell) She always spoke Russian to her two little parrots and said the names of the flowers, equally in Russian.

28- She put perfume in Shura Tegleva's hands, for she must know an Anastasia's little joke when she was a little girl: AN would pour perfume in Shura's hand to her to pour it in Anastasia's forehead. She wants to smell "like a bouquet of flowers" (Peter Kurth; Jimmy Blair Lovell)

29- She said to Lili Denh, who show her an Alexandra's white and black photography, that Alix was wearing a brown dress in it (Jimmy Blair Lovell- Peter Kurth quotes that Lili recognized Anastasia, but he doesn't write about the photo)

30- Pierre Gilliard (who, later, states that AA had not the slighest ressemblance to Anastasia) called her "Imperial Highnes" when he saw her for the first time, and urged the doctors to move her from the St. Mary's Hospital to the "Mommsen" (Peter Kurth, Jimmy Blair Lovell, Alain Decaux, etc)

31- Anna Anderson was found bawling her eyes out, over the Imperial Family photos. She seemed very touched when she saw a pic of tatiana and cryed "Her Face! Her Face! " as she pointed it.  She also cried watching Alexandra in a family photo, saying: "My mother! My mother!" (Peter Kurth; Jimmy Lovell, etc)

32- This is the more important reason to me: when she was over the effects of anesthesia and delirant, she NEVER betrayed herself calling any of the Schanzkowska family member. She never said she was FS, but always Anastasia. She always called out: "Veronica! Veronica!" (Veronica was Alexander Tchaykovsky's sister) or "Mother! Mother! Where is my mother?" (When she spoke about the Imperial Family, she always talked about "How wonderful Alexandra was"). She never said: "Gertrude!" or "Felix!" or "Maria Juliana" etc.  (All sources quoted above)

To be continued!  ;D

RealAnastasia.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: AGRBear on April 12, 2006, 12:04:13 PM
Quote
No thankyou RealAnastasia, I've read your posts with interest and it's nice to see someone who is open minded and excepts others opinions despite their own, now hopefully we can get back to the subject of the thread!

Now I can add to it:

33.) When she met Gleb Botkin she asked him about his funny animals, drawings of animals dressed in human clothing that he drew for the Tsar's children whilst in captivity. (I hope I remembered the details right!)


Thanks again ;)

Rachael
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: AGRBear on April 12, 2006, 12:06:51 PM
Quote
38.  AA had a small circular scar on her back-in the same location where Anastasia had a mole removed.

39.  She knew an incident which occured between the Empress, Lilith Dehn, Anna Vyrubova and the Grand Duchess Anastasia which had never been published.

 
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: AGRBear on April 12, 2006, 12:13:11 PM
Quote
48- AN had INDEED a scar in her finger. Volkov himself said that he made this scar in Anastasia's finger with the door of a carriage. AA had the same scar, and a finger nearly stiff, without sensibility. AA opponents always said (reading Pierre Gilliard "La Fausse Anastasie", a book full of mistakes...In fact, he commited much more mistakes than Anna herself) that the girl who caught her finger in a carriage door was...Maria. I don't know if Maria had the same scar in a finger or not. But if we believe Volkov Statement, AN had a scar in her finger, inflicted by himself. ( Harriet Von Rathlef- Peter Kurth- Pierre Gilliard "La Fausse Anastasie"-Decaux-Castelot)

49- AA stated that there was a samovar in Moguilev when she visited there...Gilliard said it was not correct, that in the Tsar Palaces there was not a single samovar. The French historian André Castelot was very surprised: "Not a samovar in a Russian home?" "Its seems incredibly -said Gilliard proudly- But it was like this!"...When the journalist Dominique Auclères started her research in AA's case, she found (Harriet Rathlef had also pointed some of the Gilliard mistakes) that the Swiss professor had simply lied: there were samovars in the Tsar Palaces, and of course, there was one in Moguilev (Pierre Gilliard: "La Fausse Anastasie"-André Castelot-Dominique Auclères)

50-AA said that she (she mean "Anastasia", of course) was Colonel in the Blue Regiment and that she had her uniform like they sisters . Gilliard laugh at her in her book and states: "The youngest Grand Duchess never had a military grade, nor an uniform". Well; he lied again. Dominique Auclères found that Anastasia was indeed Colonel in the Blue Regiment. And doctor Schweitzer emailed me to tell me that there was an exhibition in Virginia, where the Anastasia's Colonel Uniform was shown. So AA didn't lie. Gilliard did. (Pierre Gilliard-Dominique Auclères)

51-Gilliard handled the investigators who helped him in his researchs about AA only FIVE photos of Grand Duchess Anastasia, and not very clear ones. Harriet Rathlef found out that he really provided FOUR photos of AN, for the last one was a Grand Duchess Olga's photo (Anastasia's elder sister) (Harriet Von Rathlef)

52- Pierre Gilliard claimed to have "burned" all the documents proving that AA wasn't AN. Why? Was him unsure of his statesments? (Peter Kurth-Dominique Auclères- James Blair Lovell)

53- The Imperial family in exile, payed too much attention to this claimant. They make war to her and published a document denying her as a Romanov. If it was not her. Why the bothered in such a way? Other claimants were alone in their personals "fight for identity". There were many Alexei in the USA's and anyone pay attention to them in "The Family". Other Anastasias surfaced after and before AA. Nobody bothered to fight againts them. They simply let them saying "I'm a Romanov". And you may notice that we are mainly discussing AA in the "Survivors" Forum...Even after the DNA results. Again. Why? (As personal reflection, you may, of course, delete this)

RealAnastasia.

More to come! ;)

These quotes are what interests the poster who think AA was GD Anastasia.  

This is a little over half of the 101.

This is what this topic is about.  You don't have to agree with it.  You don't have to like it, but this is a topic set up by Penny Wilson when she was a member of our forum.  Of course,  you can give your opinion about it since that is what has occured although the discussion was set up under another thread and not followed by many of us.

I do not believe AA was GD Anastasia. Nor do I believe we need to tangle up fact with misinformation to prove our case.  

AGRBear
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Annie on April 12, 2006, 03:05:30 PM
FA- Thanks, that's right, since Nicholas did match his brother, there is no question who he was!

Bear- do you really want me to start into my rebuttals again?;)
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: AGRBear on April 13, 2006, 10:02:07 AM
Quote

...[in part]...

Bear- do you really want me to start into my rebuttals again?;)

When you do, because I know you will,  could you give us some sources this time,  PLEASE.

And,  could we take one step at a time instead of taking 10 or 20 at a time?

AGRBear


Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: AGRBear on April 13, 2006, 10:07:03 AM
Quote
(We do this on another board I'm on -- not a history board, but I think it could be a good way to keep things straight.  The rules: no discussion here -- there are other threads for that -- just a list.  I'll start....)

1.Princess Xenia of Russian recognized her.

2.....

Why don't we start with #1 about Princess Xenia of Russia:   Did she reconize AA as being GD Anastasia?

AGRBear
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Annie on April 13, 2006, 11:04:03 AM
Quote
Quote
(We do this on another board I'm on -- not a history board, but I think it could be a good way to keep things straight.  The rules: no discussion here -- there are other threads for that -- just a list.  I'll start....)

1.Princess Xenia of Russian recognized her.

2.....

Why don't we start with #1 about Princess Xenia of Russia:   Did she reconize AA as being GD Anastasia?

AGRBear

At first, but later denied her and felt taken. Her sister, Nina, never believed her. Both had played with AN a few times as children, but weren't very close. They didn't live nearby.


I will take on every single one of these if you want!  :D
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: AGRBear on April 13, 2006, 12:17:03 PM
Quote
Quote
Quote
(We do this on another board I'm on -- not a history board, but I think it could be a good way to keep things straight.  The rules: no discussion here -- there are other threads for that -- just a list.  I'll start....)

1.Princess Xenia of Russian recognized her.

2.....

Why don't we start with #1 about Princess Xenia of Russia:   Did she reconize AA as being GD Anastasia?

AGRBear

At first, but later denied her and felt taken. Her sister, Nina, never believed her. Both had played with AN a few times as children, but weren't very close. They didn't live nearby.


I will take on every single one of these if you want!  :D

If we take it one step at a time, then Bear can find the sources and it'll give other posters a chance to comment as well.  We don't have to rush and do this in one day.

Let me first make sure we're talking about the same person ands that everyone else is on the same page.

Princess Xenia of Russia was Xenia Georgievna, Princess of Russia and daughter of GD George Mikailovitch, who was the son of Mikail and grandson of Nicholas I.  This makes her second cousin to Nicholas II's children.
#1:

A. When did Xenia say she  believe AA was GD Anastasia?

B. When did she change her mind?  

C. Did she give a reason for changing her mind?

D. And, where did the family live because you mention they lived far away?

As for Nina,  she is not Xenia, so let's keep this present discussion just about Xenia, please.

AGRBear
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: AGRBear on April 13, 2006, 12:57:16 PM
For more information and photographs of Princess Xenia see the following thread:

http://forum.alexanderpalace.org/YaBB.cgi?num=1092249107/0
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: CorisCapnSkip on April 28, 2006, 03:33:29 AM
Quote
However...DNA said that those two different persons are one and the same, and we can't discuss it, for DNA is not to be discussed but accepted like a faith. If this is not absurd, tell me what it is...RealAnastasia. ;D

I wrote Peter Kurth at the time, and still feel, it is too bad DNA is accepted as gospel when human error or human intervention can play such major parts.  (NOT AN ACCUSATION against anyone in this case--just a possibility in any case.)  As I told him at the time, I was still reeling from the O. J. Simpson verdict--you know, that one that said O. J. wasn't a murderer and Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman killed themselves to frame him.   8-)  Tell me another!   ::)

By the way, Mr. Kurth wrote me a lovely reply.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: CorisCapnSkip on April 28, 2006, 03:53:55 AM
Quote
There are too many unanswered questions in this entire saga of survivors, it seems to me, this is just my opinion, that solving some of these mysteries would help us all to understand better, no matter which side of the fence you sit on.

A huge unanswered question for me is, why are so many impostors, be they other Romanovs, old West outlaws, or the Lindbergh baby, fairly easily disproven and Anna Anderson so hard?  There is as much or more in favor of her being Anastasia as against it.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Ra-Ra-Rasputin on April 28, 2006, 04:12:27 AM
Quote
Quote
There are too many unanswered questions in this entire saga of survivors, it seems to me, this is just my opinion, that solving some of these mysteries would help us all to understand better, no matter which side of the fence you sit on.

A huge unanswered question for me is, why are so many impostors, be they other Romanovs, old West outlaws, or the Lindbergh baby, fairly easily disproven and Anna Anderson so hard?  There is as much or more in favor of her being Anastasia as against it.


Anna Anderson is easily disproven by those who have some sense.

The DNA proves Anna Anderson was not Anastasia Nicholaevna. However, the problem lies in that some people don't want to believe that, and so we get the conspiracy theories.

Anna Anderson looked nothing like Anastasia.  She spoke nothing like her and acted nothing like her.  Those closest to the IF either never met her or denounced her. Those who did accept her as Anastasia were not close to the IF and had only met Anastasia a few times as a young child, or in some cases, they had never even met her at all.

There is actually very little that is convincing about Anna Anderson's claim if you dig a little deeper and don't take people like your hero Peter Kurth at face value.

But then, conspiracy theories are always more fun than the boring truth- that Anna Anderson was Franziska Shankowska and that Anastasia was murdered with her family.  So, this absurd merry go round of 'but the DNA MUST have been switched! The Romanovs wanted to keep the 'fortune' that didn't exist!' will continue until people just don't care anymore.

Rachel
xx
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Lemur on April 28, 2006, 08:46:33 AM
Quote
Quote
There are too many unanswered questions in this entire saga of survivors, it seems to me, this is just my opinion, that solving some of these mysteries would help us all to understand better, no matter which side of the fence you sit on.

A huge unanswered question for me is, why are so many impostors, be they other Romanovs, old West outlaws, or the Lindbergh baby, fairly easily disproven and Anna Anderson so hard?  There is as much or more in favor of her being Anastasia as against it.

Actually, the old west outlaws were not 'easily disproven' until, you guessed it, DNA testing proved their bones didn't match their relatives. Until then, there were all kinds of wild stories, alleged 'memories' and other clues, but the DNA is the last word. No one has doubted the testing. I think there are still some outlaws, maybe Billy the Kid? who still need to be tested but they can't find a female relative of a striaght female line to get the mtDNA from.

The Lindbergh baby was a good one too, the claimant even had the odd toe deformity that ran in the family. His face vaguely could have been the baby grown up. But again, DNA is the last word. While the claimant was not the baby, there was another person, in Europe, claiming to be Lindbergh's love child and this was proven true by DNA! Either way, DNA is the answer!
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Louis_Charles on April 28, 2006, 09:22:28 AM
Lemur makes an excellent point. In fact, few historical imposters were easily disproven until the advent of verifiable testing such as the DNA --- the claims of Naundorff to be Louis Charles, the Lost Dauphin, survived for 160 years, until the DNA knocked them out.The Lindbergh case is also interesting, in that the legitimate family immediately accepted the German family's identity as their relatives once the DNA testing had been completed, despite the fact that it might have tarnished their father's reputation. And surely the newly-recognized Lindberghs might have a financial claim on the estate?

The "problem" with DNA testing is that it destroys the romance that invests an imposter. Has there been a single notable imposter from Perkin Warbeck until Anna Andersen who has actually turned out to be real? I think there is a fascinating book on this topic waiting to be written. Why do we feel the need for celebrity survival ( for example, there was a rash of articles in the 1970s in the tabloids that claimed JFK and Marilyn Monroe were off somewhere )? Does this phenomenon carry over into ordinary life, i.e. do we believe that victims of, say, the World Trade Center attack managed to escape?

Just curious.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Forum Admin on April 28, 2006, 09:32:15 AM
Lets keep some basic things in mind about mtDNA testing, as people get confused, and there is far too much dis-information out there. mtDNA does two things: It establishes non-familial relationships between individuals with 100% accuracy. mtDNA mutates within a family VERY rarely, at least no often than one gene marker in ten generations, and most scientists believe closer to 20 generations. Regardless, a mis-match means "you're out". Period.  

The ONLY possible way for a bad test is a bad sample. Period.

The second thing mtDNA can do is say ONLY that there IS a maternal familial relationship, but it can not say exactly how far back.

Now the original mtDNA testing done on the Anna Manahan sample was done with fewer genetic markers than today. (six vs. twenty). Now, is today's test more "accurate", sure. BUT and this is the BIG BUT (no jokes please... ;D ) does today more precise accuracy make the earlier tests UNRELIABLE. ABSOLUTELY NO.  

There were FIVE mis-matched markers between AA and the known Victoria maternal mtDNA line. A 20 point test would only show MORE mis-matches, and not less. The original mis-matches remain and will always remain no matter how more accurate the tests may become, the original test are STILL ACCURATE to determine an exclusion.  The ONLY new result from the 20 point test would be to determine with greater accuracy (than the 98% probability of the original) that AA was related to FS. PERIOD.

THERE REMAINS TO THIS DAY NO SCIENTIFIC REASON TO RESTEST TO DETERMINE IF AA WAS AN. THIS is the point I keep harping on, because no scientist in the field has ever shown that the original tests are inaccurate, the exclusion factor remains, it is only for the "inclusion" factor that todays tests are better.

Think of it this way, my first computer back in 1987 was a 186 AST with the then astounding 500 meg hard drive...Now I use a 500 Mac G4 with a 120 GIG hard drive. Is today's new compter better, sure, but was my old computer useless and unreliable? Nope...the advances of today dont diminish previous technology...they just make it better, the same is true with the mtDNA testing.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Ra-Ra-Rasputin on April 28, 2006, 10:19:53 AM
Thanks for that, FA.

I have been trying to explain that on several posts but some people just don't seem to get it.  The original mismatch will always be there, no matter how many points can be tested.

Simon makes a very good point; there seems to be a general obsession amongst the public to believe in miraculous survival.  Why is this? Human nature, I suppose, leads us to want to believe that people we love and admire are not dead, but why people who mean nothing to us? Why would it matter if Anastasia didn't die? Whose life would it really affect? Why do people care so much? It's really rather perplexing.

I could understand the vehemance of people who claim AA was AN if they were a relation, but complete random strangers? Getting so het up about it when Anastasia is just a long dead girl in a sepia photograph is incomprehensible to me.

Rachel
xx
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Lemur on April 28, 2006, 10:47:21 AM
There are those who believe Elvis and Jim Morrison are still alive, despite bodies being in their graves! :P
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: CorisCapnSkip on April 28, 2006, 10:51:29 AM
The coincidences are just so much.  Why would AA claim AN and Alexei survived when the possibility of Alexei's survival is so unlikely?  Yet theirs are the ONLY two bodies NOT found with the others, when an imposter COULDN'T have known what the grave contained.  No one did except the people in on the actual burial, and how could a would-be imposter have contacted them and made them talk?  I don't believe Alexei could have survived long.  Even if he escaped being shot, he was too gravely ill and with no family to take care of him.  There's still no "closure" until we know for sure what happened to him.

Had those two bodies been with the others, I'd have immediately dismissed the claims of Anna Anderson despite all the other coincidences, BUT THEY'RE NOT.  And without them there is no closure.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Ra-Ra-Rasputin on April 28, 2006, 11:03:43 AM
AA never mentioned anything about Alexei; that's a HUGE flaw in her story.

AA never once said anything about Alexei surviving or being rescued with her.  

Missing body= survival is not a logical conclusion to come to.

If Anastasia survived because her body is missing, Alexei surely must have done too, if we're following that logic.  But we know that's impossible, because a haemophiliac is not going to survive a shot to the head.  Let's be realistic here.

Yurovsky said there were two bodies burned and buried separately, one of whom was Alexei, another female whom he couldn't accurately identify because of the state of the bodies.  Lo and behold, two bodies are missing from the grave; Alexei and one of the GDs.  

I've said this before to you- Anastasia may not be the GD missing.  The disputed body HAS BEEN BURIED AS ANASTASIA.  Because it is IMPOSSIBLE to differentiate between the four GDs because there is no DNA to compare with the bones, we will NEVER KNOW who is infact missing FOR SURE, but the Russians were so convinced the missing body is actually MARIA'S that they buried the disputed remains as ANASTASIA.  So, Anna Anderson's claim is not as realistic or as coincidental as you think; Anastasia may have been in the grave all along.  We just don't know.

Also, as I explained to you before, there have been hundreds of claims to the identites of the entire Romanov family since 1918.  AA just had the right publicity.

No, there will never be absolute closure until the two missing bodies are found.  But Anna Anderson was not Anastasia Nicholaevna; the DNA tests prove she wasn't.  And if you'd done even the most limited of research, you'd see that the horrific injuries received in that cellar would mean no-one could survive for very long afterwards.  

So, let me clarify for you.

There were no survivors.  The missing body is not necessarily Anastasia's.  Anna Anderson was not the only claimant to Anastasia's identity, and she never mentioned anything about Alexei surviving too.

I am certain the missing bodies will be found one day.  Yurovsky said two bodies were buried elsewhere and I believe him.  Why would someone bother rescuing two corpses? Once again, get real.

Rachel
xx
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Lemur on April 28, 2006, 11:49:13 AM
Didn't the Bolsheviks say two bodies were burned? Doesn't this make sense and tie into the 2 missing from the grave? The ashes will probably never be found. Why can't people believe what they told us? The rest of it turned out to be true.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Ra-Ra-Rasputin on April 28, 2006, 12:22:51 PM
Quote
Didn't the Bolsheviks say two bodies were burned? Doesn't this make sense and tie into the 2 missing from the grave? The ashes will probably never be found. Why can't people believe what they told us? The rest of it turned out to be true.

Yes, that's true.  Yurovsky said he wanted to burn the bodies of Alexei and the Empress, but because of the state of the bodies, he later thought he'd burned the body of Anna Demidova, the maid.  It turns out that who he actually buried was one of the Grand Duchess; the only Grand Duchess who has been positively identified and agreed upon is Olga; the other three are all disputed and any one of them could technically be the missing one.

So, yes, Yurovsky's story does tie in with the missing bodies, but you are wrong in thinking that the bodies would have been reduced to ash. Human bodies don't burn quickly or easily, and they do not reduce to ash unless there is intense heat, as there is in a cremation.  So, the bodies that would have been buried after burning would still be pretty much intact, especially as they had difficulties burning them and weren't burned for long because of time restrictions.  They would have been clearly identifiable as human corpses still, but very badly burned.  Have you ever seen the pictures of Adolf Hitler's body after it was burned? They would have looked something like that.

It is a possibility that whatever bones did remain were buried so shallowly that they have been scattered over time, either through weather or through animals disturbing the ground and carrying them off.  It's highly likely that the missing bodies will never be found, which means there will probably never be a 'final word' on the case.  Even so, if the bodies were all found, there still wouldn't be true closure, because there will always be people who question the veracity of the DNA tests and are convinced of some massive cover up over non existent money.

I do find it ridiculous that people are unwilling to accept Yurovsky's statement as truth and are constantly trying to find conspiracy theories as to why there are two bodies missing.  Yurovsky SAID there would be two bodies missing, and he said why.  I believe him.  I don't see why he would bother lying about it.  There is no chance Anastasia/Maria/Tatiana and Alexei could have wandered off and been rescued.  It's absurd to even question this.

Everyone died, and some people just can't deal with that.  As Simon pointed out, there seems to be a need for people to believe in survival rather than death, and as long as that exists in human nature, there is never going to be a fully accepted consensus on the fate of the Romanovs, regardless of what evidence there is to prove what really happened.

Rachel
xx

Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Lemur on April 28, 2006, 12:48:35 PM
I believe Yurovsky too. It all makes sense even if they couldn't tell one girl from the other. They probably didn't know who was who when they were alive, and dead and damaged it was even harder to identify.

Thanks for the info about burning, I didn't know it wasn't the same as cremation. Is there a chance that over time these charred bones disentigrated into the soil?

No I haven't seen a picture of Hitler's body, do you have one you can post or send me a link in PM? Speaking of Hitler, there were also rumors he escaped and lived to be 100 in Brazil!

Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Ra-Ra-Rasputin on April 28, 2006, 01:24:32 PM
That's ok, Lemur. :)  I don't have a pic of Hitler's body to post, I'm afraid, but if you go onto google and type in 'burned corpse' under an image search, you will see how bodies that have been burned are still intact and obviously human.  I won't post a photograph directly on here because this is an educational site visited by children and it might be distressing for some people to see such an image.

I'm afraid I don't know enough about the decomposition process of bones to know whether bones can disintegrate.  I don't believe it is possible, because I vaguely remember us discussing that possibility before, but I could be wrong.

The most likely outcome was that the burned bodies had to be buried in a hurry, so they were only placed in a shallow grave.  The main grave had wooden railway sleepers placed over it to protect the bones, but the grave of the burned bodies did not.  So, if they were just covered with a shallow layer of soil, it's perfectly possible, and even probable, that weather or animals disturbed the ground where the bones were and scattered them to the winds.  I doubt very much that there is anything recognisable as Alexei and one of the GDs left to be found.

Rachel
xx
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Lemur on April 28, 2006, 01:40:49 PM
Thanks. I agree no part of the bodies are likely to be found. This is unfortunate because this means the mystery can never be ended. Even if partial bones were found and identified there would still be people who claimed it was  tampered with and some kind of coverup anyway :P

I googled for Hilter's body and didn't find it, but I did find this site about how his death was faked and he got away. Thought it might be interesting  considering the subject matter here on this forum about people claiming dead folk really got away.

http://www.blackraiser.com/nredoubt/identity.htm

Even though there were rumors like this I never heard of a Hitler claimant. Who'd want to be him with all those war crimes and everybody hating you?
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Louis_Charles on April 28, 2006, 02:05:09 PM
Quote
The coincidences are just so much.  Why would AA claim AN and Alexei survived when the possibility of Alexei's survival is so unlikely?  Yet theirs are the ONLY two bodies NOT found with the others, when an imposter COULDN'T have known what the grave contained.  No one did except the people in on the actual burial, and how could a would-be imposter have contacted them and made them talk?  I don't believe Alexei could have survived long.  Even if he escaped being shot, he was too gravely ill and with no family to take care of him.  There's still no "closure" until we know for sure what happened to him.

Had those two bodies been with the others, I'd have immediately dismissed the claims of Anna Anderson despite all the other coincidences, BUT THEY'RE NOT.  And without them there is no closure.


I think you may be arguing backwards here, with all due respect. When Andersen claimed survival, the gravesite itself was unknown, not just the contents, and there was no expectation that it was going to be either found or the contents made available --- the Soviet Union (or the perp, as CSI would say) was very much in existence. I think it's more correct to say that she never thought there would be any forensic evidence to challenge her assertion. And of course, an imposter would HAVE to claim that at least one body would have been missing from the tomb. Heino Tamnet would have said it was Alexei, Granny Alina would have said it was Maria, Marga Boodts, Olga's, etc. It was Andersen's luck (and Eugenia Smith's, for that matter) that when they found the grave, the bodies of Anastasia (or Maria) and Alexei were missing. Of course Andersen/Schanzkowska didn't live to see it. Moreover, is there any evidence that she claimed Alexei had "escaped" as well? I am reasonably familiar with the Story, and he is noticeably absent.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: ChatNoir on April 28, 2006, 08:39:06 PM
If Anastasia's body was burned, why would Red soldiers have to go looking for her? Carl Bonde's train was stopped while the Reds came on board looking for Anastasia. Soldiers went house to house in Ekaterinburg searching for her after the execution. Something is amiss here.

Kind regards
Chat Noir
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: CorisCapnSkip on April 28, 2006, 10:22:30 PM
Quote
AA never mentioned anything about Alexei; that's a HUGE flaw in her story.

Someone here said she did, but I don't have that from any reliable source.

Quote
And if you'd done even the most limited of research, you'd see that the horrific injuries received in that cellar would mean no-one could survive for very long afterwards.

I know there were skulls smashed and so on, but much of that damage was done after the execution and before the burial to try to render the remains unrecognizable.  They weren't necessarily in that state when they left the cellar--they may not even all have been dead.  Why Alexei would have been spared, when he was the heir and too ill to live without extreme care or possibly even with it anyway is beyond me--but if Anna Anderson said it I would be interested in the details, or any others as to where his remains may be found.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: CorisCapnSkip on April 28, 2006, 10:31:48 PM
Quote
I'm afraid I don't know enough about the decomposition process of bones to know whether bones can disintegrate.  I don't believe it is possible, because I vaguely remember us discussing that possibility before, but I could be wrong.

Bones can disintegrate in some places, especially Asia, where the soil is very acidic.  I don't know how like Asian soil Russian soil may be.  There was even a Chinese princess sewn up in a jade suit, and when the suit was opened, all that was left was one tooth!  Of course, that was after thousands of years, but in unprotected conditions remains would be gone pretty fast.  That's why people argue that life didn't necessarily begin in Africa--remains just last longer there.

Quote
The most likely outcome was that the burned bodies had to be buried in a hurry, so they were only placed in a shallow grave.  The main grave had wooden railway sleepers placed over it to protect the bones, but the grave of the burned bodies did not.  So, if they were just covered with a shallow layer of soil, it's perfectly possible, and even probable, that weather or animals disturbed the ground where the bones were and scattered them to the winds.  I doubt very much that there is anything recognisable as Alexei and one of the GDs left to be found.

Even were the site known I am afraid you are right.  I did a lot of research about a massacre with a similar number of victims and similar burial conditions.  This was a rural area in America where wolves were present, as presumably they also are in rural Russia.  After only 50 years only enough remained of 13 people to fit in one very small casket (very sad as, unlike the Romanovs, none of these people were photographed, and it would have been interesting to see facial reconstructions based on the bones.)  Even so much as a tooth would provide DNA.  Teeth last the longest but are the smallest hard-to-find things in a large area!
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Ra-Ra-Rasputin on April 29, 2006, 03:18:26 AM
Quote
Quote
AA never mentioned anything about Alexei; that's a HUGE flaw in her story.

Someone here said she did, but I don't have that from any reliable source.

Quote
And if you'd done even the most limited of research, you'd see that the horrific injuries received in that cellar would mean no-one could survive for very long afterwards.

I know there were skulls smashed and so on, but much of that damage was done after the execution and before the burial to try to render the remains unrecognizable.  They weren't necessarily in that state when they left the cellar--they may not even all have been dead.  Why Alexei would have been spared, when he was the heir and too ill to live without extreme care or possibly even with it anyway is beyond me--but if Anna Anderson said it I would be interested in the details, or any others as to where his remains may be found.


Anna Anderson has NEVER said ANYTHING about Alexei.  I've read everything I can get my hands on about the case, so I think I would have come across something if she had mentioned him.  I think you must have misread or been mistaken.

Yes, we know that at least two of the GDs were still alive after they left the basement, but they were dying.  None of them could have lasted long with the injuries they sustained.  Being stabbed and shot repeatedly at close range is going to cause a lot of internal damage. With no medical help and being left outside for hours on end, no one was going to walk away alive from that.  The odds are so slim as to be virtually impossible.  Read the accounts of what happened.  It was horrific.  Plus all of the GDs were finally shot through the head to finish them off.  I know it is possible to survive shot wounds to the head, but come on now. Do you really think, after all of the trouble these men went to to kill the family and destroy all the evidence, that they'd 'mislay' a body and then lie about it all these years?

They weren't to know the grave would ever be found or that DNA testing would be invented.  Yurovsky didn't need to say anything about two bodies being separate from the rest if two had gone missing; he couldn't know that they would later be dug up and DNA tested.  So why say that two bodies were buried seperately if it wasn't true? HE HAD NO REASON TO LIE ABOUT IT.

No one survived.  No one escaped.  Anna Anderson was NOT Anastasia Nicholaevna, and the missing body may not even be Anastasia Nicholaevna anyway.  The missing body has actually been buried as Anastasia, so if the Russian scientists are indeed correct in their identification, it means that Anna Anderson was an imposter regardless of the DNA, doesn't it?

Rachel
xx
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Ra-Ra-Rasputin on April 29, 2006, 03:25:37 AM
Quote
If Anastasia's body was burned, why would Red soldiers have to go looking for her? Carl Bonde's train was stopped while the Reds came on board looking for Anastasia. Soldiers went house to house in Ekaterinburg searching for her after the execution. Something is amiss here.

Kind regards
Chat Noir

Everyone knows this was a distraction technique by the Bolsheviks.

They didn't want people to know the girls and Alexandra had been murdered because they were a useful bargaining tool with the Germans.  So, they circled rumours that Anastasia/Alexandra/the Grand Duchesses as a whole had been seen on trains, in houses, etc, so people didn't know they'd murdered the whole family and it seemed like they were still alive.  We know for months afterwards that the Bolsheviks were still telling Germany the Alexandra and the girls were safe and well.  

The Bolsheviks were the originators of the conspiracy theories. We have evidence of this! You know this.  We know this.  Stop bringing it up like it's some sort of evidence that someone escaped.  

And can I add that the people who 'sighted' the IF had never seen them before in real life; how the hell would they know it was the IF they were seeing?

AND as I have just said in about five previous posts, there is NO CONCRETE EVIDENCE that the missing body IS Anastasia's.  In fact, Anastasia has been buried alongside her family and the official missing body is actually Maria's.  So, that kind of puts a spanner in the works, doesn't it? Anna Anderson can't have been Anastasia regardless of the DNA if her body was in the grave, can she?

Rachel
xx
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: CorisCapnSkip on April 29, 2006, 05:29:19 AM
Quote
Do you really think, after all of the trouble these men went to to kill the family and destroy all the evidence, that they'd 'mislay' a body and then lie about it all these years?

They weren't to know the grave would ever be found or that DNA testing would be invented.  Yurovsky didn't need to say anything about two bodies being separate from the rest if two had gone missing; he couldn't know that they would later be dug up and DNA tested.  So why say that two bodies were buried seperately if it wasn't true? HE HAD NO REASON TO LIE ABOUT IT.

Do you have the "Unsolved Mysteries" and "Nova" programs on this subject?  Someone suggested that Yurovsky had to make an account of all the bodies to officials, was afraid of being checked as to all being present and accounted for, and of a terrible retribution if it seemed orders had not been carried out exactly by the number coming out wrong.  He made up the "we burned two" story to account for Anastasia being removed by men who noticed she was still alive, which doesn't really account for Alexis, though.  One of the programs interviewed a man related to one of the executioners who gave the name of the person who killed Anastasia--but this was secondhand, according to his relative who was there, the actual eyewitness being long deceased and the relative very old.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Forum Admin on April 29, 2006, 09:15:31 AM
The major flaw in the theory that Yurovsky lied to cover his tracks is the fact that his "report" wasn't made until 1920, TWO YEARS after the fact...IF the Bolshevik Government was pressing him for the "details" don't you think they might have been concerned just a little sooner? Doesn't the fact that TWO years went by really say that the Bolsheviks already KNEW they were all dead? Is sure does to me...
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Louis_Charles on April 29, 2006, 10:23:18 AM
Quote
Quote
Do you really think, after all of the trouble these men went to to kill the family and destroy all the evidence, that they'd 'mislay' a body and then lie about it all these years?

They weren't to know the grave would ever be found or that DNA testing would be invented.  Yurovsky didn't need to say anything about two bodies being separate from the rest if two had gone missing; he couldn't know that they would later be dug up and DNA tested.  So why say that two bodies were buried seperately if it wasn't true? HE HAD NO REASON TO LIE ABOUT IT.

Do you have the "Unsolved Mysteries" and "Nova" programs on this subject?  Someone suggested that Yurovsky had to make an account of all the bodies to officials, was afraid of being checked as to all being present and accounted for, and of a terrible retribution if it seemed orders had not been carried out exactly by the number coming out wrong.  He made up the "we burned two" story to account for Anastasia being removed by men who noticed she was still alive, which doesn't really account for Alexis, though.  One of the programs interviewed a man related to one of the executioners who gave the name of the person who killed Anastasia--but this was secondhand, according to his relative who was there, the actual eyewitness being long deceased and the relative very old.

I think it is mutually contradictory that Yurovsky was so afraid of the repercussions that would have ensued from the escape of one of the Grand Duchesses that he made up the story of the burned bodies, but the Bolsheviks were willing to launch official searches for Anastasia that became known. The story of the train search doesn't exist in a void --- there were supposedly sightings in other places, and much more elaborate rumors about the survival of the whole family for a couple of years. The women were in Perm, they were all hiding in a convent, they were in Japan, they had escaped through India, etc. These sounds more like a disinformation campaign, or even more clearly, like an uncordinated mess of a situation.

And Yurovsky died in a bed. Surely if he had bungled the execution of the Tsesarevitch and a daughter, and it was known, Stalin would have had him popped off?

I have the Unsolved Mysteries; it's too sensational to take seriously, I think. The NOVA is better.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: ChatNoir on April 29, 2006, 11:10:59 AM
Quote

Franz Svoboda, who "saved" Anastasia, knew her from his time as a guard in the Ipatiev house. Heinrich Kleibenzetl, who saw her in bed at the house where Svoboda had allegedly brought her, often saw her when entering the Ipatiev house to deliver or pick up uniforms for cleaning and repair.

Kind regards,
Chat Noir
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Forum Admin on April 29, 2006, 11:35:17 AM
Quote
Heinrich Kleibenzetl, who saw her in bed at the house where Svoboda had allegedly brought her, often saw her when entering the Ipatiev house to deliver or pick up uniforms for cleaning and repair.

Kind regards,
Chat Noir

Sorry, but not possible. See, if you bothered to do accurate research, you would know that the Imperial Family was rigidly sequestered in the Ipatiev House. Confined to their rooms on the second floor (or first floor for you Brits...) only leaving those rooms for their brief 20 minute walks in the walled up yard.  NO BODY saw them other than the guards on duty inside upstairs. EVER. This was part of the planned regime. They even went so far as to paint over the upstairs windows with whitewash so that they could not see out nor be seen from the street. ALL first hand accounts of everyone who delivered or dropped off anything concur on the fact that NO ONE went inside the house itself.  The items to be picked up were brought out the front door for them, and things left off were handed to a guard who took them inside.

Sorry, but NOBODY was "familiar" with seeing Anastasia because they did the laundry for the guards...most especially UPSTAIRS...Why would the laundry guy be UPSTAIRS ever when the guards rooms were all on the ground floor? Much less inside....

As we say locally, that dog don't hunt.


Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: ChatNoir on April 29, 2006, 12:18:47 PM
FA, you have an excellent point there, and since I was not present, I just have to rely on testimony, whether true or false, from those who were. From Peter Kurth's "Anastasia, the Riddle of Anna Anderson":

At Hamburg Heinrich Kleibenzetl produced his identity and work papers, which demonstrated that he had indeed lived in Ekaterinburg in July 1918; in fact, that he had been an apprentice to the tailor Baoudin in a building directly opposite the Ipatiev house. Kleibenzetl had been the one who repaired the uniforms of the soldiers guarding the imperial family. In that capacity he had often had to go into the house to fetch and deliver clothing, and had frequently seen the members of the family walking in the enclosed courtyard.

Kind regards
Chat Noir
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Forum Admin on April 29, 2006, 02:15:24 PM
Well, I still have a problem with that statement. Here is the map of the grounds of the Ipatiev House, from Sokolov:

(http://www.alexanderpalace.org/palace/img/IpatievMap.jpg)

A is where anyone entered the compound.
B is the front stair where everone entered or exited the building and where tradespeople dropped off their wares
C is the closed gate where guards were posted during the brief walk periods of the IF.
Yard is the enclosed courtyard where they were permitted to walk.

I just don't see HOW anyone delivering clothing, and restricted to just walking between point A and point B to do so, would be able to see the IF walking in the enclosed courtyard, behind a closed gate ...unless they had Superman's XRay vision...
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Lemur on April 29, 2006, 02:32:39 PM
Ah. Reality bites and smites fantasy once again.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: ChatNoir on April 29, 2006, 06:57:31 PM
From the Tsar's diary, May 20: It was unbearable to sit that way, locked up, and not be in a position to go out into the garden when you wanted and spend a fine evening outside.
May 27: Finally got up and quit my bed, it was a summer's day, walked twice. The green is very fine and lush, a pleasant smell.
May 31: This afternoon we were let out into the garden for some reason.

Seems to me that they were walking in the garden (jardin) and not in the courtyard.
Heinrich Kleibenzetl testimony in Hamburg: One evening, however, a friend of Kleibenzetl's in the guard had come over to the Baoudins' to say that "something [was] happening." Kleibenzetl was curious. He had entered the courtyard carrying some uniforms: "The guards knew me, they didn't ask any questions, they were drinking." Kleibenzetl had hidden behind some boxes and suddenly heard gunshots, screams, and a single female cry: "Mamma!"
After being grilled by the Hamburg court for 6 hours, the judges could not find a single hole in his story.

Kind regards
Chat Noir
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Forum Admin on April 30, 2006, 09:21:44 AM
Quote
From the Tsar's diary, May 20: It was unbearable to sit that way, locked up, and not be in a position to go out into the garden when you wanted and spend a fine evening outside.
May 27: Finally got up and quit my bed, it was a summer's day, walked twice. The green is very fine and lush, a pleasant smell.
May 31: This afternoon we were let out into the garden for some reason.

Please read carefully. "[highlight]for some reason[/highlight]". Clearly the Tsar was SURPRISED that for ONE time they were permitted in the garden and not the courtyard. ONE TIME...They May 27 quote can simply refer to the fact that one can SEE and smell the garden/grass from the rear side of the Courtyard.

As for the second part, we already KNOW for a stone cold fact (EVERY single first hand source from the night of the murders) agrees on at least one thing. The street outside was cleared of EVERYONE and there were no "soldiers" outside drinking and "hanging out..." Please, go read all the accounts...

Really, WHY do you insist on hanging on to the un-supported statements? I don't get it..

Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: AGRBear on April 30, 2006, 11:16:44 AM
Quote
From the Tsar's diary, May 20: It was unbearable to sit that way, locked up, and not be in a position to go out into the garden when you wanted and spend a fine evening outside.
May 27: Finally got up and quit my bed, it was a summer's day, walked twice. The green is very fine and lush, a pleasant smell.
May 31: This afternoon we were let out into the garden for some reason.

Seems to me that they were walking in the garden (jardin) and not in the courtyard.
Heinrich Kleibenzetl testimony in Hamburg: One evening, however, a friend of Kleibenzetl's in the guard had come over to the Baoudins' to say that "something [was] happening." Kleibenzetl was curious. He had entered the courtyard carrying some uniforms: "The guards knew me, they didn't ask any questions, they were drinking." Kleibenzetl had hidden behind some boxes and suddenly heard gunshots, screams, and a single female cry: "Mamma!"
After being grilled by the Hamburg court for 6 hours, the judges could not find a single hole in his story.

Kind regards
Chat Noir

Nicholas II's Diary>>May 31: This afternoon we were let out into the garden for some reason. <<

Evidently there was one day noted by Nicholas II, "...we were let out into the garden.".

On the map,  which part is the garden?

AGRBear

Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Forum Admin on April 30, 2006, 11:26:25 AM
Bear,
Don't omit the important modifier "FOR SOME REASON".


On the map, "v" is a small garden, with a gate leading into "jardin" which is the larger garden. Hard to tell for sure which, but I suspect only the smaller garden as it was still enclosed fully and away from the street.

The prime directive from Moscow for all heads in charge of the Ipatiev House was to prevent any escape of the prisoners, for which they would pay with their lives if anyone DID escape. The would thus assuredly be kept as far from the street as possible at all times.

Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: ChatNoir on April 30, 2006, 11:49:01 AM
Quote
Really, WHY do you insist on hanging on to the un-supported statements? I don't get it..

Well, as I have said before, I wasn't there, and neither was anybody else on this board. So therefore I have to go by the words of those who were. And in all fairness: Kleibenzetl said in his testimony that he had seen the IF walking in the courtyard. And he recognized the victim in his bed as "one of the ladies" Only Anna Baoudin identified her as Anastasia.

Kind regards
Chat Noir
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: ChatNoir on April 30, 2006, 11:59:13 AM
Quote
As for the second part, we already KNOW for a stone cold fact (EVERY single first hand source from the night of the murders) agrees on at least one thing. The street outside was cleared of EVERYONE and there were no "soldiers" outside drinking and "hanging out..." Please, go read all the accounts...

Kleibenzetl was NOT talking about the street outside, he was talking about soldiers inside the house.

Kind regards,
Chat Noir
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Forum Admin on April 30, 2006, 12:54:00 PM
"He had entered the courtyard carrying some uniforms: "The guards knew me, they didn't ask any questions, they were drinking."

Where does this say he went inside??
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: ChatNoir on April 30, 2006, 01:24:26 PM
Quote
"He had entered the courtyard carrying some uniforms: "The guards knew me, they didn't ask any questions, they were drinking."

Where does this say he went inside??

OK, so he went inside the courtyard, and was not inside the house. But he was also not referring to soldiers hanging out in the street outside.

And remember, 6 hours of badgering by the Hamburg court did not poke a hole in his testimony.

Kind regards,
Chat Noir
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: hellokitty2121 on April 30, 2006, 04:02:18 PM

Forgive me - but I don't quite see where this is going?


Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: CorisCapnSkip on May 09, 2006, 02:53:04 AM
The most dramatic flipflop I ever saw anyone do regarding DNA testing was by historian Joseph J. Ellis, who wrote a book about Thomas Jefferson and was quoted on camera that it was "inconceivable" that a man of Jefferson's character had a sexual relationship with slave Sally Hemings, and that her mixed-race children must have been fathered by a Jefferson relative of lower moral calibre.  When legitimate descendants of Thomas Jefferson sure enough matched descendants of Sally Hemings, Mr. Ellis was quoted, again on camera, that it was "inconceivable" that the one child proven to be his, born when Jefferson was 65, was the product of a one-night stand at such an age--therefore Jefferson must have fathered the other children, too.  A description of the interview and comments by Mr. Ellis and other historians can be found here:  http://web.mit.edu/racescience/in_media/thomas_jefferson/content_of_jeffersons_character/index.html  In the case of Thomas Jefferson, DNA testing set accepted historical theory on its ear.  In his case, for once, the salacious sensationalists were right!   :P
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Annie on May 09, 2006, 07:18:44 AM
CorisCapnSkip, I like how you are always relating this to different cases with parallels to this one. I do that too, but usually get jumped on by AA supporters saying 'what does that have to do with it' well, plenty! It takes a great lateral thinker (highly intelligent I'm told) to make these associations and analogies, and they DO relate to the AA case and are relevant for discussion in comparison. Thanks for all your interesting posts!

In the case of Jefferson, I am from VA and I know that a lot of people didn't want to believe these things on him. I never knew the one about him having the child at 65. I knew he had the ones with Sally Hemmings, who was his wife's half sister (she was the daughter of Martha Wayles Jefferson's father and his slave concubine) so she may have had a resemblance to his dearly departed Martha that attracted him. Either way, he is proven to have fathered some of the children. His nephews claimed some of them and were probably fathers of some too, but since they were sons of Jefferson's sister, they'd have had Jefferson's mtDNA, but not the same Y chromosome Jefferson had (mtDNA is maternal, Y of course paternal) so any male child tracing to Jefferson's Y chromosome was certainly his son.

I am not one of those Virginia snobs who doesn't want to hear the story. I am glad to know he had other children, four of the six he had with is wife died in infancy, and only one outlived him. I also want to point out that Jefferson never cheated on his wife, all these liasons happened after her untimely death in childbirth with their sixth child (who also died). He loved her deeply and had she lived I don't think he'd have had these affairs.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: CorisCapnSkip on May 09, 2006, 01:26:23 PM
Great minds...thanks for saying I have one and appreciating my posts!

I knew that about Jefferson being in love with his wife, but didn't realize Sally Hemings was a close relative of hers.  That makes it even more interesting!  I used to hate him for even owning slaves when he wrote the Declaration of Independence, and his having children with one (which I believed as soon as I heard it--after the revelations about JFK I didn't question and basically believed anything bad about anybody, including Lord Mountbatten being a mercenery moneygrubber--sorry, Lord Mountbatten  :(--) made it even worse.  Now it seems the situation was a lot more complex.  He really was in love with Sally and treated her and the offspring as much as family and as little like property as was allowable in the time and place.  I saw a program about Monticello which showed how it was designed so the slaves could come and go without ever being seen at their work--so obviously he must have felt some degree of guilt or conflict for keeping them.  As for him "sharing" with his nephews--that's too "yuk" for me even making allowances!   :P

Being a Virginian, did you ever meet Anna Anderson?
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Annie on May 09, 2006, 03:06:32 PM
Sally was left to TJ and Martha in her father's will because he knew she was his daughter and he knew TJ and Martha would treat her better than Martha's two older sisters. She probably had some family resemblance to Martha and this is one reason he fell for her, especially since Martha was dead. So it wasn't a low down slave raping type of thing, I think he really loved her, and if times weren't what they were he may have made it more open. I did hear one of his sons by Sally had red hair and played the violin- just like Jefferson. I do believe he loved and cared for these kids, but a man of his position in those days couldn't let it be known so iit was probably a 'forbidden love' thing which can be very romantic in stories.Of course we'll never really know.

I don't know if he 'shared' her with the nephews, their relationships may have happened at different times, like when he was in France or DC.

One more thing on Jefferson, he DID originally write a passage in the Declaration of Independence for the freeing of the slaves, and said he was willing to give his up, but all of the reps from other slaveholding states walked out and refused to sign it if it were left in, so they had to take it out. This was not the only thing omitted by far, but maybe the most famous and important.

I am sorry to say I never met AA. I am from the Richmond area, and in the early 80's did a lot of driving around for fun in the Charlottesville and Shenandoah Valley area with my boyfriend/future husband and I used to say I wanted to go track her down. I didn't know until after she was gone just how easy her house was to find on University circle, or how really accessible she was. I regret it very much. We do have members here who have met her and told about it.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: CorisCapnSkip on May 14, 2006, 12:25:36 AM
If people who were not present at an incident say one thing, and a person who was present says another, the word of the person who was present is regarded as testimony and the word of those not present as hearsay.  (Legal speak.)
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Mazukov on May 14, 2006, 05:22:08 AM
Ok there is no, I’ll repeat no solid evidence that AA was AN, in fact what is there points to the fact she was not.  Why on earth do you all insist on saying that she was when in fact she wasn’t
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: OlgaNRomanovaFan on May 14, 2006, 05:22:08 PM
Quote
Ok there is no, I’ll repeat no solid evidence that AA was AN, in fact what is there points to the fact she was not.

Exactly! If there were solid evidence surely her claim would have been proven, if not in her lifetime, then at least by now.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: CorisCapnSkip on May 15, 2006, 03:31:08 AM
If the real Anastasia spoke Russian, English, French, and German, and Anna Anderson spoke only German until she had a chance to learn the others, and then not as well as Anastasia knew them, that is a big strike against Anna Anderson.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Mazukov on May 15, 2006, 07:20:56 AM
There isn’t just one strike but many.simply saying she never was AN
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Annie on May 15, 2006, 02:12:58 PM
Yes, there are many strikes, I could write a book myself.

The languages are some of the worst giveaways though. Even her supporters are hard pressed to find evidence of her knowing French. AA's English was horrible and her accent far from anything British(I have heard her on videos and tapes) Hers was not the voice of a girl raised around parents speaking proper English with British accents. It sounded more like the voice of a Polish factory worker forced to learn it in a hurry on her way to NYC in 1928. Felix Y. said she didn't know English (or Russian or French) when he met her in 1927.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: OlgaNRomanovaFan on May 15, 2006, 05:02:39 PM
Quote
Yes, there are many strikes, I could write a book myself

I wish someone would write a unbiased account of her life and claim. Whilst Kurth's book is invaluable, it is obviously biased in her favour. I don't know if such a book could be written though without author bias.

Quote
AA's English was horrible and her accent far from anything British(I have heard her on videos and tapes) Hers was not the voice of a girl raised around parents speaking proper English with British accents.

Where did you get to hear tapes of her? I've only ever seen pictures.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Annie on May 15, 2006, 05:07:51 PM
Quote


I wish someone would write a unbiased account of her life and claim. Whilst Kurth's book is invaluable, it is obviously biased in her favour. I don't know if such a book could be written though without author bias.

Me too, but sadly the only people who write books about her are those who try to prove her claim. I guess writers who don't believe in her feel no need to state their case, since the DNA proves it. But we do need one, as a 'source' to show a side Kurth's doesn't, and to update things, but we need this book written by totally UNBIASED historians with no ties to Kurth.

Quote
Where did you get to hear tapes of her? I've only ever seen pictures.

I have seen her and heard her on several tv specials over the years, the only one I know of on tape is a NOVA special on AA/AN. She speaks there.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: OlgaNRomanovaFan on May 15, 2006, 05:34:20 PM
The first time I read Kurth I believed he had written as fair handed an account as someone who supports AA could have. On further reading however I find I dislike the way he portrays Gilliard and Olga, assuming that money and family dominance swayed them. Even his coverage of the trial was completly biased as he used the descriptions of the proceedings as described by Dominique Aucleres [sp?] a clear AA supporter.
With the amount of debate still surrounding AA I should imagine that no author could write about her without someone claiming they were biased or had an agenda.

CorisCapnSkip, I find all the links you make with other cases fascinating. Thanks for the info and comparison!
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Mazukov on May 16, 2006, 11:24:22 PM
Please don’t get me wrong here with this. But it has always amazed me just how people can support AA and her false claims. I think the most important evidence against her, is the fact that she could not speak English, Russian, French. From the time she learned how to talk she was speaking in two tongs one English the other Russian fluently. AA could not speak English fluent I seen the TV special  your talking of Annie  that is not the tong of a person who grew up speaking English.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: CorisCapnSkip on May 24, 2006, 04:08:16 AM
Not until coming to this board did I realize the Imperial Family spoke proper British English.  I had long known Anna Anderson/Anastasia Manahan did not.  I saw the "Good Morning, America" segment with her and her husband Jack Manahan, showing her as a rather dotty, disheveled old lady with a lot of cats.  At the end, Jack asked her if she wouldn't like this matter settled "in your own lifetime" and she replied, "I spit on 'em."  I found it a shockingly coarse answer from a supposedly royal person, but then later, looking at the attitudes of some royalty ::) and going over Kurth's book, I could see this as a reply of someone who'd survived hard times and lived a difficult life of not being believed.

On the "Nova" program I recall her saying something to the effect of, "Please not to speak of this dirt...please not.  It is not like you are sitting reading a book--you are living all this dirt."  It was very European-accented, ungrammatical English, nothing like proper.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: CorisCapnSkip on June 10, 2006, 02:12:23 AM
Check out "The Love of the Marvellous and the Disbelief of the True" from the book "Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds."  http://www.litrix.com/madraven/madne010.htm  Strange to say, it was omitted from every printed copy I could find of the book, so I printed it from the online copy because I find it so relevant every time I discuss historical controversies.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Jarian on August 19, 2006, 01:45:00 PM
Can i just say this? AA was not AN and there is proof because they did DNA testings and and it was false AA could not have been An.  So that is not an opinian that is a strat fact.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: miki_nastya on October 18, 2006, 02:01:15 PM
I don't think that AA was AN . No one of the IF could escape for that massacre. I mean woh can you escape when you are shoot by a men who are beside you.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: lori_c on October 18, 2006, 02:29:01 PM
Soon after the Tsar's remains were reported identified here in the US, there was a newspaper article published which i thought very interesting.  It stated very simply that there was never an episode of any communist anywhere showing mercy on anyone EVER.  Lease of all members of the Romanov family. I can't get that out of my head when the question of survivors comes up.  Then when the DNA came back that AA was FS, it only reinforced it in my mind though I know there are a bunch of threads with condtradictory theories. 

However, the words in that article really ring true.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: LisaDavidson on October 19, 2006, 12:30:47 AM
Soon after the Tsar's remains were reported identified here in the US, there was a newspaper article published which i thought very interesting.  It stated very simply that there was never an episode of any communist anywhere showing mercy on anyone EVER.  Lease of all members of the Romanov family. I can't get that out of my head when the question of survivors comes up.  Then when the DNA came back that AA was FS, it only reinforced it in my mind though I know there are a bunch of threads with condtradictory theories. 

However, the words in that article really ring true.

I think I'm as anti-Communist as anyone here, but this most certainly does not ring true. Communists are human beings and were certainly capable of showing mercy on occasion. To say that no Communist ever showed any mercy to anyone is simply ridiculous. If we want to discuss the Romanovs - and I presume you mean least of all, not lease of all - they most certainly did get mercy from the Bolsheviks, although it was not their usual MO. Examples:

1. Grand Duke Nicholas Constantinovich was treated with courtesy and even given a funeral with honors in Tashkent by the local Bolsheviks.

2. Grand Duchess Olga Alexandrovna reports in her memoirs that the local Bolsheviks in the Crimea kept the Romanovs who were being held there safe from other Bolsheviks.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Belochka on October 19, 2006, 08:16:06 AM
Soon after the Tsar's remains were reported identified here in the US, there was a newspaper article published which i thought very interesting.  It stated very simply that there was never an episode of any communist anywhere showing mercy on anyone EVER.  Lease of all members of the Romanov family. I can't get that out of my head when the question of survivors comes up.  Then when the DNA came back that AA was FS, it only reinforced it in my mind though I know there are a bunch of threads with condtradictory theories. 

However, the words in that article really ring true.

There was no mercy shown by the bolsheviks towards the four incacerated Grand Dukes in Petrograd.

It is inconceivable that any of the Imperial children survived in Ekaterinburg. Assassins always ensure that they suceed.

Margarita  
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: lori_c on October 19, 2006, 08:36:12 AM
Soon after the Tsar's remains were reported identified here in the US, there was a newspaper article published which i thought very interesting.  It stated very simply that there was never an episode of any communist anywhere showing mercy on anyone EVER.  Lease of all members of the Romanov family. I can't get that out of my head when the question of survivors comes up.  Then when the DNA came back that AA was FS, it only reinforced it in my mind though I know there are a bunch of threads with condtradictory theories. 

However, the words in that article really ring true.

There was no mercy shown by the bolsheviks towards the four incacerated Grand Dukes in Petrograd.

It is inconceivable that any of the Imperial children survived in Ekaterinburg. Assassins always ensure that they suceed.

Margarita  

The quote came from an article in the newspaper.  I am quite sure that people who had communist political beliefs could be human beings as well,  but the person interviewed in the article was Russian and wanted to state that it was a purely
Western notion that any Boshevik would have shown mercy on a Romanov (much less anybody else).  Everything was in the name of the Revolution.l
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: LisaDavidson on October 19, 2006, 03:54:58 PM
Soon after the Tsar's remains were reported identified here in the US, there was a newspaper article published which i thought very interesting.  It stated very simply that there was never an episode of any communist anywhere showing mercy on anyone EVER.  Lease of all members of the Romanov family. I can't get that out of my head when the question of survivors comes up.  Then when the DNA came back that AA was FS, it only reinforced it in my mind though I know there are a bunch of threads with condtradictory theories. 

However, the words in that article really ring true.

There was no mercy shown by the bolsheviks towards the four incacerated Grand Dukes in Petrograd.

It is inconceivable that any of the Imperial children survived in Ekaterinburg. Assassins always ensure that they suceed.

Margarita  

The quote came from an article in the newspaper.  I am quite sure that people who had communist political beliefs could be human beings as well,  but the person interviewed in the article was Russian and wanted to state that it was a purely
Western notion that any Boshevik would have shown mercy on a Romanov (much less anybody else).  Everything was in the name of the Revolution.l

The quote in the newspaper was someone's opinion who was never there. It was stated here as a fact, and I have challenged it, because it's not true. It is a misrepresentation and deserved to be challenged. The person said that Bolsheviks never show ANYONE mercy - a gross generalization. The person said the Bolsheviks never showed ANY Romanov any mercy. To refute this, I cited two documented examples. The statement was false.

In terms of the 4 grand dukes, I never said the Bolsheviks were all merciful or even the least bit merciful to the Romanovs murdered in Ekaterinburg, Alapaevsk, or Petrograd. I don't know how anyone could conclude this based on what I have said.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: lori_c on October 19, 2006, 04:17:25 PM
Soon after the Tsar's remains were reported identified here in the US, there was a newspaper article published which i thought very interesting.  It stated very simply that there was never an episode of any communist anywhere showing mercy on anyone EVER.  Lease of all members of the Romanov family. I can't get that out of my head when the question of survivors comes up.  Then when the DNA came back that AA was FS, it only reinforced it in my mind though I know there are a bunch of threads with condtradictory theories. 

However, the words in that article really ring true.

There was no mercy shown by the bolsheviks towards the four incacerated Grand Dukes in Petrograd.

It is inconceivable that any of the Imperial children survived in Ekaterinburg. Assassins always ensure that they suceed.

Margarita  

The quote came from an article in the newspaper.  I am quite sure that people who had communist political beliefs could be human beings as well,  but the person interviewed in the article was Russian and wanted to state that it was a purely
Western notion that any Boshevik would have shown mercy on a Romanov (much less anybody else).  Everything was in the name of the Revolution.l

The quote in the newspaper was someone's opinion who was never there. It was stated here as a fact, and I have challenged it, because it's not true. It is a misrepresentation and deserved to be challenged. The person said that Bolsheviks never show ANYONE mercy - a gross generalization. The person said the Bolsheviks never showed ANY Romanov any mercy. To refute this, I cited two documented examples. The statement was false.

In terms of the 4 grand dukes, I never said the Bolsheviks were all merciful or even the least bit merciful to the Romanovs murdered in Ekaterinburg, Alapaevsk, or Petrograd. I don't know how anyone could conclude this based on what I have said.

I'm sorry if it was misrepresented.  I will scan the article and post it.  I was only quoting what I read. Didn't mean to offend you.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: LisaDavidson on October 19, 2006, 04:29:19 PM
Absolutely no offense taken. If you are interested in sharing the article, please use the "Links" section of the forum. You are welcome to let us know on this thread that you've posted it. It would probably be better to use a link the the paper's website.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: lori_c on October 19, 2006, 04:34:29 PM
I cut the article out in 1993.  It was in the Times Picayune here in New Orleans.  But, i think i have read it in a book as well.  I will find both and see what I can do.

Lori
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Guinastasia on October 22, 2006, 03:19:32 PM
Soon after the Tsar's remains were reported identified here in the US, there was a newspaper article published which i thought very interesting.  It stated very simply that there was never an episode of any communist anywhere showing mercy on anyone EVER.  Lease of all members of the Romanov family. I can't get that out of my head when the question of survivors comes up.  Then when the DNA came back that AA was FS, it only reinforced it in my mind though I know there are a bunch of threads with condtradictory theories. 

However, the words in that article really ring true.

Actually, the quote I believe you're referring to was in Greg's and Penny's book, and it was made by Geli Ryabov, a highly uncredible individual.  At the time he made that statement, he also stated that Alexei's body was one of those recovered from the grave site.

The quote in question:
"We have no instances of the Communists ever, anywhere, having mercy on anyone."- Geli Ryabov. 

Another remark from the same speech:

"For seventy-four years Russia was ruled by madmen, mentally ill people, bastards, butchers.  I believe that if we still had an Emperor, the United States, God knows, would probably envy Russia, and fear us."

And yet, the Tsars themselves were certainly no angels.  I too am a Romanov buff and I too admire Nicholas and his family, but I absolutely would not want him as a ruler.  As for "madmen, mentally ill people, bastards, butchers"-well, that could also describe many of the Russian Tsars, stretching all the way back to the Rurik dynasty.  There's a reason they called him "Ivan the Terrible", after all.

I'm not trying to ridicule you, just pointing out you might want to look into the credibility of the person stating so.  Not all the communists were devils, nor were all the Romanovs saints.  They were people, just like everyone else.

Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: LisaDavidson on October 22, 2006, 03:52:24 PM
Soon after the Tsar's remains were reported identified here in the US, there was a newspaper article published which i thought very interesting.  It stated very simply that there was never an episode of any communist anywhere showing mercy on anyone EVER.  Lease of all members of the Romanov family. I can't get that out of my head when the question of survivors comes up.  Then when the DNA came back that AA was FS, it only reinforced it in my mind though I know there are a bunch of threads with condtradictory theories. 

However, the words in that article really ring true.

Actually, the quote I believe you're referring to was in Greg's and Penny's book, and it was made by Geli Ryabov, a highly uncredible individual.  At the time he made that statement, he also stated that Alexei's body was one of those recovered from the grave site.

The quote in question:
"We have no instances of the Communists ever, anywhere, having mercy on anyone."- Geli Ryabov. 

Another remark from the same speech:

"For seventy-four years Russia was ruled by madmen, mentally ill people, bastards, butchers.  I believe that if we still had an Emperor, the United States, God knows, would probably envy Russia, and fear us."

And yet, the Tsars themselves were certainly no angels.  I too am a Romanov buff and I too admire Nicholas and his family, but I absolutely would not want him as a ruler.  As for "madmen, mentally ill people, bastards, butchers"-well, that could also describe many of the Russian Tsars, stretching all the way back to the Rurik dynasty.  There's a reason they called him "Ivan the Terrible", after all.

I'm not trying to ridicule you, just pointing out you might want to look into the credibility of the person stating so.  Not all the communists were devils, nor were all the Romanovs saints.  They were people, just like everyone else.


Thank you for shedding light on this. You made my points much better than I did. I agree entirely with your two final sentences. I think there are tendencies when a regime falls, whether it be Communists or Tsars, to overstate the flaws of the "previous administration". To me, it's just as ridiculous to say that every Bolshevik lacked compassion for every person as it is to say every tsar was stupid and reactionary.

I believe Tsar Ivan was not so called because he was a bad ruler, but because he was fierce of temperment.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Belochka on October 22, 2006, 09:55:11 PM
Soon after the Tsar's remains were reported identified here in the US, there was a newspaper article published which i thought very interesting.  It stated very simply that there was never an episode of any communist anywhere showing mercy on anyone EVER.  Lease of all members of the Romanov family. I can't get that out of my head when the question of survivors comes up.  Then when the DNA came back that AA was FS, it only reinforced it in my mind though I know there are a bunch of threads with condtradictory theories. 

However, the words in that article really ring true.

Actually, the quote .... was made by Geli Ryabov ...

The quote in question:
"We have no instances of the Communists ever, anywhere, having mercy on anyone."- Geli Ryabov. 

Another remark from the same speech:

"For seventy-four years Russia was ruled by madmen, mentally ill people, bastards, butchers.  I believe that if we still had an Emperor, the United States, God knows, would probably envy Russia, and fear us."

Could someone be so kind as to provide the actual Russian quote please. Unfortunately, Ryabov has been misquoted in the past.

Thank you.

Margarita
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Guinastasia on October 22, 2006, 10:11:16 PM
Sorry, I was quoting straight from the book.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: lori_c on October 23, 2006, 03:50:14 PM
The book and the article have the same quote by Ryabov exactly..  The article was published before the book so wherever King and Wilson took the quote from was where the Associated Press picked it up from.  I am still trying to link the original article.

My main reason for bringing it up was that in the article it was meant to be taken in the context that only people  in the west would have the idea that anybody had survived such a slaughter as what had happened to the Romanovs especially since they were Romanovs.  Not that this is a fact.  I'm just relaying what I read in the article.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Belochka on October 23, 2006, 09:33:57 PM
The article was published .... Associated Press.  I am still trying to link the original article.

My main reason for bringing it up was that in the article it was meant to be taken in the context that only people  in the west would have the idea that anybody had survived such a slaughter as what had happened to the Romanovs especially since they were Romanovs.  Not that this is a fact.  I'm just relaying what I read in the article.


I am only interested in the Associated Press article. I look forward to the link if it is still available.

Thanks in anticipation,

Margarita
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Belochka on October 24, 2006, 12:31:44 AM
The article was published .... Associated Press.  I am still trying to link the original article.

My main reason for bringing it up was that in the article it was meant to be taken in the context that only people  in the west would have the idea that anybody had survived such a slaughter as what had happened to the Romanovs especially since they were Romanovs.  Not that this is a fact.  I'm just relaying what I read in the article.


I am only interested in the Associated Press article. I look forward to the link if it is still available.

Margarita - I think the article she is referring to was published in 1993, and thus do not expect for there to be a link.

Thanks in anticipation,

Margarita

Well that is most unfortunate if correct. Then we have no way of knowing exactly what Ryabov stated.

Margarita
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: LisaDavidson on October 24, 2006, 01:15:34 AM
I think this is another tempest in a teapot. It is your choice to disbelieve the published source and your choice to feel that you can only evaluate it in Russian. It's not a major point by any stretch of the imagination and neither adds to nor subtracts from the facts surrounding the Tsar's murder.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: lori_c on October 24, 2006, 02:38:33 PM
I think this is another tempest in a teapot. It is your choice to disbelieve the published source and your choice to feel that you can only evaluate it in Russian. It's not a major point by any stretch of the imagination and neither adds to nor subtracts from the facts surrounding the Tsar's murder.

That is true about believing or disbelieving published sources.  I also believe it ins't a major point but i disagree with you in that for those of us who don't speak Russian and have only read the articles and quotes in books, I feel that it DOES add something to the facts surrounding the Tsar's murder. 
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: LisaDavidson on October 24, 2006, 04:44:27 PM
I think this is another tempest in a teapot. It is your choice to disbelieve the published source and your choice to feel that you can only evaluate it in Russian. It's not a major point by any stretch of the imagination and neither adds to nor subtracts from the facts surrounding the Tsar's murder.

That is true about believing or disbelieving published sources.  I also believe it ins't a major point but i disagree with you in that for those of us who don't speak Russian and have only read the articles and quotes in books, I feel that it DOES add something to the facts surrounding the Tsar's murder. 

I'm not understanding your logic at all. Someone's opinion (not a fact) about the Bolsheviks of 70 odd years prior has something to do with the facts surrounding the Tsar's murder? Could you explain your reasoning, please?
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: imperial angel on October 25, 2006, 02:30:02 PM
Opinions are, of course only opinions. I think though that although you should not believe everything you read, you should take into account anything that might bear on the subject initially. I don't know much about Ryabov; his statement is a viewpoint others seem to have sometimes too.I think the Bolsheviks wre quite cruel, all the evidence points to that; many senseless atrocities were commited by them.It would be hard to find a communist showing mercy. Of course, they were human, as well, but mercy wasn't much in their line. I think one would have to consider the specific sitiuation before saying either they had some mercy or they didn't have any. Making sweeping statements is generally not good. I read this book- the subtitle is Death and Memory in 20th Century Russia, I can't remember the main title, it was published in 2001. After reading that book, you come to the conclusion that 20th century Russia after the Revolution was more brutal than the tsars, but that's just my opinion. This isn't the topic of this thread though...
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: lori_c on October 25, 2006, 03:02:11 PM
I think this is another tempest in a teapot. It is your choice to disbelieve the published source and your choice to feel that you can only evaluate it in Russian. It's not a major point by any stretch of the imagination and neither adds to nor subtracts from the facts surrounding the Tsar's murder.

That is true about believing or disbelieving published sources.  I also believe it ins't a major point but i disagree with you in that for those of us who don't speak Russian and have only read the articles and quotes in books, I feel that it DOES add something to the facts surrounding the Tsar's murder. 

I'm not understanding your logic at all. Someone's opinion (not a fact) about the Bolsheviks of 70 odd years prior has something to do with the facts surrounding the Tsar's murder? Could you explain your reasoning, please?


Certainly Lisa,

My reasoning is this:  I am  1) relaying a quote from an article I read with a quote by Geli Ryabov about the Bolsheviks not showing mercy and 2) by choosing to believe this published source I ams stating that it does add something to the known facts about the murder of the Tsar and his family ---- for me.   That though sweeping generalization is not good, I am saying I believe the source and that nobody survived the execution on the night the Tsar and his family died.  I agree with Ryabov that notions of survivors are purely western ideas.  This is of course what I believe. I am no scholar.  I am not Russian.  I have no facts to back up my opinion except the article I read and quoted in a previous post which is what I choose to believe. 

I don't understand why more of the original post is being made of than what it is.  Strictly an observation on something I read and wanted to share on this Forum.

Please tell me if you feel my post was inappropriate, and please explain your reasoning as to why.   After all, this is a discussion.

Thanking you in advance

Lori C.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: LisaDavidson on October 25, 2006, 04:53:55 PM
I think this is another tempest in a teapot. It is your choice to disbelieve the published source and your choice to feel that you can only evaluate it in Russian. It's not a major point by any stretch of the imagination and neither adds to nor subtracts from the facts surrounding the Tsar's murder.

That is true about believing or disbelieving published sources.  I also believe it ins't a major point but i disagree with you in that for those of us who don't speak Russian and have only read the articles and quotes in books, I feel that it DOES add something to the facts surrounding the Tsar's murder. 

I'm not understanding your logic at all. Someone's opinion (not a fact) about the Bolsheviks of 70 odd years prior has something to do with the facts surrounding the Tsar's murder? Could you explain your reasoning, please?


Certainly Lisa,

My reasoning is this:  I am  1) relaying a quote from an article I read with a quote by Geli Ryabov about the Bolsheviks not showing mercy and 2) by choosing to believe this published source I ams stating that it does add something to the known facts about the murder of the Tsar and his family ---- for me.   That though sweeping generalization is not good, I am saying I believe the source and that nobody survived the execution on the night the Tsar and his family died.  I agree with Ryabov that notions of survivors are purely western ideas.  This is of course what I believe. I am no scholar.  I am not Russian.  I have no facts to back up my opinion except the article I read and quoted in a previous post which is what I choose to believe. 

I don't understand why more of the original post is being made of than what it is.  Strictly an observation on something I read and wanted to share on this Forum.

Please tell me if you feel my post was inappropriate, and please explain your reasoning as to why.   After all, this is a discussion.

Thanking you in advance

Lori C.

Not inappropriate at all! I'm just trying to understand what you're saying and I think that's a benefit of discussion. Of course I agree with you - I said it was a tempest in a teapot, after all.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: lori_c on October 25, 2006, 04:58:15 PM
I totally agree and enough said on the subject!

Lori C.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: Guinastasia on October 25, 2006, 10:12:37 PM
One of my professors, a staunch anti-Bolshevik, who spent a year or more in a gulag in Perm, is close friends with Sergei Khrushchev, the son of Nikita, who wasn't a cold-hearted butcher like Lenin, or a sociopath like Stalin.

No one is black or white.  People are always shades of grey, I believe.  There are very few Hitlers, or Gandhis.  Most people fall somewhere in between.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia
Post by: dmitri on June 16, 2007, 01:09:47 PM
Anna Anderson was a total fraud. The DNA tests proved it. She had no connection whatsoever with any Romanov living or dead.