Alexander Palace Forum

Discussions about the Imperial Family and European Royalty => The Myth and Legends of Survivors => Topic started by: marina on January 07, 2006, 07:14:27 AM

Title: Without DNA
Post by: marina on January 07, 2006, 07:14:27 AM
If DNA didn't exist, did you believe Anna Anderson? If no, why? This question is for scepticals of course.
Title: Re: Without DNA
Post by: Annie on January 07, 2006, 08:30:12 AM
No.

Reasons:

1. Her picture looks much more like Fransizka Schanskowska than Anastasia. She looked too old to be Anastasia, and had different bone structure, chin shape, lips, and nose.

2. Her story of escape by cart, travelling a distance of almost 3000 miles on muddy back roads with no food or medical care for someone so horribly injured just isn't realistic. I think when she  made up the story, she didn't realize just how far it was from Ekaterinburg to Bucharest. The trip would have taken over a year to make, including brutal Russian winters. It's absolutely ridiculous.

Also, her alleged rescuer, Alexander Tchiakovsky, has never been found or even proven to have ever existed. His name sounds made up, like Jan Brady's 'George Glass' boyfriend. Seems like when asked to come up with a name, Alexander, the most popular Russian name came to mind, and, come on now, what about a last name, oh yes, that famous Russian composer Tchiakovsky!

3. She really didn't 'remember' all that much stuff, and of what she did, a lot of it was wrong, like the details of the inside of the palace. This makes me think whoever was telling her the answers had only brief or limited access to the palace, and remembered it wrong. She also got the finger story wrong, it was Marie, not Anastasia. Again, it seems her source of info heard or remembered wrong. There is NOTHING she 'remembered' that cannot be explained away as being told to her, either intentionally or incidently in conversation, by someone who had known the IF. Europe was full of Russian refugees and emigres' at that time, the chances she met and talked to them are very high. Whether or not these people intentionally fed her info as part of a plot to help her claim a fortune, or were innocently talking we will never know. If they were doing it on purpose, they certainly aren't going to tell anyone, or leave any 'proof' lying around.

You can't even rule out that this 'man with the pockets' hadn't told her the story before, or that he wasn't perhaps helping her in hopes of a cut of the fortune should it materialize. Her biggest supporter, Gleb Botkin, had contact with the family, had been to the palaces and was with them until they were taken to Ekaterinburg. He would have known some thing to tell her. Realistically, her claim never took off until she met him. He was a journalist in NYC, and what a fascinating story this was! Interesting that she never really hit the courtroom, or the international press on any large scale, until after she took up with him. While many supporters bash family members for lying for money, it is inconceivable to me they can't see the other side, that it is very likely it was her supporters who did this!

Another factor, who verified her 'memories' as right or wrong? The family was very private, and they were all dead. So who was it who said she 'knew things no one else could have known?' How could this even be checked up on?

4. Recogntions- Olga A. and Gilliard may have been emotional and hopeful at first, but I don't consider their comments to be open acceptance of AA. They sound more like heartbroken people struggling with what they want vs. what is real. I know Olga wanted AN to be alive, but it wasn't her. Initial, emotional, hopeful reactions are common, like I told you about my friend whose dog was lost, and she was so happy to find one like him she took the wrong one home, only to realize later after closer inspection that it wasn't him after all.

There are those who claim that Olga did it for money. WHAT money?? Olga was the black sheep of the family with the 'wrong' marriage. She was never benefit of much family money, living on an old dirt farm, dressing like a common washerwoman (there are pics) and dying in a one room apartment over a barber shop in Canada. Some rich, lavish lifestyle as her payoff for denying AN, suuurre! For those of you who still think she's 'greedy', think about this: the family didn't think much of her and didn't give her  much, but if she could have claimed and accepted a real Anastasia, she could have gotten Anastasia to fight for the money, and then they'd both share it! She'd have been much better off doing this, but she couldn't, you see, because AA wasn't really Anastasia, and she knew it.

I feel very sorry for Olga, she loved her niece and was close to them all, yet had to endure the torture of claimants pestering her all her life. As for Ernie, he is so often villianized as being against AA for saying he went to Russia in 1916.

But consider this.
1. There is NO PROOF this trip ever took place.
2. The goverment and monarch had fallen, he could not possibly have lost more than he already had even if it were true, and since Alix was his sister, it was not like it would have been a spy mission but a family one. Either way, it didn't happen.
3. Ernie is hated by AA supporters for hiring the PI to find FS's true identity, and it turns out he was right. Ernie was heartbroken over losing his nieces, nephew and 2 sisters to the revolution, and imposters only brought that pain back up. He wanted them to shut up and go away, because it was wrong they were using his family's horrible tragedy to try to get fame and money. Isn't that how you'd feel?
4. Ernie died before the trial even started, so I don't know how he can be blamed for rigging it. Ernie's family died in a plane crash in 1937, the year before the trial started. If you want conspiracy theories, you can surmise that the AA supporters sabotaged the plane! See, this stuff can go both ways!

I can sit here all day and pick apart the inconsistencies in the others who recognized her, but I'll need a lot more room.

I will finish my report in another post.
Title: Re: Without DNA
Post by: Annie on January 07, 2006, 08:46:59 AM
Others who 'recognized' her. Did they, could they really? Consider these factors:

Lili Dehn and Mathilde K. were both elderly when they met her, and hadn't seen AN in years. I don't believe MK ever even met AN, and was only going by 'Nicky's eyes.' Since they were old, AA was a lot older, too, and no longer looked anything like she did in the 20s, and even then she hadn't looked much like AN. So I must discount both these as emotional elderly ladies wishing for a life long past to return in some form.

Cecile- She was the daughter of Anastasia Mikhailovich, and the wife of the German crown prince. Married off to him at age 18, which was 1904, she left Russia when AN was only 3. She made some visits home, but mostly to see her own family, not the Tsar's. If she did see the Tsar, it was in a social gathering in which small children weren't allowed. Then the war broke out in 1914, and she never returned to Russia. So you see, she didn't really know AN and couldn't have had any contact with her since she was 13. This is the age when people go through adolesence and grow up, changing very much. I  see this as a problem with many people who claimed to see AN in her, they really hadn't seen her grown up because she was in captivity, and their memories of her were very few and faded. It was easy to look at a person they wanted to be her and say, well, maybe she could look like that now, I guess. Because of this, and the fact that Cecile and her husband were known to have become 'eccentric' after the war, I discount her.

Irene's son Sigismund: He only saw AN a few times when they were children, and wouldn't have known her well. They didn't have a close relationship. This story about him writing her a list she answered as 'only AN could have' actually turned out to be just basic stuff any Tsar's daughter, or anyone who knew them, could have known.

Princess Xenia- They hadn't seen each other since they were children. She was mistaken. Could you recognize a cousin you saw a few times in childhood as an adult in later life? Could you even pick them out of a lineup for money? Would you recognize them on the street? I don't think so. Also, later on, Xenia rejected AA feeling she was made a fool of.

Gleb and Tatiana Botkin- two possibilities here, one is that they were in on her claim and helping her by providing the memories, the other is that they were just plain wrong. I personally go with the first, but again, there will never be any proof one way or the other, it's not the kind of thing people go around declaring in public.

Grand Duke Andre'- Olga said in her letter he must be up to something, and I don't doubt it. First, I'm sure Andre had very limited contact with AN. Remember, he was a Vladimirvichi, the branch of the family N and A loathed, so he wasn't that frequent a visitor to the place. When he was, it's likely he never even saw AN. Remember, in those days, a person had to be 16 to attend social gatherings, and AN was not 16 until 1917, after the revolution! So it is a huge factor that most people didn't see much of her.

Andre' was the brother of Kyril, the self proclaimed 'Tsar in Exile.' WHY would that branch of the family want the Tsar's daughter to spring back up? Now, talk about someone out to discredit, I believe Kyril and his bunch WOULD have denied a real AN IF she had turned up, because THEY are the ones who were after whatever money and power that may come to the 'Tsar' and one of his heirs could take it from them. So why would any of them accept her, especially when they didn't even know her that well? I must agree with Olga, something 'vile' must have been going on in their minds. It makes no sense.

Felix Dassell- I hit on this before. First, I don't think he knew her that well, and second, it is a possibility he had fed her, either through himself or someone else, the 'pockets' story before they met.

That's all the supporters I can muster right now, if you give me a name I'll give you my opinion.

I also have much more I want to get into, but don't have time right now.
Title: Re: Without DNA
Post by: marina on January 07, 2006, 08:50:35 AM
So you would have been very very very surprised if DNA test wouldn't have revealed what we know today, I suppose...
Title: Re: Without DNA
Post by: Annie on January 07, 2006, 09:10:13 AM
Quote
So you would have been very very very surprised if DNA test wouldn't have revealed what we know today, I suppose...


The strange thing is, I used to be someone who believed, or at least hoped, AA was AN. When I heard the DNA results, I got a lump in my throat I was so disappointed. But instead of becoming militantly vicious about a conspiracy as some did, I went the other way, took off the rose colored glasses of what I 'wanted' and started looking at it realistically. The more I looked into it, the more I felt like a fool for ever thinking she could have been AN! Now, with all the things I know now, I am completely convinced she was FS and can't imagine seeing it any other way. She doesn't even look like her, and all the pieces of the puzzle for a fake job add right up. I am going to post more long details later, I have even more reason to believe what I do.
Title: Re: Without DNA
Post by: etonexile on January 07, 2006, 09:29:46 AM
Wow Annie....You always give the most,clearest detail....U ROCK... 8)
Title: Re: Without DNA
Post by: Annie on January 07, 2006, 11:33:34 AM
Quote
Wow Annie....You always give the most,clearest detail....U ROCK... 8)


Thank you, I do try :)

Title: Re: Without DNA
Post by: Annie on January 07, 2006, 11:43:09 AM
Now let's go to who DIDN'T see her. One of Xenia's sons who wanted to meet her was refused. There were a couple people who went to see her and she covered her mouth with a hankie (presumabley to cover that big mouth and thick lips AN didn't have) She must have felt those people would recognize her.

Of those who survived the revolution, perhaps no one left alive had seen AN more and knew her better than Anna Vyrobova. She had lived as practically a member of the family since the time AN was a baby. She spent more time around AN than even Olga A. or Marie F., even going on family vacations with the IF.  So why wasn't this woman consulted? It seems to me that perhaps AA supporters were afraid of Anna, since she 'knew too much.' She could easily expose her as a fraud and hurt the case. But why not just write her off as a liar and money grabber like they had Olga and Ernie? With good reason. She had become an Orthodox nun, so she  wasn't a good target to be called 'liar', and as a nun, she couldn't take money, even bribes, and had no use for it if she did. Since they couldn't discredit her, it was better not to take a chance on her rejection. Tatiana Botkin claimed it was because she was a 'disciple of Rasputin', but this makes no sense since Lil Dehn was also a member of Rasputin's group and they had no problem with her. Also, Anastasia herself thought kindly of Rasputin, like her mother and siblings. She even had an icon of him. So if AA were indeed AN, why would she be bothered by someone liking Father Gregory? If she truly wanted to be accepted, why wouldn't she have wanted to seek out her mother's closest friend?

How about Dmitri Pavlovich? He spent a great deal of time living and/or staying with the IF over the years, he knew the kids on a private basis, not just a social setting. He'd have been a good one to consult. Why wasn't his name ever mentioned? Strange, isn't it? Could it be they thought he too might  have known the real AN too well, and didn't want to chance a  rejection?

Still more reasons to come...
Title: Re: Without DNA
Post by: Annie on January 07, 2006, 12:05:32 PM
Now for a break from my diatribes (which I will continue) here is the photographic evidence. If you look closely you can see the differences in the shape of the chin, jaw, lips, mouth, end of the nose, and even the famouse eyes and ears.

While supporters go out of their way to show you pics of AA posed in the most AN ways, biting her lip to hide the obvious size difference and mocking the famous AN expression. In these pics, the true differences emerge.

Note chin shape, jawline and facial features (AA on left, AN right)

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v152/WuvDaNick/aaanjaw.jpg)

Here's a clearer view of AA's features matched with the same AN pic

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v152/WuvDaNick/aaanfront.jpg)

I'm not getting any comparison here at all

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v152/WuvDaNick/aaanheads.jpg)

Check out the very different noses in these slanted side views. The mouths are different, too, though in the posed pic on the right, AA appears to be once again slightly biting her thick lips to disguise them. Her chin is concealed by the boa.

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v152/WuvDaNick/aaannoses.jpg)

Profiles, again, I don't see a match, not even of the infamous ears. AA is on the right, her bulbous nose partially shadowed, but you can see it clearly in the one above. See again AN's nose and face from the side, not the same structure at all.

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v152/WuvDaNick/aaanside.jpg)

AN (left) and AA (right) Note the different lip, mouth, nose and chin shapes

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v152/WuvDaNick/anaa.jpg)

Now compare AA (left) with FS (right)

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v152/WuvDaNick/AAFS2.jpg)

For those who claim the FS pic  is 'retouched', compare unretouched FS (left) with retouched FS (right)

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v152/WuvDaNick/redo.jpg)

Here I have used the 'remove graininess' feature to smooth up the old FS pic, but I did nothing to the features themselves. The only thing I feel this proves us that it makes the chin shape clearer, and it it is an even better match for AA's.

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v152/WuvDaNick/fs2.jpg)

I will continue my report later, I have to go for now.

Title: Re: Without DNA
Post by: calebGmoney on January 07, 2006, 11:42:56 PM
Why is it that Annie can post whatever she feels but if someone disagrees with her and suggest that this woman was obviously Anastasia, their post is immediatly deleted. The purpose of a 'Survivors' forum is to do just that, discuss possible survivors of the Ekaterinburg massare which Anastasia might well have been. I could produce photos which show that Anna and Anastasia look very much alike, but they would be deleted so I will not even bother.
Title: Re: Without DNA
Post by: calebGmoney on January 07, 2006, 11:46:48 PM
Quote
Now for a break from my diatribes (which I will continue) here is the photographic evidence. If you look closely you can see the differences in the shape of the chin, jaw, lips, mouth, end of the nose, and even the famouse eyes and ears.

While supporters go out of their way to show you pics of AA posed in the most AN ways, biting her lip to hide the obvious size difference and mocking the famous AN expression. In these pics, the true differences emerge.

Note chin shape, jawline and facial features (AA on left, AN right)

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v152/WuvDaNick/aaanjaw.jpg)

Here's a clearer view of AA's features matched with the same AN pic

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v152/WuvDaNick/aaanfront.jpg)

I'm not getting any comparison here at all

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v152/WuvDaNick/aaanheads.jpg)

Check out the very different noses in these slanted side views. The mouths are different, too, though in the posed pic on the right, AA appears to be once again slightly biting her thick lips to disguise them. Her chin is concealed by the boa.

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v152/WuvDaNick/aaannoses.jpg)

Profiles, again, I don't see a match, not even of the infamous ears. AA is on the right, her bulbous nose partially shadowed, but you can see it clearly in the one above. See again AN's nose and face from the side, not the same structure at all.

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v152/WuvDaNick/aaanside.jpg)

AN (left) and AA (right) Note the different lip, mouth, nose and chin shapes

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v152/WuvDaNick/anaa.jpg)

Now compare AA (left) with FS (right)

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v152/WuvDaNick/AAFS2.jpg)

For those who claim the FS pic  is 'retouched', compare unretouched FS (left) with retouched FS (right)

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v152/WuvDaNick/redo.jpg)

Here I have used the 'remove graininess' feature to smooth up the old FS pic, but I did nothing to the features themselves. The only thing I feel this proves us that it makes the chin shape clearer, and it it is an even better match for AA's.

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v152/WuvDaNick/fs2.jpg)

I will continue my report later, I have to go for now.


i also must state that the Anna Virboya statement is clearly unfounded. Tatiana Botkin explained that.

And I don't think it is fair to include formal photos of Grand Duchess Anastasia as formal photos are touched up intentionally. It is also important to remember that there are no untouched photos of Franziska.
Title: Re: Without DNA
Post by: calebGmoney on January 07, 2006, 11:48:37 PM
Annie, I don't know how you don't see similarity here at all.
(http:// http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v152/WuvDaNick/aaanheads.jpg)
There's also a noteable similarity here as well
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v152/WuvDaNick/aaanside.jpg)
Title: Re: Without DNA
Post by: calebGmoney on January 07, 2006, 11:53:01 PM
Here are Anna's mug shots in their full form because the other one is kind of squished.
(http://www.geocities.com/anastasiagrandduchess/cap021.jpg)
Title: Re: Without DNA
Post by: marina on January 08, 2006, 07:51:13 AM
Quote
Here are Anna's mug shots in their full form because the other one is kind of squished.
(http://www.geocities.com/anastasiagrandduchess/cap021.jpg)



This photo has been taken in 1920, I think. But so 3 years after the last photo of Anastasia : she really changed quikcly but why not after what you suppose she lived ??? However, I find that getting old, AA  looked liked more Anastasia than when she was young.
 There is any truth in this story.
Title: Re: Without DNA
Post by: AGRBear on January 08, 2006, 11:14:28 AM
Annie started a thread which omited the DNA and of course,  the subject became heated and was locked down.  I suggest those who are interested read the thread:

http://hydrogen.pallasweb.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=anastasia;action=display;num=1101302518;start=0#0

Quote

...[in part]....
Reasons:


...2. Her story of escape by cart, travelling a distance of almost 3000 miles on muddy back roads with no food or medical care for someone so horribly injured just isn't realistic. I think when she  made up the story, she didn't realize just how far it was from Ekaterinburg to Bucharest. The trip would have taken over a year to make, including brutal Russian winters. It's absolutely ridiculous.
...



There is another thread about Anna Anderson's Story where the cart trip from Ekaterinburg to Budapest was mentioned.   Annie  claimed such a trip was impossible.  

http://hydrogen.pallasweb.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=anastasia;action=display;num=1108091391;start=0#0

Of course,  I beg to differ since I had many relatives who managed this kind of trip in and around 1918.  Yes,  I know, Louis Charles,  just because I know someone who made this trip, doesn't mean GD Anastasia did.  I agree.  However,  I have all kinds of letters, diaries of people who did accomplish this in and around 1918 by cart [with or without a horse], dog sled, walked, rode in a carriage....  to Budapest then went on the Germany then migr. to the USA and lived around me where I lived as a child.

Since we don't know what kind of injuries, if any, the GD Anastasia indured,  we can't know if she would have survived a trip from Ekaterinburg to Budapest.  However, you could realize the possibility that GD Anastasia could have survived, if you have ever read any stories about WWI and the kind of wounds suffered and how these men survived without medical treatment from doctors but from having common everyday people who cared and kept them alive under this most server conditions.   These people who never saw a doctor had their own way of fixing injuries.  Of course, some remedies worked and some ended up killing the wounded person.

There is a book EYEWITNESS IN TOBOLSK by Olga Belisle which tells the story of Hulda, nee Huebner, Schmidt and her family's journey to and from Siberia.  Unforuntately, the author set in some facts which we cannot separate from Hulda's actual story which causes some poster to reject the book.  However, her part of the story is true.  She did enter the house Ipatiev House and recieve a gift.  It was Yurovsky who helped them leave Ekaterinburg.

Hulda died before my adventure to discover her ever occured.

At this time,  her descendents live in Canada.

History is a collection of small unimportant to large important stories whch create the larger picture.

Quote

...[in part]...
Here is a photographs of people traveling during the WWI in Russia:

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v471/AGRBear/refugees2.jpg)


....As you can see by the photo there was no need for GD Anastasia to be hidden once the Tschaikovskys mingled with the masses.  Papers could be found on those who  died along the way or were stolen.  If that didn't work, money touched hands.

I believe she menioned a cart to Bucherest, Rumania but I don't recall her mentioning any sort of method of travel to Berlin.  I suspsect it was by train.

AGRBear


I did mention the Tschaikovsky's in my post and that was referring to AA's story.

If GD Anastasia was rescued,  you don't know who her rescuer/rescuers were but the same thing would have been true.  It was possible to travel this distance,  by cart, at that time of the year from Siberia to Budapest in 1918 to 1919.

AGRBear
Title: Re: Without DNA
Post by: AGRBear on January 08, 2006, 11:25:59 AM
The photos are  from WITH THE ARMIES OF THE TSAR, A NURSE AT THE RUSSIAN FRONT 1914-18 by Florence Farmbourough.

Here is another:

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v471/AGRBear/migrDeadHorse1.jpg)


Quote
#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: Without DNA
Post by: AGRBear on January 08, 2006, 12:08:07 PM
Odessa [red dot]
\
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v471/AGRBear/OmskOdessa7.jpg)


It is about 260 additional miles  from Odessa  (red dot) to Budapest.

AGRBear
Title: Re: Without DNA
Post by: Louis_Charles on January 08, 2006, 12:34:04 PM
Quote
Since we don't know what kind of injuries, if any, the GD Anastasia indured,  we can't know if she would have survived a trip from Ekaterinburg to Budapest.


Bear,

I'm not going to mention the irrelevancy of your family memories to this situation, since you did that for me (boy, are we full-service posters or WHAT?)   However, I was struck by this sentence. Are you suggesting that she wasn't injured in the basement? It flies in the face of Andersen's own testimony.

If your response is along the lines of "we don't know what happened", then I would respectfully suggest that there is absolutely nothing to be contributed that can withstand scrutiny.

Simon

Title: Re: Without DNA
Post by: AGRBear on January 08, 2006, 01:49:31 PM
Quote

Bear,

I'm not going to mention the irrelevancy of your family memories to this situation, since you did that for me (boy, are we full-service posters or WHAT?)   However, I was struck by this sentence. Are you suggesting that she wasn't injured in the basement? It flies in the face of Andersen's own testimony.

If your response is along the lines of "we don't know what happened", then I would respectfully suggest that there is absolutely nothing to be contributed that can withstand scrutiny.

Simon

 


Perhaps,  Anna Anderson, if we are to believe she was not GD Anastasia, like most posters here,  made the  wrong assumptions about GD Anstasia's injuries....

What was it that Mark Twain said about his own obit which he read and discovered some people thought he had died?  Something about his death having been greatly exagerated....


AGRBear



Title: Re: Without DNA
Post by: Annie on January 08, 2006, 04:08:18 PM
Bear, for the umpteenth time, I will say the same thing I do whenever you post those pictures. I am not doubting it was possible to make it  3000 miles by cart! Hell, thousands of American pioneers made it from the east coast to Oregon territory by covered wagon.

What I'm saying is, it is impossible for someone who was allegedly gravely injured, bleeding profusely, infection likely, with no medical care, no food, no supplies, no shelter (armies and pioneer familes either have or can find all of those things, not a fleeing Grand Duchess having to hide from everyone!) over several months, poor conditions and all kinds of weather and still survive. Yes, it is ridiculous. There is no reason to retrace the route taken by AA and the ficticious Alex T. since it never happened.

I am not even going to bother to answer Caleb's posts, since I am not chasing my tail, I have already answered them all in my previous commentary.

I was going to continue this thread with more reasons and commentary and evidence, but now I'm not going to bother. It's a waste of time, it falls on deaf ears, blind eyes, heads so full of either cotton wool or the clouds of fantasyland the truth will never be seen. Add me to a long list of sensible, helpful posters who are not going to waste their time as long as wild fiction is alllowed to run free to mislead those using this site for real information.
Title: Re: Without DNA
Post by: Grand_Duke_Paul on January 08, 2006, 04:28:45 PM
Quote
No.

Reasons:
Quote
1. Her picture looks much more like Fransizka Schanskowska than Anastasia. She looked too old to be Anastasia, and had different bone structure, chin shape, lips, and nose.


All a matter of opinion, I am sure we can produce people who say it does & doesn't look like her.  It just depends on what the viewer sees.  Also I am sure that anthropological experts could have an opinion either way.

Quote
2. Her story of escape by cart, travelling a distance of almost 3000 miles on muddy back roads with no food or medical care for someone so horribly injured just isn't realistic. I think when she  made up the story, she didn't realize just how far it was from Ekaterinburg to Bucharest. The trip would have taken over a year to make, including brutal Russian winters. It's absolutely ridiculous.

Also, her alleged rescuer, Alexander Tchiakovsky, has never been found or even proven to have ever existed. His name sounds made up, like Jan Brady's 'George Glass' boyfriend. Seems like when asked to come up with a name, Alexander, the most popular Russian name came to mind, and, come on now, what about a last name, oh yes, that famous Russian composer Tchiakovsky!


I don't think she is Anastasia, so I think this part the story isn't true, too easy too see through.

Quote
3. She really didn't 'remember' all that much stuff, and of what she did, a lot of it was wrong, like the details of the inside of the palace. This makes me think whoever was telling her the answers had only brief or limited access to the palace, and remembered it wrong. She also got the finger story wrong, it was Marie, not Anastasia. Again, it seems her source of info heard or remembered wrong. There is NOTHING she 'remembered' that cannot be explained away as being told to her, either intentionally or incidently in conversation, by someone who had known the IF. Europe was full of Russian refugees and emigres' at that time, the chances she met and talked to them are very high. Whether or not these people intentionally fed her info as part of a plot to help her claim a fortune, or were innocently talking we will never know. If they were doing it on purpose, they certainly aren't going to tell anyone, or leave any 'proof' lying around.

You can't even rule out that this 'man with the pockets' hadn't told her the story before, or that he wasn't perhaps helping her in hopes of a cut of the fortune should it materialize. Her biggest supporter, Gleb Botkin, had contact with the family, had been to the palaces and was with them until they were taken to Ekaterinburg. He would have known some thing to tell her. Realistically, her claim never took off until she met him. He was a journalist in NYC, and what a fascinating story this was! Interesting that she never really hit the courtroom, or the international press on any large scale, until after she took up with him. While many supporters bash family members for lying for money, it is inconceivable to me they can't see the other side, that it is very likely it was her supporters who did this!

Another factor, who verified her 'memories' as right or wrong? The family was very private, and they were all dead. So who was it who said she 'knew things no one else could have known?' How could this even be checked up on?


This is all subjective, meaning your opinion.  While Bear's family stories have no place here, neither does anything but fact.  She did know information, and when you prove HOW she was fed that information beyond a shadow of a doubt through visitors logs at the hospitals and sanitarioum's, just not through the Russian Emigre's that were inhabiting Berlin, then my mind would be more open to your version of events, however this is something that you slough off to chance, which I cannot.


Quote
4. Recogntions- Olga A. and Gilliard may have been emotional and hopeful at first, but I don't consider their comments to be open acceptance of AA. They sound more like heartbroken people struggling with what they want vs. what is real. I know Olga wanted AN to be alive, but it wasn't her. Initial, emotional, hopeful reactions are common, like I told you about my friend whose dog was lost, and she was so happy to find one like him she took the wrong one home, only to realize later after closer inspection that it wasn't him after all.

There are those who claim that Olga did it for money. WHAT money?? Olga was the black sheep of the family with the 'wrong' marriage. She was never benefit of much family money, living on an old dirt farm, dressing like a common washerwoman (there are pics) and dying in a one room apartment over a barber shop in Canada. Some rich, lavish lifestyle as her payoff for denying AN, suuurre! For those of you who still think she's 'greedy', think about this: the family didn't think much of her and didn't give her  much, but if she could have claimed and accepted a real Anastasia, she could have gotten Anastasia to fight for the money, and then they'd both share it! She'd have been much better off doing this, but she couldn't, you see, because AA wasn't really Anastasia, and she knew it.  


Here is another place where I think you are taking too much on assumption.  If you cross out the earlier statements of support & state that they were emotional then the later statements of denial bear the same scrutiny and standard.  While I don't believe she was Anastasia, I am of the opinion that when the first met her they (meaning Olga & Gillard DID), that is important.
As far as money goes well, there is enough motive to go around in the Romanov family, while Olga might not have financial motivations, none the less she succumbed to the pressure put up on her by others.

Quote
I feel very sorry for Olga, she loved her niece and was close to them all, yet had to endure the torture of claimants pestering her all her life. As for Ernie, he is so often villianized as being against AA for saying he went to Russia in 1916.  

But consider this.
1. There is NO PROOF this trip ever took place.
2. The goverment and monarch had fallen, he could not possibly have lost more than he already had even if it were true, and since Alix was his sister, it was not like it would have been a spy mission but a family one. Either way, it didn't happen.
3. Ernie is hated by AA supporters for hiring the PI to find FS's true identity, and it turns out he was right. Ernie was heartbroken over losing his nieces, nephew and 2 sisters to the revolution, and imposters only brought that pain back up. He wanted them to shut up and go away, because it was wrong they were using his family's horrible tragedy to try to get fame and money. Isn't that how you'd feel?
4. Ernie died before the trial even started, so I don't know how he can be blamed for rigging it. Ernie's family died in a plane crash in 1937, the year before the trial started. If you want conspiracy theories, you can surmise that the AA supporters sabotaged the plane! See, this stuff can go both ways!


I understand Greg's book on Ernie will address this trip, and there is proof on either side.  While it is not besmirching his character to say that he made the trip in an offer of peace through Germany, it is more besmirching his character to think that he would have denied her for her supposed knowledge of this.  There is enough proof to make the supposed visit a possibility in my opinion.  Can't be ruled out completely.

Quote
I can sit here all day and pick apart the inconsistencies in the others who recognized her, but I'll need a lot more room.

I will finish my report in another post.


I can pick apart the inconsistencies in your arguments also, it does work both ways.  Let's remember that in this thread it is without DNA, so we are dealing with the case on an entirely circumstantial evidence, available at the time.
Title: Re: Without DNA
Post by: Annie on January 08, 2006, 04:36:56 PM
I am only giving reasonable explainations of what likely occured but can never be proven because no records are made of such things. They all make perfect sense considering AA was not AN, there has to be reasons for it all.

Once again, I fail to understand posters who announce they don't think AA was AN, yet every post they make fights for her case tooth and nail.

I have said what I think, I stand behind it all, but I'm not going to bother to add more.
Title: Re: Without DNA
Post by: catt.sydney on January 08, 2006, 05:45:39 PM
Regarding the much contested photographs.... :-/
     I must say simply that they are all photos of bipedal mammals - more exactly- of humans - caucasian females from within the last 100 years...beyond that, well  -- I look more like Anastasia Nicholevna than does Miss Unknown!

Title: Re: Without DNA
Post by: Georgiy on January 08, 2006, 05:48:50 PM
Even without DNA I don't think I'd have believed. Even when I was younger and thought "Wouldn't it be nice if someone had survived...." I never thought AA looked much like Anastasia. Knowing more these days than back then about the IF makes me even more certain that AA was an imposter. She didn't even cross herself correctly - as I've pointed out elsewhere, this is an automatic gesture, one which you have been doing all your life - it would be very difficult to change from crossing in an Orthodox fashion to a Catholic fashion. (The same with Margda Boodts - her story shows she is very well aquainted with the Catholic faith, but not with Orthodoxy.)

Annie, just a little quibble - Anastasia couldn't have had an icon of Rasputin as he is not a Saint - maybe she had a photo of him or a painting, but not an icon.
Title: Re: Without DNA
Post by: Louis_Charles on January 08, 2006, 05:49:56 PM
Quote

All a matter of opinion, I am sure we can produce people who say it does & doesn't look like her.  It just depends on what the viewer sees.  Also I am sure that anthropological experts could have an opinion either way.


I don't think she is Anastasia, so I think this part the story isn't true, too easy too see through.


I'm curious. Why don't you think she was Anastasia? There are coherent reasons for thinking she was Franziska Schanzkowska. But if she wasn't, why don't you think she was Anastasia? And if you don't think she was, how do you explain your theory that Olga and Gilliard recognized her in Berlin? So much of what people who believe her claim use is evidence such as graphology, physical resemblance --- which I don't see, but obviously they do --- and other circumstantial evidence. They accept testimonies such as Dassel's "Man with the pockets" and similar things that "only" the real Anastasia could have known. So if she wasn't Schanzkowska, why don't you think she was Anastasia?


Quote
This is all subjective, meaning your opinion. While Bear's family stories have no place here, neither does anything but fact.  She did know information, and when you prove HOW she was fed that information beyond a shadow of a doubt through visitors logs at the hospitals and sanitarioum's, just not through the Russian Emigre's that were inhabiting Berlin, then my mind would be more open to your version of events, however this is something that you slough off to chance, which I cannot.


The only "fact" currently in evidence is the DNA. FA and several others have demostrated that it cannot be impeached. The mathematical certainty that she was Franziska is extremely high (cf. the postings of P_Wadia). Everything else seems to be open to argument. I mean, this isn't a case of you say tomato, I say tomahto. You can look at a picture of Andersen and see Anastasia. I look at it and see as much resemblance to an Edsel.



Quote
Here is another place where I think you are taking too much on assumption.  If you cross out the earlier statements of support & state that they were emotional then the later statements of denial bear the same scrutiny and standard.  While I don't believe she was Anastasia, I am of the opinion that when the first met her they (meaning Olga & Gillard DID), that is important.
As far as money goes well, there is enough motive to go around in the Romanov family, while Olga might not have financial motivations, none the less she succumbed to the pressure put up on her by others.


I'm sorry. Is there any evidence that Olga "succumbed" to the pressure put upon her by others? Are we allowed to state that Lili Dehn "succumbed" to pressure put upon her by Andersen's supporters when she recognized her? This is the kind of statement that gets tossed into the ring a bit too easily. And in fact, the later statements of denial would have allowed time for deliberation, so the argument that they must also be treated as "emotional" is shaky.


Quote
I understand Greg's book on Ernie will address this trip, and there is proof on either side.  While it is not besmirching his character to say that he made the trip in an offer of peace through Germany, it is more besmirching his character to think that he would have denied her for her supposed knowledge of this. There is enough proof to make the supposed visit a possibility in my opinion.  Can't be ruled out completely.


I can pick apart the inconsistencies in your arguments also, it does work both ways.  Let's remember that in this thread it is without DNA, so we are dealing with the case on an entirely circumstantial evidence, available at the time.


If the trip's proof exists, it was ignored by every biographer of Wilhelm II, and I have yet to uncover a reference to this trip in any standard history of WW2 (and by standard, I mean ones that have been accessible through an academic library). When I have mentioned this to Bear, she dismisses it because she can think of no reason Dmitri Gallitzine, who testified to the trip forty years later, might have lied. Of course, she also admits that she knows nothing of the character of Gallitzine, but nevertheless, his word is good enough to make the trip probable.

I bring this up because I think Annie's post addresses an interesting issue. If you (and by you I don't just mean you, GD Paul, but anyone who posts this opinion)  don't think she was Anastasia, why do you insist that the circumstantial evidence is so strong? In fact, why do you invent circumstantial evidence? (Bear, I'm looking at you.) You postulate a trip that "could" have taken place as though it did take place, when we have no evidence other than Andersen's testimony that it did so. You know. Andersen. Who wasn't actually a wounded Grand Duchess in the back of a cart, if she wasn't Anastasia.

Regards,

Simon


Title: Re: Without DNA
Post by: catt.sydney on January 08, 2006, 05:51:28 PM
Quote
Why is it that Annie can post whatever she feels but if someone disagrees with her and suggest that this woman was obviously Anastasia, their post is immediatly deleted. The purpose of a 'Survivors' forum is to do just that, discuss possible survivors of the Ekaterinburg massare which Anastasia might well have been. I could produce photos which show that Anna and Anastasia look very much alike, but they would be deleted so I will not even bother.


Don't be so childish! ...The ONLY WAY that a photo would be 'deleated' would be if it were obscene or if YOU or the FA deleated it...If you have them (and they haven't ALREADY been posted) post them.

If you will not post them - then don't tease us- and please be civil.
Title: Re: Without DNA
Post by: calebGmoney on January 08, 2006, 05:54:48 PM
As for the cart story, Anastasia was supposedly taken to a house across the street and then picked up by a guard later after her wounds were treated (according to the tailer in the house across the street).
Title: Re: Without DNA
Post by: calebGmoney on January 08, 2006, 06:01:26 PM
Quote
(http://www.geocities.com/anastasiagrandduchess/cap021.jpg)

This photo has been taken in 1920, I think. But so 3 years after the last photo of Anastasia : she really changed quikcly but why not after what you suppose she lived ??? However, I find that getting old, AA  looked liked more Anastasia than when she was young.
  There is any truth in this story.
It was actually a year and a half after the massacre. And here is one of the last photos in Tobolsk. I see a great likeness.
(http://www.geocities.com/anastasiagrandduchess/lastpicofana.jpg)
(http://www.geocities.com/anastasiagrandduchess/anastasi.JPG)
(http:// http://www.geocities.com/anastasia_grandduchess//photo/cap007.JPG)
(http://www.geocities.com/anastasia_grandduchess//photo/cap024.JPG)
(http://www.geocities.com/anastasia_grandduchess/photo/cap001.JPG)
Title: Re: Without DNA
Post by: catt.sydney on January 08, 2006, 06:02:57 PM
Quote
As for the cart story, Anastasia was supposedly taken to a house across the street and then picked up by a guard later after her wounds were treated (according to the tailer in the house across the street).


WHAT tailor?
His name, please?
Sources?
Did HE treat the wounds?

Regarding your new photos -thank you - but, I still see no significant similarity.
Title: Re: Without DNA
Post by: Louis_Charles on January 08, 2006, 06:03:09 PM

You see a resemblance?

See, here's the deal, Caleb.

I don't.

Now what?

People have been disputing the resemblance since the early 1920s.


Regards,

Simon

Title: Re: Without DNA
Post by: calebGmoney on January 08, 2006, 06:03:56 PM
Quote
Wow Annie....You always give the most,clearest detail....U ROCK... 8)

I don't agree. Her explanation for everything is "someone told her".
Title: Re: Without DNA
Post by: Louis_Charles on January 08, 2006, 06:06:17 PM
Caleb,

Please don't do this. There has been an effort made to avoid these kind of personal attacks. Posts made by several people, including Annie, have been deleted.

Regards,

Simon
Title: Re: Without DNA
Post by: catt.sydney on January 08, 2006, 06:07:45 PM
Quote


WHAT tailor?
His name, please?
Sources?
Did HE treat the wounds?

Regarding your new photos -thank you - but, I still see no significant similarity.

Caleb
Annie will site sources...
Now sir - please tell me about the "magical tailor"  ;)  that you mentioned?
Title: Re: Without DNA
Post by: calebGmoney on January 08, 2006, 06:16:59 PM
Quote


WHAT tailor?
His name, please?
Sources?
Did HE treat the wounds?

Regarding your new photos -thank you - but, I still see no significant similarity.

This is what worries me. None of you seem to be very well-read on Anna Anderson yet you're dismissing her.
Anastasia: The Riddle of Anna Anderson p. 338
During the trials:
Tailer from Vienna. He had documents to prove he was from Vienna and that he lived across the street and had been in the ekaterinburg house to repair solider's uniforms. He heard gunshots on July 16/17 and went out. When he returned he noticed his roomate, Frau Annouchka running up and down the stairs and boiling water. She told him she was making tea and he could not go into his room. Finally, she confided that Grand Duchess Anastasia was in his room. When he went into the room, he recognized her as one of the women in the Ipatiev House. "The lower part of her body was covered with blood, her eyes were shut and she was as pale as a sheet. We washed her chin and she groaned. The bones must have been broken." She stayed there for three days. The third day, a Red guard came and got her with another man with him. It was the same men who had brought her.
Title: Re: Without DNA
Post by: calebGmoney on January 08, 2006, 06:18:42 PM
Quote
Caleb,

Please don't do this. There has been an effort made to avoid these kind of personal attacks. Posts made by several people, including Annie, have been deleted.

Regards,

Simon
That is NOT a personal attack. I just can't accept that Russian emigres knew every little thing to impress every single person and convince them of her authenticity when they came to interview her.
Title: Re: Without DNA
Post by: Louis_Charles on January 08, 2006, 06:23:26 PM
Caleb,

You may be interested to know that there are people that swore Anastasia was in Perm several weeks after the shootings. They offered testimony that was collected in Summers and Mangold's The File on the Tsar.

People can say anything they want. It has to be demonstrated to have objective reality before it becomes believable.

I actually got to meet Mrs. Manahan when I was a student at the University of Virginia in 1971. She looked at me and said, "It's all a big foolsky, I am really Franziska. But don't tell anybody."

Actually, she looked at me and said, "Go away." And I did.

But cut it out with the "you people don't know anything about Anna Andersen." If you are 16, it's impertinent. If you are 36, it's impertinent.

Simon
Title: Re: Without DNA
Post by: calebGmoney on January 08, 2006, 06:34:14 PM
Quote
Caleb,

You may be interested to know that there are people that swore Anastasia was in Perm several weeks after the shootings. They offered testimony that was collected in Summers and Mangold's The File on the Tsar.

People can say anything they want. It has to be demonstrated to have objective reality before it becomes believable.

I actually got to meet Mrs. Manahan when I was a student at the University of Virginia in 1971. She looked at me and said, "It's all a big foolsky, I am really Franziska. But don't tell anybody."

Actually, she looked at me and said, "Go away." And I did.

But cut it out with the "you people don't know anything about Anna Andersen." If you are 16, it's impertinent. If you are 36, it's impertinent.

Simon
No, but the whole "show me your magical tailer" was not necessary, and was implying that I made it up. I never said the tailer was telling the truth, but if it was true, then it would explain how she made it to Bucharest in the cart.
Title: Re: Without DNA
Post by: Grand_Duke_Paul on January 08, 2006, 07:16:57 PM
Quote

I'm curious. Why don't you think she was Anastasia? There are coherent reasons for thinking she was Franziska Schanzkowska. But if she wasn't, why don't you think she was Anastasia? And if you don't think she was, how do you explain your theory that Olga and Gilliard recognized her in Berlin? So much of what people who believe her claim use is evidence such as graphology, physical resemblance --- which I don't see, but obviously they do --- and other circumstantial evidence. They accept testimonies such as Dassel's "Man with the pockets" and similar things that "only" the real Anastasia could have known. So if she wasn't Schanzkowska, why don't you think she was Anastasia?



The only "fact" currently in evidence is the DNA. FA and several others have demostrated that it cannot be impeached. The mathematical certainty that she was Franziska is extremely high (cf. the postings of P_Wadia). Everything else seems to be open to argument. I mean, this isn't a case of you say tomato, I say tomahto. You can look at a picture of Andersen and see Anastasia. I look at it and see as much resemblance to an Edsel.




I'm sorry. Is there any evidence that Olga "succumbed" to the pressure put upon her by others? Are we allowed to state that Lili Dehn "succumbed" to pressure put upon her by Andersen's supporters when she recognized her? This is the kind of statement that gets tossed into the ring a bit too easily. And in fact, the later statements of denial would have allowed time for deliberation, so the argument that they must also be treated as "emotional" is shaky.



If the trip's proof exists, it was ignored by every biographer of Wilhelm II, and I have yet to uncover a reference to this trip in any standard history of WW2 (and by standard, I mean ones that have been accessible through an academic library). When I have mentioned this to Bear, she dismisses it because she can think of no reason Dmitri Gallitzine, who testified to the trip forty years later, might have lied. Of course, she also admits that she knows nothing of the character of Gallitzine, but nevertheless, his word is good enough to make the trip probable.

I bring this up because I think Annie's post addresses an interesting issue. If you (and by you I don't just mean you, GD Paul, but anyone who posts this opinion)  don't think she was Anastasia, why do you insist that the circumstantial evidence is so strong? In fact, why do you invent circumstantial evidence? (Bear, I'm looking at you.) You postulate a trip that "could" have taken place as though it did take place, when we have no evidence other than Andersen's testimony that it did so. You know. Andersen. Who wasn't actually a wounded Grand Duchess in the back of a cart, if she wasn't Anastasia.

Regards,

Simon




I will answer this post with one line, the thread is about
"WITHOUT DNA".   I have been reading some old posts Louis Charles and it seems to me that all the others have done is trumpet the DNA factor until you believe it is the entirety of the case.

As to Olga succumbing to pressure, come on now, she makes that statement to Zahle, and then goes home to Hvidore, to the pressure of her mother and sister? Come now you are much more sensible than that.  What seems curious to me is that you are willing to throw out all of the first statements made, as they were under emotion or pressure, yet she obviously comes home to a place where great pressure was put on her not to make the trip, and makes this unsatisfactory statement which must have been reported back to Prince Waldemar under whose auspeicies Zahle took up the case, and you don't think pressure was put upon her to change her mind??   This entire case was emotional so then if we disregard the statements made at the beginning we can put the same test on the ones made after the visit, and come to the same conclusion.
This case Louis Charles is fraught with emotion from beginning to end by all of it's participants, look at Olga & Gilliard's testimony just to prove a point.

I am also not stating she did not change her mind after much deliberation when returning home and pressure was put upon her.  I know what comes out of the woodwork around here if Olga or Ernie are "insulted".
I tend to look at them as human beings capable of anything, just like anyone else.  While I think Olga a bit more earthy than others, she made the statement to Zahle all the same and I think it should stand for consideration.

I don't insist that the circumstantial evidence is "that strong" as you imply, I merely state that it shouldn't be thrown out like the preverbial baby with the bath water just to back a certain opinion.  

I mean no disrespect to the FA or others, but retesting if the material was available can only prove your point even stronger, and , it seems that there are no actual DNA experts on this forum, so I will ask around and get my own answers to satisfy myself.

Wilhelm's daughter the Duchess of Brunswick and the Crown Princess Cecile both speak of knowing or hearing of the trip.  I haven't read a DECENT biography on Wilhelm with great details, unlike Hannah Pakula's on his mother.  So when I do I will make my decision from my own investigation.  I know little of Galitizine other than from my own reading.    

Title: Re: Without DNA
Post by: Grand_Duke_Paul on January 08, 2006, 07:19:19 PM
Quote
That is NOT a personal attack. I just can't accept that Russian emigres knew every little thing to impress every single person and convince them of her authenticity when they came to interview her.


You know considering their mother, the nerve wracked and mentally overwrought empress kept them isolated and insulated from the court & courtiers as much as possible, it seems that an awful lot of people were making their way into Dalldorf & Mommsen without being noticed or commented on, to feed Anderson, all of this supposed information.
Title: Re: Without DNA
Post by: calebGmoney on January 08, 2006, 07:40:25 PM
Olga did indeed state that "her heart tells her it is she". And said other things to Rathlef which I won't mention because everyone will just say that she never said it. However, Olga obviously did think this was her niece, or atleast was leaning that way. However, when she changed her mind, it happened instantly.
Title: Re: Without DNA
Post by: Louis_Charles on January 08, 2006, 08:20:32 PM
Quote

I will answer this post with one line, the thread is about
"WITHOUT DNA".   I have been reading some old posts Louis Charles and it seems to me that all the others have done is trumpet the DNA factor until you believe it is the entirety of the case.

As to Olga succumbing to pressure, come on now, she makes that statement to Zahle, and then goes home to Hvidore, to the pressure of her mother and sister? Come now you are much more sensible than that.  What seems curious to me is that you are willing to throw out all of the first statements made, as they were under emotion or pressure, yet she obviously comes home to a place where great pressure was put on her not to make the trip, and makes this unsatisfactory statement which must have been reported back to Prince Waldemar under whose auspeicies Zahle took up the case, and you don't think pressure was put upon her to change her mind??   This entire case was emotional so then if we disregard the statements made at the beginning we can put the same test on the ones made after the visit, and come to the same conclusion.
This case Louis Charles is fraught with emotion from beginning to end by all of it's participants, look at Olga & Gilliard's testimony just to prove a point.

I am also not stating she did not change her mind after much deliberation when returning home and pressure was put upon her.  I know what comes out of the woodwork around here if Olga or Ernie are "insulted".
I tend to look at them as human beings capable of anything, just like anyone else.  While I think Olga a bit more earthy than others, she made the statement to Zahle all the same and I think it should stand for consideration.

I don't insist that the circumstantial evidence is "that strong" as you imply, I merely state that it shouldn't be thrown out like the preverbial baby with the bath water just to back a certain opinion.  

I mean no disrespect to the FA or others, but retesting if the material was available can only prove your point even stronger, and , it seems that there are no actual DNA experts on this forum, so I will ask around and get my own answers to satisfy myself.

Wilhelm's daughter the Duchess of Brunswick and the Crown Princess Cecile both speak of knowing or hearing of the trip.  I haven't read a DECENT biography on Wilhelm with great details, unlike Hannah Pakula's on his mother.  So when I do I will make my decision from my own investigation.  I know little of Galitizine other than from my own reading.    




Dear GD Paul,

Well, thanks for the tribute to my good sense, but . . . Olga's quote to Zahle is not my idea of a ringing endorsement, since it contains opposing points of view ("my reason says no, my heart says yes"); of course I agree that Olga was at least uncertain during the visit, but before I accept that she "succumbed to pressure", I would want to see some kind of evidence. Otherwise, there we are: Lili Dehn "succumbed" to pressure when she recognized her, Dmitri Gallitzine "succumbed" to pressure from Dominique Aucleres when he supported Andersen's claim that Ernst had visited Russia in 1916, etc. ad nauseam. One might argue that Olga wasn't susceptible to familial pressure on the basis of her marriage to Kulikovsky, and the fact that she went to Berlin at all.

I am still interested in an answer to the question that was really the centerpiece of my post, though. Why don't those of you who argue the strength of the circumstantial evidence think that Andersen was Anastasia? I introduced the DNA testing not to "trumpet" it, but to underline the empirical nature of it. The test was repeated four times. But without DNA, you seem to accept that she knew things that only the real girl could have done. Several people see resemblances between the two women.

So why don't you think she was Anastasia?

This may be the post that confers divinity upon me, by the way. If so, I would like it to be celebrated by immediate agreement with all of my positions, and a large dollop of burning incense. Bless you, my people.

Regards,

Simon

YABBC God!
Title: Re: Without DNA
Post by: Louis_Charles on January 08, 2006, 08:21:17 PM
Okay, apparently not. Hold the incense and return to your disagreements with the above positions.
Title: Re: Without DNA
Post by: Louis_Charles on January 08, 2006, 08:21:53 PM
Quote
Okay, apparently not. Hold the incense and return to your disagreements with the above positions.



Cancel that. Start readying the burning coals!
Title: Re: Without DNA
Post by: Annie on January 08, 2006, 08:58:35 PM
Quote

So why don't you think she was Anastasia?

This may be the post that confers divinity upon me, by the way. If so, I would like it to be celebrated by immediate agreement with all of my positions, and a large dollop of burning incense. Bless you, my people.

Regards,

Simon

YABBC God!


Congrats on making "God!"

Your Divine Grace,

Your question is genius, and you worded it so tactfully.

It is the same thing that perplexes me, but my big mouth and untactful nature do not allow me to put it subtly.

I will say it outright. I think most of the people who claim not to believe AA was AN yet continue to post over and over again things that make it sound as if they do, well, really do.

Why won't they admit it? Even an AA supporter here said they are 'hypocrites' for not admitting it. My theory is that they somehow feel that by admitting they believe it somehow decreases their credibility and sets them up for ridicule, and they feel their posts and their opinions are somehow strengthened by being 'neutral'. My analysis is that it is their position to pretend to come in from a completely "I don't care BUT" attitude to try to give naysayers something to think about from an average person's POV. Unfortunately, it is blatantly apparent they are not really neutral and all their posts' content give them away time and time again.

You can read all through these peoples' posts and see they think Olga and Ernie were liars. I ask you, why would they lie about a FAKE Anastasia? Only a real one could be any threat. So by claiming these people were liars, it shows they must really believe she must have been AN! Then there is the sticking up for the photos, and justifying the cart journey, etc. Some posters go to such great lengths to take up for AA, her story, her supporters, while at the same time villanizing those who don't support her, from Olga A. and Ernie right down to me and Helen A. If they don't believe it, WHY??!! Logic shows me they do. They can say over and over they don't, but when all their posts are in favor of AA and her supporters, and totally, even militantly against, those who oppose her, it becomes as plain as the bulbous nose on AA's face. Actions speak louder than words. If they were truly looking for 'the truth' 'enjoying the journey' or even plain old impartial, WHY do they only fight in favor of ONE side?? I may get bashed for this, but I feel it is the true answer to your question (and of course no one is going to admit it)

Title: Re: Without DNA
Post by: Grand_Duke_Paul on January 08, 2006, 09:31:18 PM
Quote


Dear GD Paul,

Well, thanks for the tribute to my good sense, but . . . Olga's quote to Zahle is not my idea of a ringing endorsement, since it contains opposing points of view ("my reason says no, my heart says yes"); of course I agree that Olga was at least uncertain during the visit, but before I accept that she "succumbed to pressure", I would want to see some kind of evidence. Otherwise, there we are: Lili Dehn "succumbed" to pressure when she recognized her, Dmitri Gallitzine "succumbed" to pressure from Dominique Aucleres when he supported Andersen's claim that Ernst had visited Russia in 1916, etc. ad nauseam. One might argue that Olga wasn't susceptible to familial pressure on the basis of her marriage to Kulikovsky, and the fact that she went to Berlin at all.

I am still interested in an answer to the question that was really the centerpiece of my post, though. Why don't those of you who argue the strength of the circumstantial evidence think that Andersen was Anastasia? I introduced the DNA testing not to "trumpet" it, but to underline the empirical nature of it. The test was repeated four times. But without DNA, you seem to accept that she knew things that only the real girl could have done. Several people see resemblances between the two women.

So why don't you think she was Anastasia?

This may be the post that confers divinity upon me, by the way. If so, I would like it to be celebrated by immediate agreement with all of my positions, and a large dollop of burning incense. Bless you, my people.

Regards,

Simon

YABBC God!


I definitely think that ALL the evidence should be considered before making a decision.  Not just the empirical evidence of DNA.  I also think that to solve the arguing in this case the testing should be redone if the material is available, I am not saying at all that the previous results were not accurate, but I think that retesting would prove her not Anastasia.  

Why don't I think that she is Anastasia??? Well in all reality I don't think it is possible for anyone to have survived that massacre at the Ipatiev House.  That is my own opinion.  The best work on this subject is Greg & Penny's bar none. I read the sniping remarks, regarding their work, and I shake my head in disbelief.  The problem here Louis Charles is this no longer about discussing the identity of this claimant, it is personal with some of these people, it's like a religion with them, and if you don't believe their way you condemned, and this can go for both sides.  I fall somewhere in the middle of the discussion, my beliefs are from what Annie states they are, I am not trying to make excuses for Anna Anderson, nor am I convinced she Franzsiska, I have a great many questions that I want answered, and as I repeat all DNA does is close the door, it's not her identity I want solved, but the who what when where why and how.   I am interested in all sides of this case and am not here as a partisan but to discuss the issues.



While I understand your reluctance to include admittance of Olga's statement, and I will admit she was more independent that her siblings and quite a bit more down to earth, when she left those parting words to Zahle, were words of support, and I think that she probably did change her mind AFTER returning home, she had an elderly mother to defer to constantly, and I am sure pressure was brought to bear on her.  This doesn't mean she was incapable of independent thought, but this is more than just a change of mind in my opinion.  I just would like to know the chain of events that occured in the change of mind.  If she kept a diary (Olga) or journal, that would probably gain some insight into her struggle.  See I am not so intractable as others are on this subject.
Title: Re: Without DNA
Post by: Annie on January 09, 2006, 05:47:30 AM
Quote

  The problem here Louis Charles is this no longer about discussing the identity of this claimant, it is personal with some of these people, it's like a religion with them, and if you don't believe their way you condemned.


Exactly. Which is why you are always condemning me and singling me out by name, dating back to when you called yourself by anothner name and said all the same things you are saying now. It's not a 'religion' to me, but it seems to mean a great deal to you. IT means so much to you, or you wouldn't be here, making this stand.

As far as all the evidence being considered, it has. Over and over and OVER again. It's in the past and it's never going to change. So this is what you haven't explained, can you give us an answer now?

If you believe the DNA, how could the other things matter, unless you secretly must believe the DNA test was rigged? If you swear they are not rigged, why do you doubt their validity? How could any of the old hearsay, shoe stories or anything else possibly matter once the tests were in, and why does it still need to be considered? It was all contradictory on both sides, and science gave us our answer. If this does not satisfy you, you must not believe the DNA tests were accurate, and if you don't, you must still consider she may be AN. If you deny all of these things, then please, finally, explain how the 'other evidence being considered' means anything in the face of cold hard scientific reality?

Think of it like a criminal case. There are witnesses in a trial saying they saw Joe robbing a store. They pick him out of a lineup, they swear on a Bible, they sign an oath, it was Joe they saw! Then you also have witnesses who say they saw Bill do it, and they are just as certain they are right as the other side. All the evidence is considered, and there is ample cause to believe either man is guilty. But only one man did it, only one man was there, there can only be one answer. A DNA test is done on evidence found at the scene. It turns out that it matches Bill's DNA. That proves that everyone who said it was Joe was incorrect, or lying. We have our answer, all evidence was considered, some of it seemed convincing, yet it was proven wrong. The case is over, Joe goes home, Bill goes to jail. The case doesn't keep dragging on and on because Bill's supporters want 'all the evidence considered'. It was, but the final answer is in, and it's over.

I do want an answer to that, because I have never gotten one that truly explains this, or actually answers the one I made in response to Louis's.

This is called 'without DNA', yet it has once again gone the way of EVERY AA thread here. If I post again in this thread, it will be back on that subject, though I don't see the need since some folks' minds are made up anyway.

Title: Re: Without DNA
Post by: Grand_Duke_Paul on January 09, 2006, 07:49:55 AM
Quote

Exactly. Which is why you are always condemning me and singling me out by name, dating back to when you called yourself by anothner name and said all the same things you are saying now. It's not a 'religion' to me, but it seems to mean a great deal to you. IT means so much to you, or you wouldn't be here, making this stand.

As far as all the evidence being considered, it has. Over and over and OVER again. It's in the past and it's never going to change. So this is what you haven't explained, can you give us an answer now?

If you believe the DNA, how could the other things matter, unless you secretly must believe the DNA test was rigged? If you swear they are not rigged, why do you doubt their validity? How could any of the old hearsay, shoe stories or anything else possibly matter once the tests were in, and why does it still need to be considered? It was all contradictory on both sides, and science gave us our answer. If this does not satisfy you, you must not believe the DNA tests were accurate, and if you don't, you must still consider she may be AN. If you deny all of these things, then please, finally, explain how the 'other evidence being considered' means anything in the face of cold hard scientific reality?

Think of it like a criminal case. There are witnesses in a trial saying they saw Joe robbing a store. They pick him out of a lineup, they swear on a Bible, they sign an oath, it was Joe they saw! Then you also have witnesses who say they saw Bill do it, and they are just as certain they are right as the other side. All the evidence is considered, and there is ample cause to believe either man is guilty. But only one man did it, only one man was there, there can only be one answer. A DNA test is done on evidence found at the scene. It turns out that it matches Bill's DNA. That proves that everyone who said it was Joe was incorrect, or lying. We have our answer, all evidence was considered, some of it seemed convincing, yet it was proven wrong. The case is over, Joe goes home, Bill goes to jail. The case doesn't keep dragging on and on because Bill's supporters want 'all the evidence considered'. It was, but the final answer is in, and it's over.

I do want an answer to that, because I have never gotten one that truly explains this, or actually answers the one I made in response to Louis's.

This is called 'without DNA', yet it has once again gone the way of EVERY AA thread here. If I post again in this thread, it will be back on that subject, though I don't see the need since some folks' minds are made up anyway.



Who is condemning you? The post was not made to nor directed to you.   Now get OFF OF MY BACK.  I am getting really tired of this.

No one asked you to reconsider the evidence, I stated that I will make up my own mind when the evidence is in.  I would do the same on a jury without the use of DNA.  

This is much different than I simple ID test for a jail house situation in my opinion. So you definitely need to convince me by not using another silly analogy or a story regarding a horse.
Title: Re: Without DNA
Post by: Annie on January 09, 2006, 07:57:58 AM
Quote

Who is condemning you? The post was not made to nor directed to you.  Now get OFF OF MY BACK.


My name is mentioned in this post:

Quote

I definitely think that ALL the evidence should be considered before making a decision.  Not just the empirical evidence of DNA.  I also think that to solve the arguing in this case the testing should be redone if the material is available, I am not saying at all that the previous results were not accurate, but I think that retesting would prove her not Anastasia.  

Why don't I think that she is Anastasia??? Well in all reality I don't think it is possible for anyone to have survived that massacre at the Ipatiev House.  That is my own opinion.  The best work on this subject is Greg & Penny's bar none. I read the sniping remarks, regarding their work, and I shake my head in disbelief.  The problem here Louis Charles is this no longer about discussing the identity of this claimant, it is personal with some of these people, it's like a religion with them, and if you don't believe their way you condemned, and this can go for both sides.  I fall somewhere in the middle of the discussion, my beliefs are from what Annie states they are, I am not trying to make excuses for Anna Anderson, nor am I convinced she Franzsiska, I have a great many questions that I want answered, and as I repeat all DNA does is close the door, it's not her identity I want solved, but the who what when where why and how.   I am interested in all sides of this case and am not here as a partisan but to discuss the issues.



While I understand your reluctance to include admittance of Olga's statement, and I will admit she was more independent that her siblings and quite a bit more down to earth, when she left those parting words to Zahle, were words of support, and I think that she probably did change her mind AFTER returning home, she had an elderly mother to defer to constantly, and I am sure pressure was brought to bear on her.  This doesn't mean she was incapable of independent thought, but this is more than just a change of mind in my opinion.  I just would like to know the chain of events that occured in the change of mind.  If she kept a diary (Olga) or journal, that would probably gain some insight into her struggle.  See I am not so intractable as others are on this subject.


And I wasn't only referring to you, but others who share your statements. I am still wondering HOW a person can honestly believe and accept the DNA, not  think it was tampered with, not believe AA was AN, yet still quote and give value to things that make it seem AA was AN. Can you explain this? If your only answer is  'get off my back' I will assume there is no answer for it, and I am correct in my assumptions. If I am not, please explain why not.
Title: Re: Without DNA
Post by: Grand_Duke_Paul on January 09, 2006, 08:07:59 AM
Quote

My name is mentioned in this post:


And I wasn't only referring to you, but others who share your statements. I am still wondering HOW a person can honestly believe and accept the DNA, not  think it was tampered with, not believe AA was AN, yet still quote and give value to things that make it seem AA was AN. Can you explain this? If your only answer is  'get off my back' I will assume there is no answer for it, and I am correct in my assumptions. If I am not, please explain why not.


I said that my beliefs are different from what you state they are, and if anyone knows what I believe, I do, not you.  So there was nothing within the post personally directed to you or at you.  I also don't believe that there are others who share my statements.

Also, where did I state I believe that the DNA was tampered with?  I never have stated that.  I am sure that the protocols used by the Virginina hospital were within the industry standards.  Why do you continually state that I am within a group fighting for the identity of Anna Anderson as Anastasia, when I have said I am undecided?

I by no means believe in any fairy tale, but you can't accept the fact that someone believes any different than you, that your verison of the story is not the correct one, etc.  The issue is more complex for me than DNA.  I have a question for you, why continually use posts that contain disinformation about anothers beliefs or statements, when you claim to have DNA as your shining virtue?
Title: Re: Without DNA
Post by: Annie on January 09, 2006, 08:17:28 AM
Quote

I said that my beliefs are different from what you state they are, and if anyone knows what I believe, I do, not you.  So there was nothing within the post personally directed to you or at you.


Now can you please answer the question? If you believe the DNA and you don't think AA was AN, why do you still consider details in AA's case valid enough to count as evidence the same as DNA?

Title: Re: Without DNA
Post by: Grand_Duke_Paul on January 09, 2006, 08:29:09 AM
Quote

Now can you please answer the question? If you believe the DNA and you don't think AA was AN, why do you still consider details in AA's case valid enough to count as evidence the same as DNA?



Becuase the title of this thread is "WITHOUT DNA", and that is what am trying to do here.  

You have again twisted my words.  I have stated I don't believe Anastasia survived the massacre at Ekaterinburg.  That DNA aside I am witholding any judgement on the circumstantial evidence until I see a movement within or by any actual valid researchers or authors, not unqualified AP Board members,  to judge and or analyze the evidence that they have collected, once it is done and I read their opinions and evidence, and make a decision for myself, then I will be more than happy to announce it to you.
Title: Re: Without DNA
Post by: Forum Admin on January 09, 2006, 08:43:27 AM
You won't see much of a movement on the issue by any DNA researchers, pretty much every single one accepts the original testing as conclusive and to quote Dr. Teri Melton, who did one of the original four tests on the AA sample, when I contacted her and asked this very same question in 2004 replied and I quote from my notes "There is simply no reason to re test the samples. The test we did was accurate and reliable and nothing at all has changed since then other than the work we did by hand is now done by a machine. Period."

Further, and I repeat, the Gill study of the AA sample is cited in over 100 peer review journals as being the benchmark study and is considered not only reliable but the basis for all such work today. I encourage you to do a Google "Scholar" search to see for yourself...

Don't hold your breath for the scientists...Sorry that I am just some unqualified forum user...but thats from my own reasearch.
Title: Re: Without DNA
Post by: Grand_Duke_Paul on January 09, 2006, 12:22:50 PM
Quote
You won't see much of a movement on the issue by any DNA researchers, pretty much every single one accepts the original testing as conclusive and to quote Dr. Teri Melton, who did one of the original four tests on the AA sample, when I contacted her and asked this very same question in 2004 replied and I quote from my notes "There is simply no reason to re test the samples. The test we did was accurate and reliable and nothing at all has changed since then other than the work we did by hand is now done by a machine. Period."

Further, and I repeat, the Gill study of the AA sample is cited in over 100 peer review journals as being the benchmark study and is considered not only reliable but the basis for all such work today. I encourage you to do a Google "Scholar" search to see for yourself...

Don't hold your breath for the scientists...Sorry that I am just some unqualified forum user...but thats from my own reasearch.



F.A.

I wasn't trying to imply that you personally are unqualified, just the person I was replying to, who seems to make assumptions & statements without sources or facts to back them up.  I am in no a way a scientist myself, I assume we are all interested in history or we wouldn't be here.  We don't have access to the files, records, documents, dossiers, depositions, statements, police records etc., so how can we make a decision without out all of the evidence.

I will do a Google search as you suggest and let you know what results I find, is it ok to email you privately?

Nathan
Title: Re: Without DNA
Post by: Grand_Duke_Paul on January 09, 2006, 12:30:16 PM
Quote

Now can you please answer the question? If you believe the DNA and you don't think AA was AN, why do you still consider details in AA's case valid enough to count as evidence the same as DNA?



Annie,

It is because I want to know the entire story that I want to hear all of the evidence, once that is in then I can make up my own mind for myself on what I have heard.  

Don't you want to hear the entire story, not just what you think you know?  That is why "Fate Of The Romanovs" was such a gratifying read for me.  It answered questions I had long had.   I find knowing the entire story a much more complete rounded experience, then stopping at DNA, and letting the rest die.  Any good researcher or historian wouldn't stop with that.
Title: Re: Without DNA
Post by: Forum Admin on January 09, 2006, 01:34:31 PM
Nathan, sorry about the "experts" crack. I thought your posting was directed at a wider audience. Feel free to email me directly at any time you wish.


Rob
Title: Re: Without DNA
Post by: Annie on January 09, 2006, 01:37:40 PM
Quote

Annie,

It is because I want to know the entire story that I want to hear all of the evidence, once that is in then I can make up my own mind for myself on what I have heard.  

Don't you want to hear the entire story, not just what you think you know?  That is why "Fate Of The Romanovs" was such a gratifying read for me.  It answered questions I had long had.   I find knowing the entire story a much more complete rounded experience, then stopping at DNA, and letting the rest die.  Any good researcher or historian wouldn't stop with that.


I do feel we have researched the entire story. Nothing else matters now that the DNA has proven she wasn't Anastasia, like I said in my analogy about the 2 criminals. It no longer matters what Joe Blow said or what Mary Sue thinks, the answer has been proven.

You seem to tout "Fate of the Romanovs" very highly, then you should see by the description no one was able to escape!
Title: Re: Without DNA
Post by: AGRBear on January 09, 2006, 01:55:16 PM
Quote
...[in part]...
Bear, for the umpteenth time, I will say the same thing I do whenever you post those pictures. I am not doubting it was possible to make it  3000 miles by cart! Hell, thousands of American pioneers made it from the east coast to Oregon territory by covered wagon.


The trip from Ekaterinburg to Budapest  would have been about five months and several weeks.  And,  so,  it could have occured from the end of July to December.

AGRBear
Title: Re: Without DNA
Post by: AGRBear on January 09, 2006, 01:58:00 PM
Quote

..[in part]...

....Anastasia: The Riddle of Anna Anderson p. 338
During the trials:
Tailer from Vienna. He had documents to prove he was from Vienna and that he lived across the street and had been in the ekaterinburg house to repair solider's uniforms. He heard gunshots on July 16/17 and went out. When he returned he noticed his roomate, Frau Annouchka running up and down the stairs and boiling water. She told him she was making tea and he could not go into his room. Finally, she confided that Grand Duchess Anastasia was in his room. When he went into the room, he recognized her as one of the women in the Ipatiev House. "The lower part of her body was covered with blood, her eyes were shut and she was as pale as a sheet. We washed her chin and she groaned. The bones must have been broken." She stayed there for three days. The third day, a Red guard came and got her with another man with him. It was the same men who had brought her.


Quote

...[in part]....

You may be interested to know that there are people that swore Anastasia was in Perm several weeks after the shootings. They offered testimony that was collected in Summers and Mangold's The File on the Tsar.

People can say anything they want. It has to be demonstrated to have objective reality before it becomes believable.

....

Simon


Dr. Utkin was found and became a witness in AA's trial when he told his story about having treated a woman who said she was.

>>"I am the daughter of the ruler (gosudarya), Anastasia."<<

in Perm during the month of Sept. 1918.

p. 340 THE  FILE ON THE TSAR by Summers and Mangold.

Sokolov's book mentions Dr. Utkin.

If one chooses to omit some of the evidence,  that is your right.  

Splashing DNA on these old documents won't make them go away.

AGRBear

Title: Re: Without DNA
Post by: Louis_Charles on January 09, 2006, 02:18:37 PM
Thanks for the "splashing DNA" mental image.

I was attempting to point out to Caleb that there are a lot of conflicting testimonies about this matter, as you know. Some of them cancel each other out. She was either rattling along in the cart on the four month journey, or she was in Perm, or she was . . .

Testimonies, no matter how heartfelt, do not constiture incontrovertible evidence. Things like tests that can be duplicated in laboratories do.

Regards,

Simon
Title: Re: Without DNA
Post by: Annie on January 09, 2006, 02:49:48 PM
We estimated before the cart trip would have taken a year and a half. Remember that it snows brutally in Russia starting in Nov. or even Oct. All the roads would have been mud, or no road at all , they couldn't use whatever few improved roads were in that area at the time (gotta avoid those Bolshies y'know!) So consider the extreme slowness of this alleged cart, the terrain it would have to cross, including mountains. and the fact that a human, not a horse, was pulling it. (of course it didn't really happen, but still)
Title: Re: Without DNA
Post by: Annie on January 09, 2006, 03:17:14 PM
Bear, if you don't believe AA was AN, WHY are you fighting so hard to prove this cart trip? I ask you as well, if you believe the DNA and you dont' think she was AN, why do all your posts seem to lean that way?

Posted by Bear
Do you realize there were 500,000 Russians who fled Russia and went to Germany by 1918?

Why, yes, I am. That's a lot of people who could have told AA things about the IF ;)

The cart story is still really weak.
Title: Re: Without DNA
Post by: Forum Admin on January 09, 2006, 03:44:38 PM
Bear,
Ernst Ludwig was a regular visitor to the Alexander Palace and his face had been plastered all over the newspapers and magazines for years. EVERYONE in the Alexander Palace would have know exactly who he was, making it virtually IMPOSSIBLE for him to have entered under an assumed name. For pity's sake, his personal security service went with him to Darmstadt and were all well acquainted with him, not to mention many of the servants etc etc.
GET A GRIP AND GET  DOSE OF REALITY, you are asking us to prove something "didn't happen"...when the BURDEN is for YOU to show ANYTHING other than the 60 year old statement of one OLD MAN...decades after the fact...
Lord, my Uncle Charles keeps popping into my head for some reason...
Title: Re: Without DNA
Post by: AGRBear on January 09, 2006, 04:01:00 PM
Quote

...[in part]....
Bear, if you don't believe AA was AN, WHY are you fighting so hard to prove this cart trip? I ask you as well, if you believe the DNA and you dont' think she was AN, why do all your posts seem to lean that way?
...


Facts are facts and they just don't go away.  It does no one any good to say a cart trip wasn't possible when it was.

I have never made a statement saying I had proof GD Anastasia ever made such a trip.


AGRBear
Title: Re: Without DNA
Post by: Grand_Duke_Paul on January 09, 2006, 04:03:02 PM
Quote

I do feel we have researched the entire story. Nothing else matters now that the DNA has proven she wasn't Anastasia, like I said in my analogy about the 2 criminals. It no longer matters what Joe Blow said or what Mary Sue thinks, the answer has been proven.

You seem to tout "Fate of the Romanovs" very highly, then you should see by the description no one was able to escape!


Are you lacking in reading comprehension?  I clearly stated that I believe no one escape from the massacre at the Ipatiev House.

At this point I don't think you have actually researched anything.  Sources and verifiable documentation are lacking in your posts, clearly indicates you cannot provide proof of what you are saying, sort of like the comment "Olga never did make a statement supporting Anna Anderson as her niece."    

I tout "Fate Of The Romanovs", not becuase of any previous contact with one of the authors, but because of it's content, and because it provides answers to my many questions.  The actually use sources in that book as does Peter Kurth, and other authors, clear documentation that evidence does exist to back an opinion.

If you know longer care what Joe Blow or Mary Sue thinks why do you continue to post here,  and you haven't answered my question about YOUR agenda.
Title: Re: Without DNA
Post by: Louis_Charles on January 09, 2006, 04:20:41 PM
Quote

Please,  do not think I have not dismissed the Prince's testimony  just because I can think of no reason Dmitri Gallitzine might have lied.   My thoughts behind my reasons are unknown to you Louis Charles.  You cannot possible know what I know about the security of the Russian Imperial Palaces.  

And, yes,  I asked you and others why Gallitzine should not be believed.  No one came forth with a reason why he would have lied or that he had a history of lying or telling tall tales.

No,  I haven't forgotten FA's nice detailed description of how the security in the palace worked.  If you remember,  I said I was quite aware of how the security in the palace worked.  And,  I'm sure the judges in AA's court trial,  where Gallitzine gave his testimony, knew how the Russian palace security worked. Just as I'm sure Gallitzine knew that others knew.

Just saying to me that Ernst of Hesse didn't have his name on twenty different lists so he couldn't have been there,  isn't proof.  He may have entered the grounds and the palace under a different name.

When I asked if anyone had checked to see the dates which prove or disprove that Gillitzin was on those lists,  I heard silence.

Just saying the entired palace would be buzzing about Ernst of Hesse visit and therefore it couldn't have happen, isn't proof.  I do believe the reason the people who surrounded Nicholas II understood the importance of keeping secrets and did so either out of respect or fear because I'm sure the people in charge would make quick punishment as well as an example for such failures.



I beg your pardon!  I have never invented circumstantial or any other kind of evidence in the past, present nor will I in the future.

When I have been in error due to not reading something properly or misunderstanding something,  and,  someone brings it to my attention,  I correct my errors.

You will meet in your life very few people who are more honest than Bear.



It was AA who made this claim that she was placed in a cart and taken to Budapest from July to Dec,  not I.  The judges thought this was a weak part of her story.  Even Summers and Mangold thought this was a weak part of her story.  I beg to differ.  I think if AA had escaped, and even if she was hurt, I think she  could have made this trip from July to about the middle part of Dec.  Why do I think it possible.  I have access to   letters, a few diaries, as well as other examples of treks taken by other people in 1918 from Siberia to Budapest and then to Berlin.  Do you realize there were 500,000 of Russians who fled Russia and went to Germany by 1918?  None of this is my "invention of circumstanial evidence" to help prove AA was Anastasia.  



 I wish I had a penny for everytime I have said:   I have never thought AA was GD Anastasia in this last year.

Despite my views,  I am more than happy to discuss with people why they think AA was GD Anastasia.  And,  I am just as happy to give evidence if there is any even if it seems to contradict what I believe.  Why?  Because I'm not afraid where the truth takes me.

AGRBear





In no particular order:

(1) I did post information regarding why the trip was not likely to have taken place. You disregard it, but there was information posted. You can see no reason why Gallitzine might have been in error, but you post nothing to explain that position.
(2) "The invention of circumstantial evidence" are your repeated assurances that the trip could have taken place. Since there is no evidence that it did, and quite a lot that it did not, what else do you call this kind of thing, especially since you don't believe that Andersen was Anastasia? Oh, right. A fearless search for the truth.
(3) Cryptic references to how much you know about Imperial security in the palaces are just silly, and you know it. If you know something that makes Gallitzine's story more credible, put it on the table. Otherwise you are obscuring the discussion.
(4) I am not calling you dishonest in your approach. One can believe in what one is doing and still be wrong.

Simon
Title: Re: Without DNA
Post by: AGRBear on January 09, 2006, 04:32:08 PM
Quote
Bear,
Ernst Ludwig was a regular visitor to the Alexander Palace and his face had been plastered all over the newspapers and magazines for years. EVERYONE in the Alexander Palace would have know exactly who he was, making it virtually IMPOSSIBLE for him to have entered under an assumed name. For pity's sake, his personal security service went with him to Darmstadt and were all well acquainted with him, not to mention many of the servants etc etc.
GET A GRIP AND GET  DOSE OF REALITY, you are asking us to prove something "didn't happen"...when the BURDEN is for YOU to show ANYTHING other than the 60 year old statement of one OLD MAN...decades after the fact...
Lord, my Uncle Charles keeps popping into my head for some reason...


It is easy to shift the burden of proof  my way when I have already said I know very little about Prince Dimitri Gillitzin.

I have no letters or documents which can be held as evidence to prove Ernst Ludwig of Hesse made this trip in secret.

However, it stands to reason that there would have been possible reasons Kaiser Wilhlem II would try every advantage in his effort to convince Nicholas II into some kind of peace treaty.  To me,  the brother of Nicholas II's wife was the prevent canidate for such a secret mission and something good old cousin "Billie Bullie" would do.

To add to this is only heresay which cannot stand up in court here in the USA.  But it seems to me that Crown Princess Cecile's depostion states  her father-in-law [Kaiser Wilhlem II] talked about secret dealings between Nicholas II and Ernst Ludwig of Hesse.  Prince Ferdinand of Schoenaich Carolath testified that Kaiser Wilhlem had told him about Ernst Ludwig of Hesse's visit.  And, yes, there was the poor old  Prince Galitzin who testifed on oath in 1965 that he had seen Ernst Ludwig of Hesse in the Palace.  Princess of Thurn and Taxis, Infata of Portugal recalled Archduke Joseph of Austria speaking about his same mission;  and it is known that the Field-Marschal who was in High Command in Austria had been informed and knew about the mission...  The German chief-of-staff Genearl Hoffmann talks about his hopes of a separte understanding with Russia, 27 Aug 1916.... And, what about Baroness Marie Pilar von Pilchau who gave evidence in 1957  that her brother arranged the journey which was to take place from Northern Germany to Norway, overland to northen Sweden, into Finland and then into Russia....  And, there was this Colonel...  Let us not forget, Fritz von Unruh, a member of Ernst Ludwig's own staff, and later a Nobel Prize winning writer, said he knew of the trip because he knew the Grand Duke's aide who had traveled with Ernst Ludwig of Hesse....

As other posters can see.  I haven't just placed my humble thoughts on just one Prince.

But, be as it may,  I am not supporting a popular thought.  I will say no more unless someone brings up the subject, again, and suggest I am unnrealistic or inventing circumstantial evidence.



AGRBear





Title: Re: Without DNA
Post by: Forum Admin on January 09, 2006, 05:05:31 PM
Grand Duke Paul,
Please take any personal conversation you may have with Annie to PM or email. Your personal "agenda" issues, from both sides are OT and are beginning to become off limits for the forum. I have PM'd annie on this subject myself.

Thank you.
Title: Re: Without DNA
Post by: Annie on January 09, 2006, 05:06:08 PM
Quote

Facts are facts and they just don't go away.


But the thing is, some of them weren't 'facts.' They can't all be right. There are too many conflicting reports, even on the pro AA side! Some things were true, some were not. How do we know which ones were and weren't? It helps that now we have the DNA evidence so we can rule out anything about AA being AN, including the cart story.

The ONLY question left without a legitimate answer is, where are the 2 missing bodies?
Title: Re: Without DNA
Post by: calebGmoney on January 09, 2006, 05:15:56 PM
Quote

But the thing is, some of them weren't 'facts.' They can't all be right. There are too many conflicting reports, even on the pro AA side! Some things were true, some were not. How do we know which ones were and weren't? It helps that now we have the DNA evidence so we can rule out anything about AA being AN, including the cart story.


Perhaps this would be true, if Anna's body had been exhumed, but it had been cremated. So therefore the only DNA 'evidence' are samples BELIEVED to come from Anna Anderson. You cannot conclude that Anna was not Anastasia. Even if a member of the staff at Martha Jefferson Hospital made statements of how the numbers matched. You yourself stated that you can't trust the testimony of just one person.
Title: Re: Without DNA
Post by: AGRBear on January 09, 2006, 05:19:22 PM
Quote

...[in part]
But the thing is, some of them weren't 'facts.' They can't all be right. There are too many conflicting reports, even on the pro AA side! Some things were true, some were not. How do we know which ones were and weren't? ...


I wish I had a magic wand and could wave it over all the information and the truth would go to the right and the rest of the stuf would just up and vanish.  But life just isn't that easy.

What we have to do is carefully and honestly weight ALL the information.

If we do not then who will?

AGRBear
Title: Re: Without DNA
Post by: Forum Admin on January 09, 2006, 05:24:48 PM
Caleb,
Your post was removed because it was incorrect. In its place, I will quote the work of our wonderful user DaveK again. And PLEASE let this be the last mention of DNA in a thread called "Without DNA"...

Gill P, Kimpton C, Aliston-Greiner R, Sullivan K, Stoneking M, Melton T, Nott J, Barritt S, Roby R, Holland M, et al.    
Establishing the identity of Anna Anderson Manahan.  
Nature  Genetics. 1995 Jan;9(1):9-10.  

(http://img156.exs.cx/img156/9286/aaarticle4pv.jpg)


Here are four points I want to make.
1)      As we see in acknowledgement section, hair sample came directly from Peter Kurth.
2)      In this paper in 1994, the random match probability between Carl Maucher and Anna Anderson was calculated "less than one in 300". However, as I mentioned before and below, using all data available in 2004, the number calculated by me is “one in 9000”.
3)      For unknown reason, Peter Gill didn’t present HVII region. See the figure of mitochondria DNA.
4)      Peter Gill didn’t incorporate the Bayesian inference to his calculation, which I think he should have. By my calculation with Bayesian inference, the posterior odds for AA=FS is 1 to 1,000,000. (note from FA: in plain English this means that the odds against AA actually BEING FA are a million to one, or another way, the odds of AA not being FS are one in a million)

Please note the exact language excluding AA from relation to Alexandra maternally therefore they conclude she was NOT a relation. In so many words.
Title: Re: Without DNA
Post by: Tania+ on January 09, 2006, 05:25:54 PM
Stop Annie ! Your getting really off topic not only on this thread but others as well. Take your tiff offline, please !
I'm nobody of note, but I sure don't like the way some respond to others, and it's getting to be a thorn when I see someone start to get nasty to another, just because their statements or thoughts differ from another. We are supposed to be, and remain respective of one another.

You know what, I'm getting pretty *^%# with all of this.
Instead of each poster being able to state freely exactly what they wish, "independently" time and time again, it becomes a personal conflict, sending all of the readers and posters aside, as if we have no real participatory part in all of this. Well we do !!! We all have our own ideas, and thoughts, and have need to express them fully, without people getting going into frenzied outbursts, and hijacking these threads. We may differ in what we might like to hear, but we have no right to be so offensive, to others, regardless.

This are not threads where we have to answer to ONE specific poster. We are here asking, sifting, questioning, trying to find answers to one of histories many and most difficult issues on real people. Information is gathered in this way, and with proper balances and sifting, we will together find answers.

The FA has the final right to determine who is and is not real on these threads, and I believe he has made, and continues to make that determination unquestionably. Let's help him keep our threads on topic.  ;)

Back to topic, PLEASE !

Tatiana




Quote

I said that my beliefs are different from what you state they are, and if anyone knows what I believe, I do, not you.  So there was nothing within the post personally directed to you or at you.  I also don't believe that there are others who share my statements.

Also, where did I state I believe that the DNA was tampered with?  I never have stated that.  I am sure that the protocols used by the Virginina hospital were within the industry standards.  Why do you continually state that I am within a group fighting for the identity of Anna Anderson as Anastasia, when I have said I am undecided?

I by no means believe in any fairy tale, but you can't accept the fact that someone believes any different than you, that your verison of the story is not the correct one, etc.  The issue is more complex for me than DNA.  I have a question for you, why continually use posts that contain disinformation about anothers beliefs or statements, when you claim to have DNA as your shining virtue?

Title: Re: Without DNA
Post by: calebGmoney on January 09, 2006, 05:31:26 PM
Quote


(2) "The invention of circumstantial evidence" are your repeated assurances that the trip could have taken place. Since there is no evidence that it did, and quite a lot that it did not, what else do you call this kind of thing, especially since you don't believe that Andersen was Anastasia? Oh, right. A fearless search for the truth.

Are you sure there is no evidence? It most likely happened. Just read Alexandra's letters from February 1916. The tsar had been with his family for the Duma's opening. When he returned, she wrote, "what joy!" When he returned to the front however, her happiness had faded, speaking of 'worry without end'. Then she ended the letter with: "The good will come and you are patient and will be blessed, I feel so sure, only much to be gone through still. When I think what the 'losses' of lives mean to your heart- I can imagine Ernie's suffering now. Oh this hideously bloody war!"
Title: Re: Without DNA
Post by: calebGmoney on January 09, 2006, 05:42:20 PM
BTW, I think it should be noted that no STRs were derived from the hair, so we DO NOT know for certain that the hair came from Mrs. Manahan. Also, Peter Kurth did NOT necessarily provide the hair. According to Massie's book, A woman named Burkhart supposedly bought the hair from Barry Jones, who owned Jack Manahan's book store. Burkhart contacted Peter Kurth who put her in touch with a DNA researcher. In other words, Peter did not necessarily provide the hair.

Since you seem to know quite a bit about mtDNA, how likely would it be that the tissue sample could not have been contaminated by hand through the parrafin wax? Those who handled it did not use gloves.
Title: Re: Without DNA
Post by: Louis_Charles on January 09, 2006, 05:51:15 PM
Quote
Are you sure there is no evidence? It most likely happened. Just read Alexandra's letters from February 1916. The tsar had been with his family for the Duma's opening. When he returned, she wrote, "what joy!" When he returned to the front however, her happiness had faded, speaking of 'worry without end'. Then she ended the letter with: "The good will come and you are patient and will be blessed, I feel so sure, only much to be gone through still. When I think what the 'losses' of lives mean to your heart- I can imagine Ernie's suffering now. Oh this hideously bloody war!"


Caleb,

For the record, the trip of which I was speaking was the purported trip across Russia by Anna Andersen, not the Ernst Ludwig.

That being said, the quote you offer is valid whether Ernie was in Russia or not, so it doesn't really tip the scales either way.

Simon
Title: Re: Without DNA
Post by: Forum Admin on January 09, 2006, 06:05:52 PM
Zero chance of contamination of the samples, since you asked.
Title: Re: Without DNA
Post by: Annie on January 09, 2006, 06:44:35 PM
`
Quote

I wish I had a magic wand and could wave it over all the information and the truth would go to the right and the rest of the stuf would just up and vanish.  But life just isn't that easy.


You mean like you wave a magic wand to erase part of my posts until the sentence changes its meaning and you say 'in part...' STOP THIS!! If you cannot leave my entire sentence, don't quote it at all! It's okay to leave out whole paragraphs that you do not wish to respond to, everyone does that. But chopping up sentences CHANGES THE MEANING AND MISQUOTES ME!!


Quote
What we have to do is carefully and honestly weight ALL the information.

If we do not then who will?

AGRBear


Sigh. I can never get this across to some of you. We HAVE weighed ALL info tiime and time again. We know that it is contradictory and cannot all be true. Only the DNA proves what was right and wrong.

And by saying ALL, does that mean that the cart story or the shoe story are just as important as the DNA and should be considered of the same value? PLEASE!
Title: Re: Without DNA
Post by: catt.sydney on January 09, 2006, 07:37:10 PM

Off Topic but for the record...

It's generally considered polite to state it if one takes a quotation and in any way changes it (corrects the language/verb tense/spelling etc.)  

To do so without admitting this is childish and generally lessens the validity of one's arguement...
That goes for ALL OF US.

ok?

thank you.
Title: Re: Without DNA
Post by: etonexile on January 09, 2006, 07:56:54 PM
Tedders....stop that laughing....stop that rolling about under the hedge....Some folk actually believe that pics of AA are a dead match for AN...and you must respect their....opinions....Stop I say...NOW!!!...this ted must be taken to task.... >:(
Title: Re: Without DNA
Post by: AGRBear on January 09, 2006, 08:03:41 PM
Look out Tedders.... I, too,  am laughing so hard that.... oh dear,  look out.... I'm rolling....  so, sorry I'm so much bigger... So glad I missed you.  I must look silly sitting here among my pots with all this honey all over my tummy.....  Hmmmm,  it is good honey.  Slurp.  Blurp.  Excuse me. ;D

People know they can find Annie's complete quote by clicking on her name.  And, if you've ever noticed I always add:  "....[in part].... when I don't present the complete quote.  Just as I will, now.

Quote
`

...[in part]...
Sigh. I can never get this across to some of you. We HAVE weighed ALL info tiime and time again. We know that it is contradictory and cannot all be true. Only the DNA proves what was right and wrong.

And by saying ALL, does that mean that the cart story or the shoe story are just as important as the DNA and should be considered of the same value? PLEASE!




I believe we're not suppose to continue the subject on DNA on this thread since the topic is:  "Without DNA".

The shoe size of AA and GD Anastasia was never compared in court.  How could they?  No one knew GD Anastasia's shoe size or how tall she was by the 16th of July 1918.

Speaking once again about the "cart story".  Did AA ever tell this story in court?


AGRBear
Title: Re: Without DNA
Post by: etonexile on January 09, 2006, 08:15:23 PM
Without DNA....Am I the only one who sees this premise as a fine chase after a white rabbit?...Without the DNA...you might very well assert that AA was AN and NOT FS...There are some determined folk on this forum....I respect them....And such
Title: Re: Without DNA
Post by: AGRBear on January 09, 2006, 08:24:35 PM
Quote
If DNA didn't exist, did you believe Anna Anderson? If no, why? This question is for scepticals of course.


Marina created this thread.  And this is her topic and she asked that DNA, on this thread, does not exist.

Have respect for your fellow posters and respect will be returned a thousand times.

AGRBear

PS:

Quote

...[in part]....

 ...And PLEASE let this be the last mention of DNA in a thread called "Without DNA"...
....

Title: Re: Without DNA
Post by: AGRBear on January 10, 2006, 10:47:59 AM
Quote
Thanks for the "splashing DNA" mental image.

I was attempting to point out to Caleb that there are a lot of conflicting testimonies about this matter, as you know. Some of them cancel each other out. She was either rattling along in the cart on the four month journey, or she was in Perm, or she was . . .

Testimonies, no matter how heartfelt, do not constiture incontrovertible evidence. Things like tests that can be duplicated in laboratories do.

Regards,

Simon


I believe AA is the only one who claimed to have made this long journey in a cart.

Yes, I have posted some testimony from a German officer who saw GD Anastasia in a cart.  But he thought it was the real Grand Duchess....

The evidence given about Anastasia, her mother and sisters in Perm didn't spill off of AA's tongue.  This evidence was collected by the early investigators of the IF case from it's first days and to the days Sokolov started his own investigation under the watchful and anxious eye of the White General Diterikhs.

There is a thread about the Perm stories as well as one I started about the sightings of the IF after the 16/17 of July 1918.

Perm Story:
http://hydrogen.pallasweb.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=anastasia;action=display;num=1113068456;start=0#0

Sightings after 16/17 July 1918:
http://hydrogen.pallasweb.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=anastasia;action=display;num=1091994509;start=0#0

Just lately, Phil has brought to us the actual reports he's found.  Like Sokolov some omit the Perm stories while some go into detail about evidence of them being sent to Perm.

New evidence is surfacing all the time.  It appears that the Bolshseviks, CHEKA, GPU, communists and KGB didn't destroy everything.

Quote
Five months after finding and posting this Report I have found another version of the same report (same date, large chunks of the text identical if you allow for differences in translation) but the "new" copy has significant differences in that it includes testimonies from witnesses that state that the family were moved either to Perm by rail or to Verkhotouria by troika and automobile.  This report, which is in PRO/30/26/144 appears to be one of several collected by Basil Thomson, Director of Intelligence at the Home Office in 1920.  Why there should be radical differences between the two I don't know.

Given time I will try and copy the "missing sections" but it is unlikely to be complete for a week or two due to other pressures.

Phil T



AGRBear

Title: Re: Without DNA
Post by: Louis_Charles on January 10, 2006, 11:24:25 AM
Quote

I believe AA is the only one who claimed to have made this long journey in a cart.

Yes, I have posted some testimony from a German officer who saw GD Anastasia in a cart.  But he thought it was the real Grand Duchess....

The evidence given about Anastasia, her mother and sisters in Perm didn't spill off of AA's tongue.  This evidence was collected by the early investigators of the IF case from it's first days and to the days Sokolov started his own investigation under the watchful and anxious eye of the White General Diterikhs.

There is a thread about the Perm stories as well as one I started about the sightings of the IF after the 16/17 of July 1918.

Perm Story:
http://hydrogen.pallasweb.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=anastasia;action=display;num=1113068456;start=0#0

Sightings after 16/17 July 1918:
http://hydrogen.pallasweb.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=anastasia;action=display;num=1091994509;start=0#0

Just lately, Phil has brought to us the actual reports he's found.  Like Sokolov some omit the Perm stories while some go into detail about evidence of them being sent to Perm.

New evidence is surfacing all the time.  It appears that the Bolshseviks, CHEKA, GPU, communists and KGB didn't destroy everything.



AGRBear



No one suggested that anyone but AA told the story of the cart; obviously she didn't tell the story about Perm. My point was, and is, that these testimonies are mutually contradictory, as so many of them are. The real Anastasia could not have bilocated between Perm and a cart in September of 1918. Eventually one has to make an informed decision as to which of these is more probable, if indeed either of them are.

Thank you for bringing the threads together in your post.
Title: Re: Without DNA
Post by: MichaelB on January 11, 2006, 05:24:34 PM
Since the thread is basically wether or not we would believe AA if it weren't for the DNA, I have to say yes. For a very simple and, to anyone else, unimportant reason - because my Grandmother believed it.
Title: Re: Without DNA
Post by: etonexile on January 11, 2006, 07:36:12 PM
One of my grandmothers believed in fairies and the "wee folk"...Do you catch my drift...?


Actually,I love the dear demented who think AA was AN...They keep this forum alive...... :-*
Title: Re: Without DNA
Post by: AGRBear on January 11, 2006, 09:32:56 PM
Quote
One of my grandmothers believed in fairies and the "wee folk"...Do you catch my drift...?


Actually,I love the dear demented who think AA was AN...They keep this forum alive...... :-*


Unlelss I am reading your post incorrectly,  it seems to me that your post is a good  example for our young people to read and learn  how one can show  a lack of respect for people who think differently than you.

If I am wrong,  I'll certainly apologize.

AGRBear
Title: Re: Without DNA
Post by: jeremygaleaz on January 12, 2006, 02:54:53 AM
Quote
Actually,I love the dear demented who think AA was AN...They keep this forum alive...... :-*


It's like when my cousin was working on his P-H-D in Psych and they locked all the mental patients who thought they were Jesus  into a room together.....Hey, they can't all be Jesus, it was part of their therapy!....it's horrifying...but so fascinating you have to watch! :o :D  
Title: Re: Without DNA
Post by: MichaelB on January 12, 2006, 12:25:30 PM
Whoever said there weren't fairies and "wee folk"?


Mikey  ;)
Title: Re: Without DNA
Post by: niobe on January 12, 2006, 12:34:09 PM
Quote
One of my grandmothers believed in fairies and the "wee folk"...Do you catch my drift...?


Actually,I love the dear demented who think AA was AN...They keep this forum alive...... :-*


I joined this forum to read and hopefully to engage in historical debate. It is surely unnecessary to describe as "dear demented" those of us who have considered the question of Anna Anderson's identity and decided that she WAS Anastasia. Everyone is entitled to his/her own opinion- or perhaps I am just old fashioned?
Niobe
(a disappointed "Newbie")
Title: Re: Without DNA
Post by: Annie on January 12, 2006, 03:01:05 PM
Quote

I joined this forum to read and hopefully to engage in historical debate. It is surely unnecessary to describe as "dear demented" those of us who have considered the question of Anna Anderson's identity and decided that she WAS Anastasia. Everyone is entitled to his/her own opinion- or perhaps I am just old fashioned?
Niobe
(a disappointed "Newbie")


I don't know how I can say this again. It's NOT an "OPINION" anymore once it's been proven wrong. Science has proven that AA was not AN and was 99.9% likely to be FS. AA=AN is no more a viable position than saying it's your 'opinion' that the south won the US Civil war. Your favorite color or favorite movie is your opinion, not facts that now have a real answer.
Title: Re: Without DNA
Post by: niobe on January 12, 2006, 03:45:47 PM
Quote

I don't know how I can say this again. It's NOT an "OPINION" anymore once it's been proven wrong. Science has proven that AA was not AN and was 99.9% likely to be FS. AA=AN is no more a viable position than saying it's your 'opinion' that the south won the US Civil war. Your favorite color or favorite movie is your opinion, not facts that now have a real answer.


Hi Annie, and yes, I do appreciate your point of view.  
Perhaps I should add I had approached this forum because it sounded so interesting with its opening question "If DNA didn't exist, did you believe Anna Anderson?" but was disappointed to read of the "dear demented"- not a particularly pleasant tag!
Regards, Niobe
Title: Re: Without DNA
Post by: Forum Admin on January 12, 2006, 03:54:42 PM
Quote
Bear,
Ernst Ludwig was a regular visitor to the Alexander Palace and his face had been plastered all over the newspapers and magazines for years. EVERYONE in the Alexander Palace would have know exactly who he was, making it virtually IMPOSSIBLE for him to have entered under an assumed name. For pity's sake, his personal security service went with him to Darmstadt and were all well acquainted with him, not to mention many of the servants etc etc.
GET A GRIP AND GET  DOSE OF REALITY, you are asking us to prove something "didn't happen"...when the BURDEN is for YOU to show ANYTHING other than the 60 year old statement of one OLD MAN...decades after the fact...
Lord, my Uncle Charles keeps popping into my head for some reason...


Just found this quote from Vyrubova's "Memories" on the main website, thought it might apply to the earlier discussion re: the impossibility for Ernst Ludwig to have "shown up" secretly:

It was impossible for anyone to approach the palace, much less to be received by one of their Majesties, without the fact being known to scores of these police guards. Every soldier, every guard, in uniform or out, kept a notebook in which he was obliged to write down for inspection by his superiors the movements of all persons who entered the palace and even those who passed its walls. Moreover, they were obliged to communicate by telephone with their superior officers every event, however trivial, of which they were witness. This vigilance was extended even to the persons of the Emperor and his family. If the Empress ordered her carriage for two o'clock in the afternoon, the lackey receiving the order immediately informed the nearest police guard of the fact. The guard telephoned the news to the palace commandant's office and from there the information went by telephone to the offices of the separate police organizations: "Her Majesty's carriage has been ordered for two o'clock."
Title: Re: Without DNA
Post by: Annie on January 13, 2006, 07:14:07 AM
Quote
This is very biased and stupid. Greg King has provided info as to WHY people should keep an open mind about Anna Anderson's identity but of course it is deleted from this forum as people clearly do not wish for Anastasia to have survived. I cannot concieve of any other explanation after they continually say that DNA is the final word despite the changes in science and DNA typing and refuse to except that in another decade, none of the DNA tests could be considered valid.


I would very much have wished for AN to have survived, and I'm sure everyone else here would have too. But even if she were a member of my own family, I could not continue to believe that she might still be AA when we have proof she wasn't. As was stated when the 'new' (4 year old info)was deleted, it really changes nothing about the tests or the results. It's sad, but we have to let go.
Title: Re: Without DNA
Post by: etonexile on January 13, 2006, 08:07:41 AM
Some folk will NEVER let go.... ::)
Title: Re: Without DNA
Post by: AGRBear on January 13, 2006, 10:47:54 AM
Quote

Just found this quote from Vyrubova's "Memories" on the main website, thought it might apply to the earlier discussion re: the impossibility for Ernst Ludwig to have "shown up" secretly:

It was impossible for anyone to approach the palace, much less to be received by one of their Majesties, without the fact being known to scores of these police guards. Every soldier, every guard, in uniform or out, kept a notebook in which he was obliged to write down for inspection by his superiors the movements of all persons who entered the palace and even those who passed its walls. Moreover, they were obliged to communicate by telephone with their superior officers every event, however trivial, of which they were witness. This vigilance was extended even to the persons of the Emperor and his family. If the Empress ordered her carriage for two o'clock in the afternoon, the lackey receiving the order immediately informed the nearest police guard of the fact. The guard telephoned the news to the palace commandant's office and from there the information went by telephone to the offices of the separate police organizations: "Her Majesty's carriage has been ordered for two o'clock."


I have not disagree with any of your information about the tight security of the Palace.  All of this is true.

I, also, know that when something was to be a secret it was kept secret through promises of loyality, and,  if this was broken there was no second chance.  The person was gone and his/her family was thereafter subjected to "silence".  I believe it was said "it was as if they were dead to us".  This not only touched the guilty person,  it touched his family....

How do I know?  Curios One's  great grandmother's brothers were part of the guard unit at this same palace.  She is my informant on these details.

These brothers, who  never strayed from their loyality to the Tsar and his family,  paid with their lives to protect Alexandra and her children.  

AGRBear  


Title: Re: Without DNA
Post by: ordino on April 20, 2006, 09:08:11 AM
I agree with CalebGmoney the ADN is not the last word, because the science is advance all days, so let´s go to open our mind a bit.
Thanks. Ordino
Title: Re: Without DNA
Post by: CorisCapnSkip on April 27, 2006, 12:58:21 AM
Can't help wondering, did Gleb Botkin and others who supported AA as AN have any way of knowing two bodies were missing from the mass grave, one almost certainly AN's, when the burial site was not unearthed for decades?  An ignorant Polish factory worker would have to be quite a scholar to learn all those languages, not to mention getting the right sort of bayonet and letting someone stab her with it  :P but someone concocting a really good story might be supposed to go through a lot.

Not saying I believe AA IS AN, just saying I'll believe it's NOT her when AN's body is unearthed!
Title: Re: Without DNA
Post by: Ra-Ra-Rasputin on April 27, 2006, 03:05:16 AM
No-one knew any bodies were missing.

If you refer to the 'claimants' thread, you'll see that there were several hundred claimants to the identity of the Romanov children over the years.  Anna Anderson just happened to choose Anastasia and become the most famous; it's not really a coincidence that Anastasia's body happens to be missing.  We don't grant all the claimants to Alexei's identity any more credence because HIS body is missing, so why would we do so to anyone else?

Besides, there is no guarantee that it is Anastasia's body that is missing.  I don't know enough about the bones recovered to make a judgement on who I think is missing, but just for your information, Maria is officially listed as the 'missing' Grand Duchess, as the disputed set of bones were buried as Anastasia in the St Peter and Paul Fortress when the Romanovs were brought home.

So, really, Anna Anderson's claims aren't made any more viable by the fact there is a female body missing, because theoretically, the body could be any four of the girls- we don't have the DNA to test each body individually to come to a definite conclusion on the identities.  We just have what amounts to educated guess work.

And, in answer to your other questions, Franziska Shankowska was not an ignorant peasant girl.  She came from a fairly wealthy family and was well educated. The ignorant peasant girl line is a myth.  

I'm not going to go into all of the reasons why what you say is wrong here, because I can't be bothered to repeat what has already been said thousands of times.  Just check out the Anna Anderson threads and you can see for yourself how all of AA's claims can be disproven.  She was FS, not AN, and the sooner people deal with that, the better.  There is no conspiracy, OK? There is no Romanov fortune, so why would anyone CARE enough to forge the results?! PLEASE!

Rachel
xx
Title: Re: Without DNA
Post by: CorisCapnSkip on April 28, 2006, 03:08:42 AM
Of course there's no Romanov fortune NOW (the story was Britain blew it all on the war)  :-/ but are you suggesting there never was a fortune placed in a British Bank by Tzar Nicholas as a trust for his daughters?   :-?
Title: Re: Without DNA
Post by: Ra-Ra-Rasputin on April 28, 2006, 03:35:14 AM
Quote
Of course there's no Romanov fortune NOW (the story was Britain blew it all on the war)  :-/ but are you suggesting there never was a fortune placed in a British Bank by Tzar Nicholas as a trust for his daughters?   :-?

Nicholas asked all of the Romanovs to surrender their personal assets to the war effort, and most of them did.  A little research would have told you that.

By the time the war was over, there was hardly any Romanov money left.  If Nicholas had have placed money in foreign bank accounts for the children, it was taken out long before their deaths.  

The British DID NOT 'blow' all of the Romanov 'fortune' on the war; Nicholas spent the money on Russia's war effort.  I don't know where you got that 'story' from.

There WAS no hidden Romanov fortune.  Why else do you think Xenia, Olga and the Dowager Empress lived by the charity of others until their deaths? Why else do you think Olga, the last surviving Grand Duchess and daughter of an Emperor, died in poverty above a Canadian barber shop?? If there was money, don't you think they would have used it?? Get real, please!

Rachel
xx

Title: Re: Without DNA
Post by: CorisCapnSkip on April 28, 2006, 04:22:47 AM
The story put forth in the movie based on Peter Kurth's book was that Tzar Nicholas banked vast sums in Britain in trust for his four daughters.  Had only one daughter survived, she would have inherited the money meant for her and her three sisters, no doubt with interest, etc.

On learning there was a claimant to possibly being one of these daughters with the least amount of credibility, highly-placed British panicked as they didn't have any such money--what wasn't spent in WWI was certainly gone by WWII.  So Lord Louis Mountbatten went all out to discredit Anna Anderson as Anastasia.

You are right, though, that if none of the girls survived, their money still should have gone to the next of kin, and the aunt or whoever was the closest relative should qualify as next of kin and should have received the money if it existed.

(On the upside, I don't believe the House of Windsor or anyone acting in its interests blew up Princess Diana's car or hired anyone to ram it-- 8-)--happy?   :D)
Title: Re: Without DNA
Post by: Ra-Ra-Rasputin on April 28, 2006, 04:36:26 AM
Yeah well, whatever Peter Kurth says, there was no Romanov money left after the war.  There was nothing for the British to take and spend.

And, if these accounts were so well coded, how would the British know where to go to get the money in the first place?

I'm glad you're not a Diana conspiracy theorist! People can't even have car accidents these days without people poking around for a sinister underhand motive..

Rachel
xx
Title: Re: Without DNA
Post by: Phil_tomaselli on April 28, 2006, 08:39:21 AM
I have to agree with Rachel on this one.  The Foreign Office files here are full of claims against the Russian (Bolshevik) Government by companies and individuals for losses caused by the Revolution and nationalization of factories and other property.  Some of the cases went on for 20 years.

If there was any money traceable these people would have found it I'm sure and tried to get their hands on it.  there is no evidence they did.  The British Government, of course, was owed millions by Russia for war expenses so might have felt entitled to first cal on any Romanov funds, but there is no evidence they found any either.

Phil Tomaselli
Title: Re: Without DNA
Post by: Lemur on April 28, 2006, 08:56:09 AM
When the war broke out, the Tsar repatriated all his money to help the economy in the war effort and asked all others to do so as well. This left many emigres with little or no cash funds after the revolution. There was a small amount of money (by royal standards) in England and Xenia got it, but Frogmore cottage was hardly a palace. It was no princely fortune.
Title: Re: Without DNA
Post by: CorisCapnSkip on April 28, 2006, 10:42:05 AM
As for the money--if it wasn't there that pretty well destroys the House of Windsor's motive for tampering with the DNA evidence, but it also destroys the motive for people who knew Anastasia to support Anna Anderson for decades.  Why were some people who knew Anastasia well so convinced that Anna was her, if they had no reason to lie for an imposter to hope for a share in the money?

As for Diana, very similar situation to Anastasia.  Tragic end to a young life which might cause people to grope around for conspiracy theories, but so many coincidences including the extremely significant timing it is hard to just dismiss it.
Title: Re: Without DNA
Post by: AGRBear on April 28, 2006, 08:12:11 PM
I am not sure where it is but I started a thread about how much GD Anastasia would have inherited if she had survived.  There are some interesting facts in that discussion.  When I find it,  I'll bring the link to this post.

Here it is:
http://forum.alexanderpalace.org/YaBB.cgi?num=1098804752/0#0

AGRBear

Title: Re: Without DNA
Post by: Sasta33 on May 12, 2006, 08:13:33 PM
Quote
Quote from: Annie  link=1136636067/0#1 date=1136644212

...[in part]....
Reasons:


...2. Her story of escape by cart, travelling a distance of almost 3000 miles on muddy back roads with no food or medical care for someone so horribly injured just isn't realistic. I think when she  made up the story, she didn't realize just how far it was from Ekaterinburg to Bucharest. The trip would have taken over a year to make, including brutal Russian winters. It's absolutely ridiculous.
...


Of course,  I beg to differ since I had many relatives who managed this kind of trip in and around 1918.  Yes,  I know, Louis Charles,  just because I know someone who made this trip, doesn't mean GD Anastasia did.  I agree.  However,  I have all kinds of letters, diaries of people who did accomplish this in and around 1918 by cart [with or without a horse], dog sled, walked, rode in a carriage....  to Budapest then went on the Germany then migr. to the USA and lived around me where I lived as a child.

Since we don't know what kind of injuries, if any, the GD Anastasia indured,  we can't know if she would have survived a trip from Ekaterinburg to Budapest.  However, you could realize the possibility that GD Anastasia could have survived, if you have ever read any stories about WWI and the kind of wounds suffered and how these men survived without medical treatment from doctors but from having common everyday people who cared and kept them alive under this most server conditions.   These people who never saw a doctor had their own way of fixing injuries.  Of course, some remedies worked and some ended up killing the wounded person.


Quote from: AGRBear  link=1108091391/0#11 date=1108136413

...[in part]...
Here is a photographs of people traveling during the WWI in Russia:

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v471/AGRBear/refugees2.jpg)


AGRBear

I did mention the Tschaikovsky's in my post and that was referring to AA's story.

If GD Anastasia was rescued,  you don't know who her rescuer/rescuers were but the same thing would have been true.  It was possible to travel this distance,  by cart, at that time of the year from Siberia to Budapest in 1918 to 1919.

AGRBear


  I agree with you, AGRBear (about the possibility of travel over long distances without/without injuries.) We have no idea of the extent of Anastasia's injuries from Ekaterinburg. People have survived the worst kinds of torture and escaped. Soldiers make it out of war by the skin of their teeth, with horrific injuries (often left untreated, or improperly cared for, back in the old days.) I know I've read accounts of terrible Civil War and WWI injuries of soldiers, who somehow made it out of the bloodbath alive. Where there is even the slimmest of possibilites, there is hope. Isn't that what keeps us alive, as human beings?
  
I know there will forever be a discussion over who survived (or didn't) that night. I doubt if it will ever stop, until someone finds such groundbreaking evidence that no one can dispute it. But as long as there is no definite answer, I will continue to believe in even the most miniscule chance that someone from the IF made it out alive.
Title: Re: Without DNA
Post by: Annie on May 12, 2006, 09:44:43 PM
Quote
As for the money--if it wasn't there that pretty well destroys the House of Windsor's motive for tampering with the DNA evidence, but it also destroys the motive for people who knew Anastasia to support Anna Anderson for decades.  Why were some people who knew Anastasia well so convinced that Anna was her, if they had no reason to lie for an imposter to hope for a share in the money?

 

One of the weak theories I've read here is that the Queen did it to stop the shame on the family of denying poor AN after her family died because George V denied them asylum ::) :P I do not believe they even still think about that, what with Diana and all the other problems and controversies, and even if they did, I do not think they'd go to so much trouble to rig 4 DNA tests. Especially since switching the intestines would mean cutting open a member of the Schanskowksa family and removing exactly the same small piece AA had taken out.  ::)
Title: Re: Without DNA
Post by: AGRBear on May 15, 2006, 05:58:02 PM
Quote
Quote
As for the money--if it wasn't there that pretty well destroys the House of Windsor's motive for tampering with the DNA evidence, but it also destroys the motive for people who knew Anastasia to support Anna Anderson for decades.  Why were some people who knew Anastasia well so convinced that Anna was her, if they had no reason to lie for an imposter to hope for a share in the money?

 

One of the weak theories I've read here is that the Queen did it to stop the shame on the family of denying poor AN after her family died because George V denied them asylum ::) :P I do not believe they even still think about that, what with Diana and all the other problems and controversies, and even if they did, I do not think they'd go to so much trouble to rig 4 DNA tests. Especially since switching the intestines would mean cutting open a member of the Schanskowksa family and removing exactly the same small piece AA had taken out.  ::)

I think it is a shame that rumors are spread about Queen Elisabeth and her part in Diana's death or having taken part in rigging DNA tests.

I am not allowed to make any comments about "switching"  intestines on this forum, so, I can give no comment.

However, without the use of DNA,  I continue to think that the posters, who believe AA is FS, fail to explain certain differences between AA and FS such as:

1) The Wingenders  claim FS was taller than them which meant AA couldn't have been FS since AA was shorter than all three.  
2)  Timeline doesn't allow FS, if she was AA, a period of time to have carried a child to full term which the doctors at Dalldorf claimed she had during her physical exaimination.  This is when they changed her name from Miss Unknown to Mrs. Unkown.
3) The doctors and Dalldorf also noted in the records that all of AA's scars were old and if she had been AA and the wounds inflicted so she'd have the correct scars to match GD Anastasia's,  she would have had to have accomplished this feat more than a year earlier, that would have been in 1918-1919.  The real GD Anasastia vanished or was executed in July of 1918.
4)  The Wingender's reported FS missing weeks after AA had jumped into the Berlin Canal.  
5)  The grove on the side of AA's head would have been a very noticeable wound and yet the Wingenders and her own family, who had seen her 25 Dec 1919,  had not noticed any kind of injury for FS...
6)  Why is it that some poster continue to insist FS suffered injuries from a granade explosion when a medical report, which we are told exists by well known authors, will provide us with data which will tell us that  FS did not recieve any wounds?  Remember, one of the things her brother Felix stated in his testimony was that FS had no scars....

I do not believe AA was Grand Duchess Anastasia, however, I'm still not conviced that AA was FS when DNA evidence is not allowed as evidence.  

AGRBear