Alexander Palace Forum

Discussions about the Imperial Family and European Royalty => The Myth and Legends of Survivors => Topic started by: Ra-Ra-Rasputin on February 09, 2006, 10:16:03 AM

Title: One thing I find odd
Post by: Ra-Ra-Rasputin on February 09, 2006, 10:16:03 AM
Sorry if this has already been discussed, but this board is crazy with its 1 million posting threads and I can't be bothered to read through them all.


One thing that has always struck me as odd is that AA claimed she was AN before the bones were ever found.

COINCIDENTALLY, the bones of one of the grand duchesses and Alexei were missing, giving AA an even stronger claim to being AN before the DNA results came out and proved she wasn't.

Don't you think it's a bit weird that AA decided to pretend she was AN and then lo and behold AN's bones were missing from the grave? (Of course, that's if you believe they are AN's bones that are missing, which I do, and which I believe is the scientific consensus, but I may be wrong on that).  I always found that an odd coincidence. ?!?

But then, AA never mentioned Alexei surviving or escaping.  If the reason some people believe AA was AN is because of the missing bones, how do they explain the absence of Alexei? They can't BOTH have escaped without notice.  And if they DID, which would explain the absence of both sets of bones neatly, why didn't AA ever mention it?  She would surely have escaped with her brother. Obviously because it never happened, but you know...just being provocative. This board needs a new discussion.  ;)

Any thoughts on the matter??

Rachel
xx

Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Forum Admin on February 09, 2006, 10:22:59 AM
Rachel
Please check the thread at the top of this section "Imperial Survivor Statistics" and you will see the following of just how MANY claimants there were:

This is according to the Russian language documentary "Poslye Rasstrela" ("After the Execution").

Total number of "Russian imperial children" claimants since 1918:

Olga:    28 claimants

Tatiana:  33 claimants

Maria:    53 claimants

Anastasia:   33 claimants

Alexei:     81 claimants

Total:  228 "imperial children" who survived the Ekaterinburg massacre...


SO, is ONE out of 228 really such an "amazing" coincidence? or really pretty reasonable odds that she just got to be the "lucky one"? I vote for the latter.
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Tsarina_Liz on February 09, 2006, 10:23:26 AM
Quote
Sorry if this has already been discussed, but this board is crazy with its 1 million posting threads and I can't be bothered to read through them all.


One thing that has always struck me as odd is that AA claimed she was AN before the bones were ever found.

COINCIDENTALLY, the bones of one of the grand duchesses and Alexei were missing, giving AA an even stronger claim to being AN before the DNA results came out and proved she wasn't.

Don't you think it's a bit weird that AA decided to pretend she was AN and then lo and behold AN's bones were missing from the grave? (Of course, that's if you believe they are AN's bones that are missing, which I do, and which I believe is the scientific consensus, but I may be wrong on that).  I always found that an odd coincidence. ?!?

But then, AA never mentioned Alexei surviving or escaping.  If the reason some people believe AA was AN is because of the missing bones, how do they explain the absence of Alexei? They can't BOTH have escaped without notice.  And if they DID, which would explain the absence of both sets of bones neatly, why didn't AA ever mention it?  She would surely have escaped with her brother. Obviously because it never happened, but you know...just being provocative. This board needs a new discussion.  ;)

Any thoughts on the matter??

Rachel
xx



Frankly, I think it's just one big coincidence.  The way I've always imagined it is that when she was young she saw a picture of the IF in a magazine.  She would have known about the happenings in Russia.  When she needed a new identity, she wanted something glamorous so she chose the Grand Duchess she most looked like.  Obviously, thanks to that one visitor, it wasn't Tatiana - check that one off.  Too young and short to be Olga, check that one off.  Hmm.  Marie or Anastasia.  Decisions, decisions.  Not pretty enough or old enough to be Marie so Anastasia it is!

And, yes, I am serious.  This woman had an incredible thought process.    
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Ra-Ra-Rasputin on February 09, 2006, 10:47:58 AM
There were that many claimants??? How absurd!! Thanks for that, FA. :)

Even so, what I meant (which I didn't explicitly say, I now realise) is that AA was THE MOST publicised claimant.  It even went to court.  And then, what a coincidence, there are bones missing, and one of the missing is most likely to be AN.  That's why I find it so coincidental, the fact that AA was so publicised and then the missing bones seemed to verify her claim until the DNA proved otherwise.

It is weird, though, that people claimed they were survivors, and then there are actually bones missing.  It does make you think.  Could any of those 228 claimants REALLY have been one of the children? Until the bones are found, there can never be a conclusive answer, which is what is so fascinating.  What if one of those 228 really were one of the Imperial children? There could be descendants of Nicholas and Alexandra knocking about right now, and we wouldn't even know.  Fascinating stuff.

Rachel
xx
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: AGRBear on February 10, 2006, 11:41:35 AM
There are many speculations as to why AA claimed to be GD Anastasia instead of Tatiana, Maria or Olga.   I think the best one is because most people wouldn't have reconized the grown up GD Anastasia as easily as the other sisters.

There were many rumors running around which  mentioned  GD Anastasia being a survivor.  Take a look at the thread about Perm which talks about the various testimonies by people who claimed they had seen Anastasia in and around Perm.

There is a thead about testimony about people who saw any member of the IF after the 16/17th of July.  That's another good one to read.

Although some people claim AA said she was first GD Tatiana,  it was not the case because according to books on this subject it was Clara Peuthert who had started this rumor.

Speaking of GD Tatiana,  there are web sites about why they think the missing person was she and not GD Anastasia.

The Russians claim it wasn't GD Anastasia but claim GD Marias  is the GD who is missing.   According to  FA's  score card  there were more Maria claimants than GD Anastasias.

AGRBear
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Eddie_uk on February 10, 2006, 12:48:36 PM
Quote
There are many speculations as to why AA claimed to be GD Anastasia instead of Tatiana, Maria or Olga.   I think the best one is because most people wouldn't have reconized the grown up GD Anastasia as easily as the other sisters.



Good point Bear!

Out of interest, how many people claimed to be Nicholas or Alexandra?  ;D
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: XRogue on February 10, 2006, 12:58:53 PM
There is a way to eliminate at least some of the other claimants, the same way AA was eliminated. DNA testing of those we can get a tissue sample of.

Of course, it's always possible one of the claimants (even more than one) could be telling the truth, and we would all like to believe that someone survived, no matter how unlikely it may have been. The murder of the IF was such a tragedy, and so unfair.
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Eddie_uk on February 10, 2006, 01:02:59 PM
Well two maximum :)

I think if any of the IF had really survived they would have been able to easily prove themselves just by what they knew and surely would only have been to happy to be welcomed by Olga and Xenia etc
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: David_Pritchard on February 10, 2006, 01:26:38 PM
This is not the type of discussion in which I normally participate but I have been curious about one aspect of the AA saga, how did Dmitiri Pavlovich react to her claim specifically? I have a vague memory that his grandson told me that he rejected the claim of AA. Surely GD Dmitri would have spent much time with the real GDss Anastasia in his youth.

David
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: stepan on February 10, 2006, 05:56:16 PM
Dmitri Pavlovich never met Anna Anderson so we don´t know what his reaction would be. But he was one of the twelve Romanovs who signed the Copenhagen declaration in 1928 in which they rejected her claim. Those twelve were GD Olga and Xenia. Xenia´s husband GD Alexander,her six sons and daughter Irina and GD Dmitri Pavlovich and his sister GD Maria Pavlovna. Of those  people only GD Olga actually met AA.
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Annie on February 14, 2006, 06:46:53 AM
The fact that Dmitri wasn't asked to see her is much the same as Anna V. not being asked. He knew the family too well, having spent much time with them growing up, so her backers couldn't take a chance on him exposing her. This is yet another reason why I believe her backers knew exactly what was going on (her faking) or they'd have honestly sought out those closest to the family, like Dmitri and AV.

Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Annie on February 14, 2006, 06:48:20 AM
Quote
Of those  people only GD Olga actually met AA.


But Felix Y., Irina's husband, did. He gave his report to the entire Sandro/Xenia clan, and it wasn't glowing. He denounced her as a 'frightful playactress' and 'wretched creature.' He had asked her questions in Russian, French, English and German, and she only responded in German.
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Eddie_uk on February 14, 2006, 09:36:19 AM
But don't forget Annie that Felix tried to kill AA! It was a close call but luckily  she managed to run away and hide!!! :P
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Annie on February 14, 2006, 09:55:15 AM
Quote
But don't forget Annie that Felix tried to kill AA! It was a close call but luckily  she managed to run away and hide!!! :P


Oh that's right  ::) He yelled "I killed Rasputin and I'll kill you too for what your mother did to my country" :o ::)

only nobody else in the hotel saw or heard a thing of this 'death threat', even though her story included running down the main stairs screaming :P

(I know you know this Eddie, just telling it for those who might have thought it's true!)  ;)
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: lori_c on September 12, 2006, 04:07:57 PM
I believe that given the timeframe of the burial of the IF and the fact that Yurovsky and his men had to rebury them one could argue that peasants within range of the Koptyaki Forest (unnoticed) could have known that 2 bodies were not buried with the common grave - NOT that I am inferring anybody survived. I don't want to go down that path for this post. 

However, I do think that gossip and spreading tales - true or exaggerated was a preponderance of the Russian Guard as well.  So this may have been how the rumor started that 2 survived.  Considering the 2 missing were Almost named correctly in Yurovsky's note (he said Demidova and Alexei), I am guessing it was someone that was there that day and helped rebury the bodies the second time and noticed not all were accounted for.  Then probably went on to discuss this horrible day with others which spread like wildfire.  This is probably why Yurovsky felt the need to account for two missing bodies.
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Annie on September 12, 2006, 08:45:31 PM
Don't forget that Yurovsky and others have admitted to burning two bodies. They never thought they were missing because they knew what happened to them.
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Tania+ on September 12, 2006, 08:57:50 PM
which two bodies ?

Tatiana+
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: LisaDavidson on September 12, 2006, 10:31:51 PM
His "Note" said Alexis and one of the women.

There's a couple of possibilities here. One is that he actually did burn two bodies. Another is that two of the bodies disappeared during the two days he spent disposing of the bodies of the Imperial Family, and he invented the burning story to explain why the grave was short two bodies.

To me, the second is the more plausible. The main reason is that it has been fairly well documented that the technology to completely destroy the bodies by burning did not exist in the rural environs of Ekaterinburg in 1918. So, it seems very unlikely that he did so. Also, with all the survivor rumors, it seems that a logical source of this was the men working with Yurovsky on the second burial, who would have been aware they were two bodies short.
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Tania+ on September 12, 2006, 10:45:08 PM
Lisa,

For me, the second one seems more plausible. I still think it was such a wild night, that they might have had to make it up just to cover their rear...so for me, i'm still wondering...i guess because of no real valididity to date. Thanks always for  your great input.

Tatiana+
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: lexi4 on October 08, 2006, 11:11:03 PM
His "Note" said Alexis and one of the women.

There's a couple of possibilities here. One is that he actually did burn two bodies. Another is that two of the bodies disappeared during the two days he spent disposing of the bodies of the Imperial Family, and he invented the burning story to explain why the grave was short two bodies.

To me, the second is the more plausible. The main reason is that it has been fairly well documented that the technology to completely destroy the bodies by burning did not exist in the rural environs of Ekaterinburg in 1918. So, it seems very unlikely that he did so. Also, with all the survivor rumors, it seems that a logical source of this was the men working with Yurovsky on the second burial, who would have been aware they were two bodies short.

So what happened to the other two bodies? I always wondered if they fell off the truck, discovered later and then buried nearby. 
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: imperial angel on October 10, 2006, 11:19:01 AM
It is a great mystery. I believe they were not burned. As stated, it would have been very difficult to do that back then, in those circumstances. They have never been found, but that is not proof of burning. I find the whole thing confusing..but I don't think it proves any survivors. I am not sure the bodies disapeared, sure he was confused, but he could have just buried them somewhere else. As for claimants, I think it is just that Anna Anderson/Anastasia was more widely known than the others. It is a common misconception there were more Anastasia claimants, one I believed until I came to this forum and begin reading the survivor threads. I don't think it has any bearing on anything that Anna Anderson just claimed to be Anastasia, whose remains have in my view never been found. It is just of the interesting parts of the story.
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Alixz on October 10, 2006, 05:11:37 PM
I just wondered if AA truly thought out this plan in advance or just "kind of fell" into it.  When in the hospital she was mistaken for Tatiana (and in some of the picutres I can see why). did she begin planning then or was her plan complete on the day she was pulled from the canal?

The whole thing is so elaborate and complicated that is seems impossible that one person could have imagined it all.

I just don't understand why it was so hard to prove one way or the other.  It did seem that no matter what AA said she had to prove it and then what the others said she had to disprove.

Peter Kurth's book is an incredible adventure into the whole story and if there were no DNA evidence (as there was none when he wrote it) I can see why he believed her.

I find it sad that it seems so hard to prove identity and that so many were willing (for their own reasons) to go one way or the other.  I also feel sad for those who "threw away" their lives for her.  I know that most of them  (perhaps all) are now dead, but they gave a great deal in good faith and received nothing but ridicule in return. I mean the lawyers and the journalists, not the royal relatives.
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Bev on October 10, 2006, 07:47:05 PM
Here's something I find odd - (and I'm not being smart alecy)  why would anyone believe a woman who had been and out of asylums for years?  I'm willing to bet that at the time there wasn't an asylum in the world where someone didn't claim to be some member of a royal family, why are people so gullible?  If these lunatics claim to be doctors, would they allow them to operate on them?  Or do you think they would reason that since these people have been committed for a few years, they better be cautious in believing them? 

There's just something about "claimants" that makes normally common sensical people lose are sense of reality.
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Annie on October 10, 2006, 08:58:12 PM
Very good point, Bev, but then again common sense and deductive logic never works with the AA case. IMO what happened was this one got connected to the right people who were willing to feed her info and sponsor her and her claim, probably for a cut themselves if the charade paid off. Getting Gleb Botkin to take her to the US, make a story of her and help bring her claim to court was a big, big factor in her becoming more famous than any other claimant. IMO, Alex of Denmark's grandma looks more like AN, but she never got any backers :P Marketing is everything!
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: lexi4 on October 10, 2006, 09:20:06 PM
Here's something I find odd - (and I'm not being smart alecy)  why would anyone believe a woman who had been and out of asylums for years?  I'm willing to bet that at the time there wasn't an asylum in the world where someone didn't claim to be some member of a royal family, why are people so gullible?  If these lunatics claim to be doctors, would they allow them to operate on them?  Or do you think they would reason that since these people have been committed for a few years, they better be cautious in believing them? 

There's just something about "claimants" that makes normally common sensical people lose are sense of reality.

You points are well taken, Bev.
I think people believed her because the truth of what happened to the IF was too much to bear. Maybe looking for hope..not necessarily that the IF would be returned to power, but that the unthinkable really didn't happen. People weren't as desensitized back then. They didn't see wars play out on television, or see gory sights on Crime Scene, so it was hard to imagine that the whole family could be executed.
They could not think the unthinkable so they clung to anything that would indicate a member might have survived that bloody night. Somehow, I think it make it didn't seem as awful if someone, at least one member of the IF survived.
But this is only a thought...I don't have answers.
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Tania+ on October 10, 2006, 10:25:57 PM
Lexi4,

I believe your post is right in every way. It was a different era, and nobody, but nobody could have expected the horror of horrors to flood out, starting as they did with the IF. Your thoughts are quite valid. Thank you.

Tatiana+
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Helen_Azar on October 11, 2006, 07:55:17 AM
I think people believed her because the truth of what happened to the IF was too much to bear. Maybe looking for hope..not necessarily that the IF would be returned to power, but that the unthinkable really didn't happen. People weren't as desensitized back then. They didn't see wars play out on television, or see gory sights on Crime Scene, so it was hard to imagine that the whole family could be executed.
They could not think the unthinkable so they clung to anything that would indicate a member might have survived that bloody night. Somehow, I think it make it didn't seem as awful if someone, at least one member of the IF survived.
But this is only a thought...I don't have answers.

I am not so sure... IMO, if this were the case, who would have had more motive and desire to believe her than Anastasia's immediate family: her aunt, her grandmother, etc. Yet, they did not believe her. I think the other people, more removed from Anastasia, who didn't know her that well believed AA to be legit because it was an exciting thing to believe, it made a good story, it gave them somethihng to talk about, it may have brought them into the spotlight, it made their otherwise dull lives more interesting. This may be a more cynical view of the situation, but I have a feeling it may be a lot closer to the truth.



Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: imperial angel on October 11, 2006, 08:35:55 AM
Well, I agree that Anna Anderson found the right connections. Every survivor story had the potential ( well, most did) of going as big as Anna Anderson's case became. But they did not, and often are not remembered today, unless they are in a list of claimants. Anna Anderson was no more believable than any other, and her story did not become popular for any reason of sensation unique to it. The other claimants provided that, for sure. I think it was a distraction, perhaps, and also a way of not facing brutal reality. As well, Anna Anderson believed in herself as a claimant, and perhaps if people sensed that she really thought that she was Anastasia, they believed more in her. The whole claimants thing in general was escapism.
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Lemur on October 11, 2006, 12:37:18 PM
I think people believed her because the truth of what happened to the IF was too much to bear. Maybe looking for hope..not necessarily that the IF would be returned to power, but that the unthinkable really didn't happen. People weren't as desensitized back then. They didn't see wars play out on television, or see gory sights on Crime Scene, so it was hard to imagine that the whole family could be executed.
They could not think the unthinkable so they clung to anything that would indicate a member might have survived that bloody night. Somehow, I think it make it didn't seem as awful if someone, at least one member of the IF survived.
But this is only a thought...I don't have answers.

But it wouldn't be a happy thing for a person to live after being traumatized by what she saw happen to her loved ones. Anyone living with that kind of experience could never do so in any joy.

I am not so sure... IMO, if this were the case, who would have had more motive and desire to believe her than Anastasia's immediate family: her aunt, her grandmother, etc. Yet, they did not believe her.

You have really hit on something here. It would have been in the best interest of Olga Alexandrovna to accept Anastasia, not deny her! Even though they were female, Anastasia was the heir of the Tsar himself, and Olga a direct decendant of the royal line herself, so they could have teamed up to fight for the 'throne' or at the very least any fortune left to the family. Kyril was not well liked in the family; he'd been despised by Nicholas and Alexandra and all their branch of the family. Wouldn't it have been to Olga's advantage to fight Kyril with "Anastasia?" Her 'niece' could have given her a lot more money than whatever piddly amount she got from the 'family' which clearly wasn't much .Because of this, I find the attitude or theory that Olga denied "Anastasia" (Anderson) for money to be unrealistic and preposterous. It would have benefitted her much more to claim a real Anastasia, but since Anderson wasn't Anastasia, she didn't. It's as simple as that.

Quote
I think the other people, more removed from Anastasia, who didn't know her that well believed AA to be legit because it was an exciting thing to believe, it made a good story, it gave them somethihng to talk about, it may have brought them into the spotlight, it made their otherwise dull lives more interesting. This may be a more cynical view of the situation, but I have a feeling it may be a lot closer to the truth.

That may have been the case for some, but others may have known she was a fraud but were on her side just in case she won.




Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: LisaDavidson on October 11, 2006, 02:01:31 PM
A few points of clarification:

1. Peter Kurth says in his Anastasia   that the claimant's story is really a story about exiles, specifically, Russian exiles. It's hard for those who have not lost their homeland to really understand the depth of such a loss, but it is such that I think those in Berlin in 1920 would have overlooked many things to "find" a surviving grand duchess. And, I think that's exactly what happened.

2. Grand Duchess Olga Alexandrovna was way down the list as a possible heir to the throne. During most of AA's life as a claimant, there were plenty of grand dukes and princes who had far stronger claims to the Imperial succession. And, if someone were to choose an heir irrespective of the Fundamental Law, the most popular candidate amongst the Romanovs was GD Nicholas Nicholievich. Grand Duke Dmitri was also favored by many of the younger Russians. And, if they would have chosen one of the tsar's sisters, Xenia, who was marreid to a grand duke and the mother of 6 sons would have been a far more logical choice than Olga A.

Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: imperial angel on October 11, 2006, 05:22:38 PM
Well, yes, any claimant who seemed logical was no doubt a welcome escape from an often drear reality. I don't think Olga A had succession issues on her mind when she was dealing with Anna Anderson. According to the laws, a female could not rule Russia if there were some legitmate male heir, even though it might not be the son of the last Czar. I think there was certainly the aspect of inheiritance if Anna Anderson could be proved to be Anastasia. That was a question. As for peopler being on her side, even though they knew she wasn't Anastasia, perhaps some did. But I think, most believed sincerely in her, who were her supporters.
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Annie on October 11, 2006, 05:49:20 PM
I agree with Helen and Lemur. It surely would have been more profitable for Olga to support AA, if she were AN, than to deny her. If nothing else, they could have gotten the alleged money and had a great happy life together. That is, IF she had been AN, which she wasn't. Olga had nothing to gain by denying her. She was only telling the sad truth.
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Annie on October 11, 2006, 05:51:58 PM


And, if they would have chosen one of the tsar's sisters, Xenia, who was marreid to a grand duke and the mother of 6 sons would have been a far more logical choice than Olga A.



By the rules of the British monarchy, Xenia would have been next in line for the throne after the deaths of her brothers and nephews. I personally think she would have been the best choice, she was the closest living relative in line, and she did have those 6 double Romanov blood sons.
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: imperial angel on October 12, 2006, 10:46:50 AM
Indeed, Olga was only telling the truth about AA. I think she would have accepted her as Anastasia, if she had been, and Olga could be convinced that she was. If you read Olga's biography, you realize she knew Anastasia relatively well, and had good memories of her. She was quite conflicted about Anna Anderson, indeed. But although Anastasia's appearance would have changed between when Olga A last saw her, and the time she saw Anna Anderson, ( if she had been Anastasia), then I still think that Olga A would have known.
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Ra-Ra-Rasputin on October 12, 2006, 10:57:03 AM
Olga knew Anastasia 'relatively' well! I'd say a bit more than that! Olga was arguably the closest relative outside of their parents to the Imperial Children.  She took them out every weekend and made a real effort to spend time with them.  They regarded her as more of a sister because of her youth. If any Romanov were to recognise AA as being AN, it would have been Olga. Olga would have had to be a very callous woman to cast off AA if she had really believed her to be AN.  And, from reading her biography and from all other evidence I've ever seen of Olga's personality, I find it very difficult to believe that she could have been capable of such a thing.  I'd find it difficult to believe of anyone, really.  This is why the whole affair is so absurd. 

Rachel
xx
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: imperial angel on October 12, 2006, 11:51:03 AM
The last post is quite true. I think if there had been no doubts in Olga's mind, that Anna Anderson was Anastasia she would have been welcomed with open arms. She would not have considered anything else. But, as Olga A knew that Anna Anderson was not Anastasia, she never welcomed her with open arms. She knew the truth, and the whole affair was absurd. But many things in regards to Anna Anderson were so.. ;)
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Annie on October 12, 2006, 05:20:38 PM
Anastasia really wouldn't have changed much from  1917 when Olga last saw her to 1920. Look at the pics of AA at asylum, she looks much older than the eighteen and a half that AN would have been. FS was five years older than AN, and had a hard life and was more aged beyond her years. Besides the fact that their faces look hardly anything alike if you compare the features one by one, and the bone structure. People may get older, but  their features don't change. As you young people get older, you'll find this to be true too. Why just yesterday morning I met up  with a girl from my seventh grade gym class in a gas station. We recognized each other immediately. We are 44 and hadn't seen each other in 30 years!
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: imperial angel on October 13, 2006, 08:46:37 AM
I agree that Anastasia's features would not have changed much. But Anna Anderson did kind of use her allegedly hard life after ''surviving'' as an excuse for why she did not seem to be more like/ look like Anastasia at times. That was not valid, but some people agreed. I think it would have been personality/outlook that would have changed more, and not appearance. But it is often said that Anastasia's appearance would have changed, had she survived. Obviously, Anna Anderson wasn't Anastasia.
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: lori_c on October 13, 2006, 10:23:01 AM
GD Olga Alexandrovna was Anastasia's Godmother.  She was also was known for being very kindhearted and was often the victim of people trying to scam her or convince her that they were her long lost "Malenkaya" (i think this is the Russian word for Little One but not quite sure as I don't have the book here).

She was, however, relatively unconvinced but like so many others, wanted so much to believe that MAYBE one of Nicky's daughters survived.  When she visited and knew it was FS, she could not bring her to be uncaring or unkind to such a "poor creature" and continued to stay in contact with the patient until it became unwise (as far as the family was concerned) to do so.

GD Olga was very involved in the GD lives and the only one to take an interest in their lack of a social life, bringing them to St. Petersburg to be around others closer to their own age.  She most definitely would have known an imposter.  Anastasia's basic features would not have changed in three years even in the most horrible of circumstances.  She still would have exhibited Romanov-Hessian features.

Lori
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: imperial angel on October 13, 2006, 03:50:57 PM
Indeed, that is very true. I think Grand Duchess Olga always tried to take an interest in her nieces and give them a social life they may not have had otherwise. She wasn't so much older than Olga N, herself. She was quite close to all her nieces, but perhaps especially Anastasia. She knew her well, and from that description of Anastasia in that biography of her, was quite on target about Anastasia's personality, and nature. She would never have made a mistake on who was her grandaughter or not. She was just being kind hearted, as you said, at first to AA. Her features would not have changed that much, but some people still thought AA resembled Anastasia. But from photos you can see she did not, even accounting for everything AA said happened to her. I don't  know why they thought so, but Anastasia and AA did not look at all alike. ???
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: lexi4 on October 13, 2006, 08:23:18 PM
If anyone was going to recognize her, it would have been GD Olga Alexandrovna. I don't think she had any doubts about AA identity. She knew she was not who she claimed to be. The other thing is, that at first AA claimed to be another one of the czars daughters. Kind of like picking the flavor of the month at an ice cream parlor, don't you think?
Olga last say AN in 1917. I doune that her features changed that much in a two year period. Look at the photos. I could never see any resemblance between AA and AN. The question is, how did AA pull it off for so long.
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Annie on October 13, 2006, 09:48:10 PM
Anastasia's basic features would not have changed in three years even in the most horrible of circumstances.  She still would have exhibited Romanov-Hessian features.

Lori

Some AA supporters have suggested her injuries would have changed her face, but to this I say it would have looked like a messed up version of AN's face, not change to the face of a completely different person!
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Annie on October 13, 2006, 09:52:29 PM
If anyone was going to recognize her, it would have been GD Olga Alexandrovna. I don't think she had any doubts about AA identity. She knew she was not who she claimed to be. The other thing is, that at first AA claimed to be another one of the czars daughters. Kind of like picking the flavor of the month at an ice cream parlor, don't you think?

Yes! Once the other mental patient showed her the magazine and said she looked like Tatiana, she went along with it until Sophie B. pronounced her too short to be Tatitana (after pulling down the sheets she hid under!) Then she became "Anastasia", the only GD to match her height. Interesting, huh?

Quote
The question is, how did AA pull it off for so long.

This is THE biggest question remaining, and one we can never get to the bottom of because the same old rehased stuff about her still being AN always comes into every discussion and drags it down to the same place as all the other threads. The fact is she WAS NOT AN and the story of how AA and her supporters pulled it off for so long must be fascinating. I know frauds don't leave paper trails and I'm sure they all took their secrets to their graves, and all our speculation can't be proven, though we can assume quite a bit. I do hope someday something on this will be revealed to shut up alll the nonsense and let this story- and AN and FS- finally rest in peace.
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: lexi4 on October 14, 2006, 05:52:12 PM
If anyone was going to recognize her, it would have been GD Olga Alexandrovna. I don't think she had any doubts about AA identity. She knew she was not who she claimed to be. The other thing is, that at first AA claimed to be another one of the czars daughters. Kind of like picking the flavor of the month at an ice cream parlor, don't you think?

Yes! Once the other mental patient showed her the magazine and said she looked like Tatiana, she went along with it until Sophie B. pronounced her too short to be Tatitana (after pulling down the sheets she hid under!) Then she became "Anastasia", the only GD to match her height. Interesting, huh?

Quote
The question is, how did AA pull it off for so long.

This is THE biggest question remaining, and one we can never get to the bottom of because the same old rehased stuff about her still being AN always comes into every discussion and drags it down to the same place as all the other threads. The fact is she WAS NOT AN and the story of how AA and her supporters pulled it off for so long must be fascinating. I know frauds don't leave paper trails and I'm sure they all took their secrets to their graves, and all our speculation can't be proven, though we can assume quite a bit. I do hope someday something on this will be revealed to shut up alll the nonsense and let this story- and AN and FS- finally rest in peace.

[/quote

Finding her body would help. Although I'm not sure anyone is actively looking right now. It seems it all got put to bed once the DNA tests were in.
I have had a thought...Let's just say that AN did escape to Germany. Do you think it possiblle that she met FS and that is how FS knew so much? Maybe the real AN died. Annie, don't yell at me  :) I've wanted to ask this for a long time.
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Annie on October 14, 2006, 08:42:44 PM
Quote
Finding her body would help. Although I'm not sure anyone is actively looking right now. It seems it all got put to bed once the DNA tests were in.

Look at Belochka's signature. There are people actively looking right now, and hopefully they can be successful so that this ridiculous nonsense can finally be put to bed, though I'm sure there will still be those who claim tampering, conspiracy, etc. :P


Quote
I have had a thought...Let's just say that AN did escape to Germany. Do you think it possiblle that she met FS and that is how FS knew so much? Maybe the real AN died. Annie, don't yell at me  Smiley I've wanted to ask this for a long time.

I don't want to yell, but that is a stretch. And I must say again, she didn't know that much, and what she did say was often wrong. With the amount of Russian emigres in Berlin in those days, there were literally hundreds who could have given her the info, intentionally or incidentally. And of course you know I am certain some of her suppporters were her main source of 'memories.'

Like I said before, the 'how did she pull it off' story would be so interesting to explore, IF we can EVER get past the old, tired notion that she was still somehow AN. I feel like digging out my headbanger smilie.
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Belochka on October 14, 2006, 09:25:39 PM
Look at Belochka's signature. There are people actively looking right now, and hopefully they can be successful so that this ridiculous nonsense can finally be put to bed, though I'm sure there will still be those who claim tampering, conspiracy, etc. :P

Finding her body would help. Although I'm not sure anyone is actively looking right now. It seems it all got put to bed once the DNA tests were in.

Thank you Annie for recognizing that the search for the remains continues to this day.  :)

Lexi4, may I assure you that the SEARCH Foundation, of which I am a member, is active and will continue to travel to Ekaterinburg until the task is completed. One must appreciate that it is an expensive exercise, involving many people handling specialized equipment, and considerable patience.

For more details about the SEARCH Foundation, please click on my SEARCH logo. Hopefully your concerns will be alleviated. Thank you for your interest.

Regards,

Margarita  
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: lexi4 on October 14, 2006, 09:44:37 PM
Quote
Finding her body would help. Although I'm not sure anyone is actively looking right now. It seems it all got put to bed once the DNA tests were in.

Look at Belochka's signature. There are people actively looking right now, and hopefully they can be successful so that this ridiculous nonsense can finally be put to bed, though I'm sure there will still be those who claim tampering, conspiracy, etc. :P


Quote
I have had a thought...Let's just say that AN did escape to Germany. Do you think it possiblle that she met FS and that is how FS knew so much? Maybe the real AN died. Annie, don't yell at me  Smiley I've wanted to ask this for a long time.

I don't want to yell, but that is a stretch. And I must say again, she didn't know that much, and what she did say was often wrong. With the amount of Russian emigres in Berlin in those days, there were literally hundreds who could have given her the info, intentionally or incidentally. And of course you know I am certain some of her suppporters were her main source of 'memories.'

Like I said before, the 'how did she pull it off' story would be so interesting to explore, IF we can EVER get past the old, tired notion that she was still somehow AN. I feel like digging out my headbanger smilie.

Thank you Annie  :)

Yes, that is the story. And it would be interesting. Maybe someday, it will be told.
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: lexi4 on October 14, 2006, 09:56:59 PM
Look at Belochka's signature. There are people actively looking right now, and hopefully they can be successful so that this ridiculous nonsense can finally be put to bed, though I'm sure there will still be those who claim tampering, conspiracy, etc. :P

Finding her body would help. Although I'm not sure anyone is actively looking right now. It seems it all got put to bed once the DNA tests were in.

Thank you Annie for recognizing that the search for the remains continues to this day.  :)

Lexi4, may I assure you that the SEARCH Foundation, of which I am a member, is active and will continue to travel to Ekaterinburg until the task is completed. One must appreciate that it is an expensive exercise, involving many people handling specialized equipment, and considerable patience.

For more details about the SEARCH Foundation, please click on my SEARCH logo. Hopefully your concerns will be alleviated. Thank you for your interest.

Regards,

Margarita  

Margarita,
I have just started browsing the site. Thank you for  calling my attention to it. Does the Foundation believe the missing daughter to be Marie?
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: J_Kendrick on October 15, 2006, 10:35:56 AM

Lexi4, may I assure you that the SEARCH Foundation, of which I am a member, is active and will continue to travel to Ekaterinburg until the task is completed. One must appreciate that it is an expensive exercise, involving many people handling specialized equipment, and considerable patience.

Regards,

Margarita


... and tell us, please do, how many more years must pass...
... and how many more failed attempts will it take...
... before the members of SEARCH finally admit defeat?
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Belochka on October 15, 2006, 09:52:13 PM

Lexi4, may I assure you that the SEARCH Foundation, of which I am a member, is active and will continue to travel to Ekaterinburg until the task is completed. One must appreciate that it is an expensive exercise, involving many people handling specialized equipment, and considerable patience.

Regards,

Margarita


... and tell us, please do, how many more years must pass...
... and how many more failed attempts will it take...
... before the members of SEARCH finally admit defeat?


Ah John, I wondered how long it would take before our cyber paths would cross!

Kind regards,

Margarita  ;D
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Belochka on October 15, 2006, 09:59:14 PM
Look at Belochka's signature. There are people actively looking right now, and hopefully they can be successful so that this ridiculous nonsense can finally be put to bed, though I'm sure there will still be those who claim tampering, conspiracy, etc. :P

Finding her body would help. Although I'm not sure anyone is actively looking right now. It seems it all got put to bed once the DNA tests were in.

Thank you Annie for recognizing that the search for the remains continues to this day.  :)

Lexi4, may I assure you that the SEARCH Foundation, of which I am a member, is active and will continue to travel to Ekaterinburg until the task is completed. One must appreciate that it is an expensive exercise, involving many people handling specialized equipment, and considerable patience.

For more details about the SEARCH Foundation, please click on my SEARCH logo. Hopefully your concerns will be alleviated. Thank you for your interest.

Regards,

Margarita  

Margarita,
I have just started browsing the site. Thank you for  calling my attention to it. Does the Foundation believe the missing daughter to be Marie?

Hello Lexi4,

Thank you for taking the time to browse through the SEARCH website.

To respond to you query, there are those who prefer to discredit the professionalism of Russian forensic scientists, simply because they prefer to perpetuate the myth of AA. The answer that you shall prefer to accept, depends upon your personal bias regarding this matter.

Regards,

Margarita
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: lori_c on October 16, 2006, 08:44:08 AM
Anastasia's basic features would not have changed in three years even in the most horrible of circumstances.  She still would have exhibited Romanov-Hessian features.

Lori

Some AA supporters have suggested her injuries would have changed her face, but to this I say it would have looked like a messed up version of AN's face, not change to the face of a completely different person!

One (of many reasons) that I feel her features would still basically be unchanged as Anastasia is the photo with all the children standing together with their heads shaved after they were ill.  Even though as fans of the story and love of the Romanovs, WE know which is which,  you can see the Hessian-Romanov gene runs strongly through these children.  Age would not have altered this.  An example would be the strong features of Princess Alice passed down to HER daughters.  Age and time didn't alter our ability to identify for example Ella from teenager to young adult nor her resemblance to her siblings.  I feel the same would be true for her neices. AA exhibited characteristics not found in the children.  Without their hair, their aquiline noses, shape of the eyes and thin lips directly contradict the looks of AA.  Especially Anastasia and Alexei who very much resemble their mother.
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: J_Kendrick on October 16, 2006, 10:46:34 AM

Lexi4, may I assure you that the SEARCH Foundation, of which I am a member, is active and will continue to travel to Ekaterinburg until the task is completed. One must appreciate that it is an expensive exercise, involving many people handling specialized equipment, and considerable patience.

Regards,

Margarita


... and tell us, please do, how many more years must pass...
... and how many more failed attempts will it take...
... before the members of SEARCH finally admit defeat?


Ah John, I wondered how long it would take before our cyber paths would cross!

Kind regards,

Margarita  ;D

Your comment fails to answer a perfectly valid question.

...and so I will ask that same question again...

How many more years must pass, and how many more failed attempts will it take, before the contributors who have financed the project lose their patience and SEARCH finally gives in and admits defeat?
 
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: imperial angel on October 16, 2006, 11:38:39 AM
Yes, Anastasia looks were not going to change that much. Anna Anderson thought she had a good excuse, but she did not. Olga A would obviously have recognized her as Anastasia had she been, because she knew her well, both physically and mentally. Why did people believe in Anna Anderson? I have found, that one of the easiest answers to that question is that I think she sincerely believed she was Anastasia.. ;) As well, undoubtedly there were other reasons that people believed in her. They had their own motivations and beliefs that may be hard to understand. Even today, people still believe she was Anastasia.. and that's their opinion. But, you must ask yourself why?
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: lori_c on October 16, 2006, 01:14:50 PM
Yes, Anastasia looks were not going to change that much. Anna Anderson thought she had a good excuse, but she did not. Olga A would obviously have recognized her as Anastasia had she been, because she knew her well, both physically and mentally. Why did people believe in Anna Anderson? I have found, that one of the easiest answers to that question is that I think she sincerely believed she was Anastasia.. ;) As well, undoubtedly there were other reasons that people believed in her. They had their own motivations and beliefs that may be hard to understand. Even today, people still believe she was Anastasia.. and that's their opinion. But, you must ask yourself why?

I too believe AA was convinced she WAS Anastasia.  Whether supported by others who fed her information etc etc, AA had a history of serious mental illness.  Add to that the grenade explosion in which she witness a supervisor's horrible death.  This certainly would have had a devastating effect on an already unstable mind.  I have also read accounts which describe FS and the "cleverest of the four children" meaning her own siblings. She was often seen with a book in her hand and was quite an actress by all accounts.  I believe she slipped into this fantasy world where she BECAME Anastasia and from that time until the day she died, in HER MIND there was no doubt.

Furthermore,  as I mentioned before it would have only been human nature for those after the tragedy that were close enough to the GD to WANT TO BELIEVE she had survived - that somebody had survived that atrocity.  Others of course were motivated by greed.

As to your comment that even today people believe she was GD Anastasia, i feel it is the same know as it was then.  We so much wanted it to be so, therefore it MUST be so.....

Lori
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: imperial angel on October 16, 2006, 04:04:04 PM
Yes, there is no doubt in my mind that Anna Anderson believed in who she was, or as the truth was, was not. All the evidence points to the fact it wasn't just a scam for her. She believed in herself, and in her claim. Thus, she seemed more convincing, and people believed her more than they might have had she had doubts in her mind. It was easy to believe someone survived if you wanted, and it was also easy to be greedy. But if I was someone who had known Anastasia, as she was, the real one, and then saw Anna Anderson, I would prefer to believe that Anastasia was dead, and in peace. It would have just seemed more fitting and appropriate, rather than thinking of all she had had to deal with if she really was AA, and her current state.
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: lexi4 on October 16, 2006, 07:12:27 PM
Look at Belochka's signature. There are people actively looking right now, and hopefully they can be successful so that this ridiculous nonsense can finally be put to bed, though I'm sure there will still be those who claim tampering, conspiracy, etc. :P

Finding her body would help. Although I'm not sure anyone is actively looking right now. It seems it all got put to bed once the DNA tests were in.

Thank you Annie for recognizing that the search for the remains continues to this day.  :)

Lexi4, may I assure you that the SEARCH Foundation, of which I am a member, is active and will continue to travel to Ekaterinburg until the task is completed. One must appreciate that it is an expensive exercise, involving many people handling specialized equipment, and considerable patience.

For more details about the SEARCH Foundation, please click on my SEARCH logo. Hopefully your concerns will be alleviated. Thank you for your interest.

Regards,

Margarita  

Margarita,
I have just started browsing the site. Thank you for  calling my attention to it. Does the Foundation believe the missing daughter to be Marie?

Hello Lexi4,

Thank you for taking the time to browse through the SEARCH website.

To respond to you query, there are those who prefer to discredit the professionalism of Russian forensic scientists, simply because they prefer to perpetuate the myth of AA. The answer that you shall prefer to accept, depends upon your personal bias regarding this matter.

Regards,

Margarita

So then if we accept the results of the Russian forensic scientists, are we not discrediting the work of the Americans/Brittish? It seems to me, either way a group of scientists get descredited. What if you have no personal bias and are just looking for the facts?
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Belochka on October 16, 2006, 09:28:10 PM
So then if we accept the results of the Russian forensic scientists, are we not discrediting the work of the Americans/Brittish? It seems to me, either way a group of scientists get descredited. What if you have no personal bias and are just looking for the facts?

Not at all Lexi4. Remember that the Russian scientists collaborated with international scientists:

1. Professors Gill and Ivanov at the U. K. Forensic Science Service Laboratories.
2. Professor Ivanov and Dr Parsons at the U. S. Armed Forces DNA Identification Laboratory.
3. Dr Hagelberg in Norway. 

etc.

There were extensive forensic investigations conducted upto January 1998. All the results were published in peer-reviewed international journals.

The facts do indeed speak for themselves.

Margarita
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: lori_c on October 17, 2006, 09:29:45 AM
Yes, there is no doubt in my mind that Anna Anderson believed in who she was, or as the truth was, was not. All the evidence points to the fact it wasn't just a scam for her. She believed in herself, and in her claim. Thus, she seemed more convincing, and people believed her more than they might have had she had doubts in her mind. It was easy to believe someone survived if you wanted, and it was also easy to be greedy. But if I was someone who had known Anastasia, as she was, the real one, and then saw Anna Anderson, I would prefer to believe that Anastasia was dead, and in peace. It would have just seemed more fitting and appropriate, rather than thinking of all she had had to deal with if she really was AA, and her current state.

I agree.  After all they had suffered together as a family,  i feel they died and are in heaven as a family. That was one blessing in all that ugliness was that they did not have to be separated. No matter where their bodies are now.
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: lexi4 on October 17, 2006, 10:12:50 AM
So then if we accept the results of the Russian forensic scientists, are we not discrediting the work of the Americans/Brittish? It seems to me, either way a group of scientists get descredited. What if you have no personal bias and are just looking for the facts?

Not at all Lexi4. Remember that the Russian scientists collaborated with international scientists:

1. Professors Gill and Ivanov at the U. K. Forensic Science Service Laboratories.
2. Professor Ivanov and Dr Parsons at the U. S. Armed Forces DNA Identification Laboratory.
3. Dr Hagelberg in Norway. 

etc.

There were extensive forensic investigations conducted upto January 1998. All the results were published in peer-reviewed international journals.

The facts do indeed speak for themselves.

Margarita


Thank you. Now I am really confused.  :) I thought Gill Ivanov, Parsons all agreed it was Anastasia that was missing. I'm not sure about Hagelberg. If the missing body was at first identified as Marie, how did Anastasia ever come into play?
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: imperial angel on October 17, 2006, 10:19:12 AM
Yes, there is no doubt in my mind that Anna Anderson believed in who she was, or as the truth was, was not. All the evidence points to the fact it wasn't just a scam for her. She believed in herself, and in her claim. Thus, she seemed more convincing, and people believed her more than they might have had she had doubts in her mind. It was easy to believe someone survived if you wanted, and it was also easy to be greedy. But if I was someone who had known Anastasia, as she was, the real one, and then saw Anna Anderson, I would prefer to believe that Anastasia was dead, and in peace. It would have just seemed more fitting and appropriate, rather than thinking of all she had had to deal with if she really was AA, and her current state.

I agree.  After all they had suffered together as a family,  i feel they died and are in heaven as a family. That was one blessing in all that ugliness was that they did not have to be separated. No matter where their bodies are now.

I hate to be redundant, but the this person is right about the above. They may have died a tragic and cruel death, but they live  on, both in heaven and in our memories. It's rather better than the whole survivor concept.
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: J_Kendrick on October 17, 2006, 12:30:11 PM

So then if we accept the results of the Russian forensic scientists, are we not discrediting the work of the Americans/Brittish? It seems to me, either way a group of scientists get descredited. What if you have no personal bias and are just looking for the facts?


Dear Lexi:

There are two very important questions here that Margarita and her fellow members of SEARCH clearly have no intention of answering.

First.. How much longer will SEARCH continue to keep chasing shadows before they finally give in and admit to the possibility that there are no more Romanov bones to be found in Pig's meadow?

.. and...

Second... as you have asked... Why does it now appear from the content of their website that SEARCH is now supporting the stated Russian position that GD Marie is the missing daughter... and in so doing... are they not also now discrediting the stated position of the American forensic team that the missing daughter is Anastasia?

SEARCH and its members clearly have no intention of ever answering that first question.  The members of SEARCH will never be able to bring themselves to accept the very obvious possibility that their own continued failure to find any more evidence of human remains in Pig's Meadow -- even with their use of the most modern of high-tech search equipment -- is actually proof that the two missing Romanovs were, in fact, NOT killed and buried in Koptyaki.

As to your question to Margarita about SEARCH's now apparent change of direction -- clearly turning away from the American forensic team's stated position that Anastasia is the missing daughter and now obviously leaning towards the Russian forensic team's continued insistence that the missing daughter is Marie -- as is evidenced in the wording of their website... 
 
You will have noticed that your repeated questioning has still not received a straight answer... but... There may be a very simple explanation for SEARCH's apparent change in direction on the suspected identity of the missing daughter.

Remember back to early 1998, when the US team of renowned forensic professors Dr. Anthony Falsetti and Dr. Diane France had both flown to Ekaterinburg to assist in the search efforts that were planned for that year...

Drs. Falsetti and France had both publicly expressed their shock and disbelief when they were confronted by the Russian authorities who insisted that they must first sign an agreement they would be looking for the remains of Grand Duchess Marie... before the search would be allowed to proceed.  You may well recall that Drs. Falsetti and France had both then refused to sign the agreement that was being required by their Russian hosts and promptly flew home in disgust after only three days.

So... If the Russian authorities are continuing to maintain that same position as they had done eight years ago... that the searchers must first sign an agreement they will be looking for the remains of GD Marie before they will be allowed to proceed...

If the confrontation experienced by the US forensics experts Drs. Falsetti and France eight years ago is any indication, then it can be safely concluded that SEARCH probably has no choice.  They must fall in line with the stated position of the Russian authorities that the missing daughter is Marie... or they will not be allowed to return.

jk
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Bev on October 17, 2006, 01:25:36 PM
Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.  That SEARCH hasn't found anything as of today, doesn't mean they won't find something tommorow, or a year from now or even a decade from now. It's a silly assumption that because they haven't found bodies that is proof that they escaped.  It's only proof that they haven't found any bodies. 

It couldn't possibly make a difference in whose bones they're searching for, the methodology would be exactly the same.  All the circumstantial, physical and eyewitness evidence confirms that all members of this family were murdered in July of 1918.
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Lemur on October 17, 2006, 02:02:01 PM
Very true bev. People have been convicted of murder in cases where the victim's body was never found.
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: lexi4 on October 17, 2006, 06:39:02 PM

So then if we accept the results of the Russian forensic scientists, are we not discrediting the work of the Americans/Brittish? It seems to me, either way a group of scientists get descredited. What if you have no personal bias and are just looking for the facts?


Dear Lexi:

There are two very important questions here that Margarita and her fellow members of SEARCH clearly have no intention of answering.

First.. How much longer will SEARCH continue to keep chasing shadows before they finally give in and admit to the possibility that there are no more Romanov bones to be found in Pig's meadow?

.. and...

Second... as you have asked... Why does it now appear from the content of their website that SEARCH is now supporting the stated Russian position that GD Marie is the missing daughter... and in so doing... are they not also now discrediting the stated position of the American forensic team that the missing daughter is Anastasia?

SEARCH and its members clearly have no intention of ever answering that first question.  The members of SEARCH will never be able to bring themselves to accept the very obvious possibility that their own continued failure to find any more evidence of human remains in Pig's Meadow -- even with their use of the most modern of high-tech search equipment -- is actually proof that the two missing Romanovs were, in fact, NOT killed and buried in Koptyaki.

As to your question to Margarita about SEARCH's now apparent change of direction -- clearly turning away from the American forensic team's stated position that Anastasia is the missing daughter and now obviously leaning towards the Russian forensic team's continued insistence that the missing daughter is Marie -- as is evidenced in the wording of their website... 
 
You will have noticed that your repeated questioning has still not received a straight answer... but... There may be a very simple explanation for SEARCH's apparent change in direction on the suspected identity of the missing daughter.

Remember back to early 1998, when the US team of renowned forensic professors Dr. Anthony Falsetti and Dr. Diane France had both flown to Ekaterinburg to assist in the search efforts that were planned for that year...

Drs. Falsetti and France had both publicly expressed their shock and disbelief when they were confronted by the Russian authorities who insisted that they must first sign an agreement they would be looking for the remains of Grand Duchess Marie... before the search would be allowed to proceed.  You may well recall that Drs. Falsetti and France had both then refused to sign the agreement that was being required by their Russian hosts and promptly flew home in disgust after only three days.

So... If the Russian authorities are continuing to maintain that same position as they had done eight years ago... that the searchers must first sign an agreement they will be looking for the remains of GD Marie before they will be allowed to proceed...

If the confrontation experienced by the US forensics experts Drs. Falsetti and France eight years ago is any indication, then it can be safely concluded that SEARCH probably has no choice.  They must fall in line with the stated position of the Russian authorities that the missing daughter is Marie... or they will not be allowed to return.

jk

Good to see you John. You keep things interesting around here. ;)

This is black and white to me. Either you descredit the Americans or you descredit the Russians. There is no middle ground here.

My next question, and I hope I will get an answer, is did the members of SEARCH have to sign the same type of document that Falesitti and France were expected to sign?
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: J_Kendrick on October 17, 2006, 07:41:36 PM

Very true bev. People have been convicted of murder in cases where the victim's body was never found.


In cases as politically and historically important as this one, you can never afford to make any assumptions at all about the victim's true fate... without first finding and positively identifying that same victim's human remains.

Let's put it in terms that you can understand... using the most current example

It had recently been reported that Osama Bin Laden had died of typhoid... but... Before that same story can be said to be true, Osama Bin Laden's mortal remains must first be recovered and positively identified. 

Until that same proof of his physical remains has been obtained and positively identified, the claims of Bin Laden's death must be assumed to be false.  There is too much at stake to do otherwise.

The same is true of the missing Romanovs.

jk
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Belochka on October 17, 2006, 09:39:07 PM

There are two very important questions here that Margarita and her fellow members of SEARCH clearly have no intention of answering.

First.. How much longer will SEARCH continue to keep chasing shadows before they finally give in and admit to the possibility that there are no more Romanov bones to be found in Pig's meadow?

John, when you posed your questions in the manner you have, do not expect a reply.


Second... as you have asked... Why does it now appear from the content of their website that SEARCH is now supporting the stated Russian position that GD Marie is the missing daughter... and in so doing... are they not also now discrediting the stated position of the American forensic team that the missing daughter is Anastasia?

jk

Your presumption is incorrect. SEARCH is open to finding the skeletal remains of one Grand Duchess AND Tsarevich Alexei.

Please note the following statement on the SEARCH website:

"Our goal is to find the remains of Tsarevich Alexis and one of his sisters so that the Romanov Imperial Family can rest in peace, together, and close this sad chapter in Russia's history."

Margarita

http://www.searchfoundationinc.org/ThirdSearch1.html

Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: J_Kendrick on October 18, 2006, 02:39:19 AM

There are two very important questions here that Margarita and her fellow members of SEARCH clearly have no intention of answering.

First.. 

John, when you posed your questions in the manner you have, do not expect a reply.


Why not?  Is it because, as a member of SEARCH, you just don't have an answer?  Or is it because, as a member of SEARCH, you simply don't want to answer?

Eighty-eight years of searching for those same two missing Romanovs since 1918 have been completely unsuccessful.  The last three rounds of digging by SEARCH in the past eight years -- now aided with the technology of ground penetrating radar --  in fact, have produced nothing more than a bullet or two and a handful of topaz beads.
 
The question is clear enough: How much longer will SEARCH continue to keep chasing shadows before they finally give in and admit to the possibility that there are no more Romanov bones to be found in Pig's Meadow?

So do tell us all, please...

Why should I not expect a reply to what is, in fact, a perfectly valid question?

jk
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Ra-Ra-Rasputin on October 18, 2006, 07:21:19 AM
Mr Kendrick, you state that the lack of any findings to this date constitutes a proof that the two missing Romanovs were not killed and buried in the Koptiyaki forest.

What kind of logic is this? Just because nothing conclusive is yet to be found, we cannot say that therefore the two missing children were not killed.  That's absurd.  Until you can prove definitively that the two missing children were not killed and buried where Yurovsky said, you cannot start throwing around such statements as you have done on this thread.  Where is your proof that they weren't, besides an absence of any skeletal remains? The vast majority of contemporary evidence says that all of the Romanovs were killed in that room.  Nothing that is actually verifiable as the truth has ever been unearthed that has given the details of an escape/removal of the two children.  Therefore you have nothing to go on here to support your theory bar the fact that no remains have been found.  This means nothing- many a murderer has been convicted because of overwhelming circumstantial evidence, despite the lack of a body.  I will specifically site the case of the English child murderers Myra Hindley and Ian Brady. They killed several children; we know their identities and their parents have no doubt that they were murdered.  However, there are several bodies that have yet to be found, despite intense searching in an area not dissimilar to the Koptyaki forest.  Do we doubt the deaths of these children because no remains have been found? No.  So why should we treat the Romanov case any differently, I ask you? Is it simply because you WANT to believe that Alexei and a GD escaped to support your own theories? I think that's more the issue here, isn't it?
 
I find it difficult to take your comments re: the missing children seriously. Firstly, because they show a complete lack of logic and a clear bias agains the work of the SEARCH foundation, and secondly, because your own belief that Alexei survived the execution and lived on well into the twentieth century, based on the ridiculous assumption that Alexei didn't have haemophilia after all, despite the family history of haemophilia, is clearly colouring your desire to push the theory that one GD and Alexei somehow magically escaped.  Great application of science there, might I add.

Keep up the good work, Margarita.

Rachel
xx

Rachel
xx

Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Bev on October 18, 2006, 10:59:06 AM
Well, first of all, I didn't say that we should take anyone's word as proof of anything.  I said that all of the evidence would constitute proof and I would add, that evidence would certainly convict Yurovsky in a court of law - beyond a reasonable doubt. The eyewitness, physical and circumstantial evidence is such that no other logical conclusion could be drawn.  An historian would add to that anecdotal evidence and the proof is overwhelming.

"Eighty eight years of searching for those same two missing Romanovs since 1918 have been completely unsuccessful" - a rather ironic statement from someone who claims to have found one of the "missing Romanovs."
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: J_Kendrick on October 18, 2006, 05:03:19 PM

Nothing that is actually verifiable as the truth has ever been unearthed that has given the details of an escape/removal of the two children.


Nothing that is actually verifiable as the truth has ever been unearthed that can prove the suspected murder of those missing Romanov teenagers at Ipatiev.

No Bones.  No Proof.

Without those bones, all you have is popular suspicion... and nothing more.

If you did have proof of those two missing teenagers' murders, then 'SEARCH' would NOT exist.

jk
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Ra-Ra-Rasputin on October 18, 2006, 05:19:35 PM
The very fact that SEARCH does exist shows that there are a lot of people who believe in the murders enough to spend a hell of a lot of money, time and career respectability to look for bodies that may or may not exist.  Right?

Rachel
xx
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: imperial angel on October 18, 2006, 05:46:35 PM
Can't we go back to talking about AA? I have always thought that it is odd that of all the imposters, she became the most famous, most believed in when it was rather apparent that she wasn't who she said she was. It was she who created the myth that there were more Anastasia imposters than any others, even though this wasn't true. AA was rather in her own category... ;)
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: lexi4 on October 18, 2006, 06:07:50 PM
Well, first of all, I didn't say that we should take anyone's word as proof of anything.  I said that all of the evidence would constitute proof and I would add, that evidence would certainly convict Yurovsky in a court of law - beyond a reasonable doubt. The eyewitness, physical and circumstantial evidence is such that no other logical conclusion could be drawn.  An historian would add to that anecdotal evidence and the proof is overwhelming.

"Eighty eight years of searching for those same two missing Romanovs since 1918 have been completely unsuccessful" - a rather ironic statement from someone who claims to have found one of the "missing Romanovs."

Bev brings up an interesting thought. Would there be enough evidence (using American jurisprudence) to convict Yourosky. Maybe we could examine what evidence there is and see for ourselves, or would that be another thread?
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Annie on October 18, 2006, 08:00:17 PM
The body of Michael Romanov was aslo never found but no one doubts he died as the Bolsheviks described. Could it be the only reason people still deny the murders of Anastasia and Alexei is because they were the ones who had the most interesting claimaints, and people want to believe they got away? If not, why does no one question the death of Michael due to a lack of a body?
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Louis_Charles on October 18, 2006, 08:42:18 PM
I'm curious. Did anyone ever claim to be Michael?
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: imperial angel on October 18, 2006, 08:59:50 PM
Not that I know of. It would have been more complicated to pretend to be an older member of the Imperial Family who was more widely known. If Michael turned up, there was also less of an inheiritence that he could claim, and he had responsibilities to his wife and son, who survived. So perhaps there lay less of an advantage in claiming to be him.
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Annie on October 18, 2006, 09:28:49 PM
It seems like I remember reading on this site a long time ago, before I got here, that someone was claiming to be Michael, still alive, or was it his grandson or something, and the guy got so bad he had to be banned? And this had something to do with the "Imperial claimants please post here" category being created? I could very well have this wrong so  someone who is a longer term member (I've been here over 2 years) can tell the story?

Someone also said once the reason no one claimed to be Michael because he was a full grown man and it would be harder to claim he had changed than a teenager.

Anyway I still want to know why no one on this forum questions Michael's death as told by the Bolsheviks, yet some completely disregard their accounts of A and A being killed, when in both cases no bodies were yet found? It must be the claimant connection.

Talk about 'one thing I find odd!'
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: J_Kendrick on October 18, 2006, 09:33:12 PM
The very fact that SEARCH does exist shows that there are a lot of people who believe in the murders enough to spend a hell of a lot of money, time and career respectability to look for bodies that may or may not exist.  Right?

Rachel
xx

The ONLY reason that SEARCH even exists is because the bones of Alexei and his missing sister have not yet been found...

The ONLY reason that SEARCH exists is because without those bones... there is NO PROOF of their suspected murders at Ipatiev!

jk
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Belochka on October 18, 2006, 10:40:12 PM
The very fact that SEARCH does exist shows that there are a lot of people who believe in the murders enough to spend a hell of a lot of money, time and career respectability to look for bodies that may or may not exist.  Right?

Rachel
xx

Thank you Rachel. That is EXACTLY why the SEARCH Foundation continues its work. Our enthusiasm with every passing year has never waned. Our hopes are increasing guided by the new sophisticated scientific equipment that will be used.

I find it difficult to take your comments re: the missing children seriously. Firstly, because they show a complete lack of logic and a clear bias agains the work of the SEARCH foundation, and secondly, because your own belief that Alexei survived the execution and lived on well into the twentieth century, based on the ridiculous assumption that Alexei didn't have haemophilia after all, despite the family history of haemophilia, is clearly colouring your desire to push the theory that one GD and Alexei somehow magically escaped.  Great application of science there, might I add.

Keep up the good work, Margarita.

Rachel
xx

Thank you for your generous wishes Rachel.

Best wishes,

Margarita
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Belochka on October 18, 2006, 10:49:24 PM
The ONLY reason that SEARCH even exists is because the bones of Alexei and his missing sister have not yet been found...
jk

Quite right John.

Why not show a modicum of respect for the hard working individuals who are doing their absolute best in helping to find the remains. It is most unworthy of you to discredit the SEARCH Foundation.

Margarita  
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Belochka on October 18, 2006, 10:52:42 PM
I'm curious. Did anyone ever claim to be Michael?

What is odd that no one wanted to claim that they were Mr Johnson!   ::)
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Bev on October 19, 2006, 06:35:54 AM
I agree that it would be interesting to gather the evidence against Yurovsky, although there is probably a thread doing just that somewhere around here...
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Belochka on October 19, 2006, 08:01:47 AM
I agree that it would be interesting to gather the evidence against Yurovsky, although there is probably a thread doing just that somewhere around here...

There are numerous contradictons concerning Yurovsky. 

Margarita   
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: imperial angel on October 19, 2006, 10:44:20 AM
Well, claiming to be the descendants of a guy and claiming to be him are rather two different things.  ;) The first is the easier one to do, certainly. I think it is true that that is harder to claim to be a grown man than a teenager, and there is less advantage in it. But there have been many claims of various sorts connected with all the Romanovs who died, in some ways, because if they don't claim to be them, they claim to be their descendants. ;)
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: J_Kendrick on October 19, 2006, 11:58:02 AM
The ONLY reason that SEARCH even exists is because the bones of Alexei and his missing sister have not yet been found...
jk

Quite right John.

Why not show a modicum of respect for the hard working individuals who are doing their absolute best in helping to find the remains. It is most unworthy of you to discredit the SEARCH Foundation.

Margarita  

With the greatest of respect...

I have only stated the truth.  I have only stated that the only reason that SEARCH now exists is because the bones of Alexei and his missing sister have not been found.. and that without those bones there is no proof of their suspected murders at Ipatiev.
 
How can you possibly take offense with the truth?  How have you managed to interpret what is a perfectly true statement of fact as somehow discrediting the SEARCH Foundation?

The very name of the SEARCH Foundation says it all...

SEARCH -- the Scientific Expedition to Account for the Romanov CHildren -- would never have been formed in the first place... if the bones of those two missing Romanov children had already been accounted for.

jk
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Eddie_uk on October 19, 2006, 01:53:33 PM

Why not show a modicum of respect for the hard working individuals who are doing their absolute best in helping to find the remains. It is most unworthy of you to discredit the SEARCH Foundation.

Margarita [/color]

Quite right Margarita dear! :) Keep up the good work. I look forward to the day when the hard work and persistance finally pays off & the last two members of this most explary family are laid to rest, in peace, with their loved ones. How lovely to think they would all be together again!! :)
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Tania+ on October 19, 2006, 02:54:30 PM
In the physical form, and as deceased bodies, they are not together, but for those raised and buried in the Russian Orthodox Faith, they ARE together, and one with the Father above, God Rest Their Souls.

Tatiana+
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: lori_c on October 19, 2006, 03:35:57 PM
In the physical form, and as deceased bodies, they are not together, but for those raised and buried in the Russian Orthodox Faith, they ARE together, and one with the Father above, God Rest Their Souls.

Tatiana+

I am Roman Catholic but I feel just as strongly as if I were of the Orthodox faith, that God in his mercy most certainly would have rewarded their suffering by allowing them to be together in heaven and not have allowed anymore atrocities committed against them after their horrible deaths.  It is really only our souls that matter in the end.
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Ra-Ra-Rasputin on October 19, 2006, 06:51:30 PM
The very fact that SEARCH does exist shows that there are a lot of people who believe in the murders enough to spend a hell of a lot of money, time and career respectability to look for bodies that may or may not exist.  Right?

Rachel
xx

The ONLY reason that SEARCH even exists is because the bones of Alexei and his missing sister have not yet been found...

The ONLY reason that SEARCH exists is because without those bones... there is NO PROOF of their suspected murders at Ipatiev!

jk


Your ground breaking point being???

You're stating the obvious. Yes without bodies there is no concrete proof that Alexei and one of his sisters were murdered. Well done you for working that out. 

However, the overwhelming circumstantial evidence would suggest to anyone with a modicum of common sense that they were murdered with the rest of their family.  Unless of course Heino Tammet and Anna Anderson really were brother and sister and there has been a massive cover up over the faked deaths of two insignificant children of an ex tsar...some secret society, royalty's version of the Opus Dei, has been pulling the wool over our eyes for the past 80 years! Now that really would be groundbreaking! There is a Romanov bloodline after all! And it lives on....maybe we should make a movie about it.  I'm sure Tom Hanks would be well up for it!

Rachel
xx
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: J_Kendrick on October 20, 2006, 09:52:10 PM

However, the overwhelming circumstantial evidence would suggest to anyone with a modicum of common sense that they were murdered with the rest of their family.  Unless of course Heino Tammet and Anna Anderson really were brother and sister and there has been a massive cover up over the faked deaths of two insignificant children of an ex tsar...some secret society, royalty's version of the Opus Dei, has been pulling the wool over our eyes for the past 80 years! Now that really would be groundbreaking! There is a Romanov bloodline after all! And it lives on....maybe we should make a movie about it.  I'm sure Tom Hanks would be well up for it!

Rachel
xx


A missing Gand Duchess and a missing Sovereign Heir? 

You describe the missing Romanov teenagers as   "... two insignificant children of an ex Tsar..." ? ???

Insignificant ? ? ? ?

A curious choice of words, to be sure.  How many others here would consider the two missing Romanovs to be insignificant?  If they really were insignificant, why would SEARCH still be spending so much effort looking for them?

.. and what if their missing bodies are not there to be found in Pig's Meadow?

Would you then still be calling them and their dissappearance "insignificant"?


Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Belochka on October 21, 2006, 12:03:26 AM
Hey John, why not try this challenging approach.... pay an accredited laboratory of your choosing so that they can attempt a DNA match using the Estonian's remains with that of Mrs Manahan?

Wouldn't those results be fascinating?  ::)  ;D

Margarita
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Belochka on October 21, 2006, 12:06:37 AM

Why not show a modicum of respect for the hard working individuals who are doing their absolute best in helping to find the remains. It is most unworthy of you to discredit the SEARCH Foundation.

Margarita  

Quite right Margarita dear! :) Keep up the good work. I look forward to the day when the hard work and persistance finally pays off & the last two members of this most explary family are laid to rest, in peace, with their loved ones. How lovely to think they would all be together again!! :)

Many thanks for your support Eddieboy_uk !

Margarita    ;)
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: J_Kendrick on October 21, 2006, 01:47:10 AM
Hey John, why not try this challenging approach.... pay an accredited laboratory of your choosing so that they can attempt a DNA match using the Estonian's remains with that of Mrs Manahan?

Wouldn't those results be fascinating?  ::)  ;D

Margarita


Oooo.. Sarcasm...

Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: J_Kendrick on October 21, 2006, 01:53:38 AM

Why not show a modicum of respect for the hard working individuals who are doing their absolute best in helping to find the remains. It is most unworthy of you to discredit the SEARCH Foundation.

Margarita  

Quite right Margarita dear! :) Keep up the good work. I look forward to the day when the hard work and persistance finally pays off & the last two members of this most explary family are laid to rest, in peace, with their loved ones. How lovely to think they would all be together again!! :)

Many thanks for your support Eddieboy_uk !

Margarita    ;)

SEARCH needs a great deal more than just spport in its very admirable efforts.

SEARCH needs to find those missing bones, which it is never going to do.... if it never dares to expand its search parameters beyond the confines of Pig's Meadow.

jk 
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Belochka on October 21, 2006, 01:56:05 AM

Why not show a modicum of respect for the hard working individuals who are doing their absolute best in helping to find the remains. It is most unworthy of you to discredit the SEARCH Foundation.

Margarita  

Quite right Margarita dear! :) Keep up the good work. I look forward to the day when the hard work and persistance finally pays off & the last two members of this most explary family are laid to rest, in peace, with their loved ones. How lovely to think they would all be together again!! :)

Many thanks for your support Eddieboy_uk !

Margarita    ;)

SEARCH needs a great deal more than just spport in its very admirable efforts.

SEARCH needs to find those missing bones, which it is never going to do.... if it never dares to expand its search parameters beyond the confines of Pig's Meadow.

jk 

Care to contribute to towards SEARCH's next expedition John?  ;)

Margarita
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Belochka on October 21, 2006, 01:58:41 AM
Hey John, why not try this challenging approach.... pay an accredited laboratory of your choosing so that they can attempt a DNA match using the Estonian's remains with that of Mrs Manahan?

Wouldn't those results be fascinating?  ::)  ;D

Margarita


Oooo.. Sarcasm...



Have you accepted the challenge?

Margarita  ;D
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Ra-Ra-Rasputin on October 21, 2006, 04:53:18 AM
Yes, Mr Kendrick, I do think they are insignificant in the grand scheme of things.

Two children of an ex Tsar, note the ex, are not and were not that important to warrant the cover up you suggest.

SEARCH continues to look for them because whether they are insignificant in the grand scheme of things or not, depending on how attached you are to the Romanovs, they are still two missing children and their bodies deserve to be found and put to rest beside their family.  Also, a lot of people want to put the whole survivor theory to rest once and for all, and in finding the final two bodies, this would be achieved.

Alexei and his sister would never have been in a position to reascend the non existant throne of Russia.  This is why they are insignificant.  There was no fortune for them to inherit.  This is why they are insignificant.  The majority of their relatives died penniless and in obscurity.  That is why they are insignificant.

What you people don't seem to understand is that the vast majority of the world KNOWS NOTHING about the Romanovs and COULDN'T CARE LESS.  Just because we have an interest in them, it doesn't mean everyone else does.  The two missing bodies, compared to what else has gone on in the world in the last century, is really not that important an issue.  So I fail to see why you think there would have been a big cover up over the deaths of two children who didn't have a hope in hell of changing the course of history anyway. 

Rachel
xx
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Bev on October 21, 2006, 10:48:31 AM
RRRasp. is absolutely correct.  If the two children had turned up a year after the murder, it would not have changed Russian history one iota, except to add an interesting footnote to the historical record.  One fragile, hemophiliac boy who could not walk, from a very unpopular and quite frankly hated family, with no political or financial fortune could not have stemmed the tide of the revolution. 

There is no reason whatsoever for anyone today to coverup or obscure the facts in this case.  No historian, politician or scientist would have any motive whatsoever to risk his professional reputation to tamper with evidence.

There is a very simple solution to solving Kendrick's problem - ask for the samples to be sent to another lab and have them tested. There is no reason not to do this.  If SEARCH folded its tents today, it would not prove that the children survived, it would prove that SEARCH stopped searching.  Just because they stopped searching for Jimmy Hoffa, it doesn't prove that Jimmy Hoffa is alive.  I wonder why Kendrick is obsessively pursuing the ridiculous claims of some Estonian con artist, in the face of all the known facts and evidence, but if he wants to spend his capital on the project, it doesn't matter to me or anyone else - and it shouldn't matter to Kendrick if anyone else wants to spend time and money on his/her own project.
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Elisabeth on October 21, 2006, 11:21:23 AM
Lori, with all due respect, what you are repeating is all (recent) legend and hearsay. As far as professional (that is, academic) historians can gather, there were NO contemporary rumors that two bodies were missing from Pig's Meadow. Yurovsky makes NO special attempt in any of his numerous accounts of the murder and burial of the IF to "explain" the apparent "absence" of two missing bodies. On the contrary, in one account he even jacks up the death toll by adding a twelfth victim to the number killed in the Ipatiev House. If he was so concerned about missing bodies, why add a third "missing" body to the mix?

Moreover, if there was some contemporary rumor that two bodies were missing, why didn't Anna Anderson or any of her supporters avail themselves of it? Why don't any contemporary Soviet documents address themselves to this issue? Why was Yurovsky allowed to die in his own bed? Why, why, why - the questions multiply the longer you look at this issue.

The fact of the matter is, there were NO contemporary rumors amongst the Bolsheviks, the peasants, or anywhere else that two bodies had gone missing, because two bodies had NOT gone missing. All the rumors to this effect are very, very recent and can largely be traced to conspiracy theorists trying to prove that Anastasia somehow survived the slaughter in the Ipatiev House.

P.S. Well, that's decidedly odd. The post I thought I was addressing has suddenly disappeared. Maybe I'm in the wrong thread? Or on the wrong page? But I honestly can't find anywhere the post from Lori that I responded to! My apologies, especially to Lori!
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Tania+ on October 21, 2006, 11:46:47 AM
The IF were hated by those who were communists, and those who did not believe then as now, in the Russian Imperial rule, but that did not make it all of Russia. Yes, these were, and still remain people who hated the family, not necessarily the children.

For these above people the IF were deemed not worthy, but for a goodly amount of millions of people, they were also revered and loved, and judging by the amount of peoples who have dropped by to view this AP forum, they are still certainly remembered, and loved by many today. As well today, in the new Russian Federation, their names, their graves, and their persons are again being addressed, and revered. So, again it matters from whose perspective that one gains understanding. They have already paid a high price that they were slaughtered, and need not to have added insults thrown on them in death. You cannot say the world has forgot them, quite the contrary, and they are not at all insignificant, not at all !

For those on this forum who do not care for them, that is certainly your choice, but for those of us who don't, you cannot speak for all the forum, but only of how you independently feel, and neither can you make a blanket statement of those in the world outside this AP Forum.

There are many of in the past, and present who have addressed them not because of their royalty, but because of how they addressed their lives, and were able to transend any human issues personally of harboring hate, especially to those who were their persecutors. They lived their lives in faith to the very end, and in this regard for many in the free world, and for those in Russia as well, their lives have more than 100% significance and always will !

Tatiana+
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Elisabeth on October 21, 2006, 11:55:17 AM
Of course, uvazhaemaia Tania, the imperial children had an ultimate value as human beings. What Rachel and Bev are saying is something completely different. All they are arguing is that the imperial children, Alexei and Anastasia, were no longer of any value as political players in the Russia of 1918. Alexei was an invalid who could barely stand, let alone walk, in his last days on this earth. Anastasia was the youngest daughter of the former tsar, moreover a girl and as such disqualified by imperial law from any claim to the (by now nonexistent) throne. Neither one counted in the larger political scheme of things. Even the Whites who were rapidly approaching Ekaterinburg in early July 1918 did not contemplate restoring the monarchy. So the Bolsheviks actually had very little to lose, at least politically speaking, by killing Nicholas and his entire immediate family.
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Tania+ on October 21, 2006, 12:09:58 PM
Thank you Elizabeth for your kind response. When one explains it in the language as you so patiently and are considerate to offer your words, then it is well taken and understood in that perspective. I have already encountered on the forum wherein a person expressed that they were 'worthless', and when I read what was expressed from both of these young ladies, I decidedly moved to make statement to the contrary, if only to allow understanding to those readers who are not yet old enough to discern to full content, the political intrigues that we as adults have come to understand, in that of the old communist regiemes.

One must always pay full connect, that there are many children who come to these threads, and in all fairness, they deserve to know that we still remain with the ability to show balance in that of where countries were hijacked and suffered irreprable damage, as well that full freedoms have not yet been addressed to date. So, these are the primary reasons I think it is of benefit to always have a balanced offering from readers, and AP members. Hate must not lead, nor be the desired outcome, for that outcome leaves no one with any continuance of even thought.

Thank you again for your taking time to respond with your graciousness.

Tatiana+
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: David_Pritchard on October 21, 2006, 01:41:08 PM
One thing I find odd

If you were to think about it, it is truely amazing that there is anything left that one could find odd on this forum, questions and members that is.
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Bev on October 21, 2006, 02:23:35 PM
I've had enough of the pious hectoring, Tania.
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: David_Pritchard on October 21, 2006, 02:38:36 PM
I've had enough of the pious hectoring, Tania.

I suggest that you protest by throwing yourself off of a very tall building. May I suggest the Carew Tower or that silly building on the UC Campus that looks like a gigantic water fountain.
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: grandduchessella on October 21, 2006, 02:41:56 PM
Please no suggestions, even humorously given, that someone do themselves physical harm.
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: J_Kendrick on October 21, 2006, 03:59:22 PM

SEARCH continues to look for them because whether they are insignificant in the grand scheme of things or not, depending on how attached you are to the Romanovs, they are still two missing children and their bodies deserve to be found and put to rest beside their family. 

Also, a lot of people want to put the whole survivor theory to rest once and for all, and in finding the final two bodies, this would be achieved.

Rachel
xx


... and when SEARCH finally admits that it has failed to find those two misssing bodies? 

Your goal of putting "the whole survivor theory to rest" will also have failed.

So...  Then what?

No matter what you may be searching for... whether it's a missing person... a cure for cancer... or evidence of water on Mars.. you must continue to pursue every possibility imaginable, if you ever expect to be successful.  If you insist on restricting your search parameters to only one possibility -- as SEARCH is now doing -- then your chances of success will remain negligible, if not non-existent.

Unless it sees fit to change its outlook, vastly expands its search parameters well beyond the confines of Pig's Meadow, and finally decides to pursue every possibility imaginable -- not just the one possibility that it now favours -- SEARCH will not succeed.

jk
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Ra-Ra-Rasputin on October 21, 2006, 05:59:40 PM
Seeing as I'm not a part of SEARCH, there's no need to address me as if I am.  If you've got any better ideas as to where they should be searching, do tell.  Though, of course, you'd suggest we look no further than Heino 'Romanov' Tammet's grave, wouldn't you?

And Tania, Elisabeth is right; I wasn't referring to the two children as being insignificant in personal terms, merely in a political one.  Every person's life has a significance, and I never meant to imply otherwise.  I did not use the term 'worthless', and I wouldn't presume to about anyone.  However, you must realise that the vast majority of the world couldn't really care less about the Romanovs; many don't even know the first thing about them.  Perhaps the Orthodox world may revere them, but hardly anyone else does, I'm afraid.  I'm just stating the truth.  I'm not saying it's right, but it's the way it is.  That's why the whole cover up thing is ridiculous; they're simply not important enough to enough people to warrant a hundred year cover up resulting in the conspiracy theories we have today.

Rachel
xx
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Tania+ on October 21, 2006, 07:11:49 PM
Rachel,

I think by now you know me, and how i write and my thoughts therein. I responded to Elizabeth's post and expressed myself, as every other member, and or guest is allowed to do as this AP Forum has been offered. I understood what Elizabeth said, and in fairness her response earlier today, in regards to what your post was about. No qualm, and I thought I stated that forthwith. Others have stated their views, and I responded equally.

I must say though, the entirety of the Orthodox world is not a small sum, and they are not insignificant by any means. That would be like me stating that in terms of other countries, and of their faiths. To offer statement, or give inuendo that they were insignificant as well as countries, or to any regard of their faith, I did not, and I will not because that is un-needed. As we all know, this is a global forum and all content, nations, faiths are respected equally, and there should be no differences in these addresses.

My right, or your right is not always what the world is, and sometimes it leaves us askance. That is why when we are here, our thoughts offered, are if you will, remain singular in view, but with a reflection if you will and unerstanding, that there are others with the same views, and sometimes equal to a whole country, sometimes a whole continent, etc.

Many as you see here on the AP Forum, are just viewers, and to my understanding over 4,000 have dropped by, but that does not mean we have heard their complete views, etc. I am sure they are more than welcome to equally give their views, as free speech is always welcomed.

My content is to that of which i directed my comments, nothing more. Politics being what they are, and to whom they encircle, remain as they are. So as long as you now understand my content, i hope you can attend to what your needs are to be focused on. I meant no ill will, but clearly stated what is the balance of thought, as one would look at the other side of a coin. Thank you for taking time to respond to my post. I hope you are well, and all is fine.

Tatiana+
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Elisabeth on October 22, 2006, 12:47:58 PM
Tania, the sad fact of the matter is that as long as Nicholas and Alexandra were living, they were despised by much of the Orthodox faithful in Russia, but the minute they died at the hands of the Bolsheviks, they became martyrs to the Orthodox faith. The point is that the family of Nicholas II was more important, politically speaking, when they were dead than when they were living. Dead, they became a rallying point for the Whites, alive, they only served as a source of dissension and disorganization for that same cause.
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Tania+ on October 22, 2006, 01:31:50 PM
Elizabeth,

As long as Russia was held captive, and incommunicado by the communists, the IF were indeed politically and by all other understandings, held as despised non persons. For many till today, in outside Russia, of those who are against the Orthodox faith, the old imperial regieme, of course, it will have continuance. There in Russia, and elsewhere wherein people continue to hold on to these thoughts, that remains. It will continue to remain untill the whole government is changed for the better in Russia.

But, there are, still inside Russia, and outside Russia a heavy contingency of Orthodox flock who as well believe totally, along with Russian Orthodox Catholics, and that is the other side of the coin, to allow balance of thought
. Until the whole remains of the old communist machine have died out, the Imperial Family will continue to have this offering of political placement throughout Russia.

Russia still has not been delivered from the over 80 years of communist control and desparing issues that still continue to haunt much of the populations lives. The control of the minds, hearts, and faith stolen from the people, still have yet to be healed. This of course transpired in most of the sattelite countries, and so they also can attest to how their countries were hijacked, and people of note, as well as the rest of these nations, were continually and savagely maligned, indoctrinated, as well, considered, persona non grata. So, it is again, how and who is looking down or who has had to look down the barrel of a cannon and decidedly, how one is to look at the remainder and outcome of their countries history, a history again i might remind most readers, they did not ask for....so, Russia as these nations who were held under communist seige, still have yet to evolve. In time, perhaps another 100 years will allow the world a better understanding of what communist rule offered in reality, millions under captive rule !

Tatiana+
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Elisabeth on October 22, 2006, 01:45:14 PM
Tatiana, I agree that communist rule was terrible. But we're talking about the specific political situation back in July 1918. The Bolsheviks were still struggling for political survival at this point. They were in a brutal contest with the Whites, and no one could yet be sure who would emerge as the ultimate victor. In this struggle, during the Civil War, as far as the Whites were concerned Nicholas and Alexandra and their children were more symbolically important dead than living. I don't think anyone can really contest that fact. It simply is the truth. Alive, they were an embarrassment and no one amongst the Whites could agree as to what their fate should be. No one wanted the monarchy back, but then what were they to do with Nicholas, Alexandra, Alexei, and the daughters? It was a very perplexing problem. On the other hand, if the entire family was dead, it was all quite plain and simple: the former tsar and his family were martyrs to the enemy Bolsheviks and a rallying point for the White cause.

I don't understand why you keep arguing this point because it really is quite easy to understand and one made by virtually every historian of the Russian Revolution I have ever read... you mustn't confuse present-day Orthodox feelings for the IF with the feelings of most Russians towards the IF back in 1918. That was a whole different ballgame.
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: lexi4 on October 22, 2006, 04:23:34 PM
Tatiana, I agree that communist rule was terrible. But we're talking about the specific political situation back in July 1918. The Bolsheviks were still struggling for political survival at this point. They were in a brutal contest with the Whites, and no one could yet be sure who would emerge as the ultimate victor. In this struggle, during the Civil War, as far as the Whites were concerned Nicholas and Alexandra and their children were more symbolically important dead than living. I don't think anyone can really contest that fact. It simply is the truth. Alive, they were an embarrassment and no one amongst the Whites could agree as to what their fate should be. No one wanted the monarchy back, but then what were they to do with Nicholas, Alexandra, Alexei, and the daughters? It was a very perplexing problem. On the other hand, if the entire family was dead, it was all quite plain and simple: the former tsar and his family were martyrs to the enemy Bolsheviks and a rallying point for the White cause.

I don't understand why you keep arguing this point because it really is quite easy to understand and one made by virtually every historian of the Russian Revolution I have ever read... you mustn't confuse present-day Orthodox feelings for the IF with the feelings of most Russians towards the IF back in 1918. That was a whole different ballgame.

Elisabeth,
Very good post. And an accurate description of the climate in Russia at the time. The Whites did not want the monaarchy back. Mostly, the IF was in the way. No one really rallied around the IF. But when they were dead then the Whites could use that against the Bolsheviks. It obviously didn't work.
The members of the IF, imo, had done little in win the respect of the Russian people. In the end, Nicholas did not even have the support of his own army.
Tania, hindsight is always 20-20. It is important to keep in context in mind.
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Guinastasia on October 22, 2006, 05:00:16 PM
Exactly, lexi.  Let's face it-as a husband and father, Nicholas was exemplary, but as a ruler, he was terrible.  I certainly wouldn't have wanted him in charge.

And likewise, there were good rulers that I wouldn't want to be acquainted with personally.  That's just life.
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: lori_c on October 23, 2006, 04:38:43 PM
Lori, with all due respect, what you are repeating is all (recent) legend and hearsay. As far as professional (that is, academic) historians can gather, there were NO contemporary rumors that two bodies were missing from Pig's Meadow. Yurovsky makes NO special attempt in any of his numerous accounts of the murder and burial of the IF to "explain" the apparent "absence" of two missing bodies. On the contrary, in one account he even jacks up the death toll by adding a twelfth victim to the number killed in the Ipatiev House. If he was so concerned about missing bodies, why add a third "missing" body to the mix?

Moreover, if there was some contemporary rumor that two bodies were missing, why didn't Anna Anderson or any of her supporters avail themselves of it? Why don't any contemporary Soviet documents address themselves to this issue? Why was Yurovsky allowed to die in his own bed? Why, why, why - the questions multiply the longer you look at this issue.

The fact of the matter is, there were NO contemporary rumors amongst the Bolsheviks, the peasants, or anywhere else that two bodies had gone missing, because two bodies had NOT gone missing. All the rumors to this effect are very, very recent and can largely be traced to conspiracy theorists trying to prove that Anastasia somehow survived the slaughter in the Ipatiev House.

P.S. Well, that's decidedly odd. The post I thought I was addressing has suddenly disappeared. Maybe I'm in the wrong thread? Or on the wrong page? But I honestly can't find anywhere the post from Lori that I responded to! My apologies, especially to Lori!

Elisabeth:  here is the quote you were chastising me about:

I believe that given the timeframe of the burial of the IF and the fact that Yurovsky and his men had to rebury them one could argue that peasants within range of the Koptyaki Forest (unnoticed) could have known that 2 bodies were not buried with the common grave - NOT that I am inferring anybody survived. I don't want to go down that path for this post. 

However, I do think that gossip and spreading tales - true or exaggerated was a preponderance of the Russian Guard as well.  So this may have been how the rumor started that 2 survived.  Considering the 2 missing were Almost named correctly in Yurovsky's note (he said Demidova and Alexei), I am guessing it was someone that was there that day and helped rebury the bodies the second time and noticed not all were accounted for.  Then probably went on to discuss this horrible day with others which spread like wildfire.  This is probably why Yurovsky felt the need to account for two missing bodies.[/font]

I believe that Edvard Razdzinsky is a very well respected historian and much of the information above was taken from his book The Last Tsar.  He argues to the contrary that Yurovsky DID try in two different written accounts which Mr. Razdzinsky waas privy to- to explain the absence of two bodies from the mass grave.

My theory on the rumors was my own.  It would be plausible to think that SOMEBODY lingering around Pig's Meadow undetected, someone who knew and lived in the area could have witnessed everything.  Including the reburial.  When it was discovered two bodies were not accounted for, someone may have known and passed it on. 

Not missing as in "they got away", but perhaps in the reburial process their bodies were not included with the rest of those in the mass grave later found under the railroad ties. 

I don't for any reason believe Anastasia or any of the others survived the execution.  I was just trying to decide how, before even the grave was opened, rumors WERE circulating that the heir and one of the Grand Duchessess survived.

I guess what i was trying to say was there could have been a possibility two bodies and were "missing" their identities and sex were no secret.  For whatever reason, they were not buried with the rest of the family as evidenced by the bones found in the grave. That is what I mean by missing.  As a result of this "rumor", amongst the guard or even people in the area ---the way could have been paved already for future people claiming to be survivors based on this rumor alone.  It was this point that I was making that AA already know one of the daughters wasn't in the grave therefore giving rise to the belief that she resembled one, at first Tatiana and then AN. 

Not that they lived.  Just that others new they were buried somewhere else.  Anyway, except for information from The Last Tsary the rest is just my theory.


Lori C.
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Elisabeth on October 23, 2006, 05:23:48 PM
Thanks for being so patient with my lack of computer skills, Lori. I thought I was on the last page of this thread when actually I was on the first page! One must be ever-vigilant when following links...

At any rate, I have to insist that there's no factual evidence of rumors to the effect that two bodies were missing in 1918 Russia. There were rumors that one or more of the grand duchesses had escaped (please note: living bodies, not corpses!), but these seem to have been put about by the Ural Regional Bolsheviks themselves from their new headquarters in Perm, in order to confuse the White investigation as to the ultimate fate of the former empress and her four daughters.

I'd also be the first to admit that I don't find Radzinsky to be a reliable historian. Let's just say I find him an interesting one. He's a Romantic, with a capital R, and he practices the art of the Romantic biography, in the nineteenth-century sense of the term. He's biased, he's partisan, and he's very emotional. All of these are traits I definitely do not look for in a good historian... That said, I don't doubt that he had (and has) inside connections to the former Soviet KGB and other governmental entities who helped him with his research. For that reason, I am always careful to read what Radzinsky has to say - but always with a large grain of salt on hand! Radzinsky's chief talent lies in manufacturing a new national myth for Russia, as he did in his biography of Nicholas II, The Last Tsar. However, as a historian, as opposed to a mythologist, for the most part he lacks credibility.
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Tania+ on October 23, 2006, 09:06:03 PM
Elizabeth,

Per your statement, "you mustn't confuse present-day Orthodox feelings for the IF with the feelings of most Russians towards the IF back in 1918", is not my only point, but I see that there is a void of understanding in what I have tried to convey. I don't have the energy, nor does it seem of importance for many, so I will skip it. As others have stated so well, but most politely, we continue to agree, to disagree.

We all have our particular understandings, given various points of writings, historical narratives, most importantly, first person recountings, etc.. Based on these, I have my choice to hold on to what I feel, in wanting to take into consideration and beliefs for bottom line takes, as I am understanding in having received all of these. Each person through their own quests of combining all of what histories offer, and that includes first person narratives, has a better understanding than those who have just read historical writings. Outside of being there in person, this is as close any person could be.

One might make suggestion to another, that there are other viewpoints, but one should not state, 'you should not continue to think this or that'. I am neither your student, nor someone who has lesser of understanding, nor a person without ability to discern. I have not gone into detail of what I do or don't know, so your comment is based purely at present on conjucture of what you think, i think, and so is Lori's. I am in my late 60's, and you are both very young women, learned to be sure about many historical parts of Russian History, but still removed somewhat. I am thankful for your being able to allow those in the Western communities to know about Russian History, etc., but those of us whom have been raised from church, early russian history, and home and cultural environments of our centuries old Russian culture, do have our beliefs, etc. We are aware of before the revolution, till present, thanks, and continue to absorb and read extensively. For many of us whose families come from a very long lineage of Russia's past, we are hopeful for Russia's future, and look to the day when Russia will become as she once was, before the communist take over.

Thanks again always for your input.

Tatiana+

Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Belochka on October 23, 2006, 09:43:55 PM
For many of us whose families come from a very long lineage of Russia's past, we are hopeful for Russia's future, and look to the day when Russia will become as she once was, before the communist take over.

Tatiana+

Respectfully, Russia is herself today. Russia will never return to its Imperial past: society changes and ideally progresses forward but it can never go backwards. Too much has happened inbetween and those events can never be forgotten.

Margarita
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Tsarfan on October 24, 2006, 11:33:34 AM

we are hopeful for Russia's future, and look to the day when Russia will become as she once was, before the communist take over.


Hopeful for the day Russia will become as she once was . . . ?

When the vast majority of the people were peasants, many of them illiterate?  When government was completely unanswerable to the people?  When Russia's wealth was concentrated in the smallest percentage of the population of any major nation?  When a creaking, corrupt civil and military bureaucracy delivered one defeat after another to Russia throughout the 19th and early 20th centuries?  When religious minorities were barred from most professions and forced to live in pales of settlement?  When all public political discussion was censored?  When any impetus toward reform that came from outside governing circles was outlawed and driven underground?  When terrorism was the only available means of political discourse?  When crank ideologies such as Marxism seemed to offer more promise to masses of Russians than Romanov rule?

That's quite an aspiration for a nation that one holds dear.

Belochka is right.  The best hope for Russia's people lies down a new path, well away from both their autocratic and their communist pasts.  The history of Russia's autocracy is a fascinating topic for study.  Her fairytale palaces, fabulous balls, vast jewel cabinets, miles of wardrobes packed with silks and ermines, armies of liveried servants are wonderful fodder for endless daydreams.  But they are a bleak future to wish upon a people who have had more than their fair share of tyranny and deprivation.

Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Elisabeth on October 24, 2006, 12:14:58 PM
Oh, I don’t think Russia in 1914 was so bad, Tsarfan. You obviously haven’t been following the “Soviet Union: What Kind of Mistake Was It?” thread. Russia in 1914 was not committing war crimes in Chechnya, was not in the middle of an AIDS epidemic threatening to decimate an already precipitously declining population, and was not on top of everything else massively polluted by toxic chemicals, which to this date are causing an unprecedented number of birth defects in children. Additionally, Russia in 1914 had not yet sacrificed 20-30 million victims to Lenin and Stalin and another 20 million to World War II (which partly explains the precipitously declining population).

With all this in mind, I can perfectly understand the nostalgia many Russians feel for pre-revolutionary, pre-World War I Russia. It was, after all, a time of great hope, however illusory that hope proved to be in the long run. In 1914 Russia was no longer an autocracy but a constitutional monarchy, with a government arguably more democratic than it is today, in 2006 (since back then, unlike now, it had an unmuzzled press and a thriving political opposition). Moreover, both the peasantry and working class were represented in the Duma, again, perhaps even better represented than they are today, in Putin’s Russia.

And let’s not forget Russia’s Silver Age, when innumerable writers, poets, painters, composers, musicians, architects, sculptors, choreographers and dancers were contributing to an unparalleled explosion of artistic talent. Nicholas II's Russia was considered to be the international leader in the arts. All this creativity was to be virtually snuffed out by the Bolsheviks, along with many of the artists themselves. One of the many crimes of the Bolsheviks, and probably not the least of them, either.

Of course it’s impossible to return to the past. But if Russia could turn the clock back, it would not be such a bad thing. In fact this discussion reminds me of that novel by Martin Amis, Time’s Arrow, in which time is turned backwards and all the dead of the Holocaust are magically resurrected. Imagine if most of the twentieth century had never happened in Russia. Imagine the millions of dead and unborn people who would be restored or born to life. Imagine where Russia would be today if it hadn’t been for the senseless murderousness and stultifying ideology of Lenin and his successors.   
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Tsarfan on October 24, 2006, 12:36:35 PM
I don't agree with your observations, Elisabeth, in so far as they depict one aspect of an objective analysis of the situation.

However, having read hundreds of posts by people who pine for the return of Holy Mother Russia, Nicholas and Alexandra's sweet little family, and the fairytale existence of her aristocratic classes, I have the distinct impression that it is not the brief experiment with constitutional government (forced on Nicholas by a revolution, mind you) or the silver age of literature that is the siren call that lures them back to Russia's past.
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Elisabeth on October 24, 2006, 12:54:55 PM
I don't agree with your observations, Elisabeth, in so far as they depict one aspect of an objective analysis of the situation.

Do you mean you don't disagree with me, Tsarfan? Otherwise I don't understand your post. Or are you saying that you don't agree with me because my observations depict only one aspect of a contested past? (Upon rereading your post, I guess you mean the latter.)

However, having read hundreds of posts by people who pine for the return of Holy Mother Russia, Nicholas and Alexandra's sweet little family, and the fairytale existence of her aristocratic classes, I have the distinct impression that it is not the brief experiment with constitutional government (forced on Nicholas by a revolution, mind you) or the silver age of literature that is the siren call that lures them back to Russia's past.

Look, I don't care what other people think. I think what I think. I feel no nostalgia whatsoever for tsars and aristocrats and serfs. (Unlike you, I'm not even a "tsarfan" - I can't think of a single tsar I like, with the possible exception of Alexander II.) What I feel "nostalgia" for, if that's what you call a bitter regret for something stamped out without mercy, is the promise and potential held out by prerevolutionary, pre-World War I Russia. But I would argue that no one who has studied Russian history can feel anything other than tremendous sorrow at Russia's fate in the twentieth century. I don't understand this apparent need of yours to equate autocratic Russia with the Bolshevik Soviet Union... the two were not equivalent. And  I still do not ascribe to the belief that Russians somehow deserved what happened to them in the twentieth century, or were fated to go through these trials, because of their autocratic past - if you have read Russian literature, heard Russian music, you know there was a great deal more to imperial Russian history than an autocratic government. No, in my humble opinion Russia, in addition to the burdens placed on it by its unfortunate past, also suffered a run of tremendously bad luck in the twentieth century. Everything that could have gone wrong did, and in the worst possible way. I can't blame the Russian people or even autocracy for that.
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Tsarfan on October 24, 2006, 01:15:59 PM
Lordy, Elisabeth . . . I really don't manage to convey in my writing when my tongue is in my cheek.

Actually, I do largely agree with your interpretation of the promise that Russia held at the turn of the twentieth century.  And I think we largely agree that Nicholas was more a hindrance to than a promoter of that promise.

And, I assure you, it was definitely not you to whom I was referring with the comment about the siren call.  I find you unfailingly objective in your analysis of Russian history.

When I said your observations depict only one aspect of Russia as it stood in 1914, I did not mean that aspect was incorrect.  I simply meant that Russia had both good and bad aspects . . . and good and bad prospects.  You focused on the aspects that arose from Russia's attempts to progress, and I focused on the aspects that arose from her resistance to progress.

My real point was that when most people crave a return to Russia's past, it seems to arise from their attraction to traditional Orthodoxy and/or to the material glories of Romanov court and society.

If anyone said that they desired to go back and pick up the experiment with constitutional government before eight decades of communist rule put Russia almost beyond the reach any workable experiment in good government, I would whole-heartedly join in that wish.  However, if they desired to return to Orthodox autocracy as practised by the tsars, I would cringe at the prospect for Russians who want to control their own future.
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: lori_c on October 24, 2006, 01:59:30 PM
Thanks for being so patient with my lack of computer skills, Lori. I thought I was on the last page of this thread when actually I was on the first page! One must be ever-vigilant when following links...

At any rate, I have to insist that there's no factual evidence of rumors to the effect that two bodies were missing in 1918 Russia. There were rumors that one or more of the grand duchesses had escaped (please note: living bodies, not corpses!), but these seem to have been put about by the Ural Regional Bolsheviks themselves from their new headquarters in Perm, in order to confuse the White investigation as to the ultimate fate of the former empress and her four daughters.

I'd also be the first to admit that I don't find Radzinsky to be a reliable historian. Let's just say I find him an interesting one. He's a Romantic, with a capital R, and he practices the art of the Romantic biography, in the nineteenth-century sense of the term. He's biased, he's partisan, and he's very emotional. All of these are traits I definitely do not look for in a good historian... That said, I don't doubt that he had (and has) inside connections to the former Soviet KGB and other governmental entities who helped him with his research. For that reason, I am always careful to read what Radzinsky has to say - but always with a large grain of salt on hand! Radzinsky's chief talent lies in manufacturing a new national myth for Russia, as he did in his biography of Nicholas II, The Last Tsar. However, as a historian, as opposed to a mythologist, for the most part he lacks credibility.

Thank you Elisabeth for your repsonse.  I agree with you that there was no factual evidence of rumors to the effect that two bodies were missing.  I was just trying to explain that it was my own theory that perhaps somebody around the graveside in the area "talked".  Obviously two bodies ARE missing.  I don't believe they survived.  It's my belief that in the haste of the burial and reburial something might have gotten missed.  This is my own theory and I have no facts to back it up.  I just thought it would be  something to think about as to how the story of AN and the heir so called surviving surfaced long before the mass grave was opened and proved to the world that indeed two bodies are buried elsewhere.

I understand your point that the "escape" by one of the Grand Duchesses was put out by the Ural Soviet Bolsheviks to confuse the Whites.  But so were other rumors such as only the emperor and the heir were executed and the Empress and her daughters were swept away to safety.    But my point is only to as a question, how did the imposters know exactly which two bodies would not be found in the grave and then proceed to impersonate them?  Anastasia and Alexei have had many claiming to be them over the years, yet no one has come forward claiming to be the Empress?  It was only my theory that something must have taken place, unpublished and undocumented, perhaps by word of mouth to give the impression that those two specifically were not in the common grave and this could have been that which opened the door for claimaints all over the world.  I have no historical or scholarly evidence to back this claim.  I just thought it was an interesting idead to ponder.

I didn't realize that Mr. Radzinsky was considered lacking in creditbility.  I was sincerely impressed by his research and writings.  The Last Tsar is one of my favorite books about the imperial family.    But, since you take this with a grain of salt, I will be sure to be more open minded about any future writings from him.

Lori C.
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Helen_Azar on October 24, 2006, 02:08:28 PM
But my point is only to as a question, how did the imposters know exactly which two bodies would not be found in the grave and then proceed to impersonate them?  Anastasia and Alexei have had many claiming to be them over the years, yet no one has come forward claiming to be the Empress? 

Wait a minute. No one may have come forward to be the Empress, but plenty had come forward to be other imperial children (see "The Imperial Claimants" thread):

Olga:    28 claimants

Tatiana:  33 claimants

Maria:    53 claimants

Anastasia:   33 claimants

Alexei:     81 claimants

Total:  228 "imperial children" who survived the Ekaterinburg massacre...

So there is no great coincidence that Anastasia and Alexei are the two who are "missing" and the two who "came forward"... Besides, we don't know for sure if the missing female remains are those of Anastasia, they could be of Maria. In fact, notice that Maria had more claimants than Anastasia, hmmm...  ;)

Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Tsarfan on October 24, 2006, 05:02:03 PM

I don't agree with your observations, Elisabeth, in so far as they depict one aspect of an objective analysis of the situation.


Oops.  Sorry, Elisabeth . . . I made a typo and meant to say I don't disagree with your observations.  Now I understand why you found my post confusing.
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Belochka on October 24, 2006, 10:39:15 PM

Wait a minute. No one may have come forward to be the Empress, but plenty had come forward to be other imperial children (see "The Imperial Claimants" thread):


Maria:    53 claimants

Anastasia:   33 claimants


Total:  228 "imperial children" who survived the Ekaterinburg massacre...

.... In fact, notice that Maria had more claimants than Anastasia, hmmm...  ;)

Perhaps it may be that this set of pretenders bellieved that Mariya was the more attractive one to select?

Margarita  ;)
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Tsarfan on October 24, 2006, 10:46:09 PM

I don't understand this apparent need of yours to equate autocratic Russia with the Bolshevik Soviet Union... the two were not equivalent. And  I still do not ascribe to the belief that Russians somehow deserved what happened to them in the twentieth century, or were fated to go through these trials, because of their autocratic past . . . .


In fairness, Elisabeth, you have paraphrased my position in a debate on another thread in a way that grossly distorts the points I made there.  I argued that Russia's autocratic past fostered in Russians a sense that their fates were in the hands of their government rather than in their own, and that the decisions of government were not to be questioned.  From that, I argued that this mindset -- borne of an autocratic heritage -- made the depredations of the soviet era easier for the dictators to pull off without challenge.

While I also saw some antecedents to the violence of the soviet era in things such as Peter I's dealing with the Streltsy, his likely murder of his own son, and his forced westernization policies, I never equated the soviet regime with the autocratic regime.  And I certainly never argued or suggested that the Russians deserved what happened to them in the 20th century.  That would be like arguing that Jews who lived in an anti-semitic Europe deserved the Holocaust.  I merely pointed out that the ability of one madman such as Stalin to murder countless millions of his countrymen without any significant resistance had to have had its roots in certain aspects of Russia's history . . . a history which was one of autocratic rule with all power concentrated in the hands of one person.

Something very strange happens when the topic of the soviet era is opened.  Anyone who tries to place it in a historical context by daring to suggest it had any historical antecedents whatsoever, or that it was not alone in the scale of its evil in a century when other regimes also killed millions upon millions, is immediately pounced upon as an "apologist" for the soviet regime or someone who thinks it was justified.  What was actually said or written is simply to be ignored when it gets in the way of such wilful distortion.

Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: LisaDavidson on October 24, 2006, 11:31:40 PM
Some of us are getting very OT here. I am admonishing anyone who wants to discuss the political situation in Russia to post these in the history sections. This topic is about the Question of Survivors.
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: AGRBear on October 25, 2006, 01:38:31 PM
But my point is only to as a question, how did the imposters know exactly which two bodies would not be found in the grave and then proceed to impersonate them?  Anastasia and Alexei have had many claiming to be them over the years, yet no one has come forward claiming to be the Empress?

Wait a minute. No one may have come forward to be the Empress, but plenty had come forward to be other imperial children (see "The Imperial Claimants" thread):

Olga:    28 claimants

Tatiana:  33 claimants

Maria:    53 claimants

Anastasia:   33 claimants

Alexei:     81 claimants

Total:  228 "imperial children" who survived the Ekaterinburg massacre...

So there is no great coincidence that Anastasia and Alexei are the two who are "missing" and the two who "came forward"... Besides, we don't know for sure if the missing female remains are those of Anastasia, they could be of Maria. In fact, notice that Maria had more claimants than Anastasia, hmmm...  ;)



These numbers are not accurate because no one knows how many people claimed to have been any of the IF after July 1918.  For example, I believe there are more than 40 claimants known under the Anastastia list. 

From everything I've read,  the first grand duchess mentioned who was missing  by the Bolsheviks in and around Ekaterinburg in July of 1918 was "GD Anastasia".  Alexis was mentioned, also.

Since there are two bodies missing,  no one knows if they were buried elsewhere or survived.  We can assume the two missing were murdered because the information given to us my those who claimed to have been their murderers tell us so. Can we believe Yurovsky and the others who make this claim?  Helen and many others believe Yurovsky and the others.  There are some of us who have learned never to make assumptions, therefore, there are some of us not as certain about what occured  for a variety of reasons.  What are some of those reasons?
1) The two bodies were not buried where Yurovsky claimed they were
2)  Yurovsky left several different testimonies, one, which has not been published claims a single body was burned;  two have been published and he gives us names of the female to be that of Alexandra which he changes to that of the Demidov, both of which were found in the mass grave, which meant it was neither and Yurovsky was mistaken or lied....
4) For years people have been churning up the ground in and near Pig's Meadow, the site of the mass grave, and no other bodies have been found
5) Ermakov claimed the bodies were placed in a mine somewhere in the woods where no one would ever find ANY of them...
6) Some claim all the bodies were burnt which they were not
7)  Some claim there were 12 people executed that night, one was a "black" cook;  some claimed where were 13....
8)  A great deal of evidence has been destroyed by the Bolsheviks, comummunists and the Whites
9)  The subject dealing with sighting of some of the IF after 18  July 1918 has been destroyed and what little has been collected provides us with a different view of what happen that eventful night
10)  There are 40 know testimonies of people who claimed to have seen members of the IF in or near Perm
11)  Plots of resuce by loyalist and foreign govt. have been ignored,  lost to time or have been kept closed to the public and only now and then do we discover new stories about people invovled....
12) ...... etc. etc. etc.

The one thing I find odd is how some posters dislike learning everything which surrounds the deaths of the IF.   I for one,  would like to know ALL the facts and it little concerns me as to where these facts take me as long as it's towards the truth.

AGRBear

Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Alixz on October 25, 2006, 02:28:44 PM
I am in agreement with AGRBear.  I always try to keep an open mind and always look at all angles until something is proven beyond the shadow of a doubt.

However, I think that no one claimed to be the Empress because she was too old and too well known.  Same for Nicholas II.  But the children (or young adults as they were) were almost completely unknown to the outside world.  What they  looked like as they grew would be up for debate.  But the Empress and Nicholas II were already as grown as they would ever be.  No room for speculation.

I picked up Peter Kurth's book Anastasia - The Riddle of Anna Anderson not too long ago and I also have Guy Richards The Hunt for the Czar.  In both cases it is very hard not to want to believe.  Most of you who post here know that because you have read both books, too.

The authors seem to be on to something and the "evidence" that they postulate seems irrefutable.  That is until you read something else.  And of course now we have DNA and also the "found" bones.

But - there are two bodies "missing" (that is not in the mass grave) and one is Alexis and the other most probably Anastasia (I am on the side of he American team in this case because I believe that the Russians are still trying to play down the Anastasia escape scenario just because they can.  And they need to do it to fit their own warped and twisted sense of what truly happened).  Just my opinion, so please don't all jump on me.

But what I find odd, is that people knew.  They knew that two of the "children" would not be found with the others.  And they knew it in 1918!  No matter how afraid most people were of the Bolsheviks in Ekaterinberg in 1918, there would still be someone who would want to "follow" the truck to see what was going on.  Maybe I'm wrong about this not being there or knowing the political climate and the fear level at that time, but humans are curious.  And again, people knew!
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: lori_c on October 25, 2006, 03:12:59 PM


But - there are two bodies "missing" (that is not in the mass grave) and one is Alexis and the other most probably Anastasia (I am on the side of he American team in this case because I believe that the Russians are still trying to play down the Anastasia escape scenario just because they can.  And they need to do it to fit their own warped and twisted sense of what truly happened).  Just my opinion, so please don't all jump on me.

But what I find odd, is that people knew.  They knew that two of the "children" would not be found with the others.  And they knew it in 1918!  No matter how afraid most people were of the Bolsheviks in Ekaterinberg in 1918, there would still be someone who would want to "follow" the truck to see what was going on.  Maybe I'm wrong about this not being there or knowing the political climate and the fear level at that time, but humans are curious.  And again, people knew!

That's EXACTLY what I was trying to point out in my original post.  They already knew that two children wouldn't be found way back in 1918!  and like you said someone would want to see or would have seen what was going on and maybe that's how word got out beforehand.

That's all I was pointing out. But somehow AGRBear, you have the gift of explaining it better!

Thanks!
Lori C.
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Elisabeth on October 25, 2006, 04:34:20 PM


But - there are two bodies "missing" (that is not in the mass grave) and one is Alexis and the other most probably Anastasia (I am on the side of he American team in this case because I believe that the Russians are still trying to play down the Anastasia escape scenario just because they can.  And they need to do it to fit their own warped and twisted sense of what truly happened).  Just my opinion, so please don't all jump on me.

But what I find odd, is that people knew.  They knew that two of the "children" would not be found with the others.  And they knew it in 1918!  No matter how afraid most people were of the Bolsheviks in Ekaterinberg in 1918, there would still be someone who would want to "follow" the truck to see what was going on.  Maybe I'm wrong about this not being there or knowing the political climate and the fear level at that time, but humans are curious.  And again, people knew!

That's EXACTLY what I was trying to point out in my original post.  They already knew that two children wouldn't be found way back in 1918!  and like you said someone would want to see or would have seen what was going on and maybe that's how word got out beforehand.

That's all I was pointing out. But somehow AGRBear, you have the gift of explaining it better!

Thanks!
Lori C.

Folks, it was a coincidence, and nothing more. Coincidences happen all the time in history. Queen Victoria's husband Prince Albert died on a December 14, her daughter Alice (mother of Alexandra) died on a December 14, and her great-grandson George VI was born on a December 14. But I'll give you another example... Michael Romanov was elected tsar in 1613 while staying in the Ipatiev Monastery and his descendant, Nicholas II, the last Romanov tsar, was killed in the Ipatiev House with all his family just over 300 years later. All coincidences, unless you're very superstitious, as Victoria was. But superstition is something you have to leave at the door, if you want to be a real historian! (And LoriC, by the way, Radzinsky is very superstitious.)
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: lori_c on October 25, 2006, 04:55:08 PM
Good point.  I noted in his book those "coincidences" you pointed out and there was another he said that Russians subscribe to of the 12 year cycle of the Tsar's.  I will get the book and quote it for you word for word.  So I do agree with your point.

But I am superstitious too (part of MY heritage) and for pure historians, it must be left at the door when dealing with facts. I agree with you on that as well.

But for me, when it comes to the Romanovs, mysticism and superstition all played and important role in their lives and so it does with mine as well.  It does make life a lot more colorful.

I am no historian and I bow to your knowledge.

but I do like that there is some sort of mystical untertow in life and that sometimes it shows itself in the most unlikely places...

Lori C.
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Elisabeth on October 25, 2006, 05:46:18 PM
but I do like that there is some sort of mystical untertow in life and that sometimes it shows itself in the most unlikely places...

Lori C.

You'll be surprised, but I agree with you, Lori. I myself can be very superstitious in my personal life (my husband calls me a real Russian woman, even though I'm not Russian at all!). And I do believe that it's perfectly all right, even as a historian, to point out odd coincidences in history, so long as you describe them as odd coincidences and don't go all "mystical" on your readers.

Strangely enough what I object to most in Radzinsky as a historian also happens to be the very same quality that I admire most in him as an artist... Did you know that he was not originally famous as a historian in Russia but as a playwright?!?  In other words, he's first and foremost an artist, not a social scientist... At any rate, artists always look for patterns in order to find a higher meaning to life. There's nothing wrong with that in and of itself, and in fact a whole lot right with it, so long as it stays within the realm of art. But this is why I regard Radzinsky as primarily an artist, a mythologist or mythologizer, and not a true historian... he's always working out these elaborate, some would say even beautiful myths to explain why Russian history went so wrong in the twentieth century.

So, in other words, I read Radzinsky's works because I enjoy seeing what he will come up with next in his fanciful ongoing myth of Russia in the twentieth century. Also because, as I said before, by virtue of his fame and connections in Russia, he does sometimes have the inside scoop on previously unknown information still locked away in the archives. (Back in the early 1990s, he was the first to publish hitherto unknown information about the murders of the imperial family.) But I think this consideration is less and less important as the years go by and increasingly more material is published by other scholars, both in Russia and the West, about the last days of the imperial family.
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: imperial angel on October 25, 2006, 05:50:29 PM
Well, there was much plot and counter plot involved in the death of the IF. It is true that no one claimed to be the adults because there was no room for speculation there. It was easier to claim to be the kids, and perhaps even get an inheiritence! ( I KNOW some hoped for that). But that doesn't mean anybody survived, even accounting for the missing bodies. There simply is no proof any one survived in spite of numerous claims and investigation. Of course, the accounts were confused and much of what we think we know on the historical record isn't something we know for sure, perhaps. There might also be things left off of the historical record.

Coinicidences do happen, and I don't think you should look at life merely straight up- there are many things that are so weird, that have little or no explanation. There are things you simply can't put into words. I am a firm believer in that, and that life both of the past that we can see in history and the future that we can only guess are fascinating. I believe in the connection of people to one another, and events to one another. Events and people influence each other.. but back on topic. ;)
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Annie on October 25, 2006, 07:19:18 PM
Quote
In other words, he's first and foremost an artist, not a social scientist... At any rate, artists always look for patterns in order to find a higher meaning to life. There's nothing wrong with that in and of itself, and in fact a whole lot right with it, so long as it stays within the realm of art. But this is why I regard Radzinsky as primarily an artist, a mythologist or mythologizer, and not a true historian.

So that's why he's not well respected. I can see how an imaginative person can insert their own myths and speculation as truth, and that is a disservice to history. IMO a history book should be pure history, not theory, with nothing added in because it was more interesting, and never leading a reader astray for the purpose of excitement when there is no evidence or proof of what is implied. I have seen this elsewhere as well, only to a worse degree, because the authors claimed to have 'new' evidence that turned out to be just elaborated theories that were either mistranslated, inaccurate, or sensationalistic speculation with no basis. If authors want to mix history with their own ideas, then perhaps historical fiction and not nonfiction should be their genre.
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: AGRBear on October 25, 2006, 08:09:44 PM


 Red Army soldiers stopped trains to look for GD Anstasia and Alexis in July 1918. 

Anyone wonder why?

Was it because the two bodies were missing?


AGRBear
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Belochka on October 25, 2006, 08:15:02 PM


 Red Army soldiers stopped trains to look for GD Anstasia and Alexis in July 1918. 

Anyone wonder why?

Was it because the two bodies were missing?


AGRBear

Bear I am a bit fuzzy about this revelation. Where did you extract this information from please?

Margarita  :o
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Annie on October 25, 2006, 08:55:21 PM
Is there any real evidence of that train search actually occuring or is it just a rumor? Where did the details originate? I don't remember hearing it until I came to this board.
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Guinastasia on October 25, 2006, 10:30:09 PM
I will add that I personally find Radzinsky's work enjoyable, but since he is a romantic and a playwright, I simply enjoy his books as I would fiction, and take them with a huge grain of salt.
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Ra-Ra-Rasputin on October 26, 2006, 03:04:45 AM
The trains search stuff, is, I believe, in File on the Tsar, but I can't be sure as I don't have my copy with me.

I have always thought that was nothing but a rumour too.  I've never read it anywhere other than on this board and possibly in one book, which I believe to be File on the Tsar, but I can't be sure.

As for people in 1918 knowing that two children were missing, this simply isn't true.  No two people had the gumption to show up as Alexei AND Anastasia; it's always just been one solitary 'survivor'. These survivors haven't necessarily been Alexei or Anastasia, either; you've all seen the stats- there were even 'survivors' showing up pretending to be Nicholas, Alexandra, Olga, Tatiana, Maria,etc.  I'm sure there must be someone who's tried to pass their dog off as Jemmy too!  None of these other 'survivors' tie in with the concrete finds that we have and so therefore these 'survivors' don't prove anything except how you'll always get people who want to make a personal gain out of someone else's tragedy.  It's human nature and nothing more. Let's not make something out of nothing.

Rachel
xx
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: J_Kendrick on October 26, 2006, 10:09:34 AM

None of these other 'survivors' tie in with the concrete finds that we have and so therefore these 'survivors' don't prove anything...


What concrete finds are those?

There are NO "concrete finds" as far as the two missing are concerned.

That's why they're still missing.

Until that day finally comes when bones of the two missing have actually been found and properly identified... whether you like or not... anything is possible.
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: imperial angel on October 26, 2006, 10:39:38 AM
Well, back to Radszinsky. I loved his Nicholas book, yes, it might be romanticzed, but it is very readable and evocative. You can tell he was a playwright before he wrote that book, that was his background, because some of the dialogue sounds like it was from a play. But, like a play, it tells you not only the facts of the story but the meaning of it. The facts of the story are there, if a bit distorted, and yet the meaning is as well, more than in books of just dry facts. I think you should take him with a grain of salt, for sure, but you should also take away the meaning that he gives events that no other book can give. I think he just brings things to life, one way or the other. That is not a bad thing when you are writing history, as long as you don't stray too far from the facts of course.
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: lori_c on October 26, 2006, 12:30:51 PM
Radzinsky's book was very evocative.  and yes Elisabeth I did know he was a playwright first.  You can sort of even tell in the layout of the The Last Tsar.  However, I loved The Last Tsar.  He does cite factual information and where he got it from.  The most interesting of which is what came from the Archives.

I especially enjoyed the way as imperial angel said - he brought the story to life.  There was a disctinct Russian feel to book which I thoroughly enjoyed.  I haven't found that in other factual historical books on the subject of the last IF.   

I honestly didn't know he wasn't well respected though.
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: imperial angel on October 26, 2006, 12:36:08 PM
I thought it felt very Russian too, Radzinsky's book. He wasn't a western historian writing from a remove, but a playwright who is Russian, and one that knows the connections, and events, and can feel them, and make you feel them. I guess he won't ever be respected as much as a serious historian though. ;) One thing I didn't agree with that he stated, was the thing about the guy who might be Alexei in his book, that is too far for me.
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Elisabeth on October 26, 2006, 12:52:32 PM
 I think it's pretty clear in File on the Tsar that the false rumors put out by the Ural Bolsheviks in Perm had to do with one or more of the grand duchesses escaping (Anastasia, but I think Tatiana was also mentioned once). There was no mention made of Alexei.  IMHO this was because most people would have found it very hard to believe that the Bolsheviks had not executed the tsarevich with his father. That rumor simply wouldn't have "flown," in other words.
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Ra-Ra-Rasputin on October 26, 2006, 01:40:48 PM

None of these other 'survivors' tie in with the concrete finds that we have and so therefore these 'survivors' don't prove anything...


What concrete finds are those?

There are NO "concrete finds" as far as the two missing are concerned.

That's why they're still missing.

Until that day finally comes when bones of the two missing have actually been found and properly identified... whether you like or not... anything is possible.


Concrete finds- the bodies of Nicholas, Alexandra, 3 GDs and the three servants.

Therefore no 'survivors' purporting to be them could have been telling the truth.  Correct?

Concrete find- there are two bodies missing.

No two survivors have shown up purporting to be a missing GD and Alexei who escaped together, and no purported survivor claiming to be a missing GD has ever claimed that Alexei also escaped but perished later from haemophilia.  No survivor claiming to be a GD has ever mentioned anything about Alexei being with them too.  So that doesn't tie in with the missing bodies, does it?

Therefore, no one survivor has been able to support the forensic evidence we have at this point in time, as I said.

Rachel
xx
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Lemur on October 26, 2006, 01:58:11 PM
No two survivors have shown up purporting to be a missing GD and Alexei who escaped together, and no purported survivor claiming to be a missing GD has ever claimed that Alexei also escaped but perished later from haemophilia.  No survivor claiming to be a GD has ever mentioned anything about Alexei being with them too.  So that doesn't tie in with the missing bodies, does it?




That is a big factor there, good point. Since both were 'missing' why did no claimant of either ever mention that the other was, at least in the beginning, with them? The answer is of course obvious, because all  of the claimants were lying, they weren't really there so they didn't know the other was missing too, but this is yet another gaping hole in their stories.

Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Phil_tomaselli on October 26, 2006, 03:17:54 PM
The story about the train being stopped and searched in late 1918, by Red Army soldiers looking for Anastasia is, indeed, in File on the Tsar (p343 my copy). It comes from a testimony submitted in a formal letter by Count Bonde to the Anastasia hearings on 15th October 1952. The testimony reads:

"In my capacity as the chief of the Swedish Red Cross mission in Siberia in 1918 I travelled in a privte railway car.  At some place, the name of which has escaped my memory, the train was stopped and searched in order to find the Grand Duchess Anastasia, daughter of Tsar Nicholas II.  The grand duchess was, however, not aboard the train.  Nobody knew where she had gone."

Phil Tomaselli 
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: LisaDavidson on October 26, 2006, 04:04:31 PM

None of these other 'survivors' tie in with the concrete finds that we have and so therefore these 'survivors' don't prove anything...


What concrete finds are those?

There are NO "concrete finds" as far as the two missing are concerned.

That's why they're still missing.

Until that day finally comes when bones of the two missing have actually been found and properly identified... whether you like or not... anything is possible.


Concrete finds- the bodies of Nicholas, Alexandra, 3 GDs and the three servants.

Therefore no 'survivors' purporting to be them could have been telling the truth.  Correct?

Concrete find- there are two bodies missing.

No two survivors have shown up purporting to be a missing GD and Alexei who escaped together, and no purported survivor claiming to be a missing GD has ever claimed that Alexei also escaped but perished later from haemophilia.  No survivor claiming to be a GD has ever mentioned anything about Alexei being with them too.  So that doesn't tie in with the missing bodies, does it?

Therefore, no one survivor has been able to support the forensic evidence we have at this point in time, as I said.

Rachel
xx

Actually, this is untrue. In one of those strange twists of fate, a claimant who is certainly not one of the grand duchesses, though she claimed to be Anastasia, was the only claimant I'm aware of who correctly identified the number of missing bodies from the murder of the Imperial Family. If you read Eugenia Smith's "memoirs" carefully, you will see that, while she got many facts wrong, she got several crucial facts right.

Chief among the correct ones: that a grand duchess and one other body were removed from the truck that left the Ipatiev House after the murders - said truck was stuck in a woodsy area. There are several critical pieces of information that were not known until publication of the Yurovsky Note in the 1990's contained in that - and this from a book published in English in the mid 1960's! These are - two bodies missing - one a grand duchess - the truck carrying the bodies broke down/got stuck - the breakdown happened in the woods.

I am not suggesting that ES was GDA or even a Romanov. I am not saying there were long term survivors. But, I have always found it fascinating that her book is the only one that got these things right.
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Annie on October 26, 2006, 04:09:06 PM
The story about the train being stopped and searched in late 1918, by Red Army soldiers looking for Anastasia is, indeed, in File on the Tsar (p343 my copy). It comes from a testimony submitted in a formal letter by Count Bonde to the Anastasia hearings on 15th October 1952. The testimony reads:

"In my capacity as the chief of the Swedish Red Cross mission in Siberia in 1918 I travelled in a privte railway car.  At some place, the name of which has escaped my memory, the train was stopped and searched in order to find the Grand Duchess Anastasia, daughter of Tsar Nicholas II.  The grand duchess was, however, not aboard the train.  Nobody knew where she had gone."

Phil Tomaselli 

Then again, there were 'testimonies' of men who claimed to have seen her in a bed in a house across the street from the Ipatiev house, and even in a cart on the grounds of the Romanian Embassy, or was it the German? Either  way, they weren't true. So those people were either lying or mistaken. The train story sure sounds like a made up plant, it's nowhere else, whenever you have only one person's recollection and no evidence you do have to wonder.

Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Annie on October 26, 2006, 04:12:33 PM


 I'm aware of who correctly identified the number of missing bodies from the murder of the Imperial Family. If you read Eugenia Smith's "memoirs" carefully, you will see that, while she got many facts wrong, she got several crucial facts right.

Chief among the correct ones: that a grand duchess and one other body were removed from the truck that left the Ipatiev House after the murders - said truck was stuck in a woodsy area. There are several critical pieces of information that were not known until publication of the Yurovsky Note in the 1990's contained in that - and this from a book published in English in the mid 1960's! These are - two bodies missing - one a grand duchess - the truck carrying the bodies broke down/got stuck - the breakdown happened in the woods.

I am not suggesting that ES was GDA or even a Romanov. I am not saying there were long term survivors. But, I have always found it fascinating that her book is the only one that got these things right.

That's interesting, I never knew that! But we do know that ES was not AN and even admitted it, so this is living proof that a faker can get things right and still be a fraud. She must have had more informed info feeders than AA did. Wonder why she gave up so easily?
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: J_Kendrick on October 26, 2006, 04:19:56 PM
No two survivors have shown up purporting to be a missing GD and Alexei who escaped together, and no purported survivor claiming to be a missing GD has ever claimed that Alexei also escaped but perished later from haemophilia.  No survivor claiming to be a GD has ever mentioned anything about Alexei being with them too.  So that doesn't tie in with the missing bodies, does it?




That is a big factor there, good point. Since both were 'missing' why did no claimant of either ever mention that the other was, at least in the beginning, with them? The answer is of course obvious, because all  of the claimants were lying, they weren't really there so they didn't know the other was missing too, but this is yet another gaping hole in their stories.



There is, in fact, a sizeable number of brother/sister claimant pairs whose cases are rarely discussed on this board.  There was also a US Grand Duchess claimant who was said to have made the deliberate choice not to make any public claims... in order to keep people from looking for the brother that she knew had also survived.  That claimant, too, whose story is hidden in the shadows of two other more famous GD claimants, has never been discussed on this board.

jk
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: LisaDavidson on October 26, 2006, 04:29:07 PM


 I'm aware of who correctly identified the number of missing bodies from the murder of the Imperial Family. If you read Eugenia Smith's "memoirs" carefully, you will see that, while she got many facts wrong, she got several crucial facts right.

Chief among the correct ones: that a grand duchess and one other body were removed from the truck that left the Ipatiev House after the murders - said truck was stuck in a woodsy area. There are several critical pieces of information that were not known until publication of the Yurovsky Note in the 1990's contained in that - and this from a book published in English in the mid 1960's! These are - two bodies missing - one a grand duchess - the truck carrying the bodies broke down/got stuck - the breakdown happened in the woods.

I am not suggesting that ES was GDA or even a Romanov. I am not saying there were long term survivors. But, I have always found it fascinating that her book is the only one that got these things right.

That's interesting, I never knew that! But we do know that ES was not AN and even admitted it, so this is living proof that a faker can get things right and still be a fraud. She must have had more informed info feeders than AA did. Wonder why she gave up so easily?

I have found no evidence that ES actually admitted she was not GDA. I do know she was asked several times if she wanted DNA testing after the bodies were discovered and that she declined. The most reasonable explanation for this is that she knew that she would not pass the test.

I'm finding it very difficult to ascribe her correct information to mere coincidence. I would tend to agree that the source of her correct information must have been much better than AA's. My own theory is that either she had access to a very early manuscript written by a rescuer OR that she was given information by the Soviets who had access to the Yurovsky Note.
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: J_Kendrick on October 26, 2006, 04:38:33 PM


 I'm aware of who correctly identified the number of missing bodies from the murder of the Imperial Family. If you read Eugenia Smith's "memoirs" carefully, you will see that, while she got many facts wrong, she got several crucial facts right.

Chief among the correct ones: that a grand duchess and one other body were removed from the truck that left the Ipatiev House after the murders - said truck was stuck in a woodsy area. There are several critical pieces of information that were not known until publication of the Yurovsky Note in the 1990's contained in that - and this from a book published in English in the mid 1960's! These are - two bodies missing - one a grand duchess - the truck carrying the bodies broke down/got stuck - the breakdown happened in the woods.

I am not suggesting that ES was GDA or even a Romanov. I am not saying there were long term survivors. But, I have always found it fascinating that her book is the only one that got these things right.

That's interesting, I never knew that! But we do know that ES was not AN and even admitted it, so this is living proof that a faker can get things right and still be a fraud. She must have had more informed info feeders than AA did. Wonder why she gave up so easily?

There is another little-known GD claimant case, never before discussed on this board, that includes the claim that Eugenia Smith was not the true author of her book.... that it was, in fact, the biography of another GD claimant whose story had been falsely credited to Smith.

jk
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: lexi4 on October 26, 2006, 06:21:02 PM
I found this interesting. This is from the book Sisu by Oskari Tokor.
"The trip back was made moer rapidly - but I almost lost my youngest son. Late in the night, beyond Perm, the train was stopped at some wayside station and surrounded by Red militia. They searched the train with great thoroughness. The passengers learned that they expected to find the Czarevitch Alexei, the Czar's 13-year-old son, who had escaped from Jekaterinburg!
"My son was sharing a compartment with our imterpreter. As soon as the militia saw the boy the pounced on him. He was the same age, and the same height, and - they declared - he looked the same as teh Czarevithch. The interpreter tried to assure them tha the boy was Finnish and did not even speak  a word of Russian, but no one would believe him. Finally the interpreter remembered that the Czarevitch was said to be lame, and he came up with his last trump. My son was marched up and down the corridor, and everyone watched closely to see if he limped. When the militia were convinced he walked straight on his own two feet, they let him go.
"Every compartment, every corner, of the train was searched, and the pillows and mattresses so thoroughly bayonetted that not a mouse could have remained alive in them. Perhaps the son of Czar Nicholas II succeeded in escaping. Perhaps he remained somewhere among the living when his family was executed behind the tall plank fence surrounding the villa in Jekaterinburg."

pp. 176-177.
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Louis_Charles on October 26, 2006, 10:23:40 PM
Eugenia Smith also identified Michael Goleniewski, a Polish defector, as her brother Alexei. Goleniewski, in turn, asserted that all of the Imperial Family had survived. I think he later brought over a "Maria" from Poland.
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Phil_tomaselli on October 27, 2006, 03:30:55 AM
Annie wrote:

"Then again, there were 'testimonies' of men who claimed to have seen her in a bed in a house across the street from the Ipatiev house, and even in a cart on the grounds of the Romanian Embassy, or was it the German? Either  way, they weren't true. So those people were either lying or mistaken. The train story sure sounds like a made up plant, it's nowhere else, whenever you have only one person's recollection and no evidence you do have to wonder."

On the contrary.  Though it's possible that some kind of mistake has been made, I see no reason to doubt the author's integrity, nor does the lack of other witnesses count against the story.  After all, how many other, non-Russian and independent (and able to get out of the country) witnesses were there likely to be on a train in the Ekaterinberg area in the middle of 1918?  The Swedish Red Cross were responsible for looking after the interests of German/Austrian Prisoners of War in Russia and, as many were held in Siberia, I'd expect an official to be moving around in the general area.  He may have been mistaken about the reason that the train was stopped, it may have been a deliberate disinformation attempt by the Reds or they may just have misunderstood themselves why they were ordered to stop the train.  But I wouldn't doubt that the event never occurred.

Phil Tomaselli
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Elisabeth on October 27, 2006, 10:21:55 AM
Actually, this is untrue. In one of those strange twists of fate, a claimant who is certainly not one of the grand duchesses, though she claimed to be Anastasia, was the only claimant I'm aware of who correctly identified the number of missing bodies from the murder of the Imperial Family. If you read Eugenia Smith's "memoirs" carefully, you will see that, while she got many facts wrong, she got several crucial facts right.

Chief among the correct ones: that a grand duchess and one other body were removed from the truck that left the Ipatiev House after the murders - said truck was stuck in a woodsy area. There are several critical pieces of information that were not known until publication of the Yurovsky Note in the 1990's contained in that - and this from a book published in English in the mid 1960's! These are - two bodies missing - one a grand duchess - the truck carrying the bodies broke down/got stuck - the breakdown happened in the woods.

I am not suggesting that ES was GDA or even a Romanov. I am not saying there were long term survivors. But, I have always found it fascinating that her book is the only one that got these things right.

Actually if Eugenia Smith claimed all this, she only got part of it, a very small part, right. It's true the truck broke down in the early morning hours of July 17 on its way to the Koptiaki forest. However, it broke down not in the wooded area but on a muddy road near a grade crossing (No. 184) where there was a guardhouse. According to Yurovsky's account, all the bodies were unloaded from the truck in order to lighten it sufficiently so that it could be extracted from the mud with the help of railroad ties taken from the guardhouse.

A handful of recent, non-academic historians, the most prominent among them Edvard Radzinsky, have speculated that this is when the bodies of Anastasia and Alexei "disappeared," and that in the confusion, Yurovsky didn't notice. But that's all this is, a speculation.
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: LisaDavidson on October 27, 2006, 10:27:58 AM
Actually, this is untrue. In one of those strange twists of fate, a claimant who is certainly not one of the grand duchesses, though she claimed to be Anastasia, was the only claimant I'm aware of who correctly identified the number of missing bodies from the murder of the Imperial Family. If you read Eugenia Smith's "memoirs" carefully, you will see that, while she got many facts wrong, she got several crucial facts right.

Chief among the correct ones: that a grand duchess and one other body were removed from the truck that left the Ipatiev House after the murders - said truck was stuck in a woodsy area. There are several critical pieces of information that were not known until publication of the Yurovsky Note in the 1990's contained in that - and this from a book published in English in the mid 1960's! These are - two bodies missing - one a grand duchess - the truck carrying the bodies broke down/got stuck - the breakdown happened in the woods.

I am not suggesting that ES was GDA or even a Romanov. I am not saying there were long term survivors. But, I have always found it fascinating that her book is the only one that got these things right.

Actually if Eugenia Smith claimed all this, she only got part of it, a very small part, right. It's true the truck broke down in the early morning hours of July 17 on its way to the Koptiaki forest. However, it broke down not in the wooded area but on a muddy road near a grade crossing (No. 184) where there was a guardhouse. According to Yurovsky's account, all the bodies were unloaded from the truck in order to lighten it sufficiently so that it could be extracted from the mud with the help of railroad ties taken from the guardhouse.

A handful of recent, non-academic historians, the most prominent among them Edvard Radzinsky, have speculated that this is when the bodies of Anastasia and Alexei "disappeared," and that in the confusion, Yurovsky didn't notice. But that's all this is, a speculation.

It is speculation, but it is probably the most plausible explanation as to why the grave was two bodies short.

I was referring to the ES book from memory, as I don't own a copy. Any errors made in my relating the information are mine. I do clearly remember her having several pertinent facts correct, information that was not corroborated until the Yurovsky Note and the opening of the grave. In particular, the explanation about two bodies missing.
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: stepan on October 27, 2006, 06:38:25 PM


 I'm aware of who correctly identified the number of missing bodies from the murder of the Imperial Family. If you read Eugenia Smith's "memoirs" carefully, you will see that, while she got many facts wrong, she got several crucial facts right.

Chief among the correct ones: that a grand duchess and one other body were removed from the truck that left the Ipatiev House after the murders - said truck was stuck in a woodsy area. There are several critical pieces of information that were not known until publication of the Yurovsky Note in the 1990's contained in that - and this from a book published in English in the mid 1960's! These are - two bodies missing - one a grand duchess - the truck carrying the bodies broke down/got stuck - the breakdown happened in the woods.

I am not suggesting that ES was GDA or even a Romanov. I am not saying there were long term survivors. But, I have always found it fascinating that her book is the only one that got these things right.

That's interesting, I never knew that! But we do know that ES was not AN and even admitted it, so this is living proof that a faker can get things right and still be a fraud. She must have had more informed info feeders than AA did. Wonder why she gave up so easily?

There is another little-known GD claimant case, never before discussed on this board, that includes the claim that Eugenia Smith was not the true author of her book.... that it was, in fact, the biography of another GD claimant whose story had been falsely credited to Smith.

jk

Who is that little known claimant?   And about Eugenia Smith, I think she may have heard something of the true story about the murder from someone in Bukovina,the province on the border between Russia and Rumania where she came from before she emigrated to the US. She diden´t first claim to be GD Anastasia when she delivered the manuscript to her publisher Robert Speller in New York. She said she got it from GD Anastasia who had died. Only later she told them that she actually WAS the Grand Duchess.
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: J_Kendrick on October 27, 2006, 09:51:54 PM

There is another little-known GD claimant case, never before discussed on this board, that includes the claim that Eugenia Smith was not the true author of her book.... that it was, in fact, the biography of another GD claimant whose story had been falsely credited to Smith.

jk

Who is that little known claimant? 


Ask your moderator to tell you...  ;)

jk
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: LisaDavidson on October 28, 2006, 12:20:31 PM

There is another little-known GD claimant case, never before discussed on this board, that includes the claim that Eugenia Smith was not the true author of her book.... that it was, in fact, the biography of another GD claimant whose story had been falsely credited to Smith.

jk

Who is that little known claimant? 


Ask your moderator to tell you...  ;)

jk

I was contacted by this claimant's family about 10 years ago. They do not want her identity or theirs publically disclosed. I can tell you she was a very beautiful woman with a strong resemblance to GD Tatiana. Her son was one of the first, if not the first, to receive the polio vaccine in the United States. My files on this case are packed away, but I am not comfortable discussing much more than this one fact that may be discussed publically:

The claimant's family was able to obtain a DNA sample from one of Queen Victoria's descendants (the identity of whom I have agreed to keep private) which was sent to a US lab and sequenced ahead of Prince Phillp's sample. This mtDNA sequence would exactly matched Philip's, by the way, so suggestions that the Victorian mtDNA was somehow manipulated to not match AA's are completely false. This claimant's son's mtDNA did not match either of the Victorian descendants', so I thought that would be the end of the case. However, the son told me that he now believes he was not his mother's natural son!
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Helen_Azar on October 28, 2006, 12:32:35 PM
...she was a very beautiful woman with a strong resemblance to GD Tatiana. .This claimant's son's mtDNA did not match either of the Victorian descendants', so I thought that would be the end of the case. However, the son told me that he now believes he was not his mother's natural son!

So are you saying that this claimant claimed to be GD Tatiana? If the son knew that he wasn't her natural son, why did he bother having his mtDNA tested in the first place, and only fessed up that he "wasn't her natural son" after it didn't match? Sounds quite murky to me...


Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: LisaDavidson on October 28, 2006, 12:41:48 PM
...she was a very beautiful woman with a strong resemblance to GD Tatiana. .This claimant's son's mtDNA did not match either of the Victorian descendants', so I thought that would be the end of the case. However, the son told me that he now believes he was not his mother's natural son!

So are you saying that this claimant claimed to be GD Tatiana? If the son knew that he wasn't her natural son, why did he bother having his mtDNA tested in the first place, and only fessed up that he "wasn't her natural son" after it didn't match? Sounds quite murky to me...




I think it's called grasping at straws, m'dear. Let me try to be clearer so you will be able to agree with me, or at least, be able to see my point.

I was contacted by the claimant's family, who had already obtained the Victorian DNA sample. I told them they should be tested. (The claimant was desceased by the time I was contacted.). I suggested they test the woman's children who were living at the time instead of exhuming the claimant. The son's mtDNA did not match that of the maternal line of Queen Victoria. IOW, we could exclude this man as being related in the maternal line to Empress Alexandra, Princess Alice, or Queen Victoria (and any of their matrilineal ancestors). The test clearly showed the claim was false. Nothing was murky, I was done.

Then (and only then), the son said, he was not his mother's natural son.
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: OTMA-fan on October 28, 2006, 02:04:24 PM
I found this interesting. This is from the book Sisu by Oskari Tokor.
"The trip back was made moer rapidly - but I almost lost my youngest son. Late in the night, beyond Perm, the train was stopped at some wayside station and surrounded by Red militia. They searched the train with great thoroughness. The passengers learned that they expected to find the Czarevitch Alexei, the Czar's 13-year-old son, who had escaped from Jekaterinburg!
"My son was sharing a compartment with our imterpreter. As soon as the militia saw the boy the pounced on him. He was the same age, and the same height, and - they declared - he looked the same as teh Czarevithch. The interpreter tried to assure them tha the boy was Finnish and did not even speak  a word of Russian, but no one would believe him. Finally the interpreter remembered that the Czarevitch was said to be lame, and he came up with his last trump. My son was marched up and down the corridor, and everyone watched closely to see if he limped. When the militia were convinced he walked straight on his own two feet, they let him go.
"Every compartment, every corner, of the train was searched, and the pillows and mattresses so thoroughly bayonetted that not a mouse could have remained alive in them. Perhaps the son of Czar Nicholas II succeeded in escaping. Perhaps he remained somewhere among the living when his family was executed behind the tall plank fence surrounding the villa in Jekaterinburg."

pp. 176-177.

Dear Lexi4,
This is an extremely interesting discovery to me. If it's true, this would suggest that Alexei survived the execution. I don't think any historian discovered this description fro this obscure book. 
Remember, DNA or forensic evidence also showed that they couldn't find the Alexei's remain, which suggests that Alexei could have survived.
Where did you find this book? I never heard of them. I searched the Amazon, but couldn't find either  Sisu nor Oskari Tokor. Is it some sort of Japanese name?
Title: Lexi4's posting about "Sisu"
Post by: OTMA-fan on October 28, 2006, 02:11:35 PM
I found this interesting. This is from the book Sisu by Oskari Tokor.
"The trip back was made moer rapidly - but I almost lost my youngest son. Late in the night, beyond Perm, the train was stopped at some wayside station and surrounded by Red militia. They searched the train with great thoroughness. The passengers learned that they expected to find the Czarevitch Alexei, the Czar's 13-year-old son, who had escaped from Jekaterinburg!
"My son was sharing a compartment with our imterpreter. As soon as the militia saw the boy the pounced on him. He was the same age, and the same height, and - they declared - he looked the same as teh Czarevithch. The interpreter tried to assure them tha the boy was Finnish and did not even speak  a word of Russian, but no one would believe him. Finally the interpreter remembered that the Czarevitch was said to be lame, and he came up with his last trump. My son was marched up and down the corridor, and everyone watched closely to see if he limped. When the militia were convinced he walked straight on his own two feet, they let him go.
"Every compartment, every corner, of the train was searched, and the pillows and mattresses so thoroughly bayonetted that not a mouse could have remained alive in them. Perhaps the son of Czar Nicholas II succeeded in escaping. Perhaps he remained somewhere among the living when his family was executed behind the tall plank fence surrounding the villa in Jekaterinburg."

pp. 176-177.

This Lexi4's discovery is interesting to me, because it's not about the false claimant, which I got tired of. But it's about Red Army (is it same thing as Red militia?). There is no reason Red Army orchestrated to "set up" this laborious searching, just to deceive someone. If they wanted to deceive someone, they could have easily issued the statement that "We have Alexei, he is alive". The more I read this, the more I am convinced that this is true. But I will wait until Lexi4 can post the copy of this page on AP site. This is an important evidence.

But this account has no information regarding the date. When did this happen?
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Helen_Azar on October 28, 2006, 02:17:53 PM
I think it's called grasping at straws, m'dear. Let me try to be clearer so you will be able to agree with me, or at least, be able to see my point.

I was contacted by the claimant's family, who had already obtained the Victorian DNA sample. I told them they should be tested. (The claimant was desceased by the time I was contacted.). I suggested they test the woman's children who were living at the time instead of exhuming the claimant. The son's mtDNA did not match that of the maternal line of Queen Victoria. IOW, we could exclude this man as being related in the maternal line to Empress Alexandra, Princess Alice, or Queen Victoria (and any of their matrilineal ancestors). The test clearly showed the claim was false. Nothing was murky, I was done.

Then (and only then), the son said, he was not his mother's natural son.

I understood what you posted before quite clearly, thank you. But my questions still are: did this claimant claim to be GD Tatiana or another GD? And: did you ask the claimant's son why, if knew that he wasn't her natural son, did he allow them to go through the testing in the first place, and only said something about it when his DNA didn't match?  And the last question, which to me wasn't really clear from your  post: do you believe that this person wasn't this claimant's natural son? It sort of sounded from your previous post that you may be considering this as a possibility.

Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: J_Kendrick on October 28, 2006, 02:56:57 PM
...she was a very beautiful woman with a strong resemblance to GD Tatiana. .This claimant's son's mtDNA did not match either of the Victorian descendants', so I thought that would be the end of the case. However, the son told me that he now believes he was not his mother's natural son!

So are you saying that this claimant claimed to be GD Tatiana? If the son knew that he wasn't her natural son, why did he bother having his mtDNA tested in the first place, and only fessed up that he "wasn't her natural son" after it didn't match? Sounds quite murky to me...




I think it's called grasping at straws, m'dear. Let me try to be clearer so you will be able to agree with me, or at least, be able to see my point.

I was contacted by the claimant's family, who had already obtained the Victorian DNA sample. I told them they should be tested. (The claimant was desceased by the time I was contacted.). I suggested they test the woman's children who were living at the time instead of exhuming the claimant. The son's mtDNA did not match that of the maternal line of Queen Victoria. IOW, we could exclude this man as being related in the maternal line to Empress Alexandra, Princess Alice, or Queen Victoria (and any of their matrilineal ancestors). The test clearly showed the claim was false. Nothing was murky, I was done.

Then (and only then), the son said, he was not his mother's natural son.

If I recall correctly, are there not other living relatives who have not yet been tested?

After all, this particular claimant's likeness to Tatiana is nothing short of remarkable!!  Not to mention the very curious personal connections this claimant is said to have had to both Eugenia Smith's publisher, Robert Speller, and to Anna Anderson's biggest promoter, Gleb Botkin.

And yes, it is entirely possible for Tatiana to be the missing daughter.  If the American forensic team has correctly identified Body 5  as Marie and the Russian forensic team has correctly identified Body 6 as Anastasia, then the missing Grand Duchess is Tatiana.

jk
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Ra-Ra-Rasputin on October 28, 2006, 03:07:58 PM
Fascinating stuff.  I had no idea that there were claimants who had told of Alexei also escaping with them.  This is interesting.

Lisa, I find this story of a GD Tatiana claimant very interesting.  It's a shame you can't discuss the case more with us, but I understand you feeling uncomfortable about it, so that's fine. 

The more we discuss this, the more I'm convinced that there never is going to be a final word.  Even if this rumour about the two new bodies being found turns out to be true.  There were so many 'survivors', many of them with convincing stories.  This means that no matter what physical evidence we have, the conspiracy theories will continue. 

Rachel
xx
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Penny_Wilson on October 28, 2006, 03:47:19 PM

Dear Lexi4,
This is an extremely interesting discovery to me. If it's true, this would suggest that Alexei survived the execution. I don't think any historian discovered this description fro this obscure book. 
Remember, DNA or forensic evidence also showed that they couldn't find the Alexei's remain, which suggests that Alexei could have survived.
Where did you find this book? I never heard of them. I searched the Amazon, but couldn't find either  Sisu nor Oskari Tokor. Is it some sort of Japanese name?


The book's full title is Sisu: Even Through A Stone Wall, and it was published in 1957.  It is the autobiography of Antti Oskari Tokoi, a Finn; see: http://www.saima-park.org/admin/park/oskari_tokoi.htm

"Sisu" isn't a Japanese word, but rather a Finnish one roughly meaning "guts" and "perseverance."

Title: Lexi4's posting about "Sisu"
Post by: OTMA-fan on October 28, 2006, 05:12:46 PM
I found this interesting. This is from the book Sisu by Oskari Tokor.
"The trip back was made moer rapidly - but I almost lost my youngest son. Late in the night, beyond Perm, the train was stopped at some wayside station and surrounded by Red militia. They searched the train with great thoroughness. The passengers learned that they expected to find the Czarevitch Alexei, the Czar's 13-year-old son, who had escaped from Jekaterinburg!
"My son was sharing a compartment with our imterpreter. As soon as the militia saw the boy the pounced on him. He was the same age, and the same height, and - they declared - he looked the same as teh Czarevithch. The interpreter tried to assure them tha the boy was Finnish and did not even speak  a word of Russian, but no one would believe him. Finally the interpreter remembered that the Czarevitch was said to be lame, and he came up with his last trump. My son was marched up and down the corridor, and everyone watched closely to see if he limped. When the militia were convinced he walked straight on his own two feet, they let him go.
"Every compartment, every corner, of the train was searched, and the pillows and mattresses so thoroughly bayonetted that not a mouse could have remained alive in them. Perhaps the son of Czar Nicholas II succeeded in escaping. Perhaps he remained somewhere among the living when his family was executed behind the tall plank fence surrounding the villa in Jekaterinburg."

pp. 176-177.

Fascinating! It turned out that Oskari Tokor is not some Japanese author or cook, but he was a PRIME MINISTER OF FINLAND!!
I don't think anyone suspect the authenticity of the account. Thanks to Lexi4, we now know that Alexei might have survived.
Let me ask this way. Which witness do you believe? Some Russian murderer named Yurovsky? or Prime minister of Finland? It's not even an question.
Unfortunately, I can't find this book in my library. I will be wairing for Lexi4's response, if he/she can take a photo of page and post it here. I really want to know the surrounding pages. What did Tokor mention about this incident? and When did this happen?

Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: LisaDavidson on October 28, 2006, 05:23:43 PM
I think it's called grasping at straws, m'dear. Let me try to be clearer so you will be able to agree with me, or at least, be able to see my point.

I was contacted by the claimant's family, who had already obtained the Victorian DNA sample. I told them they should be tested. (The claimant was desceased by the time I was contacted.). I suggested they test the woman's children who were living at the time instead of exhuming the claimant. The son's mtDNA did not match that of the maternal line of Queen Victoria. IOW, we could exclude this man as being related in the maternal line to Empress Alexandra, Princess Alice, or Queen Victoria (and any of their matrilineal ancestors). The test clearly showed the claim was false. Nothing was murky, I was done.

Then (and only then), the son said, he was not his mother's natural son.

I understood what you posted before quite clearly, thank you. But my questions still are: did this claimant claim to be GD Tatiana or another GD? And: did you ask the claimant's son why, if knew that he wasn't her natural son, did he allow them to go through the testing in the first place, and only said something about it when his DNA didn't match?  And the last question, which to me wasn't really clear from your  post: do you believe that this person wasn't this claimant's natural son? It sort of sounded from your previous post that you may be considering this as a possibility.



1. To my knowledge, the person herself within her lifetime was never specific about this. She does, however, look amazingly like an older Tatiana.
2. Since he had never expressed any doubts about his parentage prior to the testing, I felt this new claim was not worth considering.
3. I have no way of knowing one way or another whether or not this is true or not. My conjecture is that, if a person comes to me and says, I am the grandson of the last Tsar of Russia, and he shows me pictures of a woman he says is is mother, who looks like Tatiana, then I am reasonably certain he thinks:

1. He is his mother's natural son.
2. He thinks his mother was GD Tatiana.

And, if after testing, he is shown not to be genetically related to the Romanovs, my further conjecture is that he was mistaken in claiming relationship to the IF and that his late statement about not being her natural child is grasping at straws, and not true.
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Annie on October 28, 2006, 06:20:08 PM
Could it be he only claimed to be adopted after finding out his DNA did not match? If he knew he was adopted all along why bother with a DNA test? That is how it looks to me, he must have thought he was really going to come up as a match and when he did not he used the adoption story as a cover to keep the hope alive that his mother might still be a GD, knowing she would probably never be exhumed and everyone could just keep wondering?

Really, this is the most interesting claimaint story I have seen in awhile (though I do not believe it, it is still a refreshing change from the rehash of AA over and over again!!!!) How about a thread just on this subject?
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: LisaDavidson on October 28, 2006, 06:37:36 PM
Could it be he only claimed to be adopted after finding out his DNA did not match? If he knew he was adopted all along why bother with a DNA test? That is how it looks to me, he must have thought he was really going to come up as a match and when he did not he used the adoption story as a cover to keep the hope alive that his mother might still be a GD, knowing she would probably never be exhumed and everyone could just keep wondering?

Really, this is the most interesting claimaint story I have seen in awhile (though I do not believe it, it is still a refreshing change from the rehash of AA over and over again!!!!) How about a thread just on this subject?

Your analysis is certainly a possibility, Annie. It is a good story, and I will see what I can reveal without compromising anyone.
Title: Re: Lexi4's posting about "Sisu"
Post by: Tsarfan on October 28, 2006, 07:17:36 PM
Which witness do you believe? Some Russian murderer named Yurovsky? or Prime minister of Finland?

If the Prime Minister of Finand is saying that Alexei -- a lame hemophiliac who was in serious decline during the Ipatiev imprisonment -- survived a massacre in which the heir's death would have been the top priority behind his father's, then I would believe Yurovsky.

Not every Bolshevik lied about everything, and few politicians tell the truth all the time.

The only people who would think a claim Alexei survived could appear credible would be people who were unaware he had hemophilia . . . hardly a recommendation for a claim to be his sister. 

These bizarre survivor theories have more ability to propogate than an infestation of cockroaches.  Lisa is right.  "Tatiana's" son was trying to cover a gaffe.  Jeez . . . .
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: skirt on October 28, 2006, 07:31:40 PM
Perhaps the son was embarassed? Just covering his disappointment by expressing after the fact that he was adopted.  OR was he so sure that his mother was correct that after finding out that his DNA didnt match it made him question his own birthright? Why would anyone go through with DNA testing fully knowing that he was adopted? Sounds fishy to me..
However this thread is definetly getting more interesting! I just finished reading the Romanov Prophesy and that little (very little and cynical) conspiracy theorist inside me is just working overtime.  Thanks Lexi4 for providing us with such a curious development and I await any further information that can be revealed concerning this other claimant story about GD Tatiana.
I LOVE this board!!!!!
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Ra-Ra-Rasputin on October 28, 2006, 07:42:41 PM
Welcome, skirt! This place sure can be a lot of fun.  I hope you enjoy it here.  :)

It sounds to me like this man didn't want a once and for all negative result.  The DNA tests came out negative, then he mentions the question of whether he was actually adopted. This is something he would have known about beforehand if it were true, and so he wouldn't have asked for the DNA tests in the first place.  Therefore, it seems to me that it was simply a way of dealing with his disappointment and leaving the question open to whatever people want to believe.

There have been so many survivors that it goes into the realm of farce. 

Alexei had haemophilia.  He couldn't have survived.  The bodies of five people were found, and there have been hundreds of so called survivors.  So that tells you how much truth can be gleaned from these tall tales.

Have people claiming to be Trupp, Botkin or Demidova ever shown up? Now THAT would be interesting.  I might start a thread.

Rachel
xx
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Tsarfan on October 28, 2006, 07:55:58 PM
Why would anyone go through with DNA testing fully knowing that he was adopted?

The only logic for his submitting a DNA sample was that he believed his mother's story.  After the results came back, he was confronted with one of two possibilities:  his mother lied about being a Russian grand duchess or about being his biological mother.

I'm surprised he didn't argue his DNA sample got switched or that the tests were flawed.  That way he could have avoided the dilemma of choosing which lie to lay at his mother's door.

Oops . . . I forgot.  Those excuses to dodge the DNA findings were already taken by the Anna Anderson crowd.  Can't play the same card twice, you know.  So I guess a belated realization he was adopted was all he had available to him.
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: LisaDavidson on October 28, 2006, 09:11:04 PM
Why would anyone go through with DNA testing fully knowing that he was adopted?

The only logic for his submitting a DNA sample was that he believed his mother's story.  After the results came back, he was confronted with one of two possibilities:  his mother lied about being a Russian grand duchess or about being his biological mother.

I'm surprised he didn't argue his DNA sample got switched or that the tests were flawed.  That way he could have avoided the dilemma of choosing which lie to lay at his mother's door.

Oops . . . I forgot.  Those excuses to dodge the DNA findings were already taken by the Anna Anderson crowd.  Can't play the same card twice, you know.  So I guess a belated realization he was adopted was all he had available to him.

How right you are. still, I have always found survivor stories to be interesting all in themselves, as long as one does not take them too seriously and leave behind critical thinking.
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Robert_Hall on October 29, 2006, 03:53:26 AM
A quick search on Oskari Tokoi [1873-1963] finds that he was speaker and head of the Senate of Finland from 1913 to 1917. Not Prime Minister. He also sided with the Reds in the Finnish civil war, moved to Russia, and evetually to the USA. He was not cleared of "treachery" until 1944. Apparently, he played all sides. Typical politician.
Does this make him so reliable in the survivor saga?
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Belochka on October 29, 2006, 04:18:16 AM
A quick search on Oskari Tokoi [1873-1963] finds that he was speaker and head of the Senate of Finland from 1913 to 1917. Not Prime Minister. He also sided with the Reds in the Finnish civil war, moved to Russia, and evetually to the USA. He was not cleared of "treachery" until 1944. Apparently, he played all sides. Typical politician.
Does this make him so reliable in the survivor saga?

So this individual has stretched his talents it seems. How bizzare.

Margarita  ::) ;)
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Helen_Azar on October 29, 2006, 09:17:42 AM
Perhaps the son was embarassed? Just covering his disappointment by expressing after the fact that he was adopted.  OR was he so sure that his mother was correct that after finding out that his DNA didnt match it made him question his own birthright? Why would anyone go through with DNA testing fully knowing that he was adopted?


I have a suggestion for the son. Since his claim to be the son of Grand Duchess Tatiana seems to have fallen through, he can now try to claim that his late mum was Amelia Earhart - there is after all a strong resemblence between the two... But this time he has to make sure to avoid those pesky DNA tests!

Title: Lexi4's posting about "Sisu"
Post by: OTMA-fan on October 29, 2006, 09:42:29 AM
A quick search on Oskari Tokoi [1873-1963] finds that he was speaker and head of the Senate of Finland from 1913 to 1917. Not Prime Minister. He also sided with the Reds in the Finnish civil war, moved to Russia, and evetually to the USA. He was not cleared of "treachery" until 1944. Apparently, he played all sides. Typical politician.
Does this make him so reliable in the survivor saga?

Dear Robert Hall,
According to  The Finnish Center at Saima Park at http://www.saima-park.org/admin/park/oskari_tokoi.htm
Oskari Tokoi
"His political involvement in Finland included

        Member of Finnish Parliament -- 1907 to 1918
        Speaker of Finnish Parliament -- 1913
        First Vice Speaker -- 1914
        Prime Minister of Finland -- 1917
        President of Finnish Federation of Labor -- 1910 to 1928"

After reading his impressive resume, do you still think Oskari Tokoi is the type of person who lies in his book?
I am still waiting for Lexi4's new posting.
Title: Lexi4's posting about "Sisu"
Post by: OTMA-fan on October 29, 2006, 09:55:52 AM
Welcome, skirt! This place sure can be a lot of fun.  I hope you enjoy it here.  :)

It sounds to me like this man didn't want a once and for all negative result.  The DNA tests came out negative, then he mentions the question of whether he was actually adopted. This is something he would have known about beforehand if it were true, and so he wouldn't have asked for the DNA tests in the first place.  Therefore, it seems to me that it was simply a way of dealing with his disappointment and leaving the question open to whatever people want to believe.

There have been so many survivors that it goes into the realm of farce. 

Alexei had haemophilia.  He couldn't have survived.  The bodies of five people were found, and there have been hundreds of so called survivors.  So that tells you how much truth can be gleaned from these tall tales.

Have people claiming to be Trupp, Botkin or Demidova ever shown up? Now THAT would be interesting.  I might start a thread.

Rachel
xx
Dear Ra-Ra-Rasputin,
your logic lacks a fundamental point.
A)Alexei had haemophilia. 
B)He couldn't have survived. 

(A) is a fact.
(B) is your *interpretation*.

If there is a sentence between (A) and (B)
(C) Alexa was shot for multiple times.
I would say the (B) is a "logical conclusion" rather than "interpretation". 

However, (C) is not a historical "fact". It is an ambiguous accont supported by a man named Yurovsky, whose account contains multiple contradictions. 
Now, thanks to Lexi4's discovery, (C) is contradicted by the account of Prime Minister of Finland.
Therefore, (D) He could have survived.
(D) is not a fact, it's a my and Lexi4's "argument" which should be discussed in this forum.
Title: Lexi4's posting about "Sisu"
Post by: OTMA-fan on October 29, 2006, 10:07:48 AM
Is there any real evidence of that train search actually occuring or is it just a rumor? Where did the details originate? I don't remember hearing it until I came to this board.
Dear Annie:
Good point. This is why history never stops fascinating us.
Why didn't we know this "Sisu" account? Because we were LAZY.
Remember, as to Alexei, there is no forensic or DNA evidence to support his death.
In fact, DNA evidence is consistent with his survival.
Not even a single DNA molecule was found from "commingled" bodies, which may support he was removed from the target of execution before that incident.
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: skirt on October 29, 2006, 11:02:53 AM
Alexei had haemophilia and was able to survive fourteen years though... IF he wasn't wounded during the attack is there a reason why he wouldnt survive any longer? I am not familiar with that disease enough to know survivor statistics. But after fourteen years it sounds plausible that he would be familiar enough with his body and his illness to be more cautious and aware of his symptoms to avoid activities that would cause him further harm- and perhaps different aids to help him through if he DID injure himself.  Was the boy dying prior to the massacre?
And (just for fun) how is it that Mr.Kendrick is privy to this information and access to these pictures of the alleged GD Tatiana claimant? These comparisons provide some of the best entertainment!! LETS SEE!!!

geez i dont get out much...lol
Title: Lexi4's posting about "Sisu"
Post by: OTMA-fan on October 29, 2006, 11:15:43 AM
To clear up people's misunderstanding.
Haemophilia doesn't necessary mean early death.
For instance, Prince Leopold, Duke of Albany, lived till age of 32, and he had children.
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: LisaDavidson on October 29, 2006, 11:39:28 AM
Alexei had haemophilia and was able to survive fourteen years though... IF he wasn't wounded during the attack is there a reason why he wouldnt survive any longer? I am not familiar with that disease enough to know survivor statistics. But after fourteen years it sounds plausible that he would be familiar enough with his body and his illness to be more cautious and aware of his symptoms to avoid activities that would cause him further harm- and perhaps different aids to help him through if he DID injure himself.  Was the boy dying prior to the massacre?
And (just for fun) how is it that Mr.Kendrick is privy to this information and access to these pictures of the alleged GD Tatiana claimant? These comparisons provide some of the best entertainment!! LETS SEE!!!

geez i dont get out much...lol


So glad to contribute to your amusement. Some survivor stories are really interesting all on their own.

Years ago, I wanted to make sure that Nicholas II was not forgotten and that all members of the House tossed aside like so much refuse got Christian burials. As I continued my studies, I started encountering survivor stories, some of which I investigated. I had become increasingly troubled about the families of these survivors contacting Romanov descendants, all of whom are/were very nice people living private lives. I eventually became a "go to" person for survivor families and as a result heard alot of stories.

My investigations lead me to the Alexander Palace site in the early months of its existence and in the early years, it was just Bob and me working on the site. Bob has always wanted to restore the palace - I always wanted the burial of the Imperial Family - and we both don't want the family to be forgotten. (I covered this in detail at a presentation at the ERHJ conference last weekend).

At any rate, of course I have investigated the Heino Tammet-Romanov case and spoken at length to John Kendrick and shared with him the most interesting of my survivor stories. That's how he saw the photos.
Title: Re: Lexi4's posting about "Sisu"
Post by: Annie on October 29, 2006, 11:55:42 AM

Dear Annie:
Good point. This is why history never stops fascinating us.
Why didn't we know this "Sisu" account? Because we were LAZY.
Remember, as to Alexei, there is no forensic or DNA evidence to support his death.
In fact, DNA evidence is consistent with his survival.
Not even a single DNA molecule was found from "commingled" bodies, which may support he was removed from the target of execution before that incident.


I had heard of the trains story before. It was one of those things I had read and seen but couldn't put a name or a page number to, but I remembered it. It still doesn't mean it's true, or completely accurate, or not twisted by exaggeration over time.


Quote
After reading his impressive resume, do you still think Oskari Tokoi is the type of person who lies in his book?

Just because a person is a politician doesn't mean their word is of any more value than anyone else's. In fact, IMO, I regard a politician's word with LESS credibility, considering how they will lie or kiss anyone's butt or change sides in a heartbeat to get what they want.

Even though Alexei's body has not officially been found doesn't mean he survived.
Title: Re: Lexi4's posting about "Sisu"
Post by: J_Kendrick on October 29, 2006, 01:19:58 PM

Even though Alexei's body has not officially been found doesn't mean he survived.


Time to remind you... It doesn't mean he died, either.

.. and, again, as fond as you all are of the haemophilia story...

Alexei's popularly suspected diagnosis has never been confirmed by any form of medical laboratory testing.
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Tsarfan on October 29, 2006, 01:26:39 PM
Alexei had haemophilia and was able to survive fourteen years though... IF he wasn't wounded during the attack is there a reason why he wouldnt survive any longer? I am not familiar with that disease enough to know survivor statistics. But after fourteen years it sounds plausible that he would be familiar enough with his body and his illness to be more cautious and aware of his symptoms to avoid activities that would cause him further harm . . . .

Alexei almost died in 1912 as the result of a minor stumble, which left him permanently lamed.  He had another crisis in Tobolsk that was precipitated by his riding a sled down a stairwell . . . hardly indicative of caution regarding his condition.  This episode left him too weak to travel when the decision was made to move the family to Ekaterinburg.  His inability to travel was the reason the family was separated for several weeks.  In the last couple of months before the massacre, he was bedridden most of the time.  Almost everyone who saw him in those weeks noted an extremely fragile state of health.

While hemophiliacs in that era could live into maturity, they did so only by a combination of extraordinary caution and luck.  Alexei could barely be kept alive by the best medical care of the era.  The notion that he was untouched by a hail of gunfire in a small room is hard to credit.  The notion that he was wounded and survived in chaotic conditions is ludicrous.

This desperate desire to believe that some member(s) of that family survived is really quite remarkable.  The extent to which people will reach to the outer limits of improbability to support bizarre "what if" scenarios is much more about the emotional needs of the believers than about the good of the victims.

Anna Anderson -- the only claimant who garnered any serious support -- was publically repudiated by Anastasia's closest surviving relatives.  She was courted by opportunists and charlatans throughout her life.  She lived a half-crazed old age amid filth and stray cats.

Grand Duchess Olga Alexandrovna -- who died in poverty over a hair salon in Toronto -- once said that she never let herself cry, because were she once to start she would never be able to stop.

Why is it so very, very important to grasp at straws to convince oneself that any of the imperial family survived?  What good does it do them or their memory?  What good does it do you?
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Ra-Ra-Rasputin on October 29, 2006, 02:30:32 PM
Thank you, Tsarfan! I agree 100%.

OTMA-fan, you are right- Alexei not surviving is not a historical fact.  I didn't say it was. 

However, if we are thinking logically, and not with our 'conspiracy theory' hats on, we have to admit to ourselves that the likelihood of Alexei surviving is slim to none.

Facts:
1. Alexei had haemophilia.  I don't believe a word of Mr Kendrick's little theory that Alexei didn't have haemophilia.
2. Alexei nearly died from the bleeding stemming from small bumps several times.

Things we cannot be 100% sure of because we weren't there, but can be pretty certain about due to what evidence we have:
1. Alexei was in the basement of the Ipatiev house during the shooting.
2. Alexei got shot several times, including at least once through the head.

Therefore, using these four pieces of information, two true, two most likely to be true, we can conclude BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT that Alexei would not have survived the execution.  If banging his knee caused him to nearly die, I really fail to see how he could have been shot and somehow managed to magically pull through, especially with the medical assistance available back in 1918.

You people, I am convinced, live with your heads in the clouds. Your constant attempts to deny the deaths of the IF fly completely in the face of pretty much all the evidence available to us.

Rachel
xx
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: lexi4 on October 29, 2006, 03:05:56 PM
...she was a very beautiful woman with a strong resemblance to GD Tatiana. .This claimant's son's mtDNA did not match either of the Victorian descendants', so I thought that would be the end of the case. However, the son told me that he now believes he was not his mother's natural son!

So are you saying that this claimant claimed to be GD Tatiana? If the son knew that he wasn't her natural son, why did he bother having his mtDNA tested in the first place, and only fessed up that he "wasn't her natural son" after it didn't match? Sounds quite murky to me...




I think it's called grasping at straws, m'dear. Let me try to be clearer so you will be able to agree with me, or at least, be able to see my point.

I was contacted by the claimant's family, who had already obtained the Victorian DNA sample. I told them they should be tested. (The claimant was desceased by the time I was contacted.). I suggested they test the woman's children who were living at the time instead of exhuming the claimant. The son's mtDNA did not match that of the maternal line of Queen Victoria. IOW, we could exclude this man as being related in the maternal line to Empress Alexandra, Princess Alice, or Queen Victoria (and any of their matrilineal ancestors). The test clearly showed the claim was false. Nothing was murky, I was done.

Then (and only then), the son said, he was not his mother's natural son.

If I recall correctly, are there not other living relatives who have not yet been tested?

After all, this particular claimant's likeness to Tatiana is nothing short of remarkable!!  Not to mention the very curious personal connections this claimant is said to have had to both Eugenia Smith's publisher, Robert Speller, and to Anna Anderson's biggest promoter, Gleb Botkin.

And yes, it is entirely possible for Tatiana to be the missing daughter.  If the American forensic team has correctly identified Body 5  as Marie and the Russian forensic team has correctly identified Body 6 as Anastasia, then the missing Grand Duchess is Tatiana.

jk

I agree with you here Jkendrick. I too have seen photos and the resemblance in remarkable.
Title: Re: Lexi4's posting about "Sisu"
Post by: lexi4 on October 29, 2006, 03:15:22 PM
I found this interesting. This is from the book Sisu by Oskari Tokor.
"The trip back was made moer rapidly - but I almost lost my youngest son. Late in the night, beyond Perm, the train was stopped at some wayside station and surrounded by Red militia. They searched the train with great thoroughness. The passengers learned that they expected to find the Czarevitch Alexei, the Czar's 13-year-old son, who had escaped from Jekaterinburg!
"My son was sharing a compartment with our imterpreter. As soon as the militia saw the boy the pounced on him. He was the same age, and the same height, and - they declared - he looked the same as teh Czarevithch. The interpreter tried to assure them tha the boy was Finnish and did not even speak  a word of Russian, but no one would believe him. Finally the interpreter remembered that the Czarevitch was said to be lame, and he came up with his last trump. My son was marched up and down the corridor, and everyone watched closely to see if he limped. When the militia were convinced he walked straight on his own two feet, they let him go.
"Every compartment, every corner, of the train was searched, and the pillows and mattresses so thoroughly bayonetted that not a mouse could have remained alive in them. Perhaps the son of Czar Nicholas II succeeded in escaping. Perhaps he remained somewhere among the living when his family was executed behind the tall plank fence surrounding the villa in Jekaterinburg."

pp. 176-177.

This Lexi4's discovery is interesting to me, because it's not about the false claimant, which I got tired of. But it's about Red Army (is it same thing as Red militia?). There is no reason Red Army orchestrated to "set up" this laborious searching, just to deceive someone. If they wanted to deceive someone, they could have easily issued the statement that "We have Alexei, he is alive". The more I read this, the more I am convinced that this is true. But I will wait until Lexi4 can post the copy of this page on AP site. This is an important evidence.

But this account has no information regarding the date. When did this happen?

Thank you very much for your kind remarks. The book is very difficult to find. I was lucky. The book is not about the IF, although they are mentioned. It is Oskari Tokoi's autobiography. I apologize for not responding sooner. Somehow, I missed your posts. I believe the train incident happened late in July, 1918.
Title: Re: Lexi4's posting about "Sisu"
Post by: OTMA-fan on October 29, 2006, 04:32:30 PM


Quote

Just because a person is a politician doesn't mean their word is of any more value than anyone else's. In fact, IMO, I regard a politician's word with LESS credibility, considering how they will lie or kiss anyone's butt or change sides in a heartbeat to get what they want.



Annie, you are using the "Straw Man" tactics. I never said all politicians tell a truth. I said that the source of this particular account is authentic enough to be taken seriously for further argument, compared to other obscure resource such as a notorious claimant or a book written by unknown author. Just like you think Yurovsky's account is authentic, I find Tokor's account is authentic. 
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: lexi4 on October 29, 2006, 04:42:35 PM
I think that the only thing that the quote from the book substantiates, is that the train was searched. He does not say that Alexei survived or offer any proof of that, merely mentions the possiblity. As the book is his autobiography, this is but a small part of the book.
He does not mention it again. However, I do think that it is another example of how some believed that there were survivors and actively searched for them.
Title: Lexi4's posting about "Sisu"
Post by: OTMA-fan on October 29, 2006, 04:45:53 PM
Alexei had haemophilia and was able to survive fourteen years though... IF he wasn't wounded during the attack is there a reason why he wouldnt survive any longer? I am not familiar with that disease enough to know survivor statistics. But after fourteen years it sounds plausible that he would be familiar enough with his body and his illness to be more cautious and aware of his symptoms to avoid activities that would cause him further harm . . . .

 

This desperate desire to believe that some member(s) of that family survived is really quite remarkable.  The extent to which people will reach to the outer limits of improbability to support bizarre "what if" scenarios is much more about the emotional needs of the believers than about the good of the victims.

Anna Anderson -- the only claimant who garnered any serious support -- was publically repudiated by Anastasia's closest surviving relatives.  She was courted by opportunists and charlatans throughout her life.  She lived a half-crazed old age amid filth and stray cats.

Grand Duchess Olga Alexandrovna -- who died in poverty over a hair salon in Toronto -- once said that she never let herself cry, because were she once to start she would never be able to stop.

Why is it so very, very important to grasp at straws to convince oneself that any of the imperial family survived?  What good does it do them or their memory?  What good does it do you?

Tsarfan,
You are using the "Poisoning the Well" maneuver here.
Person A says X.
Persons B attacks the motive/character of person A (A is conspiracy theorist etc), instead of refuting the X.

Do not shift the subject to issues with other claimant. That's not discussed here.
We are talking about the Sisu account, which Lexi4 posted first. 
If you want to join the topic, you have to discuss on what ground you conclude the PM of Finland lied about the train incident.
For example, if you could prove that Tokor didn't have a son, I would conclude that he concocted the whole account.

Without any DNA or forensic evidence (in fact DNA supports Alexei's survival), history is about "who said what". When two authentic individuals say contradictory thing, it's incumbent upon us to analyze the discrepancy, is it not?   
Title: Lexi4's posting about "Sisu"
Post by: OTMA-fan on October 29, 2006, 05:00:00 PM
Thank you, Tsarfan! I agree 100%.

OTMA-fan, you are right- Alexei not surviving is not a historical fact.  I didn't say it was. 

However, if we are thinking logically, and not with our 'conspiracy theory' hats on, we have to admit to ourselves that the likelihood of Alexei surviving is slim to none.

Facts:
1. Alexei had haemophilia.  I don't believe a word of Mr Kendrick's little theory that Alexei didn't have haemophilia.
2. Alexei nearly died from the bleeding stemming from small bumps several times.

Things we cannot be 100% sure of because we weren't there, but can be pretty certain about due to what evidence we have:
1. Alexei was in the basement of the Ipatiev house during the shooting.
2. Alexei got shot several times, including at least once through the head.

Therefore, using these four pieces of information, two true, two most likely to be true, we can conclude BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT that Alexei would not have survived the execution.  If banging his knee caused him to nearly die, I really fail to see how he could have been shot and somehow managed to magically pull through, especially with the medical assistance available back in 1918.

You people, I am convinced, live with your heads in the clouds. Your constant attempts to deny the deaths of the IF fly completely in the face of pretty much all the evidence available to us.

Rachel
xx

Ra-Ra,
You are shifting the subject too.
My central question is how to reconcile two contradictory testimonies. Without DNA/forensic evidence, all we have is witness' testimony. When we find a new testimony, we have to consider in a whole new perspective. To you, it's "BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT", but to me, this Sisu account is creating a "reasonable doubt". If I were a jury, I would say "not guilty".
Please provide an argument as to why the PM of Finland had to lie in his book.


Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Ra-Ra-Rasputin on October 29, 2006, 05:13:04 PM
I'm perplexed as to why just because someone held a post of responsibility, they are automatically assumed to be trustworthy.

The logic in this belief comes from....???

Rachel
xx
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: lexi4 on October 29, 2006, 06:17:14 PM
I'm perplexed as to why just because someone held a post of responsibility, they are automatically assumed to be trustworthy.

The logic in this belief comes from....???

Rachel
xx
Look, all he said was that the train was searched. It is an autobiography, written as a reflection of his life. He DID NOT say that Alexei survived, he did not claim any knowledge etc. He said perhaps...as if musing. He made no cliams other than to share his experiences of a train ride in July of 1918.
I think some are missing the forest for the trees.
Title: Re: Lexi4's posting about "Sisu"
Post by: Annie on October 29, 2006, 07:12:40 PM


Just like you think Yurovsky's account is authentic, I find Tokor's account is authentic. 

I guess everyone is going to believe what they choose to believe because it suits their needs. Whatever. Still looks like grasping at straws to me. We have no idea if one man's word is even true or accurate.
Title: Re: Lexi4's posting about "Sisu"
Post by: OTMA-fan on October 29, 2006, 07:30:56 PM


Just like you think Yurovsky's account is authentic, I find Tokor's account is authentic. 

I guess everyone is going to believe what they choose to believe because it suits their needs. Whatever. Still looks like grasping at straws to me. We have no idea if one man's word is even true or accurate.

Annie, even if Alexei was indeed dead and the Red Army made a "fake search", that would be interesting to me to know why they did that.
Even if the search never happened, but the ex-PM of Finland concocted the story, that would be interesting to me to know why he did that.
And if Tokor's account was correct, and the Red Army was really looking for him, that would be really really interesting.
I have no clue why you are so negative about my attitude.

See, our difference here, I am just interested in this historical puzzle, while  you are interested in discrediting other's view based on your agenda.
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Annie on October 29, 2006, 07:36:04 PM
I have no 'agenda' but that word makes me quite sure you are not really a newbie.

I have heard all the old stories and they were fun for awhile but the fact is they all died and we're only wasting time with all these silly games. We just need to find the bodies and put a stop to all this endless speculation.

I'm really quite sick of it all. If you get off on it that much knock yourself out!
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Tania+ on October 29, 2006, 08:05:32 PM
OTMAFan, I think the idea of this thread, is to express what one finds odd about whatever it is that is 'odd' on this thread.
That is what people are allowed to do is to state what they wish, nothing less. I think you have articulated what is of interest as well. Since there are no actual bodies to date, speculation will continue, and people will chose what they will, because that is just what people do, globally.

Remember again, though there are those whom post on these threads, there are countless thousands who have not shared their vote with anyone, and the vote at large has never been taken, and the bodies never found. So again, continue to offer your views freely, because there are some who may agree with you, and then some who will not. But, whatever is offered, or not, members and non members will draw their own conclusions, and come to what they wish to believe, as they do with everything in life.  :D As I recall on the other threads, people were almost crucified just for offering their thoughts on anything, and I hope that this will not again transpire. Thanks for sharing.

Tatiana+
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: grandduchessella on October 29, 2006, 08:25:48 PM
Just as an FYI for anyone interested:

The Finnish Center at Saima Park in Fitchburg, MA (USA) has a memorial to him since he lived many years (died in fact) in the US. A quay in Helsinki, Tokoinranta, is named after him as well:

http://www.saima-park.org/images/oskari_tokoi_2.jpg

During the war in 1918, he served on the red side and was  "kansanvaltuuskunnan elintarvikekomissaarina," commissioner of foodstuffs for the people of the democracy.  He served as an Officer -- British command "Finnish Legion" – from 1918 to 1920. 1944, Tokoi was pardoned by the Finnish government for his involvement in the side of the Reds during the revolutionary years, when they admitted how valuable his contributions were to the achievement of Finland’s independence from Russia.

This was written of his parliamentary time: "He was well liked by the other members of his party which resulted in him being elected speaker of the Eduskunta in 1913. In 1917 he was elected to head the Senate of Finland." This was a confusing time for Finland--wasn't it around this time they asked Prince Friedrich Karl of Hesse to be their King? What was the position of prime minister in such a chaotic period? There seems to have been a split amongst the parties, with leftist groups wanting to form a govt headed by Tokoi and not recognizing the government of Pehr Evind Svinhufvud. There were 4 Vice - Chairmen of the Economic Department of the Senate (they were the Prime Ministers, apparently in this system) in 1917. It made Tokoi the first Social Democratic prime-minister in the world.

"After the war he fled to Russia. Between 1919 and 1920, he worked as a political advisor for the Murmansk Legion which was organised by the British to fight the bolsheviks. Because of the war, Tokoi couldn't return to Finland and was forced to flee, first to England and Canada and later in 1921 to the United States. Here he became an editor at the newspaper "Raivaaja"."

There was also a bit of information about his daughter: "In that city, according to Rautkallio's findings, it was Tyyne Tokoi who according to Moscow's orders (i.e. Kuusinen) prepared the local communist Finns for liquidation. It was typical for many communists like Tyyne Tokoi that after she had completed her task in the liquidation process, she herself disappeared in the Siberian labor camps. "

Here are a couple pictures:

http://www.tsl.fi/tanner/kuva21iso.html

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Oskari_tokoi_drawing.gif

http://www.genealogia.fi/emi/art/article257h.jpg

http://museot.keski-pohjanmaa.fi/kannus/valokuvat/Oto1.jpg
Title: Re: Lexi4's posting about "Sisu"
Post by: Tsarfan on October 29, 2006, 09:10:39 PM
If you want to join the topic, you have to discuss on what ground you conclude the PM of Finland lied about the train incident.

I never said Tokoi lied.  I was challenging the view put forward that Yurovsky's account of the massacre -- that of a "murdering Bolshevik" -- should be dismissed simply because a Finnish politician said a train got searched for Alexei.

The train might well have been searched for any number of reasons:  it was part of a Bolshevik disinformation campaign; some army officers who were not in the information loop between Moscow and Ekaterinburg were dispatched because a local commander heard rumors that Alexei was on a train; they were searching for someone else and the story got muddled and more spectacular as it spread among the passengers.  Any of these or similar scenarios could explain why Tokoi observed what he reported without necessarily making a lie of Yurovsky's account.

And, by the way, this topic is considerably broader than the Tokoi account, so I must respectfully reject your order that I keep my posts so constrained.
Title: Re: Lexi4's posting about "Sisu"
Post by: Tsarfan on October 29, 2006, 09:50:08 PM
. . . in fact DNA supports Alexei's survival . . .

Uh, exactly what kind of DNA test could support Alexei's survival?  A DNA test might be able to prove that a body is or isn't the remains of someone . . . if a DNA sample of the person in question is available.  But there are no known samples of Alexei's DNA.  The DNA tests that were done on the remains were only probative of whether the bodies found in the mass grave were related to known relatives of the Romanovs.  The tests could not confirm specific identities.  The conclusion that Alexei's body is missing is based on forensic physical examination of the skeletal remains in the grave, not on DNA evidence.

I know some people really, really want Alexei to have survived.  They discount the report made by the murderers.  They ignore the extremely strong motivation the Bolsheviks would have had to be sure the heir to the throne was killed in their massacre.  They either argue he was not really a hemophiliac, or that all the bullets and bayonet thrusts missed him, or that he miraculously recovered from bullet or beating wounds despite his hemophilia.

But now to argue that DNA supports his survival is pushing it a bit, don't you think?

Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Tania+ on October 29, 2006, 10:32:02 PM
imho, since we already have a few, if not more, 'pushing' for responses, I think it should be explored...and since it an open question for many, I think it would be 'odd' not to have it discussed. It's great to hear both sides from any as many who feel they need to discuss this. If Ra-Ra had stated that she wanted only one perspective on the issue, it should have been stated, and not changed by one person in mid-stream...

Tatiana+
Title: Re: Lexi4's posting about "Sisu"
Post by: J_Kendrick on October 30, 2006, 01:58:09 AM
. . . in fact DNA supports Alexei's survival . . .

Uh, exactly what kind of DNA test could support Alexei's survival?  A DNA test might be able to prove that a body is or isn't the remains of someone . . . if a DNA sample of the person in question is available.  But there are no known samples of Alexei's DNA.  The DNA tests that were done on the remains were only probative of whether the bodies found in the mass grave were related to known relatives of the Romanovs.  The tests could not confirm specific identities.  The conclusion that Alexei's body is missing is based on forensic physical examination of the skeletal remains in the grave, not on DNA evidence.

I know some people really, really want Alexei to have survived.  They discount the report made by the murderers.  They ignore the extremely strong motivation the Bolsheviks would have had to be sure the heir to the throne was killed in their massacre.  They either argue he was not really a hemophiliac, or that all the bullets and bayonet thrusts missed him, or that he miraculously recovered from bullet or beating wounds despite his hemophilia.

But now to argue that DNA supports his survival is pushing it a bit, don't you think?

jk




Quoted directly from Dr. Peter Gill's published mitochondrial DNA report: "Identification of the remains of the Romanov family by DNA analysis", Drs. Peter Gill, Pavel Ivanov, et al.  Nature Genetics, Volume 6, February 1994, page 131....

"If the remains are those of the Romanovs then the STR and sex test data indicate that one of the princesses and Tsarevich Alexei were missing from the grave.  This would support some historical accounts which indicate that two bodies were either burned of buried separately.  Alternatively, two individuals may have survived the murders."

So.... You were saying.... ?
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Ra-Ra-Rasputin on October 30, 2006, 04:06:24 AM
Mr Kendrick, why do you keep stating the obvious as if it were ground shattering news?

Yes, we know two people MAY have survived as there are two bodies missing from the grave.  We are, at present, discussing the likelihood of this possibillity.

When it comes down to it, this possibility is so incredibly slim as to be highly unlikely.  There are several reasons that have been discussed over and over on this board as to why this is the case.

At the moment, there is nothing concrete to prove 100% that Alexei and one of his sisters died in the massacre.  We all know this and nobody can deny it. 

However, the rules of logic would suggest, from all the information we have about the brutality of the execution, not to mention Alexei's haemophilia, that two people somehow surviving would be nigh on impossible.

Trains were reportedly searched for missing members of the IF- as Tsarfan said, this could be for any number of reasons OTHER than that they really were looking for missing members of the IF.

A truck got stuck in the mud during which Edvard Radzinsky, a playwright by profession, let's add, has started the theory that two most probably dead children could have fallen off the truck or been rescued from the truck at that time and therefore survived.  This could be true, but it's also highly likely that it isn't.

Anastasia also apparently was taken to a house opposite the Ipatiev house in the early hours of the morning after the massacre and reportedly nursed back to health.

Anastasia also, if we believe Anna Anderson, sat on the back of a cart on her way to Romania and had a baby along the way.

So many stories...we can't possibly believe them all, can we?

You know what I think? Yurovsky said he and his soldiers killed the IF.  He said where they would be buried, and he also said that two bodies would be missing because he burned them. 

And you know what? What Yurovksy said was true; the IF were buried where he said, and two bodies were missing, like he said.

So, if we're going to believe anyone, why not Yurovsky? At least we have evidence that backs up his claim.  Concrete evidence.  We don't have that for anyone else.

Rachel
xx

Title: Re: Lexi4's posting about "Sisu"
Post by: Tsarfan on October 30, 2006, 06:56:02 AM

"If the remains are those of the Romanovs then the STR and sex test data indicate that one of the princesses and Tsarevich Alexei were missing from the grave.  This would support some historical accounts which indicate that two bodies were either burned of buried separately.  Alternatively, two individuals may have survived the murders."

So.... You were saying.... ?


The claim was made that DNA testing supported Alexei's survival . . . not the possibility of his survival, but his actual survival.  In fact, Gill's report proved only that Alexei was missing from the grave.  Gill acknowledged his findings could equally well support the reports that two bodies were burned or buried separately.  Yet OTMA-fan conveniently omits that, and you boldface only the survival possibility. 

Also, at the time this report was written, only Y-STR testing was available.  This would indicate whether any two males were related paternally, but it would not indicate who the males were.  (X-STR testing, which tests for paternal relationships between a male and a female, has only become available since 1994.)  All the DNA tests proved was that there were not two paternally-related Romanov males in the mass grave.  It took a physical examination of the skeletal remains to determine that the one male Romanov in the grave was an adult male instead of an adolescent.

So, tell me again how DNA testing proved Alexei's survival?  All DNA testing did was create the conditions for elimination that allowed forensic evidence to be dispositive.  And I freely admitted that forensic evidence proved Alexei was not in the mass grave.

Yurovsky was under orders to kill the entire imperial family.  He put them in a small room and opened a hail of gunfire on them.  When the gunfire failed to kill everyone, time and effort was taken to bludgeon and stab those still showing signs of life in order to be sure all the victims were dead.  One of those victims was a frail, lame boy who bled profusely at relatively minor injuries.  And that boy was the heir to a throne which the Bolsheviks were murderoulsy determined not to see rise over them again.

Eyewitness accounts say they all died.  Everything known about the motives of those ordering and those executing the massacre indicates an intent to kill them all.  The execution squad was formed almost at the last minute to be sure that potentially-sympathetic guards would not falter in their resolve or have an opportunity to attempt an omission or rescue.  Reports were made of attempts to burn some of the bodies and of a disorganized burial attempt in multiple locations decades before any grave was shown to have bodies missing.

Giving various possible interpretations of evidence, why would anyone favor only those interpretations which keep that small boy alive?

This is not indicative of trying to find the truth.  It's indicative of trying to keep a desperately-desired hope alive.
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Tsarfan on October 30, 2006, 08:39:31 AM
I've been thinking about the above post, which I know splits a few hairs.  So I should explain why I think this is important.  This site is visited by many newcomers, either to Russian history or to this particular topic, and by people who are just beginning their study of history.

To make a statement such as "the DNA supports Alexei's survival" looks on the surface to be an assertion of a fact that is proven with weighty scientific evidence such as DNA.  Many people will take such a remark at face value and inevitably begin to restate it in the retelling.  Very quickly the message that gets into circulation is that a Russian history website contains information that "DNA proves that Alexei survived."

When referring to scientific evidence -- especially evidence that sounds so compelling to lay ears as do DNA findings -- those references should accurately reflect what the evidence does and does not show.  Standing alone, this DNA evidence showed nothing about Alexei.  It merely showed there were not two paternally-related male Romanovs in that grave.  Other evidence was required to determine Alexei was not in the grave.  And even that evidence proved only that for some reason he was not buried with his family.  It says nothing about what that reason might be.
Title: Lexi4's posting about "Sisu"
Post by: OTMA-fan on October 30, 2006, 09:22:38 AM
Tsarfan, I will discuss this issue later, to refute some of your argument. Just so you know I am not ignoring your response. Today is Monday, and I have to go to work today.
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Lemur on October 30, 2006, 09:44:11 AM
It is even possible that wild animals may have dragged off and devoured the bodies if they fell off the truck!

I am no fan of Yurovsky, but honestly, would anyone doubt his word about the burned bodies when everything else he told us has turned out to be true? The only reason must be that some people are desperate to believe the claimants.
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Louis_Charles on October 30, 2006, 01:04:01 PM
I do think that people should distinguish between suppression of freedom of speech, and "pushing for" responses (whatever those may be, or that phrase may mean). Rachel is right: the possibility of the boy surviving shots in the basement is slim to none. This does not mean that he couldn't have been alive when the shooting was finished (although even that strikes me as unlikely --- surely after Nicholas, Alexei was the one person the shooters would have wanted dead for sure); as King and Wilson have made a case, it is possible that several people may have been alive at the end of the shootings. As they also say, this does not mean that they survived for any significant amount of time.

But this isn't really the issue on this thread, is it? The issue is now whether the boy was in the room at all --- there is no other explanation that allows for the survival of a hemophiliac other than that he wasn't there. If you think that entertaining these suggestions is freedom of speech, have at it. But in the end, there is an invincible resistance to logic manifested by people like JKendrick. And while it is fine for him to maintain his positions, don't try and pass it off as some kind of heroic stance against the oppression of the majority, i.e. those of us who accept the forensic evidence that he is dead. The lack of a body in the grave does not argue for survival. It argues for the lack of his body in the grave.

Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Bev on October 30, 2006, 05:07:00 PM
Well said, LC.
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Belochka on October 30, 2006, 06:20:39 PM
I do think that people should distinguish between suppression of freedom of speech, and "pushing for" responses (whatever those may be, or that phrase may mean). Rachel is right: the possibility of the boy surviving shots in the basement is slim to none. ...

... If you think that entertaining these suggestions is freedom of speech, have at it. But in the end, there is an invincible resistance to logic manifested by people like JKendrick. And while it is fine for him to maintain his positions, don't try and pass it off as some kind of heroic stance against the oppression of the majority, i.e. those of us who accept the forensic evidence that he is dead. The lack of a body in the grave does not argue for survival. It argues for the lack of his body in the grave.

Well stated Louis_Charles!

The assassins had a task to complete. If one of the victims happened to breath for a longer period than those around them, it is erroneous to suggest that this scenario lends itself to survivability. Forensically speaking one can only state that the time of death was not the same for all persons in that room.

I agree with the statement that the absence of finding a body to date does not argue for the remote possibility of survival.

Margarita
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: J_Kendrick on October 30, 2006, 10:39:20 PM

If you think that entertaining these suggestions is freedom of speech, have at it. But in the end, there is an invincible resistance to logic manifested by people like JKendrick. And while it is fine for him to maintain his positions, don't try and pass it off as some kind of heroic stance against the oppression of the majority, i.e. those of us who accept the forensic evidence that he is dead. The lack of a body in the grave does not argue for survival. It argues for the lack of his body in the grave.



First, you speak of logic.  Then you speak of "those of us who accept the forensic evidence that he is dead."

There is NO forensic evidence of Alexei's death at Ipatiev!!   

This is as simple as the logic can get.

No Bones equals No Evidence!

Everything else is purely supposition, and nothing more.

Once again, I will use a current day example that everyone can understand.

It had recently been reported that Osama Bin Laden had died of typhoid... but... Before that same story can be said to be true, Osama Bin Laden's mortal remains must first be recovered and positively identified.

Until that same proof of his physical remains has actually been found and positively identified, the claims of Bin Laden's death must be presumed to be false.  There is far too much at stake to assume otherwise.  Every possibile fate imaginable must still continue to be investigated, until that day finally comes when Osama Bin Laden is actually found and positively identified.

The same is true of the missing Romanovs.  Until that same proof of their actual physical remains has been found and positively identified, the claims of their deaths at Ipatiev cannot be assumed to be true.  Every possibility imaginable must still continue to be investigated, including the possiblity of their survival -- no matter how loudly you may protest against it --  until that day finally comes when those same missing bodies have actually been found and positively identified.

jk
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Annie on October 30, 2006, 10:45:03 PM
No one ever found Michael Romanov's body either. Do you claim that means he could be alive too?
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Louis_Charles on October 30, 2006, 11:04:08 PM

If you think that entertaining these suggestions is freedom of speech, have at it. But in the end, there is an invincible resistance to logic manifested by people like JKendrick. And while it is fine for him to maintain his positions, don't try and pass it off as some kind of heroic stance against the oppression of the majority, i.e. those of us who accept the forensic evidence that he is dead. The lack of a body in the grave does not argue for survival. It argues for the lack of his body in the grave.



First, you speak of logic.  Then you speak of "those of us who accept the forensic evidence that he is dead."

There is NO forensic evidence of Alexei's death at Ipatiev!!   

This is as simple as the logic can get.

No Bones equals No Evidence!

Everything else is purely supposition, and nothing more.

Once again, I will use a current day example that everyone can understand.

It had recently been reported that Osama Bin Laden had died of typhoid... but... Before that same story can be said to be true, Osama Bin Laden's mortal remains must first be recovered and positively identified.

Until that same proof of his physical remains has actually been found and positively identified, the claims of Bin Laden's death must be presumed to be false.  There is far too much at stake to assume otherwise.  Every possibile fate imaginable must still continue to be investigated, until that day finally comes when Osama Bin Laden is actually found and positively identified.

The same is true of the missing Romanovs.  Until that same proof of their actual physical remains has been found and positively identified, the claims of their deaths at Ipatiev cannot be assumed to be true.  Every possibility imaginable must still continue to be investigated, including the possiblity of their survival -- no matter how loudly you may protest against it --  until that day finally comes when those same missing bodies have actually been found and positively identified.

jk

You certainly have a narrow definition of forensic evidence. There is ample testimony that the boy was in the room and that he was shot. If you care to dispute it, go for the gold, but you are going to have to impeach an awful lot of eyewitnesses. On the other hand, there is a respectable tradition for this kind of argument. I think it started with "Unless I can put my hands into the wounds I shall not believe . . ."  Of course, that one didn't exactly go the way Thomas wanted it, either.

I did not protest "loudly" against anything, so knock that sort of thing right off. I only pointed out that your positions are flying in the face of a preponderance of evidence. If you could have heard me, you would have marvelled at my dulcet tones.  If you read my post a bit more carefully, I said that you were entitled to your beliefs. But surely you, JKendrick,  recognize that even as  you are performing your iconoclastic push-ups and then sitting up to say "Whee! Have you ever seen anyone as insightful and outside-the-accepted-norms as me in the way I look at history?" that your positions are, um . . . is 'marginal' acceptable? As in, very few people hold them --- indeed you are the only one I have ever heard seriously try to maintain that Alexei (1) survived and (2) didn't have hemophilia. So there it is.

Am I incorrect in concluding that you do not accept that Alexei was in the cellar? I am curious.

Simon, known to God as "Louis_Charles"

Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Belochka on October 31, 2006, 03:28:34 AM

There is NO forensic evidence of Alexei's death at Ipatiev!!   

No Bones equals No Evidence!

Everything else is purely supposition, and nothing more.

jk

Let us view it this way, John. There is more than adequate convincing accumulated evidence available, based on depositions submitted by the guards, and such like, that would lead a reasonable mind to draw a safe conclusion, that Alexei died with his entire Family in the Ipatiev house.

There is no single document that points to another conclusion, only your highly improbable speculive verbalizations. You had the obligation to provide the burden of proof but you failed to establish that to any degree of satisfaction. The preponderance of evidence falls against you.

Why not admit that you made a gross error of judgement?

Margarita  
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Ra-Ra-Rasputin on October 31, 2006, 05:01:43 AM
At the risk of sounding like a 12 year old American cheerleader, I'm going to say, 'You go, Simon!'.

The problem I have with people like Mr Kendrick, Chat_Noir, etc, is that they refuse to consider all evidence they don't agree with.

All the emphasis is placed on the missing bodies and what that may mean.  Well, why don't we focus on the evidence that explains why they are missing? Why was Yurovsky lying when he said he burned the two bodies and buried the remains elsewhere? Why can't this be the truth? 'Yurovsky was a lying murderer' isn't good enough- what reason, what EVIDENCE do you have, that this testimony wasn't true? Just because the bodies haven't been found yet, it doesn't mean they won't be. 

As Annie rightly brought up, Michael Romanov's body was never found.  But no one disputes his death.  Why are people so worried about the missing bodies of Alexei and one of his sisters, but not about Michael's? Why is Michael considered to be safely dead, but the other two not?

You can't pick and choose in history.  You can't have one rule for one situation and another for others.

Rachel
xx
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Annie on October 31, 2006, 07:01:15 AM

As Annie rightly brought up, Michael Romanov's body was never found.  But no one disputes his death.  Why are people so worried about the missing bodies of Alexei and one of his sisters, but not about Michael's? Why is Michael considered to be safely dead, but the other two not?



What a double standard! I'm still waiting for him to answer that. The answer seems to me to be that Michael had no claimants, so there's no need to pretend he lived. But if people can accept the Bolshevik's story of his death, with no body, why not Anastasia and Alexei, oh yeah, that's right, the claimants ::)
Title: 3 REASONS WHY TSARFAN IS WRONG
Post by: OTMA-fan on October 31, 2006, 08:14:48 AM

3 REASONS WHY TSARFAN IS WRONG.

Unfortunately, no one provided a new information to help to understand the "Sisu" account which Lexi4 posted here first. However, as I promised, I will refute some arguments made by Tsarfan.


#####1 Tsarfan says "Also, at the time this report was written, only Y-STR testing was available.  This would indicate whether any two males were related paternally, but it would not indicate who the males were.  (X-STR testing, which tests for paternal relationships between a male and a female, has only become available since 1994.)"

This is not true. The 1994 study used to analyze the Amelogenin gene, which exists on BOTH X and Y chromosome. Indeed, anyone who took Biology 101 knows that there is no such thing as "Y-STR testing", as this sex-type-PCR never works with either only X or only Y, it only works when you amplify BOTH, as each works as a control for another. It is such a mystery to me why Tsarfan has to fabricates such kind of funny testing.
(I quote from the original 1994 paper: "p131, The sex of the bones was determined by amplification of a portion of the X-Y homologous gene, amelogenin, which provide a robust method for typing samples of a very degraded nature: X and Y-specific products of 106 and 112 basepairs, respectively were generated....)

#####2. Tsar fans says "The conclusion that Alexei's body is missing is based on forensic physical examination of the skeletal remains in the grave, not on DNA evidence."

Again, This is not true. It is based on BOTH forensic and DNA evidence. There was no skeleton of a boy (Alexei), this was very obvious and simple, which Tsarfan understands. But there was also no DNA which matched Alexei, this part is what many people don't understand. Alexei's DNA should have had BOTH Y chromosome from nucleus, AND Hesse mtDNA type (i.e., 16111C/16357T). There were 4 individuals' DNA in the grave which had Hesse mtDNA, but all had only X chromosomes. None had Y Chromosome. Therefore, Alexei's DNA was missing.

#####3. Tsarfans keeps attacking the use of the word "supports". In academic circle, we use "supports" and "is consistent with" interchangeably on many occasions. "Evidence A supports B", does not necessary means "Because of Evidence A, the fact B is 100% certain." For example, if blood left on a crime scheme is Type A and the suspect’s Blood Type is also A, a prosecutor can say “the blood evidence supports the accusation that the defendant is a murderer”. If you read #1 and #2 above, you see the DNA evidence “supports” (or “is consistent with”) the Alexei's survival theory.

#####4. I do not think Alexei survived after multiple shots, IF he was indeed shot. As Yeltzin destroyed the Iptiev house, there is no physical evidence to support Yurovsky’s account.  As many people thought that Alexei will die sooner or later, it might be possible that he was removed from target thinking that it would be easy to kill him later. This is my conjecture, but I have some indirect evidence to support this, which I will post here later, when Lexi4 is able to post the page of "Sisu".

P.S.
And Ra-Ra-Rasputin, how many times should I tell you not to attack the motive or personality of the person who presents an argument ("Poisoning the Well"). The motive nothing to do with his/her argument. Indeed I never attacks the Tsarfan's agenda or motive, because I don't care.

And also, please don't confuse the argument unnecessarily. Please do not bring the Anastasia issue and say "Look all the crazy stuff AA said". That's absolutely irreverent here.   
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Louis_Charles on October 31, 2006, 08:31:48 AM
"Irrelevant", not "irreverent".

And I am sorry to be dim, but why does the fact that Alexei's DNA not being found in the grave prove anything other than that his body was not in the grave?

Why would all of the eyewitnesses to the shootings place him in the Ipatiev cellar if he was not there? They also placed OTM, A&N, Botkin and the servants in the cellar, and they were there. Why have Anastasia and Alexei escape death? Why not the others?

You have extrapolated from the lack of two bodies to something that is at best . . .  improbable? And what on earth does the Finnish Prime Minister's testimony prove, other than he may have believed what he said? So? He didn't have any physical evidence either.

Cherry-picking.

Quote
#####3. Tsarfans keeps attacking the use of the word "supports". In academic circle, we use "supports" and "is consistent with" interchangeably on many occasions. "Evidence A supports B", does not necessary means "Because of Evidence A, the fact B is 100% certain." For example, if blood left on a crime scheme is Type A and the suspect’s Blood Type is also A, a prosecutor can say “the blood evidence supports the accusation that the defendant is a murderer”. If you read #1 and #2 above, you see the DNA evidence “supports” (or “is consistent with”) the Alexei's survival theory.

In academic circles we also support our sources. Can you provide one reputable historian or scientist who accepts the idea that Alexei was not shot? Who regards the fact that his body is not in the grave as equally strong evidence that he survived?

Simon
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: OTMA-fan on October 31, 2006, 08:52:35 AM
all right, today is tuesday, and I have to go to my work and school now. I will respond when I get back.
Simon, at the same time, please explain why Tsarfan had to invent the "Y-STR" testing.
Title: Re: 3 REASONS WHY TSARFAN IS WRONG
Post by: Tsarfan on October 31, 2006, 09:12:04 AM

. . . anyone who took Biology 101 knows that there is no such thing as "Y-STR testing"


Really?  Then why do numerous labs perform Y-STR paternal lineage testing?  Anyone can check this out by googling "Y-STR test".



Tsar fans says "The conclusion that Alexei's body is missing is based on forensic physical examination of the skeletal remains in the grave, not on DNA evidence."

Again, This is not true. It is based on BOTH forensic and DNA evidence. There was no skeleton of a boy (Alexei), this was very obvious and simple, which Tsarfan understands. But there was also no DNA which matched Alexei, this part is what many people don't understand. Alexei's DNA should have had BOTH Y chromosome from nucleus, AND Hesse mtDNA type (i.e., 16111C/16357T). There were 4 individuals' DNA in the grave which had Hesse mtDNA, but all had only X chromosomes. None had Y Chromosome. Therefore, Alexei's DNA was missing.


I stand corrected on this point.  I was recalling reports I read a while ago that said Alexei was determined to be missing because there were no bones with both the age markers of an adolescent and the signs of deformation from the hemophilia attacks that left him lame.  In any case, I have always agreed his skeleton is missing from the grave. 



Tsarfans keeps attacking the use of the word "supports".


I was not attacking the use of the word "supports".  I was attacking referring only to a DNA report as supporting Alexei's survival when the report, in fact, explictily said the findings supported a range of possibilities, including the burning of the missing bodies and separate burial -- which is exactly what participants in the massacre reported happened.  This was a debate about whether Alexei survived.  You adduced a report as supporting one side of the debate only, when it actually supported the possibility of both arguments.  Since you claim to be from "academic circles", shouldn't you adhere to the standards of intellectual rigor normally expected in that community when putting forward argumentation?


And, by the way . . . how did the title of this thread temporarily become "3 Reasons Why Tsarfan is Wrong" on the forum register?  I doubt if Ra-Ra-Rasputin, who started this thread, made the change.  Is hijacking a thread started by someone else to push a personal agenda also a practice in the "academic circles" in which you operate?
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: AGRBear on October 31, 2006, 10:02:04 AM
Why would Yurovsky  tell us the truth about nine bodies and not about two?

Pick one of the possible answers:

1)  Yurovsky lied about the buriel of the two missing bodies?

2) Yurovsky wasn''t present when the two bodies were buried and merely repeated what was told to him by those who were and did

3)  Yurovsky didn't have two bodies to bury

4)
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: AGRBear on October 31, 2006, 10:07:11 AM
For some reason my above post can't be modified after a minute of posting so I'll explain:

The #4  was to have added to it:

"Add your reason as to why""

AGRBear


Title: Re: 3 REASONS WHY TSARFAN IS WRONG
Post by: Ra-Ra-Rasputin on October 31, 2006, 10:11:47 AM

P.S.
And Ra-Ra-Rasputin, how many times should I tell you not to attack the motive or personality of the person who presents an argument ("Poisoning the Well"). The motive nothing to do with his/her argument. Indeed I never attacks the Tsarfan's agenda or motive, because I don't care.

And also, please don't confuse the argument unnecessarily. Please do not bring the Anastasia issue and say "Look all the crazy stuff AA said". That's absolutely irreverent here.   


Three reasons why OTMA-fan is amusing:

1. OTMA-fan presumes to tell me what to do, and thinks I should do as he/she says, even though OTMA-fan doesn't read my posts properly (please refer to point 3).
2. OTMA-fan thinks he/she hasn't attacked Tsarfan, and yet has changed the title of MY post, without MY permission, to 'Three reasons why Tsarfan is wrong'. If that isn't attacking anyone, I don't know what is.
3. OTMA-fan misquotes me and uses that to tell me off.  I don't think I've ever in my life used the phrase 'poisoning the well', so I suggest that you read more carefully to check the origin of the post you're referring to next time, dear.


I don't see why we keep going around and around and around in circles here. Alexei's body is not in the grave.  This has been determined by DNA testing and forensic analysis.  Why does this matter? His body not being there proves nothing except that his body is not there.  It does not mean he didn't die in the massacre.  It does not mean he escaped.  It does not mean he survived and grew up to be Heino Tammet.  It simply means that for a reason we aren't sure about, his body isn't in the grave.

Why make this into something more than it is?

Annie and I are both waiting to hear why it is that Alexei's missing body must mean he survived and yet Michael Romanov's body is still missing...no one is that bothered as to his potential whereabouts...why not? As Annie suggests, perhaps it's because he hasn't got anyone pretending to be him...no fake survivor to attach yourself to and start making up exciting alternative life stories for?

And OTMA-fan, please stop telling me what I can and cannot discuss- I started this thread.  I'll say what I want on it.

Rachel
xx
 
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Ra-Ra-Rasputin on October 31, 2006, 10:13:10 AM
Why would Yurovsky  tell us the truth about nine bodies and not about two?

Pick one of the possible answers:

1)  Yurovsky lied about the burial of the two missing bodies?

2) Yurovsky wasn''t present when the two bodies were buried and merely repeated what was told to him by those who were and did

3)  Yurovsky didn't have two bodies to bury

4) Add your reason as to why

5) Yurovsky wasn't lying and there are two bodies still left to be found (always a possibility?)

Rachel
xx
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Lemur on October 31, 2006, 10:39:59 AM
I agree with the statement that the absence of finding a body to date does not argue for the remote possibility of survival.


People have been convicted of murder when the body of their victim was never found, if there is enough circumstantial evidence and/or a confession. In this case, we have both.
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Lemur on October 31, 2006, 10:42:15 AM

As Annie rightly brought up, Michael Romanov's body was never found.  But no one disputes his death.  Why are people so worried about the missing bodies of Alexei and one of his sisters, but not about Michael's? Why is Michael considered to be safely dead, but the other two not?



What a double standard! I'm still waiting for him to answer that. The answer seems to me to be that Michael had no claimants, so there's no need to pretend he lived. But if people can accept the Bolshevik's story of his death, with no body, why not Anastasia and Alexei, oh yeah, that's right, the claimants ::)

Good questions, why are the "Alexei lived" crowd who keep using lack of a body as 'proof' avoiding answering this? I'd like to see their reasoning.
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: skirt on October 31, 2006, 11:18:04 AM
Quote
OTMAFan, I think the idea of this thread, is to express what one finds odd about whatever it is that is 'odd' on this thread.
That is what people are allowed to do is to state what they wish, nothing less. I think you have articulated what is of interest as well. Since there are no actual bodies to date, speculation will continue, and people will chose what they will, because that is just what people do, globally.

Remember again, though there are those whom post on these threads, there are countless thousands who have not shared their vote with anyone, and the vote at large has never been taken, and the bodies never found. So again, continue to offer your views freely, because there are some who may agree with you, and then some who will not. But, whatever is offered, or not, members and non members will draw their own conclusions, and come to what they wish to believe, as they do with everything in life.   As I recall on the other threads, people were almost crucified just for offering their thoughts on anything, and I hope that this will not again transpire. Thanks for sharing.

Tatiana+

 
I'd like to acknowledge this post with thanks.  Many threads do indeed become battle-grounds and people with different thoughts or opinions. It can be quite intimidating for us 'newbies'!!  Being attacked in person or via the internet for ones personal beliefs or thoughts is concidered bullying even assault. I'm sure there are many members and non-members that enjoy this forum and keep opinions to themselves (for many reasons I won't assume to guess). It is so important to keep communication clear and available without personal insults and attacks on character based on musings or opinions!!
With so many scholars and educated members/ non-members in so many parts of the world this is a virtual smorgasborg of information- without intimidations, people like lexi4 will be able to continually contribute most valuable otherwise unfound or unrecognised information.  I have learned SO much visiting here- with access to (historical) information that would take me YEARS to attain from my local liabrary!

I think that a former Finnish Prime Minister making a comment in his autobiography is fascinating and is likely nothing that I would be able to access or THINK to access on my own. Whether it equates that the tsarvich escaped a horrendous masacre is (IMHO) a stretch but is it necessary to devalue the fact that he said it/ it occured because you dont agree that Alexei survived?  this is great stuff !
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: lori_c on October 31, 2006, 11:50:12 AM
all right, today is tuesday, and I have to go to my work and school now. I will respond when I get back.
Simon, at the same time, please explain why Tsarfan had to invent the "Y-STR" testing.

Could this be referring to Y chromosome haplotyping?
Title: Re: 3 REASONS WHY TSARFAN IS WRONG
Post by: Tsarfan on October 31, 2006, 12:42:58 PM
I don't see why we keep going around and around and around in circles here. Alexei's body is not in the grave.  This has been determined by DNA testing and forensic analysis.  Why does this matter? His body not being there proves nothing except that his body is not there.  It does not mean he didn't die in the massacre.  It does not mean he escaped.  It does not mean he survived and grew up to be Heino Tammet.  It simply means that for a reason we aren't sure about, his body isn't in the grave.

I think everyone should take a time out and re-read Yurovsky's 1934 account of the massacre and the 24-hour period succeeding it.  (It's on the main Alexander Palace website.)  Far from being a cover-up of the mess he and others made of the events, his report candidly discusses the things for which he failed to plan as well as the plans he executed clumsily.  For instance, he admits he had given no forethought to how the bodies would be removed from the basement or to the fact that the murder room had a window from which sound would escape and a brick wall which made firing at close quarters dangerous.

His description of the actual shootings is critical.  He said that each shooter was assigned a specific victim, and then he admits that discipline quickly broke down once firing began and the shooters pressed in through the door and began firing indiscriminately.  He then reports how he finally managed to re-establish order and how each shooter then proceeded to be sure his assigned target was shot.  Yurovsky said that it was only at this point, with some semblance of calm restored, that he personally shot Alexei.  He also frankly reports the difficulty they had in killing the women and admits it was because they had managed to hide valuables in their clothing without his knowledge.

Then the discussion turns to the complete disarray surrounding the disposition of the bodies.  That effort was led by Yermovsky, whom others reported to be a heavy drinker who was deep into his cups the night of the murder.  Without informing Yurovsky, Yermovsky had assembled a large group of people near the planned burial site.  When word spread that there were valuables on the bodies, this horde descended on them and something sounding almost like a melee broke out.  Beyond that incident, the disposal squad came upon a group of peasants who had unexpectedly camped in the area of the mine pit which was intended as the burial site.  That mine pit turned out not to be large enough to hold all the bodies, which had to be fished out while another site was found.  There was a proposal to burn the bodies, followed by a realization that no one knew how.  Yurovksy left the scene to meet with his superiors in an attempt to bring this chaos to heel.

By the time a site was finally found, the disposal squad had been working more than 24 hours.  Every step of their way had been met with unexpected observers and scavengers pawing at the bodies for loot.  There was a momentary revolt as the exhausted squad at first refused to dig a grave.  Meanwhile, an attempt was made to try burning a couple of bodies . . . bodies which Yurovsky remembered to be Alexei and Demidova.  (He obviously got Demidova wrong.  But remember these were naked and mangled corpses with faces that had been shot or bashed in.  It would have been hard to make a mistake about the only adolescent male body in the pile but much easier to confuse the bodies of the females.)

In assessing why Alexei's body is missing, one has several choices.  One can believe Yurovsky's story, much of which was corroborated in other particulars by various means.  One can surmise that a couple of bodies might have been hauled off earlier in the evening by people trying to scavenge the bodies for valuables and who wanted a bit more time to do their work before the guards brought the confusion in the clearing back under control.  One could surmise that a couple of bodies fell off the overloaded truck as it was bumping through the woods in darkness. One could surmise that a couple of bodies could not be fished from the first mine pit and that Yurovsky was not told and did not realize it in the confusion.

Or . . . one could surmise that Alexei either was never in the murder room at all, despite the absence of even one scintilla of evidence.  Or . . . one can believe that Yurovsky for some mysterious reason did not so much as wound the heir to the throne.   Or . . . one can believe Alexis was so badly wounded he appeared dead but was, in fact, rescued by someone able to treat his hemophiliac's wounds better than any of Europe's best doctors.

His death requires picking from the first group of choices.  His survival requires picking from the second group.

The first group of choices requires one to believe the nostrum that, when something can go wrong, it usually will.  The second group requires believing in mysterious conspiracies by people with means to accomplish near-miraculous feats.




Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Bev on October 31, 2006, 01:05:24 PM
I have never heard the two phrases "supports" and "is consistent with" used interchangeably, in "academic circles" because they mean two very different things.  

I've read your arguments in support of your hypothesis, several times, and I'm afraid that they are demonstrably false.  There is no evidence to support your hypothesis that Alexei survived.  First of all, you're assuming that absence of evidence is evidence of absence, and that is a logical fallacy.  We have a priori knowledge that he was killed - a small room, multiple shooters and eyewitnesses to his presence in the room.  We therefore have a prior probablity of event A - Pr(A).

We then have a posteriori knowledge - statements from the perpetrators, circumstantial evidence at the body disposal site (the contents of his pockets), eyewitnesses to his death and subsequent disposal and bullets and bullet holes in the Ipatiev House and at the disposal site.  We then have the conditional probability of event A based on information of event B or Pr(A\B). (With of course the given that Pr(B\A) is the conditional probability of B, given A, upon which we can all agree, I believe.)

In other words, I can prove that statistically, the likelihood that the son survived is so infinitely small as to be statistically non-existent and the likelihood that he was killed is statistically overwhelming:

Pr(A\B) = Pr(B\A) Pr(A)  \ Pr(B) or the posterior = the standardized likelihood x the prior.

Your claim that "A supports B" makes no sense if A is the likely survival of the son and B is the absence of evidence.  If B is non-existent, it doesn't support or refute either theory, it simply is not there at all.  Your example of the prosecutor mystefies me - if a prosecutor claims that because type A blood was found at the scene of a crime and the defendent has type A blood, therefore it "supports the accusation" it would be called a prosecutor's fallacy, because the defendant could prove quite easily that given the population, a significant proportion would have type A.  What a prosecutor offers is cumulative evidence, that taken as a whole, the likelihood that the defendant committed the crime is beyond reasonable doubt.

Those that promote the survival theory have no evidence whatsoever, and what is offered by "Sisu" is an anecdote, which may or may not be true.  Lyndon Johnson maintained all his life that Castro had Kennedy killed, but all of the evidence supports the Oswald theory, and there is no evidence at all that Castro was involved.  (In fact, there is evidence that he was not.)  Prime ministers and presidents have no particular lease on truth or facts or even understanding of events.  (Which might explain the current administration's incompetence.)
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Tania+ on October 31, 2006, 01:10:26 PM
...one thing i find odd, that up to this point, no one who has been avidly involved in this discussion has read comprehensively, to the point that these latest points could have been discussed earlier than later, and that all these hypothesis could have been arrived at without so much wrangling here as on other threads...but again, there are still yet many things to be understood, which will never be brought to light, so I would imagine, the arguments will continue endlessely...for all readers to ponder over even more.

Tatiana
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Louis_Charles on October 31, 2006, 01:13:38 PM
While I cannot speak for the others, I have read comprehensively. Sorry. And the exchange doesn't sound as if anyone is proceeding from a basis of ignorance. There are some agendas in the room, which is not the same thing.

In fact, none of this discussion is new, and the matter will probably never be settled until the remains are discovered or accounted for through other means. Failing those events, we can discuss probability, which is what we are doing here. I think we can all be trusted to play nice, but the idea that history is done by sitting around and exchanging information in hushed tones of respect is kind of silly. A little raucousness and sarcasm can be a welcome antidote.

Those arguing for survival have failed to present any evidence. I am still waiting for the name of a single historian or scientist who would espouse the notion that IF Alexei was in the cellar on July 16, 1918, that he could have survived the shootings for any significant amount of time (minutes as opposed to hours). If the real point of this is that Alexei was NOT in the cellar . . . well, Yurovski would have had some serious 'splainin' to do to the Supreme Soviet. I do concede that they probably didn't give two hoots about Anastasia, but the chance that the Heir was still alive would have perked everyone right up.
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: J_Kendrick on October 31, 2006, 01:35:05 PM
At the risk of sounding like a 12 year old American cheerleader, I'm going to say, 'You go, Simon!'.

The problem I have with people like Mr Kendrick, Chat_Noir, etc, is that they refuse to consider all evidence they don't agree with.

All the emphasis is placed on the missing bodies and what that may mean.  Well, why don't we focus on the evidence that explains why they are missing? Why was Yurovsky lying when he said he burned the two bodies and buried the remains elsewhere? Why can't this be the truth? 'Yurovsky was a lying murderer' isn't good enough- what reason, what EVIDENCE do you have, that this testimony wasn't true?


Why do you refuse to see that the fact those two bodies are still missing is the proof that Yurovsky was not telling the truth?

Quote

 Just because the bodies haven't been found yet, it doesn't mean they won't be.


It does not mean that they will be found in Pig's Meadow, either.

Those who can see a different answer than the Romanovphiles who are in love with the legend are not denying any of the evidence.  They have not changed the evidence in any way.  They are simply placing a very different interpretation on that same evidence.

No two people will ever see the world in exactly the same way.  The same is true of the evidence in the Romanov case.  Learn to deal with it.
 
Quote

As Annie rightly brought up, Michael Romanov's body was never found.  But no one disputes his death.  Why are people so worried about the missing bodies of Alexei and one of his sisters, but not about Michael's? Why is Michael considered to be safely dead, but the other two not?

You can't pick and choose in history.  You can't have one rule for one situation and another for others.

Rachel
xx

Michael has no heirs in the Imperial line of succession, other than his nephew Alexei.  The future of the Russian crown did not rest with the fate of Michael's generation.  The future of the crown rests with the fate of the generation that followed Michael.

jk
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Elisabeth on October 31, 2006, 01:46:48 PM
It occurs to me that a lot of really smart people are utterly wasting their brainpower in this thread. There's no convincing conspiracy theorists of the illogic of their conspiracy theories. It's impossible.

Of course I realize that's not what anyone wants to hear on a very active thread, because if you took my advice to heart, the thread would now end. Just like that!

But maybe you are addressing your posts to newbies who don't know any better and might otherwise be swayed by obviously specious arguments.
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Ra-Ra-Rasputin on October 31, 2006, 01:51:04 PM


Why do you refuse to see that the fact those two bodies are missing is the proof that Yurovsky was not telling the truth?

What? Yurovsky said that two bodies were burned and buried separately.  Two bodies ARE indeed missing from the mass grave.  Surely that corroborates Yurovsky's statement?

Quote

It does not mean that they will be found in Pig's Meadow, either.

Those who can see a different answer than the Romanovphiles who are in love with the legend are not denying any of the evidence.  They have not changed the evidence in any way.  They are simply placing a very different interpretation on that same evidence.

No two people will ever see the world in exactly the same way.  The same is true of the evidence in the Romanov case.  Learn to deal with it.

I can deal with it.  What I can't deal with is people putting a spin on a situation, using 'logic' and 'evidence' that has little basis in truth or reason. 

Quote

Michael has no heirs in the Imperial line of succession, other than his nephew Alexei.  The future of the Russian crown did not rest with the fate of Michael's generation.  The future of the crown rests with the fate of the generation that followed Michael.

jk

And this explains why no one doubts Michael's death despite the absence of his body how? Michael's body is missing.  Yet nobody presumes he somehow managed to escape.  Alexei and one of his sisters are missing, and yet somehow it becomes a logical possibility that they survived, despite the reams and reams of evidence to the contrary.  Far MORE evidence to the contrary, might I add, than there is about Michael.  Can you please explain to me why this double standard is supposed to be accepted by those of us who don't believe in the survival theories? I am eager to understand how your reasoning can explain away this quite crucial matter.

Rachel
xx
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Bev on October 31, 2006, 02:29:04 PM
This is why people put in bids for a stale grilled cheese sandwich on EBay.  Despite all natural laws, statistical probability and logic they want to believe that Jesus Christ manifested his image on a piece of bread and they will pay money to see it.
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: J_Kendrick on October 31, 2006, 02:38:24 PM


Why do you refuse to see that the fact those two bodies are missing is the proof that Yurovsky was not telling the truth?

What? Yurovsky said that two bodies were burned and buried separately.  Two bodies ARE indeed missing from the mass grave.  Surely that corroborates Yurovsky's statement?


And despite 88 years of searching... now even with ground-penetrating radar... the bodies are still missing.  That does not corroborate Yurovsky's statement. 

After 88 long years of searching that same ground, the missing bodies are NOT where Yurovsky had said they would be.  Nor have they been found to have been burned and buried separately.  Yurovsky's statement has NOT been corroborated.

Quote
 
Quote

It does not mean that they will be found in Pig's Meadow, either.

Those who can see a different answer than the Romanovphiles who are in love with the legend are not denying any of the evidence.  They have not changed the evidence in any way.  They are simply placing a very different interpretation on that same evidence.

No two people will ever see the world in exactly the same way.  The same is true of the evidence in the Romanov case.  Learn to deal with it.

I can deal with it.  What I can't deal with is people putting a spin on a situation, using 'logic' and 'evidence' that has little basis in truth or reason. 


The Revolutionaries -- and in particular, those same members of the Bolshevik Cheka who had committed the murders -- are the ones who had first put the original "spin" on the evidence in the summer of 1918.  They were the experts at Revolutionary misdirection and disinformation. 

It is the Romanovphiles who are in love with the legend who have now bought in to that same revolutionary "spin" of 1918. 

Quote
Quote

Michael has no heirs in the Imperial line of succession, other than his nephew Alexei.  The future of the Russian crown did not rest with the fate of Michael's generation.  The future of the crown rests with the fate of the generation that followed Michael.

jk

And this explains why no one doubts Michael's death despite the absence of his body how? Michael's body is missing.  Yet nobody presumes he somehow managed to escape.  Alexei and one of his sisters are missing, and yet somehow it becomes a logical possibility that they survived, despite the reams and reams of evidence to the contrary.  Far MORE evidence to the contrary, might I add, than there is about Michael.  Can you please explain to me why this double standard is supposed to be accepted by those of us who don't believe in the survival theories? I am eager to understand how your reasoning can explain away this quite crucial matter.

Rachel
xx

And here you are demonstrating perfectly how the art of misdirection works.

The issue here is not Michael.  I say again, the future of the crown did not rest with the fate of Michael's generation.  The future of the crown rests with the fate of the generation followed Michael.

jk
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Tsarfan on October 31, 2006, 03:13:09 PM
The issue here is not Michael.  I say again, the future of the crown did not rest with the fate of Michael's generation.  The future of the crown rests with the fate of the generation followed Michael.

Alexei was a lame, frail hemophiliac (and known to be so by most of the senior nobility).  Michael had been the heir before Alexei's birth, he would have become the heir after Alexei's death, and he was the person Nicholas named as his successor upon abdication.  Moreover, upon a suitable marriage, Michael was still capable of fathering children at the time he disappeared.  Alexei's chances of fathering a family were considerably more remote.

So exactly why would Michael's death have been of no consequence to those aspiring for a Romanov restoration?

This is not a diversionary question.  It goes to the very core of why it is that Alexei's fate is so vitally significant to conspiracy theorists.  It's certainly not because a Romanov restoration would be rendered more difficult by his death.

And it would be a whole lot easier to construct a scenario for Michael's survival.  He was a loosely guarded and healthy man, he circulated freely among a local population which was well-disposed toward him, his reported death involved no elaborate logistics . . . he and a single retainer were just put in a car and driven out into the countryside where they were shot as they tried to run away.  I can think of innumerable logical ways he could have escaped death.  Yet everyone just takes his death as a given, despite no body having been recovered.

But -- when it comes to Alexei -- imagination runs rampants.  He survived a firing squad in an enclosed space, he was spirited away unnoticed by those charged with wiping out the entire imperial family, Bolshevik troops searched trains while imprudently and unnecessarily informing the passengers they were looking for the escaped tsarevitch, and Yurovsky was still filing false reports 16 years later to cover the escape.

Think rationally about this reported train search for a moment.  If the Bolsheviks had lost their grip on the tsarevitch and did not want their masters in Moscow to know, why would troops searching a train announce to the passengers that they were looking for the tsarevitch?  If it happened at all, this sounds much more like a disinformation campaign to foster rumor that the children were not killed rather than a serious attempt to recover a missing tsarevitch.
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Louis_Charles on October 31, 2006, 04:47:38 PM
JKendrick, any news about historians who would endorse the idea of Alexei's survival, or has this revelation not been vouchsafed to any but the inner circle of those who see the glass as half-full?

For fifty years we had no physical evidence that any of the Romanovs were shot, if you only accept skeletons. Does this mean that Yurovski's testimony was specious? In fact they were exactly where he said they would be, and in the condition that one could expect based upon his testimony concerning how he handled their remains. Oddly enough, he also said that the body of the Heir would not be in the grave, and one female --- whom he apparently misidentified. And one female is missing.

In fact, the issue of Michael is quite pertinent. One could also throw in the two grand dukes executed in Peter and Paul in 1919. Are their remains available? You actually think that there was some kind of sliding scale with the Bolsheviks, that Alexei would have been preserved? Upon what do you base this? In point of fact, Alexei was no longer the Heir at all, thanks to his father's terms of abdication. And why was Anastasia also spared in this scenario? Make-weight?

The speculation that the Boy survived does not have equal weight with the informed estimation that he did not with any save romantics; try and convince a jury of your position. For that matter, try and convince a historian.

Simon
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Belochka on October 31, 2006, 06:40:27 PM

In fact, the issue of Michael is quite pertinent. One could also throw in the two grand dukes executed in Peter and Paul in 1919. Are their remains available? You actually think that there was some kind of sliding scale with the Bolsheviks, that Alexei would have been preserved? Upon what do you base this? In point of fact, Alexei was no longer the Heir at all, thanks to his father's terms of abdication.
Simon

Simon, respectfully there were four Grand Dukes who were assassinated at the Fortress. My understanding is that they were buried in the courtyard where they were shot. The Trubetskoi Bastion is undergoing "re-construction" at the moment. Perhaps its secrets will be dug up - along with the many others who met the same fate.

Margarita

Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Belochka on October 31, 2006, 07:01:05 PM
Here is a recent article published in CNEWS on 30 September, 2006.

See: http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Features/2006/09/30/1924843-cp.html

Missing heir to Russian throne buried in Burnaby: widow

By JEREMY HAINSWORTH

BURNABY, B.C. (CP) - Tucked next to a hedge in a cemetery rests a simple headstone covered in grass clippings, a grave that poses a complex historical question.

The marker bears the double-headed eagle of the Russian Imperial Family. Below the flag is the name Romanov His Imperial Highness Alexei Nicolaievich Czarevitch Sovereign Heir Grand Duke of Russia.

If the remains beneath the stone are those of that Alexei, he was son of Czar Nicholas II, heir to the Russian throne.

Alexei was allegedly killed with his family by the Bolsheviks in 1918 following the Russian Revolution the previous year, but his remains have never been identified, creating another mystery around a family that has many.

The Burnaby grave belongs to Alexei Tammet-Romanov, who died June 26, 1977.

..... snipped

Vancouver journalist and period historian John Kendrick believes Tammet-Romanov is the czarevitch.

Not so, say the academics.

Michael Futrell, a retired University of British Columbia professor, firmly believes Alexei Romanov died in 1918.  

"There's been so many crooks and lunatics and swindlers involved in this thing for so many years," he said.

And he's got a friend of the Romanov Imperial family in his corner.

Marvin Lyons, also a historian, said Tammet-Romanov's story is ridiculous.  

"I've known about this man and his claims since the mid-1970s," said Lyons, who now lives in Richmond, B.C.

"This is all make-believe."

Tammet-Romanov said her husband expected people would not believe his claims of nobility.

"'I know who I am,"' she says he told her. "'No one can say who I am or not."'

Tammet-Romanov could not forgive the Communists for the executions.

"'To kill father and myself (was acceptable given their positions), but to kill my mother and my beautiful sisters, I cannot forgive,"' she recounts him saying.

On Thursday, the remains of Maria Feodorovna, mother of Nicholas II, were returned to Russia and interred in the Imperial family tomb in St. Petersburg. She fled Russia after the Revolution and lived in Denmark, where she was buried after her death in 1928.

She would have been Tammet-Romanov's grandmother, if he is who Kendrick and his wife believe he is.

Kendrick readily acknowledges stories about pretenders to thrones often lack credibility.

But he said there are too many things about Tammet-Romanov he wants answers to.

When the Duke of Windsor died in 1972, Tammet-Romanov sent a letter of condolence to the Queen, signing it with his royal title.

The RCMP arrived at Tammet-Romanov's Burnaby home soon after.

He showed them a scar he said came from the butt of a rifle during the executions. He also showed them he had an undescended testicle, as did the czarevitch, his widow explains.

"You cannot have so much wound up in one person unless it is that person," she said.

It was Lyons who called the RCMP after the letter to the Queen.

He did so after being asked to look into Tammet-Romanov by Lord Louis Mountbatten, uncle to the Queen's husband, Prince Philip.

"There are all kinds of these people around," Lyons said. "Most of them are not criminals. They're not even mentally ill in the normal sense of the word.

"They're just people who are unhappy about their role in life and are trying to create something that is more interesting."

A year later, when the Queen's daughter, Princess Anne, married Mark Phillips at Westminster Abbey, Tammet-Romanov again sent a telegram.

A thank-you telegram came back addressed to Alexei Nicolaevich, Czarevitch, Grand Duke of Russia.

The same thing happened when King Carl Gustav of Sweden married Queen Silvia in 1976.

Kendrick asks why the crowned heads of Europe and their families would be responding to this man, addressing him with the titles of the heir to the Russian throne.
 
.... snipped

"Kendrick, however, remains mystified about one thing.

He said Tammet-Romanov's widow sent two of her husband's teeth for DNA analysis in England so the mystery could finally be solved, but the results have never been released.

Kendrick believes nothing will be released until after Tammet-Romanov's sons from one of his previous marriages have died.

"If he's for real, they are heirs and they can claim czar's rights," Kendrick said.

It seems that there are accredited historians who are challenging Kendrick for quite some time.

Margarita   ;D 
 

 

 

 
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Belochka on October 31, 2006, 07:22:19 PM

Extract from Hainsworth's article:

"On Thursday, the remains of Maria Feodorovna, mother of Nicholas II, were returned to Russia and interred in the Imperial family tomb in St. Petersburg. She fled Russia after the Revolution and lived in Denmark, where she was buried after her death in 1928.

She would have been Tammet-Romanov's grandmother, if he is who Kendrick and his wife believe he is."


This derisory extract does speak for itself.

Margarita    >:(

Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Mazukov on October 31, 2006, 08:02:30 PM
I’ve heard about this clamant before, but the one thing that always struck me odd was, why Buckingham Palace sends back a reply with a Royal heading? Did they know something that the rest of do not?
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Louis_Charles on October 31, 2006, 09:13:08 PM
Do they have a house stationary that they use when the person receiving it is a commoner?
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Tsarfan on October 31, 2006, 09:17:36 PM
"If he's for real, they are heirs and they can claim czar's rights," Kendrick said.

Since the children of a morganatic marriage would have had no dynastic rights, I assume this means that Mrs. Tammet-Romanov was of royal pedigree as well?  A descendent of Louis XVII perhaps?
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Tania+ on October 31, 2006, 09:39:25 PM
Mazukov,

Obviously they do. How else would one receive a response as such. Receiving such a response, speaks in itself.

Tatiana+
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Louis_Charles on October 31, 2006, 10:25:07 PM
I am constrained to point out that children receive letters from Santa Claus every Yuletide. Do you all think this means that Jolly Old St. Nick exists?

Do you think that the Royal Family hand-addressed the responses to the 60 million telegraphs they probably received from all over the Commonwealth when Princess Anne made an honest man out of Mark Phillips (well, she tried, and we give points for that.)?

You don't think that there is the teensiest, tiniest possibility that the claimant received a form response, do you? That perhaps it was addressed to him the way that it was because it was the most convenient way to handle it? You know, to send the form response to the address that caused it to be sent in the first place?

For what is this response pushing for ask I?

Oh, and sorry about the miscount on the grand dukes, Margarita. Since I have not actually seen their bodies, however, I don't think it really matters. I arbitrarily decree that they did not exist.

Sarcasm, sarcasm, the devil's weapon.


Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Tsarfan on October 31, 2006, 10:27:21 PM
I’ve heard about this clamant before, but the one thing that always struck me odd was, why Buckingham Palace sends back a reply with a Royal heading? Did they know something that the rest of do not?

If Buckingham Palace took this man seriously, it would have been a matter of considerable importance to them to get the honorifics right.  And that would mean addressing him by the title to which he would have ascended upon the death of his father:  Tsar Alexei.

The British royal family granted GD Xenia a grace-and-favor house.  On a visit to Canada, Queen Elizabeth invited GD Olga to lunch with her on the royal yacht.  The British royal family has consistently acknolwedged all the Romanovs they knew to be real.  Now we're being told that they knew Nicholas' son was alive and well in a British dominion just because some protocol officer repeated a title -- and an erroneous one -- in a rote response to one of thousands of congratulatory communications.

Think about it.  If any senior member of the royal household were involved in answering this telegram, it would have been a matter of state policy, given the sensitivity of the Russian government to having Britain publicly declare that Nicholas' son and heir was not killed in 1918 as the Russian government has claimed for decades.  And if the British government had some knowledge that they wanted to keep secret  -- as the conspiracy advocates are suggesting here -- the last thing they would have done is answer that telegram by repeating the title Tammet used.

Let's get real.  That telegram was answered by some hack in the protocol office who just copied the stylings of the sender.

  
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: J_Kendrick on October 31, 2006, 10:28:36 PM

Extract from Hainsworth's article:

"On Thursday, the remains of Maria Feodorovna, mother of Nicholas II, were returned to Russia and interred in the Imperial family tomb in St. Petersburg. She fled Russia after the Revolution and lived in Denmark, where she was buried after her death in 1928.

She would have been Tammet-Romanov's grandmother, if he is who Kendrick and his wife believe he is."


This derisory extract does speak for itself.

Margarita    >:(



Just one thing that you should know about the copyrighted article you have seen fit to post on this board...

Yours Truly was the one who had encouraged the article's author, Jeremy Hainsworth, to report both sides of the story.  It was also Yours Truly who had directed the author, Jeremy Hainsworth, to contact both Professor Futrell and Marvin Lyons.

As a journalist, I will always encourage balanced reporting that tells both sides of the story.  I do not have a problem with telling both sides of the story.  I do have a problem, however, with being misquoted... but I will not pursue that issue here in regards to the aforementioned article.

jk
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Louis_Charles on October 31, 2006, 10:32:07 PM
Dear Mr. Kendrick,

I was interested to read your response, as I was on the point of asking you about the article Belochka posted. Is it an accurate reflection of the conversations you had with its' author? Does it accurately reflect the view of the historians cited?

Thanks,

Simon
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: J_Kendrick on October 31, 2006, 11:02:14 PM
I’ve heard about this clamant before, but the one thing that always struck me odd was, why Buckingham Palace sends back a reply with a Royal heading? Did they know something that the rest of do not?

If Buckingham Palace took this man seriously, it would have been a matter of considerable importance to them to get the honorifics right.  And that would mean addressing him by the title to which he would have ascended upon the death of his father:  Tsar Alexei.

The British royal family granted GD Xenia a grace-and-favor house.  On a visit to Canada, Queen Elizabeth invited GD Olga to lunch with her on the royal yacht.  The British royal family has consistently acknolwedged all the Romanovs they knew to be real.  Now we're being told that they knew Nicholas' son was alive and well in a British dominion just because some protocol officer repeated a title -- and an erroneous one -- in a rote response to one of thousands of congratulatory communications.

Think about it.  If any senior member of the royal household were involved in answering this telegram, it would have been a matter of state policy, given the sensitivity of the Russian government to having Britain publicly declare that Nicholas' son and heir was not killed in 1918 as the Russian government has claimed for decades.  And if the British government had some knowledge that they wanted to keep secret  -- as the conspiracy advocates are suggesting here -- the last thing they would have done is answer that telegram by repeating the title Tammet used.

Let's get real.  That telegram was answered by some hack in the protocol office who just copied the stylings of the sender.


In 1973, Alexei Tammet-Romanov had sent a telegram of congratulations to Princess Anne and Capt. Mark Phillips on the occasion of their wedding on November 14th of that same year.

Just one day later, Princess Anne and Capt. Mark Phillips themselves had promptly responded to Mr. Tammet-Romanov's message with a telegram of thanks in reply.

That very same telegram from the Palace, date stamped November 15th of 1973 and signed by Anne and Mark, just one day after Princess Anne's wedding, is very clearly addressed to:

"Alexei Nicolaievich, Czarevich, Grand Duke of Russia... Burnaby, British Columbia"

I now hold a verified copy of that same telegram right here in front of me as I am writing this post.

If this were a chess game, that would be check!

Your Move.... ;-)
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Louis_Charles on October 31, 2006, 11:14:32 PM
I’ve heard about this clamant before, but the one thing that always struck me odd was, why Buckingham Palace sends back a reply with a Royal heading? Did they know something that the rest of do not?

If Buckingham Palace took this man seriously, it would have been a matter of considerable importance to them to get the honorifics right.  And that would mean addressing him by the title to which he would have ascended upon the death of his father:  Tsar Alexei.

The British royal family granted GD Xenia a grace-and-favor house.  On a visit to Canada, Queen Elizabeth invited GD Olga to lunch with her on the royal yacht.  The British royal family has consistently acknolwedged all the Romanovs they knew to be real.  Now we're being told that they knew Nicholas' son was alive and well in a British dominion just because some protocol officer repeated a title -- and an erroneous one -- in a rote response to one of thousands of congratulatory communications.

Think about it.  If any senior member of the royal household were involved in answering this telegram, it would have been a matter of state policy, given the sensitivity of the Russian government to having Britain publicly declare that Nicholas' son and heir was not killed in 1918 as the Russian government has claimed for decades.  And if the British government had some knowledge that they wanted to keep secret  -- as the conspiracy advocates are suggesting here -- the last thing they would have done is answer that telegram by repeating the title Tammet used.

Let's get real.  That telegram was answered by some hack in the protocol office who just copied the stylings of the sender.


In 1973, Alexei Tammet-Romanov had sent a telegram of congratulations to Princess Anne and Capt. Mark Phillips on the occasion of their wedding on November 14th of that same year.

Just one day later, Princess Anne and Capt. Mark Phillips themselves had promptly responded to Mr. Tammet-Romanov's message with a telegram of thanks in reply.

That very same telegram from the Palace, date stamped November 15th of 1973 and signed by Anne and Mark, just one day after Princess Anne's wedding, is very clearly addressed to:

"Alexei Nicolaievich, Czarevich, Grand Duke of Russia... Burnaby, British Columbia"

I now hold a verified copy of that same telegram right here in front of me as I am writing this post.

If this were a chess game, that would be check!

Your Move.... ;-)


You seriously think that because the mailroom at Buckingham Palace fired off a telegram to a well-wisher as part of its normal duties that Princess Anne and the rest of the British royal family were directing how such a telegram was to be addressed? Poor Anne in 1973. 24 hours after the poor girl is married, and she's slaving over the thank-you notes. On the other hand, I'm impressed. We all know what a Tartar she can be. Maybe she feared the Romanov might and knuckled down to her duty.

Had the return address been "Bozo the Clown", I have no doubts as to what the verified copy of the telegram would read.


And if this is a chess game, you are playing cricket.
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: J_Kendrick on October 31, 2006, 11:19:35 PM
Dear Mr. Kendrick,

I was interested to read your response, as I was on the point of asking you about the article Belochka posted. Is it an accurate reflection of the conversations you had with its' author?


Not entirely, but as I have said, I will not pursue that issue here.

Quote

Does it accurately reflect the view of the historians cited?

Thanks,

Simon

That is for the historians in question to say.  I was not privy to their conversations with the author.

I can tell you, however, that there is more to the research that prompted the article that has yet to be reported.
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Louis_Charles on October 31, 2006, 11:27:31 PM
Thanks for answering.
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Belochka on November 01, 2006, 12:38:44 AM

Extract from Hainsworth's article:

"On Thursday, the remains of Maria Feodorovna, mother of Nicholas II, were returned to Russia and interred in the Imperial family tomb in St. Petersburg. She fled Russia after the Revolution and lived in Denmark, where she was buried after her death in 1928.

She would have been Tammet-Romanov's grandmother, if he is who Kendrick and his wife believe he is."


This derisory extract does speak for itself.

Margarita    >:(



Just one thing that you should know about the copyrighted article you have seen fit to post on this board...

Yours Truly was the one who had encouraged the article's author, Jeremy Hainsworth, to report both sides of the story.  It was also Yours Truly who had directed the author, Jeremy Hainsworth, to contact both Professor Futrell and Marvin Lyons.

As a journalist, I will always encourage balanced reporting that tells both sides of the story.  I do not have a problem with telling both sides of the story.  I do have a problem, however, with being misquoted... but I will not pursue that issue here in regards to the aforementioned article.

jk

You were not misquoted Mr Kendrick - the boldface however was mine. Nothing was omitted or deleted between those two extracted sentences.

This "balanced" article appeared two days after the Dowager Empress Mariya Fedorovna was re-buried in St. Petersburg. However I will also not pursue this issue either. The timing of this "balanced" article speaks for itself.

Margarita

Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Belochka on November 01, 2006, 12:58:07 AM
In 1973, Alexei Tammet-Romanov had sent a telegram of congratulations to Princess Anne and Capt. Mark Phillips on the occasion of their wedding on November 14th of that same year.

Just one day later, Princess Anne and Capt. Mark Phillips themselves had promptly responded to Mr. Tammet-Romanov's message with a telegram of thanks in reply.

That very same telegram from the Palace, date stamped November 15th of 1973 and signed by Anne and Mark, just one day after Princess Anne's wedding, is very clearly addressed to:

"Alexei Nicolaievich, Czarevich, Grand Duke of Russia... Burnaby, British Columbia"

I now hold a verified copy of that same telegram right here in front of me as I am writing this post.

If this were a chess game, that would be check!

Your Move.... ;-)


Signatures can be written using an autopen.

Prove to us that Princess Anne and Captain Mark Phillips actually cited Tammet's congratulatory telegram AND promptly provided their own real signatures. I doubt that the happy newlyweds would have been concerned in replying to any congratulatory telegrams from the public 24hrs after their wedding.

Can anyone please verify if the couple were actually in London 24hrs after their wedding?

Why does Buckingham Palace remain silent about this matter? The magnitude of this issue would have been extraordinary had there been any veracity to Tammet's claim.

Margarita
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: J_Kendrick on November 01, 2006, 01:55:41 AM

Extract from Hainsworth's article:

"On Thursday, the remains of Maria Feodorovna, mother of Nicholas II, were returned to Russia and interred in the Imperial family tomb in St. Petersburg. She fled Russia after the Revolution and lived in Denmark, where she was buried after her death in 1928.

She would have been Tammet-Romanov's grandmother, if he is who Kendrick and his wife believe he is."


This derisory extract does speak for itself.

Margarita    >:(



Just one thing that you should know about the copyrighted article you have seen fit to post on this board...

Yours Truly was the one who had encouraged the article's author, Jeremy Hainsworth, to report both sides of the story.  It was also Yours Truly who had directed the author, Jeremy Hainsworth, to contact both Professor Futrell and Marvin Lyons.

As a journalist, I will always encourage balanced reporting that tells both sides of the story.  I do not have a problem with telling both sides of the story.  I do have a problem, however, with being misquoted... but I will not pursue that issue here in regards to the aforementioned article.

jk

You were not misquoted Mr Kendrick - the boldface however was mine. Nothing was omitted or deleted between those two extracted sentences.



I was referring to the quotes that were written by the article's author.  Not by its poster.  Don't take everything so personally.


Quote

This "balanced" article appeared two days after the Dowager Empress Mariya Fedorovna was re-buried in St. Petersburg. However I will also not pursue this issue either. The timing of this "balanced" article speaks for itself.

Margarita


The article's publication and timing was purely of its author's own choosing and at the direction of his employer, the Canadian Press newswire service.

If you have a problem with the timing of their article, then you should be placing it at their door.  Not at mine.

jk
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Tsarfan on November 01, 2006, 06:00:34 AM
Just one day later, Princess Anne and Capt. Mark Phillips themselves had promptly responded to Mr. Tammet-Romanov's message with a telegram of thanks in reply.

That very same telegram from the Palace, date stamped November 15th of 1973 and signed by Anne and Mark, just one day after Princess Anne's wedding, is very clearly addressed to:

"Alexei Nicolaievich, Czarevich, Grand Duke of Russia... Burnaby, British Columbia"

I now hold a verified copy of that same telegram right here in front of me as I am writing this post.

If this were a chess game, that would be check!

Your Move.... ;-)

You've either got to be kidding, or you've spent so much time selling your story to gullible dreamers that you've forgotten that some people can actually think for themselves.

What you're suggesting is that the British royal family knew Tammet was the legitimate claimant to the Russian throne, and they were willing to risk their knowledge being made public through this means . . . but they otherwise intended to ignore him completely.

First, the suggestion is cleverly planted that the British are holding a couple of teeth that must prove Tammet's identity, because the secret results of the DNA tests conducted on the teeth have never been reported to the family.  Then a couple of people post their agreement that this might, indeed, signal a nefarious British conspiracy to keep Tammet's real identity from being revealed.  Then, to draw the dreamers in further, a telegram is tantalizingly claimed to be personally signed by Princess Anne that verifies the royal family's belief that Alexei lives.

Of course, this little scenario depends on these dreamers not noticing that the claim of critical DNA proof mysteriously kept secret is inherently inconsistent with a journalist publicly brandishing a telegram that purports to be written proof that the British royals recognize Tammet as Alexei.  That's the beauty of dreamers and conspiracists, though.  They don't worry overly much about these kinds of gaps in logic.

You and/or the Tammets are not the first enterprising people who have arranged to send some correspondence to a government official with an embedded claim and then waved a form letter response around as "proof" of that embedded claim.  It's a trick that's as old as the hills and one I'm surprised someone would try to pull off on this forum.  But as working journalist, I guess you have to try to move copy somehow.
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Tsarfan on November 01, 2006, 06:34:14 AM
Can anyone please verify if the couple were actually in London 24hrs after their wedding?

Princess Anne and Mark Phillips were married at Westminster Abbey on November 14.  After the wedding, they went to Buckingham Palace for lunch, after which they repaired to White House Lodge in Richmond Park for their wedding night.  From there, they flew the next morning to Barbados where they boarded the royal yacht Britannia for an 18-day honeymoon cruise.

However, I'm sure they took time personally to sign thank-you notes before they left.  It's what most newlyweds do in the hours between their wedding and honeymoon.
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Bev on November 01, 2006, 08:48:09 AM
Why wasn't he invited to the wedding?
Title: One thing I find odd
Post by: OTMA-fan on November 01, 2006, 08:53:22 AM
Tsarfan, I never said that the ONLY possibility is Alexei’s survival. I specifically said that if Alexei’s dead and Red Army was doing a fake search, I would be interested in knowing why too. 

If my job were to write a comprehensive review of the 1918 execution for the Encyclopedia of Britannica, I would write down the all possibilities. But this is a damn internet thread, we just bring up the most interesting possibility. We don’t reiterate something everyone already knows, which is the established conventional view (i.e., all IF were killed). Otherwise it gets so boring that everyone goes asleep.

This is why I appreciate someone like Lexi4 who brings up a new information. If you are not interested, just ignore it. But I am very interested in what Lexi brought up, and want to explore any possibility. What’s wrong with that?

And to others, I think that it is nonsense to argue that “If young kids see this thread, we would harm them educationally.” Come on. What young kids should learn is that 99% of information on internet is junk, and people fight all the time on the forum because everyone thinks he/she is right. But people also fight because they have passion for something they believe in (look Annie, for whom I have some respect). We don’t have to baby-feed the young. Show the real world. If they want to study, they have a book called textbook and a paper called New York Times.

It seems that Lexi is busy and hasn’t post the original book. I’ve got to go now, but I will post more information as to why we should explore the Alexei survival theory. Again, the *most straightforward* interpretation of forensic/DNA evidence is that he was not killed at least on that day.
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 01, 2006, 09:05:40 AM
The real question is: Was the Tatiana claimant still alive in 1973 and did she send a congratulatory note for Pss Anne's wedding and get a thank you note in return? Maybe she did too!
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Louis_Charles on November 01, 2006, 09:08:16 AM
You know, I was having no trouble with this post worth mentioning until you get to the last sentence, OTMA. The most "straight-forward" interpretation of the forensic evidence is that Alexei survived? Really?

Such a statement flies in the face of every reputable historian and scientist who has worked on this case. I have asked for the name of one (1) recognized historian who supports the assertion that Alexei "survived" July 16, 1918, assuming that he was in the cellar with the rest of his family. No names so far, I see.

You are, of course, correct in your belief that you can hold any position you want on the internet. I have stumbled across websites that support housewives in Tennessee as being the illegitimate offspring of Edward and Wallis Windsor. I once worked with a poor man who thought he was the illegitimate grandson of George, Duke of Kent --- he revealed this to me in a conversation that began "Simon, have you ever heard of a family named . . .Windsor?" I swear to God, I am not making that up, and that as far as I could tell he really believed it. By now he probably has a website. Doesn't everyone?

But belief isn't enough to do history, OTMA, and while I tend to doubt that many young people are being "corrupted" by watching the adults have at it on threads like this --- for that matter, you yourself could be a teenager, OTMA --- I do think that it is a little cavalier to say that they can use your paralogistic, unresearched assumptions as some kind of life lesson.

Think of the children, OTMA. Think of the children.
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Ra-Ra-Rasputin on November 01, 2006, 10:08:41 AM
Simon, I think I'm going to have to sue you for the damage you just inflicted on my computer.  I'll never drink while reading one of your posts again.  My keyboard just got a soaking.   :D

I have found these posts, especially surrounding the telegrams, hilarious.

Can I just say that, in England, we do not use the spelling 'Czar' or 'Czarevich'.  We use 'Tsar' and 'Tsarevich'.  Therefore, if someone at Buck House actually had carefully considered the title of the Tsarevich of Russia, they would have spelled it the English way and not the American way.  The fact that they spelled it exactly as it was sent suggests they used some sort of a database/mail merge program to send out the thankyous. Hardly unsurprising, as they must have been sent thousands.

And I'm STILL waiting for an answer on the Michael Romanov question. An actual, proper answer.

Why is it fine to accept Michael Romanov's death despite the absence of his body....but not Alexei's? Why aren't those of you who contend the death of two of the Romanov children who were shot at repeatedly in a confined space surrounded by guards, also questioning the death of a man who had ample opportunity to actually get away?

Mr Kendrick...OTMA-fan?

Rachel
xx
Title: One thing I find odd
Post by: Tsarfan on November 01, 2006, 10:50:32 AM

Again, the *most straightforward* interpretation of forensic/DNA evidence is that he was not killed at least on that day.


If a single person who participated in that massacre said that Alexei was not in the murder room or that he survived, then you would have an argument.  As it is, the lack of Alexei's body in the grave corroborates -- not refutes -- the only eyewitness accounts.

In essence, you are saying that the lack of Alexei's body in the grave is proof that Yurovsky was lying 60 years earlier when he said that he murdered Alexei and that the body was not in the grave.  Since when is there anything remotely "straightforward" about that kind of logic? 
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Tsarfan on November 01, 2006, 10:55:37 AM
By the way, OTMA-fan . . . would you please quit changing the name of the thread when you post to it?  When people scan the forum register for new posts, they should be able to see whether someone has posted to a thread they have been following.

Ra-Ra-Rasputin, who started this thread, has already asked you to desist.  I really don't understand why you think it is your prerogative constantly to retitle it to suit your purposes.
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: AGRBear on November 01, 2006, 10:57:37 AM
The spelling of Tsar here in the US has a very complex base.

As far as I know, most people here in the US who talk about Nicholas II  label him as Tsar before the Revolution.

The spelling of "Czar" occured after the Revolution and was meant to be a slur toward Nicholas II and was created by the Bolshviks.

Unfortunately,  many foreign historians and reporters were not aware that making the "T" ad "C" was a slur.

Those who understand it was and is  a slur spell out of respect use the word "Tsar".


I'm not around my one book that would explain more and will add to this when I can.

AGRBear
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Tsarfan on November 01, 2006, 11:26:45 AM

The spelling of "Czar" occured after the Revolution and was meant to be a slur toward Nicholas II and was created by the Bolshviks.


There is a very well-informed thread elsewhere on this board that explains the difference between "czar" and "tsar".  "Czar" was the spelling used in Poland that referred to Nicholas's title as Czar of Poland, which was a title held separate and apart from that of Tsar of Russia.  That distinction may well have been why the Bolsheviks thought the title "czar" was a bit of a derogatory taunt.

The real Alexei -- in laying claim to his father's heritage -- would certainly have used the more encompassing title of "tsar" instead of the more limited title of "czar".  I really doubt the Windsors would work themselves into quite so much of a lather over the re-emergence of Poland's lost suzerain.

This kind of stumbling over the arcane distinctions in which a real Romanov would have been thoroughly schooled is just one more indicator that our Mr. Tammet was quite the huckster . . . and a rather poorly-informed one at that.

I just hope the eagles face away from each other on his gravestone.
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Tania+ on November 01, 2006, 11:39:42 AM
I had to laugh, because that was a really good one. Some people don't care if they lived or they died, much less, which way the eagles face. The tone by many has already been set, so please, no humor.....or attempted humor, too many boards are getting soaked!

Tatiana+
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: RichC on November 01, 2006, 12:57:17 PM
....is this thread.
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Bev on November 01, 2006, 01:08:45 PM
Not one person has stated that he/she doesn't care if the family lived or died. 
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: LisaDavidson on November 01, 2006, 02:23:33 PM
By the way, OTMA-fan . . . would you please quit changing the name of the thread when you post to it?  When people scan the forum register for new posts, they should be able to see whether someone has posted to a thread they have been following.

Ra-Ra-Rasputin, who started this thread, has already asked you to desist.  I really don't understand why you think it is your prerogative constantly to retitle it to suit your purposes.

Mon cher, all you have to do is ask me. I have corrected the titles on this page of posts and will try to get to the rest as time permits. Use your "report to moderator" option, and your Moderator will act. In an exciting tournament of "rock, paper, sissors"  with Bob and Rob, I "won" the Survivor Forum, so help me out, babe!
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: LisaDavidson on November 01, 2006, 02:27:05 PM
The real question is: Was the Tatiana claimant still alive in 1973 and did she send a congratulatory note for Pss Anne's wedding and get a thank you note in return? Maybe she did too!

If it's the "Tatiana" I spoke about, I hope not. She died in the late 1960;s.
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Belochka on November 01, 2006, 05:23:49 PM
There is a very well-informed thread elsewhere on this board that explains the difference between "czar" and "tsar".  "Czar" was the spelling used in Poland that referred to Nicholas's title as Czar of Poland, which was a title held separate and apart from that of Tsar of Russia.  That distinction may well have been why the Bolsheviks thought the title "czar" was a bit of a derogatory taunt.

This kind of stumbling over the arcane distinctions in which a real Romanov would have been thoroughly schooled is just one more indicator that our Mr. Tammet was quite the huckster . . . and a rather poorly-informed one at that.

Actually had the Estonian-Canadian been correctly schooled he should have used the more formal definition: Emperor.

Margarita
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 01, 2006, 05:28:57 PM
The real question is: Was the Tatiana claimant still alive in 1973 and did she send a congratulatory note for Pss Anne's wedding and get a thank you note in return? Maybe she did too!

If it's the "Tatiana" I spoke about, I hope not. She died in the late 1960's.

In which case, did her son (you know, the adopted one) send one?  ;)


Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Louis_Charles on November 01, 2006, 05:35:13 PM
Would Alexei, assuming that he ever had cause to refer to himself by title, not have called himself the Tsesarevitch? And the eagles' heads might be staring at each other in horror, Tsarfan!

The boards are getting soaked?  I keep thinking there has to be a codebook somewhere.
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Tsarfan on November 01, 2006, 06:47:01 PM
A true son of Nicholas might have called himself any one of several titles:  "Emperor" if he wanted to use the title conferred by the Senate on Peter the Great;  "Tsar" if he wanted to use the title his father and grandfather preferred as a means of emphasizing the "Russianness" of a family that was really largely Germanic; or "Tsesarevitch" if he wanted to use the correct Russian form of the heir's title and take the position that his father was still tsar until the monarchy reconstituted itself and restored the sacrament of coronation.

About the only title for which I can discern no logic for him to prefer would be the Polish title of "Czarevitch".  Unless, of course, Alexei Tammet-Romanov figured a lot of people would get testy if he made a grab for Russia . . . but maybe Poland would go down with less of a ruckus?

I wonder how many of these momentous implications crossed Mark's mind as he handed that telegram over to Princess Anne for her to add her signature and thereby seal Britain's recognition of Tammet's claim.  (Anne apparently could not foresee that her sister's government would later take this matter so seriously that they would keep Mr. Tammet's two teeth cloaked as a state secret.)
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Tania+ on November 01, 2006, 06:54:14 PM
'if' this has been thoroughly researched, and exchanges of correspondonce transpired, I am more than sure before this, the thorough energies of Scotland Yard, Interpol, and several other discrete services of law enforcement would have been used to make sure there were no issues, or repercussions to ensue. For it to make the papers, I am sure as well there must have been continued exercise to follow up on all involved, and I think the story has yet to unfold in the future...

Tatiana+
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Belochka on November 01, 2006, 06:54:42 PM
In 1973, Alexei Tammet-Romanov had sent a telegram of congratulations to Princess Anne and Capt. Mark Phillips on the occasion of their wedding on November 14th of that same year.

Just one day later, Princess Anne and Capt. Mark Phillips themselves had promptly responded to Mr. Tammet-Romanov's message with a telegram of thanks in reply.

That very same telegram from the Palace, date stamped November 15th of 1973 and signed by Anne and Mark, just one day after Princess Anne's wedding, is very clearly addressed to:

"Alexei Nicolaievich, Czarevich, Grand Duke of Russia... Burnaby, British Columbia"


Mr Kendrick you have now finally revealed your tiresome charade.

Had the Estonian-Canadian been a genuine sole survivor of the Imperial Family he would NEVER have refered to himself as "Czarevich" had he been schooled correctly.

Checkmate!

Margarita  ;D
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Mazukov on November 01, 2006, 06:56:38 PM
Tsarfan, Perhaps to fuel debates such as this one  ::)
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: LisaDavidson on November 01, 2006, 07:03:36 PM
Would Alexei, assuming that he ever had cause to refer to himself by title, not have called himself the Tsesarevitch? And the eagles' heads might be staring at each other in horror, Tsarfan!

The boards are getting soaked?  I keep thinking there has to be a codebook somewhere.

Would Alexei, knowing that he was the sole direct survivor in the line of Nicholas II, have married unequally? He was raised from birth to be the Heir, and would have been well schooled in the Fundamental Law. Or, if he considered it impractical to follow, why would he have not issued an Imperial Ukase altering the Law? That he did neither of these things raises questions about his purported survival.

Also, unbeknownst to any of the Alexei claimants was a promise made by the actual Tsesarevich Alexei in 1914 to Princess Ileana of Romania. He promised to return to Romania for her and never did.
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Tsarfan on November 01, 2006, 07:25:23 PM
Tsarfan, Perhaps to fuel debates such as this one  ::)

Aw . . . c'mon, Mazukov.

Princess Anne personally answering telegrams to a royal claimant using an incorrect title?  The British government keeping a couple of teeth under wraps to keep some mysterious and momentous truth secret?  A weak and crippled hemophiliac surviving a firing squad?  A Romanov -- and the heir to the throne, no less -- dropping his trousers in front of the press to display an undescended testicle? 

Since this stuff cannot be taken seriously, why can't we have a little fun with it?  Why have to trek all the way to the supermarket to buy The National Enquirer?
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Mazukov on November 01, 2006, 07:44:09 PM
I, agree with you'r last line Tsarfan  ;D

Back on topic. If was who he said he was.He never really made a big to do about it. If it was I, who had his shoes on. I would fight like hell for  my birth name. and birth right. Just a thought.
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: J_Kendrick on November 01, 2006, 08:02:39 PM
In 1973, Alexei Tammet-Romanov had sent a telegram of congratulations to Princess Anne and Capt. Mark Phillips on the occasion of their wedding on November 14th of that same year.

Just one day later, Princess Anne and Capt. Mark Phillips themselves had promptly responded to Mr. Tammet-Romanov's message with a telegram of thanks in reply.

That very same telegram from the Palace, date stamped November 15th of 1973 and signed by Anne and Mark, just one day after Princess Anne's wedding, is very clearly addressed to:

"Alexei Nicolaievich, Czarevich, Grand Duke of Russia... Burnaby, British Columbia"


Mr Kendrick you have now finally revealed your tiresome charade.

Had the Estonian-Canadian been a genuine sole survivor of the Imperial Family he would NEVER have refered to himself as "Czarevich" had he been schooled correctly.

Checkmate!

Margarita  ;D

You just love to nit-pick, don't you?

It was the reply that had used the different spelling.  NOT the original message.

The choice of spelling is attributed to the telegraph company that had transmitted the Palace's reply.  That's all there is to it.

Just to keep you going, here's another one for you to bicker about:

A Thank You card hand-signed by King Carl Gustav and Queen Silvia of Sweden, dated 19 July 1976...
... contained in a envelope post-marked from the Palace in Stockholm..
... and clearly addressed to "Alexei Nicolaievich, Grand Duke of Russia... Burnaby, BC, Canada."

Not just one Palace, but two.  Two different Monarchies in two different countries, both addressing personal correspondence to "Alexei Nicolaievich" almost 60 years after his disappearance... and both sent to the same address...

You should be challenging the Palaces to explain their actions.

Not the messenger.

Your claim of checkmate is seriously premature.  The game has only just started! ;-)

jk


 
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Belochka on November 01, 2006, 08:13:08 PM
In 1973, Alexei Tammet-Romanov had sent a telegram of congratulations to Princess Anne and Capt. Mark Phillips on the occasion of their wedding on November 14th of that same year.

Just one day later, Princess Anne and Capt. Mark Phillips themselves had promptly responded to Mr. Tammet-Romanov's message with a telegram of thanks in reply.

That very same telegram from the Palace, date stamped November 15th of 1973 and signed by Anne and Mark, just one day after Princess Anne's wedding, is very clearly addressed to:

"Alexei Nicolaievich, Czarevich, Grand Duke of Russia... Burnaby, British Columbia"


Mr Kendrick you have now finally revealed your tiresome charade.

Had the Estonian-Canadian been a genuine sole survivor of the Imperial Family he would NEVER have refered to himself as "Czarevich" had he been schooled correctly.

Checkmate!

Margarita  ;D

You just love to nit-pick, don't you?

It was the reply that had used the different spelling.  NOT the original message.

The choice of spelling is attributed to the telegraph company that had transmitted the Palace's reply.  That's all there is to it.

Your claim of checkmate is seriously premature.  The game has only just started! ;-)

jk


Your game is over Mr Kendrick. The king is down.

It is not the spelling that was used but the actual definition. In forensic investigation a case can be solved by one single clue ... fortuitously you provided it. Thank you.

Margarita
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Bev on November 01, 2006, 08:17:30 PM
So why wasn't he invited to the weddings?  You still haven't answered that question.

Have you ever heard of an autopen?  I ask that because I have a thank you note from Clinton's inaugural committee, and while it's flattering to think that Pres. Clinton took the time to thanik me personally for my donation, I'm certain that it was signed with an autopen.  (But then I'm not the heir to the Russian throne, either.)
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: J_Kendrick on November 01, 2006, 08:21:59 PM

Your game is over Mr Kendrick. The king is down.

It is not the spelling that was used but the actual definition. In forensic investigation a case can be solved by one single clue ... fortuitously you provided it. Thank you.

Margarita

You cannot use a castling move to get out of check.

You're not even close, Margarita.. but keep trying.
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: J_Kendrick on November 01, 2006, 08:32:01 PM

So why wasn't he invited to the weddings?  You still haven't answered that question.


Good question, but you're asking the wrong person.  Only the Palaces can answer that question.  So... Why don't you ask them?  ;)

Quote

Have you ever heard of an autopen?  I ask that because I have a thank you note from Clinton's inaugural committee, and while it's flattering to think that Pres. Clinton took the time to thanik me personally for my donation, I'm certain that it was signed with an autopen.  (But then I'm not the heir to the Russian throne, either.)


It's not the signatures that need to be explained. 

It's the Russian name and Imperial title that the Palaces had used to address their replies that is at issue here.

Not the signatures of the senders

jk
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Tsarfan on November 01, 2006, 09:10:57 PM
Mr. Kendrick:

Queen Mary met personally with Grand Duchess Xenia on numerous occasions.  Queen Elizabeth sought Grand Duchess Olga out for a meeting during a state visit to Canada.  So the British royals have no compunction about meeting with their Romanov relatives.  Yet the only recognition the British royal house ever extended to Alexei -- the heir himself -- was to answer a telegram that Tammet sent?

Let's move our focus beyond the address on the envelope.  How about disclosing to us the text of the telegram from Princess Anne?  Since you say she was sending a personal response to the head of a major dynasty -- who was also a blood relative of hers, by the way -- I'm sure her message reflected this very special relationship.  How did she address him in the telegram?  As Dear Alexei?  As Your Highness?

Yes, please . . . give us the text.  As you say, you have a verified copy in your hand.
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Tania+ on November 02, 2006, 02:11:48 AM
he, he, he, lol, I think you guys are really on a roll, i mean really ! I think you should follow up on figuring out what the code is...or is there a code ? Wow, imagine, a code going on right under our very nose. With all these super sleuths, I'm sure one of you can flush out the answers you need, so we can all put this to rest...right ? How odd, how very odd ! Lol  :D Best laugh I have had all week !

Tatiana+
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Tsarfan on November 02, 2006, 06:28:04 AM
If was who he said he was.He never really made a big to do about it. If it was I, who had his shoes on. I would fight like hell for  my birth name. and birth right. Just a thought.

Never really made a big to-do about it?

I trust you would draw the line at putting your testicles on display?  ;D

No need to go there, though.  Let's just see wait for Mr. Kendrick to show us the full text of that telegram from Princess Anne.
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Lemur on November 02, 2006, 09:42:14 AM
Did Alexei really have that, uh, testicle problem  :-[? If so, he may have had a lot of trouble fathering children even if he survived? I have known three men with the problem, all had corrective surgery, but only one was able to father children.
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 02, 2006, 09:51:25 AM
Yes, reportedly Alexei had an undescended testicle. As far as a possible sterility issue, it doesn't really matter now since he didn't get the chance to find out one way or another, having been killed at the age of 14.

Did Mr Tammet really drop down his trousers in front of the reporters???  :o  He must have REALLY wanted to prove he was royal!


Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Tsarfan on November 02, 2006, 10:10:17 AM
Here's what was reported in the article Belochka posted on Page 17 of this thread: 


When the Duke of Windsor died in 1972, Tammet-Romanov sent a letter of condolence to the Queen, signing it with his royal title.

The RCMP arrived at Tammet-Romanov's Burnaby home soon after.

He showed them a scar he said came from the butt of a rifle during the executions. He also showed them he had an undescended testicle, as did the czarevitch, his widow explains.


I think the "RCMP" means the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.  Apparently they perform a duty similar to the U.S. Secret Service when the President receives a crank communication.

Whatever the RCMP determined, it seems that Mr. Tammet was not issued a luncheon invitation by the Queen.
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Tania+ on November 02, 2006, 10:11:18 AM
Wow, again you never fail to keep the readers glued to Enquirer type threads...
We the readers understand that subject matters as this exist but really, to keep it in terminal undress, just for adult titilation is beyond comprehension. Get a grip ! You made and got your thrills, now make responsible comments instead of steamy garbage!
I hope your lives are filled with more than just looking for this kind of news to talk about. I thought you were considerate of kids ?
This is indeed a very odd thread RichC, very odd !!!

Tatiana+
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 02, 2006, 10:16:06 AM
Here's what was reported in the article Belochka posted on Page 17 of this thread: 
... He also showed them he had an undescended testicle, as did the czarevitch, his widow explains.

Oh yes, I must have missed that. So he really did drop those trousers, that rascal!


... it seems that Mr. Tammet was not issued a luncheon invitation by the Queen.

Poor Mr. Tammet, after all his efforts, not even a lousy luncheon invitation!  :-\

Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Lemur on November 02, 2006, 10:20:32 AM
Yes, reportedly Alexei had an undescended testicle. As far as a possible sterility issue, it doesn't really matter now since he didn't get the chance to find out one way or another, having been killed at the age of 14.

If N and A knew this they must have known the succession of the dynasty was not safe (even IF he had lived) so why didn't they try for another child? Even though they had a son, if he was infertile (presuming the dynasty had continued and he had survived) what would they havve done? Of course it's all speculation since he didn't live and the dynasty didn't go on, but just wondering out loud....

Quote
Did Mr Tammet really drop down his trousers in front of the reporters???  :o  He must have REALLY wanted to prove he was royal!

 :D :D Oh yes, so much class! So what's worse, this, or the way Anna Anderson lived the last years of her life in filth and insanity? ;)



Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 02, 2006, 10:22:04 AM
So what's worse, this, or the way Anna Anderson lived the last years of her life in filth and insanity? ;)

Some kids they raised....  ::)
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Tania+ on November 02, 2006, 10:29:10 AM
Yes indeed, one can tell much by what one reads, and pursues in life, even moreso on the internet. Never know what kids who are adults now days are in hot pursuit of...and it ain't always literature, etc.  ;) You can tell much about a person, indeed !

Tatiana+
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 02, 2006, 10:47:00 AM
...why didn't they try for another child?


Well, we don't really know that they didn't try, for one thing. Maybe it just didn't happen. Another thing, maybe it didn't occur to them that an undescended testicle = sterility. Plus they had a much more serious concern at the time: the Tsarevich's hemophilia! This was a much more immediate issue and they had to see if he was going to survive his childhood first before they even had the chance to start worrying about him not being able to have children as an adult.



Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Tsarfan on November 02, 2006, 11:08:02 AM
The realm of reality is not were Nicholas and Alexandra lived when it came to Alexei.  The House of Romanov had male heirs aplenty available to perpetuate the dynasty, and the succession had passed several times to other than the son of the ruler.

Contrary to popular belief, the dynasty depended on responsible government for its survival, not on Alexei's longevity or ability to procreate.

For some reason they both -- and Alexandra in particular -- had a fixation that the successor had to be one of their children and no other Romanov.  Even before the birth of Alexei, at a time when Michael was the acknowledged heir, Alexandra prodded Nicholas to broach the topic of changing the Fundamental Law so that their eldest daughter could supplant Michael in the succession.  Only the strong protest of the Council and the rest of the Romanovs dissuaded Nicholas from the project.

Nicholas -- and again, Alexandra in particular -- did not turn to logic to direct their course of action.  They turned to faith and miracles.

And miracles they apparently got, according to Mr. Kenrick.  Given that Alexei had the supernatural ability to survive a hail of gunfire or to skip out unnoticed on the massacre altogether, no one need have worried about a feat as simple as fathering children.

I know I sound the cynic.  But I'm sure that cynicism will be dispelled when we see the text of that telegram that proves the British royal family acknowledged Tammet as the true head of the Romanov clan.
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Bev on November 02, 2006, 12:46:22 PM
Tsarfan, we may be ignoring the similiarities between Alexei and Hammet.  Perhaps if we set aside our common sense and bias for truth, we could look at this case objectively.

                         Alexei                                                      Tammet
Male?                 Yes                                                          Yes

Hemophilia?         Yes                                                          No, but might have been anemic

Ambulatory?         No                                                          Yes

Scar?                   N/A                                                         Yes, maybe, maybe no

Dropped trou        No                                                          Yes
for the RCMP?

Undescended        N/A                                                         I don't even want to think about it, so I'll take his word for it.
testicle?                                                                              Yes

Received thank     Yes                                                          Yes
you notes from
royalty?

Collaborated          No                                                          Yes
with nazis?

Lived in a dream    Yes*                                                        Yes**
world?

As you can see, there are 11 yeses, 4 nos and 2 n/as = 17 answers.  That means that there is a 73.33 % chance that Tammet is indeed the Tsaravich or odds of 5:8  (The ratio  of y/n is 1:5.46)  If you rather, I can calculate it by eliminating the n/a as an n, but honestly, I don't think it will make much difference.  Numbers don't lie, Tsarfan.

* Many historians have commented on the dreamworld quality of the IF's life.

**  Some psychiatrists have commented on the dreamworld of those who have delusions of grandeur.
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Tsarfan on November 02, 2006, 01:28:48 PM
A brilliant analysis, Bev.

My only question is whether all factors should be equally weighted.  For example, should collaboration with the Nazis carry the same weight as a testicular problem?  (In other words, should procreating Nazis be of more concern to us than procreating Tammets?)  Or should dropping trou for the police be weighted the same as receiving a thank-you note from royalty?  (In other words, is it more important to keep one's pants on in front of the police or in front of the queen?)




Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Tania+ on November 02, 2006, 02:14:45 PM
Since it has been brought up to be of interest of those here on this thread, I have suddenly decided to search the internet and read up on all who have been collobrators with the Nazi's. That anyone could colloborate with these rascals is terrible, but I wonder all the more of those who were themselves labelled by the Nazi's, who of them choose to colloborate ? That is quite an interesting question, and needs not only to be researched, but to finding documented proof. I'm off to search...

Tatiana+
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Bev on November 02, 2006, 02:33:10 PM
If we weight them I'll have to use the calculator and that sounds suspiciously like work.  I think we should stick to probablities.
If we eliminate the n/as which would give us a percentage of 73.33 we could round up the 73% to 75% and I can write a simple equation that would prove that Tammet is the legal heir to the Russian throne:

Pr(A\B) = Pr(B\A) Pr (A) \Pr(B) = 0.75 x 0.5\ 0.625 = 0.6

The ratio changes, but the odds stay about the same - 5:8 to 6.9 which means of course, that Tammet met 6 out of the 9 criteria and thus is the legal heir and claimant to the throne.

We can weight them, and I suggest that the only fair way to weight them would be y=33.3, e=33.3, s=33.3 while n=50.0  and o=50.0.  We use the same theorem but write the equation as ^(A\B) = L(A\B \ L(Ac\B) = Pr(B\A) \ Pr(B\Ac) which is easier for us to remember and still proves  the likelihood that Tammet is the heir.

Of course if you want to get all complicated...
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Tsarfan on November 02, 2006, 02:58:42 PM
Well, if we could just see the text of that famous telegram from Princess Anne, we could avoid all the math and statistics.

Please, Mr. Kendrick . . . let us see what it was that Princess Anne took time to sign personally in those hours between her wedding and honeymoon.
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 02, 2006, 03:38:42 PM
Tania... what the hell are you talking about??  ???

I would like to see the transcript of the infamous Pss Anne telegram too, or better yet, a scan of it would do quite nicely!




Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Lemur on November 02, 2006, 03:45:55 PM
I'll say one thing for this thread, it's aptly named. Look at how many different odd topics it has covered!  :-\
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Tsarfan on November 02, 2006, 03:54:16 PM
I get the distinct impression someone is absolutely desperate to turn the discussion away from Mr. Kendrick's claims, now that he has been asked to post the actual contents of the core piece of his hard evidence -- that telegram he says proves the British royals recognized Tammet as Alexei Romanov.

I wonder why that simple request would make people so uneasy.  ???  I should think Mr. Kendrick would jump at the chance.
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Louis_Charles on November 02, 2006, 03:54:58 PM
Okay, so, JKendrick --- can we see the text of the telegram?

And just for the heck of it, I am sending a note off to Buckingham Palace tomorrow, and signing it "His Imperial Highness, Simon, Lord of the  ________________ (I will resist the temptation to put the word 'Dance' there, and come up with something that sounds impressive --- I don't want Buck House to think I am Michael Flatley)."  

I just want to see how they address the response. Because if this works, I am so going to make myself a Grand Duke.
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Bev on November 02, 2006, 04:01:17 PM
Ask for the film rights too, Simon. 
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Louis_Charles on November 02, 2006, 04:04:56 PM
If there is a film, I nominate Faye Dunaway to play Elizabeth II (sorry, Helen Mirren). She's the only one who could snarl "Get those thank-you cards written, Anne, or you won't be allowed to go on honeymoon!" in a believable way, now that Joan Crawford has gone to the great movie studio in the sky.
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Mazukov on November 02, 2006, 04:13:28 PM
Was there ever a telegram?
I,had a telegram sent to me one time from the White House. expressing thanks for attending the ball,ect.

I never went, all we did was toss a $100.00 to the DNC
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Tsarfan on November 02, 2006, 04:15:08 PM

"Kendrick, however, remains mystified about one thing.

He said Tammet-Romanov's widow sent two of her husband's teeth for DNA analysis in England so the mystery could finally be solved, but the results have never been released.


Perhaps Mr. Kendrick or someone can explain this to me.  I assume the only point of sending the teeth to England would be to have them compared to a DNA sample from a blood relative of the Romanovs, much as Prince Phillip's DNA was used to estalish the lineage of the skeletons in Ekaterinburg.

So how did this work?  Were pre-arrangements made with Buckingham Palace to obtain the DNA sample?  Or were the teeth just sent to a lab with a note saying, "please compare the DNA from these teeth to Prince Phillip's and let me know what you find"?

Unless the teeth were submitted for testing according to an arrangement with the palace, I would think it far more likely that they wound up in a wastebasket than under lock and key as a state secret.  Unless, of course, someone realized the teeth were from the same man who had been sending telegrams to the Windsors and who had shown his testicles to the Canadian Mounties when they were sent to investigate . . . in which case the teeth probably wound up on someone's desk in Scotland Yard with a note to be sure the man to whom they belonged was really dead.
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Tsarfan on November 02, 2006, 05:35:12 PM
Okay . . . let's keep this focused on history.

Mr. Kendrick presents two key pieces of purported evidence:  a telegram supposedly signed in person by Princess Anne that acknolwedges Tammet was the heir Alexei, and a pair of teeth that were tested without the results ever being released.

The historical method requires that evidence be made available to the reader for examination.

So, Mr. Kendrick, please provide us with two things:

1.  The text of the message that Princess Anne sent Tammet
2.  The circumstances under which the teeth were sent to England for DNA comparison (to which lab, by prior arrangement with whom, for comparison to whose DNA).

With this information, we can all have a serious discussion about the what this evidence signifies.
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Tania+ on November 02, 2006, 05:47:45 PM
The importance of facing truth is that we are in agreement first of all that it makes us free. I would think no matter of what nationality, religion, culture, etc., we are bound together in facing and making sure, truth lives at all cost. I am from family connects whom are of variances of nationalities, religious beliefs, cultures, etc. It would be wrong of me first of all to step back and say I have no part in making sure that i make sure that lies replace truth. Too many human hearts havd died, been murdered, and gone through genocide for me to stay silent. Wether it be from first person understandings, of which i can speak, or to that which our family members have faced and gone asunder, or lived through major life-changing events, I can no longer stay silent. With my last breath, and years left, I will continue to fight the good fight.

May I state, it is not of importance to say that another human being 'handles another person, or persons', but the issues therein in which there may be not explained in full. I did nothing to hurt another on this forum.

All I have done as every other member has done, is followed up on a point that another member posted in their post. But what I do think of importance is, is not only to point out the facts of what others do in the heart of injustice, but to those who point at others but fail to see the recognizable understandig of what their own members have done to their own flock. In any case, these colloborations are all relevant, and the sooner we understand what motivates these type of people to do such things, allows us better to make sure we pull together as human beings, own up to our own issues first, in cleansing, then go out and continue to do what is right. That is the premise of what I was working on, nothing less.

But what is of importance in this education, is an old biblical saying : A wholesome tongue is to a tree of life, but perversness in it breaks the sprit.

Or : Wisdom is born - stupidity is learned

Tatiana+
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: lexi4 on November 02, 2006, 06:05:47 PM
Would Alexei, assuming that he ever had cause to refer to himself by title, not have called himself the Tsesarevitch? And the eagles' heads might be staring at each other in horror, Tsarfan!

The boards are getting soaked?  I keep thinking there has to be a codebook somewhere.

Would Alexei, knowing that he was the sole direct survivor in the line of Nicholas II, have married unequally? He was raised from birth to be the Heir, and would have been well schooled in the Fundamental Law. Or, if he considered it impractical to follow, why would he have not issued an Imperial Ukase altering the Law? That he did neither of these things raises questions about his purported survival.

Also, unbeknownst to any of the Alexei claimants was a promise made by the actual Tsesarevich Alexei in 1914 to Princess Ileana of Romania. He promised to return to Romania for her and never did.

Had he done those things, he might have decreased his chance for survival. Not to mention, they would have been meaningless after Lenin took over Russia. None of the claimants, who would also have been considered heirs, ever returned to Russia or tried to issu an Imperial Ikase. There was no empire.
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 02, 2006, 06:10:13 PM
That's probably also why he didn't attend Anne and Mark's wedding breakfast at Buck House. He was afraid of Lenin.
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Tsarfan on November 02, 2006, 07:32:24 PM
Mr. Kendrick has been on the Forum since the question was first asked about the contents of the telegram from Princess Anne, yet he has not responded.  In case he missed the first request, I'll repeat the more complete request here:

Mr. Kendrick:

You present two key pieces of purported evidence:  a telegram supposedly signed in person by Princess Anne that acknowledges Tammet was the heir Alexei, and a pair of teeth that were tested without the results ever being released.

The historical method requires that evidence be made available to the reader for examination.

So please provide us with two things:

1.  The text of the message that Princess Anne sent Tammet
2.  The circumstances under which the teeth were sent to England for DNA comparison (to which lab, by prior arrangement with whom, for comparison to whose DNA).

With this information, we can all have a serious discussion about the what this evidence signifies. 
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Annie on November 02, 2006, 07:58:48 PM

 None of the claimants, who would also have been considered heirs, ever returned to Russia or tried to issu an Imperial Ikase. There was no empire.

Hey, it could have happened! I have this fantastic image in my mind of Anna Anderson, Gleb Botkin at her back carrying a sword, dressed as Catherine II in eighteenth century soldier gear, marching triumphantly into Leningr..St. Petersburg to reclaim her true birthright by ousting Lenin and taking over the government  8)
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Belochka on November 02, 2006, 08:03:44 PM
That's probably also why he didn't attend Anne and Mark's wedding breakfast at Buck House. He was afraid of Lenin.

I never realized comrade lenin was invited for the wedding breakfast at Buck House. Did he bring Inessa?  :D
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Tsarfan on November 02, 2006, 08:04:51 PM

Mr. Kendrick has been on the Forum since the question was first asked about the contents of the telegram from Princess Anne, yet he has not responded.  In case he missed the first request, I'll repeat the more complete request here:


Hmmm . . . here and gone yet again, still without answering these simple yet critical questions.

What gives here?  Aren't we going to get an answer to the two most pertinent questions about the real identity of Alexei Tammet-Romanov?
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Belochka on November 02, 2006, 08:08:56 PM
A brilliant analysis, Bev.

My only question is whether all factors should be equally weighted.  For example, should collaboration with the Nazis carry the same weight as a testicular problem?  (In other words, should procreating Nazis be of more concern to us than procreating Tammets?)  Or should dropping trou for the police be weighted the same as receiving a thank-you note from royalty?  (In other words, is it more important to keep one's pants on in front of the police or in front of the queen?)

Tears of laughter ... this is brilliant!

Did the RCMP arrest Tammet for revealing a State secret?    ???
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Tania+ on November 02, 2006, 08:13:24 PM
Perhaps it is wiser to wait patiently, and the truth will evidence in time. After all, we have gone through the trials of all the entrances and exits of various personalities giving each their own thoughts to this or that, and then of course documented understandings as well, on most of these threads. I have learned in life, that all the prodding and pleadings in the world will not bring a person to give what most people want, till it is time. Sometimes truth evidences in a minute, or a life time, and sometimes, not in our lifetime. Most of you are young and impatient, but that is youth. But one thing is for sure, insults, surleness, and bad manners never help anything, or any issue. I'm sure Mr. K will respond in due time... ;)

Tatiana+
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Tsarfan on November 02, 2006, 08:22:53 PM
But he was so very quick to respond to the questions about how the telegram was addressed.  Why, he even assured us he was holding a verified copy of the telegram in his hand as he wrote that reply.  So why should we wait years -- perhaps even beyond our lifetimes -- for him to read the rest of the danged telegram?

I'm not looking for a metaphysical answer to the meaning of being and nothingness.  I'm looking for a straightforward answer to what's written on a piece of paper.

What's the point of this dodge . . . unless, of course, the answers to the questions are embarassing to Mr. Kendrick's claims?

And why are you the mouthpiece for this dodge?
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Belochka on November 02, 2006, 08:24:44 PM

Mr. Kendrick has been on the Forum since the question was first asked about the contents of the telegram from Princess Anne, yet he has not responded.  In case he missed the first request, I'll repeat the more complete request here:


Hmmm . . . here and gone yet again, still without answering these simple yet critical questions.

What gives here?  Aren't we going to get an answer to the two most pertinent questions about the real identity of Alexei Tammet-Romanov?

Tsarfan please do not feel so disappointed, this is the typical game that is played ... string out as long as possible to gain public attention.

Tammet was a fraud plain and simple. Had this individual really been aware, he would never as an adult refered to himself as the Tsarevich or its Polish equivalent, which was yet another error on his part. A genuine Russian of that period would know and always use the correct Russian definitions.

Tammet read that complex word in his history book and lacking fundamental knowledge of succession, he failed to realize the implications of what he had done.

Thus he had exposed him self inappropriately in many ways ...

Margarita  ;)
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: J_Kendrick on November 02, 2006, 08:30:51 PM

1.  The text of the message that Princess Anne sent Tammet


Telegrams being a thing of the past --- Stop.
The messages were always brief --- Stop.
Because telegraph companies charged by the word --- Stop.

The text of a single sentence thank you telegram that says his message "has given us great pleasure" isn't going to tell you a great deal. 

Again, it is the Russian name and Imperial Title that was used by the Palace to address the intended recipient that is the ONLY issue here.

Quote

2.  The circumstances under which the teeth were sent to England for DNA comparison (to which lab, by prior arrangement with whom, for comparison to whose DNA).


How many more times do I have to explain this?

The samples were requested by Russia's Dr. Pavel L. Ivanov himself in March of 1993.  The samples were then immediately sent in response to Dr. Ivanov's request, without the slightest heistation, by courier that very same week.  The samples were received and signed for the following week at the Forensic Science Service laboratory in Aldermaston, England, where they were to be tested for comparison directly alongside the identification testing then being done on samples from the Ekaterinburg remains in the very same lab.

A second matching set of samples from Tammet was sent at that very same time to the late Dr. William Maples at the CA Pound Human Identification Laboratory in Gainesville, Florida.

Two years later, Dr. Ivanov himself had admitted in writing -- signed by his own hand on US Armed Forces DNA Laboratory letterhead -- that the testing procedure had been initiatied and that a DNA extraction from one of those samples is still being kept in the freezer at the FSS lab in Aldermaston. He had further admitted that a second Tammet DNA sample is still in his personal possession.

Quote

With this information, we can all have a serious discussion about the what this evidence signifies.


What, Again?  Where have you been these past few years?

Previous discussions on this same subject have never been particularly "serious" on this board in the past. 
What gives you reason to imagine that it might be any different this time?  ;)

jk

P.S.  You might want to remember...  We don't all live in the same time zone.   
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Tania+ on November 02, 2006, 08:31:15 PM
Tsarfan,

Your lack of manners are very evident. Secondly, I am nobody's mouthpiece, nor do i hang out with a group of people who throw endless insults, and tactless comments just to show everyone who they think they are....not.

I am a free person as are you to speak my thoughts on any of these threads. I may not like what you or others have to say, and you and others may not like what I have to say. Still by virtue of these threads, we are allowed our say clearly. So, I need not respond to your taunts, or others. It is quite evident I am sure to many on this forum that there is only a few who are involved as yourself in ensnaringly making unwarranted remarks. You don't scare me. I see you are young and still with much to learn, so learn at your own rate of speed. I assure you, I am not alone in my feelings to date ! You may have been in law enforcement, but most law enforcement officers, and persons to do with civic interchanges and government positions, do not act as you do, period !

Tatiana+
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Annie on November 02, 2006, 09:00:55 PM

I am a free person as are you to speak my thoughts on any of these threads. I may not like what you or others have to say, and you and others may not like what I have to say.

But nothing you post makes sense or has any real relevance to what is being discussed.
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Tania+ on November 02, 2006, 09:03:45 PM
lol, your tooooo funny for words, and can hardly wait for your words of wisdom on the subject.  ;D
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Tsarfan on November 02, 2006, 09:18:33 PM

The text of a single sentence thank you telegram that says his message "has given us great pleasure" isn't going to tell you a great deal.


On the contrary, it tells us a great deal.  It tells us that if, as you maintain, Princess Anne personally signed this telegram, she did not think her correspondent merited more than a generic one-sentence reply.  And it tells us that you think we are fools if you think we would believe this is how Princess Anne would actually correspond with a man she believed to be the son of Nicholas II, a blood relative to her own family, and a man whose life must be haunted by unimaginable specters.

And, knowing that Princess Anne was not at Buckingham Palace but on her honeymoon when this telegram was sent from the palace, it tells us that this was a form response sent out by the secretariat.




The samples were requested by Russia's Dr. Pavel L. Ivanov himself in March of 1993.

A second matching set of samples from Tammet was sent at that very same time to the late Dr. William Maples at the CA Pound Human Identification Laboratory in Gainesville, Florida.

Two years later, Dr. Ivanov himself had admitted in writing -- signed by his own hand on US Armed Forces DNA Laboratory letterhead -- that the testing procedure had been initiatied and that a DNA extraction from one of those samples is still being kept in the freezer at the FSS lab in Aldermaston. He had further admitted that a second Tammet DNA sample is still in his personal possession.
  

So, with samples having gone both to someone in Russia and to someone in the USA, how would the British be able to squelch the results?

And why would they want to?  They were willing to have the world-wide press know that Prince Charles had submitted a sample of his DNA for comparison with Anna Anderson's, so they were obviously willing to live with whatever outcome those tests yielded.  And, if they were so intent on keeping Tammet's true identity under wraps, why did they send the Canadian Mounties to check him out in 1972 instead of having a private emissary handle the matter?




And on the point of your being in a different time zone . . . .  I travel outside the U.S. extensively and am in the habit of allowing for time zone adjustments.  However, the logs on this board are all normalized to the same time zone.  I was comparing the log-in times shown in your profile with the time of the posts on one occasion and happened to observe you listed as viewing the thread on other occasions.
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Tsarfan on November 02, 2006, 09:24:44 PM
Correction to above post . . . I meant to say it was Prince Phillip who submitted his DNA sample.
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: J_Kendrick on November 03, 2006, 02:16:45 AM

The text of a single sentence thank you telegram that says his message "has given us great pleasure" isn't going to tell you a great deal.


On the contrary, it tells us a great deal.  It tells us that if, as you maintain, Princess Anne personally signed this telegram, she did not think her correspondent merited more than a generic one-sentence reply.


So... Now you think you can read the minds of Royalty?  33 years after the fact?

It's only a telegram!  It's not a piece of classic prose.  Telegrams, by their very nature, were rarely any more than one or two sentences long... no matter who sent them.

Have you ever sent a telegram?   Have you ever received a telegram?   Do you even know what a telegram looks like?

You cannot just to write off the fact that a telegram was sent by Buckingham Palace in November of 1973 and was addressed to "Alexei Nicolaievich" -- 55 years after murders in Ekaterinburg -- simply by trying to create an issue where an issue does not exist.  That's called misdirection... and it isn't going to work.

It is not what was written in that telegram that is at issue here.  What makes this important is who sent the telegram.. and the name of the person that they had intended should receive that same telegram.

How will you try to explain away the fact that the Palace of King Carl Gustav in Sweden had done exactly the same thing... sending a thank you card to the very same person -- addressed once again to "Alexei Nicolaievich" -- three years later?
 

Quote

The samples were requested by Russia's Dr. Pavel L. Ivanov himself in March of 1993.

A second matching set of samples from Tammet was sent at that very same time to the late Dr. William Maples at the CA Pound Human Identification Laboratory in Gainesville, Florida.

Two years later, Dr. Ivanov himself had admitted in writing -- signed by his own hand on US Armed Forces DNA Laboratory letterhead -- that the testing procedure had been initiatied and that a DNA extraction from one of those samples is still being kept in the freezer at the FSS lab in Aldermaston. He had further admitted that a second Tammet DNA sample is still in his personal possession.
 

So, with samples having gone both to someone in Russia and to someone in the USA, how would the British be able to squelch the results? And why would they want to? 


Now, you might be headed in the right direction.

Did the British squelch the results?  Who knows? 
If they didn't do it, then who did?  Who knows?
Why would anyone want to suppress the results? Who knows?

But those are the questions that need to be answered. 
Those are the still unanswered questions that this story is all about.
Someone who has the Tammet samples or is close to those same samples knows the answers that you seek.
Find that person or persons and get those questions answered and we will all be that much closer to finding the truth.

Quote

They were willing to have the world-wide press know that Prince Charles had submitted a sample of his DNA for comparison with Anna Anderson's, so they were obviously willing to live with whatever outcome those tests yielded.


Putting aside the fact that it was actually Prince Phillip.. and not Prince Charles.. who had submitted a sample of his DNA for comparison to the putative bones of Empress Alexandra... and not for comparison to Anna Anderson...

You are quite right to note that the scientists and their bosses who had done the Anderson comparison tests at the FSS in Britain in 1994 are also among the very same people who are still withholding the Tammet result to this day. 

Curious, isn't it? :-)

jk
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Ra-Ra-Rasputin on November 03, 2006, 02:20:27 AM

So...the 'Tsesarevich', or, no, I'm sorry- 'Czarevich', a grossly inaccurate title no less, but the one which 'Alexei' liked to use in his 'enforced exile', received a telegram from his 'close relative' saying Thank you for your telegram STOP.  Whoa, now that's evidence for the survival of Alexei if ever I've seen any.

Who are you kidding, Mr Kendrick? Do you seriously base your own beliefs on 'evidence' such as this? If so, then you've got some serious work to do. 

And, if these teeth really did contain the DNA of the Romanovs, as Tsarfan has already said, I really see little reason why they would cover it up.  What would it matter if a dead man had been Alexei Romanov? (Note the no title, as he had none after his father abdicated).  He wouldn't have been entitled to anything anyway- he was dead!

And, having an undescended testicle is a very common occurence.  Babies born prematurely are 30% likely to experience this problem, and between 3-5% of boys born on time suffer from it too.  That's a fair few men walking around with undescended testicles.  Hardly a rare occurence, and hardly proof that Heino Tammet was Alexei.

Rachel
xx
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Mazukov on November 03, 2006, 04:35:31 AM
In a hale of gunfire, stabbings, acid, fire. Oh sure he survived all of that. Point blank shot to the head, really folks, if that’s the case then we can say he was super man, it didn’t happen. As much as I would like to say one of them did survive, none of them did. Telegram or no telegram. I find hard to believe that anyone who was standing in that room survived the slaughter.
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Tsarfan on November 03, 2006, 05:07:26 AM

It's only a telegram!

How will you try to explain away the fact that the Palace of King Carl Gustav in Sweden had done exactly the same thing... sending a thank you card to the very same person -- addressed once again to "Alexei Nicolaievich" -- three years later?


Yes, it is only a telegram.  Isn't that the very point, though?  Are you telling us that the Windsors recognized Tammet as the son of Nicholas II, yet the Tammet family has no record of any other contact from the British royal family whatsoever?  Over all the years, that single, generic, one-sentence telegram was the only written correspondence that ever passed from the Windsors to their Romanov cousins?

And how will I "explain away" the great mystery that "the Palace of King Carl Gustav" did exactly the same thing?  Why, by the simplest explanation of all.  Both Buckingham Palace and the Swedish palace received thousands of congratulatory telegrams for these royal weddings.  Their secretariats set up automated mailing lists by copying the addresses on the incoming telegrams.  After the weddings, a generic response was matched to this mailing list and the thousands of acknowledgements were sent out.  It's the universal routine in every public relations operation, be it in industry, politics, or statecraft. 

There are moments when I am appalled at just how stupid and gullible you think people on this site are.  But then I remember that your mission is to generate buzz for a story that is fighting an uphill battle with facts and logic, so I guess your hands are kind of tied.



You are quite right to note that the scientists and their bosses who had done the Anderson comparison tests at the FSS in Britain in 1994 are also among the very same people who are still withholding the Tammet result to this day. 

Curious, isn't it? :-)


Curious?  Not in the least . . . unless you're going out of your way to find a consipiracy answer to a question that has a more logical and more obvious answer.

Anna Anderson was a story with a world-wide following.  Books had been written and movies made about her story.  The results of the Anna Anderson tests were awaited by the international press . . . and those results were duly released.

But who, other than the Tammet family and you, was following the Heino Alexei Tammet-Romanov story?  If his DNA matched, the story would have broken like a thunder clap over the world's press wires.  If it didn't, there was no story of any interest.  And, if it didn't match, why announce to the press that the labs had also looked at the DNA of a virtually unknown claimant?  It would just invite other con artists or deluded individuals to come out of the woodwork to clamor to have their samples tested.

It wouldn't matter that they knew the DNA wouldn't match.  Part of this type of con game is first to generate as much press and other buzz as possible by any means possible.  Then, once the story gets traction, improvise the necessary details as events unfold.  This is why there is almost always a conspiracy theory linked to these ruses.  Sooner or later, logic and hard facts will run the claimant into a dead end.  A conspiracy theory -- replete with dark dealings by mysterious parties with murky motives -- is the indispensible way around this roadblock.

Anna Anderson's DNA didn't match?  No problem.  The DNA sample was switched at the hospital.

Grand Duchess Olga Alexandrovna refuted her claim to be Anastasia?  No problem.  There was a secret Romanov fortune she was protecting.

Heino Tammet's DNA didn't match?  No problem.  The results are being withheld from the world by scientists who are muzzled by some mysterious machinations of British dynastic politics.

No such motive for the Windsors to hide the results is apparent?  No problem.  That's what conspiracy theories are for.

Beautiful, isn't it?


Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Belochka on November 03, 2006, 05:11:15 AM
In a hale of gunfire, stabbings, acid, fire. Oh sure he survived all of that. Point blank shot to the head, really folks, if that’s the case then we can say he was super man, it didn’t happen. As much as I would like to say one of them did survive, none of them did. Telegram or no telegram. I find hard to believe that anyone who was standing in that room survived the slaughter.

Alexei had lost his ability to walk ... which is yet another reason why he was unable to "flee" the scene.

Margarita
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Louis_Charles on November 03, 2006, 07:05:03 AM
Mr. Kendrick,

This is a tease, isn't it? You are basing an identification upon the address inscribed on a telegram sent en masse from either Stockholm or Buckingham Palace, upon on occasion designed to elicit mass responses? And since your candidate didn't have hemophilia, Alexei therefore didn't have it? And all of this is important because if you can somehow prove it --- good luck with that, by the way, since if the reation on this thread is any indication, it won't be easy --- his descendant  becomes the rightful Tsar of all the Russias? A position which no longer exists, but what the hey, we can probably count on Putin to step aside in the face of such overwhelming evidence. Maria Vladimirovna and Georgiy will just have to lump it.

Come on, Mr. Kendrick. It's a tease.

Simon

By the way, if I get a letter addressed to me as the Grand Duke Simon, I expect you to press my claims with equal fervor. No teeth, though. I need them.
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 03, 2006, 07:49:49 AM

And, having an undescended testicle is a very common occurence.  

Yes, sort of like Anna Anderson's bunions  ;).

Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: LisaDavidson on November 03, 2006, 12:21:22 PM
This is a warning from your moderator AKA The Girl Who Lost At Rock, Paper, Sissors: I expect you all to maintain proper decorum, especially while I am at work and not able to quickly remove offensivee posts. You are all welcome to debate ideas with one another, agree and disagree, present evidence, uncover flaws in one another's logic, and in general, have a great time. You are not welcome to personalize these arguments to the point where others are offended. Be civil. Be, if you can, polite. Avoid name calling and put downs.

As someone just said to me, it appears John Kendrick can both take it and dish it out. You need not agree with Mr. Kendrick's ideas, but I have not had one complaint about his behavior from which you may wish to learn something. Unlike some of you... Enough said, no more misbehavior on the Survivor Board!
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: skirt on November 03, 2006, 02:22:17 PM
Well said LisaDavidson.
*claps and cheers*

For the sake of arguement- would either side (red or white, Romanov sympathisers etc) have a purpose for keeping Alexei alive?
bargaining tool? Ransom?
Is that a stretch?
(before the lynching begins) Not that I'm saying he survived the massacre..
Just wondering if there would be a purpose for him not being in the cellar / keeping him alive...
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: J_Kendrick on November 03, 2006, 02:36:04 PM
Mr. Kendrick,

This is a tease, isn't it? You are basing an identification upon the address inscribed on a telegram sent en masse from either Stockholm or Buckingham Palace, upon on occasion designed to elicit mass responses? And since your candidate didn't have hemophilia, Alexei therefore didn't have it? And all of this is important because if you can somehow prove it --- good luck with that, by the way, since if the reation on this thread is any indication, it won't be easy --- his descendant  becomes the rightful Tsar of all the Russias? A position which no longer exists, but what the hey, we can probably count on Putin to step aside in the face of such overwhelming evidence. Maria Vladimirovna and Georgiy will just have to lump it.

Come on, Mr. Kendrick. It's a tease.

Simon



Oh, I assure you...

The facts of this case and the plethora of supporting evidence that it contains are most definitely *not* a tease!!

The evidence is all perfectly legitimate and documented.  I am only presenting that evidence in accordance with my duties as a journalist.  How you may choose to interpret that same evidence is entirely of your own doing.

In their consistently failed attempts to shoot down that same evidence, many of the posters on this board have continually attempted to read into my posts -- incorrectly, I might add -- that my presentation of that same evidence might somehow also represent my own personal beliefs about this case.

My duties as journalist are to report the details of the case, to present the supporting evidence as accurately as possible, and to ensure that the details of that evidence are properly understood.  In fact, I have never actually said what my "beliefs" are about this case.  Nor would I.

Again....

How you may choose to interpret the evidence that I have presented on this board is entirely of your own doing.  You cannot deflect what you see in that same evidence onto someone else's shoulders... just because you may not like what that evidence represents.

No matter how many times you keep doing it, shooting the messenger is not going to make this case or its evidence ever go away.

Until that day comes when the scientists who still hold those Tammet DNA samples finally tell us all their answer.... 

Like it or not, you're stuck with it !!

jk 
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Tsarfan on November 03, 2006, 03:41:58 PM

No matter how many times you keep doing it, shooting the messenger is not going to make this case or its evidence ever go away.


Well, people are still arguing about whether Louis XVII survived.  So perhaps you're right that this case will never go away.  And you may be vindicated.  I mean, it took over two centuries, but the movie Pirates of the Caribbean has finally proven to kids everywhere that Blackbeard still walks this earth.

The real difficulty of this case is in keeping it alive, not in shooting it down.  The evidence you rely upon to hold this bulletproof case together is:



And, by the way . . . you say you have stated no personal beliefs about any of this evidence.  You are just neutrally reporting all the facts.  But didn't you earlier make the categorical statement that Alexei did not have hemophilia?  So set us straight.  Did Alexei have hemophilia or didn't he?  And, if not, what was the correct diagnosis?
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Louis_Charles on November 03, 2006, 03:43:31 PM
Evidence? What evidence? The telegram?
Teeth you claim that the British have? Did Tammet's estate get a receipt, by the way? Let me guess. . . a telegram "signed" by the Duke of Edinburgh?

Oh, Mr. Kendrick. You jest. You tease.

Might I inquire as to where you did your journalism degree? And before you accuse me of shooting the messenger, let's face it --- it is a legitimate question. Credentials might help credibility. And credibility needs all the help it can get here.

The Grand Duke Simon
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Annie on November 03, 2006, 04:54:46 PM
I was in a used bookstore today and found a book called "The Escape of Alexei" which was in favor of the claimant Vasilli Filatov. The guy looked nothing like him. I did not have time to look through the book, but it was $7. Is it worth it, just for the novelty? If anyone has read it, how did he claim Alexei escaped?
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Tsarfan on November 03, 2006, 06:05:03 PM

I was in a used bookstore today and found a book called "The Escape of Alexei" which was in favor of the claimant Vasilli Filatov . . . . it was $7.  Is it worth it, just for the novelty?  If anyone has read it, how did he claim Alexei escaped?


Tsar Vasily was rescued by two sympathetic executioners.

Vasily has my vote.  His claims beat Heino's right and left.  And he's even got a book -- a hardback, no less -- to prove it.

Vasily had scars in all the right places.  Computerized facial matching proves he was Alexei.  Photographic comparisons with Alexei are a dead ringer.  (You must have been holding the book the wrong way when looking at the pictures, Annie, dear.)  The handwriting matches.  And those eyes . . . there's just no doubt that's Alexei staring back from those dark, haunted pits.

Better yet, Vasily was found in Mother Russia and knew how to say "tsesarevich".  No need to account for a trek across the Bering Strait or North Atlantic, either.

The hemophilia?  No problemo.  Tsar Vasily was taken to a remote peasant village where his wounds were cured with herbal remedies and a diet of raw meat.  (Finally!  The answer to how Rasputin did it.)

Unfortunately, Vasily's DNA has been inexplicably "withheld" . . . but isn't that always the way when Alexei steps forward?

The only uncertainty is the undescended testicle.  Nobody got a gander at those testicles, dammit!

______________

Is the book worth $7, Annie?  You might want to read Orlando Figes' review of it first.  You'd definitely be buying it only for the novelty value.
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Belochka on November 03, 2006, 11:05:26 PM

I was in a used bookstore today and found a book called "The Escape of Alexei" which was in favor of the claimant Vasilli Filatov . . . . it was $7.  Is it worth it, just for the novelty?  If anyone has read it, how did he claim Alexei escaped?


Tsar Vasily was rescued by two sympathetic executioners.

Vasily has my vote.  His claims beat Heino's right and left.  And he's even got a book -- a hardback, no less -- to prove it.

Vasily had scars in all the right places.  Computerized facial matching proves he was Alexei.  Photographic comparisons with Alexei are a dead ringer.  (You must have been holding the book the wrong way when looking at the pictures, Annie, dear.)  The handwriting matches.  And those eyes . . . there's just no doubt that's Alexei staring back from those dark, haunted pits.

Better yet, Vasily was found in Mother Russia and knew how to say "tsesarevich".  No need to account for a trek across the Bering Strait or North Atlantic, either.

The hemophilia?  No problemo.  Tsar Vasily was taken to a remote peasant village where his wounds were cured with herbal remedies and a diet of raw meat.  (Finally!  The answer to how Rasputin did it.)

Unfortunately, Vasily's DNA has been inexplicably "withheld" . . . but isn't that always the way when Alexei steps forward?

The only uncertainty is the undescended testicle.  Nobody got a gander at those testicles, dammit!

Tammet must have consummed a lot of reindeer meat to cure his hemophilia!  ;)

Why did Tammet not sue Filatov for false impersonation? Very odd indeed.

Margarita    ;D
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Belochka on November 03, 2006, 11:27:49 PM

My duties as journalist are to report the details of the case, to present the supporting evidence as accurately as possible, and to ensure that the details of that evidence are properly understood.  In fact, I have never actually said what my "beliefs" are about this case.  Nor would I.
jk 

Not one single journalist/author that I have come across who persists with such a story for several years does not fail to demonstrate empathy towards the subject matter. Otherwise why waste your time?

Margarita
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Tsarfan on November 03, 2006, 11:48:39 PM

I am only presenting that evidence in accordance with my duties as a journalist.  How you may choose to interpret that same evidence is entirely of your own doing.


With all due respect, Mr. Kendrick, you are being incredibly disingenuous in saying you do nothing but present evidence and leave the interpretation to your readers.

Regarding the telegram, for instance.  If you were truly adhering strictly to your "duties as a journalist", you would report that the Tammets received a telegram with a Buckingham Palace date stamp of November 15, 1973.  You would report the contents of the telegram.  You might report how it was addressed, if you deemed that relevant.

Instead, you have insisted that the telegram signified a Windsor recognition of Tammet as Alexei Romanov.  You failed to disclose the contents until we insisted that you do so.  When those contents appeared to some of us to indicate that Princess Anne did not recognize Tammet's claim, you then forcefully insisted that the contents were not relevant to anything -- only the address was.

This goes far beyond the neutral presentation of all evidence available to you.  You were trying to select which part of the evidence we saw.  You were telling us what part of that evidence was relevant and what part was not.  And you were telling us what conclusion should be drawn from that evidence.

I don't know what to make of your claim to be a neutral journalist who reports all the evidence without bias.  If I give you the benefit of the doubt and say that you are not being dishonest, the only alternative that leaves is that you are capable of incredible self-delusion.  Perhaps that is the better explanation, because it also encompasses your ability to believe that Tammet was Alexei Romanov.
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: J_Kendrick on November 04, 2006, 02:24:54 AM

I am only presenting that evidence in accordance with my duties as a journalist.  How you may choose to interpret that same evidence is entirely of your own doing.


With all due respect, Mr. Kendrick, you are being incredibly disingenuous in saying you do nothing but present evidence and leave the interpretation to your readers.

Regarding the telegram, for instance.  If you were truly adhering strictly to your "duties as a journalist", you would report that the Tammets received a telegram with a Buckingham Palace date stamp of November 15, 1973.  You would report the contents of the telegram.  You might report how it was addressed, if you deemed that relevant.

Instead, you have insisted that the telegram signified a Windsor recognition of Tammet as Alexei Romanov. 


I have only told you that Buckingham Palace had sent Tammet a thank you telegram.. which it did... and that the Palace had addressed that same telegram with the name and title of "Alexei Nicolaievich"... which it had also done.  This is entirely factual documented evidence.

I have only ever reported the details of that evidence.  I have never said, as you have now claimed, that those same facts had "signfied a Windsor recognition". 

You have all managed to put that particular little twist on my words all by yourselves... without any help from me.

Quote


You failed to disclose the contents until we insisted that you do so.


It's a telegram of thanks.  It says thank you.  What more do you want it to say?

Quote

When those contents appeared to some of us to indicate that Princess Anne did not
 recognize Tammet's claim, you then forcefully insisted that the contents were not
relevant to anything -- only the address was.


Yes... Because no matter much you may choose to argue against this point...

The fact that a telegram sent by the Palace is actually addressed to "Alexei Nicolaievich"... 55 years after his disappearance... is the key issue that the Palace still needs to explain -- not what the telegram says.

As I have said, I am only presenting the evidence.  How you may choose to interpret the presentation of that same evidence is entirely of your own doing.

jk
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: J_Kendrick on November 04, 2006, 02:47:21 AM

And, by the way . . . you say you have stated no personal beliefs about any of this evidence.  You are just neutrally reporting all the facts.  But didn't you earlier make the categorical statement that Alexei did not have hemophilia? 


There is a very big difference between what one may choose to believe... and what one actually knows to be fact.

What I have said on this board is that these are actual facts:

Fact 1:  Alexei's popular diagnosis has never been confirmed by any form of laboratory medical testing.
Fact 2:  Alexei's popular diagnosis does not adequately explain all of the symptoms that are found in the historical record.
Fact 3:  No one can prove otherwise without any solid scientific evidence, which does not exist.
 
Quote

So set us straight.  Did Alexei have hemophilia or didn't he?  And, if not, what was the correct diagnosis?


As I have said ever so many, many times before...

My answer can be found in the September 2004 edition of the American Journal of Hematology.

I am not going to repeat it again here, merely for your amusement.

jk
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Belochka on November 04, 2006, 02:48:21 AM

The fact that a telegram sent by the Palace is actually addressed to "Alexei Nicolaievich"... 55 years after his disappearance... is the key issue that the Palace still needs to explain -- not what the telegram says.

jk

It is you who prefers to dismiss how those palace responses are manufactured.  The "key" has turned but it is you who have failed to see what is in front of you.

As I have pointed out to you, Tammet's incorrect self designation has revealed his deception. Everything else becomes meaningless.

Margarita
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: J_Kendrick on November 04, 2006, 03:02:17 AM

The fact that a telegram sent by the Palace is actually addressed to "Alexei Nicolaievich"... 55 years after his disappearance... is the key issue that the Palace still needs to explain -- not what the telegram says.

jk

It is you who prefers to dismiss how those palace responses are manufactured.  The "key" has turned but it is you who have failed to see what is in front of you.

As I have pointed out to you, Tammet's incorrect self designation has revealed his deception. Everything else becomes meaningless.

Margarita

.... and you all speak of logic?

Believe what you want...

But the world will not stop turning on a simple question of semantics.

jk

Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Belochka on November 04, 2006, 03:19:14 AM

There is a very big difference between what one may choose to believe... and what one actually knows to be fact.

What I have said on this board is that these are actual facts:

Fact 1:  Alexei's popular diagnosis has never been confirmed by any form of laboratory medical testing.

It is highly presumptious on your part to suggest that in the absence of laboratory evaluations, the physicians of the day were professionally inadequate to make an educated evaluation.

Strange that when laboratory analyses are conducted on tissue samples on other pretenders such as AA, there are those who cry foul!

Fact 2:  Alexei's popular diagnosis does not adequately explain all of the symptoms that are found in the historical record.

You are the only one who challenges the wisdom of a panel of international physicians of that era. You as a journalist, untrained in hematology, are unusually desperate to come up with your own alternative unsupported hypotheses, if only to explain why Tammet survived into his mature years without suffering the dehabilitating condition that Alexei endured during his short life.

Fact 3:  No one can prove otherwise without any solid scientific evidence, which does not exist..

Observing the long-term pattern of symptomologies that presented was sufficient to confirm that Alexei suffered from hemophilia. That sir WAS the medical evidence.

Margarita
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Tsarfan on November 04, 2006, 07:01:58 AM

I have only told you that Buckingham Palace had sent Tammet a thank you telegram.. which it did... and that the Palace had addressed that same telegram with the name and title of "Alexei Nicolaievich"... which it had also done.  This is entirely factual documented evidence.


No, Mr. Kendrick.  You have not "only told" us that a telegram was sent and that it was addressed to Alexei Nicolaievich.

In a post on November 2, you wrote:

The text of a single sentence thank you telegram that says his message "has given us great pleasure" isn't going to tell you a great deal.  Again, it is the Russian name and Imperial Title that was used by the Palace to address the intended recipient that is the ONLY issue here.

Then today you wrote:

"The fact that a telegram sent by the Palace is actually addressed to "Alexei Nicolaievich"... 55 years after his disappearance... is the key issue that the Palace still needs to explain -- not what the telegram says."

You are not just presenting evidence here.  You are telling us what part of that evidence is probative and what part of it is not.  You are telling us what needs explaining and what does not.  You are trying to impose your judgment of the evidence on the reader.

And your pretense that you are an unbiased observer and neutral reporter of Tammet's claim is so patently ridiculous as to be insulting.
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: lexi4 on November 04, 2006, 07:15:14 AM
Isn't is possible that Alexei's doctors made the best diagnosis for their time and knowledge? Today, we know a lot more about blood disorders than they did then. We have more sophisticated testing etc. Our doctors are more specialized. Knowledge of medicine has increased greatly over the last 100 years. For example, today we know that there are differences between bleeding disorders and clotting disorders.
The tests we use to diagnosis bleeding/clotting disorders are much more sophisticated and advanced than they were during the Romanov era.
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Tsarfan on November 04, 2006, 09:13:07 AM
Don't forget that at least nine other male descendants of Queen Victoria were also diagnosed with hemophilia.  The last to die was Prince Waldemar of Prussia in 1945.  Is the suggestion being made that all of these people were misdiagnosed as late as 1945 . . . or that there were two different rare blood disorders running through Victoria's progeny?

But what is the point of trying to prove that Alexei had some blood-clotting deficiency other than hemophilia?  Whatever he had, slight injuries generated life-threatening episodes of bleeding, even with the best of medical care.  He was unable to make the trip from Tobolsk to Ekaterinburg with his parents three months before the massacre, because a bump while riding a sled down a stairwell had left him bedridden.  When he was finally moved to Ekaterinburg, he was reported as being largely bed-ridden.  Those who were able to take reports of his condition out of the house said he was extremely thin, listless, disinterested in his surroundings.  Some thought he gave the appearance of having already largely departed this life.  Eyewitnesses said he had to be carried to the cellar of the Ipatiev house on the night of the massacre.

Such was the condition of the boy who was said to have survived a hail of gunfire, bludgeoning, and bayonet thrusts in that cellar.  To have escaped.  To have survived into old age.  And never to have had symptoms of uncontrolled bleeding the rest of his life.  (If Tammet had, in fact, exhibited signs of such bleeding, you can be sure this would have been hyped to the rafters as further "proof" he was Alexei.)
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: AGRBear on November 04, 2006, 11:57:31 AM
Some time ago,  there was a good discussion about Alexis diagnosis of hempohila by the doctors. 

If I recall there was a host of blood dieases which are similar to hemophila which had been discovered since 1918.

Just because members of the family had hemophila does not mean Alexis had hemophila.

Since I can't find the thread,  perhaps someone can remember the list given.

Also noted was the original doctor diagnosis of Alexis which couldn't be found since done of the actual records of Alexis medical history was or has been found.  Now, this may have changed and something has been found since that discussion,  I don't know.  If someone knows that it has, let us know and where it can be found or a copy of it brought here for all of us to see along with translation.  There may have been a letter from one doctor to another or some newspaper article mentioned about Alexis'  condition.

As for any claimants having hemophilia,  I think there was one  but I don't recall his name at the moment.  I probably have it mention in the claimant section.  It wasn't  the fellow  Tammet  being mention here. Although Temmet claimed to have had some kind of blood disorder.

Remember,  I'm not around any books so this is all off the top of my very tired head.

AGRBear

Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Elisabeth on November 04, 2006, 12:14:29 PM
Aaaargh, what difference does it make if the blood disorder was hemophilia or something slightly different but closely related to hemophilia? The fact is that all the male descendants of Victoria who suffered from this ailment died at an unusually young age, of injuries closely related to their blood disorder. And Alexei, according to every contemporary eyewitness (including his own parents, in their diary accounts) was extremely frail due to this disorder during his last months on this earth - to the point that it was considered nothing short of a miracle when he could stand on his own two feet for a few seconds. (But his father had to carry him to the murder chamber nonetheless.)

All this hemming and hawing about what specific blood disorder Alexei suffered from is beside the point. Whatever it was - and his entire symptomology points to hemophilia - it was extremely debilitating and potentially fatal. No one who saw Alexei during his last months thought he had much time left to live. He's described as tall, paper-thin to the point of translucency, fragile, exhausted, depressed, for the most part uninterested in his surroundings... In short, someone who had already faced death at close quarters and was likely to face it again in the very near future. Even without the bullets of the Bolsheviks, he hadn't much time left to live.
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Tania+ on November 04, 2006, 12:15:47 PM
Lexi4,

I have to agree with you on this point, as well that it did not necessarily mean he had this major disease.
I think there needs to be found actual records of his medical history. I dont think that all records have been destroyed.
The Kremlin holds many secrets, and I am sure that this record lives somewhere. Now, whether it is wished to be brought
to light is another thing entirely, but I'm sure it exists. But perhaps next best solution is finding a list of blood diseases which
are similar to hemophilia that can be gone over.

Tatiana+
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: J_Kendrick on November 04, 2006, 12:43:53 PM

I have only told you that Buckingham Palace had sent Tammet a thank you telegram.. which it did... and that the Palace had addressed that same telegram with the name and title of "Alexei Nicolaievich"... which it had also done.  This is entirely factual documented evidence.


No, Mr. Kendrick.  You have not "only told" us that a telegram was sent and that it was addressed to Alexei Nicolaievich.

In a post on November 2, you wrote:

The text of a single sentence thank you telegram that says his message "has given us great pleasure" isn't going to tell you a great deal.  Again, it is the Russian name and Imperial Title that was used by the Palace to address the intended recipient that is the ONLY issue here.

Then today you wrote:

"The fact that a telegram sent by the Palace is actually addressed to "Alexei Nicolaievich"... 55 years after his disappearance... is the key issue that the Palace still needs to explain -- not what the telegram says."

You are not just presenting evidence here.  You are telling us what part of that evidence is probative and what part of it is not.  You are telling us what needs explaining and what does not.  You are trying to impose your judgment of the evidence on the reader.

And your pretense that you are an unbiased observer and neutral reporter of Tammet's claim is so patently ridiculous as to be insulting.


Learn a little something about what does and does not make something newsworthy.

The content of the telegram in question does not make it newsworthy.  The Palace does not need to explain anything about the wording of the telegram.

The Palace does have to explain why their telegram was addressed to "Alexei Nicolaievich" -- 55 years after his disappearance in Ekaterinburg.  That is what makes the telegram newsworthy.  Not its content.

Your argument is nothing more than a weak attempt to avoid this fact.
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: grandduchessella on November 04, 2006, 12:47:59 PM
Some time ago,  there was a good discussion about Alexis diagnosis of hempohila by the doctors. 

If I recall there was a host of blood dieases which are similar to hemophila which had been discovered since 1918.

Just because members of the family had hemophila does not mean Alexis had hemophila.

Since I can't find the thread,  perhaps someone can remember the list given.


Alexei and Hemophilia
http://forum.alexanderpalace.org/index.php/topic,1196.0.html
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Elisabeth on November 04, 2006, 12:49:44 PM
Learn a little something about what does and does not make something newsworthy.

The content of the telegram in question does not make it newsworthy.  The Palace does not need to explain anything about the wording of the telegram.

The Palace does have to explain why their telegram was addressed to "Alexei Nicolaievich" -- 55 years after his disappearance in Ekaterinburg.  That is what makes the telegram newsworthy.  Not its content.

Your argument is nothing more than a weak attempt to avoid this fact.

And might I presume to suggest, Mr. Kendrick, that your argument is a weak attempt to avoid the fact that "Alexei Nikolaevich" has always been a very common name in Russia. It's the equivalent in English of addressing someone as James, the son of Michael (I'm choosing these names because "James" and "Michael" are as common in English usage as "Alexei" and "Nikolai" are in Russian usage). In other words, there would be thousands, no doubt even tens of thousands of Russian men answering to this same name and patronymic. In other words, I would suggest that the Palace was simply being extraordinarily polite in assuming that this particular Alexei Nikolaevich was one of thousands tendering his best wishes to the Windsor dynasty. And no more than that.
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: J_Kendrick on November 04, 2006, 12:53:25 PM

As for any claimants having hemophilia,  I think there was one  but I don't recall his name at the moment.  I probably have it mention in the claimant section.  It wasn't  the fellow  Tammet  being mention here. Although Temmet claimed to have had some kind of blood disorder.

Remember,  I'm not around any books so this is all off the top of my very tired head.

AGRBear


Tammet did not claim to have any kind of blood disorder. 

Tammet is, however, the only claimant actually to have been treated in hospital by a hematologist. 
Tammet is the only claimant who actually did die of a blood disorder.
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: J_Kendrick on November 04, 2006, 12:58:49 PM
Learn a little something about what does and does not make something newsworthy.

The content of the telegram in question does not make it newsworthy.  The Palace does not need to explain anything about the wording of the telegram.

The Palace does have to explain why their telegram was addressed to "Alexei Nicolaievich" -- 55 years after his disappearance in Ekaterinburg.  That is what makes the telegram newsworthy.  Not its content.

Your argument is nothing more than a weak attempt to avoid this fact.

And might I presume to suggest, Mr. Kendrick, that your argument is a weak attempt to avoid the fact that "Alexei Nikolaevich" has always been a very common name in Russia. It's the equivalent in English of addressing someone as James, the son of Michael (I'm choosing these names because "James" and "Michael" are as common in English usage as "Alexei" and "Nikolai" are in Russian usage). In other words, there would be thousands, perhaps even tens of thousands of Russian men answering to this same name and patronymic. In other words, I would suggest that the Palace was simply being extraordinarily polite in assuming that this particular Alexei Nikolaevich was one of thousands tendering his best wishes to the Windsor dynasty. And no more than that.


Give it up.  There is only one "Alexei Nicolaievich, Sovereign Heir, Tsarevich, Grand Duke of Russia."

Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Elisabeth on November 04, 2006, 01:08:00 PM
Learn a little something about what does and does not make something newsworthy.

The content of the telegram in question does not make it newsworthy.  The Palace does not need to explain anything about the wording of the telegram.

The Palace does have to explain why their telegram was addressed to "Alexei Nicolaievich" -- 55 years after his disappearance in Ekaterinburg.  That is what makes the telegram newsworthy.  Not its content.

Your argument is nothing more than a weak attempt to avoid this fact.

And might I presume to suggest, Mr. Kendrick, that your argument is a weak attempt to avoid the fact that "Alexei Nikolaevich" has always been a very common name in Russia. It's the equivalent in English of addressing someone as James, the son of Michael (I'm choosing these names because "James" and "Michael" are as common in English usage as "Alexei" and "Nikolai" are in Russian usage). In other words, there would be thousands, perhaps even tens of thousands of Russian men answering to this same name and patronymic. In other words, I would suggest that the Palace was simply being extraordinarily polite in assuming that this particular Alexei Nikolaevich was one of thousands tendering his best wishes to the Windsor dynasty. And no more than that.


Give it up.  There is only one "Alexei Nicolaievich, Sovereign Heir, Tsarevich, Grand Duke of Russia."



No, you're wrong, so sorry to point this out, but there are probably thousands of Alexei Nikolaevichs living and breathing in Russia today, none of them even remotely related to the last tsarevich of Russia. Just as there are no doubt hundreds, if not thousands, of Anastasia Nikolaevna Romanovas. Anastasia is a very common name in Russia, as is Nikolaevna a very common patronymic, as is Romanov a very common surname. All of which you should know very well as a member of your purported profession... But I have to say, Mr. Kendrick, you are demonstrating an astonishing lack of familiarity with Russian culture for someone who claims to be a professional journalist.
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Tsarfan on November 04, 2006, 01:28:07 PM

The Palace does have to explain why their telegram was addressed to "Alexei Nicolaievich" -- 55 years after his disappearance in Ekaterinburg.  That is what makes the telegram newsworthy.  Not its content.


What's there for the Palace to explain?

According to your post of October 31, the telegram was addressed to:  "Alexei Nicolaievich, Czarevich, Grand Duke of Russia... Burnaby, British Columbia".

In that same post, you said "Princess Anne and Capt. Mark Phillips themselves [my emphasis]" sent the reply, which you said was "signed by Anne and Mark".

So . . . what's left for the Palace to explain?  Obviously Princess Anne was sending a telegram to a man she knew to be the son of Nicholas II.

There are no the other possiblities.  The telegram was not signed by an autopen or some other means of reproduction.  The telegram was not addressed simply by copying an address off an incoming telegram without any thought to the veracity of the title.  Princess Anne clearly took time between her wedding on the 14th and her departure for her honeymoon on the morning of the 15th to send Alexei a personal response -- even though it was no more than a generic one-line thank you.  Of course, you convincingly explained that brevity earlier by pointing out that telegrams are charged by the line.  (The Britannia was going to consume a lot of fuel on the honeymoon.  A princess has to cut her costs where she can.)

Clearly the address on that envelope signified the acknowledgement by the House of Windsor that the son of Nicholas II was alive and living in the Commonwealth.

Not.
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Annie on November 04, 2006, 01:38:24 PM
It could also be entirely possible that whomever sent the telegrams back had no idea who the person was, or even bothered to ask. It was likely some secretary and not even a royal anyway.

In real life, people send out thank you's to wedding and graduation gifts all the time when they don't even know for sure who the person really is. For example, I recently attended a wedding of the daughter of a cousin I had been only minimally close to growing up, and the daughter had never seen me or knew who I was. At the wedding, she greeted me with 'hi thanks for coming' without mentioning my name or getting personal. When I got my thank you note, it was kind but rather generic, with my name in the greeting. When writing a large number of such notes, people often go through them from a name on a list and don't really even know for sure who they are, they just insert a new name- and sometimes mention the particular gift. I would imagine for a royal wedding the amount of guests was so large quite a few canned or generic messages were sent out by someone who had no knowledge of the sender other than a name on a piece of paper. I don't think it means anything in favor of the claimant at all.
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: AGRBear on November 04, 2006, 03:03:08 PM
When  I checked  this thread:

http://forum.alexanderpalace.org/index.php/topic,1196.0.html

it was not the one  in which we had a long list of  possible blood disorders that were/ are similar to hemophilia.  So,  there is another thread floating around and that's the one I can't find.

I repeat,  just because members of the same family have the same kind of blood disorder  does not mean everyone has the same blood disorder, Alexis may have suffered from something entirely different.

What difference does it make as to which blood disorder Alexis suffered?   I had hoped all of us are interested in keeping all the facts correct.

Kendrick is incorrect when saying Tammet is the only Alexis claimant who claimed to have a blood disorder. 

AGRBear quote from List of Claimants:
>>Alexei Claimant in Iraq
p. 193 File of the Tsar, Mangold and Summers
Aparently Cecil  Edmonds bumped into someone who claimed he was Alexei who was serving in northern Iraq in 1926.  The man did have haemophilia.  Edmonds referred the case to King George V but the king rejected the possibility.
No farther evidence given.
AGRBear
PS  Cecil Edmonds was CBE, a former political officer with the old Colonial Office.
PSS  Evidently the British Director of the CID questions this boy who didn't change his story.  He was tested and did have hemophilia. <<

AGRBear
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Tsarfan on November 04, 2006, 03:39:57 PM

What difference does it make as to which blood disorder Alexis suffered?   I had hoped all of us are interested in keeping all the facts correct.


Except for one journalist in Vancouver who is trying to drum up suppport for the claim of Heino Tammet, no one is advancing a serious argument that Alexei did not have hemophilia.  His family, his doctors, his symptoms, and every serious historian unanimously agree that he did.

If one rogue claim driven by a personal agenda is a reason to try to revisit a widespread historical consensus, shouldn't the energy be devoted to claims of more serious consequence?

Here's one:  I don't think Franklin Roosevelt really had polio.  I think he was off his game at Yalta because he had been drugged by the Bolshies.  There are a lot of reasons a person can be in braces and a wheelchair.  There was no means of proving the presence of the polio virus when he was stricken, and the symptoms should not be viewed as persuasive.  Maybe he was trying to cover up a car accident he had while driving drunk.  An aspiring politician would be highly motivated to do so.

There.  Someone has asserted a claim that Roosevelt had some other ailment similar to polio but that wasn't really polio.  Let's all now begin the hunt for the truth.  These things must be chased to ground.
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Louis_Charles on November 04, 2006, 03:40:04 PM
Mr. Kendrick:

Since you now claim that the address is the important element here, I have a suggestion. Do what I have done. Write a letter to Buckingham Palace and use the title Czarevitch Alexei Nicholaevitch as the name on the return address. See if you get a response. My own theory is that some Bert 'n Fred in the royal mailroom will look at each other and shrug, and send it out --- on the theory that they have another live one on their hands. Olga Alexandrovna used to say that she was constantly being attacked by Anastasias in public places, and this strikes me as the same kind of thing.

All kidding aside, this isn't history. But it really isn't journalism, either. If it were, would you not have verified this sort of thing with Buckingham Palace? In terms of your involvement with this case as a journalist, do you have an editor?

As for whether Alexei had hemophilia or not, I suggest that we take the diagnosis offered at the time to his parents at face value, since all of his symptoms seem to jibe with it. Alexei's symptoms, not Tammets. Your arguments go in reverse order. Tammet didn't have hemophilia, therefore Alexei didn't. Nuh-uh. Moreover, the diagnosis of hemophilia was consistent across Victoria's descendants, making it virtually certain that Alexei had it as well. He was being treated for it in 1912, not 1812, and the disease was well documented by then.

Did Tammet's purported family contain other blood diseases? Did you investigate his background to discover this? Did Mr. Tammet offer a reason why he broke 54 years of being in some kind of Romanov Witness Protection Program just to send Anne and Mark a telegram? Was he fixated upon royal weddings? Was he fixated upon Anne? (I know, but weirder things have happened --- she has a certain charm, swatting away attempted kidnapers and such).

It's a tease.







Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Louis_Charles on November 04, 2006, 03:43:40 PM
Not so fast, Tsarfan. What about my claim to be a Grand Duke? My insane proposal has precedence over yours.

Besides, everyone knows that it was actually Eleanor in drag who ruled the country by 1945. The real FDR was killed by Cubans and Mafioso in 1934, and she took over. That was the reason they were never photographed together. When the disguise was penetrated by Stalin's agents, they faked FDR's death at Warm Springs, and Eleanor released control to Harry S Truman . . . but not before she had drugged him into support for the United Nations.

Oh . . . and Eleanor Roosevelt was actually Grand Duchess Olga.

Okay, discuss.

This is a tease.

Or . . . is it?   :o
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: AGRBear on November 04, 2006, 04:01:35 PM
I believe Roosevelt's medical records can be found.

Alexis medical records can not be found.

Please,  someone,  tell us where we can find actual documents stating that Alexis did have hemophilia.

Was the word "hemophia" ever used in Tsarina Alexandra's daries or letters to her famly?

Did NicholasII ever use the word "hemophilia"  and connect it with his son, Alexis?

Did Queen Victoria use the word "hemophilia" in correspondence to family or anyone?

Someone mentioned "hemophilia" or else this subject would hever have become known to us?   

Was it one of the Romanov doctors who wrote about it to another doctor? 

Does anyone remember the newspaper article which talks about Aleix having hemophilia and the date?

AGRBear

Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Bev on November 04, 2006, 05:31:56 PM
This is argument by inversion  - no one has made the claim that Alexei had hemophilia, the fact is that he had hemophilia.  The claim is that the fact is incorrect, and the burden of proof is on the person making the claim.  If you want to claim that he did not have hemophilia, then it is up to you to prove that he had no disorder or another disorder.

Medical records aren't necessary to support the fact that he had hemophilia.  The symptoms (as Eliz pointed out) are such that the likelihood that it was another disorder is impossible.  A diagnosis is both inclusive and exclusive and arrived at by inductive reasoning, not deductive reasoning. (Because diagnoses are arrrived at by repeated experience.)  It isn't necessary to eliminate all other diseases to make a diagnosis.  (And medicine is one of the few philosophies that are dependent on inductive reasoning - if you see something often enough, you'll recognize it when you see it.)  It wouldn't matter if the family called it Alexei's purple Joe Pye weed, or never mentioned it at all, it is still hemophilia.

(It's the old gem of an argument, "which came first, the chicken or the egg?"  The chicken, because the chicken is a known entity, and the egg is not.)
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Belochka on November 04, 2006, 07:38:26 PM

There is only one "Alexei Nicolaievich, Sovereign Heir, Tsarevich, Grand Duke of Russia."

Your pretender, the Estonian-Canadian may have selected the title "Alexei Nicolaievich, Sovereign Heir, Tsarevich, Grand Duke of Russia"

Alexei was:

Его Императорское Высочество Наследник Цесаревич и Великий Князь Алексей Николаевич

Margarita
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Belochka on November 04, 2006, 07:53:08 PM

The fact that a telegram sent by the Palace is actually addressed to "Alexei Nicolaievich"... 55 years after his disappearance... is the key issue that the Palace still needs to explain -- not what the telegram says.

jk

It is you who prefers to dismiss how those palace responses are manufactured.  The "key" has turned but it is you who have failed to see what is in front of you.

As I have pointed out to you, Tammet's incorrect self designation has revealed his deception. Everything else becomes meaningless.

Margarita

But the world will not stop turning on a simple question of semantics.

jk

The correct usage is indeed critical to this case. Tammet got it wrong from the very beginning and that was his failing. Whatever you as a balanced journalist may choose to write, you have failed to understand the correct Russian terminology.

No matter how you prefer to twist your web of intrigue, you are the only one caught in that web.

Margarita
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Tsarfan on November 04, 2006, 07:56:25 PM
The average age at death for hemophilia sufferers is as follows:

Before WWII (no treatment available) - 11 years
WWII - 1968 (when whole blood or plasma transfusions became available) - 20 years
1968 - 1972 (when cryoprecipitate plasma became available) - < 40 years
1972 - 1992 (when plasma-derived factor became available) - 64 years
1992 onward (when recombinant DNA made mass production of clotting factors feasible) - normal life span.

The average age at death for Victoria's known hemophiliac descendents was 22.  (Remember, these were the most coddled people with the best medical care in Europe.)  There were several other descendents who died very young before the disease had been diagnosed.  If any of them had hemophilia, the average age of death would drop significantly.

With the exception of Waldemar of Germany who died at age 57, none of her hemophiliac descendents lived beyond his early 30's.

Even had there been no firing squad, Alexei -- already crippled and in critically frail health by mid-1918 -- had virtually no chance of sticking around to send telegrams from Canada in the 1970's.  Not only would he have had to escape the firing squad, to recover his health, and to have his deformed joints miraculously heal . . . he would have had to be the longest-lived of all Victoria's hemophiliac progeny by over a decade.

Even with an undescended testicle, this hurdle is too high for Heino to clear.
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Louis_Charles on November 04, 2006, 07:59:33 PM
He lived . . . for Anne.
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: grandduchessella on November 04, 2006, 08:03:16 PM
When  I checked  this thread:

http://forum.alexanderpalace.org/index.php/topic,1196.0.html

it was not the one  in which we had a long list of  possible blood disorders that were/ are similar to hemophilia.  So,  there is another thread floating around and that's the one I can't find.



In it, the first post says:

"Would like to refer all members to an excellent article in The American Journal of Hematology 77:92-102 (2004) by John M. L. Kendrick called Historical Perspective.  Russia's Imperial Blood:  Was Rasputin Not the Healer of Legend?"

Is this the same J Kendrick that is in this current thread?

It lists some possibilities:

Christmas' Disease
hemolytic anemia
Hemiparesis
Thrombocytopenia

There was also this thread:

http://forum.alexanderpalace.org/index.php/topic,2458.270.html

Mr J Kendrick comes up there as well.
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Louis_Charles on November 04, 2006, 08:08:26 PM
I believe it is. ::cues ominous background music::
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Annie on November 04, 2006, 08:43:39 PM
The average age at death for hemophilia sufferers is as follows:

Before WWII (no treatment available) - 11 years
WWII - 1968 (when whole blood or plasma transfusions became available) - 20 years
1968 - 1972 (when cryoprecipitate plasma became available) - < 40 years
1972 - 1992 (when plasma-derived factor became available) - 64 years
1992 onward (when recombinant DNA made mass production of clotting factors feasible) - normal life span.

It's a sad thing to mention, but with the AIDS virus in blood and blood products in the 1980's before testing was done, didn't many hemophiliacs die, (like Ryan White) and wouldn't that cut the life expectancy stats? :(
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Belochka on November 04, 2006, 09:01:25 PM

(It's the old gem of an argument, "which came first, the chicken or the egg?"  The chicken, because the chicken is a known entity, and the egg is not.)

 ???
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Tsarfan on November 04, 2006, 10:09:24 PM

It lists some possibilities:

Christmas' Disease
hemolytic anemia
Hemiparesis
Thrombocytopenia


Chistmas' Disease is the archaic name for Type B (IX Factor Deficiency) hemophilia.  It is not a separate disease.

There's a reason J. Kendrick's name comes up repeatedly in these various sources.  He's about the only one seriously pushing the notion that Alexei did not have hemophilia.  And he's a journalist, not a medical professional.
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Belochka on November 04, 2006, 10:21:43 PM

It lists some possibilities:

Christmas' Disease
hemolytic anemia
Hemiparesis
Thrombocytopenia


Chistmas' Disease is the archaic name for Type B (IX Factor Deficiency) hemophilia.  It is not a separate disease.

There's a reason J. Kendrick's name comes up repeatedly in these various sources.  He's about the only one seriously pushing the notion that Alexei did not have hemophilia.  And he's a journalist, not a medical professional.

As a medical professional this is one reason why I find his "explanations" so amusing.

As a person of Russian ethnicity I find his presumptions highly offensive and disrespectful to the memory of the late Tsesarevich.

Margarita
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: AGRBear on November 05, 2006, 09:11:07 AM
...in part....

Alexis medical records can not be found.

Please,  someone,  tell us where we can find actual documents stating that Alexis did have hemophilia.

Was the word "hemophilia" ever used in Tsarina Alexandra's daries or letters to her famly?

Did NicholasII ever use the word "hemophilia"  and connect it with his son, Alexis?

Did Queen Victoria use the word "hemophilia" in correspondence to family or anyone?

Someone mentioned "hemophilia" or else this subject would hever have become known to us?   

Was it one of the Romanov doctors who wrote about it to another doctor? 

Does anyone remember the newspaper article which talks about Aleix having hemophilia and the date?

AGRBear



Someone must have an answer to atleast one of my questions.

At this time, most of us believe Alexis had hemophilia so who told the public for the first time?   He/ she/ they must have been believed or we wouldn't be having this conversation, now.  I do hope we're not victims of rumors that have been repeated so many times they are, now, believed as being true.

AGRBear
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: AGRBear on November 05, 2006, 09:17:57 AM
When  I checked  this thread:

http://forum.alexanderpalace.org/index.php/topic,1196.0.html

it was not the one  in which we had a long list of  possible blood disorders that were/ are similar to hemophilia.  So,  there is another thread floating around and that's the one I can't find.



In it, the first post says:

"Would like to refer all members to an excellent article in The American Journal of Hematology 77:92-102 (2004) by John M. L. Kendrick called Historical Perspective.  Russia's Imperial Blood:  Was Rasputin Not the Healer of Legend?"

Is this the same J Kendrick that is in this current thread?

It lists some possibilities:

Christmas' Disease
hemolytic anemia
Hemiparesis
Thrombocytopenia

There was also this thread:

http://forum.alexanderpalace.org/index.php/topic,2458.270.html

Mr J Kendrick comes up there as well.

Thanks grandduchessella.

AGRBear
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: AGRBear on November 05, 2006, 09:24:52 AM

As far as I know the disease was never mentioned in the family.
Queen Victoria used to say : "This disease does not exist in our family".

But in the letters Princess Alice of Hesse wrote to her mother she mentiones the suffering of her little Frittie - his bleedings and behaviour during these days...
It seems that it was a secret which everybody knew but nobody talked about it.
I read that Nikolaus II said the word "hemophilia" only once - when he was informed by the doctors after Alexej's first bleeding in 1904. Also Ernst Ludwig left no single word about the illness - neither in addition to his own brother, nor in Alexej's. He wrote " soon it became clear that the boy was ill.." But THE WORD never appears.

Who were the doctors invovled?

AGRBear
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: AGRBear on November 05, 2006, 09:56:36 AM
Dr. Dervenki was Gillard's source according to the following post by lexi4:

here are some references I found.
 
"I had a long talk with Dr. Derevenki. He told me that the Heir was prey to haemophilia, a hereditary disease which in  certain families is transmitted from generation to generation by the women to their male chilrdern. Only males are affected. He told me that the slightest wound might cause the boy's death, for the blood of a bleeder had not the power of coagulating like that of a normal individual. Futher, the tissue of the arteries and veins is so frail that ane blow or shock may rupture the blood-vessel and bring on a fatial haemmorrhage."
Gillard: "Thirteen years at the Russian Court." pp. 37 & 38.
 
 
"The Czarevitch was in the schoolroom standing on a chair, when he slipped, and in falling hit his right knee against the corner of some piece of furniture. The next day he could not walk. On the day after the subcutaneous haemmorage had progressed, and the swelling which had formed below the knee rapidly spread down the elg. The skin, which wa greatly distended, had hardened under the force of the extravasated blood, which pressed on the nerves of the leg and thus caused shooting pains, which grew worse every hour.
".....Dr. Derevenko was anxious, as the haemorrhage had not been stopped and his temperature was rising. The inflammation had spread further and the pain was even worse than the day before." Golliard page 43.
 
 
"....As we were going on board the Czarevitch jumped at the wrong moment, and hs ankle caught the bottom of the ladder leading to the deck. At first I though this accident would have no ill effects, but towards the evening the boy began to be in pain and his suffering rapidly increased. Everything pointed to a serious crisis. Gilliard p. 97.
 
I'm sure those aren't all of Gilliard's references, but are some of the highlights. He does describe some syptoms. Will post more as I find more.

Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: AGRBear on November 05, 2006, 10:06:06 AM
Found this and thought it  interesting, too.


Quote

NY Times Oct 23, 1912:
"The Czarowitch Alexis is lying rather seriously ill at the imperial hunting lodge of Spala, Russian Poland as the result of an accident on Oct. 15".

October 15 new style is October 2 old style... the date of Alexei's carriage ride.  Occurring October 15 N/S and reported in New York on October 23 N/S... a delay of eight days.

NY Times Oct 25, 1912:
"His Imperial Highness is now suffering from peritonitis.  It is impossible to ascertain the real cause of his illness."

When I ran across a whole series of articles on the crisis at Spala a few years ago while looking up sources on Alexei Nikolaevich, I did realize that Spala was located in an isolated area in Poland, and that at first the usual hesitation to have much about their son revealed would have been typical of the Imperial parents.  When the news filtered out of this rustic royal vacation retreat, a lot of rumors as to the cause of the boy's apparent injuries flew.  He had been said to have been shot and wounded on the Standart, to have been maimed by an anarchist's bombs, to have jumped off a high cupboard, and to have fallen off a horse.  There was not anything about the boy's illness flying about in the press in the wake of the Spala incident until the effort to deny that the boy had hemophilia was started by that official court bulletin composed by Count Fredericks.

Quote
October 25 new style is October 12 old style, and here the NY Times is reporting peritonitis when we now know that Alexei was already two days into his recovery after the fever had broken on October 10 O/S.. October 23rd N/S ... showing us again how much of a delay there was between the date of the actual events and the transmission of the story to New York
 
NY Times Oct. 26, 1912:
"The secrecy with respect to the injuries from which the Crown Prince is suffering has bred a crop of sensational rumors."

.. and it still is a sensational rumour to this very day.

As the articles written in the New York Times and in the London Times show, the wildest rumors were NOT about Alexei's illness, but about the cause of the incident.


Quote
NY Times Nov 9, 1912:
"The medical publication Hospital commenting on the recent pronouncement of the Czar's physicians that the Czarevich has hemophilia says the malady was frequently observed by scientists among European Royal families in the early and middle ages"

We've all seen the "recent pronouncement of the Czar's physicians" that the New York Times was referring to in its report of Nov 9, 1912.  It's the very same pronouncement that was issued by the Minister of the Imperial Court Baron Fredericks just six days before that New York Times report... on October 21 of 1912 O/S.. November 3 N/S... that carries the names of the four doctors Raukhfus, Federov, Botkin, and Ostrogorsky...

...and we all know that the "pronouncement of the Czar's physicians" most definitely does *NOT* use the word "haemophilia".  However, it does use the words "significant anemia" which is not the same thing.  (For our readers who have a hardback copy of "A Lifelong Passion" handy, the "pronouncement" that the New York Times was reporting can be found in the chapter on the year 1912 on pages 359 and 360.)

...

continued next post
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: AGRBear on November 05, 2006, 10:07:42 AM
(continued from post above)

Quote

.....

Put yourself in the shoes of the Marshal of the Russian Court at this time.  The young Tsarevich had elicited the sympathy of the entire nation and there had apparently been 'a pronouncement of the Czar's physicians' that the boy had hemophilia.  The state secret had been leaked!  How to deny this and quell this news?  He had to write a bulletin in order to convince the Russian people that the boy would be all right, and had to hedge around the child's illness.  That 'significant anemia' he mentions?  He explained that it resulted from an 'abdominal haemorrhage....' that,  'as can be seen from  the specialist literature....' took 'a very specific and extremely severe clinical form.'

That form according to the fragment of Alexei's medical record that actually did come from his doctors, was that of a haematoma retroperitonale -- that manifested itself in bleeding into the hip joint, inflammation of the OUTER peritoneum, flexing of the knee joint and the high fever due to the 'absorption of excess blood...' and 'the reactive inflammatory process'.

Quote
I could go to great length to explain to how the fledgling News Wire Services operated in the early days of the past century, many long decades before the advent of satellites and the internet... tell you in detail how news stories are edited in bunches as they move from one major news bureau to the next and are sent to the customer newspapers at regularly scheduled intervals every day.  I could also explain how newspaper stories are written and edited to attract the readers' attention while at the same time maintaining brevity for reasons of limited space on the page...

In 1912?  Maybe the delay can be explained because of the remote location, the reluctance of Nicholas and Alexandra to reveal too much until Alexei Nikolaevich's condition became too grave not to say something, and the necessity to translate from the Russian or the German.



Quote
... but you'll doubtless go to great efforts to try shooting that down too... so I won't bother.

JK

Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: AGRBear on November 05, 2006, 10:32:55 AM
More descriptions of bleeding by Alexis:

Bear,
I found a couple of other passages in Gillard's book I thought you might like to read.

Autumn, 1913
"One morning I found the mother at her son's bedside. He had had a very bad night. Dr. Derevenko was anxious, as the haemorrhage had not been stopped and his temperature was rising. The inflammation had spread further and the pain was even worse than the day before. The Czarevitch lay in bed groaning piteously. His head rested on his mother's arm and his small, deathly white face was unrecogfnisable. At times, the groans ceased and he murmured one word "Mummy!" in which he expressed all his suffering and distress. His mother kissed him on the hair, forehead and eyes as if the touch of her lips could have relieved his pain and restored some of the life which was leaving him. Think of the tortures of that mother, an importent witness of her son's martydom in those hours of mortal anguish - a mother who knoew that she herself was the cause of his sufferings, that she had transmitted to him the terrible disease against which human science was powerless!A Now I understand the secret tragedy of her life! How easy it was to reconstruct the stages of that long Calvary." p. 43


April 12, 1917 "Alexis Nicolaevitch confined to bed, as since yesterday he has had a violent pain in the groin caused by a strain. He has been so well this winter. It is to be hoped it is nothing serious." P.258


April 15, 1917 "Alexis Nicolaevitch in great pain yesterday and today. It is one of his severe attacks of haemophilia."
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Tsarfan on November 05, 2006, 10:42:55 AM
Bear, this is starting to sound like an awfully familiar reprise of your act on other threads:

"I don't believe Anna Anderson was Anastasia, mind you . . . but let's all revisit every single assertion ever made by anyone to uncover error and conspiracy in reports of the massacre."

Now it's:

"I don't believe Heino was Alexei, mind you . . . but let's revisit every single assertion ever made by anyone to uncover error and conspiracy in reports of Alexei's illness."

Are we about to be regaled with pages and pages of repetitive quotes from other posts?  Is there going to be mystery and dark motive read into every report of Alexei's condition?  Is there going to be error or misunderstanding laid at the door of every medical diagnosis from the turn of the 20th century?  Are the vagaries of getting a story to press in 1912 going to be the subject of endless analysis in search of lies or typos?

Is there any settled judgment of history in which you do not see vast error or conspiracy?  Are you really that bored?
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: J_Kendrick on November 05, 2006, 11:05:09 AM
More descriptions of bleeding by Alexis:

Bear,
I found a couple of other passages in Gillard's book I thought you might like to read.

Autumn, 1913
"One morning I found the mother at her son's bedside. He had had a very bad night. Dr. Derevenko was anxious, as the haemorrhage had not been stopped and his temperature was rising.


Since some of you have insisted on opening this hornet's nest yet again..

The fever and rising temperature are NOT a symptom of the bleeding and/or haemorrhage that may be caused by the clotting factor deficiency of hemophilia.

The fever and rising temperature are a symptom of the bleeding and/or haemorrhage that may be caused by the platelet dysfunction that will be found in hemolytic or aplastic anemias.

and... Yes. there are other blood diseases in this category that can be aquired by X-linked inheritance.

Haemophilia is NOT the only haemorrhagic blood disorder on the planet, folks.

... and now we wait for Belochka's inevitable response...

Deja vu... anyone?

 
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: grandduchessella on November 05, 2006, 12:11:21 PM
Let's stay on topic. I only mentioned the illnesses listed in the post as a response to a question and posted the link so that people could go over there if they wanted to continue that particular avenue of discussion. 
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Annie on November 05, 2006, 12:34:10 PM
Bear, this is starting to sound like an awfully familiar reprise of your act on other threads:

"I don't believe Anna Anderson was Anastasia, mind you . . . but let's all revisit every single assertion ever made by anyone to uncover error and conspiracy in reports of the massacre."

Now it's:

"I don't believe Heino was Alexei, mind you . . . but let's revisit every single assertion ever made by anyone to uncover error and conspiracy in reports of Alexei's illness."

Are we about to be regaled with pages and pages of repetitive quotes from other posts?  Is there going to be mystery and dark motive read into every report of Alexei's condition?  Is there going to be error or misunderstanding laid at the door of every medical diagnosis from the turn of the 20th century?  Are the vagaries of getting a story to press in 1912 going to be the subject of endless analysis in search of lies or typos?

Is there any settled judgment of history in which you do not see vast error or conspiracy?  Are you really that bored?

(http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c274/avarbelethien/Smilies/bow.gif)(http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c274/avarbelethien/Smilies/bow.gif)(http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c274/avarbelethien/Smilies/bow.gif)

Sigh, thank you for expressing so eloquently what many of us have felt for some time now.


and on the diseases, I really think the family knew what disease he had, after all it ran in the family, and was referred to as 'the English disease' by European society. Some of the Spanish princes also suffered from the disease, through their mother, Ena, daughter of Princess Beatrice, youngest child of Queen Victoria. So it makes sense to me that if all those other boys in the same family got hemophilia thorugh the female line from Victoria, and Alexei was of that gene pool too, and his disease was the same, if it walks like a duck, why think anything else? Only because of a claimant?
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: lexi4 on November 05, 2006, 12:41:27 PM
Let's stay on topic. I only mentioned the illnesses listed in the post as a response to a question and posted the link so that people could go over there if they wanted to continue that particular avenue of discussion. 

I respect your request to stay on topic. Although I have to admit when I first read this, I couldn't recall what the actual topic was  ;)
If there is interest in this topic, and there is on my part at least, perhaps we could move it to another thread? That way those of you who are not interested in this dicussion and just ignore those of us who are. :)
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Tsarfan on November 05, 2006, 12:42:48 PM
There seems to be a misunderstanding about the definition of the term "hemophilia".  It is really a generic reference to a failure of the body's blood coagulation mechanism.  That mechanism consists of 14 sequential steps, each of which requires a specific protein (or "factor").  When any one of those steps fail, the condition is known as "hemophilia".

The two most common forms of hemophilia are the asbence of either the eigth factor (Hemophilia A) or the ninth factor (Hemophilia B, also known as Christmas Disease).  But any disorder of the blood clotting mechanism is properly called "hemophilia".

So what's the point in this building debate about what the proper name was for Alexei's disease?  Mild to serious wounds resulted in uncontrolled, life-threatening bleeding.  The cumulative effects of those attacks had left him crippled and critically frail by mid-1918.

Alexei did not send anyone any telegrams from Canada in 1972 or 1973.
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: lexi4 on November 05, 2006, 12:59:10 PM
There seems to be a misunderstanding about the definition of the term "hemophilia".  It is really a generic reference to a failure of the body's blood coagulation mechanism.  That mechanism consists of 14 sequential steps, each of which requires a specific protein (or "factor").  When any one of those steps fail, the condition is known as "hemophilia".

The two most common forms of hemophilia are the asbence of either the eigth factor (Hemophilia A) or the ninth factor (Hemophilia B, also known as Christmas Disease).  But any disorder of the blood clotting mechanism is properly called "hemophilia".

So what's the point in this building debate about what the proper name was for Alexei's disease?  Mild to serious wounds resulted in uncontrolled, life-threatening bleeding.  The cumulative effects of those attacks had left him crippled and critically frail by mid-1918.

Alexei did not send anyone any telegrams from Canada in 1972 or 1973.

Tsarfan,
I think this topic is moving to another thread about hemophilia. You might want to repost this there.  ;)
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Tsarfan on November 05, 2006, 01:06:09 PM
Nah . . . I just want to get off this diversion about hemophilia and back to the more interesting discussion about how bizarre claims of survival always manage to find an audience.

Moving the hemophilia discussion to another thread is a good idea, though.  Thanks.
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Forum Admin on November 05, 2006, 01:14:25 PM
(http://www.alexanderpalace.org/palace/img/alexeinyt.jpg)
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Louis_Charles on November 05, 2006, 01:30:52 PM
Well, bizarre claims of survival always seem to find Bear, anyway.

I am kind of curious (famous last words) about the mentality that drives this kind of thing. I exempt Anna Andersen from this category, even though I don't believe she was Anastasia, because whoever she was, she had an act going that lasted 60 years, and I think that has to be taken seriously as a successful phenomenon.

But what strikes me as odd is the idea that any candidate who surfaced during the 20th century will find some supporters. Indeed, any fake royal from Perkin Warbeck to Naundorff to Michael Goleniewski (even more improbable than Tammet) has had people willing to stake their lives and reputations upon the truth of their claims, in the face of overwhelmingly convincing evidence to the contrary. What drives this?

I'll throw out the first suggestion:

(1) Opportunism. For some of these claimants --- not all --- supporters could reasonably expect some compensation if the claim could have been upheld. Warbeck, certainly. And Naundorff was laying his claim to a going concern for at least part of his life, i.e. there was a Bourbon on the throne of France.

Anyone else?

Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Ra-Ra-Rasputin on November 05, 2006, 01:39:21 PM
Just as an aside-

We still haven't had a proper answer from Mr Kendrick as to why he believes Alexei escaped because of his missing body, and yet not Michael Romanov.

I want an answer to this question.  Why is absence of body evidence of escape in Alexei's case and not in Michael's? When Michael had more opportunity TO escape, I find this highly perplexing.

The only reason I can think of is that Mr Kendrick has found an 'Alexei' he wants to attach himself to, and not a 'Michael'.  If I found a 'Michael', would we be looking into his possible escape as well?

You can't pick and choose when it comes to this issue.  You can't accept one person with a missing body is dead and yet not another.  It doesn't make any sense and it certainly isn't responsible historical investigation.  It's choosing what you want to believe based on a personal agenda. 

Rachel
xx
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Louis_Charles on November 05, 2006, 01:40:54 PM
You have answered your own question, Rachel, and correctly.
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Ra-Ra-Rasputin on November 05, 2006, 01:47:28 PM
I like it when that happens.  ;)  Saves waiting around for an answer at any rate!

Though, I would like to hear the answer from the horse's mouth. 

Rachel
xx
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: lexi4 on November 05, 2006, 01:48:15 PM
Well, bizarre claims of survival always seem to find Bear, anyway.

I am kind of curious (famous last words) about the mentality that drives this kind of thing. I exempt Anna Andersen from this category, even though I don't believe she was Anastasia, because whoever she was, she had an act going that lasted 60 years, and I think that has to be taken seriously as a successful phenomenon.

But what strikes me as odd is the idea that any candidate who surfaced during the 20th century will find some supporters. Indeed, any fake royal from Perkin Warbeck to Naundorff to Michael Goleniewski (even more improbable than Tammet) has had people willing to stake their lives and reputations upon the truth of their claims, in the face of overwhelmingly convincing evidence to the contrary. What drives this?

I'll throw out the first suggestion:

(1) Opportunism. For some of these claimants --- not all --- supporters could reasonably expect some compensation if the claim could have been upheld. Warbeck, certainly. And Naundorff was laying his claim to a going concern for at least part of his life, i.e. there was a Bourbon on the throne of France.

Anyone else?



Louis-Charles,
Opportunism is certainly at the top of my list. But I would like to also offer another possibility for consideration.

The Hopeless Romantic. I think there will always be those who reallly want to believe that someone did survive the horrors of the execution. I think we look for heros in life, people who have survived against impossible odds. The Rising Phoenix, if you will. And I don't think that is a bad characteristic so I hope I don't come across as critical here. I think that it is part of human nature to look for a happy ending as a reason to justify suffering/cruelty etc. If one or more of the IF did survive, I think some would see that has a happy ending.
How's that?
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: grandduchessella on November 05, 2006, 02:13:33 PM
Nah . . . I just want to get off this diversion about hemophilia and back to the more interesting discussion about how bizarre claims of survival always manage to find an audience.

Moving the hemophilia discussion to another thread is a good idea, though.  Thanks.

That's what the link provided is for. If you look on the Alexei thread there is one about his hemophilia and one about what it was if it wasn't hemophilia.
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Tsarfan on November 05, 2006, 02:16:19 PM

I am kind of curious (famous last words) about the mentality that drives this kind of thing . . . .  But what strikes me as odd is the idea that any candidate who surfaced during the 20th century will find some supporters.

Anyone else?


It seems that royals have always been the most difficult people to dispose of permanently.  They have had more lives than any twenty cats you'll meet.  It's clearly not a 20th-century-only phenomenon, though. A partial list beyond the ones Louis Charles has already mentioned:


Why?  Who knows?  Perhaps a combination of greed, delusion, romantic daydreaming, and frustration with one's own drab existence.  All given the breath of royal life by an uninterrupted supply of gullible people.
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Bev on November 05, 2006, 02:47:38 PM
Excellent suggestions as to why people can be so easily deluded, not to mention gullible.  Sadly, people are ashamed when they've been conned and can't bring themselves to admit it.  Which of course is why Amway salespeople can act with impunity and bigamists are seldom prosecuted.  In fact, in the face of all facts to the contrary, they'll continue to believe and usually redouble their efforts to convince others. 

Look At Kurth - a seemingly well educated and intelligent man, and yet he cannot bring himself to admit he was conned by some old crazy lady.  There is also a narcissitic element - we all believe we're smarter than the average bear and if the facts don't support our beliefs then it must be that someone has conspired to prove us wrong.
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Louis_Charles on November 05, 2006, 03:52:58 PM
Bev,

With respect, I don't think that is an accurate characterization of Peter Kurth. I think Andersen was Franziska Schanzkowska (and have actually said that to Peter Kurth), but I wouldn't describe him as being "conned". He will have to deal with the DNA issue to maintain his position, that's all.

Oh, dear. I specifically exempted Andersen from the discussion to avoid bogging down on her claims, which were considerable --- whether you believe in her or not. There was a lot of circumstantial evidence on her side.

Of course, Lambert Simnel was just a dirty little sneak and crook.  ;D

Simon
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: J_Kendrick on November 05, 2006, 04:23:59 PM

 But any disorder of the blood clotting mechanism is properly called "hemophilia".


That statement could not be more wrong if it tried !!

Haemophilia is a very specific type of blood disorder.  It is only one of as many as 150 known blood disorders that all have what is called a "haemorrhagic diathesis'.
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: J_Kendrick on November 05, 2006, 04:37:19 PM
(http://www.alexanderpalace.org/palace/img/alexeinyt.jpg)

Oh please, Rob.

Is that one NY Times article really the only piece of evidence you have to support your position?

It was Mark Twain who said it best: "If you don't read the newspaper, you are uninformed.  If you do read the newspaper, you are misinformed."
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: lexi4 on November 05, 2006, 05:35:18 PM
I have to say, it is difficult for me to read the print, but there is no attribution.
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Louis_Charles on November 05, 2006, 05:44:12 PM
(http://www.alexanderpalace.org/palace/img/alexeinyt.jpg)

Oh please, Rob.

Is that one NY Times article really the only piece of evidence you have to support your position?

It was Mark Twain who said it best: "If you don't read the newspaper, you are uninformed.  If you do read the newspaper, you are misinformed."

I'm sorry, I'm dying here. At least he posted the thing --- you seem to base your entire case upon a still-unseen telegram. I would match the New York Times against the Burnaby postal service any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

I mean, come on.
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Janet_W. on November 05, 2006, 05:47:22 PM
"What drives this?"

Here's another reason, Louis_Charles:

Because many of us find it far more fascinating to be someone other than ourselves, or to be associated with someone who has--or has had--a seemingly elevated life in comparison to ours.

I remember some time ago when a veteran Hollywood actress and a famous pop singer BOTH claimed to be the reincarnation of a famous Egyptian queen.

As more than one wag pointed out at the time, Who ever claims to be a reincarnated UNKNOWN person?

Even the fact that we are on this website indicates that most (if not all) of us find the last Romanovs 19th century interesting enough to include in our schedule today.

Then there's Halloween. When we were children, many of us enjoyed dressing up as our favorite fantasy figures--a cowboy, an astronaut, a ballerina, etc. These days adults enjoy it, too. As a for instance, it would be interesting to know how many grownups dressed up as pirates (i.e., Jack Sparrow & Associates) this past week!

People who identify themselves as long lost historical personages take all this a considerable step--make that leap--forward. And after awhile, for so many, it begins to have an aura of authenticity.

Rememer the little engine who kept telling himself, "I think I can I think I can"? That was a positive example of self talk. But sometimes it can go in delusional directions, or even worse. There's a famous former athlete who so many people kept saying couldn't POSSIBLY have murdered his wife because he was such a great, GREAT guy. And after awhile, I think he at least half believed it himself!
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Annie on November 05, 2006, 06:13:13 PM
I can read the article, but what year was it? Nov. 9, -----?  If the NY Times knew it before WWI, why not the  Russian people?
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Tsarfan on November 05, 2006, 06:13:58 PM

 But any disorder of the blood clotting mechanism is properly called "hemophilia".


That statement could not be more wrong if it tried !!

Haemophilia is a very specific type of blood disorder.  It is only one of as many as 150 known blood disorders that all have what is called a "haemorrhagic diathesis'.


In fact, Mr. Kendrick, there is not single agreed upon definition of hemophilia.  And it certainly is not a "very specific" type of "only one" blood disorder, as you assert.  Here are just a few definitions (the boldfacing will be mine):

From the National Cancer Institute's registry of diseases:

"Hemophilia:  a group of hereditary disorders in which affected individuals fail to make enough of a certain protein needed to form blood clots."

From the MayoClinic.com website:

"Hemophilia is a disorder of your blood-clotting system . . . .  There are several types of hemophilia."

From the Hemophiliagalaxy.com wesbite:

"Hemophilia is a rare genetic blood clotting disorder that primarily affects males . . . .  Two of the most common forms of hemophilia are A and B."

From the MedicineNet.com website:

"Hemophilia:  A group of inherited bleeding disorders in which the ability of the blood to clot is impaired."



Also, some authorities list von Willebrand's Disease as a separate blood disorder, and other authorities list it as one of the types of hemophilia.  And you list Christmas Disease as separate from hemophilia, when most authorities list it as a form of hemophilia.

In short, the term "hemophilia" is nowhere near as specific as you claim, even within the medical community.  The term has long been used, both inside and outside the medical community, to refer to an entire class of blood clotting disorders.

So let's cut to the chase here, Mr. Kendrick . . .

Are you saying the tsesarevich Alexei did not have a disorder (regardless of its name) that caused uncontrolled bleeding for prolong periods after he was injured?  And did or did not Heino Tammet have a disorder (regardless of its name) that had those symptoms?

Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Tsarfan on November 05, 2006, 06:23:00 PM
I can read the article, but what year was it? Nov. 9, -----?  If the NY Times knew it before WWI, why not the  Russian people?

It was 1912.

We had a lengthy discussion on a long-ago thread about this.  It is a virtual certainty that at least the elite classes in Russia as well as the international diplomatic corps knew of Alexei's illness.  This whole thing about no one's understanding why Alexandra was so dependent on Rasputin is just bunk.  Russia's elite knew why she turned to Rasputin.  Other than a few bored occultists among the aristocracy, they just thought she was deluded in doing so.

Now, back to the questions posed to Mr. Kendrick . . .
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: lexi4 on November 05, 2006, 06:26:30 PM
I can read the article, but what year was it? Nov. 9, -----?  If the NY Times knew it before WWI, why not the  Russian people?

It was 1912.

We had a lengthy discussion on a long-ago thread about this.  It is a virtual certainty that at least the elite classes in Russia as well as the international diplomatic corps knew of Alexei's illness.  This whole thing about no one's understanding why Alexandra was so dependent on Rasputin is just bunk.  Russia's elite knew why she turned to Rasputin.  Other than a few bored occultists among the aristocracy, they just thought she was deluded in doing so.

Now, back to the questions posed to Mr. Kendrick . . .

Tsarfan,
Can you or anyone else cite for me (with sources please) references to prolonged periods of bleeding? Are the examples where they say (for example) Alexei bled for xx hours or days?
I am aware of the pain and the swelling etc. But have yet found any entry in either Nicholas or Alex's diairies that discuss extended periods of bleeding, which may be an over sight on my part. If not, you think they would mention it.
Thank you,
Lexi
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Tsarfan on November 05, 2006, 06:33:04 PM
Is this request for real?  Have you never heard of Spala?

You know, even in a criminal court case, there is a concept called "judicial notice".  What it means is that some things are so well known that the court will accept a reference to them without the litigants having to adduce evidence to prove them.  Without such a concept, every court docket would end up hopelessly clogged.

If this is an attempt to halt the challenge to Mr. Kendrick's hypothesis about Heino Tammet with sophistry, try it on someone else.
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Forum Admin on November 05, 2006, 06:35:34 PM
two answers here:
1. I personally find it beyond amusing that Mr. Kendrick who is not a medical expert but rather, self admitted, a JOURNALIST, finds that his own profession is highly unreliable as a source. res ipsa loquitor Mr. Kendrick.

2: Spiridovitch, "Les Dernieres Annees..." Vol 2. ch. 12 "The Year 1912" translation by Rob Moshein, copyright.

"However, at Byelovyezhe, Derevenko was not able to prevent harm to the Tsarevtich.  One day, while he was taking his bath, the boy began to engage in all kinds of mischief.  It was a large porcelain bathtub, sunk into the floor and which one got into by several steps on each side and the bathtub had a fairly sharp edge all along its top.  The Tsarevtich had climbed onto the edge of the bathtub wanting to show Derevenko how the sailors on the Standardt would jump off the side of the yacht into the sea to go swimming.  He jumped and fell onto the side of the bathtub.  It hurt him, but without doubt the pain was not very great because he did not say anything afterward.  However, only a few minutes later, he lost conscience and they carried his nearly inanimate body to his bed.
   This accident in a healthy boy would not have had any unfortunate results, but it was for him, who suffered from hemophilia, the start of many severe complications that could never be totally healed.  He was bleeding severely internally.
   As always, the illness was assiduously hidden to the entourage.  They did not feel it necessary to call in a specialist doctor.  They put him totally under the care of the family doctor, Botkin.  It was the Empress herself who directed his treatment.  They cancelled the concerts which the Cavalry Regimental band, whose squadron formed the military guard of the Palace, would give during lunch and dinner.  The Tsarevtich was very upset at that, begged them to resume the concerts, but his request was in vain.
   When he became better, a Cossack from the escort was ordered to carry him around in his arms.  The child suffered greatly and everyone felt his illness.
   So it was under these conditions which we left Byelovyezhe for Spala on September 16th
...
However a new misfortune soon arrived.  Immediately after some bumps that he took while on a promenade in a caleche with the Empress, his health worsened.  The internal bleeding was even worse, and the swelling in his groin increased in size so much so that the child was confined to his bed.  He suffered incredibly. His cries and moans echoed often throughout the Palace, and his fever steadily grew.  Botkin never left him for a moment, but did not know what he could do to bring him relief. His pain grew so bad that the sick child would not permit the swelling to be touched.  He slept on his side, leg folded, pale, thin and never stopped moaning.
   They called the surgeon Serge Petrovitch Fyedorov from Petersburg, and the old Rauchfuss.  They arrived on October 4th, the night before Alexis Nicholaiovitch's Name's day. The illness got worse.  October 6th, his temperature rose to over 39 degrees (102 F.) and would not go down.  After a consultation, the doctors declared that that the situation was desperate.  Fyedorov said that he had decided not to open the swelling, given that they would be operating on the inheritor of the throne, and the operation would bring on fatal bleeding.  Only a miracle could save the child's life, he said.  And when they asked him what that miracle might be, he responded by shrugging his shoulders and said that the swelling might spontaneously be reabsorbed, but that the chance of that actually happening was only less than one in a hundred.
   After this diagnosis, the Minister of the Court was permitted to publish bulletins on the health of the Tsarevitch.  The first bulletin was dated October 8th.  They began to hold services in Spala to pray for a cure for the Tsarevitch.  In the Palace they would hear of no other help from the doctors, and only believed in God.  They gave the last rites to the child.  The catastrophe was expected from one day to the next.  The suffering child was plainly aware that his death was near.
   "Mama, don't forget to put a little monument on my tomb when I'm dead" he whispered one day into his mother's ear, who crazy with suffering, would not leave his side for an instant. (Sabline told me this later, who had been told it from the Empress herself.)
   It seemed that all was over.  The crisis approached.  And it was at this critical moment that Their Majesties received a telegram from Rasputin which read:
   "The illness will not be dangerous. Do not let the doctors make him tired."
   In a second telegram, the "staryets" said that he had prayed, that God had heard his prayers and had granted them.
   And then an incredible thing happened: the Tsarevitch began to get better and to go into recovery.
   His mother, in all her happiness, saw only one thing: his health had come back from her "friend", and it had been his prayers that had saved the life of her child.
   From that moment on, the Empress's faith in Rasputin was unshakeable and there was no force in the world that would ever alienate the "staryets" from the friendship of the Imperial Family.
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: lexi4 on November 05, 2006, 06:49:49 PM
Is this request for real?  Have you never heard of Spala?

You know, even in a criminal court case, there is a concept called "judicial notice".  What it means is that some things are so well known that the court will accept a reference to them without the litigants having to adduce evidence to prove them.  Without such a concept, every court docket would end up hopelessly clogged.

If this is an attempt to halt the challenge to Mr. Kendrick's hypothesis about Heino Tammet with sophistry, try it on someone else.

Chill Tsarfan. Of course I have heard of Spala and still found no reference to continual bleeding. This is not a challenge to anything, I am merely asking questions and trying to participate in a discussion. Geez.
Hemophilia is a clotting disorder that is characterized by the inability to properly form blood clots. Any small cut or internal hemorrhaging after even a minor bruise were fatal and the bleeding is instant. I have not seen such an example cited by anyone referring to Spala. Most of what I have read attributes the episode at Spala to an engery he received several weeks before while climbing into a boat or a bath tub incident in which he did not instantly bleed.
This isn't a trial. I was just asking for information. I assumed, that on a discussion board, that was allowed. My bad.
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: lexi4 on November 05, 2006, 06:52:50 PM
two answers here:
1. I personally find it beyond amusing that Mr. Kendrick who is not a medical expert but rather, self admitted, a JOURNALIST, finds that his own profession is highly unreliable as a source. res ipsa loquitor Mr. Kendrick.

2: Spiridovitch, "Les Dernieres Annees..." Vol 2. ch. 12 "The Year 1912" translation by Rob Moshein, copyright.

"However, at Byelovyezhe, Derevenko was not able to prevent harm to the Tsarevtich.  One day, while he was taking his bath, the boy began to engage in all kinds of mischief.  It was a large porcelain bathtub, sunk into the floor and which one got into by several steps on each side and the bathtub had a fairly sharp edge all along its top.  The Tsarevtich had climbed onto the edge of the bathtub wanting to show Derevenko how the sailors on the Standardt would jump off the side of the yacht into the sea to go swimming.  He jumped and fell onto the side of the bathtub.  It hurt him, but without doubt the pain was not very great because he did not say anything afterward.  However, only a few minutes later, he lost conscience and they carried his nearly inanimate body to his bed.
   This accident in a healthy boy would not have had any unfortunate results, but it was for him, who suffered from hemophilia, the start of many severe complications that could never be totally healed.  He was bleeding severely internally.
   As always, the illness was assiduously hidden to the entourage.  They did not feel it necessary to call in a specialist doctor.  They put him totally under the care of the family doctor, Botkin.  It was the Empress herself who directed his treatment.  They cancelled the concerts which the Cavalry Regimental band, whose squadron formed the military guard of the Palace, would give during lunch and dinner.  The Tsarevtich was very upset at that, begged them to resume the concerts, but his request was in vain.
   When he became better, a Cossack from the escort was ordered to carry him around in his arms.  The child suffered greatly and everyone felt his illness.
   So it was under these conditions which we left Byelovyezhe for Spala on September 16th
...
However a new misfortune soon arrived.  Immediately after some bumps that he took while on a promenade in a caleche with the Empress, his health worsened.  The internal bleeding was even worse, and the swelling in his groin increased in size so much so that the child was confined to his bed.  He suffered incredibly. His cries and moans echoed often throughout the Palace, and his fever steadily grew.  Botkin never left him for a moment, but did not know what he could do to bring him relief. His pain grew so bad that the sick child would not permit the swelling to be touched.  He slept on his side, leg folded, pale, thin and never stopped moaning.
   They called the surgeon Serge Petrovitch Fyedorov from Petersburg, and the old Rauchfuss.  They arrived on October 4th, the night before Alexis Nicholaiovitch's Name's day. The illness got worse.  October 6th, his temperature rose to over 39 degrees (102 F.) and would not go down.  After a consultation, the doctors declared that that the situation was desperate.  Fyedorov said that he had decided not to open the swelling, given that they would be operating on the inheritor of the throne, and the operation would bring on fatal bleeding.  Only a miracle could save the child's life, he said.  And when they asked him what that miracle might be, he responded by shrugging his shoulders and said that the swelling might spontaneously be reabsorbed, but that the chance of that actually happening was only less than one in a hundred.
   After this diagnosis, the Minister of the Court was permitted to publish bulletins on the health of the Tsarevitch.  The first bulletin was dated October 8th.  They began to hold services in Spala to pray for a cure for the Tsarevitch.  In the Palace they would hear of no other help from the doctors, and only believed in God.  They gave the last rites to the child.  The catastrophe was expected from one day to the next.  The suffering child was plainly aware that his death was near.
   "Mama, don't forget to put a little monument on my tomb when I'm dead" he whispered one day into his mother's ear, who crazy with suffering, would not leave his side for an instant. (Sabline told me this later, who had been told it from the Empress herself.)
   It seemed that all was over.  The crisis approached.  And it was at this critical moment that Their Majesties received a telegram from Rasputin which read:
   "The illness will not be dangerous. Do not let the doctors make him tired."
   In a second telegram, the "staryets" said that he had prayed, that God had heard his prayers and had granted them.
   And then an incredible thing happened: the Tsarevitch began to get better and to go into recovery.
   His mother, in all her happiness, saw only one thing: his health had come back from her "friend", and it had been his prayers that had saved the life of her child.
   From that moment on, the Empress's faith in Rasputin was unshakeable and there was no force in the world that would ever alienate the "staryets" from the friendship of the Imperial Family.

Thank you FA. That is what I was asking for and I appreciate you taking the time to post it.
Lexi
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Tsarfan on November 05, 2006, 07:55:29 PM
Chill Tsarfan. Of course I have heard of Spala and still found no reference to continual bleeding. This is not a challenge to anything, I am merely asking questions and trying to participate in a discussion. Geez.

Sorry if I over-reacted, Lexi4.  But since these references can be found as easily by you as by me with an internet search, I took the request for the number of hours that the bleeds lasted and the request for specific sources as a dodge.  Again, sorry if I misunderstood your intent.

The pain and swelling about which you said you already knew are the symptoms of internal bleeding.  External bleeding was largely manageable with hemophiliacs in that era.  It was the internal bleeds that were so threatening and so debilitating.

Much of Mr. Kendrick's theory that Alexei had an aplastic crisis at Spala instead of a hemophilia attack rests on the argument that there had been no injury immediately preceding the start of the bleed and that it spontaneously stopped several days later.

In fact, hemophilia has exactly those same symptoms.  Hemophilia is currently assigned three levels of severity.  Before modern treatment, spontaneous bleeds not caused by specific injury, especially in joints and the abdomen, were a very common occurrence with the most severe level and an occasional occurence at the middle level.  Likewise, assuming the victim didn't die in the meantime, there would be an eventual cessation of bleeding.  Hemophilia doesn't mean bleeding never stops.  It means it takes a prolonged period of time to stop.  Sometimes the pressure of the internal swelling itself staunches the bleeding.  In the meantime, joints and organs can suffer irreversible or fatal damage.

And, guess what?  The medical literature says that the most common age for spontaneous hemophilia bleeds is between the years of 5 and 15.  Wanna guess how old Alexei was when he had the attacks at Spala and at Tobolsk?

But again, no matter what the proper diagnosis, Alexei indisputably had life-threatening occurences of uncontrolled internal bleeding, with the two most serious attacks being at Spala in 1912 and Tobolsk in 1918.

So, back to the two questions to Mr. Kendrick . . .

Are you saying the tsesarevich Alexei did not have a disorder (regardless of its name) that caused uncontrolled bleeding for prolong periods?  And did or did not Heino Tammet have a disorder (regardless of its name) that had those symptoms?
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Mazukov on November 05, 2006, 08:02:30 PM
 Confessions. Let the truth be told now. I am not whom I say I am. For my real name Is John Fitzgerald Kennedy. Many of you believe that I was killed in Dallas. However I survived. I was secretly taken to a military base, where doctors patched me up My wife Jackie only hooked up with Aristotle, so that they could hide me on  island.where i spent my time healing from my wounds and hiding from the world.
Now this Mr. Kendrick has found correspondence between myself and the now current President, he has threatened to reveal my secret to the world for all to see. Like he did with Heino Tammet, the heir to the Imperial Russian throne. After much thought on this matter, and after consultations with my brother Teddy,I’m coming out of the closet to save what is left of my name.

Ok the fact of the matter is really simple Mr. Kendrick. When we look at the young Alexi. We see a very ill young man who could not have had the strength  to have survived the slaughter that happened in that room so many years ago. When we read the accounts of the assassins, it’s imposable that anyone could have survived the wounds that had been inflected pone this poor soul. Let alone be strong enough to get away from the assassins during the early morning hours when they tried to destroy what was left of the remains of his family.

My opening statement makes about enough truth as the clams by Tammet, we all can believe what we want but the facts sir, can not be overlooked. Fact is no one survived that dreadful night, as much as we all would like to think that perhaps someone did.

You see, we all can boost all we like. But boosting with out facts! Is just what it is boosting.Where is the DNA? Most importantly if such a clam should be real then DNA should have been done without any questions. .Just the facts.when someone can produce actual facts that Tammet was who he said he was then I’ll believe. Until then your sub par fact doesn’t hold water.
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Georgiy on November 05, 2006, 08:57:58 PM
JFK, AKA Mazukov, you know as well as I do that if ever there was a DNA test done on this Tannet fellow, and the results (strangely enough) showed him not to be Tsesarevich Alexei, then we'll have that whole 'conspiracy' switched intestines kind of thing we saw with Anna Anderson. Wasn't it Mulder on X Files who said "I want to believe..."
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: AGRBear on November 05, 2006, 09:16:52 PM
I do not believe AA was GD Anastasia.
  
I do not believe Tammet was Alexei.

And, yes,  it appears most of us posting on this thread are repeating what has already been discussed on two other threads.

It appears that it is a fact tht no one has found Alexei's medical records which would present the diagnosis by the doctor/ doctors treating Alexei.

Just as it's a fact that  many blood disorders, which would have had the same symtoms as Alexei,  have been discovered since 1918,  and,  so,  I see no reason not to ask questions about Alexei's blood disorder.  In doing this does not mean anything other than making corrections if needed if there is proof  the doctors were in error.

It doesn't matter to me if Alexei had or did not have hemophilia.   I am just on a long journey looking for the truth and I don't care where it takes me,  I am just enjoying the journey.

AGRBear






Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Louis_Charles on November 05, 2006, 10:22:09 PM
Good luck on your journey, Bear. The rest of us have reached home base and are waving you in.
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: AGRBear on November 05, 2006, 10:45:56 PM
Thanks  Louis_Charles (Simon).

As you know, I  often take these side roads that prove quite interesting.

AGRBear
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Annie on November 05, 2006, 11:05:35 PM
Thanks  Louis_Charles (Simon).

As you know, I  often take these side roads that prove quite interesting.

AGRBear

I know what you mean by the roads. I often travel to the moutains, to an area I've been to many times in my life, but I find it very fun to take different roads through the area, and on the way home. I always discover something I never saw before, and it's fun. But it's not like pretending Harrisonburg doesn't exist, or that it might turn out to be Harrisburg, PA despite all the evidence to the contrary. Bear, your posts always sound pro claimant. If this is really not the case, you need to change your approach, and lay off the "File on the Tsar." Your quotes from it have got to be the most redundant and annoying posts here, right next to my personal stories and analogies ;)
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Belochka on November 05, 2006, 11:08:32 PM
JFK, AKA Mazukov, you know as well as I do that if ever there was a DNA test done on this Tannet fellow, and the results (strangely enough) showed him not to be Tsesarevich Alexei, then we'll have that whole 'conspiracy' switched intestines kind of thing we saw with Anna Anderson. Wasn't it Mulder on X Files who said "I want to believe..."

Except in this case it would be switched teeth ....  :D

Margarita
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: grandduchessella on November 05, 2006, 11:28:58 PM
I can read the article, but what year was it? Nov. 9, -----?  If the NY Times knew it before WWI, why not the  Russian people?

It was 1912.

We had a lengthy discussion on a long-ago thread about this.  It is a virtual certainty that at least the elite classes in Russia as well as the international diplomatic corps knew of Alexei's illness.  This whole thing about no one's understanding why Alexandra was so dependent on Rasputin is just bunk.  Russia's elite knew why she turned to Rasputin.  Other than a few bored occultists among the aristocracy, they just thought she was deluded in doing so.

Now, back to the questions posed to Mr. Kendrick . . .

Tsarfan,
Can you or anyone else cite for me (with sources please) references to prolonged periods of bleeding? Are the examples where they say (for example) Alexei bled for xx hours or days?
I am aware of the pain and the swelling etc. But have yet found any entry in either Nicholas or Alex's diairies that discuss extended periods of bleeding, which may be an over sight on my part. If not, you think they would mention it.
Thank you,
Lexi

If you check out the 2 threads I mentioned (and provided the link for one) I think there are numerous references there but it's not my area to be absolutely certain. I mostly skimmed the threads.
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Belochka on November 05, 2006, 11:40:51 PM

Haemophilia is a very specific type of blood disorder.  It is only one of as many as 150 known blood disorders that all have what is called a "haemorrhagic diathesis'.


There is something rather repugnant when a journalist attempts to involve themselves with medical issues and on so doing attempts to pull the wool over everyone's eyes. As a medical professional it is patently clear to me.

My co-author and I have challenged you directly in the media and we have proven beyond doubt, using carefully structured analysis how MISGUIDED and selective with your interpretations you are.

It is now time for me to move away from this tiresome game that you play.

Margarita   :-X
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: lexi4 on November 06, 2006, 06:11:20 AM

Haemophilia is a very specific type of blood disorder.  It is only one of as many as 150 known blood disorders that all have what is called a "haemorrhagic diathesis'.


There is something rather repugnant when a journalist attempts to involve themselves with medical issues and on so doing attempts to pull the wool over everyone's eyes. As a medical professional it is patently clear to me.

My co-author and I have challenged you directly in the media and we have proven beyond doubt, using carefully structured analysis how MISGUIDED and selective with your interpretations you are.

It is now time for me to move away from this tiresome game that you play.

Margarita   :-X

Just a quick question for you. Are you a hemotologist? I assume when you say medical professional you are some kind of doctor as you use this in a fashion that gives you credibility so I doubt that you are a technician or clerk. So what kind of medical professional are you?
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: lexi4 on November 06, 2006, 06:17:04 AM
Chill Tsarfan. Of course I have heard of Spala and still found no reference to continual bleeding. This is not a challenge to anything, I am merely asking questions and trying to participate in a discussion. Geez.

Sorry if I over-reacted, Lexi4.  But since these references can be found as easily by you as by me with an internet search, I took the request for the number of hours that the bleeds lasted and the request for specific sources as a dodge.  Again, sorry if I misunderstood your intent.

The pain and swelling about which you said you already knew are the symptoms of internal bleeding.  External bleeding was largely manageable with hemophiliacs in that era.  It was the internal bleeds that were so threatening and so debilitating.

Much of Mr. Kendrick's theory that Alexei had an aplastic crisis at Spala instead of a hemophilia attack rests on the argument that there had been no injury immediately preceding the start of the bleed and that it spontaneously stopped several days later.

In fact, hemophilia has exactly those same symptoms.  Hemophilia is currently assigned three levels of severity.  Before modern treatment, spontaneous bleeds not caused by specific injury, especially in joints and the abdomen, were a very common occurrence with the most severe level and an occasional occurence at the middle level.  Likewise, assuming the victim didn't die in the meantime, there would be an eventual cessation of bleeding.  Hemophilia doesn't mean bleeding never stops.  It means it takes a prolonged period of time to stop.  Sometimes the pressure of the internal swelling itself staunches the bleeding.  In the meantime, joints and organs can suffer irreversible or fatal damage.

And, guess what?  The medical literature says that the most common age for spontaneous hemophilia bleeds is between the years of 5 and 15.  Wanna guess how old Alexei was when he had the attacks at Spala and at Tobolsk?

But again, no matter what the proper diagnosis, Alexei indisputably had life-threatening occurences of uncontrolled internal bleeding, with the two most serious attacks being at Spala in 1912 and Tobolsk in 1918.

So, back to the two questions to Mr. Kendrick . . .

Are you saying the tsesarevich Alexei did not have a disorder (regardless of its name) that caused uncontrolled bleeding for prolong periods?  And did or did not Heino Tammet have a disorder (regardless of its name) that had those symptoms?

Thank you Tsarfan. Yes, Alexei did have a life threatening disease and suffered greatly. I have read that many times. I did do  an internet search and didn't find anything specific or not as specific as what the FA posted anyway. I have been looking for references in diaries etc. My library probably isn't as extensive as some on this board, so when I have a question, I ask.
Lexi
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Tsarfan on November 06, 2006, 09:40:35 AM
You should read this paper, Lexi:

http://www.geocities.com/mushkah/Hemophilia.html

It quotes some entries from Nicholas' diary referring to specific bleeding episodes, and it quotes from several memoires of Romanov family members and close court associates who specifically mention hemophilia as the diagnosis given by doctors.

It thoroughly debunks Mr. Kendrick's assertion that no contemporary ever used the term hemophilia to refer to Alexei's condition, as well as gives a detailed medical explanation of why Mr. Kendrick's pseudo-scientific theories are nothing more than an attempt to promote the absurd claims of a Canadian who happened to live in the vicinity of Mr. Kendrick's readers.

Think about it.  What is more likely?  That Alexei survived the massacre of his family and moved to British Columbia (from where, by the way, he never tried to contact his Aunt Olga, who was also living in Canada)?  Or that a newspaper reporter in Vancouver, trying to generate readership, would seize upon the claims of a local crackpot and try to turn them into a running storyline?

The first scenario would require several extraordinary occurences, almost to the point of being miracles.  The second scenario is something that happens anywhere there are papers to be sold.

So think about it.  What is more likely?
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: J_Kendrick on November 06, 2006, 12:19:00 PM
You should read this paper, Lexi:

http://www.geocities.com/mushkah/Hemophilia.html

It quotes some entries from Nicholas' diary referring to specific bleeding episodes, and it quotes from several memoires of Romanov family members and close court associates who specifically mention hemophilia as the diagnosis given by doctors.

It thoroughly debunks Mr. Kendrick's assertion that no contemporary ever used the term hemophilia to refer to Alexei's condition, as well as gives a detailed medical explanation ...


Yeah, sure... A claimed explanation that somehow makes the serious mistake of inferring that a clotting factor deficiency and a platelet dysfunction are the same thing.. when, in fact, they are not.  If it's a platelet dysfunction... it's not haemophilia.

Apparently, the study of haematology must have little in common with the studies of endocrinology or library sciences...


Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Tsarfan on November 06, 2006, 12:32:48 PM
So, Mr. Kendrick . . .

Thank you for acknowledging that one of the authors of the paper I mentioned is an endocrinologist.  Now what, exactly, are your medical credentials?

And, as for the her co-author being a library scientist . . . perhaps that is why she was able to find diary entries by Nicholas that you overlooked when you incorrectly reported the scope of those entries in your own article.

And please give us a list of medical professionals who have publicly accepted your interpretation of Alexei's condition or who have joined you in disputing that he had hemophilia.

Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: AGRBear on November 06, 2006, 01:37:06 PM
Thanks  Louis_Charles (Simon).

As you know, I  often take these side roads that prove quite interesting.

AGRBear

I know what you mean by the roads. I often travel to the moutains, to an area I've been to many times in my life, but I find it very fun to take different roads through the area, and on the way home. I always discover something I never saw before, and it's fun. But it's not like pretending Harrisonburg doesn't exist, or that it might turn out to be Harrisburg, PA despite all the evidence to the contrary. Bear, your posts always sound pro claimant. If this is really not the case, you need to change your approach, and lay off the "File on the Tsar." Your quotes from it have got to be the most redundant and annoying posts here, right next to my personal stories and analogies ;)

After years of  posting,  all the old timers  know very well that I am merely asking for facts and do NOT like half truths, therefore,  those who continue to post half truths about anything [pro-claimant or  non-believers]  will be once again subjected to my demands of facts attached to  sources so the facts can be viewed by all.  And, as always,  I do tend to annoy posters who prefer to be allowed to continue without being subjected to corrections of the known facts.

So, Annie, which fact that I've mention annoys you today?  ;)

AGRBear
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: LisaDavidson on November 06, 2006, 02:26:17 PM
Final warning - this thread is on it's way to being locked. For the rules of engagement, please refer to my prior posting in which I request that civility reign here. I see today's the day for pot shots. Naughty, naughty, posters! I have removed

I suggest that someone start a new thread on our survivors forum because this one is going historical very soon, unless of course, civility breaks out here.
Title: Re: One thing I find odd
Post by: Annie on November 06, 2006, 05:26:52 PM


After years of  posting,  all the old timers  know very well that I am merely asking for facts and do NOT like half truths, therefore,  those who continue to post half truths about anything [pro-claimant or  non-believers]  will be once again subjected to my demands of facts attached to  sources so the facts can be viewed by all.  And, as always,  I do tend to annoy posters who prefer to be allowed to continue without being subjected to corrections of the known facts.

So, Annie, which fact that I've mention annoys you today?  ;)

AGRBear

Did you mean mention "File on the Tsar?" I didn't see it in this post, but if you consider that 'known facts' I'm afraid your backroads joruney has taken you too far from the road to truth :-\

What was deleted? Anything I did? Guess I missed it.