Alexander Palace Forum

Discussions about the Imperial Family and European Royalty => The Myth and Legends of Survivors => Topic started by: Eddie_uk on November 06, 2006, 02:45:09 PM

Title: One thing i find odd part two.
Post by: Eddie_uk on November 06, 2006, 02:45:09 PM
As Lisa suggested am starting a new thread. It's EXTREMELY entertaining. Please continue.  ;D. I would be interested to see Mr Kendrick dig himself out of the hole he has created.  ;)

P.S anyone doubting Alexies diagnosis of heamophilia should really read "Nicholas and Alexandra" by Robert Massie. An excellent book. There's a whole chapter on it if my memory serves me correctly.
Title: Re: One thing i find odd part two.
Post by: Annie on November 06, 2006, 05:41:04 PM
What's the topic here, Eddieboy? I agree, it is odd that people will not believe Alexei had hemophilia, and yes, Nicholas and Alexandra is an excellent book! It was the first Romanov book I read when I was 13.
Title: Re: One thing i find odd part two.
Post by: grandduchessella on November 06, 2006, 07:45:47 PM
Let's just try to keep the tone more civil than on Part One. I noticed (as I was reading which was very disconcerting  :P ) posts were being deleted because of the tone. In addition, before I finished, the thread was locked. I am presuming Lisa did this and she must've had good reason. So if posters don't want this thread to suffer the same fate, let's try to keep an elevated tone here.
Title: Re: One thing i find odd part two.
Post by: skirt on November 06, 2006, 07:53:45 PM
perhaps naming the thread "Mr.Kendricks' highly anticipated response"
what i find odd/ amusing.. is how many have already decided whether or not AA was GD Anastasia or in this case if Tammet was Alexei- but just wait for another reply from Mr.Kendrick (anyone pro-claimant or someone just looking down a different road) to jump all over any detail they get.
They proclaim that these threads hold no historical information, nothing intellectual!
This is the good stuff- keeps the energy flowing, the boards busy..
Most importantly its about a family that (supposedly) perished nearly a century ago, but is still able to captivate all of us .. for hours I might add- now thats surviving!!
I wonder what Mr.Kendricks theory is to WHY anyone would keep Alexei alive? I'm still waiting for that answer...

Title: Re: One thing i find odd part two.
Post by: Bev on November 06, 2006, 08:09:04 PM
You know, Lord Simon, I must take issue with your comment that Kurth wasn't "conned".  That is because that is exactly what these people are - con artists.  They are no different from "Nigerian business men" or "communicators with the dead" or "ghost hunters".  They might not be physically stealing from people*, but they are thieves all the same, because they're taking advantage of human vulnerability and civility, which is exactly what thieves do. 

*Unless you define stealing as taking money under false pretenses, which is what Anna Anderson did.
Title: Re: One thing i find odd part two.
Post by: LisaDavidson on November 06, 2006, 11:30:07 PM
You know, Lord Simon, I must take issue with your comment that Kurth wasn't "conned".  That is because that is exactly what these people are - con artists.  They are no different from "Nigerian business men" or "communicators with the dead" or "ghost hunters".  They might not be physically stealing from people*, but they are thieves all the same, because they're taking advantage of human vulnerability and civility, which is exactly what thieves do. 

*Unless you define stealing as taking money under false pretenses, which is what Anna Anderson did.

As to Peter Kurth, he spent considerable time with AA and as I understand it, he accepts the DNA results that indicate she was not GD Anastasia but does not believe AA was Franziska Shanzkowska. I don't think he or the Schweitzers feel they were conned.
Title: Re: One thing i find odd part two.
Post by: Belochka on November 07, 2006, 12:45:46 AM
You know, Lord Simon, I must take issue with your comment that Kurth wasn't "conned".  That is because that is exactly what these people are - con artists.  They are no different from "Nigerian business men" or "communicators with the dead" or "ghost hunters".  They might not be physically stealing from people*, but they are thieves all the same, because they're taking advantage of human vulnerability and civility, which is exactly what thieves do. 

*Unless you define stealing as taking money under false pretenses, which is what Anna Anderson did.

I don't think he or the Schweitzers feel they were conned.

Is there any public indication what the Schweitzers really felt about the matter?

Margarita
Title: Re: One thing i find odd part two.
Post by: LisaDavidson on November 07, 2006, 01:00:06 AM
You know, Lord Simon, I must take issue with your comment that Kurth wasn't "conned".  That is because that is exactly what these people are - con artists.  They are no different from "Nigerian business men" or "communicators with the dead" or "ghost hunters".  They might not be physically stealing from people*, but they are thieves all the same, because they're taking advantage of human vulnerability and civility, which is exactly what thieves do. 

*Unless you define stealing as taking money under false pretenses, which is what Anna Anderson did.

I don't think he or the Schweitzers feel they were conned.

Is there any public indication what the Schweitzers really felt about the matter?

Margarita

Richard Schweitzer posted here for a time. I don't recall him saying anything explicitly about this, but I definitely got the impression they felt as Peter Kurth does.
Title: Re: One thing i find odd part two.
Post by: Belochka on November 07, 2006, 01:12:23 AM
You know, Lord Simon, I must take issue with your comment that Kurth wasn't "conned".  That is because that is exactly what these people are - con artists.  They are no different from "Nigerian business men" or "communicators with the dead" or "ghost hunters".  They might not be physically stealing from people*, but they are thieves all the same, because they're taking advantage of human vulnerability and civility, which is exactly what thieves do. 

*Unless you define stealing as taking money under false pretenses, which is what Anna Anderson did.

I don't think he or the Schweitzers feel they were conned.

Is there any public indication what the Schweitzers really felt about the matter?

Margarita

Richard Schweitzer posted here for a time. I don't recall him saying anything explicitly about this, but I definitely got the impression they felt as Peter Kurth does.

... and that is exactly what?  ???

Margarita
Title: Re: One thing i find odd part two.
Post by: LisaDavidson on November 07, 2006, 01:19:45 AM
My understanding - from numerous conversations over the years with Peter Kurth - is that he accepts the DNA testing to the extent that he agrees AA was not GD Anastasia but does not believe AA was Franziska Shanzkowska. I mentioned this a couple of posts above.
Title: Re: One thing i find odd part two.
Post by: Ra-Ra-Rasputin on November 07, 2006, 02:57:16 AM
What I find odd is that I and Annie still haven't had an answer to our question from those who believe Alexei and also Anastasia escaped:

Why is absence of a body evidence of escape in Alexei and Anastasia's case, and not in Michael Romanov's? Why is it deemed more likely that two teenagers with extensive serious wounds inflicted on them in a confined space by several men escaped when the rest of their family were so violently disposed of, and yet their uncle was a fit and healthy adult, attacked in an open space, and actually had opportunity to escape, and yet he MUST have been killed, no questions asked?

Please, please, tell me why.  This is a VERY important contradiction in the survivor theories arguments.  'There's no body so there's no evidence of death'.  So why aren't we looking for Michael, then? He WAS the last Tsar, after all! You can't have one rule for one person and another for someone else! Mr Kendrick, I want an answer! As a journalist, surely you should be looking into ALL angles, not just one...you being so objective and all.

Rachel
xx
Title: Re: One thing i find odd part two.
Post by: Belochka on November 07, 2006, 03:04:56 AM
My understanding - from numerous conversations over the years with Peter Kurth - is that he accepts the DNA testing to the extent that he agrees AA was not GD Anastasia but does not believe AA was Franziska Shanzkowska. I mentioned this a couple of posts above.

This reply was not what I was asking. While pk may have come to terms with the DNA finding (as you have stated previously) your reply however fails to describe how he felt at that time.

Margarita
Title: Re: One thing i find odd part two.
Post by: Tsarfan on November 07, 2006, 07:08:42 AM
Today I telephoned the Office of the Private Secretary in the Princess Royal's Office at Buckingham Palace.

I was directed to one of her Private Secretaries (there are several, apparently) to whom I posed three questions:


His answer to the first question was, "absolutely not". 

His answer to the second question was that Princess Anne was not personally involved in responding to the congratulatory telegrams she received upon her wedding.

His answer to the third question was that the incoming telegrams and their addresses were cataloged so that mass form responses could be sent out from her office.  The Princess was not personally invovled in the process whatsoever.  He additionally pointed out that telegraphic communications from that time period provided no means for a written signature -- original or otherwise -- to be transmitted with a telegram.

So, Mr. Kendrick . . .

Would you disclose to us the means you used to confirm the authenticity of the telegram and Princess Anne's personal signature?  As an investigative reporter, I'm sure you would not have published such a claim without first thoroughly checking it out.

Thank you.
Title: Re: One thing i find odd part two.
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 07, 2006, 07:39:38 AM
Is it possible that the Princess Anne telegram was forged?



Title: Re: One thing i find odd part two.
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 07, 2006, 07:54:52 AM
What I find odd is that I and Annie still haven't had an answer to our question from those who believe Alexei and also Anastasia escaped:

Why is absence of a body evidence of escape in Alexei and Anastasia's case, and not in Michael Romanov's? Why is it deemed more likely that two teenagers with extensive serious wounds inflicted on them in a confined space by several men escaped when the rest of their family were so violently disposed of, and yet their uncle was a fit and healthy adult, attacked in an open space, and actually had opportunity to escape, and yet he MUST have been killed, no questions asked?

Please, please, tell me why.  This is a VERY important contradiction in the survivor theories arguments.  'There's no body so there's no evidence of death'.  So why aren't we looking for Michael, then? He WAS the last Tsar, after all! You can't have one rule for one person and another for someone else! Mr Kendrick, I want an answer! As a journalist, surely you should be looking into ALL angles, not just one...you being so objective and all.

Rachel
xx

Just out of curiousity, how many claimants were there for Michael? I know there had to be some (not nearly as much as for Alexei - I am sure of that, but there had to be a few). Does anyone know?

Title: Re: One thing i find odd part two.
Post by: Bev on November 07, 2006, 07:57:20 AM
In the discussion I had with Kurth, he stated that the DNA evidence could not be trusted, the hair sample could not be trusted, that the evidence as a whole was overwhelmingly indicative of FS's being GDA.  Never once in what was a lengthy conversation did he deviate from his belief that FS was GDA.  He was adamant that the evidence taken as a whole was proof that FS was the GDA.  This was only a few months ago, so yes, I would say he was conned and continues to be so.  Kurth and the Schweitzers might not feel they were conned but they were.

Tsarfan, that is amazing!
Title: Re: One thing i find odd part two.
Post by: Forum Admin on November 07, 2006, 08:26:29 AM
Today I telephoned the Office of the Private Secretary in the Princess Royal's Office at Buckingham Palace.

I was directed to one of her Private Secretaries (there are several, apparently) to whom I posed three questions:

  • Has the Princess Royal ever extended any recognition whatsoever, in any form whatsoever, to any claimaint for the Russian throne or to anyone claiming to be a survivor of Nicholas II's immediate family and, in particular, to someone from British Columbia claiming to be Alexei?
  • Did the Princess Royal personally send a telegram of thanks in 1973 acknowledging a congratulatory telegram from a Czaervich Alexei, Grand Duke of Russia, or to anyone of similar title?
  • What was the procedure used for sending telegrams from members of the royal family?

His answer to the first question was, "absolutely not". 

His answer to the second question was that Princess Anne was not personally involved in responding to the congratulatory telegrams she received upon her wedding.

His answer to the third question was that the incoming telegrams and their addresses were cataloged so that mass form responses could be sent out from her office.  The Princess was not personally invovled in the process whatsoever.  He additionally pointed out that telegraphic communications from that time period provided no means for a written signature -- original or otherwise -- to be transmitted with a telegram.

So, Mr. Kendrick . . .

Would you disclose to us the means you used to confirm the authenticity of the telegram and Princess Anne's personal signature?  As an investigative reporter, I'm sure you would not have published such a claim without first thoroughly checking it out.

Thank you.

This reminds me of my closest friends, my godson's parents. Every year for fifteen years they threw a world class Halloween party at their house, everyone looked forward to it.  One of their "rituals" was sending a written invitation to the sitting President of the United States ("Hey, he MIGHT come..." ) Every year like clockwork a polite form letter declining but wishing them well was sent back. I guess they could put all those form letters in a book and tell everyone that they were close friends of Reagan, Carter and Bush Sr. offering these letters as "proof".  8)
Title: Re: One thing i find odd part two.
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 07, 2006, 08:57:54 AM
In the discussion I had with Kurth, he stated that the DNA evidence could not be trusted, the hair sample could not be trusted, that the evidence as a whole was overwhelmingly indicative of FS's being GDA. Never once in what was a lengthy conversation did he deviate from his belief that FS was GDA.  He was adamant that the evidence taken as a whole was proof that FS was the GDA.  This was only a few months ago, so yes, I would say he was conned and continues to be so.  Kurth and the Schweitzers might not feel they were conned but they were.

On Mr. Kurth's current website he writes:

"....In October 1994, from Lenox Hill Hospital, I issued a statement, which I quote here in edited form: 
 
I knew Anna Anderson for more than ten years and have been acquainted with virtually everyone involved in her quest for recognition over the last quarter-century:  friends, lawyers, companions, neighbors, journalists, historians, Russian and European royalty and aristocratic families—a wide array of competent witnesses who didn't hesitate to acknowledge her as the daughter of the tsar.  My experience of her character, my thorough knowledge of her case, and, it seems to me, probability and common sense all convince me that she was indeed Anastasia of Russia.

 This conviction, while obviously challenged by today's announcement, remains unshaken.  As a layman, I’m not in a position to dispute Dr. Gill's findings; had the results only revealed that Mrs. Anderson was not a member of the Romanov family, I might have been able to accept them, if not easily, then at least eventually.  I am unable, however, by any persuasion of science or forensic testing, to credit the identification of Mrs. Anderson with Franziska Schanzkowska.

 I can state without fear of reasonable contradiction that no one who knew Anna Anderson closely, who lived in her company for months and years, who tended and treated her through multiple illnesses as her doctor or nurse, who spoke with her at length and in detail about the stages of her life, who observed her comportment, carriage and demeanor and heard her converse intelligently on many subjects in several languages—I affirm that no one who knew her as I and others did can believe that she was born in an East Prussian farming village in 1896 as the daughter and sister of beet farmers.


 Since I wrote those words, no evidence has come to my attention that alters my belief in Anna Anderson's authenticity.   I want this to be clear, because I frequently hear that I've changed my mind ... "  [underline mine]

Mr. Kurth then continues to present various arguments in favor of Anna Anderson being GDA and not FS. He goes on to quote Greg King's argument against the DNA results:

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

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

http://www.peterkurth.com/TEXT%20ONLY%20VERSION.htm


 

Title: Re: One thing i find odd part two.
Post by: AGRBear on November 07, 2006, 09:49:01 AM
Quote
Re: One thing I find odd
   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote from: AGRBear on Yesterday at 01:37:06 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.

Since this was the last post on "One thing i find odd"  before it was locked,  I feel  I should respond since Annie has directed her post directly towards me and  the authors Summers and Mangold.

There is a thread about Summers and Mangold's book THE FILE ON THE TSAR  ed. one  which was written way back in 1976 which was long before DNA testing and they  voiced that they didn't think AA was GD Anastasia.  The information they gave had sources which can still be followed even today and my quote about the claimant still stands.  I'm sorry if Annie doesn't like Summers and Mangold but that is her right as it is my right to use their sources which continue to be accurate.  Farther discussion about Summers and Mangold should be taken to the book section.  As for my quote,  as  I've voiced, it still is accurate, if not then I'd like to see Annie's source/sources and what she may present  could change my mnd on this subject or any other subject.

AGRBear
Title: Re: One thing i find odd part two.
Post by: Tania+ on November 07, 2006, 10:12:36 AM
Indeed AGBear, I think on these forums, yours is a reasonable request. I think it is important for all sources to be shared, certainly discussed, and I am sure everyone awaits with greatest anticipation Annie's response on this last point of this thread.

Tatiana+
Title: Re: One thing i find odd part two.
Post by: Tsarfan on November 07, 2006, 10:16:20 AM

Just out of curiousity, how many claimants were there for Michael? I know there had to be some (not nearly as much as for Alexei - I am sure of that, but there had to be a few). Does anyone know?


I don't know about any claimants, but I did find this rather bizarre reference on a rather hyperbolic Orthodox Church website:  http://www.serfes.org/royal/romanovpretenders.htm:

"Recent claims made in the book, Blood Relative, by British history professor Michael Gray that the Tsarevich (from whom he claims illegitimate descent) escaped Russia with the Dowager Empress in 1919 onboard HMS Marlborough, and assumed the name Nikolai Chebotarev are likewise absurd.  As is his claim Nicholas II's corpse was switched with that of his brother the Grand Duke Michael to throw off investigators.  The fact that the Grand Duke's body was dismembered and incinerated by the Bolsheviks in a St. Petersburg blast furnace after his murder in 1918 (prior to the regicide) is ignored, and a host of unsubstantiated conspiracy theories involving forensic evidence tampering, combined with a loose (in place erroneous) interpretation of DNA analysis, advanced in a futile attempt to explain the alleged body switch and DNA results which do not prove his point." [emphasis added]

A body switch between Nicholas and Michael?  And the transport of Michael's body from Perm to St. Petersburg to be burned in some blast furnace?  And these claims presented by an Orthodox Church website based in Boise, Idaho?

What next?  Spaceships and little green men?


Title: Re: One thing i find odd part two.
Post by: AGRBear on November 07, 2006, 10:29:32 AM
Peter Kurth:

Quote
I can state without fear of reasonable contradiction that no one who knew Anna Anderson closely, who lived in her company for months and years, who tended and treated her through multiple illnesses as her doctor or nurse, who spoke with her at length and in detail about the stages of her life, who observed her comportment, carriage and demeanor and heard her converse intelligently on many subjects in several languages—I affirm that no one who knew her as I and others did can believe that she was born in an East Prussian farming village in 1896 as the daughter and sister of beet farmers.

This appears to be a honest and truthful statement by Peter Kurth.   And his statement is of value since he did know AA.  This does not mean I agree with him,  I do not.  But my information is not from personal contact.   .   My  data was collected long before Peter Kurth's book  was published.  The data  I already had were from books,  articles, etc. etc.  written by people who may or may not have known AA at all.  Perhaps this is a disadvantage for me, or,  it may not since  my search  has not become personal.   In case you are interested,   I  came to the conclusion a long time ago that AA was probably not GD Anastasia.  However,  my conclusion is my own.  And, yes,  having  come to the conclusion before Kurth wrote  his book may have influenced my conclusion.   That said,  I  must and will defend Peter Kurth's right to his conclusion because they are his own and he has the right to his conclusion based on knowing AA better than I and most of us.    

As for the DNA tests,  I don't think Dr. Gill, Dr. Ginther  or the others had reason to give us false information derived from the samples they were given.

Now, about this thread:  I think some posters tone on this thread and the last  toward Peter Kurth's conclusion about AA and the DNA  is unexceptable .  To me, it appears that some of you haven't learn how to disagree without taking personal  "pot shots"  which closed down the original thread.   What I'm trying to point out is:   it appears this thread  continues with what Lisa requested not to continue.  

AGRBear
Title: Re: One thing i find odd part two.
Post by: Tsarfan on November 07, 2006, 10:33:13 AM
Please, everyone.  Aren't there already dozens upon dozens of pages on other threads about Anna Anderson?  Could this discussion perhaps be moved there?
Title: Re: One thing i find odd part two.
Post by: Tania+ on November 07, 2006, 10:40:47 AM
Here, Here AGRBear, I heartily agree. Lisa asked for a considerate tone, and that is reasonable to request from all participants here.
Peter Kurth has the right to his conclusions as we all do. Nothing unusual about that, and the world around us.It's everyone's right, readers to members on this forum to draw their own conclusions without others being personal in their remarks, which is of course what most adults should be able to do without even having a moderator to remind them. But, as we see, time after time, Lisa or Rob has to be called in because some adults here on the forum, forget their manners...Let's hope that this and other threads can continue to share all sides so that those reading them can gain what they will. Regardless if a thread stays or is moved, tone is still held responsible....

Tatiana+
Title: Re: One thing i find odd part two.
Post by: Louis_Charles on November 07, 2006, 10:44:44 AM
Bev was right. Knock it off.
Title: Re: One thing i find odd part two.
Post by: AGRBear on November 07, 2006, 10:51:23 AM

Just out of curiousity, how many claimants were there for Michael? I know there had to be some (not nearly as much as for Alexei - I am sure of that, but there had to be a few). Does anyone know?


I don't know about any claimants, but I did find this rather bizarre reference on a rather hyperbolic Orthodox Church website:  http://www.serfes.org/royal/romanovpretenders.htm:

"Recent claims made in the book, Blood Relative, by British history professor Michael Gray that the Tsarevich (from whom he claims illegitimate descent) escaped Russia with the Dowager Empress in 1919 onboard HMS Marlborough, and assumed the name Nikolai Chebotarev are likewise absurd.  As is his claim Nicholas II's corpse was switched with that of his brother the Grand Duke Michael to throw off investigators.  The fact that the Grand Duke's body was dismembered and incinerated by the Bolsheviks in a St. Petersburg blast furnace after his murder in 1918 (prior to the regicide) is ignored, and a host of unsubstantiated conspiracy theories involving forensic evidence tampering, combined with a loose (in place erroneous) interpretation of DNA analysis, advanced in a futile attempt to explain the alleged body switch and DNA results which do not prove his point." [emphasis added]

A body switch between Nicholas and Michael?  And the transport of Michael's body from Perm to St. Petersburg to be burned in some blast furnace?  And these claims presented by an Orthodox Church website based in Boise, Idaho?

What next?  Spaceships and little green men?




I don't have time this morning to read the site but I know from  many PMs I've received in the past that doubt about the remains being Nicholas II usually stem from two things:

1)  the arm bone which the Russian scientists placed  next to Nicholas II's skeleton is that of a taller man;  Maples mentions it in his book and remarks that he thinks the Russians are mistaken and that the arm bone probably belongs to one of the servents
2)  the saber blow to Nicholas II's head left a thin slice of skull bone missing and this mark was not found on the skull which was marked as Nicholas II's....

Gotta run. 

AGRBear

PS  Example of a line that  was not necssary to make  Tsarfan's point is: 
Quote
What next?  Spaceships and little green men?
Title: Re: One thing i find odd part two.
Post by: Tania+ on November 07, 2006, 10:54:50 AM
I am going to say this one more time, but most importantly with our moderators to view what I have to say.

Any one of us is a free independent entity, free to offer our personal thoughts and feelings on any given thread. If this is not what the AP Forum was created for, then please, tell us the forum members as well as the readers that we are not allowed to say our views.
I am really quite upset that someone also makes fun of my having religious beliefs, as I am Russian Orthodox, or to any said church affiliation...

Secondly, if I wish to say that the IF was beautiful, and or any other statement that is for their departed souls, that is my right and I need not, nor any member or new member or reader not need bear the continued pot shots, and arrogant continuious barrage by some members bent on trying to either close down a given member, or to chase them from the forums.

I have not infringed on your rights Tsarfan, Louis Charles, Annie, Bev, and a few other members who continue to harass me because they have nothing of other to do with their valuable time.

No one needs to be told 'knock it off'. Why is this form of address and these needless affronts allowed to continue ?
I think that it shows little respect to any of us and of bottom line, of why the Forum was created initially to continue these endless snide remarks.

Lisa, Rob, Bob, why must we as members and readers still forced to receive these kind of addresses ?

Tatiana+

Title: Re: One thing i find odd part two.
Post by: Louis_Charles on November 07, 2006, 10:57:19 AM
Look, Bear, it is not necessary to take a governessy tone here --- these two threads have been distinguished by a certain amount of levity, and frankly, I think he has a point. If every single person who ever claimed to be one of the Imperial Family is to be treated with grim consideration, then you will spend the rest of your life running after silly stories. No serious scientist or historian doubts that the remains in the grave belonged to Nicholas, and we all know that. The name of this thread is One Thing I Find Odd, not One More Claimant Who Should Be Considered. There are other threads for that; what we have been considering on THIS thread are the claims that are preposterous.
Title: Re: One thing i find odd part two.
Post by: Louis_Charles on November 07, 2006, 10:59:15 AM
I am going to say this one more time, but most importantly with our moderators to view what I have to say.

Any one of us is a free independent entity, free to offer our personal thoughts and feelings on any given thread. If this is not what the AP Forum was created for, then please, tell us the forum members as well as the readers that we are not allowed to say our views.
I am really quite upset that someone also makes fun of my having religious beliefs, as I am Russian Orthodox, or to any said church affiliation...

Secondly, if I wish to say that the IF was beautiful, and or any other statement that is for their departed souls, that is my right and I need not, nor any member or new member or reader not need bear the continued pot shots, and arrogant continuious barrage by some members bent on trying to either close down a given member, or to chase them from the forums.

I have not infringed on your rights Tsarfan, Louis Charles, Annie, Bev, and a few other members who continue to harass me because they have nothing of other to do with their valuable time.

No one needs to be told 'knock it off'. Why is this form of address and these needless affronts allowed to continue ?
I think that it shows little respect to any of us and of bottom line, of why the Forum was created initially to continue these endless snide remarks.

Lisa, Rob, Bob, why must we as members and readers still forced to receive these kind of addresses ?

Tatiana+



Perhaps if you ceased posting thinly veiled behavioral corrections, we would not be so pointed in our responses. In fact, you seek out people in order to do this. If we bother you so much, feel free to ignore us. In any event, you provoke this reaction deliberately.

And no one is "harassing" you; all of my posts have been public, and in response to your public posts. I doubt strongly that Tsarfan, Bev or Rachel have PM'd you to mock anything at all. Public posts get public responses. This is not harassment.
Title: Re: One thing i find odd part two.
Post by: Penny_Wilson on November 07, 2006, 11:07:03 AM

I don't know about any claimants...

Various "Michaels" were popping up throughout Siberia relatively quickly after his death:  One of the first was allegedly in Turkestan, issuing a manifesto and trying to raise an army; a second was supposed to have been in Omsk at the head of a band of Cossacks.  Dmitri Pavlovich heard about the latter while he was in Persia and wrote: "Misha is advancing on Moscow with Cossacks and has been proclaimed Emperor." (DP's Diary, Houghton, Harvard University)  But it is difficult to ascertain if these two "Michaels" were real claimants or if they -- and their actions -- were merely rumors.

Beginning in 1919, there were sightings of Michael in the far east: Japan, China, Thailand.  Again, it's difficult to know if these are only rumors, or if there were real people making claims.  In February 1919, a man appeared at the Colonial Office in a town in French Indo-China, seeking a visa under Michael's name and titles.  There was a Top Secret report made, including photographs of the man who claimed to be Michael; these photos were shown to some friends of Michael and relatives of his wife -- and he was determined to be a fraud.  According to the Crawfords in their book Michael and Natasha, information on this claimant can be found at the Leeds Russian Archive MS 1363/101.

A later "Michael" appeared in Shanghai -- but by September 1919, Admiral Kolchak was writing to Natasha that there was no solid evidence of Michael having been anywhere after Perm, and that he did not know what had happened to him.


... but I did find this rather bizarre reference on a rather hyperbolic Orthodox Church website:  http://www.serfes.org/royal/romanovpretenders.htm:

"Recent claims made in the book, Blood Relative, by British history professor Michael Gray that the Tsarevich (from whom he claims illegitimate descent) escaped Russia with the Dowager Empress in 1919 onboard HMS Marlborough, and assumed the name Nikolai Chebotarev are likewise absurd.  As is his claim Nicholas II's corpse was switched with that of his brother the Grand Duke Michael to throw off investigators.  The fact that the Grand Duke's body was dismembered and incinerated by the Bolsheviks in a St. Petersburg blast furnace after his murder in 1918 (prior to the regicide) is ignored, and a host of unsubstantiated conspiracy theories involving forensic evidence tampering, combined with a loose (in place erroneous) interpretation of DNA analysis, advanced in a futile attempt to explain the alleged body switch and DNA results which do not prove his point." [emphasis added]

A body switch between Nicholas and Michael?  And the transport of Michael's body from Perm to St. Petersburg to be burned in some blast furnace?  And these claims presented by an Orthodox Church website based in Boise, Idaho?

What next?  Spaceships and little green men?


There have always been rumors about what happened to Michaels' remains.  One has them being buried in an area that was later paved over for housing; another says that he was not buried at all, but was burned up in a smelter at some sort of factory in or near Motovilikhi -- I think this last is where the above interpretation comes from.

~Penny
Title: Re: One thing i find odd part two.
Post by: Tania+ on November 07, 2006, 11:12:05 AM
None of what I post is veiled ! You must respond on your own conduct Louis Charles, as you are not a 'we', or are you ?
It is up to the moderator to ask any one of us to continue or not to continue, not you to take it upon yourself individually or as a group to take it upon yourselves to decide who is ok and who is not ok on this forum.

Your reactions are yours alone. As the forum states, stick to the topic, and not be personalized or to find something to attack another. Readers believe me are able to discern who is repetative in what they do and of what they post.

In my address I stick to the point of what is addressed nothing more. If you don't like it, then it is you who are looking to make problems where there are none to be made ! Agree to disagree on what is here, not on what you think you want to create discension on. Live for more than creating to distance people. Connect because your words can produce purpose, peacefully !

Tatiana+
Title: Re: One thing i find odd part two.
Post by: Annie on November 07, 2006, 11:22:36 AM

A body switch between Nicholas and Michael?  And the transport of Michael's body from Perm to St. Petersburg to be burned in some blast furnace?  And these claims presented by an Orthodox Church website based in Boise, Idaho?

That is a wild one! But since Michael was a great deal taller than Nicholas, and had a very different face, I am sure the skeletons will bear this out to be false!

Quote
What next?  Spaceships and little green men?




You mean that one HASN'T been used? ???
Title: Re: One thing i find odd part two.
Post by: Annie on November 07, 2006, 11:30:57 AM


 I can state without fear of reasonable contradiction that no one who knew Anna Anderson closely, who lived in her company for months and years, who tended and treated her through multiple illnesses as her doctor or nurse, who spoke with her at length and in detail about the stages of her life, who observed her comportment, carriage and demeanor and heard her converse intelligently on many subjects in several languages—I affirm that no one who knew her as I and others did can believe that she was born in an East Prussian farming village in 1896 as the daughter and sister of beet farmers. [/i]


http://www.peterkurth.com/TEXT%20ONLY%20VERSION.htm


 

I have several problems with this. First, it's an insult to East Prussian beet farmers! How dare  he stereotype them all?

Second, as someone mentioned in the last thread, many people of humble beginnings have manged to become great actresses (or actors) and play the role of an aristocrat convincingly, even winning Oscars! Where a person is from and what job they worked means nothing.

Third, I seriously doubt she conversed with people intelligently in several languages. Is there any evidence she used anything but German and her pathetic English (which was clearly not the English of a girl raised by parents who spoke proper British English every day)?

Her 'carriage and demeanor?' You mean the scruffy, crotchety old woman who rode around in a rattle trap station wagon and lived in squalor among dozens of cats and dogs and mounds of cans and garbage inside and outside the house? Does that look or sound like an uppity person to you? From what I have seen of her in videos and pics, and even read in books by her supporters, she seemed very common. I don't mean to insult her, I am sure she was a nice lady to care for all those animals, but hardly a princess!
Title: Re: One thing i find odd part two.
Post by: Ra-Ra-Rasputin on November 07, 2006, 11:35:56 AM
Thanks for the Michael info, Penny.

So, does this mean that there are no claimants for Michael who have made consistent public claims of their identity? Do we think this is because Michael had a wife still living?

Rachel
xx
Title: Re: One thing i find odd part two.
Post by: Bev on November 07, 2006, 12:04:26 PM
No one is "entitled" to a wrong opinion.  Opinion must be informed by facts, evidence and the rigourous application of logic.  You can draw any conclusion that you want, but you're not "entitled" to twist or ignore facts, disregard evidence or suspend belief in natural laws.  You may do it, you can do it, but the facts and evidence belong to all of us, and no one is "entitled" to his own facts  and evidence nor an opinion based on such.  No one has a particular license or privelege that allows them to hold opinion based on nothing more than romantic wishful thinking.  As I said, you can have an opinion, but you're not entitled to it and you have no right to foist it on others and not expect to be called on it.  When Kurth and Kendrick make claims in public based on bad evidence and/or no evidence then they should expect to be called on it and so should anyone else.
Title: Re: One thing i find odd part two.
Post by: AGRBear on November 07, 2006, 12:10:50 PM
A poster wanted to know why people believe that the remains found in the mass grave were not Nicholas II's.  I gave you two  of their reasons.

I did not include myself because at this time I continue to believe the remains in the mass grave are Nicholas II's.

AND,  as I said,  Maples believe the arm bone belonged to one of the male servents and the Russians were mistaken to place it with Nicholas II's bones.  And he's probably correct.

AGRBear


Title: Re: One thing i find odd part two.
Post by: Tania+ on November 07, 2006, 12:12:56 PM
Well, until all facts are in, I will continue to offer like everyone else what imho i think is. Of course it will be or not be refuted, that is on whateve the subject matter may be, and or whatever, who is offering, whose opinion. Like it or not, we are all free to do, say, think, and offer what ever it is we wish, period. Until you see a moderator stating otherwise, the public will continue here and elsewhere to post what they wish !  :-*   ;)

Tatiana+
Title: Re: One thing i find odd part two.
Post by: AGRBear on November 07, 2006, 12:47:30 PM

I don't know about any claimants...

Various "Michaels" were popping up throughout Siberia relatively quickly after his death:  One of the first was allegedly in Turkestan, issuing a manifesto and trying to raise an army; a second was supposed to have been in Omsk at the head of a band of Cossacks.  Dmitri Pavlovich heard about the latter while he was in Persia and wrote: "Misha is advancing on Moscow with Cossacks and has been proclaimed Emperor." (DP's Diary, Houghton, Harvard University)  But it is difficult to ascertain if these two "Michaels" were real claimants or if they -- and their actions -- were merely rumors.

Beginning in 1919, there were sightings of Michael in the far east: Japan, China, Thailand.  Again, it's difficult to know if these are only rumors, or if there were real people making claims.  In February 1919, a man appeared at the Colonial Office in a town in French Indo-China, seeking a visa under Michael's name and titles.  There was a Top Secret report made, including photographs of the man who claimed to be Michael; these photos were shown to some friends of Michael and relatives of his wife -- and he was determined to be a fraud.  According to the Crawfords in their book Michael and Natasha, information on this claimant can be found at the Leeds Russian Archive MS 1363/101.

A later "Michael" appeared in Shanghai -- but by September 1919, Admiral Kolchak was writing to Natasha that there was no solid evidence of Michael having been anywhere after Perm, and that he did not know what had happened to him.


... but I did find this rather bizarre reference on a rather hyperbolic Orthodox Church website:  http://www.serfes.org/royal/romanovpretenders.htm:

"Recent claims made in the book, Blood Relative, by British history professor Michael Gray that the Tsarevich (from whom he claims illegitimate descent) escaped Russia with the Dowager Empress in 1919 onboard HMS Marlborough, and assumed the name Nikolai Chebotarev are likewise absurd.  As is his claim Nicholas II's corpse was switched with that of his brother the Grand Duke Michael to throw off investigators.  The fact that the Grand Duke's body was dismembered and incinerated by the Bolsheviks in a St. Petersburg blast furnace after his murder in 1918 (prior to the regicide) is ignored, and a host of unsubstantiated conspiracy theories involving forensic evidence tampering, combined with a loose (in place erroneous) interpretation of DNA analysis, advanced in a futile attempt to explain the alleged body switch and DNA results which do not prove his point." [emphasis added]

A body switch between Nicholas and Michael?  And the transport of Michael's body from Perm to St. Petersburg to be burned in some blast furnace?  And these claims presented by an Orthodox Church website based in Boise, Idaho?

What next?  Spaceships and little green men?


There have always been rumors about what happened to Michaels' remains.  One has them being buried in an area that was later paved over for housing; another says that he was not buried at all, but was burned up in a smelter at some sort of factory in or near Motovilikhi -- I think this last is where the above interpretation comes from.

~Penny


Thanks Penny.

Title: Re: One thing i find odd part two.
Post by: Louis_Charles on November 07, 2006, 12:48:49 PM
Feel free to post, but you might try having an actual, you know, subject --- other than the general unworthiness of those who do not meet your obscure standards for discourse.
I repeat: if you insist upon issuing corrections to people who choose to disagree with you, then don't be upset if you are called on it, Tatiana.


She will now post something to the effect that everyone has a right to post whatever they want in the service of truth, justice, whatever, and that I am trying to deny her the right to hold whatever opinons she has. None of this is true. Sigh.
Title: Re: One thing i find odd part two.
Post by: Tania+ on November 07, 2006, 01:06:02 PM
Louis,

Wow, now you are allowing me ? ...in telling me that I am free to post. How kind of you, though this is not your forum.... But, I love you in spite of your remarks and unwarranted behviour. Your too good to be true  :-*
Wow, your clarivoyant as well, stupendous ! We are so lucky,  :D I hope though you don't make a living declaring what people will do next. Oh boy could Saddam use your abilities

But, back to the thread, and what is being discussed and of real importance....

Penny, it is true of where this last interpretation comes from. Thank you for sharing it with the forum members.

Tatiana+
Title: Re: One thing i find odd part two.
Post by: Louis_Charles on November 07, 2006, 01:08:30 PM
Glad you appreciate my largesse, Tatiana. And yes, you may return to the discussion. I assume since you accepted my permission you will also try to avoid the personal attacks? Good.

And I love you too.  :-*
Title: Re: One thing i find odd part two.
Post by: AGRBear on November 07, 2006, 01:10:34 PM
No one is "entitled" to a wrong opinion.  Opinion must be informed by facts, evidence and the rigourous application of logic.  You can draw any conclusion that you want, but you're not "entitled" to twist or ignore facts, disregard evidence or suspend belief in natural laws.  You may do it, you can do it, but the facts and evidence belong to all of us, and no one is "entitled" to his own facts  and evidence nor an opinion based on such.  No one has a particular license or privelege that allows them to hold opinion based on nothing more than romantic wishful thinking.  As I said, you can have an opinion, but you're not entitled to it and you have no right to foist it on others and not expect to be called on it.  When Kurth and Kendrick make claims in public based on bad evidence and/or no evidence then they should expect to be called on it and so should anyone else.

Everyone is entitled their their opinion based on what they think the facts are.  This is why it is so important to tell us your sources so I can go to the source and see for myself  what or who is behind the "facts".    My conclusion may be  the same as yours or it may be different than yours for a number of reasons.   One reason  may be that I  know a great deal about  the particular subject,  I  can  present a dozen sources which I believe nulify the source  given.   It is this give and take of facts in a discussion which others can read and make their own opinions, even though Bev and I  do not convince each other.

If a person knowingly gives facts which they know are not true,  then this is wrong.  Far as I can see Kurth continues to believe AA was GD Anastasia,  or so  Helen has presented in her post.  He has a book full of sources.  Kendrick  believes in Tammet being  Alexei and he has told us so in threads on AP.  Now,  if we can "give and take" the facts without throwing stones,  we can all learn from each other , AND, it will be a nice day for all.

AGRBear
Title: Re: One thing i find odd part two.
Post by: Louis_Charles on November 07, 2006, 01:18:48 PM
This is getting somewhat off-topic, but this thread seems to meander.

I would like to agree with the idea that everyone is entitled to his or her opinion because it sounds nice, but if you subject it to scrutiny it doesn't hold up. Surely people with the "opinion" that other races or religions are subservient to their own are not "entitled" to hold such an opinion without challenge, nor can their interpetation of "facts" be allowed to stand without attack. Surely you accept that there are truths, Bear, and that not every single thing in life is open to question? Actually, I may have put that incorrectly. The verities HAVE been questioned, and answers have been found.

Well, if it works on a larger scale (discrimination), it can also work on a smaller scale (history). It is possible to arrive at the truth about whether, say, Nicholas II was in the grave or whether Princess Anne was covertly recognizing Tammet as Alexei when "she" sent him a telegram incorrectly addressed.

Opinions can be disputed, and if they are proved wrong, is one entitled to hold them? As a teacher, I would have to say no.
Title: Re: One thing i find odd part two.
Post by: Tania+ on November 07, 2006, 01:19:42 PM
I agree Bear, right on! and oh yes LC, or Louis Charles, you did not honestly think i or anyone could ever think you to have the ability to 'give permission' to anyone, did you? Oh you make me laugh outloud, you silly boy !

I will continue as every free person does, to review facts that are offered, agree, disagree, or refute what I don't wish. You and anyone else has no control on these forums save those who are legally allowed to do so, and I don't see yours or anyone else's save the names of Bob, Rob, and Lisa.

They for me, and considerably for the rest of the membership and readers, remain the only ones who are identifiably proved to be able to say what they will and in giving permission to all or none. You might want their positions, but i don't think they will offer it even to you....

Tatiana+
Title: Re: One thing i find odd part two.
Post by: Louis_Charles on November 07, 2006, 01:22:28 PM
Tatiana,

I was only going by what you posted. In the future, it might be best if you let us know when you are kidding. I think I speak for all of us when I say that it will make it much easier to deal with your posts.

But I still love you.  :-*

Title: Re: One thing i find odd part two.
Post by: grandduchessella on November 07, 2006, 01:24:02 PM
Well, it seems a good deal of information here is getting sandwiched between personal sniping. I would make the request, as I have before on other threads, that posters should please address personal concerns with other posters to PM. There is no need to drag the rest of the board into it. If a poster feels on is rude, or mocking or overly-strict or any of the other adjectives tossed around on all sides, is it really necessary to air it out in the public forum? This is something that isn't the expression of free ideas or representative of the tone that Rob and Bob work very hard to maintain. It just creates an atmosphere where people are reluctant to post. Every day I notice the 'new users' that sign up and yet I see comparatively few of them post on any consistent basis--if at all. As a moderator, I want everyone to feel comfortable posting their opinions without fear of mockery or over-correction.

Now, off that soapbox, I would like to return to the earlier point about the telegram. As the FA pointed out, you can get responses from official agencies fairly easily. I sent a wedding invitation to both the President and the Pope as I had heard you'd get a response (if not an acceptance!) and I thought it would make a nice souvenir. I was sent official response from both and they went right into the wedding scrapbooks.

I really have to admire Tsarfan's dedication in calling Princess Anne's office!  :o I think that that is just great and supplied some real information for the discussion.
Title: Re: One thing i find odd part two.
Post by: Bev on November 07, 2006, 01:32:20 PM
You can have sources and footnotes galore, but that doesn't mean you're right because you can quote sources.  The sources have to right.
Title: Re: One thing i find odd part two.
Post by: Ra-Ra-Rasputin on November 07, 2006, 01:56:14 PM
Wow. I'm sending my 21st birthday invite to the Queen, then!

And good detective work, Tsarfan! I love the fact that you just rang up Princess Anne.  Even though you didn't speak to her personally, that's pretty impressive!

Rachel
xx
Title: Re: One thing i find odd part two.
Post by: Lemur on November 07, 2006, 02:33:52 PM
Wow this sure got started and festered quickly! For a moment I didn't even notice it was part 2.
Title: Re: One thing i find odd part two.
Post by: lexi4 on November 07, 2006, 03:25:46 PM
So Belocha, Are you a hemotologist? What are your medical credentials. Others may know this, but I do not.
Thank you,
Lexi
Title: Re: One thing i find odd part two.
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 07, 2006, 04:39:21 PM
So Belocha, Are you a hemotologist? What are your medical credentials. Others may know this, but I do not.
Thank you,
Lexi

I will be more than happy to give you both my co-author's and my own quailifications. Margarita is a qualified medical scientist of twenty years standing holding a number of qualifications, which includes a university postgraduate medical science degree. She has worked in both diagnostic and research hematology/immunology laboratories in two major city hospitals. Her specialization is pathology, which was followed up with post graduate legal studies.

My own qualification are not limited to a Masters in Library Science, although this is correct. I also have a Masters degree in Biochemistry with over five years bench top research experience in biochemistry, molecular biology and molecular neurophysiology. In addition, I hold a post graduate certificate in Drug Discovery and Clinical Research. If you have any more questions, I will be very happy to answer them.

Title: Re: One thing i find odd part two.
Post by: Louis_Charles on November 07, 2006, 04:43:17 PM
The crack about Penny Wilson is uncalled for and unnecessary.
Title: Re: One thing i find odd part two.
Post by: LisaDavidson on November 07, 2006, 05:14:25 PM
The crack about Penny Wilson is uncalled for and unnecessary.

I agree.

Now hear this: posters have been warned and one thread locked down. The next person to personally attack another poster on this thread will face a 90 day suspension. I am sure that Bob and Rob will back me up on this.

There is no need to be nasty, sarcastic, mean or unpleasant to anyone on this board. I won't have it in the Survivors section. If anyone has said something they should not have, you need to apologize immediately by PM. Granduchessella has instructed you to keep your personal disagreements off this board, so we must back her up on this.

Now, back to posting.
Title: Re: One thing i find odd part two.
Post by: Tsarfan on November 07, 2006, 05:15:19 PM
So Belocha, Are you a hemotologist? What are your medical credentials. Others may know this, but I do not.

Margarita is a qualified medical scientist of twenty years standing holding a number of qualifications, which includes a university postgraduate medical science degree. She has worked in both diagnostic and research hematology/immunology laboratories in two major city hospitals. Her specialization is pathology, which was followed up with post graduate legal studies.

My own qualification are not limited to a Masters in Library Science, although this is correct. I also have a Masters degree in Biochemistry with over five years bench top research experience in biochemistry, molecular biology and molecular neurophysiology. In addition, I hold a post graduate certificate in Drug Discovery and Clinical Research.


I notice that Mr. Kendrick has not yet answered the question he was asked earlier about his medical credentials.  Perhaps he will grace us with the answer on the Heino Tammet thread.
Title: Re: One thing i find odd part two.
Post by: Annie on November 07, 2006, 06:14:58 PM
You can have sources and footnotes galore, but that doesn't mean you're right because you can quote sources.  The sources have to right.

Exactly! This is why I have such a problem with people endlessly quoting from the same books all the time. Some posters incorrectly believe that if they can put a page number to something it's the 'truth' but this is not necessarily so! Many of those quotes were incorrect, speculation or lies, or were later proven wrong. Just because you can say 'on page 222 of Blah Book, Mrs. Gertrude said La la la" does not mean this is the truth. All it means is that someone allegedly said something. This may or may not be true, and even if they said it, they may well have been wrong. So saying you used 'sources' does not always mean you are right.
Title: Re: One thing i find odd part two.
Post by: lexi4 on November 07, 2006, 08:17:53 PM
So Belocha, Are you a hemotologist? What are your medical credentials. Others may know this, but I do not.
Thank you,
Lexi

I will be more than happy to give you both my co-author's and my own quailifications. Margarita is a qualified medical scientist of twenty years standing holding a number of qualifications, which includes a university postgraduate medical science degree. She has worked in both diagnostic and research hematology/immunology laboratories in two major city hospitals. Her specialization is pathology, which was followed up with post graduate legal studies.

My own qualification are not limited to a Masters in Library Science, although this is correct. I also have a Masters degree in Biochemistry with over five years bench top research experience in biochemistry, molecular biology and molecular neurophysiology. In addition, I hold a post graduate certificate in Drug Discovery and Clinical Research. If you have any more questions, I will be very happy to answer them.


Thank you Helen. I appreciate that.
Lexi
Title: Re: One thing i find odd part two.
Post by: lexi4 on November 07, 2006, 08:20:28 PM
Btw, what was "the one thing I fund odd"? I don't even remember.  :)
Title: Re: One thing i find odd part two.
Post by: AGRBear on November 08, 2006, 02:37:37 AM
You can have sources and footnotes galore, but that doesn't mean you're right because you can quote sources.  The sources have to right.

Exactly! This is why I have such a problem with people endlessly quoting from the same books all the time. Some posters incorrectly believe that if they can put a page number to something it's the 'truth' but this is not necessarily so! Many of those quotes were incorrect, speculation or lies, or were later proven wrong. Just because you can say 'on page 222 of Blah Book, Mrs. Gertrude said La la la" does not mean this is the truth. All it means is that someone allegedly said something. This may or may not be true, and even if they said it, they may well have been wrong. So saying you used 'sources' does not always mean you are right.

Let me explain, again, why it's important to quote sources, even though it's a pain in the neck to go find the book or newspaper or whatever it is you are using as a source,  and present it to all of us.   With the source  such as Annie's example of  page 222  in the  "Blah book" which Annie tells us stated "Mrs. Gertrude said,  "La la la"  we can find it and read it for ourself.  I may see that indieed Mrs. Gertrude said, "La la la...." and that Mrs. Gertrude said in the rest of the sentence on page 223,  "... I was the daughter of my father's first wife.".     



 ::) AGRBear
Title: Re: One thing i find odd part two.
Post by: Annie on November 08, 2006, 06:40:04 AM
You're still assuming that just because Mrs. Gertrude said it on page 222 that it's a 'fact.' In all these he said she said things, it's possible Mrs. Gertrude lied, and it's also possible that her words were twisted or even fabricated by someone else along the line. On the other hand, DNA tests are not twisted (and no intestines get switched) so they hold much more weight than what Miss Woopee said about a pair of shoes. Then of course with shoes, it's even more subjective, and human error (in addition to possibe lying) comes into play. People may be unsure after so many years, or they may even be the wrong shoes and the originals long gone. So what it comes down to is all the little tidbits AA touters like to hold to as 'everything else I can't ignore' really don't mean anything compared to the DNA.
Title: Re: One thing i find odd part two.
Post by: Lemur on November 08, 2006, 09:46:37 AM
Btw, what was "the one thing I fund odd"? I don't even remember.  :)

I've been saying that for awhile now! :D I suppose it's ALL odd! 8)
Title: Re: One thing i find odd part two.
Post by: AGRBear on November 08, 2006, 09:52:19 AM
You're still assuming that just because Mrs. Gertrude said it on page 222 that it's a 'fact.' In all these he said she said things, it's possible Mrs. Gertrude lied,,,,

Bear's Answer: 
Not only did Mrs. Gertrude say it on page 222,  maybe over on page 224 there is proof she said it in court under oath.  Of course,  it still could be a lie.  But are you the only person who can make that judgement for all of us?

Annie:
Quote
..., and it's also possible that her words were twisted or even fabricated by someone else along the line.
 

Bear's Answer:

Again, Mrs. Gertrude words may have been twisted by the author so then it IS important to know who the author is and his position on the subject of Mrs. Gertrude. 

Annie:
Quote
On the other hand, DNA tests are not twisted (and no intestines get switched) so they hold much more weight than what Miss Woopee said about a pair of shoes.

Bear's Answer:
The above statements about twisting facts can also be true of those providing the DNA tests, so,   knowing if the tester was the  high school drop out  named Black or a welll known scientists like Dr. Gilliusmann would help the rest of us to deside which tests are probably more accurate than the other.

Annie:
Quote
Then of course with shoes, it's even more subjective, and human error (in addition to possibe lying) comes into play. People may be unsure after so many years, or they may even be the wrong shoes and the originals long gone

Bear's Answer:
If Jane Doe's motherr told the court that her daughter wore size 2 shoe,  and, the court was provided with evidence that AA, who was seated in court, wore size 5 shoe,  I think it would help show that Jane Doe wasn't AA.

Each piece of evidence builds a case.

There are times when DNA/mtDNA  tells us that  Jane Doe  and AA have a match, however, this does not mean Jan Doe and AA are the same person.  An expert like Mr. Sky can testified and explains that it is  just coincidence that Jane Doe's and AA's DNA/mtDNA match.  And then the expert would  give the number of others,  about 200,who were walking around in the world who are probably carrying the same DNA/mtDNA ....

Annie:
Quote
. So what it comes down to is all the little tidbits AA touters like to hold to as 'everything else I can't ignore' really don't mean anything compared to the DNA.

Bear's Answer:
Why do you think anyone has to ignore the DNA/mtDNA between AA and Jane Doe.  Just because there is a match of DNA and mtDNA  doesn't mean the tests were wrong.

As for "all the little tidbits AA touters",  I assume you are, now, referring to the people who believe Anna Anderson was GD Anastasia. 

So tell me Annie:   Is there any reason not to answer  "AA touters' "  questions with facts with sources attached?  I know I can and I know you can.  All of us who don't believe AA was GD Anastasia can even do so  without calling the believers  stupid or crazy or telling them they must be seeing little green men.

Sure,  sometimes it seems like we've said it all before over on XX thread or XXX thread but that's the way it is.

AGRBear

Title: Re: One thing i find odd part two.
Post by: AGRBear on November 08, 2006, 10:03:49 AM
Btw, what was "the one thing I fund odd"? I don't even remember.  :)

I've been saying that for awhile now! :D I suppose it's ALL odd! 8)

Here is the first post which tells us the subject:


Quote
Another Anastasia claimant; the ears match exactly Posts: 748

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)
One thing I find odd
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.  Wink

Any thoughts on the matter??

Rachel
xx
Title: Re: One thing i find odd part two.
Post by: Lemur on November 08, 2006, 10:15:57 AM
Oh, I see, so that's how Alexei was brought into this, because the question was why didn't any claimant mention escaping with her brother?

For the record, did Tammet not mention escaping with his sister? I will take this to the Tammet thread.
Title: Re: One thing i find odd part two.
Post by: Annie on November 08, 2006, 11:50:00 AM

So tell me Annie:   Is there any reason not to answer  "AA touters' "  questions with facts with sources attached?  I know I can and I know you can.

Because the DNA ended all that speculation, IF you TRULY believe the DNA!

Think of it as a court case for a crime. Bill is accused of a murder, but he claims Joe did it. Amy said she saw Joe at the house that night. The footprints, smeared in mud, seem more Joe's size. Bill's mother claimed he was at her house all night the night of the murder. But when DNA testing is done on evidence found on the body, Bill is proven to be the killer. Now some may yell, 'what about the footprints?' 'what about what Amy and the mother said?' Well, guess what, DNA is the FINAL answer, and NONE of that matters anymore! We can only presume intelligently that Bill's mother must have lied, Amy was mistaken, and that the smeared footprints were not accurately measured. When the DNA comes in, the judge doesn't want to hear all the piddly crap anymore, because it's OVER and the PROOF is there!

 
Quote
All of us who don't believe AA was GD Anastasia can even do so  without calling the believers  stupid or crazy or telling them they must be seeing little green men.

Bear, if you really don't believe AA was AN, WHY do you ENDLESSLY try so hard to prove she was any way you can? ALL of your posts are PRO AA!! I have said this before, if you were even partially unbiased and tried to give info on BOTH sides, I would believe you were really seeking the 'truth' but since you are always on the side of the claimant, I can't believe you. Actions speak louder than words!

Quote
Sure,  sometimes it seems like we've said it all before over on XX thread or XXX thread but that's the way it is.

AGRBear

Boy and how! :P


Title: Re: One thing i find odd part two.
Post by: Tania+ on November 08, 2006, 12:19:11 PM
I am beginning to see much about what DNA is and is not, but I'm honestly getting more confused now with all the footprints, mud, shoe sizes, etc. I think the scientific approach of explaining DNA is much preferred by those addressing intelligent bonifide scholarly information. I don't do well with footprints, and mud explanations. I'm serious, no joke intended !

As to anyone's opinion being pro or con, imho, it's still up to the individual anywhere to look at all the evidence, including the essential remains,  so all actual and identifiable tests can be taken, etc. For me that spells an intelligent approach, period. Thanks for your kindness to hear me through  ;) Oops, gotta run, The President is speaking about, Rumsfield, can't miss that,  :D  ....

Tatiana+
Title: Re: One thing i find odd part two.
Post by: Annie on November 08, 2006, 04:01:14 PM
I am beginning to see much about what DNA is and is not, but I'm honestly getting more confused now with all the footprints, mud, shoe sizes, etc.

Then you have totally missed my point. I was trying to compare a modern day court case to the silly shoes, buttons, hair color, ears, she said blah, and all that stuff from the AA case that some use as 'evidence' to rival the DNA.

Quote
I think the scientific approach of explaining DNA is much preferred by those addressing intelligent bonifide scholarly information. I don't do well with footprints, and mud explanations. I'm serious, no joke intended !

If you are truly interested, there is a good thread on DNA resources at the top of the page on this section of the forum.
Title: Re: One thing i find odd part two.
Post by: Tania+ on November 08, 2006, 05:43:56 PM
Thank you Annie Dear, but I'm already understanding about DNA, as a member of the family is fully involved in it. :)

Tatiana+
Title: Re: One thing i find odd part two.
Post by: lexi4 on November 08, 2006, 06:42:40 PM
Btw, what was "the one thing I fund odd"? I don't even remember.  :)

I've been saying that for awhile now! :D I suppose it's ALL odd! 8)

I think you are right Lemur, it is all odd.  :)
Here is the one thing I find odd. Let's see if I can ask this without getting my head bit off.
If there is a thread about Tammett, or AA or any other survivor it is probably there because it is of interest to some posters. So why can't those posters just have their discussion without the continued attacks of those for whom the survivor issues are resoloved? Why bother responding. Does that question make any sense?
Title: Re: One thing i find odd part two.
Post by: AGRBear on November 09, 2006, 02:33:08 AM
Annie's quote in part:
Quote
Bear, if you really don't believe AA was AN, WHY do you ENDLESSLY try so hard to prove she was any way you can? ALL of your posts are PRO AA!! I have said this before, if you were even partially unbiased and tried to give info on BOTH sides, I would believe you were really seeking the 'truth' but since you are always on the side of the claimant, I can't believe you. Actions speak louder than words!

What part of this statement : " I do not think that AA was GD Anastasia." do you fail to understand?

AGRBear



 

Title: Re: One thing i find odd part two.
Post by: Phil_tomaselli on November 09, 2006, 03:13:17 AM
Annie said:

"Because the DNA ended all that speculation, IF you TRULY believe the DNA!

Think of it as a court case for a crime. Bill is accused of a murder, but he claims Joe did it. Amy said she saw Joe at the house that night. The footprints, smeared in mud, seem more Joe's size. Bill's mother claimed he was at her house all night the night of the murder. But when DNA testing is done on evidence found on the body, Bill is proven to be the killer. Now some may yell, 'what about the footprints?' 'what about what Amy and the mother said?' Well, guess what, DNA is the FINAL answer, and NONE of that matters anymore! We can only presume intelligently that Bill's mother must have lied, Amy was mistaken, and that the smeared footprints were not accurately measured. When the DNA comes in, the judge doesn't want to hear all the piddly crap anymore, because it's OVER and the PROOF is there!"

Unfortunately DNA is not so cut and dried.  It might work if we thought the victim was Bill, but the DNA proved that the victim was Joe.  It CAN'T prove that the murderer was Bill, though it might shoot a hole in his alibi if he claimed he wasn't there and his DNA turned up on the body or the weapon.  Proof of who the actual murderer was would depend on a variety of other evidence including motive, opportunity and method.

Consider an alleged rape case - the DNA might prove that Mr X had sex with Miss Y (and if he denied the act that would be pretty damning) but it couldn't prove lack of consent, that would depend on other evidence and the considered veracity of the witnesses.

There have been several cases in the UK where DNA evidence has been conspicuously absent but its absence has not been enough to have the accused declared not guilty.

In questions of identity DNA appears to be pretty conclusive but it isn't the be all and end all.  I seem to recall that in the 19th century a scientific method of proving identity based on accurate measurements of various features was considered infallible and widely used.  It was totally discredited when a man was absolutely identified using the method but the man he was identified as turned out to be in prison at the time!  If I can recall the case & method I'll put it on the board sometime.

Phil Tomaselli 
Title: Re: One thing i find odd part two.
Post by: Annie on November 09, 2006, 06:36:30 AM
Annie's quote in part:
Quote
Bear, if you really don't believe AA was AN, WHY do you ENDLESSLY try so hard to prove she was any way you can? ALL of your posts are PRO AA!! I have said this before, if you were even partially unbiased and tried to give info on BOTH sides, I would believe you were really seeking the 'truth' but since you are always on the side of the claimant, I can't believe you. Actions speak louder than words!

What part of this statement : " I do not think that AA was GD Anastasia." do you fail to understand?

AGRBear



As I said, actions speak  louder than words. All of your posts are pro AA. Everything you say and do is that of a person trying desperately to prove AA was AN. So your disclaimer means nothing unless you back it up with proof! (making posts that show you know AA was an imposter,not continually trying to find ways why her story could be true!) You are not even fair to both sides, you are always pro AA! So unless your posts change, I have no choice but to believe you must think she is AN.
 
Title: Re: One thing i find odd part two.
Post by: Tania+ on November 09, 2006, 12:00:54 PM
Thank you very much Phil_Tomaselli. You always offer the most exceptional explanations, and I prefer what and how you offer them to many others, especially when it comes to DNA. As well, I think Bear has already had too many times expressed how she feels and need not be harasssed over and over by endless attacks, of how she should or should not think about any given issue. She has expressed quite well to all viewers, and to all AP Forum Members by the following statment :

                                             "I do not think that AA was GD Anastasia" !

For most readers here, we comprehend fully and exactly what she has stated. It could not be plainer, and is in our native language of English.  :D

There is nothing more for Bear to offer here or in any following threads. Go Bear, Go !   ;)

Tatiana+
Title: Re: One thing i find odd part two.
Post by: Annie on November 09, 2006, 04:51:34 PM
If I went around proclaiming "I BELIEVE AA WAS AN!!!" yet all of my posts were refuting her claim, wouldn't that look strange? Wouldn't it be hard to believe me? But of course a lot on this board defies common logic :P
Title: Re: One thing i find odd part two.
Post by: Eddie_uk on November 10, 2006, 07:10:45 AM
Don't trouble Annie dear. This has been gone over again and again. It just shows the horse isn't quite dead!  ;D ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: One thing i find odd part two.
Post by: Annie on November 10, 2006, 09:29:23 AM
Don't trouble Annie dear. This has been gone over again and again. It just shows the horse isn't quite dead!  ;D ;D ;D ;D

So true :-\ and bear will always have her cotton wool and honey pot!
Title: Re: One thing i find odd part two.
Post by: Annie on November 10, 2006, 09:31:42 AM
Annie said:

"Because the DNA ended all that speculation, IF you TRULY believe the DNA!

Think of it as a court case for a crime. Bill is accused of a murder, but he claims Joe did it. Amy said she saw Joe at the house that night. The footprints, smeared in mud, seem more Joe's size. Bill's mother claimed he was at her house all night the night of the murder. But when DNA testing is done on evidence found on the body, Bill is proven to be the killer. Now some may yell, 'what about the footprints?' 'what about what Amy and the mother said?' Well, guess what, DNA is the FINAL answer, and NONE of that matters anymore! We can only presume intelligently that Bill's mother must have lied, Amy was mistaken, and that the smeared footprints were not accurately measured. When the DNA comes in, the judge doesn't want to hear all the piddly crap anymore, because it's OVER and the PROOF is there!"

Unfortunately DNA is not so cut and dried.  It might work if we thought the victim was Bill, but the DNA proved that the victim was Joe.  It CAN'T prove that the murderer was Bill, though it might shoot a hole in his alibi if he claimed he wasn't there and his DNA turned up on the body or the weapon.  Proof of who the actual murderer was would depend on a variety of other evidence including motive, opportunity and method.

Consider an alleged rape case - the DNA might prove that Mr X had sex with Miss Y (and if he denied the act that would be pretty damning) but it couldn't prove lack of consent, that would depend on other evidence and the considered veracity of the witnesses.

There have been several cases in the UK where DNA evidence has been conspicuously absent but its absence has not been enough to have the accused declared not guilty.

In questions of identity DNA appears to be pretty conclusive but it isn't the be all and end all.  I seem to recall that in the 19th century a scientific method of proving identity based on accurate measurements of various features was considered infallible and widely used.  It was totally discredited when a man was absolutely identified using the method but the man he was identified as turned out to be in prison at the time!  If I can recall the case & method I'll put it on the board sometime.

Phil Tomaselli 


I would like to see Helen and Belochka's take on this, I trust their DNA expertise much more.
Title: Re: One thing i find odd part two.
Post by: skirt on November 10, 2006, 11:08:52 AM
So let me get this straight.
Dont ask for facts or muse out loud, dont ever question 'proof'..
certainly dont ask questions....
dont have a mind of your own....
because it all defies common logic
not to mention you get cruixified on this board if you ever question these 'authorities'/historians etc
We dont all need to promote our cause, or spew our credentials to have a valid opinion do we?
its not all piddly crap to everyone else.
Title: Re: One thing i find odd part two.
Post by: Bev on November 10, 2006, 12:09:21 PM
Phil's "courtcase" is a somewhat tortured strawman argument.  Who is to say that Bill's mother isn't lying, that Amy isn't mistaken and the footprints aren't Bill's?  This is why the case is presented to a jury, so that the evidence presented is judged to be sufficient to prove beyond doubt that the state has indeed prosecuted the right man.  The prosecution may well prove that Bill's mother is lying, etc..

DNA is subjected to different proof - scientific proof.  It must be subjected to scientific standards of experimentation, repetition, falsability and the results quantitatively estimated (the probability that the results are incorrect)   and to compare dna testing with phrenology, a pseudo science is false.  Phrenology has never been subjected to rigorous scientific method, but is instead a collection os statistics which are subjective in interpretation.  
Title: Re: One thing i find odd part two.
Post by: lexi4 on November 10, 2006, 12:16:48 PM
Phil's "courtcase" is a somewhat tortured strawman argument.  Who is to say that Bill's mother isn't lying, that Amy isn't mistaken and the footprints aren't Bill's?  This is why the case is presented to a jury, so that the evidence presented is judged to be sufficient to prove beyond doubt that the state has indeed prosecuted the right man.  The prosecution may well prove that Bill's mother is lying, etc..

DNA is subjected to different proof - scientific proof.  It must be subjected to scientific standards of experimentation, repetition, falsability and the results quantitatively estimated (the probability that the results are incorrect)   and to compare dna testing with phrenology, a pseudo science is false.  Phrenology has never been subjected to rigorous scientific method, but is instead a collection os statistics which are subjective in interpretation.  

Bev,
I have a question and I admit my knowledge of DNA is rather limited.
There have been cases in which DNA was used to obtain convictions in felony cases such as murder only to find out later, the DNA was wrong. Now that has been very limited, but I would be interested in knowing how that can happen.
Any ideas?
Thanks,
Lexi
Title: Re: One thing i find odd part two.
Post by: Annie on November 10, 2006, 12:45:37 PM
So let me get this straight.
Dont ask for facts or muse out loud, dont ever question 'proof'..
certainly dont ask questions....
dont have a mind of your own....
because it all defies common logic
not to mention you get cruixified on this board if you ever question these 'authorities'/historians etc
We dont all need to promote our cause, or spew our credentials to have a valid opinion do we?
its not all piddly crap to everyone else.


If you cannot come up with a valid reason why the DNA tests prove AA was not related to Alexandra's family, and why she was 99.9% related to the Schanskowskas, none of the shoe stories or such things matter anymore, unless you just want to play around for your own entertainment. It is IMO rather embarrassing to say someone would have a 'mind of their own' to defy proven scientific evidence, that's like saying the world is still flat or that the south won the US Civil War.It is no longer an OPINION when it can and has been PROVEN WRONG!
Title: Re: One thing i find odd part two.
Post by: Annie on November 10, 2006, 12:48:29 PM

There have been cases in which DNA was used to obtain convictions in felony cases such as murder only to find out later, the DNA was wrong. Now that has been very limited, but I would be interested in knowing how that can happen.
Any ideas?
Thanks,
Lexi

I have never heard of that, but I have heard of cases where people spent many years in jail convicted on 'shoe' and 'hearsay' and 'eyewitness account' evidence but were later proven innocent by DNA, and allowed to go free after that. And no judge was saying 'what about those shoes?' 'what about Mary Sue swearing to seeing him at the scene of the crime in her testimony?' Once the DNA comes in everything else is out the window, aka 'piddly crap.'
Title: Re: One thing i find odd part two.
Post by: lexi4 on November 10, 2006, 12:50:25 PM
So let me get this straight.
Dont ask for facts or muse out loud, dont ever question 'proof'..
certainly dont ask questions....
dont have a mind of your own....
because it all defies common logic
not to mention you get cruixified on this board if you ever question these 'authorities'/historians etc
We dont all need to promote our cause, or spew our credentials to have a valid opinion do we?
its not all piddly crap to everyone else.


If you cannot come up with a valid reason why the DNA tests prove AA was not related to Alexandra's family, and why she was 99.9% related to the Schanskowskas, none of the shoe stories or such things matter anymore, unless you just want to play around for your own entertainment. It is IMO rather embarrassing to say someone would have a 'mind of their own' to defy proven scientific evidence, that's like saying the world is still flat or that the south won the US Civil War.It is no longer an OPINION when it can and has been PROVEN WRONG!

Annie,
Please, please don't tell me the world is round! Next you will expect me to believe that a man really landed on the moon and that it isn't cheese. That would be more than I could baar.  ;)
Title: Re: One thing i find odd part two.
Post by: lexi4 on November 10, 2006, 12:53:01 PM

There have been cases in which DNA was used to obtain convictions in felony cases such as murder only to find out later, the DNA was wrong. Now that has been very limited, but I would be interested in knowing how that can happen.
Any ideas?
Thanks,
Lexi

I have never heard of that, but I have heard of cases where people spent many years in jail convicted on 'shoe' and 'hearsay' and 'eyewitness account' evidence but were later proven innocent by DNA, and allowed to go free after that. And no judge was saying 'what about those shoes?' 'what about Mary Sue swearing to seeing him at the scene of the crime in her testimony?' Once the DNA comes in everything else is out the window, aka 'piddly crap.'

As I said, it is not common. It was a case reported a few years back and I will be darned if I can remember where I read it etc. (The hard drive in my brains suffers from memory overload.)
Title: Re: One thing i find odd part two.
Post by: Annie on November 10, 2006, 12:55:39 PM


Annie,
Please, please don't tell me the world is round! Next you will expect me to believe that a man really landed on the moon and that it isn't cheese. That would be more than I could baar.  ;)

Well, take heart, there are conspiracy theories that it was only an act put on in a Hollywood studio to trick the Russians :D
Title: Re: One thing i find odd part two.
Post by: lexi4 on November 10, 2006, 01:09:12 PM


Annie,
Please, please don't tell me the world is round! Next you will expect me to believe that a man really landed on the moon and that it isn't cheese. That would be more than I could baar.  ;)

Well, take heart, there are conspiracy theories that it was only an act put on in a Hollywood studio to trick the Russians :D

Whew! At least you didn't tell me the moon wasn't made of cheese.  :)
Title: Re: One thing i find odd part two.
Post by: Tania+ on November 10, 2006, 01:13:13 PM
notice...that's why this is so aptly called : A Discussion Thread   ;)
if you will note, there seem to be more than one point being addressed by posters here, and no matter how much one might like to take control of ny of the given points that emerge here, ALL posters are allowed to have their own opinions, period.

people will hold on to the beliefs they wish, and as they have. Annie, or nobody else will change their minds.

But in the case of Bear, she already has very well stated in black and white, what she believes and what she does not believe, so lay off of Bear.

We are delighted Annie, that you have your personal beliefs, and that is fine, but please refrain from continually stirring the pot, and making others feel less than because they don't fall into your line of thinking, or what you think the world at large thinks, or must think.

Logic may play an important part in determining many issues, but what one may think is 100% the case, may not always be so.

Phil has aptly offered evidence of that earlier in his posting here, and I'm sure nobody had seen or offered those points before. So it is good that we have these threads so everyone can feel free, speak, write without fear, or without being harassed endlessely.

This AP Forum speaks very well for a free and democratic open interchange, and I for one am very supportive and happy that it continues to be so.  ;) I believe if it were contrary, you Annie, or i or over 4,000 people globally would be unable to come each day to read, review, ponder, gain educative understandings of issues past, present, future.

So yes, Annie, we hear what you share after every one of a posting of which you are not happy with their viewpoints. By the same token, EVERYONE has the same rights to respond freely, their opinions, period. If you note as well, most posters are free to agree to disagree, and or ignore, but don't harass over and over another poster. It just is not good manners to do so.  :D

Thanks for your time ! ....and Lexi4, the moon is round, but definately not made of cheese, lol

Tatiana+

Title: Re: One thing i find odd part two.
Post by: lexi4 on November 10, 2006, 01:21:07 PM
notice...that's why this is so aptly called : A Discussion Thread   ;)
if you will note, there seem to be more than one point being addressed by posters here, and no matter how much one might like to take control of ny of the given points that emerge here, ALL posters are allowed to have their own opinions, period.

people will hold on to the beliefs they wish, and as they have. Annie, or nobody else will change their minds.

But in the case of Bear, she already has very well stated in black and white, what she believes and what she does not believe, so lay off of Bear.

We are delighted Annie, that you have your personal beliefs, and that is fine, but please refrain from continually stirring the pot, and making others feel less than because they don't fall into your line of thinking, or what you think the world at large thinks, or must think.

Logic may play an important part in determining many issues, but what one may think is 100% the case, may not always be so.

Phil has aptly offered evidence of that earlier in his posting here, and I'm sure nobody had seen or offered those points before. So it is good that we have these threads so everyone can feel free, speak, write without fear, or without being harassed endlessely.

This AP Forum speaks very well for a free and democratic open interchange, and I for one am very supportive and happy that it continues to be so.  ;) I believe if it were contrary, you Annie, or i or over 4,000 people globally would be unable to come each day to read, review, ponder, gain educative understandings of issues past, present, future.

So yes, Annie, we hear what you share after every one of a posting of which you are not happy with their viewpoints. By the same token, EVERYONE has the same rights to respond freely, their opinions, period. If you note as well, most posters are free to agree to disagree, and or ignore, but don't harass over and over another poster. It just is not good manners to do so.  :D

Thanks for your time ! ....and Lexi4, the moon is round, but definately not made of cheese, lol

Tatiana+


Oh Tania, why did you have to tell me that?  :(
Title: Re: One thing i find odd part two.
Post by: Annie on November 10, 2006, 01:39:23 PM


Annie,
Please, please don't tell me the world is round! Next you will expect me to believe that a man really landed on the moon and that it isn't cheese. That would be more than I could baar.  ;)

Well, take heart, there are conspiracy theories that it was only an act put on in a Hollywood studio to trick the Russians :D


I'm sure there must be a 'moon is made of green cheese' society somewhere! ;)
Whew! At least you didn't tell me the moon wasn't made of cheese.  :)

I'm sure there must be a "moon is made of green cheese" society somewhere!

And don't forget that advanced alien society that lives on the dark side of the moon!
Title: Re: One thing i find odd part two.
Post by: Tania+ on November 10, 2006, 02:00:42 PM
Which part Lexi, that the moon is round or in regards to being green ?   :D

Tatiana+
Title: Re: One thing i find odd part two.
Post by: Bev on November 10, 2006, 02:10:00 PM
 Lexi,we're comparing apples and oranges.  The standards of proof are different in scientific methodology and court cases.  Court cases aren't decided on one piece of evidence, and the evidence admitted is a result of consensual jurisprudence.  Phil's claiming that dna testing isn't reliable because, like phrenology, it is somehow a subjective interpretation of results and this is not the case - it's like comparing alchemy and chemistry.  Yes, mistakes can be made, which is why results must be repetitive - if one scientist obtains a result, other scientists must be able to repeat the experiment and obtain the same result.    

In testing the dna in this case, (AA as FS and not GDA) the results were the same each time the samples were tested.  Even when two different kinds of samples were tested by three different labs, (hair and tissue) the results were the same.  The testing in this case was repeated multiple times by different labs and lab personnel, which also happened to meet the test of non-bias.  

Yes, lab errors occur all the time, but that is why scientific methodology requires that results be repeatable and quantitatively estimated.   (And if a defendent was convicted because of a false scientific theory, then that is a court error, not a scientific error.  In other words, the judge ruled in error in admitting it as evidence.  I won't get into misconduct and false testimony and other variables that inform a decision to overturn a case. Oh, and let me point out also, that the results sought in scientific methodology and court are two very different things - court cases only decide guilt or non-guilt, they do not even decide innocence.  Nor can a case be presented in court with the expectation that the result will be the same - that's why appeals courts order new trials.)

Phil's argument is an error in logic - just because one theory is proven wrong, it doesn't follow that all theories are wrong or even may be wrong.  It means that the theory of phrenology is wrong and not any other theory.  

(I am not impugning Phil's character, his honesty, or questioning his right to present an argument or opinion.  I am pointing out that Phil's claim is based on an illogical and false argument and he has thus drawn the wrong conclusion.)
Title: Re: One thing i find odd part two.
Post by: Annie on November 10, 2006, 02:38:47 PM

(I am not impugning Phil's character, his honesty, or questioning his right to present an argument or opinion.  I am pointing out that Phil's claim is based on an illogical and false argument and he has thus drawn the wrong conclusion.)

It is sad you would even have to put this disclaimer on your post. It is ridiculous how the facts and reality get pushed around here and probably confuses a lot of innocent readers because a few individuals take things personally when it is only their position being criticized.
Title: Re: One thing i find odd part two.
Post by: Louis_Charles on November 10, 2006, 04:30:34 PM
There seems to be a lot of confusion as to what's the difference between a personal belief (opinion) and a demonstrable fact. And while it is certainly true that everyone is "entitled" to her opinion, it is also certainly true that mutually exclusive "opinions" that deal with facts can only exist in the following senses:

(1) one of them is right and one of them is wrong. In which case, you can cling to your incorrect opinion, but you are wrong. Is there a point to that which I am missing?

(2) both opinions are wrong. Possible, but of course if you do not allow that argumentation --- or discussion, call it what you will --- can change your mind, then you are asserting your right to be wrong. Is there a point to that which I am missing?

One can be unhappy with the language used in the correction, but one should not dismiss the idea that correction is possible.

Title: Re: One thing i find odd part two.
Post by: lexi4 on November 10, 2006, 04:45:12 PM


Annie,
Please, please don't tell me the world is round! Next you will expect me to believe that a man really landed on the moon and that it isn't cheese. That would be more than I could baar.  ;)

Well, take heart, there are conspiracy theories that it was only an act put on in a Hollywood studio to trick the Russians :D


I'm sure there must be a 'moon is made of green cheese' society somewhere! ;)
Whew! At least you didn't tell me the moon wasn't made of cheese.  :)

I'm sure there must be a "moon is made of green cheese" society somewhere!

And don't forget that advanced alien society that lives on the dark side of the moon!
LOL Annie! I don't care if an advanced alien society lives there as long as the don't eat the cheese!  ;)
Title: Re: One thing i find odd part two.
Post by: Annie on November 11, 2006, 07:39:22 AM

LOL Annie! I don't care if an advanced alien society lives there as long as the don't eat the cheese!  ;)

Surely if they are advanced enough to send all those UFO's here, they should be intelligent enough to know they'd be eating themselves out of house and home! ;D

One good thing about a thread called 'one thing I find odd'- it's really hard to go OT because technically a heck of a lot can be odd! :D ;)
Title: Re: One thing i find odd part two.
Post by: lexi4 on November 11, 2006, 07:58:47 AM

LOL Annie! I don't care if an advanced alien society lives there as long as the don't eat the cheese!  ;)

Surely if they are advanced enough to send all those UFO's here, they should be intelligent enough to know they'd be eating themselves out of house and home! ;D

LOL  ;D That was a good one!

One good thing about a thread called 'one thing I find odd'- it's really hard to go OT because technically a heck of a lot can be odd! :D ;)

True enough.  ;)
Title: Re: One thing i find odd part two.
Post by: AGRBear on November 11, 2006, 02:40:22 PM
I apologize to all of you that Annie is constantly repeating her unfounded attacks on Bear and then I have to reply and so we go around and around. BORING.

Annie wrote in part:

Quote
Bear, if you really don't believe AA was AN, WHY do you ENDLESSLY try so hard to prove she was any way you can? ALL of your posts are PRO AA!! I have said this before, if you were even partially unbiased and tried to give info on BOTH sides, I would believe you were really seeking the 'truth' but since you are always on the side of the claimant, I can't believe you. Actions speak louder than words!

Annie obviously did NOT  understand my statement:

AGRBear's quote:
Quote
I do not believe AA was GD Anastasia.

If she cannot understand these simple words then how can I trust her with other facts since she can't grasp the meaning of my  simple sentence.  Obviously,  I can't,  so,  it is very logical to me to ask for her sources so I can read them and make my own opinion. 

When I do ask Annie for sources,  she refuses.  I can only assume her reason is because she doesn't have a source or doesn't want me or others to find it and discover she's voice only half  the truth which is the part that aids her position.  I doubt it's because she lazy.   Once when she said she didn't have a book,  some of us offered to find her sources if  she'd  give us the name of the book and then we'd find the page and quote it for her to help prove her facts,  she  didn't, still doesn't, so we know that excuse doesn't work anymore.

I ask other people for sources, too,  so,  I'm not just asking Annie.

Because I do ask for sources,  it may appear to Annie  and others that I'm pro-AA, but I am not pro-AA, therefore  you've misunderstood.  My reason is quite simpe: As I have said many times,  those of us who believe AA was not GD Anastasia do not need half truths or lies to prove our position.

Accurate opinions are based on accurate facts.

AGRBear




Title: Re: One thing i find odd part two.
Post by: Annie on November 11, 2006, 04:28:49 PM

Annie obviously did NOT  understand my statement:

AGRBear's quote:
I do not believe AA was GD Anastasia.

Bear, you have yet to explain why ALL of your posts are pro AA. If I claimed to believe in AA, yet all of my posts were against her, would you believe me???? You have proven yourself over and over again to be on the side of the claimants, so it means NOTHING that you say you do not believe them. You certainly do a great impression of believing in them, much better than AA s portrayal of AN! You, bear, have been the queen of wild theories, intestine switch, tunnels under Ekaterinburg, etc., until FA finally put a stop to the spreading of such blatant misinformation. WHY do you believe such things, or even consider them, if you do not believe AA to be AN?


Quote
When I do ask Annie for sources,  she refuses.  I can only assume her reason is because she doesn't have a source or doesn't want me or others to find it and discover she's voice only half  the truth which is the part that aids her position.


We have been through all this before. I HAVE actually posted sources before, and you ignore them, or others, like MG, discount them and criticize the writer (like calling Dehn, Buxhoevedon and AV "fawning women") or picking on John Godl, yet if I disagree with an author YOU like, you have a fit.

Other times I cannot quote a page number because I do not have the book with me. I have read a LOT on this subject over the last 32 years, and there is a lot stored in my memory banks, but I cannot possibly place it all to the book or article it came from. Some of the books I read when I was young are out of print, not in libraries anymore, and I do not even remember the names of them, but I do remember reading certain details. What I bring up is a wide variety of stuff I recall, and I would rather see that than a hundred and ten quotes from "File on the Tsar" and "Riddle of Anastasia" we have all seen hundreds of times. Again, as others here have said, JUST BECAUSE YOU CAN QUOTE A PAGE NUMBER DOES NOT MAKE IT A FACT!!!!! and by the same token, just because you  cannot off the top of your head doe not make it wrong. You bear somehow feel that because you can put up a page number you are always right, but you are not, and neither is all the stuff you quote!!



Quote

Accurate opinions are based on accurate facts.

AGRBear


You mean like believing AA was not AN because her DNA does not match the royals but does match the family of FS? You seem to keep forgetting and disregarding that fact. And that IS a fact.
Title: Re: One thing i find odd part two.
Post by: LisaDavidson on November 11, 2006, 04:54:08 PM
Annie and AGR Bear - you need to de-personalize your disagreements. It's fine to ask for sources or disagree with another person's reasoning - but not okay to make things into a verbal wrestling match.
Title: Re: One thing i find odd part two.
Post by: Tania+ on November 11, 2006, 06:07:14 PM
I am quite appreciative and cognizant of the entirety of efforts Bear goes through in offering facts, and to going in depth to bring up past facts on issues to date on this thread and others. I don't think that we are deficet in the receivership of facts past, and presently to date.

Lisa has said it is fine to offer sources, and it seems to date, for a long time, it is and continully offered only from Bear. I would like to see actual facts from Annie as well instead of endless blame against others for not producing what she wants, personally. It is getting very stale to read the tireless rheortic of attacking words, bantared aganst another without that person themselves being forthwith and producing an up to date actual balance of what they think, from actual facts to share with the forum. All readers are asking for I think is an actual balance to weight it against in terms of actual facts already offered from a major fact source. From Bear's, and others of whom post to and on this particular issue, then we all may gain our own conclusions from the balance of what is offered.
This is all that we as readers need, but not be subjected to this victrolic exasperation of volley of words that are repeated over and over like a taped monologue, if not robotic. With less excuses and more actual quoted facts, you will offer readers all that needs to be as bottom line. At present these endless words really only turn me off, and for most readers I would imagine it does the same.

Real sources from reliable writers, are for the most part imho, much more credible than just general lol, depersonalized...? ...attacks against posters...  :) I vote for offering reliable sources.

Tatiana+



Title: Re: One thing i find odd part two.
Post by: AGRBear on November 11, 2006, 06:52:18 PM

Annie obviously did NOT  understand my statement:

AGRBear's quote:
I do not believe AA was GD Anastasia.

Bear, you have yet to explain why ALL of your posts are pro AA. If I claimed to believe in AA, yet all of my posts were against her, would you believe me???? You have proven yourself over and over again to be on the side of the claimants, so it means NOTHING that you say you do not believe them. You certainly do a great impression of believing in them, much better than AA s portrayal of AN! You, bear, have been the queen of wild theories, intestine switch, tunnels under Ekaterinburg, etc., until FA finally put a stop to the spreading of such blatant misinformation. WHY do you believe such things, or even consider them, if you do not believe AA to be AN?


Quote
When I do ask Annie for sources,  she refuses.  I can only assume her reason is because she doesn't have a source or doesn't want me or others to find it and discover she's voice only half  the truth which is the part that aids her position.


We have been through all this before. I HAVE actually posted sources before, and you ignore them, or others, like MG, discount them and criticize the writer (like calling Dehn, Buxhoevedon and AV "fawning women") or picking on John Godl, yet if I disagree with an author YOU like, you have a fit.

Other times I cannot quote a page number because I do not have the book with me. I have read a LOT on this subject over the last 32 years, and there is a lot stored in my memory banks, but I cannot possibly place it all to the book or article it came from. Some of the books I read when I was young are out of print, not in libraries anymore, and I do not even remember the names of them, but I do remember reading certain details. What I bring up is a wide variety of stuff I recall, and I would rather see that than a hundred and ten quotes from "File on the Tsar" and "Riddle of Anastasia" we have all seen hundreds of times. Again, as others here have said, JUST BECAUSE YOU CAN QUOTE A PAGE NUMBER DOES NOT MAKE IT A FACT!!!!! and by the same token, just because you  cannot off the top of your head doe not make it wrong. You bear somehow feel that because you can put up a page number you are always right, but you are not, and neither is all the stuff you quote!!



Quote

Accurate opinions are based on accurate facts.

AGRBear


You mean like believing AA was not AN because her DNA does not match the royals but does match the family of FS? You seem to keep forgetting and disregarding that fact. And that IS a fact.

Lisa,

It is difficult not to be personal due  another attack but I asure you that even though I will get off the merry go 'round first  by  ignoring this post  it will not be the last one  I shall recieve because I will, again, ask  for a source or I will state a source in rebuttal  if I think facts have been construed on any subject.  And,  if I'm proven wrong,  I'm the first to admit it and will thank you for pointing me in the direction of truth. 

Accurate opinions are based on accurate facts.

AGRBear


Title: Re: One thing i find odd part two.
Post by: Annie on November 11, 2006, 10:43:21 PM
I am not even going to bother to answer any more posts by bear or Tania.
Title: Re: One thing i find odd part two.
Post by: LisaDavidson on November 12, 2006, 01:38:57 AM
I think it's time to shut this topic down. Discussion? This should not be a part of the Forum where anyone is attacked, and unfortunately, it seems that it is.
Title: Re: One thing i find odd part two.
Post by: lexi4 on November 12, 2006, 07:50:36 AM
I think it's time to shut this topic down. Discussion? This should not be a part of the Forum where anyone is attacked, and unfortunately, it seems that it is.

I think the topic is lost.
Title: Re: One thing i find odd part two.
Post by: Annie on November 12, 2006, 09:32:15 AM
I think it's time to shut this topic down. Discussion? This should not be a part of the Forum where anyone is attacked, and unfortunately, it seems that it is.

I think the topic is lost.

Was there ever a topic to begin with?
Title: Re: One thing i find odd part two.
Post by: Eddie_uk on November 12, 2006, 09:57:53 AM
Sorry - it was supposed to be a continuation of part 1. It was just the other was so long and taking ages to load!!
Title: Re: One thing i find odd part two.
Post by: LisaDavidson on November 12, 2006, 10:32:59 AM
I am now locking it down due to reasons stated above. While it appears there is significant interest in survivors, it also appears that this discussion has been ground down to dust.

It would be my suggestion that further discussion, if it were to take place, wouild have two elements in place to try to avoid this in the future:

1. Survivor Thread Topics should be clearly stated and somewhat narrowly focued. Good: Did any romanovs believe Anna Anderson and if so, why? Bad: one thing I find odd.

2. Discussion Rules - we should come up with "rules of engagement" that are as specific as possible so that topics can get discuseed without members feeling as though they are being disrespected.

As your Moderator, I will try to shut down non productive threads faster. And, if anyone has constructive suggestions for me, please let me know.