Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Topics - sokolova

Pages: [1]
1
If the DNA evidence had shown that AA was unrelated to both FS and AN then I think I'd go with the 'mundane' hypothesis - but the fact that the DNA evidence seems to show AA  WAS related to FS raises the whole question to a new level.

I'd like to ask everyone to bear with this newbie and think about it for a minute: .....

Everyone agrees that identifying AA as FS was probably  done for  propaganda; that pics were doctored and that AA was more or less 'set up'. Yet,  now, more that fifty years later the DNA comes along and supports this identification.

This means 1 of 3 things:


  • 1. That the people who tried to discredit AA by claiming she was FS were amazingly lucky and by chance she really WAS this obscure girl they just plucked out of the air.

    OR

    2. That they were really lucky in a different way and AA's DNA just concidentally (with at best a 1 in 300 chance)
    resembles FS.

    OR

    3. The DNA tets were set up too


It has to be one of these three, doesn't it? And when you think about it none of them are mundane. They all require either huge  (almost unbelievable) coincidences or actual real deception.

So, doesn't the whole thing about the DNA  versus the non-physical evidence actually raise more (many more) baffling questions?

Sokolova


Pages: [1]