Author Topic: Testimony of Sightings After 16 July 1918  (Read 30338 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

jeremygaleaz

  • Guest
Testimony of Sightings After 16 July 1918
« Reply #90 on: February 15, 2005, 02:11:59 AM »
Quote
FOTR was rereleased with a few pages of new research, just a couple years ago (about the time the McNeal book came out).

Just so the very young, very uninformed, and very naive don't get confused:

FOTR= Fate Of The Romanovs

FOTT= File On The Tsar

Always willing to help ;)

Dashkova

  • Guest
Testimony of Sightings After 16 July 1918
« Reply #91 on: February 15, 2005, 03:10:50 AM »
Quote
FOTR was rereleased with a few pages of new research, just a couple years ago (about the time the McNeal book came out).

Just so the very young, very uninformed, and very naive don't get confused:

FOTR= Fate Of The Romanovs

FOTT= File On The Tsar

Always willing to help ;)


The very young need to learn quote attribution.

How nice that you have time to troll the boards and detect spelling errors.  

Offline Denise

  • Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 792
  • Anneliese: Historian in training
    • View Profile
Testimony of Sightings After 16 July 1918
« Reply #92 on: February 15, 2005, 06:16:31 AM »
Quote

Just so the very young, very uninformed, and very naive don't get confused:

FOTR= Fate Of The Romanovs

FOTT= File On The Tsar

Always willing to help ;)


Thanks!!  I should have caught that too....

jeremygaleaz

  • Guest
Testimony of Sightings After 16 July 1918
« Reply #93 on: February 15, 2005, 03:20:38 PM »
Quote

Thanks Denise!

But AA never said this. These terms were used by the Perm "Anastasia" in FOTR. (AA seems to have used the terms "Kaiser" and "Czar" in describing her "father)
It makes me wonder if the Bolsheviks may have used the real AN in order to throw of the Whites...

questions...questions...questions....


Good point Dashkova! The error is mine as well!

Offline AGRBear

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 6611
  • The road to truth is the best one to travel.
    • View Profile
    • Romanov's  Russia
Testimony of Sightings After 16 July 1918
« Reply #94 on: February 18, 2005, 07:23:36 PM »
Quote
FOTR was rereleased with a few pages of new research, just a couple years ago (about the time the McNeal book came out).

Of course much is outdated.  Much of it is a "stretch."  

However (a big however), Summers and Mangold should always be commended for being willing to look at alternative outcomes.  Not only that, but their research regarding methods of burning human bodies (and how it's not so easy to do and that teeth are impossible to destroy by any known methods).  Plus, their work on the lack of decomposition of the dog that was found in the mine shaft is excellent.

I also quite like how they bother to discuss the investigators that preceded Sokolov.

There is nothing wrong with gleaning what is still good, what will probably always be good research.  I think most people interested in this subject, except for the very young, very uninformed, or very naive, and armed with a few caveats, can read FOTR and still obtain some good information.

It can usually be found in good second hand bookstores and of course, always available online, very cheaply.


The File On The Tsar by Mangold and Summers came out in 1976.

The Last Tsar by Radzinsky was published in 1992

The Fall of the Romanovs by Steinberg and Khrustakev was published in 1995.

The Plots To Rescue the Tsar by McNeal came out in 2001.

The Fate of the Romanovs by King and Wilson came out in 2003.

Each of these books and others which followed Mangold and Summers used them in their references.

Mangold and Summers  told us about information which Sokolov failed to tell us.  It seems earlier investigators took  testimonies which gave us a data that Alexandera and four of the girls had been taken to Perm and had not been killed as was reported by the CHEKA.  They even suggest AA might not be GD Anastasia.

Sokolov's investigation came after many other investigators.   Gen. Gajda did not  trust Sokolov and appointed his own investogators. Gajda was the first to enter the city of Ekatkerinburg.  Sokolov was appointed and under the direction of Gen.   Dietrichks who wanted the quick and easy answers.  In fact, one of Dietrichks men may have killed the dog Joy in late June and placed it in the mine to make it appear something did happen at the mines.  Why?  Because Dietrichks wanted to use the deaths of Nicholas II and his children as a rellying point for his troops.

McNeal's book seeks out information she found fasinating in the ficitional book Rescuing of the Tsar.  Although the rescue, if indeed there was a rescue,  could not have occured as was in this novel, McNeal does gives us more information about very real people and places and things who were working in the areas of Ekaterinburg and the eastern sections.  Also, she was able to find more information on some of the people mentioned in Summers and Mangold's book.

And, so, on and so on....

Each book about the subject has something of interest, so, read them all.

I'm not new in the search for truth.  I've been looking, reading and absorbing information for over a half century.   And, I can honestly say,  I still have my doubts about what happen to the eleven on the night of 16/17 July 1918 in the Impatiev House in Ekaterinburg.

Of course,  we know nine bodies ended up in a mass grave.  But we don't know when they ended up here because it seems too many bones are missing for this to have been their second buriel place.

And, no, we do not know where the missing two are.  In fact we're not sure if the missing female is Anastasia or Maria...

When will we know the answers to all these questions?  We may never know.

After 85 years and seven months, many of us still ponder over the fate of Nicholas II and the others.....  For it still is a mystery that needs an ending.

AGRBear


« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by AGRBear »
"What is true by lamplight is not always true by sunlight."

Joubert, Pensees, No. 152

Mgmstl

  • Guest
Testimony of Sightings After 16 July 1918
« Reply #95 on: February 18, 2005, 07:56:53 PM »
Bear, we may never know the truth about what happened, but since last week there will not be an honest & open discussion of the subject matter, and I am sorry to say I really am no longer interested in participating in it.    

I do hope you are doing well after your surgery.

Offline AGRBear

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 6611
  • The road to truth is the best one to travel.
    • View Profile
    • Romanov's  Russia
Testimony of Sightings After 16 July 1918
« Reply #96 on: February 19, 2005, 10:51:20 AM »
Quote
Bear, we may never know the truth about what happened, but since last week there will not be an honest & open discussion of the subject matter, and I am sorry to say I really am no longer interested in participating in it.    

I do hope you are doing well after your surgery.


Far as I'm concern, we still can have a "honest & open discussion of the subject matter".   People have tried to redicule me, call me names, claim I'm someone I'm not, but I'm still here.  And, as long as I'm here,  then you and others must realize that these disussion are open to honest discussion.    :).  

Unfortunately,  there are some posters who are "over zealous", some are "protectors of the old guard" and others just don't like to get out of their boxes.

Hang around for a little longer and help me keep my little theories on the right road to the truth.

And, thanks for your nice words.  I feel better and better each day.

AGRBear
"What is true by lamplight is not always true by sunlight."

Joubert, Pensees, No. 152

Offline AGRBear

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 6611
  • The road to truth is the best one to travel.
    • View Profile
    • Romanov's  Russia
Testimony of Sightings After 16 July 1918
« Reply #97 on: February 19, 2005, 10:57:38 AM »
Quote

Thanks Denise!

But AA never said this. These terms were used by the Perm "Anastasia" in FOTR. (AA seems to have used the terms "Kaiser" and "Czar" in describing her "father)
It makes me wonder if the Bolsheviks may have used the real AN in order to throw of the Whites...

questions...questions...questions....


Although my family lived in Russia for more than 100 years before my ancestors migr. to the USA,  we did not call Nicholas II Tsar, he was the Kaiser, which was German for Emperor.  

Since AA spoke German as her language of conversation, then it would have been acceptable to have her call Nicholas II as Kaiser.

Nicholas II was a Tsar but this was reference to just one area of Russia, he was also the Emperor of All the Russias.  I think Hall and I discussed this over under Russian roots.

AGRBear
"What is true by lamplight is not always true by sunlight."

Joubert, Pensees, No. 152

Offline Annie

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4757
    • View Profile
    • Anna Anderson Exposed!
Testimony of Sightings After 16 July 1918
« Reply #98 on: February 19, 2005, 10:46:02 PM »
Quote

Although my family lived in Russia for more than 100 years before my ancestors migr. to the USA,  we did not call Nicholas II Tsar, he was the Kaiser, which was German for Emperor.  

Since AA spoke German as her language of conversation, then it would have been acceptable to have her call Nicholas II as Kaiser.

 Nicholas II was a Tsar but this was reference to just one area of Russia, he was also the Emperor of All the Russias.  I think Hall and I discussed this over under Russian roots.

AGRBear


But wouldn't Anastasia have called him Tsar, since that's what he was in her world?

Offline Robert_Hall

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 6649
  • a site.
    • View Profile
Testimony of Sightings After 16 July 1918
« Reply #99 on: February 19, 2005, 10:54:39 PM »
kaiser=tsar=cesar. Emperor =imperator.
I would think that the girl would refer to him as "papa" to intimates, but "the Emperor"  in the 3rd person to "outsiders". Much like Charles refers to his mother as "the Queen".
Life may not be the party we expected, but while we are here, might as well dance..

Do you want the truth, or my side of the story ?- Hank Ketchum.

Offline AGRBear

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 6611
  • The road to truth is the best one to travel.
    • View Profile
    • Romanov's  Russia
Testimony of Sightings After 16 July 1918
« Reply #100 on: February 20, 2005, 11:48:51 AM »
In different conversations with various friends, accquaintances, strangers,  I sure a person calls their father by various names.  in this case, if AA was the GD Anastasia, I assume she would have voiced different names to Tsar Nicholas II.  

Since the conversations of AA are "heresay" and repeated through many people,  I'm not sure how much weight we can have on this particular theme.

Perhaps if we had a quote taken from some source, we could view it better in it's intent/usage by AA.

AGRBear
"What is true by lamplight is not always true by sunlight."

Joubert, Pensees, No. 152

Offline Daniel Briere

  • Graf
  • ***
  • Posts: 340
    • View Profile
Testimony of Sightings After 16 July 1918
« Reply #101 on: February 20, 2005, 04:37:43 PM »
As I have the unedited testimonies of Dr. Utkin in their original Russian language, I would like to make these few remarks about the words used by him and his Perm mystery patient : in his first testimony (to Kirsta on Feb. 10, 1919) he wrote that he asked her who she was and that she had replied : « Ya doch’ Gosudarya Anastasiya »  (I am the Sovereign’s daughter, Anastasia). On the next day he wrote him about his patient « who called herself daughter of the Sovereign, Anastasia ».  Only in the lengthier testimony he later gave Sokolov on June 14, 1919 did he write she had answered him : « Ya doch’ Imperatora Anastasiya » (I am the Emperor’s daughter Anastasia), which he asked Sokolov to change on the next day before signing his deposition (my translation) : « Anastasia Nikolaevna didn’t say to me, as written :  I am the Emperor’s daughter Anastasia , but this instead : I am the Sovereign’s daughter Anastasia. These are the exact four words she spoke to me. »  So it isn’t the Perm woman who used the word Emperor which no one hardly ever used alone. The Emperor was generally refered to as « Gosudar Imperator » (Sovereign Emperor) in a very formal way. More informally, the Emperor and Empress were refered to as « Gosudar/Gosudarinya ». Indeed Anastasia would refer to her father as « papa » to intimates, but as « Gosudar » to « outsiders » as Robert would put it, but certainly not as the « Imperator ». Which doesn’t say much about the Perm woman, as most educated Russians would have done the same anyway, not only in Court circles. If she had indeed used the word Emperor alone - or Tsar for that matter –it would have been a good clue she was an impostor, but the opposite doesn’t prove anything. Dr. Utkin knew it, as did Judge Sokolov of course. And Dr. Utkin certainly knew that Sokolov would know too, so this may have prompted him to make a correction to his testimony.

Anyway he didn’t use the word Emperor in his earlier testimony to Kirsta and, interestingly enough, then never said his patient WAS Anastasia but only she that SHE had said so. Oddly enough, 4 months later by the time he met Sokolov, he spoke of her as Grand-Duchess Anastasia and seemed to be convinced she was indeed Anastasia (or at least said so). Why the sudden change of heart? I might add that he was shown 4 photos of Anastasia by Judge Sokolov : he failed to recognize one of her 1916 photo, on 2 other photos where Anastasia was with other people, he pointed to Tatiana; he only managed to identify her on the last photo. True it was 9 months after last seeing his patient…According to historian Nicolas Ross, who published his testimonies (« Gibel’ Tsarskoi Sem,i » Franfurt 1987), the physical description he gave Sokolov of his patient didn’t match Anastasia’s besides the fact she looked to be 18-19 years old (see Nicolas Ross, « La mort du dernier tsar; la fin d’un mystère? », Lausanne 2001).

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by DanielB »
Daniel Briere

Offline AGRBear

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 6611
  • The road to truth is the best one to travel.
    • View Profile
    • Romanov's  Russia
Testimony of Sightings After 16 July 1918
« Reply #102 on: February 21, 2005, 10:55:26 AM »
How fortunate for you to have found the testimony.

Thanks.


AGRBear

PS  I find it interesting that Sok. found the story interesting enough to have talked to Dr. Utkin.  I had thought Sok. didn't mention Kirsta's testimonies on Perm but set them aside.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by AGRBear »
"What is true by lamplight is not always true by sunlight."

Joubert, Pensees, No. 152

Offline AGRBear

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 6611
  • The road to truth is the best one to travel.
    • View Profile
    • Romanov's  Russia
Testimony of Sightings After 16 July 1918
« Reply #103 on: April 12, 2005, 12:09:58 PM »
Summers and Mangold p. 275-6:

In the chapter titled:  THE GERMAN CONNECTION they tell us:  "Years later, himself exiled at Dorn in Holland, he," [exKaiser Wilhelm II], " talked about the matter," [rescue plot by the Germans], "to the distinguished British soldier, General Wallscourt Waters."  "Following a long convertsation in 1935, the general considered the Kaiser's story sufficiently important to put into writing in a series of detailed notes.  The Kaiser then personally approved Waters's notes, so one can take them as aurhtorized account."

Does anyone know about a British General Wallcourt Waters' report???

Information is found on the following URL:

http://users.rcn.com/web-czar/survive1.htm

On this URL [above] was found the following:
>>In 1935, General Wallscourt Waters (former British military attache in St. Petersburg) and personal friend to both King George V and the then exiled Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany, was granted an interview by the kaiser who authenticated the manuscripts for Waters. <<

Does anyone know the St. Petersburg Times reputation with the news?

http://users.rcn.com/web-czar/news1.htm

Thanks.

AGRBear
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by AGRBear »
"What is true by lamplight is not always true by sunlight."

Joubert, Pensees, No. 152

Offline AGRBear

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 6611
  • The road to truth is the best one to travel.
    • View Profile
    • Romanov's  Russia
Testimony of Sightings After 16 July 1918
« Reply #104 on: June 27, 2005, 11:58:51 AM »
There is a thread that discusses members of the IF family in Perm after 17 July 1918:

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

AGRBear
"What is true by lamplight is not always true by sunlight."

Joubert, Pensees, No. 152