Author Topic: AA, Timeline for  (Read 23504 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline AGRBear

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 6611
  • The road to truth is the best one to travel.
    • View Profile
    • Romanov's  Russia
Re: AA, Timeline for
« Reply #15 on: May 18, 2005, 05:32:57 PM »
Quote


Shura did NOT meet AA until July 27, 1925.  She met with AA along with Ambassador Zahle, Pierre Gilliard.
So there was a full 5 almost 5 1/2 years after Feb 1920 that she met with Shura or Gilliard.


"Shura" Alexandra, nee Tegleva, Gilliard had been GD Anastasia's nursemaid since infancy.  She was the wife of Peter [Pierre] Gilliard, the Granduchess' tutor.
« 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 Annie

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4757
    • View Profile
    • Anna Anderson Exposed!
Re: AA, Timeline for
« Reply #16 on: May 18, 2005, 08:05:53 PM »
Who is this Capt. Schwabe? Did he have any connection to the Russian or German royals?

Offline AGRBear

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 6611
  • The road to truth is the best one to travel.
    • View Profile
    • Romanov's  Russia
Re: AA, Timeline for
« Reply #17 on: May 21, 2005, 07:05:08 PM »
"...Captain Nicholas Adolfovich von Schwabe, " wrote Kurth p. 12 in his book ANASTASIA, THE RIDDEL OF ANNA ANDERSON, "... had been a staff captain of the personal guard detachment of the Dowager Empress Maria Feodorovna."

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
Re: AA, Timeline for
« Reply #18 on: May 25, 2005, 11:52:35 AM »
There needs to be a time set which tell us when the following injuries occured:

Locked down old thread  Anna Anderson and Anastasia in which Greg King posted.  Since the thread is locked down, go to page 6...
 
http://hydrogen.pallasweb.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=anastasia;action=display;num=1075191962;start=125
 
Greg King's post #132:

...[in part]...
 
>>I suggest you check Peter's book on this issue-Anastasia Manahan had extensive previous facial injuries when first examined in 1920, including the right side of her mouth and right jaw having been subjected to repeated blows that knocked teeth out and actually fractured or broke bones-this is why in the first photos of her she always was faced to the left, and even hid the right side of her jaw.  These were injuries estimated as having been a few years old by the doctors who examined her, and had obviously healed somewhat, but the effect remained-even as an old lady she still spoke with a handkerchief held up to the right side of her mouth.   
 
Greg King<<
« 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

Finelly

  • Guest
Re: AA, Timeline for
« Reply #19 on: July 20, 2005, 10:25:07 PM »
Interesting theory, about FS' alleged baby.  Did we ever find out if any of the children of siblings were born sometime in the right time period?

And were x-rays of AA's head and/or jaw ever taken?  I'm curious to see if there were residual signs of head injury.


Offline AGRBear

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 6611
  • The road to truth is the best one to travel.
    • View Profile
    • Romanov's  Russia
Re: AA, Timeline for
« Reply #20 on: July 25, 2005, 10:28:26 PM »
Here is some additional information from Penny on AA's child:

Quote

There is no evidence that she "lost the baby."  None.  There is, however, substantial evidence that the baby was born -- albeit probably prematurely -- on a certain date in a certain place, and there are further documentary indications that the child was, indeed, placed with an orphanage according to the story.  Which isn't so "wild" after all...


Quote

Yes.  She was quite adamant about the child's birth, and claimed a date in -- I think -- December 1918/January 1919 for the birth.  This is in the court records, along with her statement concerning the possible death of Alexander Tschaikowsky -- which AA claimed happened in a street-fight, but which can't be verified independently.

This date of birth, of course, places conception in the early months of 1918 -- unthinkable for people when the theory was that she was Anastasia, because that would mean one of two things:  That rape had happened in Tobolsk, on board the Rus, in the Ipatiev house, or all three; or Anastasia had had consensual sex while in captivity, presumably with a guard.  Either way, when she -- AA-as-Anastasia -- left the Ipatiev House in mid-July 1918, she was pregnant.


It was never my impression that this was the case.

« 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
Re: AA, Timeline for
« Reply #21 on: August 25, 2005, 10:39:59 AM »
Adding this to the Timeline to show evidence that AA said she as GD Anastasia  before she met Claire or Capt. Schwabe or those who followed:

Quote

...[in part]...

...The night-shift nurse Thea Malinowsky was the first to see a resemblance to GD A in the fall of 1921.  In her own words:

"After she had been sitting with me for about half an hour, she said that she wanted to show me something.  She went to her bed and pulled a Berliner Illustrierte out from under her mattress.  On the cover was a photo of the Russian imperial Family.  She put the magazine down in front of me and asked if I was not struck by something in that picture.  I looked closely at the photograph, but didn't know what she was driving at.  However, as I looked longer, it occurred to me that Fraulein Unbekannt bore a distinct resemblence to the youngest of the Tsar's daughters...." (Testimony of 17 December 1958 )

At the same time, other nurses in the ward, including Erna Bucholz (who spoke Russian with her) and Bertha Walz, reading the same magazines that were laying around the dayroom, saw a resemblance to Anastasia.  They confronted Fraulein Unbekannt with their suspicions, and she admitted that this was she.

So -- this all happened in the autumn of 1921.  Clara Peuthert, the above-referenced "mentally ill woman," was not admitted to Dalldorf Hospital until the very end of 1921, and so was not in residence when the revelation was made by Fraulein Unbekannt.

...

« 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
Re: AA, Timeline for
« Reply #22 on: September 06, 2005, 06:12:17 PM »
Quote

...[in part]....

There is no-one who knows the exact sequence of events leading up to the initial claim: All we know is the following:

1.From the time Fraulein U entered the Dalldorf Asylum on 30 March 1920, all observers agreed that she was terrified of anyone finding out who she was.  She gave at least one nurse the strong impression that she was scared of being recognized and returned to the Soviet Union, where she would be killed.

2.For almost two years, she lived at Dalldorf, refusing to give her name, and saying that being in an asylum was "safest" for her.  

3.She spent much of her free time in the small library at Dalldorf, reading the books and magazines there, most of them brought in by the nurses.  This is where copies of the Illustrierte Zeitung were kept.

4.In the autumn of 1921, she was approached by several nurses who had been impressed with her distinctive behavior and surpassing knowledge of the ins and outs of life in certain "upper classes."  They recognized her in a photo of Anastasia.  She refused to answer them.

5.At around the same time, she approached the nurse Thea Malinowsky, with whom she had established a late-night friendship.  She showed Nurse Malinowsky a copy of the Illustrierte Zeitung and asked if she recognized anyone there.  The nurse recognized Anastasia as Fraulein Unbekannt, and she then admitted her identity as Anastasia.

6.Clara Peuthert was admitted to Dalldorf at the end of 1921, and so -- although she became involved in the case and initially made the mistake of announcing Fraulein U's identity as Tatiana -- the Anastasia claim was made before her arrival and events were already in train.  Tatiana was never mentioned by either Fraulein U or the nurses as a possible identity.

These are the facts, Annie, and you should be arguing whether or not it is possible that Fraulein U garnered her knowledge of Imperial habits and behavior from the "small library" at Dalldorf rather than from some "mentally ill woman" whom you can't name because she didn't exist!

Now that I've done your work for you, let's hear the best you've got, this time dealing with the facts.


...

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

Joubert, Pensees, No. 152

bigbi

  • Guest
Re: AA, Timeline for
« Reply #23 on: October 14, 2005, 01:49:03 AM »
Quote
AA claimed she had a child.  A boy who was carried to full term.  The child she said was born in Budapest and then sent away to a orphanage.

Since it's proven through DNA that she wasn't GD Anastasia and there is no need to try and have the child born in Rumania, then when would she have had the child?

Had to have been nine months before she jumped into the canal or earlier?

Let's say the child was born in April or May of 1919.  AA could have been suffering from "the baby blues" or deep depression from giving birth or having given the baby away.

AGRBear

um.. Do you realize that if you indeed believe that the DNA proved beyond a shadow of a doubt she was not Anastasia, then you would also have to believe that she is indeed Franzika.

Offline Malenkaya

  • Boyar
  • **
  • Posts: 117
  • I Am Anastasia
    • View Profile
Re: AA, Timeline for
« Reply #24 on: October 14, 2005, 11:19:06 AM »
Quote
um.. Do you realize that if you indeed believe that the DNA proved beyond a shadow of a doubt she was not Anastasia, then you would also have to believe that she is indeed Franzika.


Not really.  The DNA used was Mitochondrial DNA, which only traces the relationship from mother to child.  Unlikely though it may be, all the DNA can prove is that AA and FS come from the same female desendants.  It cannot prove that AA was FS.
*Anastasia*

Offline AGRBear

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 6611
  • The road to truth is the best one to travel.
    • View Profile
    • Romanov's  Russia
Re: AA, Timeline for
« Reply #25 on: October 14, 2005, 11:29:14 AM »
Although I never thought AA was GD Anastasia, I had thought that AA was FS.   And,  to tell the truth,  I never gave it much thought.    Through this pass year,  as I've been going through the various pieces of evidence,  and I find more  and more differences between AA and FS than AA has with GD Anastasia.  So,  I ask myself,  how could that be?

When I asked questions about "contamination",  the answers received seem to indicate this is nearly impossible. When I created a thread about the possibility of a "switch",  it was eliminated.   This makes me uneasy since I didn't think my questions were silly or illogical or a waste of anyone's time.

At this time,  you are recieving this same kind  of posts from Forum Admin.  I had received over on the contamintion thread.

So,  trying to understand how it is possible that the DNA/mtDNA has not been contaminated or switch, while at the same time, trying to understand how it was possible that  AA was not FS, I've had to dig deep into books and I've asked a lot of questions on all of these posts.  So, what I've done in this process is   take a closer look at the  99.99999 %  statements.     Yes,  it appears AA and FS are  related 99.999 % but not necessarily are they the same person.  The link can be  through the material line.   The DNA/mtDNA cannot prove who a persons is,  at this time, so,   we can speculate that  AA and FS were not the same person.  This means we can  spectulate that AA might not have been FS.   Could they have been  sisters?  Yes,  but that doesn't appear to be the case from those who have studied the family of FS's.  However, we really don't know if  FS's mother was married before marrying Anton S.   so  they might have been half sisters.   This, again, is unknown.   So, how far can we look for relationship that still fits in the 99.999 %?  If there was no mutations it could mean that AA and FS could have been first cousins.   If not first cousins, then could they have been second cousins?  Yes.  Could they have been fourth cousins?  Yes.  This range could reach as high as being thirty-fifth cousins.  [See NDA threads].

According to daveK,  who worked on stats,  he said that in and around Berlin there could have been 200 woman or the same age as AA with the same DNA/mtDNA.

I'm not quite understanding the "rarity" since it doesn't seem to fit the family line of FS's family living in the Posen area.

This is how it is possible that everyone is right about the DNA/mtDNA and that AA  wasn't FS.

I just do not know the answers,  so,  I'm keeping an open mind.

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 Forum Admin

  • Administrator
  • Velikye Knyaz
  • *****
  • Posts: 4665
  • www.alexanderpalace.org
    • View Profile
    • Alexander Palace Time Machine
Re: AA, Timeline for
« Reply #26 on: October 14, 2005, 11:38:13 AM »
Bear
I eliminated the thread as I told you because you were asking the SAME questions over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again, getting the same answers that A SWITCH WAS IMPOSSIBLE TO THE LIKELIHOOD OF LESS THAN ONE IN A BILLION. To waste time discussing ONE IN A BILLION POSSIBLITIES is the same as arguing about Extraterrestrials abducting Alexei, period. Get over it.

Offline AGRBear

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 6611
  • The road to truth is the best one to travel.
    • View Profile
    • Romanov's  Russia
Re: AA, Timeline for
« Reply #27 on: October 14, 2005, 12:03:43 PM »
The "switch" has nothing to do with the Timeline of AA.    I will make no farther comments on this thread, since this disagreement between myself and others should not cause a elimination or lock down of this thread.

When looking closely at the Timeline,  can you explain if AA was FS,  when it was when FF received her broken jaw, her wounds which had healed by Feb. of 1920 and had a child?

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 Phil_tomaselli

  • Graf
  • ***
  • Posts: 314
  • I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
    • View Profile
Re: AA, Timeline for
« Reply #28 on: October 14, 2005, 03:07:07 PM »
At the risk of attracting a severe wigging from Forum Admin, and stressing the point that I have absolutely no interest in the AA = FS (or not) argument, I do not think one can place odds on the likelyhood or not of a switch if sufficient motive exists for someone to do it.

Clever people with enough motivation can achieve just about anything.  Just look at Lenin taking over the revolution in 1917.  What odds would have been given on that?  On the other hand I can't think of any real motive for anyone to make the kind of convoluted switches necessary and am mainly just exercising what is left of my brain.

Offline Forum Admin

  • Administrator
  • Velikye Knyaz
  • *****
  • Posts: 4665
  • www.alexanderpalace.org
    • View Profile
    • Alexander Palace Time Machine
Re: AA, Timeline for
« Reply #29 on: October 14, 2005, 03:48:53 PM »
Phil,
THIS is the exact thrust of WHY the "switch" is almost impossible. The people who discovered the AA sample in Martha Jefferson wanted to PROVE SHE WAS AN! No one HAD/HAS a motive to make the switch to a putative FS match.  PLUS, please don't forget the crucial points that NO ONE could have KNOWN the sample could even be used for such proof before 1994, thus NO SWITCH would/could have happened before 1994 AND the AA dna was sequenced before the Maucher sample was even obtained!

NO identifiable person has been EVER even BEEN SUGGESTED who HAS/HAD a motive to go THROUGH the hoops of a switch in the first place. THAT is why I shut this discussion down every time it creeps back up. IF you can't show SOMEONE who has the motive then this exercise is simply another "well what if..." pointless exercise. NAME NAMES or give it a rest.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by admin »