Author Topic: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4  (Read 51747 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Richard_Schweitzer

  • Boyar
  • **
  • Posts: 161
  • I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
    • View Profile
Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
« Reply #255 on: October 14, 2007, 02:27:20 PM »
Important things first:

 Attorn:  Try Webster's or a standard dictionary for the v i.

 Ad Hominem:  The use of which usually discloses more about the user than its subject.

Back to you soon Bob.

Offline Helen_Azar

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 7472
  • Coming up Fall 2015: Tatiana's diaries and letters
    • View Profile
    • War-time diaries of Grand Duchess Olga Nikolaevna Romanov
Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
« Reply #256 on: October 14, 2007, 02:28:23 PM »
# 152 make a good point:

Look up the meaning of Attorn.  Not Attorney, who is someone who attorns.

What??

Not sure either Helen, makes less sense when you look it up:

Blacks Law Dictionary:
Attorn:  To turn over; to transfer to another money or goods; to assign to some particular use or service.  To consent to the transfer of a rent or reversion.  To agree to become tenant to one as owner or landlord of an estate previously held of another, or to agree to recognise a new owner of a property or estate and promise payment of rent to him.

HUH??

OOOkay....

Moving right along, Mr Schweitzer, your posts would be a lot more convincing if you had some realistic theories to share with us... For example:

1. Whose intestine segment did the conspirators use to substitute for the tissue sample which was supposed to belong to Mrs Manahan?
    
    a. did the intestine segment belong to a recently deceased Maucher/Schanzkowski family member*?
    b. was the intestine segment excized from a living donor from the Maucher/Schanzkowski family?
    c. was a long deceased Maucher/Schanzkowski family member exhumed for this purpose?
    d. was any Maucher/Schanzkowski family member involved in the conspiracy (it seems they would have to be in order to get the sample)?

2. What is your proposed theory as to how the switch was performed by the conspirators at the hospital?
    
    a. assuming that it would have to be done after it got to Dr Gill's lab since he was not involved in this conspiracy (or was he?)
    b. if the swtich was done after the sample was transferred to Dr Gill's lab, then was a member of Dr Gill's staff possibly involved in the conspiracy, but not Dr Gill himself?
    c. did someone else (an outsider) gain access to Dr Gill's lab after the sample was transferred there and make the switch (substituting the sealed sample with an identical fake)?

Thank you in advance for sharing your theories with us, perhaps we will be convinced when we hear them.

* It would have to come from a Maucher/Schanzkowski family member in order to ensure the match to Karl Maucher - since that was the entire point of this conspiracy.
    

Offline Helen_Azar

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 7472
  • Coming up Fall 2015: Tatiana's diaries and letters
    • View Profile
    • War-time diaries of Grand Duchess Olga Nikolaevna Romanov
Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
« Reply #257 on: October 15, 2007, 01:49:10 PM »
Mr Schweitzer, are you there?

Offline Annie

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4756
    • View Profile
    • Anna Anderson Exposed!
Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
« Reply #258 on: October 15, 2007, 02:29:53 PM »
Quote
* It would have to come from a Maucher/Schanzkowski family member in order to ensure the match to Karl Maucher - since that was the entire point of this conspiracy.

Not necessarily, if the Queen paid the scientists to lie ::) ::)

You know I don't believe that, and I have always said the switch was impossible because there's no way they could have cut out a piece of a Schanzkowska family member. But unfortunately, because some believe so strongly in a conspiracy, they wouldn't have to explain how they got the tissue from FS's relative, because in their minds, all the results were bogus and paid off by the queen :-X

If I am wrong, I do hope someone who disbelieves the autheticity of the sample will please explain otherwise.

1. The sample was stolen and switched out somehow somehow from a mysteriously obtained sample from a member of FS's family, (options listed by Helen) and switched (please explain how this was done in two samples stored and labeled differently)
2. The results never mattered because the Queen and/or other 'people for whom money was no object' made sure they were rigged to discredit AA.
3. Other, please specify________________________________________
« Last Edit: October 15, 2007, 02:41:17 PM by Annie »

Offline Helen_Azar

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 7472
  • Coming up Fall 2015: Tatiana's diaries and letters
    • View Profile
    • War-time diaries of Grand Duchess Olga Nikolaevna Romanov
Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
« Reply #259 on: October 15, 2007, 03:01:49 PM »
Quote
* It would have to come from a Maucher/Schanzkowski family member in order to ensure the match to Karl Maucher - since that was the entire point of this conspiracy.

Not necessarily, if the Queen paid the scientists to lie ::) ::)


No, Mr Schweitzer said that Dr Gill was not involved and that he trusts Dr Gill, so it had to be someone else.

I think Mr Schweitzer can answer our questions and perhaps convince us the switch was possible. Mr Schweitzer?

Offline Annie

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4756
    • View Profile
    • Anna Anderson Exposed!
Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
« Reply #260 on: October 15, 2007, 04:05:52 PM »
Quote
* It would have to come from a Maucher/Schanzkowski family member in order to ensure the match to Karl Maucher - since that was the entire point of this conspiracy.

Not necessarily, if the Queen paid the scientists to lie ::) ::)


No, Mr Schweitzer said that Dr Gill was not involved and that he trusts Dr Gill, so it had to be someone else.

I think Mr Schweitzer can answer our questions and perhaps convince us the switch was possible. Mr Schweitzer?

But if they gave the samples directly to Gill, and he held them in the plane, and he did the work, how can this be? Are we back to the switch in the hospital, which would take us back to kidnapping a member of the FS family and cutting parts out of him/her? What about the comment that for some people money would be no object to discredit AA? Who is that and what and when did they do..what? I would welcome an answer from any AA supporter, including Ilya Borrisovich, who at one time here openly accused the queen by name.

Alixz

  • Guest
Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
« Reply #261 on: October 15, 2007, 04:09:29 PM »
I think that Mr. Schweitzer was convinced that the DNA results would return in favor of AA being ANR and when they didn't he created the "conspiracy theory" himself with the words that he spoke at the time of the presentation and also the words that he spoke to Robert Massie which are included in The Romanovs - The Final Chapter  chapters 17 and 18.

I think we can rule out Bob Massie as being someone who would make up or "massage" the facts and if he cited Mr. Schweitzer, then I think we can believe that is what Mr. Schweitzer said.

The fact the Mr. Schweitzer does not have his "books and sources" to look into is a shame, but I think that one would remember what one said and did and not have to "go look it up" as if it happened to someone else.

I am not posting anything that has not been in print, especially in TFC.  I am not slandering or libeling.  (Slander being the spoken word and libel being the written word).  It is only my opinion, but that is what I read and posted here at least four times.  Chapter 17 page 238 and 239.  Chapter 18 page 243.

I think I believe that there were three shooters in Dallas more strongly than I believe that there was a conspiracy to defraud Anna Manahan/FS or her true place as Grand Duchess Anastasia Romanova.  At least the Kennedy conpirarists have forensic evidence and bullet trajectories and the Zapruter film to work with.

Here we have one man who desperately wanted to believe that his father-in-law was not a con man who "mooched" off of him and his wife while supporting a woman who was also "mooching" off anyone whom she could.

Perhaps because, as Bear pointed out, I did not know either Gleb Botkin or Anna Manahan/FS I do not have to right to feel the way I do.  However, I am entitled to my opinion and my opinion is supported by the information gleaned from the books I have read, one of which quotes Mr. Schweitzer himself.

I still think it too convenient that Anna/Franczeska was cremated.  I can't get it out of my mind that cremation was going to be a way to foil any investigations as to her identity (finger prints - dental records - foot structure- etc), but the MJH pathology department spoiled all that by keeping the tissue samples.

According to dates, Gleb Botkin was a year older than Anastasia as he was born in 1900.  Even with his father being the personal physician to the Imperial Family, I sincerely doubt that Gleb was given the run of the palace.  Just how well did he know the real Anastasia Romanova?  Perhaps we will never know.

Mr. Schweitzer with his convoluted answers to our (instructed to be) simple questions is never going to give away any information that we can't already get else where.

There are some here who seem to "deify" Mr. Schweitzer and honor him because he knew Gleb Botkin and through him Anna/Franczeska.  I respect him, but "honor" no one just because of an accident of life and history.

Offline Helen_Azar

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 7472
  • Coming up Fall 2015: Tatiana's diaries and letters
    • View Profile
    • War-time diaries of Grand Duchess Olga Nikolaevna Romanov
Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
« Reply #262 on: October 15, 2007, 04:45:19 PM »
But if they gave the samples directly to Gill, and he held them in the plane, and he did the work, how can this be?

A staff member at the lab could have been paid off to do it or someone (an outsider) could have broken into the lab and made the switch. Mr Schweitzer, what do you think of this theory?

P.S. Mr Schweitzer, are you still with us?
« Last Edit: October 15, 2007, 04:48:42 PM by Helen_A »

Offline Belochka

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4447
  • City of Peter stand in all your splendor - Pushkin
    • View Profile
Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
« Reply #263 on: October 15, 2007, 11:06:40 PM »
... I still think it too convenient that Anna/Franczeska was cremated.  I can't get it out of my mind that cremation was going to be a way to foil any investigations as to her identity (finger prints - dental records - foot structure- etc),

You are not the only person who expresses such a concern.

Had Mrs Manahan been the Grand Duchess Anastasiya Nikolayevna then her remains would have been respected as one who was entitled to have received the funeral and burial rites of the Russian Orthodox Church.

The incineration of a body as a choice and means to dispose of the remains is against the precepts of the Orthodox Church.

Mrs Manahan's cremation is evidence enough that the lady was not who she was purported to be.

Margarita


Faces of Russia is now on Facebook!


http://www.searchfoundationinc.org/

Offline Annie

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4756
    • View Profile
    • Anna Anderson Exposed!
Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
« Reply #264 on: October 16, 2007, 06:51:59 PM »
http://www.marthajefferson.org/about.php

Here is the contact info for MJH, in case anyone wants to ask for themselves.

Offline Richard_Schweitzer

  • Boyar
  • **
  • Posts: 161
  • I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
    • View Profile
Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
« Reply #265 on: October 16, 2007, 08:26:58 PM »
Since my time for these postings is becoming limited, and I can only scan the topics from time to time now, What I will do is post responses or such information as I have on the one thread that someone set up with my name. I will put this on all the threads that have put recent statements about my replies or questions to me. Earlier, I had copied out only one set of questions from “Rob,” that I will transfer to the single thread. Anyone else who wants follow-up will have to transfer their post to that thread. No guarantees of satisfaction.

I recognize that there is an effort to assure me that I am not Don Quixote, and that there are no windmills. I do not propose to “convince” anyone of anything. I do not advocate. When asked, I have stated my views. Such facts as I have, I share. I state them, I don’t try to prove them.

My reason for posting again, was being drawn in by the calumnies against those now dead; then drifting into two other threads of related topics. For a broader overview, some might consider going back over my posts to various threads on this site over years past. I think they will find they make up a consistent whole. If not, the fault is mine.

Dick Schweitzer

 

Alixz

  • Guest
Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
« Reply #266 on: October 23, 2007, 11:12:37 PM »
Isn't the very definition of a fact the "fact" that it can be proven?

Anything else is theory or conjecture.  Theories can be stated, but should be backed up by a decent line of logic and source material.  Conjecture is conjecture and most likely can not be proven.

I am, of course, not the forum police.  But I have been put in my place many times by those who ask for "just the facts ma'am" and the sources to back up those facts.

Otherwise one should post in the "Just for Fun" section. 


Offline Belochka

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4447
  • City of Peter stand in all your splendor - Pushkin
    • View Profile
Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
« Reply #267 on: October 24, 2007, 01:14:55 AM »
Isn't the very definition of a fact the "fact" that it can be proven?

Anything else is theory or conjecture. ... Conjecture is conjecture and most likely can not be proven. 

A conjecture can be just a simple "guess" or a "suspicion" or an expression of one's creative "imagination" that can be supported by defective evidence and uncertainties.

The onus lies with the person who offered their conjecture by submitting more than just a point of view.

Margarita
« Last Edit: October 24, 2007, 01:21:56 AM by Belochka »


Faces of Russia is now on Facebook!


http://www.searchfoundationinc.org/

Offline Belochka

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4447
  • City of Peter stand in all your splendor - Pushkin
    • View Profile
Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
« Reply #268 on: October 24, 2007, 02:37:19 AM »
Introducing Mr Schweitzer's conjecture on this thread:

Question # 1

In "The Romanovs The Final Chapter" (1995) written by Robert Massie it is stated at p 243:

... "Schweitzer explained ... "We now feel that there had to be some form of manipulation or substitution. Specifically, that means that somehow, somebody got in and switched or substituted tissue at Martha Jefferson Hospital."

1a. Do you Sir, still maintain this published opinion?

1. a. Yes, that is my best conjecture. Admmitedly, it is conjecture. Is it rational? I think so. ...

Your "conjecture" based on hearsay requires the presentation of evidence on your part.

and Mr Schweitzer's response:


No it does not.

I can have, or make whatever conjectures occur to me.

Thus where does the quoted conjecture regarding the alleged "substitution" leave us?

I recommend that the quoted conjecture (as a point of view, suspicion or a guess) shall always remain no more than a diminutive footnote in publishing.

Margarita
« Last Edit: October 24, 2007, 02:56:25 AM by Belochka »


Faces of Russia is now on Facebook!


http://www.searchfoundationinc.org/

Alixz

  • Guest
Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
« Reply #269 on: October 24, 2007, 08:27:35 AM »
It may also remain as a "cry in the dark" by someone who was thwarted by the scientific truths presented by the tissue sampling and testing.  Some one who, since he has no irrefutable proof of his conjecture in the face of the positive identification of his  father-in-law's friend, will continue to muddy the journalistic waters by creating a "conspiracy theory" as a balm for his ego and an excuse for all of the fraud and duplicity that was generated by either his father-in-law or AA/FS or both.