Author Topic: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4  (Read 49319 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Finelly

  • Guest
Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
« Reply #75 on: July 06, 2005, 12:08:10 PM »
Vodka is a good preservative.  Perhaps that's the reason.

Offline RealAnastasia

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 1890
  • I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
    • View Profile
Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
« Reply #76 on: July 07, 2005, 06:24:30 PM »
And what about white wine?  ::) I'm Grand Duchess Real White Whine Romanov.

RealAnastasia (even if the DNA proofs that I am not me!  ;D)

Offline AGRBear

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 6611
  • The road to truth is the best one to travel.
    • View Profile
    • Romanov's  Russia
Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
« Reply #77 on: July 08, 2005, 08:51:57 AM »
A nose is a nose, not a chin  ;)

Nor is the Romanov noses in wine [white, red or blush] or vodka ;D....

Along with this enjoyable humer some of you have displayed, do any of you have addtions to this thread on noses???

AGRBear  8)
« 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 JonC

  • Boyar
  • **
  • Posts: 202
  • I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
    • View Profile
Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
« Reply #78 on: July 08, 2005, 02:06:18 PM »
HI Bear,

I think you are on the right track! '...dazzle them with your footwork.' Comparing noses is a good start! Finally! After all if it looks like a nose its got to be a nose! lol! AA definitely has a nose, and what a big nose! AN has a nose also but its length, width and ect., doen't match that of AA. I've seen many different sides to the 'NOSES' in question and the story is the same! NO MATCH!

You could also compare their ears. I read somewhere that AA's ear matched that of AN's. I've done the comparison and AA's right ear is bent on the top and has folds in the middle which do not match that of AN at all! Check for yourself!

We could also talk about the size of their respective forheads, the distance between the eyes, the size of the eyes...HELLO! IS ANYONE LISTENING????? THERE IS NO MATCH ! AND THERE NEVER HAS BEEN!!!!!!!!!! Sorry, it just came out. Bear I know you know this but others don't. As far as AA=FS, I don't really care about that. Peace, JonC.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by JonC »

Offline etonexile

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 1231
  • I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
    • View Profile
Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
« Reply #79 on: July 08, 2005, 04:33:53 PM »
We could also do the AA/AN thumb comparison....if we had the pics...

Offline RealAnastasia

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 1890
  • I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
    • View Profile
Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
« Reply #80 on: July 08, 2005, 07:26:35 PM »
It is you that are not listening (or reading). We are questioning HOW COULD IT BE that, if all evidence was saying that AA was not FS ONLY the DNA (this one, made with very questionated tissue samples) said she was, and try to convince us, esceptics that she indeed was.

I'm reasoning, a thing you seems to ignore. You read in a newspapers that DNA said X and you repeats X. If tomorrow newspapers said to you that scientiphics found out that earth is romboid you'll believe it.

Simply basical reasons must said you that AA was NOT FS, and a DNA , wouldn't destroy all the former evidence I had. I'm not a stupid and reading some newspapers would'n keep me to think my own way (not capriciously, but after a lot of analysis, and info...very serious info I must said) . I'm a free mind woman, do you know?

And keep in mind another thing: I'M NOT A DREAMER WANTING A FAIRY TALE. Anna Anderson's one IS NOT a fairy tale. Is a patethic, tragic story (even if she wasn't Anastasia). If I would have been Anastasia, I would'   like to die along with my family rather than live without people I loved so much, and in a way that the real Anastasia wouldn't have like a bit. The world has changed so much after 1918...

I'm angry with people who wants to remain in peace with themselves saying all the mysteries are closed. If you think that AA was not AN but FS and didn't want further discussion about this subject, so, don't keep consulting those threads to mess the friendly info exchanges we have so nicely here. You have your mind made in this subject, right? Good for you! Keep those ideas, and be happy with them. But someone of us, wants to keep discussing the whole affair. Are we guilible? Yes, if you want. Are we idiots? Perhaps...Are we dreamers? Oh, Maybe...But let us to be all this if we are happy. This is a free world after all. And stop with those snide and agressive comments. I can't bear you said all time: (In capital letters!): " ...AA WAS FS! WHY DIDN'T YOU ACCEPT THIS? THE DNA SAID SHE WAS FS AND NOT FS; SO STOP DISCUSSING HER..." and blah, blah...

Well, no: I'll keep my mind. Even if you didn't want it or want  to deny my right to post it.

And if you wants I state things you command the others to think, fine: AA was FS. (Even if lots of info deny it); AA couldn't be AN (even if lots of info shows she could have been her); the tissues tested for the DNA proofs are excellent, they belonged to AA, and the whole proof was fairly done...Oh, well...

However, I have my own mind in this, and if other evidences didn't show me otherwise I have my right to doubt about AA being FS and not AN. Oh...And this thread has nothing to do with the DNA issue. >:(e

RealAnastasia.

P.S: I'm also very angry when I re-read the threads where you said awful things to Penny Wilson and Greg King, without mentioning your really meaness toward Peter Kurth. They are historians, you know? And if they keep searching more info about AA (and other pretenders cases) is for they think there is evidence to keep researching: an historian didn't lost his/her time and money (for research is a VERY expensive thing) researching a case without any future and that they know in advance it's fake...

rskkiya

  • Guest
Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
« Reply #81 on: July 08, 2005, 07:39:57 PM »
RA
Please, could you direct me to any pictures of FS that are not also identified as pictures of  AA...
I am not trying to be difficult - but I haven't got the evidence that you must have...New photos? Portraits? descriptions?

rs

Offline JonC

  • Boyar
  • **
  • Posts: 202
  • I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
    • View Profile
Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
« Reply #82 on: July 08, 2005, 09:45:44 PM »
RealAnastasia, '...are you talking to me...' lol..a bit of Al Pacino...anyway...WHAT are you talking about????

I have never said anything even sideways to Penny or Greg or to Peter Kurth about anything. You must be reading someone else's posts. I doooo declare!

The only thing I ever said to Greg was a question asking him where he got the quote in his book ' Empress Alexandra' which mentions that Alice felt the baby kicking, during her pregnancy with Alexandra in 1872. He quoted Gerard Noel's book Noel quoted Alices's writings and low and behold I read everything and there isn't any mention of her being pregnant at all in 1871-2. Greg never responded. Personally, I think he made it up.

Now if he can show me where he got the refference, page number and everything I will appologize but not until.

Hey, you want to make a mountain out of a mole hill with this AA does or does not equal FS be my guest. I have the right to say I don't care about that issue. My stance doesn't/ shouldn't belittle your beliefs so lighten up. My interest is in AN and AN does not equal AA or FS she equals someone else to the nth degree. Lets just say that I don't have to hold my breath about that. JonC.

Finelly

  • Guest
Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
« Reply #83 on: July 09, 2005, 09:22:12 AM »
Ok, but this thread is about the nose of AA compared to that of FS.  Not about AN.

Offline etonexile

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 1231
  • I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
    • View Profile
Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
« Reply #84 on: July 09, 2005, 10:29:35 AM »
Dear All...the "Great Nose Debate" over AA/FS seems to involve comparisons between a few grainy photos....Sherlock Holmes wouldn't be impressed...





Offline RealAnastasia

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 1890
  • I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
    • View Profile
Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
« Reply #85 on: July 09, 2005, 09:51:16 PM »
Quote
RealAnastasia, '...are you talking to me...' lol..a bit of Al Pacino...anyway...WHAT are you talking about????

I have never said anything even sideways to Penny or Greg or to Peter Kurth about anything. You must be reading someone else's posts. I doooo declare!

The only thing I ever said to Greg was a question asking him where he got the quote in his book ' Empress Alexandra' which mentions that Alice felt the baby kicking, during her pregnancy with Alexandra in 1872. He quoted Gerard Noel's book Noel quoted Alices's writings and low and behold I read everything and there isn't any mention of her being pregnant at all in 1871-2. Greg never responded. Personally, I think he made it up.

Now if he can show me where he got the refference, page number and everything I will appologize but not until.

Hey, you want to make a mountain out of a mole hill with this AA does or does not equal FS be my guest. I have the right to say I don't care about that issue. My stance doesn't/ shouldn't belittle your beliefs so lighten up. My interest is in AN and AN does not equal AA or FS she equals someone else to the nth degree. Lets just say that I don't have to hold my breath about that. JonC.



Yes. You are right. I was referring to another person. Not you JonC. You gave arguments and ideas. Other people only make ridicoulous comments and put scorn on other posters analysis. This persons know exactly who they are. Your post are intelligent to read as are those of Helen_Azar (she doesn't believe in AA, but she defend her possition intelligently). But other people only said little offensive phrases meaning that those who still believes in the case are stupid or so.

RealAnastasia (Vanesa)

Offline Greg_King

  • Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 588
  • I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
    • View Profile
    • Atlantis Magazine
Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
« Reply #86 on: July 14, 2005, 09:24:27 AM »
Quote
The only thing I ever said to Greg was a question asking him where he got the quote in his book ' Empress Alexandra' which mentions that Alice felt the baby kicking, during her pregnancy with Alexandra in 1872. He quoted Gerard Noel's book Noel quoted Alices's writings and low and behold I read everything and there isn't any mention of her being pregnant at all in 1871-2. Greg never responded. Personally, I think he made it up.

Now if he can show me where he got the refference, page number and everything I will appologize but not until then.


I am no longer on this board, and am only back now to address your above, erroneous, and libelous statement.  Before you post such inaccuracies that attempt to undermine my professional reputation, I suggest you do your homework.  The letter is indeed, as I said, quoted on page 175 of Gerard Noel’s “Princes Alice: Queen Victoria’s Forgotten Daughter,” trade paperback edition published by Constable in London in 1985.  You will find it on the first page of Chapter Eleven, page 175, on the 14th line down from the beginning sentence.  The letter was written on December 12, 1871, to her husband.  This is the exact same reference given in my biography of Alix, and the same reference I gave in response to your query.  Clearly you didn't read closely enough before accusing me of fabricating information.

Presumably your public apology will be forthcoming, but this is yet another example of the insidious and deliberately malicious assertions, innuendo, mockery, slights, and tone that keep me from posting further.  The vast majority of members are honorable, decent people, and it is a shame that a very small, vocal handful who treat posting as a bloodsport have driven more than a few knowledgable contributors from further participation.

Greg King

Offline JonC

  • Boyar
  • **
  • Posts: 202
  • I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
    • View Profile
Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
« Reply #87 on: July 14, 2005, 10:32:28 PM »
Hi Greg.

Indeed if it is as you say I will appologize to you publicly. Unfortunately I have to go back to my library to request the book so that I can look up the exact page you mentioned.

Just a note here on your reply. If your referenced letter, dated December 12, 1871, mentioned that she felt the baby kicking it would seem kind of an impossible event since Princess Alice would have been at most one and a half to two months pregnant. I don't think a fetus that small would be able to kick or have anything long enough to move which could be felt by the mother.

I don't doubt your truthfulness therefore I will look up the reference.

If I remember correctly you quote Noel's book and do give the said reference. Noel, though, does not say that Princess Alice 'felt the baby kicking' but that she was pregnant. Now even though Noel references Princess Alice's biographical sketches/letters he doesn't give a page number nor does he state exactly where, from her book/writings, he got his information.

I could not find from Princess Alice's letters where she ever said that she was pregnant. Noel doesn't give a page number.

I accused you of compounding Noel's error by saying that 'she felt the baby kicking' on top of him saying that she was pregnant without looking to see if Noel was correct in the first place.

In fairness to you I will go back and re-read all the above references and will get back to the forum. JonC.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by JonC »

Offline Lanie

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 1533
    • View Profile
Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
« Reply #88 on: July 14, 2005, 10:35:06 PM »
Quote
Hi Greg.

Indeed if it is as you say I will appologize to you publicly. Unfortunately I have to go back to my library to request the book so that I can look up the exact page you mentioned.

Just a note here on your reply. If your refferenced letter, dated December 12, 1871, mentioned that she felt the baby kicking it would seem kind of an impossible event since Princess Alice would have been at most one and a half to two months pregnant. I don't think a fetus that small would be able to kick or have anything long enough to move which could be felt by the mother.

I don't doubt your truthfulness therefore I will look up the reference and get back to you. JonC.


Regarding this: as Alix was born in June, Alice would have in December been around three months pregnant.

jeremygaleaz

  • Guest
Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
« Reply #89 on: July 14, 2005, 10:48:33 PM »
Quote

Regarding this: as Alix was born in June, Alice would have in December been around three months pregnant.


I think that 3 months still would've been to young. But, does anyone else know for sure?