Author Topic: Claimants of Grand Duchess Marie Nikolaevna  (Read 64864 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Forum Admin

  • Administrator
  • Velikye Knyaz
  • *****
  • Posts: 4643
  • www.alexanderpalace.org
    • View Profile
    • Alexander Palace Time Machine
Re: Claimants of Grand Duchess Marie Nikolaevna
« Reply #30 on: January 05, 2006, 09:22:06 AM »
Caleb,
once again you just dont do your research. It has been explained over and over that there is a very good chance that the finger came from Sister Varvara, Ella's companion, who's body was in the mine with hers. They were both dressed identically and it could have been a simple switch of identification. Second, there is no stable chain of possession of the finger, which was kept in a small box and trotted out hundreds of times and handled by hundreds of strangers.

Really, your genuine lack of understanding HOW dna testing works and the science underneath it is appalling...

calebGmoney

  • Guest
Re: Claimants of Grand Duchess Marie Nikolaevna
« Reply #31 on: January 05, 2006, 04:54:33 PM »
Quote

Did you actually know that skeleton that was found was very short? That couldn't be Maria, Maria was wasn't short she was tall, she was maybe even tall as Tatiana.
So, I think we most conclude that Anastasia is indeed among the dead, on that night.

No. The bodies were all too tall to be Anastasia.

calebGmoney

  • Guest
Re: Claimants of Grand Duchess Marie Nikolaevna
« Reply #32 on: January 05, 2006, 04:57:02 PM »
Quote
Caleb,
once again you just dont do your research. It has been explained over and over that there is a very good chance that the finger came from Sister Varvara, Ella's companion, who's body was in the mine with hers. They were both dressed identically and it could have been a simple switch of identification. Second, there is no stable chain of possession of the finger, which was kept in a small box and trotted out hundreds of times and handled by hundreds of strangers.

Really, your genuine lack of understanding HOW dna testing works and the science underneath it is appalling...
Sorry Forum Admin, but plainly, you do not know whose body the finger came from. Nor does thinking that the finger could have come from Elizabeth have anything to do with understanding DNA testing. All I stated was that I could not be 100% certain of the bone's authenticity, I never declared they were not, yet that didn't stop all of you from attacking me.

Offline Forum Admin

  • Administrator
  • Velikye Knyaz
  • *****
  • Posts: 4643
  • www.alexanderpalace.org
    • View Profile
    • Alexander Palace Time Machine
Re: Claimants of Grand Duchess Marie Nikolaevna
« Reply #33 on: January 05, 2006, 05:35:00 PM »
Quote
Sorry Forum Admin, but plainly, you do not know whose body the finger came from. Nor does thinking that the finger could have come from Elizabeth have anything to do with understanding DNA testing. All I stated was that I could not be 100% certain of the bone's authenticity, I never declared they were not, yet that didn't stop all of you from attacking me.

Lord you aren't even capable of critical thinking?? First you say "You still can't explain why you think Ella's finger was not her's, despite that fact that it obviously was."...Now, Look at your one statement "plainly, you do not knw whose body the finger came from." EXACTLY THE POINT. NO ONE knows who's body the finger came from.  THAT nullifies the use of the finger for dna testing completely as it is not a reliable source.  SO stop citing the testing the finger dna as evidence of ANYTHING.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by admin »

Offline Robby

  • Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 916
    • View Profile
Re: Claimants of Grand Duchess Marie Nikolaevna
« Reply #34 on: January 06, 2006, 12:49:04 AM »
Quote
No. The bodies were all too tall to be Anastasia.


My information was the skeleton was short.

And, indeed Holly, Thank for Forum Administrator!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by Robby »
“Courage! I have shown it for years; think you I shall lose it at the moment when my sufferings are to end?” Marie Antoinette

calebGmoney

  • Guest
Re: Claimants of Grand Duchess Marie Nikolaevna
« Reply #35 on: January 06, 2006, 04:31:51 PM »
Quote
Lord you aren't even capable of critical thinking?? First you say "You still can't explain why you think Ella's finger was not her's, despite that fact that it obviously was."...Now, Look at your one statement "plainly, you do not knw whose body the finger came from." EXACTLY THE POINT. NO ONE knows who's body the finger came from.  THAT nullifies the use of the finger for dna testing completely as it is not a reliable source.  SO stop citing the testing the finger dna as evidence of ANYTHING.
I think this is very rude and all I did was make a suggestion that it was probably Ella's finger. I did not deserve to be attacked.

Offline Forum Admin

  • Administrator
  • Velikye Knyaz
  • *****
  • Posts: 4643
  • www.alexanderpalace.org
    • View Profile
    • Alexander Palace Time Machine
Re: Claimants of Grand Duchess Marie Nikolaevna
« Reply #36 on: January 06, 2006, 05:18:27 PM »
How utterly disingenuous and irresposilbe of you Caleb to go shouting to high heaven "that the finger IS that of GD Ella" over and over and insisting on how vaild the testing is as a result, then when called to task, you retreat to a pathetic "I suggested it probably was..." Sorry pal, but in here you're held accountable.

Further Caleb, there is no "new" evidence about the reliability of the mtDNA testing being questioned. As I wrote elsewhere you are taking a four year old statment by Greg out of context. It is not new, and the reliablilty of the DNA testing is NOT questioned.

THE SUBJECT THAT THE DNA TESTS ARE NOT RELIABLE IS CLOSED UNTIL/UNLESS A PEER REVIEW SCIENTIFIC PAPER IN SUPPORT OF THE UNRELIABLITY OF SUCH TESTING ACCOMPANIES THE STATEMENT. Clear?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by admin »

calebGmoney

  • Guest
Re: Claimants of Grand Duchess Marie Nikolaevna
« Reply #37 on: January 06, 2006, 05:38:47 PM »
Quote

My information was the skeleton was short.


Yes, but this information is clearly not true, and even if it was, I don't think it matches Dr. William Maple's conclusion of the vertebrae.

Offline Tsarina_Liz

  • Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 569
  • Existence is not a predicate.  - Kant
    • View Profile
Re: Claimants of Grand Duchess Marie Nikolaevna
« Reply #38 on: January 06, 2006, 08:09:20 PM »
Quote
Yes, but this information is clearly not true, and even if it was, I don't think it matches Dr. William Maple's conclusion of the vertebrae.


Caleb,
 With the theory of the vertebrae (the fusion and the rings) what you must realize that a person does not automatically stop growing when they reach their 18th birthday.  There is unfortunately an age window so large it could contain both Anastasia and Marie.  While conclusions drawn from vertebrae analyzation are certainly helpful they cannot be totally reliable especially when the tests are trying to determine the difference between people of such close age as Marie and Anastasia were and in such a critial age period.  
 But, I must admit I only know the basics of this sort of testing/analyzation and not the specifics.  Any docs, anthropologists or archeologists on this board who know more about it?
- Liz
Hindsight is 20/20.  When the myopic haze of of the present is lifted by the march of time we see it clearly as the past.  Sociology, psychology, anthropology.  They are all means of understanding that which came before.  History cannot stand alone.

calebGmoney

  • Guest
Re: Claimants of Grand Duchess Marie Nikolaevna
« Reply #39 on: January 07, 2006, 09:51:01 AM »
Quote

Caleb,
  With the theory of the vertebrae (the fusion and the rings) what you must realize that a person does not automatically stop growing when they reach their 18th birthday.  There is unfortunately an age window so large it could contain both Anastasia and Marie.  While conclusions drawn from vertebrae analyzation are certainly helpful they cannot be totally reliable especially when the tests are trying to determine the difference between people of such close age as Marie and Anastasia were and in such a critial age period.  
  But, I must admit I only know the basics of this sort of testing/analyzation and not the specifics.  Any docs, anthropologists or archeologists on this board who know more about it?
 - Liz
According to Dr. William Maples, he has never seen a case where the vertebrae of a girl who has not reached the age of 18 did not show some immaturity in the vertebrae. He also stated that the skeletons of the other girls were all too tall to be Anastasia. When looking at photographs, you'll see that she was easily the shortest of the girls. Marie was actually pretty tall near the end. In my personal opinion, this is far more convincing than comparing photographs with skulls.

Offline Tsarina_Liz

  • Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 569
  • Existence is not a predicate.  - Kant
    • View Profile
Re: Claimants of Grand Duchess Marie Nikolaevna
« Reply #40 on: January 11, 2006, 02:31:30 PM »
Quote
Yes.



Uh-huh.  Anyways.  Dr. Maples is one expert, just one, and no one truly interested in science ever stops at just listening to one person's 'testimony.'  It is impossible to put a human being into a timetable like Maples does.  He also has a limited range of experience (dead people, I believe) and I would like to see him collaborate with some actual physicians and other bone experts (Lord help me, I can't remember the correct words) before proclaiming to the world that at the age of 18 all growth stops and you can always go by the bones and therefore the skeleton in the grave is Anastasia.

Also, because there is no real photographic evidence there is nothing to support the idea that at the very end Anastasia was still the shortest.  She may have had a growth spurt while in captivity.  Seems like she was due one...  
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by Tsarina_Liz »
Hindsight is 20/20.  When the myopic haze of of the present is lifted by the march of time we see it clearly as the past.  Sociology, psychology, anthropology.  They are all means of understanding that which came before.  History cannot stand alone.

calebGmoney

  • Guest
Re: Claimants of Grand Duchess Marie Nikolaevna
« Reply #41 on: January 11, 2006, 10:58:54 PM »
Quote


Uh-huh.  Anyways.  Dr. Maples is one expert, just one, and no one truly interested in science ever stops at just listening to one person's 'testimony.'  It is impossible to put a human being into a timetable like Maples does.  He also has a limited range of experience (dead people, I believe) and I would like to see him collaborate with some actual physicians and other bone experts (Lord help me, I can't remember the correct words) before proclaiming to the world that at the age of 18 all growth stops and you can always go by the bones and therefore the skeleton in the grave is Anastasia.

Also, because there is no real photographic evidence there is nothing to support the idea that at the very end Anastasia was still the shortest.  She may have had a growth spurt while in captivity.  Seems like she was due one...  
But yet the only one concluding that Marie is missing is Dr. Abramov.

Offline Robby

  • Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 916
    • View Profile
Re: Claimants of Grand Duchess Marie Nikolaevna
« Reply #42 on: January 12, 2006, 12:34:19 AM »
I really believe Anastasia lies in her grave with her family, all the way from 17th of july 1918.

And I don't believe in Anna Anderson her story is very unbelievable (my opinion!).
It's just such a strange, almost fictional, story what she told, what should have happended that night.
I really think she was a liar, and if she did was Anastasia why did she never spoke Russian? (Answer because she couldn't, not because she didn't wanted to speak it)
Trash story of Anderson!
“Courage! I have shown it for years; think you I shall lose it at the moment when my sufferings are to end?” Marie Antoinette

Offline Tsarina_Liz

  • Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 569
  • Existence is not a predicate.  - Kant
    • View Profile
Re: Claimants of Grand Duchess Marie Nikolaevna
« Reply #43 on: January 12, 2006, 09:17:19 AM »
Quote
But yet the only one concluding that Marie is missing is Dr. Abramov.


So you have a head to head clash of scientists.  Now it comes down to thoroughly investigating each of their claims and getting information from other experts in the fields.  The arguments you need to begin with are largely presented here on various boards.  

I for one, having looked at both doctors have to discredit Maples simply because of his single mindedness when it comes to bone growth and rings.  He's created an absolute where there shouldn't be one.  

Now you have to come up with your own conclusion using critical thinking.  
Hindsight is 20/20.  When the myopic haze of of the present is lifted by the march of time we see it clearly as the past.  Sociology, psychology, anthropology.  They are all means of understanding that which came before.  History cannot stand alone.

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: Claimants of Grand Duchess Marie Nikolaevna
« Reply #44 on: January 12, 2006, 04:27:24 PM »
Quote

Dr. Maples is one expert, just one, and no one truly interested in science ever stops at just listening to one person's 'testimony.'  It is impossible to put a human being into a timetable like Maples does.  He also has a limited range of experience (dead people, I believe) and I would like to see him collaborate with some actual physicians and other bone experts (Lord help me, I can't remember the correct words) before proclaiming to the world that at the age of 18 all growth stops and you can always go by the bones and therefore the skeleton in the grave is Anastasia.
  


Dr Maples won't be collaborating with anyone any time soon, he died about 5 years ago... But I agree with your assessment T_Liz, when it comes to human biology, variations can be significant.

P.S. I can tell you for a fact that I grew at least two inches between the ages of 17 and 20!  
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by helenazar »