Author Topic: What about...?  (Read 76803 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline RealAnastasia

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 1890
  • I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
    • View Profile
Re: What about...?
« Reply #525 on: September 27, 2005, 07:54:38 PM »
And not only AA 's and FS photos are not clear in those books, but Anastasia's ones...I can't understand exactly why.  ???  

And yes...I...am... very...stubborn...so...I'll keep posting such condide and idiot messages...here...sorry... ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)

RealAnastasia.  ;D

Offline Malenkaya

  • Boyar
  • **
  • Posts: 117
  • I Am Anastasia
    • View Profile
Re: What about...?
« Reply #526 on: September 28, 2005, 12:01:23 PM »
Quote

Would a clear,sharp,colour piccie change the DNA evidence?....AA was not AN...etc.



That's not the point.  The point is that we haven't got to see what people back then got to see.  Back before DNA evidence existed.  Lots of people who knew AN believed in AA.  They swore they were the same person, and in order for that to happen, they must have thought they looked alike.  We would just like some nice, up close photos of both in order to see why they thought this.
*Anastasia*

Offline RealAnastasia

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 1890
  • I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
    • View Profile
Re: What about...?
« Reply #527 on: September 28, 2005, 11:04:06 PM »
You are wrong...I'm not speaking about some nice close up pics who would be similar . I'm speaking about anthropological science and forensic studies, that will never dissapear even after DNA.  DNA and athropology studies different things, as well as graphological science. History doesn't finish with archeology or numismatic, who are history helpers...Anthropology and graphology did important discoveries in AA-AN-FS identity and we can't dismiss them so easily. It's like saying that we don't believe in those sciences having their own status among the others.

I'm not speaking about circunstancial evidence, but in other sciences findings. The guy that said to me that AA could not be other than AN was an anthropological expert, not a good boy who only "thinks" that AA could have been AN. Anthropologic experts does comparison in facial features millimeter by millimeter, and my anthropological friend was not interested in AA or FS. He didn't know who they were. He only concluded saying coldly: "This woman (pointing AA ) is the same than this other (he pointed AN). He could not be this other one (he pointed FS)".

You are basically saying that genetics is more important than anthropology , or graphology, or forensic evidence....This is not serious at all.  Usually, genetics confirms what the other sciences said (For example, the soccer player Maradona had had a boy with a napolitan woman in Italy. He denied he was his son. Anthropological experts said he was his son. DNA confirmed it later) In AA case, DNA said that she was FS, a fact denied for all the anthropological , graphological and forensic test...without speaking about retouched photos. Why in heart you'll want to retouch a photo if you are sure that FS was AA?

Sorry. My English is just awful, but I hope you'll understand what I was trying to said... :-/

RealAnastasia.

Offline LyliaM

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 47
  • I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
    • View Profile
Re: What about...?
« Reply #528 on: September 29, 2005, 08:28:13 AM »
RA -- On the contrary,  I find your English quite impressive, given the complexity of the topics you are discussing!  (I'm pretty sure your English is far better than my Spanish. ;D)  Your post goes to the heart of what really troubles me in this matter.  It does not make sense, from a purely scientific point of view, that the photographic comparisons, handwriting analyses, comparisons of the ears, and other forensic studies (conducted by people who were/are known experts in their fields) would ALL be SO DIAMETRICALLY opposed to the DNA results.  I just viewed the Nova special from ten years ago entitled "Anastasia:  Dead or Alive?" and, while I was disappointed that they did not present all of the forensic evidence (which I can understand, given the one-hour time limitation and also the fact that the DNA results had just come in, so the producers had reached their conclusion anyway), it was quite obvious that the experts analyzing photographs of the ears of AA and AN had no explanation whatsoever for the uncanny correspondences between both the right and left ears.  They stated that it was "really significant."  And, as RA has pointed out, we can all see with our own eyes that the ears of AA and AN were, in fact, connected to their heads.  There's something extremely strange here and I am very bothered by it.  
We only know in age what happened to us in youth.  -- Goethe

Offline etonexile

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 1231
  • I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
    • View Profile
Re: What about...?
« Reply #529 on: September 29, 2005, 08:29:31 AM »
Yes...we understand what you are saying...but DNA trumps all the other sciences and pseudo-sciences...it is the closest thing we have to a genetic "fingerprint"..."smoking gun"...etc.

Offline LyliaM

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 47
  • I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
    • View Profile
Re: What about...?
« Reply #530 on: September 29, 2005, 08:40:21 AM »
Etonexile -- I'm certainly not a scientist, but I am good friends with a man who has a PhD in molecular biology and has worked on forensic matters and within the biotech field for years.  He maintains that the DNA does NOT automatically trump all other forensic evidence and that, in his experience, the DNA would be considered IN CONJUNCTION WITH the other forensic evidence if you were trying to determine an individual's identity.  This guy is a very smart and hard-headed individual with no investment whatsoever in the AA/AN matter (and he likes DNA!), but he flatly stated that it's scientifically incorrect to rely solely on DNA and that he would never do so in a case where all of the other forensics pointed in the another direction. (He also had some extremely interesting and juicy tidbits about cases he's seen where the DNA has come back totally screwed up for various reasons, but I can't go into details, much as I would like to, because he would never speak to me again!)
We only know in age what happened to us in youth.  -- Goethe

Mgmstl

  • Guest
Re: What about...?
« Reply #531 on: September 29, 2005, 06:00:53 PM »
Quote
Yes...we understand what you are saying...but DNA trumps all the other sciences and pseudo-sciences...it is the closest thing we have to a genetic "fingerprint"..."smoking gun"...etc.



Get off the treadmill EE..

Mgmstl

  • Guest
Re: What about...?
« Reply #532 on: September 29, 2005, 06:08:15 PM »
Quote
Etonexile -- I'm certainly not a scientist, but I am good friends with a man who has a PhD in molecular biology and has worked on forensic matters and within the biotech field for years.  He maintains that the DNA does NOT automatically trump all other forensic evidence and that, in his experience, the DNA would be considered IN CONJUNCTION WITH the other forensic evidence if you were trying to determine an individual's identity.  This guy is a very smart and hard-headed individual with no investment whatsoever in the AA/AN matter (and he likes DNA!), but he flatly stated that it's scientifically incorrect to rely solely on DNA and that he would never do so in a case where all of the other forensics pointed in the another direction. (He also had some extremely interesting and juicy tidbits about cases he's seen where the DNA has come back totally screwed up for various reasons, but I can't go into details, much as I would like to, because he would never speak to me again!)



Lylia,

Excellent post, great input, and to think all of these months we have been having the infallibility of DNA shoved daily down our throats, like White House press releases....

Offline Annie

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4756
    • View Profile
    • Anna Anderson Exposed!
Re: What about...?
« Reply #533 on: September 29, 2005, 06:37:15 PM »
We also have trained scientists like Helen and DaveK here on this forum, and they tell a different story.

About the ears, it is interesting how those of you who discount the FS photo as 'old, faded and grainy' and therefore useless put so much significance in the ear research which was also done from an old, black and white grainy photo!

The DNA really does take priority over the other more fallible, more prone to human error things. Any court in the world would consider the DNA to be the last word.

Mgmstl

  • Guest
Re: What about...?
« Reply #534 on: September 29, 2005, 07:17:47 PM »
Quote
We also have trained scientists like Helen and DaveK here on this forum, and they tell a different story.

About the ears, it is interesting how those of you who discount the FS photo as 'old, faded and grainy' and therefore useless put so much significance in the ear research which was also done from an old, black and white grainy photo!

The DNA really does take priority over the other more fallible, more prone to human error things. Any court in the world would consider the DNA to be the last word.



Ho hum....more from the same treadmill.  Annie get it through your head DNA is NOT as infallible as you seem to think it is.   You need to stop marching with that bass drum banging it, because there are those of us out there who feel there is more to this than the DNA.


Offline RealAnastasia

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 1890
  • I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
    • View Profile
Re: What about...?
« Reply #535 on: September 29, 2005, 07:19:20 PM »
The problem is that more than one anthropological , forensic, graphological, etc, etc were performed in AA , all but one with the same results. The first graphologic test, in the late 20's, commanded by the Duke of Hesse (Uncle Ernie), that was performed by a graphologist that DIDN'T KNOW to whom the writing samples belonged to, conclude that AA's ones came from the same hand than AN's ones...

All the experts I consulted (even if Etonexile would laugh at hem I ASSURE you they are serious and responsible and people with high reputation in the scientific Argentinian community) said the same. My DNA expert repeated almost the same than the one that LyliaM consulted, and I had trouble with my forensic-anthropologist friend, for I insisted that AA was FS (not for I believe this but to challenge him) and he had concluded otherwise. When I pointed how similar AA was to FS, he exploded and accused me to being an idiot, a guilible creature, an stubborn (You see...Here, people said the same to me for not believing that AA was FS. Now, a friend get angry with me for saying the opposite. ..People is very complicated.  :-/ ). Of course, when I said proudly to him what DNA said, he was the first saying that this results would have been faked in some way. He is trained to recognize faces in a glance and he swears, even today that he knows already the DNA results, that AA was AN. When I said that "DNA could not be never faked and never is wrong" he simply  laughed at me and proposed me to go to see Dr. Otamendi, his colleague an DNA and geneticist expert. If someone is interested in his conclusions, PM me and I post the entire interview to you.

RealAnastasia.

P.S: As I said sometime ago, Professor Kuz get interested in Anastasia-Anna Anderson and Franziska Schanzkowska's stories...So, I have him surfing in the net reading all he can about the subject. He ordered the Peter Kurth's book and I gave him some others from my collection, against and in favor of AA's claim. I must confess that he was surfing in this site extensively, but he doesn't want to post here. He said to me shortly: "Some people there is a little wild and I wouldn't get in trouble." I don't agree with him. I like here, even if sometimes we fight a little.  ;D

Offline LyliaM

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 47
  • I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
    • View Profile
Re: What about...?
« Reply #536 on: September 29, 2005, 07:31:42 PM »
This is a question  for all of you litigators out there who have extensive trial and evidentiary experience.  (I am a lawyer myself, but with a purely transactional background, and I'm ashamed to say that my law school evidence classes aren't terribly fresh in my mind ... and, in any event, evidentiary standards have doubtless evolved since 1988 when I graduated!)  Is it in fact the case that any court, anywhere, would unilaterally defer to DNA evidence, even if there were a significant body of diametrically-opposed forensic evidence in existence?  I don't in any way allege that the scientists who performed the DNA tests in this case didn't do an impeccable job, and I'm aware that the results from the AA intestine sample came back exactly the same from four different labs.  The thing that bugs me, and this has REALLY bugged me for reasons I can't fully articulate, is the fact that there is such significant forensic evidence from highly-qualified sources that would lead to the opposite conclusion.  It's not possible to reconcile the DNA with the other forensic tests, and I find it bothersome.  

And, for the record, the photos of Anastasia's ears used in the Nova special were no less grainy that those taken of AA's ears in 1956 or whenever it was.  (I haven't personally found that all photos taken prior to 1920 are grainy, unintelligible messes.)
We only know in age what happened to us in youth.  -- Goethe

Offline AGRBear

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 6611
  • The road to truth is the best one to travel.
    • View Profile
    • Romanov's  Russia
Re: What about...?
« Reply #537 on: September 29, 2005, 08:07:00 PM »
We do not have at our disposal the acutal photographs.  I assume most were taken by professionals and therefore only became blury or grainy when not blown up properly or blown up too large because it as needed to do so for the tv programs.

We just have copies of copies of photo of FS and according to Greg King it is not known what the original photo looked like since we don't have one.

As to the various evidence given here and elsewhere,  I think the following is an interesting view:

"For decades to come, after the family," [Imperial Russian Family]," vanished, each time the Romanov name was uttered in some circles, participants would faithfully retell one of the versions that had been spun over the years by those who had ulterior motives.  Even now the search for the truth has been made more difficult because of the coutless obfuscations and half-truths.  The burden of proof from a legal perspective has certainly not been met and unforuntately, the bar has been lowered for the historical standard.".  pps. 217-218 from THE PLOTS TO RESCUE THE TSAR by Shay McNeal.

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 Louis_Charles

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 1498
    • View Profile
Re: What about...?
« Reply #538 on: September 29, 2005, 08:32:59 PM »
Quote
As to the various evidence given here and elsewhere,  I think the following is an interesting view:

"For decades to come, after the family," [Imperial Russian Family]," vanished, each time the Romanov name was uttered in some circles, participants would faithfully retell one of the versions that had been spun over the years by those who had ulterior motives.  Even now the search for the truth has been made more difficult because of the coutless obfuscations and half-truths.  The burden of proof from a legal perspective has certainly not been met and unforuntately, the bar has been lowered for the historical standard.".  pps. 217-218 from THE PLOTS TO RESCUE THE TSAR by Shay McNeal.

AGRBear








Annouchka:

"For years the peasants have whispered amongst themselves of four beautiful sisters dressed in moonlight moving through the trees of the forest . . . four . . .but now I know there can be only three!"


ANASTASIA by Marcelle Maurette, Act II.

I mean, if we are going to introduce melodramatic language into the discussion, Shay McNeal isn't the only one who can write it . . .

Everytime the Romanov name was uttered there would be a Pavlovian reaction in certain circles? And Shay knows this because she was a fly on the wall taking notes?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by Louis_Charles »
"Simon --- Classy AND Compassionate!"
   
"The road to enlightenment is long and difficult, so take snacks and a magazine."

Offline Annie

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4756
    • View Profile
    • Anna Anderson Exposed!
Re: What about...?
« Reply #539 on: September 29, 2005, 08:35:25 PM »
Quote

Annouchka:

"For years the peasant have whispered of four beautiful sisters moving through the trees of the forest . . . four . . .but know I know there can be only three!


ANASTASIA by Marcelle Maurette, Act II.



I would like to think they are all still out there, waiting to be awakened after a hundred years, like Sleeping Beauty princesses. But alas, what I would like to think,  and reality, are not the same thing :'(
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by Annie »