Author Topic: Without DNA  (Read 20107 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

calebGmoney

  • Guest
Re: Without DNA
« Reply #30 on: January 08, 2006, 06:03:56 PM »
Quote
Wow Annie....You always give the most,clearest detail....U ROCK... 8)

I don't agree. Her explanation for everything is "someone told her".

Offline Louis_Charles

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 1498
    • View Profile
Re: Without DNA
« Reply #31 on: January 08, 2006, 06:06:17 PM »
Caleb,

Please don't do this. There has been an effort made to avoid these kind of personal attacks. Posts made by several people, including Annie, have been deleted.

Regards,

Simon
"Simon --- Classy AND Compassionate!"
   
"The road to enlightenment is long and difficult, so take snacks and a magazine."

Offline catt.sydney

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 65
  • Curiousity killed me/Satisfaction brought me back!
    • View Profile
Re: Without DNA
« Reply #32 on: January 08, 2006, 06:07:45 PM »
Quote


WHAT tailor?
His name, please?
Sources?
Did HE treat the wounds?

Regarding your new photos -thank you - but, I still see no significant similarity.

Caleb
Annie will site sources...
Now sir - please tell me about the "magical tailor"  ;)  that you mentioned?
Curiousity killed me/Satisfaction and (TRUTH)  brought me back!

calebGmoney

  • Guest
Re: Without DNA
« Reply #33 on: January 08, 2006, 06:16:59 PM »
Quote


WHAT tailor?
His name, please?
Sources?
Did HE treat the wounds?

Regarding your new photos -thank you - but, I still see no significant similarity.

This is what worries me. None of you seem to be very well-read on Anna Anderson yet you're dismissing her.
Anastasia: The Riddle of Anna Anderson p. 338
During the trials:
Tailer from Vienna. He had documents to prove he was from Vienna and that he lived across the street and had been in the ekaterinburg house to repair solider's uniforms. He heard gunshots on July 16/17 and went out. When he returned he noticed his roomate, Frau Annouchka running up and down the stairs and boiling water. She told him she was making tea and he could not go into his room. Finally, she confided that Grand Duchess Anastasia was in his room. When he went into the room, he recognized her as one of the women in the Ipatiev House. "The lower part of her body was covered with blood, her eyes were shut and she was as pale as a sheet. We washed her chin and she groaned. The bones must have been broken." She stayed there for three days. The third day, a Red guard came and got her with another man with him. It was the same men who had brought her.

calebGmoney

  • Guest
Re: Without DNA
« Reply #34 on: January 08, 2006, 06:18:42 PM »
Quote
Caleb,

Please don't do this. There has been an effort made to avoid these kind of personal attacks. Posts made by several people, including Annie, have been deleted.

Regards,

Simon
That is NOT a personal attack. I just can't accept that Russian emigres knew every little thing to impress every single person and convince them of her authenticity when they came to interview her.

Offline Louis_Charles

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 1498
    • View Profile
Re: Without DNA
« Reply #35 on: January 08, 2006, 06:23:26 PM »
Caleb,

You may be interested to know that there are people that swore Anastasia was in Perm several weeks after the shootings. They offered testimony that was collected in Summers and Mangold's The File on the Tsar.

People can say anything they want. It has to be demonstrated to have objective reality before it becomes believable.

I actually got to meet Mrs. Manahan when I was a student at the University of Virginia in 1971. She looked at me and said, "It's all a big foolsky, I am really Franziska. But don't tell anybody."

Actually, she looked at me and said, "Go away." And I did.

But cut it out with the "you people don't know anything about Anna Andersen." If you are 16, it's impertinent. If you are 36, it's impertinent.

Simon
"Simon --- Classy AND Compassionate!"
   
"The road to enlightenment is long and difficult, so take snacks and a magazine."

calebGmoney

  • Guest
Re: Without DNA
« Reply #36 on: January 08, 2006, 06:34:14 PM »
Quote
Caleb,

You may be interested to know that there are people that swore Anastasia was in Perm several weeks after the shootings. They offered testimony that was collected in Summers and Mangold's The File on the Tsar.

People can say anything they want. It has to be demonstrated to have objective reality before it becomes believable.

I actually got to meet Mrs. Manahan when I was a student at the University of Virginia in 1971. She looked at me and said, "It's all a big foolsky, I am really Franziska. But don't tell anybody."

Actually, she looked at me and said, "Go away." And I did.

But cut it out with the "you people don't know anything about Anna Andersen." If you are 16, it's impertinent. If you are 36, it's impertinent.

Simon
No, but the whole "show me your magical tailer" was not necessary, and was implying that I made it up. I never said the tailer was telling the truth, but if it was true, then it would explain how she made it to Bucharest in the cart.

Offline Grand_Duke_Paul

  • Boyar
  • **
  • Posts: 115
  • Sapphires. aren't they lovely??
    • View Profile
Re: Without DNA
« Reply #37 on: January 08, 2006, 07:16:57 PM »
Quote

I'm curious. Why don't you think she was Anastasia? There are coherent reasons for thinking she was Franziska Schanzkowska. But if she wasn't, why don't you think she was Anastasia? And if you don't think she was, how do you explain your theory that Olga and Gilliard recognized her in Berlin? So much of what people who believe her claim use is evidence such as graphology, physical resemblance --- which I don't see, but obviously they do --- and other circumstantial evidence. They accept testimonies such as Dassel's "Man with the pockets" and similar things that "only" the real Anastasia could have known. So if she wasn't Schanzkowska, why don't you think she was Anastasia?



The only "fact" currently in evidence is the DNA. FA and several others have demostrated that it cannot be impeached. The mathematical certainty that she was Franziska is extremely high (cf. the postings of P_Wadia). Everything else seems to be open to argument. I mean, this isn't a case of you say tomato, I say tomahto. You can look at a picture of Andersen and see Anastasia. I look at it and see as much resemblance to an Edsel.




I'm sorry. Is there any evidence that Olga "succumbed" to the pressure put upon her by others? Are we allowed to state that Lili Dehn "succumbed" to pressure put upon her by Andersen's supporters when she recognized her? This is the kind of statement that gets tossed into the ring a bit too easily. And in fact, the later statements of denial would have allowed time for deliberation, so the argument that they must also be treated as "emotional" is shaky.



If the trip's proof exists, it was ignored by every biographer of Wilhelm II, and I have yet to uncover a reference to this trip in any standard history of WW2 (and by standard, I mean ones that have been accessible through an academic library). When I have mentioned this to Bear, she dismisses it because she can think of no reason Dmitri Gallitzine, who testified to the trip forty years later, might have lied. Of course, she also admits that she knows nothing of the character of Gallitzine, but nevertheless, his word is good enough to make the trip probable.

I bring this up because I think Annie's post addresses an interesting issue. If you (and by you I don't just mean you, GD Paul, but anyone who posts this opinion) don't think she was Anastasia, why do you insist that the circumstantial evidence is so strong? In fact, why do you invent circumstantial evidence? (Bear, I'm looking at you.) You postulate a trip that "could" have taken place as though it did take place, when we have no evidence other than Andersen's testimony that it did so. You know. Andersen. Who wasn't actually a wounded Grand Duchess in the back of a cart, if she wasn't Anastasia.

Regards,

Simon




I will answer this post with one line, the thread is about
"WITHOUT DNA". I have been reading some old posts Louis Charles and it seems to me that all the others have done is trumpet the DNA factor until you believe it is the entirety of the case.

As to Olga succumbing to pressure, come on now, she makes that statement to Zahle, and then goes home to Hvidore, to the pressure of her mother and sister? Come now you are much more sensible than that. What seems curious to me is that you are willing to throw out all of the first statements made, as they were under emotion or pressure, yet she obviously comes home to a place where great pressure was put on her not to make the trip, and makes this unsatisfactory statement which must have been reported back to Prince Waldemar under whose auspeicies Zahle took up the case, and you don't think pressure was put upon her to change her mind?? This entire case was emotional so then if we disregard the statements made at the beginning we can put the same test on the ones made after the visit, and come to the same conclusion.
This case Louis Charles is fraught with emotion from beginning to end by all of it's participants, look at Olga & Gilliard's testimony just to prove a point.

I am also not stating she did not change her mind after much deliberation when returning home and pressure was put upon her. I know what comes out of the woodwork around here if Olga or Ernie are "insulted".
I tend to look at them as human beings capable of anything, just like anyone else. While I think Olga a bit more earthy than others, she made the statement to Zahle all the same and I think it should stand for consideration.

I don't insist that the circumstantial evidence is "that strong" as you imply, I merely state that it shouldn't be thrown out like the preverbial baby with the bath water just to back a certain opinion.

I mean no disrespect to the FA or others, but retesting if the material was available can only prove your point even stronger, and , it seems that there are no actual DNA experts on this forum, so I will ask around and get my own answers to satisfy myself.

Wilhelm's daughter the Duchess of Brunswick and the Crown Princess Cecile both speak of knowing or hearing of the trip. I haven't read a DECENT biography on Wilhelm with great details, unlike Hannah Pakula's on his mother. So when I do I will make my decision from my own investigation. I know little of Galitizine other than from my own reading.

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by Grand_Duke_Paul »
I have always had the courage for the new things that life sometimes offers...
 Wallis Simpson, Duchess of Windsor
 

Offline Grand_Duke_Paul

  • Boyar
  • **
  • Posts: 115
  • Sapphires. aren't they lovely??
    • View Profile
Re: Without DNA
« Reply #38 on: January 08, 2006, 07:19:19 PM »
Quote
That is NOT a personal attack. I just can't accept that Russian emigres knew every little thing to impress every single person and convince them of her authenticity when they came to interview her.


You know considering their mother, the nerve wracked and mentally overwrought empress kept them isolated and insulated from the court & courtiers as much as possible, it seems that an awful lot of people were making their way into Dalldorf & Mommsen without being noticed or commented on, to feed Anderson, all of this supposed information.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by Grand_Duke_Paul »
I have always had the courage for the new things that life sometimes offers...
 Wallis Simpson, Duchess of Windsor
 

calebGmoney

  • Guest
Re: Without DNA
« Reply #39 on: January 08, 2006, 07:40:25 PM »
Olga did indeed state that "her heart tells her it is she". And said other things to Rathlef which I won't mention because everyone will just say that she never said it. However, Olga obviously did think this was her niece, or atleast was leaning that way. However, when she changed her mind, it happened instantly.

Offline Louis_Charles

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 1498
    • View Profile
Re: Without DNA
« Reply #40 on: January 08, 2006, 08:20:32 PM »
Quote

I will answer this post with one line, the thread is about
"WITHOUT DNA".   I have been reading some old posts Louis Charles and it seems to me that all the others have done is trumpet the DNA factor until you believe it is the entirety of the case.

As to Olga succumbing to pressure, come on now, she makes that statement to Zahle, and then goes home to Hvidore, to the pressure of her mother and sister? Come now you are much more sensible than that.  What seems curious to me is that you are willing to throw out all of the first statements made, as they were under emotion or pressure, yet she obviously comes home to a place where great pressure was put on her not to make the trip, and makes this unsatisfactory statement which must have been reported back to Prince Waldemar under whose auspeicies Zahle took up the case, and you don't think pressure was put upon her to change her mind??   This entire case was emotional so then if we disregard the statements made at the beginning we can put the same test on the ones made after the visit, and come to the same conclusion.
This case Louis Charles is fraught with emotion from beginning to end by all of it's participants, look at Olga & Gilliard's testimony just to prove a point.

I am also not stating she did not change her mind after much deliberation when returning home and pressure was put upon her.  I know what comes out of the woodwork around here if Olga or Ernie are "insulted".
I tend to look at them as human beings capable of anything, just like anyone else.  While I think Olga a bit more earthy than others, she made the statement to Zahle all the same and I think it should stand for consideration.

I don't insist that the circumstantial evidence is "that strong" as you imply, I merely state that it shouldn't be thrown out like the preverbial baby with the bath water just to back a certain opinion.  

I mean no disrespect to the FA or others, but retesting if the material was available can only prove your point even stronger, and , it seems that there are no actual DNA experts on this forum, so I will ask around and get my own answers to satisfy myself.

Wilhelm's daughter the Duchess of Brunswick and the Crown Princess Cecile both speak of knowing or hearing of the trip.  I haven't read a DECENT biography on Wilhelm with great details, unlike Hannah Pakula's on his mother.  So when I do I will make my decision from my own investigation.  I know little of Galitizine other than from my own reading.    




Dear GD Paul,

Well, thanks for the tribute to my good sense, but . . . Olga's quote to Zahle is not my idea of a ringing endorsement, since it contains opposing points of view ("my reason says no, my heart says yes"); of course I agree that Olga was at least uncertain during the visit, but before I accept that she "succumbed to pressure", I would want to see some kind of evidence. Otherwise, there we are: Lili Dehn "succumbed" to pressure when she recognized her, Dmitri Gallitzine "succumbed" to pressure from Dominique Aucleres when he supported Andersen's claim that Ernst had visited Russia in 1916, etc. ad nauseam. One might argue that Olga wasn't susceptible to familial pressure on the basis of her marriage to Kulikovsky, and the fact that she went to Berlin at all.

I am still interested in an answer to the question that was really the centerpiece of my post, though. Why don't those of you who argue the strength of the circumstantial evidence think that Andersen was Anastasia? I introduced the DNA testing not to "trumpet" it, but to underline the empirical nature of it. The test was repeated four times. But without DNA, you seem to accept that she knew things that only the real girl could have done. Several people see resemblances between the two women.

So why don't you think she was Anastasia?

This may be the post that confers divinity upon me, by the way. If so, I would like it to be celebrated by immediate agreement with all of my positions, and a large dollop of burning incense. Bless you, my people.

Regards,

Simon

YABBC God!
« 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 Louis_Charles

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 1498
    • View Profile
Re: Without DNA
« Reply #41 on: January 08, 2006, 08:21:17 PM »
Okay, apparently not. Hold the incense and return to your disagreements with the above positions.
"Simon --- Classy AND Compassionate!"
   
"The road to enlightenment is long and difficult, so take snacks and a magazine."

Offline Louis_Charles

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 1498
    • View Profile
Re: Without DNA
« Reply #42 on: January 08, 2006, 08:21:53 PM »
Quote
Okay, apparently not. Hold the incense and return to your disagreements with the above positions.



Cancel that. Start readying the burning coals!
"Simon --- Classy AND Compassionate!"
   
"The road to enlightenment is long and difficult, so take snacks and a magazine."

Offline Annie

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4757
    • View Profile
    • Anna Anderson Exposed!
Re: Without DNA
« Reply #43 on: January 08, 2006, 08:58:35 PM »
Quote

So why don't you think she was Anastasia?

This may be the post that confers divinity upon me, by the way. If so, I would like it to be celebrated by immediate agreement with all of my positions, and a large dollop of burning incense. Bless you, my people.

Regards,

Simon

YABBC God!


Congrats on making "God!"

Your Divine Grace,

Your question is genius, and you worded it so tactfully.

It is the same thing that perplexes me, but my big mouth and untactful nature do not allow me to put it subtly.

I will say it outright. I think most of the people who claim not to believe AA was AN yet continue to post over and over again things that make it sound as if they do, well, really do.

Why won't they admit it? Even an AA supporter here said they are 'hypocrites' for not admitting it. My theory is that they somehow feel that by admitting they believe it somehow decreases their credibility and sets them up for ridicule, and they feel their posts and their opinions are somehow strengthened by being 'neutral'. My analysis is that it is their position to pretend to come in from a completely "I don't care BUT" attitude to try to give naysayers something to think about from an average person's POV. Unfortunately, it is blatantly apparent they are not really neutral and all their posts' content give them away time and time again.

You can read all through these peoples' posts and see they think Olga and Ernie were liars. I ask you, why would they lie about a FAKE Anastasia? Only a real one could be any threat. So by claiming these people were liars, it shows they must really believe she must have been AN! Then there is the sticking up for the photos, and justifying the cart journey, etc. Some posters go to such great lengths to take up for AA, her story, her supporters, while at the same time villanizing those who don't support her, from Olga A. and Ernie right down to me and Helen A. If they don't believe it, WHY??!! Logic shows me they do. They can say over and over they don't, but when all their posts are in favor of AA and her supporters, and totally, even militantly against, those who oppose her, it becomes as plain as the bulbous nose on AA's face. Actions speak louder than words. If they were truly looking for 'the truth' 'enjoying the journey' or even plain old impartial, WHY do they only fight in favor of ONE side?? I may get bashed for this, but I feel it is the true answer to your question (and of course no one is going to admit it)

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by Annie »

Offline Grand_Duke_Paul

  • Boyar
  • **
  • Posts: 115
  • Sapphires. aren't they lovely??
    • View Profile
Re: Without DNA
« Reply #44 on: January 08, 2006, 09:31:18 PM »
Quote


Dear GD Paul,

Well, thanks for the tribute to my good sense, but . . . Olga's quote to Zahle is not my idea of a ringing endorsement, since it contains opposing points of view ("my reason says no, my heart says yes"); of course I agree that Olga was at least uncertain during the visit, but before I accept that she "succumbed to pressure", I would want to see some kind of evidence. Otherwise, there we are: Lili Dehn "succumbed" to pressure when she recognized her, Dmitri Gallitzine "succumbed" to pressure from Dominique Aucleres when he supported Andersen's claim that Ernst had visited Russia in 1916, etc. ad nauseam. One might argue that Olga wasn't susceptible to familial pressure on the basis of her marriage to Kulikovsky, and the fact that she went to Berlin at all.

I am still interested in an answer to the question that was really the centerpiece of my post, though. Why don't those of you who argue the strength of the circumstantial evidence think that Andersen was Anastasia? I introduced the DNA testing not to "trumpet" it, but to underline the empirical nature of it. The test was repeated four times. But without DNA, you seem to accept that she knew things that only the real girl could have done. Several people see resemblances between the two women.

So why don't you think she was Anastasia?

This may be the post that confers divinity upon me, by the way. If so, I would like it to be celebrated by immediate agreement with all of my positions, and a large dollop of burning incense. Bless you, my people.

Regards,

Simon

YABBC God!


I definitely think that ALL the evidence should be considered before making a decision. Not just the empirical evidence of DNA. I also think that to solve the arguing in this case the testing should be redone if the material is available, I am not saying at all that the previous results were not accurate, but I think that retesting would prove her not Anastasia.  

Why don't I think that she is Anastasia??? Well in all reality I don't think it is possible for anyone to have survived that massacre at the Ipatiev House.  That is my own opinion.  The best work on this subject is Greg & Penny's bar none. I read the sniping remarks, regarding their work, and I shake my head in disbelief.  The problem here Louis Charles is this no longer about discussing the identity of this claimant, it is personal with some of these people, it's like a religion with them, and if you don't believe their way you condemned, and this can go for both sides.  I fall somewhere in the middle of the discussion, my beliefs are from what Annie states they are, I am not trying to make excuses for Anna Anderson, nor am I convinced she Franzsiska, I have a great many questions that I want answered, and as I repeat all DNA does is close the door, it's not her identity I want solved, but the who what when where why and how.   I am interested in all sides of this case and am not here as a partisan but to discuss the issues.



While I understand your reluctance to include admittance of Olga's statement, and I will admit she was more independent that her siblings and quite a bit more down to earth, when she left those parting words to Zahle, were words of support, and I think that she probably did change her mind AFTER returning home, she had an elderly mother to defer to constantly, and I am sure pressure was brought to bear on her.  This doesn't mean she was incapable of independent thought, but this is more than just a change of mind in my opinion.  I just would like to know the chain of events that occured in the change of mind.  If she kept a diary (Olga) or journal, that would probably gain some insight into her struggle.  See I am not so intractable as others are on this subject.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by Grand_Duke_Paul »
I have always had the courage for the new things that life sometimes offers...
 Wallis Simpson, Duchess of Windsor