Author Topic: One thing i find odd part two.  (Read 23220 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Bev

  • Graf
  • ***
  • Posts: 254
    • View Profile
Re: One thing i find odd part two.
« Reply #15 on: November 07, 2006, 07:57:20 AM »
In the discussion I had with Kurth, he stated that the DNA evidence could not be trusted, the hair sample could not be trusted, that the evidence as a whole was overwhelmingly indicative of FS's being GDA.  Never once in what was a lengthy conversation did he deviate from his belief that FS was GDA.  He was adamant that the evidence taken as a whole was proof that FS was the GDA.  This was only a few months ago, so yes, I would say he was conned and continues to be so.  Kurth and the Schweitzers might not feel they were conned but they were.

Tsarfan, that is amazing!

Offline Forum Admin

  • Administrator
  • Velikye Knyaz
  • *****
  • Posts: 4665
  • www.alexanderpalace.org
    • View Profile
    • Alexander Palace Time Machine
Re: One thing i find odd part two.
« Reply #16 on: November 07, 2006, 08:26:29 AM »
Today I telephoned the Office of the Private Secretary in the Princess Royal's Office at Buckingham Palace.

I was directed to one of her Private Secretaries (there are several, apparently) to whom I posed three questions:

  • Has the Princess Royal ever extended any recognition whatsoever, in any form whatsoever, to any claimaint for the Russian throne or to anyone claiming to be a survivor of Nicholas II's immediate family and, in particular, to someone from British Columbia claiming to be Alexei?
  • Did the Princess Royal personally send a telegram of thanks in 1973 acknowledging a congratulatory telegram from a Czaervich Alexei, Grand Duke of Russia, or to anyone of similar title?
  • What was the procedure used for sending telegrams from members of the royal family?

His answer to the first question was, "absolutely not". 

His answer to the second question was that Princess Anne was not personally involved in responding to the congratulatory telegrams she received upon her wedding.

His answer to the third question was that the incoming telegrams and their addresses were cataloged so that mass form responses could be sent out from her office.  The Princess was not personally invovled in the process whatsoever.  He additionally pointed out that telegraphic communications from that time period provided no means for a written signature -- original or otherwise -- to be transmitted with a telegram.

So, Mr. Kendrick . . .

Would you disclose to us the means you used to confirm the authenticity of the telegram and Princess Anne's personal signature?  As an investigative reporter, I'm sure you would not have published such a claim without first thoroughly checking it out.

Thank you.

This reminds me of my closest friends, my godson's parents. Every year for fifteen years they threw a world class Halloween party at their house, everyone looked forward to it.  One of their "rituals" was sending a written invitation to the sitting President of the United States ("Hey, he MIGHT come..." ) Every year like clockwork a polite form letter declining but wishing them well was sent back. I guess they could put all those form letters in a book and tell everyone that they were close friends of Reagan, Carter and Bush Sr. offering these letters as "proof".  8)

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: One thing i find odd part two.
« Reply #17 on: November 07, 2006, 08:57:54 AM »
In the discussion I had with Kurth, he stated that the DNA evidence could not be trusted, the hair sample could not be trusted, that the evidence as a whole was overwhelmingly indicative of FS's being GDA. Never once in what was a lengthy conversation did he deviate from his belief that FS was GDA.  He was adamant that the evidence taken as a whole was proof that FS was the GDA.  This was only a few months ago, so yes, I would say he was conned and continues to be so.  Kurth and the Schweitzers might not feel they were conned but they were.

On Mr. Kurth's current website he writes:

"....In October 1994, from Lenox Hill Hospital, I issued a statement, which I quote here in edited form: 
 
I knew Anna Anderson for more than ten years and have been acquainted with virtually everyone involved in her quest for recognition over the last quarter-century:  friends, lawyers, companions, neighbors, journalists, historians, Russian and European royalty and aristocratic families—a wide array of competent witnesses who didn't hesitate to acknowledge her as the daughter of the tsar.  My experience of her character, my thorough knowledge of her case, and, it seems to me, probability and common sense all convince me that she was indeed Anastasia of Russia.

 This conviction, while obviously challenged by today's announcement, remains unshaken.  As a layman, I’m not in a position to dispute Dr. Gill's findings; had the results only revealed that Mrs. Anderson was not a member of the Romanov family, I might have been able to accept them, if not easily, then at least eventually.  I am unable, however, by any persuasion of science or forensic testing, to credit the identification of Mrs. Anderson with Franziska Schanzkowska.

 I can state without fear of reasonable contradiction that no one who knew Anna Anderson closely, who lived in her company for months and years, who tended and treated her through multiple illnesses as her doctor or nurse, who spoke with her at length and in detail about the stages of her life, who observed her comportment, carriage and demeanor and heard her converse intelligently on many subjects in several languages—I affirm that no one who knew her as I and others did can believe that she was born in an East Prussian farming village in 1896 as the daughter and sister of beet farmers.


 Since I wrote those words, no evidence has come to my attention that alters my belief in Anna Anderson's authenticity.   I want this to be clear, because I frequently hear that I've changed my mind ... "
[underline mine]

Mr. Kurth then continues to present various arguments in favor of Anna Anderson being GDA and not FS. He goes on to quote Greg King's argument against the DNA results:

" Ten years later, Greg King...  adds for the record:  'One needn’t believe in conspiracies or ascribe incompetence to those who conducted the testing to have doubts about their continued validity.  Two distinct methods of DNA testing were used to show support for the hypotheses that Anastasia Manahan or Anna Anderson 1) Could not have been a child of Nicholas and Alexandra; 2) Did not match the mtDNA Hessian profile derived by Gill and used to match four of the female Ekaterinburg remains to the profile derived from HRH The Duke of Edinburgh; and 3) Matched the mtDNA profile of Karl Maucher, lending support to the hypothesis that she was Schanzkowska.

'Both nuclear and mitochondrial (mtDNA) testing was done.  Nuclear testing is preferred as it renders better results and is considered more accurate, while mtDNA is less discriminating.  Nuclear DNA tests showed that AA could not possibly have been a daughter of N and A, yet changes in the science make the 1994 verdict obsolete.  Gill used a 6-point Short Tandem Repeat (STR) analysis of the nuclear DNA to arrive at these results.  Within four years of these tests, 10 point STR testing was being done, and when results of 10 point STR testing were compared with 6 point STR tests, the 6 point analysis was shown conclusively to give both false positive and negative results-in other words, conclusions based on 6 point STR tests were proved faulty.  In 1999, the testing had gone from the 6 point STR tests of 1993-94 and the 10 point STR tests of 1998 to 12 point STR tests, the accuracy of which further undermined 6 point STR test results.  Gill admitted this in a statement released in 2000, adding that FSS had changed from the old 6 point STR method to the 10 point STR method in 1999.  In 2000, the STR tests were up to a 14 point system; in 2001, it was 16 points, and by 2002, the industry standard worldwide in STR testing was 20 point STR tests.  Scientific studies have repeatedly shown that 6 point STR tests are unreliable and result in false matches and exclusions.  The 6 point STR nuclear DNA tests that showed Anastasia Manahan could not have been a daughter of N and A, therefore, are now meaningless....
' " 


http://www.peterkurth.com/TEXT%20ONLY%20VERSION.htm


 

« Last Edit: November 07, 2006, 09:09:22 AM by Helen_A »

Offline AGRBear

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 6611
  • The road to truth is the best one to travel.
    • View Profile
    • Romanov's  Russia
Re: One thing i find odd part two.
« Reply #18 on: November 07, 2006, 09:49:01 AM »
Quote
Re: One thing I find odd
   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote from: AGRBear on Yesterday at 01:37:06 PM


After years of  posting,  all the old timers  know very well that I am merely asking for facts and do NOT like half truths, therefore,  those who continue to post half truths about anything [pro-claimant or  non-believers]  will be once again subjected to my demands of facts attached to  sources so the facts can be viewed by all.  And, as always,  I do tend to annoy posters who prefer to be allowed to continue without being subjected to corrections of the known facts.
So, Annie, which fact that I've mention annoys you today? 
AGRBear
Did you mean mention "File on the Tsar?" I didn't see it in this post, but if you consider that 'known facts' I'm afraid your backroads joruney has taken you too far from the road to truth
What was deleted? Anything I did? Guess I missed it.

Since this was the last post on "One thing i find odd"  before it was locked,  I feel  I should respond since Annie has directed her post directly towards me and  the authors Summers and Mangold.

There is a thread about Summers and Mangold's book THE FILE ON THE TSAR  ed. one  which was written way back in 1976 which was long before DNA testing and they  voiced that they didn't think AA was GD Anastasia.  The information they gave had sources which can still be followed even today and my quote about the claimant still stands.  I'm sorry if Annie doesn't like Summers and Mangold but that is her right as it is my right to use their sources which continue to be accurate.  Farther discussion about Summers and Mangold should be taken to the book section.  As for my quote,  as  I've voiced, it still is accurate, if not then I'd like to see Annie's source/sources and what she may present  could change my mnd on this subject or any other subject.

AGRBear
« Last Edit: November 07, 2006, 09:58:44 AM by AGRBear »
"What is true by lamplight is not always true by sunlight."

Joubert, Pensees, No. 152

Offline Tania+

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 1206
  • I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
    • View Profile
Re: One thing i find odd part two.
« Reply #19 on: November 07, 2006, 10:12:36 AM »
Indeed AGBear, I think on these forums, yours is a reasonable request. I think it is important for all sources to be shared, certainly discussed, and I am sure everyone awaits with greatest anticipation Annie's response on this last point of this thread.

Tatiana+
TatianaA


Offline Tsarfan

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 1848
  • Miss the kings, but not the kingdoms
    • View Profile
Re: One thing i find odd part two.
« Reply #20 on: November 07, 2006, 10:16:20 AM »

Just out of curiousity, how many claimants were there for Michael? I know there had to be some (not nearly as much as for Alexei - I am sure of that, but there had to be a few). Does anyone know?


I don't know about any claimants, but I did find this rather bizarre reference on a rather hyperbolic Orthodox Church website:  http://www.serfes.org/royal/romanovpretenders.htm:

"Recent claims made in the book, Blood Relative, by British history professor Michael Gray that the Tsarevich (from whom he claims illegitimate descent) escaped Russia with the Dowager Empress in 1919 onboard HMS Marlborough, and assumed the name Nikolai Chebotarev are likewise absurd.  As is his claim Nicholas II's corpse was switched with that of his brother the Grand Duke Michael to throw off investigators.  The fact that the Grand Duke's body was dismembered and incinerated by the Bolsheviks in a St. Petersburg blast furnace after his murder in 1918 (prior to the regicide) is ignored, and a host of unsubstantiated conspiracy theories involving forensic evidence tampering, combined with a loose (in place erroneous) interpretation of DNA analysis, advanced in a futile attempt to explain the alleged body switch and DNA results which do not prove his point." [emphasis added]

A body switch between Nicholas and Michael?  And the transport of Michael's body from Perm to St. Petersburg to be burned in some blast furnace?  And these claims presented by an Orthodox Church website based in Boise, Idaho?

What next?  Spaceships and little green men?



Offline AGRBear

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 6611
  • The road to truth is the best one to travel.
    • View Profile
    • Romanov's  Russia
Re: One thing i find odd part two.
« Reply #21 on: November 07, 2006, 10:29:32 AM »
Peter Kurth:

Quote
I can state without fear of reasonable contradiction that no one who knew Anna Anderson closely, who lived in her company for months and years, who tended and treated her through multiple illnesses as her doctor or nurse, who spoke with her at length and in detail about the stages of her life, who observed her comportment, carriage and demeanor and heard her converse intelligently on many subjects in several languages—I affirm that no one who knew her as I and others did can believe that she was born in an East Prussian farming village in 1896 as the daughter and sister of beet farmers.

This appears to be a honest and truthful statement by Peter Kurth.   And his statement is of value since he did know AA.  This does not mean I agree with him,  I do not.  But my information is not from personal contact.   .   My  data was collected long before Peter Kurth's book  was published.  The data  I already had were from books,  articles, etc. etc.  written by people who may or may not have known AA at all.  Perhaps this is a disadvantage for me, or,  it may not since  my search  has not become personal.   In case you are interested,   I  came to the conclusion a long time ago that AA was probably not GD Anastasia.  However,  my conclusion is my own.  And, yes,  having  come to the conclusion before Kurth wrote  his book may have influenced my conclusion.   That said,  I  must and will defend Peter Kurth's right to his conclusion because they are his own and he has the right to his conclusion based on knowing AA better than I and most of us.    

As for the DNA tests,  I don't think Dr. Gill, Dr. Ginther  or the others had reason to give us false information derived from the samples they were given.

Now, about this thread:  I think some posters tone on this thread and the last  toward Peter Kurth's conclusion about AA and the DNA  is unexceptable .  To me, it appears that some of you haven't learn how to disagree without taking personal  "pot shots"  which closed down the original thread.   What I'm trying to point out is:   it appears this thread  continues with what Lisa requested not to continue.  

AGRBear
« Last Edit: November 07, 2006, 10:43:02 AM by AGRBear »
"What is true by lamplight is not always true by sunlight."

Joubert, Pensees, No. 152

Offline Tsarfan

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 1848
  • Miss the kings, but not the kingdoms
    • View Profile
Re: One thing i find odd part two.
« Reply #22 on: November 07, 2006, 10:33:13 AM »
Please, everyone.  Aren't there already dozens upon dozens of pages on other threads about Anna Anderson?  Could this discussion perhaps be moved there?

Offline Tania+

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 1206
  • I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
    • View Profile
Re: One thing i find odd part two.
« Reply #23 on: November 07, 2006, 10:40:47 AM »
Here, Here AGRBear, I heartily agree. Lisa asked for a considerate tone, and that is reasonable to request from all participants here.
Peter Kurth has the right to his conclusions as we all do. Nothing unusual about that, and the world around us.It's everyone's right, readers to members on this forum to draw their own conclusions without others being personal in their remarks, which is of course what most adults should be able to do without even having a moderator to remind them. But, as we see, time after time, Lisa or Rob has to be called in because some adults here on the forum, forget their manners...Let's hope that this and other threads can continue to share all sides so that those reading them can gain what they will. Regardless if a thread stays or is moved, tone is still held responsible....

Tatiana+
TatianaA


Offline Louis_Charles

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 1498
    • View Profile
Re: One thing i find odd part two.
« Reply #24 on: November 07, 2006, 10:44:44 AM »
Bev was right. Knock it off.
"Simon --- Classy AND Compassionate!"
   
"The road to enlightenment is long and difficult, so take snacks and a magazine."

Offline AGRBear

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 6611
  • The road to truth is the best one to travel.
    • View Profile
    • Romanov's  Russia
Re: One thing i find odd part two.
« Reply #25 on: November 07, 2006, 10:51:23 AM »

Just out of curiousity, how many claimants were there for Michael? I know there had to be some (not nearly as much as for Alexei - I am sure of that, but there had to be a few). Does anyone know?


I don't know about any claimants, but I did find this rather bizarre reference on a rather hyperbolic Orthodox Church website:  http://www.serfes.org/royal/romanovpretenders.htm:

"Recent claims made in the book, Blood Relative, by British history professor Michael Gray that the Tsarevich (from whom he claims illegitimate descent) escaped Russia with the Dowager Empress in 1919 onboard HMS Marlborough, and assumed the name Nikolai Chebotarev are likewise absurd.  As is his claim Nicholas II's corpse was switched with that of his brother the Grand Duke Michael to throw off investigators.  The fact that the Grand Duke's body was dismembered and incinerated by the Bolsheviks in a St. Petersburg blast furnace after his murder in 1918 (prior to the regicide) is ignored, and a host of unsubstantiated conspiracy theories involving forensic evidence tampering, combined with a loose (in place erroneous) interpretation of DNA analysis, advanced in a futile attempt to explain the alleged body switch and DNA results which do not prove his point." [emphasis added]

A body switch between Nicholas and Michael?  And the transport of Michael's body from Perm to St. Petersburg to be burned in some blast furnace?  And these claims presented by an Orthodox Church website based in Boise, Idaho?

What next?  Spaceships and little green men?




I don't have time this morning to read the site but I know from  many PMs I've received in the past that doubt about the remains being Nicholas II usually stem from two things:

1)  the arm bone which the Russian scientists placed  next to Nicholas II's skeleton is that of a taller man;  Maples mentions it in his book and remarks that he thinks the Russians are mistaken and that the arm bone probably belongs to one of the servents
2)  the saber blow to Nicholas II's head left a thin slice of skull bone missing and this mark was not found on the skull which was marked as Nicholas II's....

Gotta run. 

AGRBear

PS  Example of a line that  was not necssary to make  Tsarfan's point is: 
Quote
What next?  Spaceships and little green men?
"What is true by lamplight is not always true by sunlight."

Joubert, Pensees, No. 152

Offline Tania+

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 1206
  • I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
    • View Profile
Re: One thing i find odd part two.
« Reply #26 on: November 07, 2006, 10:54:50 AM »
I am going to say this one more time, but most importantly with our moderators to view what I have to say.

Any one of us is a free independent entity, free to offer our personal thoughts and feelings on any given thread. If this is not what the AP Forum was created for, then please, tell us the forum members as well as the readers that we are not allowed to say our views.
I am really quite upset that someone also makes fun of my having religious beliefs, as I am Russian Orthodox, or to any said church affiliation...

Secondly, if I wish to say that the IF was beautiful, and or any other statement that is for their departed souls, that is my right and I need not, nor any member or new member or reader not need bear the continued pot shots, and arrogant continuious barrage by some members bent on trying to either close down a given member, or to chase them from the forums.

I have not infringed on your rights Tsarfan, Louis Charles, Annie, Bev, and a few other members who continue to harass me because they have nothing of other to do with their valuable time.

No one needs to be told 'knock it off'. Why is this form of address and these needless affronts allowed to continue ?
I think that it shows little respect to any of us and of bottom line, of why the Forum was created initially to continue these endless snide remarks.

Lisa, Rob, Bob, why must we as members and readers still forced to receive these kind of addresses ?

Tatiana+

TatianaA


Offline Louis_Charles

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 1498
    • View Profile
Re: One thing i find odd part two.
« Reply #27 on: November 07, 2006, 10:57:19 AM »
Look, Bear, it is not necessary to take a governessy tone here --- these two threads have been distinguished by a certain amount of levity, and frankly, I think he has a point. If every single person who ever claimed to be one of the Imperial Family is to be treated with grim consideration, then you will spend the rest of your life running after silly stories. No serious scientist or historian doubts that the remains in the grave belonged to Nicholas, and we all know that. The name of this thread is One Thing I Find Odd, not One More Claimant Who Should Be Considered. There are other threads for that; what we have been considering on THIS thread are the claims that are preposterous.
"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: One thing i find odd part two.
« Reply #28 on: November 07, 2006, 10:59:15 AM »
I am going to say this one more time, but most importantly with our moderators to view what I have to say.

Any one of us is a free independent entity, free to offer our personal thoughts and feelings on any given thread. If this is not what the AP Forum was created for, then please, tell us the forum members as well as the readers that we are not allowed to say our views.
I am really quite upset that someone also makes fun of my having religious beliefs, as I am Russian Orthodox, or to any said church affiliation...

Secondly, if I wish to say that the IF was beautiful, and or any other statement that is for their departed souls, that is my right and I need not, nor any member or new member or reader not need bear the continued pot shots, and arrogant continuious barrage by some members bent on trying to either close down a given member, or to chase them from the forums.

I have not infringed on your rights Tsarfan, Louis Charles, Annie, Bev, and a few other members who continue to harass me because they have nothing of other to do with their valuable time.

No one needs to be told 'knock it off'. Why is this form of address and these needless affronts allowed to continue ?
I think that it shows little respect to any of us and of bottom line, of why the Forum was created initially to continue these endless snide remarks.

Lisa, Rob, Bob, why must we as members and readers still forced to receive these kind of addresses ?

Tatiana+



Perhaps if you ceased posting thinly veiled behavioral corrections, we would not be so pointed in our responses. In fact, you seek out people in order to do this. If we bother you so much, feel free to ignore us. In any event, you provoke this reaction deliberately.

And no one is "harassing" you; all of my posts have been public, and in response to your public posts. I doubt strongly that Tsarfan, Bev or Rachel have PM'd you to mock anything at all. Public posts get public responses. This is not harassment.
« Last Edit: November 07, 2006, 11:04:15 AM by Louis_Charles »
"Simon --- Classy AND Compassionate!"
   
"The road to enlightenment is long and difficult, so take snacks and a magazine."

Offline Penny_Wilson

  • Boyar
  • **
  • Posts: 107
    • View Profile
    • kingandwilson
Re: One thing i find odd part two.
« Reply #29 on: November 07, 2006, 11:07:03 AM »

I don't know about any claimants...

Various "Michaels" were popping up throughout Siberia relatively quickly after his death:  One of the first was allegedly in Turkestan, issuing a manifesto and trying to raise an army; a second was supposed to have been in Omsk at the head of a band of Cossacks.  Dmitri Pavlovich heard about the latter while he was in Persia and wrote: "Misha is advancing on Moscow with Cossacks and has been proclaimed Emperor." (DP's Diary, Houghton, Harvard University)  But it is difficult to ascertain if these two "Michaels" were real claimants or if they -- and their actions -- were merely rumors.

Beginning in 1919, there were sightings of Michael in the far east: Japan, China, Thailand.  Again, it's difficult to know if these are only rumors, or if there were real people making claims.  In February 1919, a man appeared at the Colonial Office in a town in French Indo-China, seeking a visa under Michael's name and titles.  There was a Top Secret report made, including photographs of the man who claimed to be Michael; these photos were shown to some friends of Michael and relatives of his wife -- and he was determined to be a fraud.  According to the Crawfords in their book Michael and Natasha, information on this claimant can be found at the Leeds Russian Archive MS 1363/101.

A later "Michael" appeared in Shanghai -- but by September 1919, Admiral Kolchak was writing to Natasha that there was no solid evidence of Michael having been anywhere after Perm, and that he did not know what had happened to him.


... but I did find this rather bizarre reference on a rather hyperbolic Orthodox Church website:  http://www.serfes.org/royal/romanovpretenders.htm:

"Recent claims made in the book, Blood Relative, by British history professor Michael Gray that the Tsarevich (from whom he claims illegitimate descent) escaped Russia with the Dowager Empress in 1919 onboard HMS Marlborough, and assumed the name Nikolai Chebotarev are likewise absurd.  As is his claim Nicholas II's corpse was switched with that of his brother the Grand Duke Michael to throw off investigators.  The fact that the Grand Duke's body was dismembered and incinerated by the Bolsheviks in a St. Petersburg blast furnace after his murder in 1918 (prior to the regicide) is ignored, and a host of unsubstantiated conspiracy theories involving forensic evidence tampering, combined with a loose (in place erroneous) interpretation of DNA analysis, advanced in a futile attempt to explain the alleged body switch and DNA results which do not prove his point." [emphasis added]

A body switch between Nicholas and Michael?  And the transport of Michael's body from Perm to St. Petersburg to be burned in some blast furnace?  And these claims presented by an Orthodox Church website based in Boise, Idaho?

What next?  Spaceships and little green men?


There have always been rumors about what happened to Michaels' remains.  One has them being buried in an area that was later paved over for housing; another says that he was not buried at all, but was burned up in a smelter at some sort of factory in or near Motovilikhi -- I think this last is where the above interpretation comes from.

~Penny
"Don't do anything by half. If you love someone, love them with all your soul. When you go to work, work your ass off. When you hate someone, hate them until it hurts."  -- A Piece of Good Advice

Sometimes the truth hurts. And sometimes it feels real good. -- Henry Rollins