"
The second point I wish to raise is that a major part of your argument against the Ekaterinburg bones is based on your finding that the DNA extracted from the finger, presumed to be Grand Duchess Elizabeth's, did not match the Gill DNA sequence. ... Is there any scientific proof that the finger belongs to the Grand Duchess Elizabeth?
Is it possible that the Grand Duchess’s body was misidentified initially and it really belongs to the other woman who died alongside the Grand Duchess, the convent novice Varvara Yakovleva?
Helen A
I'd also like to ask him why he permitted a claimant with an agenda on his team? To me, it really taints the whole objectivity of the paper, no?
This controversy looks set to run and run. Might I just ask this question - what will happen if they prove that the bones that have been buried with all due solemnity are not in fact those of the IF?
What I believe without question is that the mtDNA taken from Prince Philip and others matches the mtDNA of some of the remains found in the grave.
I also believe the presence of a pretender with an agenda draws Knight's work into question.
What I believe without question is that the mtDNA taken from Prince Philip and others matches the mtDNA of some of the remains found in the grave.
I also believe the presence of a pretender with an agenda draws Knight's work into question.
I will leave the rest to the scientists.
The presumption is that Knight's experimental sample actually came from G. D. Elizabeth. The original chain of custody of a body from the time female remains were found, allegedly identified as those belonging to G. D. Elizabeth, and placed into the correctly labelled coffin, followed by its transportation from Siberia to Shanghai may be the problem.
If those remains belonged to the accompanying nun Vavara, and not to Elizabeth, then any compatibility tests conducted will never provide the expected result.
Knight's methodology is not questioned, nor are the results which he obtained. One must under the circumstances question the authenticity of the sample given to the Stanford laboratory.
Now, don't also forget there is a third option here. Gill's testing "may" have been indeed bad, BUT the remains are still the IF, and there is other evidence. Bad work by Gill does not per se exclude these remains as genuine, it just means the tests were bad.
I cannot believe that Dr Gill would call anyone "names" -he is too much of a gentleman for that sort of thing!
R.
Might I just ask this question - what will happen if they prove that the bones that have been buried with all due solemnity are not in fact those of the IF?
This controversy looks set to run and run. Might I just ask this question - what will happen if they prove that the bones that have been buried with all due solemnity are not in fact those of the IF?
Hi Helen,
1. Since there was incompatibility between tested samples, could there be other factors involved?
2. Is there any remote possibility that the reference material is not what it is purported to be?
The person who used to post here as "Rodger", Daryll Litwin, who "mysteriously" stopped posting once his involvement became known.
Since discussions on Dr. Knight's research appeared on this web site I took the liberty of calling him on the telephone. To my amazement he answered the phone. Anyway I was surprised, also, with his responses.
When I asked him how he felt about all the other pretenders even one in particular that we have had on this web site he was adamant in his belief that 'his' claimant's photos were the absolute best he had seen. He IS convinced, that whoever he knows IS the true claimant.
Even though his research seems reliable to us I am beginning to think he will conform whatever he does to fit the pattern of HIS claimant.
Unfortunately, this has been the pattern from other claimants. What makes Dr. Knight more dangerous is that he is trying to blind us with his 'Science'. I hope I'm wrong.
As to "never being able to know who wrote..." again you are mistaken. If Helen has the headers from that email, we can find out *quite* a bit about the sender.
Helen,
The information about Rodger was sent to us by several sources, both wholly reliable. Not wanting to reveal them, I simply asked Rodger in a private email if he knew a fellow Phoenix resident named Daryl Litwin. That was the day he disappeared from the forum.
FA
Since discussions on Dr. Knight's research appeared on this web site I took the liberty of calling him on the telephone. To my amazement he answered the phone. Anyway I was surprised, also, with his responses.
When I asked him how he felt about all the other pretenders even one in particular that we have had on this web site he was adamant in his belief that 'his' claimant's photos were the absolute best he had seen. He IS convinced, that whoever he knows IS the true claimant.
Even though his research seems reliable to us I am beginning to think he will conform whatever he does to fit the pattern of HIS claimant.
Unfortunately, this has been the pattern from other claimants. What makes Dr. Knight more dangerous is that he is trying to blind us with his 'Science'. I hope I'm wrong.
What is the point of this excercise in the first place ?
It is surely unlikely that the legitimate family Romanove [either side of the fence], well documented public and semi-public people, will welcome with open arms ANOTHER long lost relative.
There is absolutely no wisp of a throne to aspire to, even IF there were some sort of credible monarchist movement afoot in Russia itself.
There is no fabled fortune waiting to be claimed, by ANYONE.
Whoever Dr. Knight's "claimant" is, will undoubtebly be met with no little amount of sceptisim if not downright ridicule.
And if that Rodger fellow IS involved, the whole operation is obviously a charade.
What a waste of time, money and talented resources needed elsewhere in the world community.
Best,
Robert
Helen, thanks for reposting the email. However, I would need the *full* headers, and this was not posted. And of course, we could find out more about the sender, not necessarily the author.
After what JonC has posted, I am thinking that maybe Alec did write it after all. If so, he is brainwashed to the point that he writes almost exactly in the same style as the claimant (something I personally did not observe before).
Knowing what I know about the individuals in question, I must say the very idea that a serious scientist would actually state he believes this claimant is the "real McCoy" is creepy.
That this appears to be what has actually happened is sickening.
I can certainly understand the "keep an open mind" bit. But the rest of you (as far as I know) have not seen what I have seen, and heard and experienced. My mind is not closed. It's just better informed.
Please know that I would have been extremely grateful to have been FAR less well-informed.
Helen, as I've already posted, I checked out the ISP and got the same results.
As for what I know, I have messaged you about some of this. If you want more, I will write again later today. What would be helpful is that in light of what I've told you, what questions do you have, specifically?
What does it mean?
But still, the whole thing did not come across as being written by Alec Knight; rather it was remarkably written in "Litwin Style"
I think this means that the claimant has contacted you himself! Lucky you! ;)
My suspicion is that Litwin lurks reading the site, and simply replied to you pretending to be Dr. Knight... Your email address is available publicly.
I suspect but cannot prove that Jon C. might be Litwin. Best I can find out, Jon C. uses both Earthlink and RoadRunner from Herndon Virginia to post, and a yahoo email account.
My suspicion is that Litwin lurks reading the site, and simply replied to you pretending to be Dr. Knight... Your email address is available publicly.
I suspect but cannot prove that Jon C. might be Litwin. Best I can find out, Jon C. uses both Earthlink and RoadRunner from Herndon Virginia to post, and a yahoo email account.
Helen wrote:
Yes, it would be great if you could answer some questions.
Was "Rodger" claiming on this site that he is the Anastasia descendant?
**To the best of my knowledge, no.
Anastasia is that? Was it Anna Anderson?
**Not Anderson. His own personal Anastasia, rescued possibly along with her entire family by Hetman Skoropadsky and others. Wound up in Michigan (apparently Henry Ford was involved in this, perhaps FDR too...and oh, yeah, Elvis) then finally in Phoenix...where she worked as a house maid~! (Hey, I've seen photos of that!)
Is his claim a secret one, because there is no information about this guy anywhere else on the internet?
***He likes to keep people guessing. Enjoys dropping broad, loaded hints. Eventually tells all if he thinks it will benefit him in some way (particuarly financially).
This whole thing is so bizarre.
***Yep. You have no idea!
Or is Litwin impersonating these scientists?
***Can't say with total certainty, but it's starting to look that way.
PS: The Elvis part was me being facetious. But, he kind of fits in with the pattern, wouldn't you say? Maybe aliens, too?
I hope someone contacts the real Dr. Knight. AFAIK, "Rodger" was Litwin, the claimant with an agenda.
Sounds to me like a tired old parlour game devised to fool gullible little old ladies out of their life savings. As well as gullible anyone who would fall for this nonsense.
I do not know this Rodger/Litwin personally, just from this site. However, he sounds like he probably operates on other sites with other names. Whether or not he is the same person, the story is remarkably the same- missing heir=missing fortune waiting to be claimed. Of course, the whole plot takes time to convince people, with all the "credentials" at hand.
If the REAL Romanov family distance themselves from this sort of scam, why should any of us fall for it?
There are better returns from some Nigerian bankers available, I keep passing those up as well, however.
Cheers,
Robert
If Rodger didn't claim to be the "descendant" here on this forum, then where did he claim it? It is not found anywhere on the internet....
He deleted most of his posts :-/
This, of course, indicates trust on the part of the scientist. Nobody ever said that scientists can't be fooled, certainly at least one is in this case.
Yes, he did. It was more than 200 at one point, most deleted on a single day. Isn't it interesting how it was Rodger who began the Imperial Claimants Thread? Surprise! He had everyone fooled into believing he was joking!
To JonC. I apologise if you are not involved. We have had a few too many imposters here, who use untraceable ISPs.
To Helen, perhaps the only answer then is that 'somehow' Dr. Knight let it be known to others about your question here. The only real answer of course, can come from Dr. Knight himself.
My suspicions are still on "Red" level alert...
FA
Helen, I noticed that your email address *is* on your profile here. all it would have taken was Litwin noticing your original post in this thread and then he could have contacted you about it.
Helen, regarding his "evidence"...Why don't you have a look at some of his photos? The "royal" ones, naturally. He gave me some photocopies. There are some on this board who have already seen them, through email and other sites.
Also, now it gets more odd. Dr. Knight's full name is: Ralph Alexander Knight.
Could he be temporarily at ASU?
This whole thing is just too weird. :o
On Stanford's website Dr Knight is listed as a senior research scientist. Others on the site have bios and pictures when you click on their names Whenyou click on Knight's name it brings up some files. One file is named Grand Duchess Elizabeth. It is a picture of I believe Dr Knight on left and another man, Knight pointed to a computer screen?? Strange.
http://www.stanford.edu/~aknight/GrandDuchessElizabeth/Discovery.jpg
Just because Litwin is on the author's credits of the magazine article does not necessarily mean that eveyone else there BELIEVES him. He may have contributed some way, materials, financing, anything to have that credit. [liason to the poor, uninformed masses who may DOUBT ?]
All true. I just wonder why it did not occur to the real scientists on the article that having a claimant (overt or otherwise) listed as a contributor would look rather suspicious.
Daskova
As I remember "Rodger" was always complaining about the "innaccurate" DNA tests ...but he never wanted to elaborate on this issue... He rather made out that he was quite the expert and that it was all too technical for the rest of us as I recall.
This is all too Cloak and Dagger for me.
R.
According to ASU's website directory, "Ralph Knight" is a visiting student:
Name: Knight, Ralph
E-mail: Ralph.Knight@asu.edu
Affiliation: Visiting Student
Just because Litwin is on the author's credits of the magazine article does not necessarily mean that eveyone else there BELIEVES him. He may have contributed some way, materials, financing, anything to have that credit. [liason to the poor, uninformed masses who may DOUBT ?]
My partner's business is always getting credit for things like fundraisers when they actually provided some props.
It just seems the season again for these things, we have this 105 y/o Anastaia again ? Some mysterious filmaker touting her cause to the tune of "outrageous" fortune.
A new Rasputin murderer ?
What surprises me the most is that people actually pay these things so much attention, when they should be simple curiosities, diversions when bored.
Cheers,
Robert
The ISP address comes from where the computer is located that is being used to send the email.
In other words, when I was in Russia last spring, and used my school email account (in Russia, at an internet cafe), the ISP that showed up on the email my family received was in Russia, NOT back home.
So, Alec is in Arizona and Palo Alto at the same time, hmmm?
Not to mention the Litwinesque writing method employed by the composer of the email in question.
Ok. The most recent email you received from "Alec" was *sent* to you *from* a computer at Arizona State University. This was discovered by tracing the ISP on the email header.
Nowhere on the Stanford website is there listed something along the lines of "Alec Knight on sabbatical" He works at Stanford. Which is in California. Fall semester is underway so if he still works there and *isn't* on leave, the email should have come from Stanford.
We definitely know that Litwin is in Arizona, and that the email is written in a style that is highly evocative of Litwinese (I'll send you some samples).
Would you mind posting the full headers from the first email Alec sent?
Oh, I thought it might also be interesting to note that the address Alec lists on his Stanford "profile" is the exact same post office box used by Litwin when he was living in California.
Maybe these guys like to share stuff...mailboxes, email accounts, etc. Who knows what else?
And now, as fascinating as this is, I've got to get back to work! No more cheese and crackers at least for a few hours.
Dashkova,
I'd be interested in seeing the pictures you mentioned if you find the time to post them....thanks
Helen and others,
When I first joined this discussion board, I was told I was not me because a few thought I was Rodger. Since I am not Rodger I couldn't help but wonder how in the world they came up with this idea. So I posted that I was not Rodger. The responce amazed me. I was told I was a lier.... Finally, the forum admin. had to step in and tell everyone I couldn't be Rodger.
Rodger certainly did love attention, as I remember.
Too bad that he's not here to contribute.
Seriously-- If this is in fact "Rodger's" doing and if he is this paranoid-- then I do worry for his mental health...He may be a danger to himself and others if he really thinks that people are out to get him because he is a Romanov .
R.
If Litwin was only a contributor in the form of supplying them with historical info or something like that, then he would have been mentioned in the acknowledgements or the citations (if he ever published anything) but not as a co-author. Helen
I don't know a lot about scientific journals, but perhaps persons providing historical background for a topic would be included, though it seems just as straightforward to cite authors in the bibliography. Certainly that should have been preferred from a professional standpoint to having a claimant (with an agenda) listed as an author.
It would be interesting to learn if any connection exists between Litwin and the Russian Expert Commission Abroad?
It is extraordinary that a Stanford scientific paper has become involved in using a number of references which are at best questionable with regard to their veracity.
Just to comment about this Litwin fellow--he's been around on some of the boards I've been on and has spouted his crazy theories to me.
This is getting beyond ludicrous to me.
First,
As to our being "a paranoid bunch"...This forum is only about seven months old. In the first three months, we were subject to at least FOUR imposters including Rodger, who pressed ridiculous claims and theories and who would come back as "different" users with different names, but were really the same person. It took me a long time to ferret out the truth...Paranoid? no...sceptical with good reason is really more like it.
As for Rodger, HE started posting only as a "guest" claiming that he had to "protect his real identity" and could not "reveal personal information"...he claimed to be a genetic forensic biologist and an expert...and that he knew alot of "secret information".
Here is the last private message I got from him, after merely asking "if he knew Daryl Litwin." Please note the time of the message:
Jun 8th, 2004, 9:59pm
Well, I do know him. He's an intensely private person who maintains a low profile. He told me about some group that is bent on wrecking the Knight Group's efforts to set the record straight. I had wondered if the problems Bob had been having might be related to this.
Between 10pm and 3am that night, literally every posting from Rodger DISAPPEARED (and not by me) which concerned the IF remains (there are some fifty or so remaining which have nothing to do with anything search member name _Rodger_ . Now in the law there is a concept of "Res Ipsa Loquiter" the thing speaks for itself...I think Rodger removing all of the postings tells you everything you need to know about a Rodger/Litwin connection.
It was Dashkova who told me first about Rodger, and she sent me plenty of "hard evidence" to prove what she said.
FA
Maybe this whole thing is a Giant Macguffin -- or maybe it is an actual investigation regarding the remains.
I'm just going to wait and see.
R.
Helen,
The information about Rodger was sent to us by several sources, both wholly reliable. Not wanting to reveal them, I simply asked Rodger in a private email if he knew a fellow Phoenix resident named Daryl Litwin. That was the day he disappeared from the forum.
FA
I really don't see how we can separate the two, because 'what to make of the research paper' totally involves this guy. But I will not comment anymore until FA posts his results on Monday.
Helen,
Just wondering, since yours is a scientific background, how common is it that a scientist would proclaim "absolute *proof*" about any research.
I am not a scientist, but I live with one and know several others, who think it's odd that one of that profession would make such a statement.
Helen,
This actually IS about Rodger, who IS Litwin. Our problem with these developments is this. Knight's report is NOT about proving that any specific person IS a claimant. period. the Knight report is that Gill's work is probably flawed, which is reasonable given the DNA technology of 1993, and that the relic of GD Ella doesn't match.
WHY is there suddenly this "claimant" proof which has nothing to do with the original report? Litwin is the one with a "claimant" agenda. For Knight to suddenly start to "take sides" destroys his scientific credibility by removing any objectivity in the results. THIS is a 180 degree turn around from what everyone who has been in contact with Dr. K reports was his position.
FA
WHY is there suddenly this "claimant" proof which has nothing to do with the original report? Litwin is the one with a "claimant" agenda. For Knight to suddenly start to "take sides" destroys his scientific credibility by removing any objectivity in the results. THIS is a 180 degree turn around from what everyone who has been in contact with Dr. K reports was his position.
FA
Sure, anything's possible, but I don't know...in my own field I tend to practice good habits of being clear about what I say, and said in a way (to whomever) that follows the rules of the discipline.
I mean, this works the same way in history nomenclature. No matter who I was writing to, I would never say there was absolute proof about anything that had ever been remotely considered controversial. That's irresponsible and unprofessional in my view, and I would guess this goes for anyone in any field. Even mathematics!
FA,
In his reply, Knight never actually mentioned to me that his proof is based on a claimant, he just said that he now believes without any doubt (or something to that effect) that these bones don't belong to the IF and that the new data that's supposed to be published soon will prove that. Well, you all saw the email... I only found out about the claimant's involvement here in the forum. But I think JonC told us that Knight did say something about this Litwin's claim? I can't remember now so I have to go check in the postings. But if he is not supporting Litwin's claim, why would he let this guy be involved in his study and even let his name be added to the authorship credit? I take that as supporting him, in some ways at least, don't you think? Well, lets wait until Monday and see what happens....
From what I understand, Litwin brought the idea to Knight, and contributed the historical background to the report. Knight knew nothing about Litwin's claim at the time, from what I can tell.
The fact that he now "supports" a claimant (who may or may not be Litwin) is exactly what is new and different. IF indeed it IS Litwin, he has destroyed the credibility of the report.
I wholly agree that if Knight was the author of all of these reports, we all want to see this new evidence, which frankly, runs contrary to what is already known.
Valmont,
I am so confused...Are you suggesting that either ''Vera_Figer" or "Agrbear" could even possibly be connected with "Rodger" and his shenanigans when visiting this site?
I know "Vera_F" and hold her in the highest esteem!
Agrbear must defend herself...
Rskkiya
Besides, The first thing I read about AGRBear was "Rodger sent me here"... and Vera_Figner sent her information about Litwin, and her answer was "I am aware of Rodger's claims" now with all this "Fairy tale" story about having secret information-James-Bond-Style story, how can she expect to be taken seriously??.. She made people think she was Rodger, even I thought of that untill the FA told me she was not..
A lot of people, including me has given her the oportunity to be taken seriously if she just answers a few questions, and then again, she changes the subject....
I apologize Helen for having to reply to ryskkiya and the others, because this interrupts this thread.... I am pro-democracy, I live quite happily in the USA, and, I will vote for Bush....
Truly yours,
AGRBear
"From what I understand, Litwin brought the idea to Knight, and contributed the historical background to the report. Knight knew nothing about Litwin's claim at the time, from what I can tell.The fact that he now "supports" a claimant (who may or may not be Litwin) is exactly what is new and different. IF indeed it IS Litwin, he has destroyed the credibility of the report. "
Oh, I see... Now I understand what you are talking about. I thought that everyone who knew about this was saying that Knight had accepted Litwin as the claimant all along and this is why he took him for this study!
"I wholly agree that if Knight was the author of all of these reports, we all want to see this new evidence, which frankly, runs contrary to what is already known"
This is exactly what I have been trying to say about this all along. We are finally on the same page here ;)
I am pro-democracy, I live quite happily in the USA, and, I will vote for Bush
last, but not least, yes, I was about five years old when I was told a story about the events which occured the last night in the Ipatiev House, and, my search is to prove the story to be either true or untrue, and, if this story is untrue then I want to discover why I was told a "white rumor" or a "red herring" so long after the event occured. And, NO, I don't intend to share the story at this time.
Dr. Knight's research does cloud Dr. Gill's research and that IS the main concern.
If Litwin is proven to be a claimant who has a hidden agenda, and his association with the Russian Expert Commission Abroad can be shown to have a direct association, one can only question the impartiality of the Stanford team to conduct the assays in the first place.
Perhaps some of the following questions need to be directed to Knight:
1. Who initiated the inquiry?
2. Who provided the funding to conduct these experiments?
3. Who provided the authorization for the experimentation to go ahead?
4. The inclusion of mass media references which themselves are suspect with regard to the claims they allege.
Hi everyone!
So, here is the answer about Dr. Knight. He is indeed in Tempe Arizona right now, at ASU. Stanford is indeed still his "employer". The emails and calls are indeed from him. He is about to publish a new paper "very soon". This new paper will answer all of the questions we have, and if there are other questions, he will be happy to answer them after the paper has been published.
In the mean time, he won't say anything more until after the paper has been published, including the identity of the people working with him.
SO, guess we all just have to wait until the paper comes out, as it would just be speculation until then.
FA
Helen: I can understand your viewpoint, but will have to speak for myself and say that for *me*, it's definitely not back to square one.
I will just be happy when this paper is published so we can find out what this is all about.I'm very interested in the findings and what this "claiment" has to do with it,if he has anything to do with it.It's going to be very interesting for our discussion here but man it's going to be hard waiting. :P
Dashkova,
Ok maybe not to square one, after all Litwin is still the co-author of this paper and still an imperial claimant as far as we know... but basically we are back to the question how did these Stanford scientists get involved in all this? Do they know something that will prove this right...Or have they all lost their minds? I can't even begin to imagine what this proof could possibly be! I personally can't wait until this paper comes out, which could be next month or next year. "Very soon" is unfortunately a very loose term in the scientific world...
Helen
The emails and calls are indeed from him. He is about to publish a new paper "very soon". This new paper will answer all of the questions we have, and if there are other questions, he will be happy to answer them after the paper has been published.
In the mean time, he won't say anything more until after the paper has been published, including the identity of the people working with him.
SO, guess we all just have to wait until the paper comes out, as it would just be speculation until then.
FA
Thanks FA for providing all this information. It is very important not to jump to any conclusions.
Not until the second paper is published, only then we may be presented with a clearer indication as to which direction Knight's scientific findings are headed.
Most of us here have traveled out of town, state, country to attend conferences, handle business, tour, etc. And not always, but usually, at least on a couple of occasions, there is the opportunity to go online, either at the host institute/university, hotel, even internet cafes.
Checking email is one of the first (and sometimes only) online activities one pursues when travelling.
Email is typically answered in the same fashion, through one's usual accounts.
But through an account at a university where one is simply attending/participating in a conference?
That's got to be very rare, simply because convenience and habit favor the usual accounts.
Hi Alec,
Although I know I can't offer much in the way of substantive scientific comments on this, maybe I can at least offer my impressions on this review. As far as review 3 is concerned, it seemed to me to be pretty much what you had expected.
Reviewer: 1
>This is a fascinating paper which deals with historically important genetic
discovery of the Romanov remains. Knight and colleagues quite sensibly point
out that there must be doubt about the site of the graves and that the
amplification of large PCR fragments is a little surprising.
Here, Reviewer 1 brushes off the criticism by not addressing the substance of the critique. Instead, the reviewer seems to be relying completely upon the blood test of the Duke as a defense. Is it possible that the reviewer doesn't understand the criticism? Or is the reviewer simply trying to dismiss any criticism a priori by relying on the alleged Philip result?
>They wished to determine if the remains were indeed real by sequencing the mitochondrial DNA from the Tsarina's sister, Grand Duchess Elizabeth. They obtained DNA from the finger of the Grand Duchess and have obtained DNA sequence of the
mitochondrial DNA D-loop. The DNA sequences are presented. We can conclude a
few certainties.
1. The DNA from the Grand Duchess Elizabeth shows 16111C and 16129A,
whereas the DNA from the Tsarina was 16111T and 16129G
2. These women were not sisters.
>Knight et al have proven their case or have they?
The reviewer simply once again is relying solely on the DGE result without referring to the improbability of the Ekaterinburg result.
>There must be uncertainty about any remains which made us look again at the
family tree. As true Brits we noticed that our own HRH Prince Philip, The
Duke of Edinburgh is a maternal relative of the Tsarina and Grand Duchess
Elizabeth. He is very much alive. He is the Great nephew through the
maternal side of the family and thus will have the same mitochondrial
genotype. In the original Gill et al paper, they obtained a blood sample
from Prince Philip and this sample has the genotype 16111T and 16129G - the
same is the Tsarina. Prince Philip is not related to the sample obtained
from the grave in Jerusalem.
>We then delved into the life of the Grand Duchess Elizabeth via a number of
web sites. We are now definitely moving away from our area of expertise and
we found all the information we had available was badly sourced. However, it
seems that Grand Duchess Elizabeth was an admirable woman who in her later
years devoted herself to good works and for these she was canonised by the
Orthodox Church. However, it seems she meet a violent death by being thrown
down a mine with some of her companions. There are even stories that bombs
were thrown in after, before the bodies (or parts of bodies) could be
recovered.
>Thus this work has presented a number of conclusions, but perhaps not what
the authors had proposed. We entirely agree with them that the DNA from the
grave in Jerusalem is not related to the DNA extracted from the bones found
at Ekaterinburg. Thus there are two possibilities. That HRH Prince Philip is
an impostor! Much more likely, is that the remains that have been so
carefully tendered in the grave in Jerusalem are NOT those of Grand Duchess
Elizabeth. This will prove to be bad news to the Orthodox Church.
My own impression is that this is the writing of a person who seems not understand the ancient DNA problem and does not appear to be taking it very seriously. He or she simply wants to say "Philip therefore QED" and that's that. The reviewer's severely restricted logical universe however has a curious entailment because he or she has essentially staked Philip's identity to the veracity of the Ekaterinburg remains.
On the other hand, it could be a slight of hand on the reviewer's part to de-emphasize the ancient DNA critique. This of course would entail that the critique has found its mark. Intuitively, I suspect that the ancient DNA critique is very important and perhaps the article can be a good source of information for people on the apparent distinction between fresh and ancient DNA.
Daryl
I do however think that Alexandra was not Alice's daughter.
Candice.....PLEASE >:(
Do stay on topic! If you can justify this extreamly silly claim-- then take it to the Claimants Thread.
To be honest, with your track record -- dear-- I really don't think that many people will take you very seriously...
rskkiya
No wonder Litwin/Rodger didn't want to believe this - these results are beyond what has been published - and call his team's work into question.
and let us not discount the VERY probable idea that the bodies of Elisabeth and Sister Varvara may have been switched so BOTH bodies in Jerusalem should be tested to be certain.
Dashkova,
Why are you so keen to show us these series of photographs and asking for our opinions? :o
What answers are you seeking I wonder? ???
The most glaring problem with Knight's paper, which was mentioned previously here and was affirmed by Reviewer # 1 (provided in a posting above) is the use of Elizabeth's relic as a reference marker. It is difficult to comprehend why the DNA profile extracted from the relic was used with so much certainity regarding its authenticity, that any scientific analysis to authenticate that sample was not conducted. Blind faith in believing that the relic itself was what the Orthodox Church purported it to be, is a process which undermines standard laboratory practices when comparative analyses form the basis of Knight's inquiry.
It would have been expected by the scientific community, that to use that relic as a key marker to disclaim the authenticity of any other test samples, the relic should have been positively identified first. Only then would it be acceptable to conduct any comparative analyses, and then provide credible conclusions.
Until the relics have been authenticated, one can only suggest that any results obtained are unsafe.
As to the remains of Elizabeth that are currently in Russia: I thought that her body was very well preserved, to the extent of one being able to recognise her. That is the impression I got from books I have read on Grand Duchess Elizabeth. Does anyone have a close-up photo of her remains/face? I thought they would be able to see which is Varvara and which is Elizabeth ???
Candice-- come on-- you spent so much time here months ago with your elaborate hints about survivors then offered us nothing...Now you have claimed that Alice of Hesse was not Alixandra's mother! And where - I wonder - is your proof? You know evidence? Hmmm?
it doesn't look good dear...
rskkiya.
Helen
I am sorry. ( :() I will try to keep on topic.
filled with remorse ;)
rskkiya
Sorry if this seems too obvious, but does anyone know where the supposed remains of Varvara were interred? It might be a worthwhile endeavor to exhume her and test her DNA. If the remains were misidentified when the bodies were recovered, then this test would so indicate, and put this whole matter to rest.
Ilya
Previet Olga,
I can't really make out what the photo you posted was of... a body? a cloth?
Candice-- come on-- you spent so much time here months ago with your elaborate hints about survivors on the claimants thread - then offered us nothing...Now you have claimed that Alice of Hesse was not Alixandra's mother! And where - I wonder - is your proof? You know evidence? Hmmm?
it doesn't look good dear...
rskkiya.
Ella was found in a mine shaft, but it was said that her body was preserved and seemed only "dried up" or at least that was what Ella's sister wrote when discribing the conditions and matter in which her body was taken to its final resting place.
Most importantly, we really do not have a good first hand account of the finding of the bodies, most of what we know is really "hearsay" without good evidence. Both bodies in Jerusalem must be tested to get a definitive answer.
Perhaps I should have stated more emphatically that testing Varvara's body would scientifically put the matter to rest.
Ilya
Does anyone know what happened to the rest of bodies pulled from the shaft?
I really hope that they will test both Ella's and Sister Varvara's remains so we can at least clear up the mystery with the finger.It just suprises me they havent done that before now unless the church where their remains are kept are not willing to have this done.
I can understand that reasoning as their bodies are considered relics but it is aggravating nonetheless.
Candice I'd still like to know why you think Alix wasn't Alices daughter.I still can't wrap my mind around that one. :-/
There are pictures of those too. They were all buried, along with Ella, in an Orthodox shrine in Peking, China. Ella and Sister Varvara were of course moved to Jerusalem. The shrine was later destroyed to build the Soviet embassy. I have seen reports that the bodies were moved to Jerusalem with Ella, and also that they were dumped with the debris of the shrine. I hope the second is not true :'(
First,
The silly notion that Alix was "not" the actual daughter of Alice came from a claimant who appeared on here. He raised that "notion" because he had to try to explain why his mtDNA was excluded from relation to Alice. He had a remote ancestor who had some "possible" relation to Nicholas, so he concocted the story that Alix was "actually" the undisclosed daughter of Queen Alexandra of England who gave the child to Alice to raise as her own.
When his story was called "ludicrous" he threatened to sue use for slander/libel, so we just removed the whole thing from the forum.
Second,
Actually, no one has ASKED to test the two bodies in Jerusalem...From our sources, we have been told that the Church probably would be happy to permit the testing. They ARE relics, and as such, proper identification of the saints is important to the church. The major problem is actually who will pay for the tests, and insure proper handling and chain of custody along the way.
.... [ine part] ....Hi Lisa.
I have this image in my mind that you are the keeper of the mystical gate and I still don't have the key or keyword which would allow me to get through.
I am still under your microscope, I know, but I have to make an observation from one of your posts.
Best Regards. JonC.
You mentioned that Princess Katherine of Yugoslavia and Prince Phillip had matching DNA, and that is true. This proves that THEY are related. But! How does that disprove Dr. Knight's conclusions that the DNA obtained from the Koptiaky forest was unacceptable due to contamination of that sample. I believe you said that the above two matched the DNA of the bones obtained from the forest so Litwin/Rodger were wrong/ had no claim.
I do believe though that Dr. Knight's research counters the DNA findings on the bones from the Koptiaky forest due to contamination so, how can you present Prince Philip and Princess Katherine's DNA as any kind of proof that Dr. Knight's research is wrong? Or, that the bones, under the circumstances, are even those of the Imperial Family?
Best Regards. JonC.
They just like it best when you agree with them.
;D
AGRBear
[One who has walked through some of the gates with differences of opinion or have just tried to discover and understand all the great information people have on ths forum.]
Helen_azar
You might ask 'where did the new blood come from?' well it could have been Prince Philip's own blood since they did draw his blood to compare the DNA from the bones. I know this may sound off the track but it is possible.
Dr. Parsons from DOD said that the bones had enough DNA material because they were burried in an area of permafrost which would preserve the DNA. He was corrected when told that the burrial site did experience 100 degree weather. Over a period of 80 years that's very little protection.
It has been, I think, mostly accepted that the perfect results..I don't remember how many base pairs from both HVR1 and HVR2..could not have been achieved from the poor samples studied by the respective scientists. So! There it is!
I contend that if another study is not done by a responsible, independent non partisen group we may never even know if we have the remains of the Tsar or his family for certain.
There are just too many questions raised by all the scientists themselves. Now if you say..'were all those renown scientists crooks/messing with our minds. I have no idea there but I know that Politics does make for strange bedfellows. Best regards. JonC.
JonC,
I don't know if you are aware of this, but when they initially got the results for the DNA sequence assumed to be the tsar's, and compared it to his maternal relatives, there were some questions about these bones too because one of the base pairs did not match the mtDNA of the relative. The reason for this was explained by the scientists at the time: heteroplasmy, a rare but not impossible condition where a sponteneuos mutation took place in one of the base pairs, probably in Nicholas's mother's DNA.Helen
Who was this relative, wasn't it Xenia Sfris? If this is the one who didn't match, could it be that she was adopted and didn't know it? I have always wondered about her because she doesn't look a thing like anyone else in the family, blonde, her mouth, her build. Maybe she took all after the Shemeretev side of the family, but I wondered if maybe she was adopted... I hope not, because if that's true it means the Yussoupov bloodline is now extinct:( Any thoughts on this speculation?
I will not, however, be surprised if someone says they want more "impartial" testing.
Helen_azar
regarding contamination, certainly all of the possibilities you mentioned could have taken place. JonC.
Helen: I hear what you are saying about partial and impartial, but hopefully at some point, sanity will prevail. The scientists I have spoken to who do this type of testing are emphatically impartial. I think that sometimes people don't understand how difficult and expensive this type of testing is.
What is all this about "fresh blood"?
I really don't understand what "fresh blood" JonC is talking about.... Who's blood? What on earth has this to do with Alix's mDNA?
Rskkiya
The "fresh blood" claim is that when Dr. Gill did the tests, the DNA was very degraded, just fragments, and he allegedly used "fresh DNA" to "fill in the sequences" to get a better result.
What IS important, which Rodger/Litwin has nothing to do with is of Dr. Knight's revelation to the scientific community that fresh blood was added to Dr. Gill's sample for him to abtain perfect MtDNA results from old bones lying in a shallow muddy warm grave for 80 it years...an impossible task! [/i]quote]
JonC,
Of course you are entitled to believe what you choose, that makes absolutely no difference when it comes to facts. The reality is: Dr Knight's "revelations" are misleading, and people who don't fully understand the science part of this (much like yourself) are accepting them as fact. It is not "an impossible task" to get these results, and quite a few experts will tell you so. Much of Dr Knight's contentions are very questionable because of his own methods: he himself has made some very serious mistakes (whether deliberately or purely by neglect is unclear, and irrelevant). And his mistakes are much more serious than the ones he pointed out in Gill's work, not the least of these is the fact that he used unknown DNA source (finger) as his control - a very serious breech of scientific protocol. Based on that, any claims he makes in his paper have been more or less negated. Because of the reasons I just mentioned, his paper got rejected by peer reviewers of a prestigious scientific journal, the same one, if I may add, that accepted Gill's work... while Knight's paper finally got published in a journal much more inferior. Based on this alone, I can confidently say that not all is well with Knight's paper.
Helen
Jon C: I do care if crackpots like the Stanford group waste my hard earned money, or try to. So, my objection to "research" is certainly not ridiculous - it's a valid point.
The governments concerned seem to be satisfied with the previous results, as do the families and both ROCs. Robert
...slurs against fine scientists.
We do not know "who" is/has funded Dr. Knight's most recent paper, he would not answer that question until after it is published.
We believe, from his statements, that Stanford is NOT involved, and we know the Hoover Int. is NOT involved.
The conversations with Dr. Knight seem to indicate that his historical research is not as "comprehensive" as his scientific research. For example, he was unaware of the most recent and accurate publications on the subject, as was he unaware of some important sources.
But as we have said, we must just "wait and see" until/if the paper is published.
Ditto Zhivotovsky. I wonder if anyone has tried to contact Lev about this?[/color]
...Dr. Knight.... When I spoke to him months ago he did say that the contamination was 'fresh blood' from a relative but he didn't know who.
JonC.
Helen, time does fly and it does seem like months since I spoke to him.
When in September I said I spoke to him didn't mean that I spoke to him IN September. I don't remember exactly when I did speak to him it could have been in July or August.
We have since written e-mails to each other if that's anything of value to you. Now why do you find it necessary to ask me to 'fess up'? What do you think I should 'fess up' to now? I take it that you don't believe I spoke to him, right? If so...wow! I tell you, you and Lisa can shake hands. Pray tell me how on Earth does Freud fit in here or is that just loose talk with no rhyme or reason? JonC.
Guys, guys, come on now! >:( Helen, JonC is of course going to respond to you (especially that last comment) because you're harping on him for some reason you think (and others) that he's Litwin! It's only natural that he's going to defend himself! I would too if I was getting crucified as much as he is (and as I have in the past>:()! This is getting a little out of hand.
Helen_azar.
Helen, I wish I could transcend the ether we communicate through and hold your hand and look into your eyes and tell you that I hold your opinion in high esteme.
I have no ill feelings toward you and hope you don't of me. I am sorry if I have offended you in any way and hope to learn from your future posts. We do differ but that's ok. Best regards. JonC.
DaveK.
I sent you a note. I thought it best to explain that way. JonC.
All the scientists from Dr. Maples to Dr. Gill and the rest of the team seemed to have skipped all of these necessary safeguards and accepted the samples from the Russians as official Romanov samples without question. No self respecting scientist would have accepted all that nonsense unless there was an ulterior motive. Best regards. JonC.Sheesh...then what does that say about Knight and company? Some finger with no provenance. Not very self-respecting!
JonC, thanks for your reply.
I still think that even if the hoax existed, Dr. Gill must have been simply duped. My rationale: it was well known since late 80's that old degraded DNA doesn't produce long PCR product. Had Dr. Gill participated in the scheme as a scientific advisor, he would have produced the short PCR product, so that it looked like real degraded old DNA. What's the point of showing long PCR product, which simply raise suspicion? Do you agree?
As to why Gill didn’t suspect things. Because it’s not his job. Did you ever watch CSI show? (it's a good show, I learn a lot.) Dr. Gill’s job was just like a geeky technical boy who does only analysis. Gill’s coauthors, who were historical experts, are the people who must have been watching these things. Nature's reviewers and editors were also responsible if there were any hoax, but still, it's not Gill's fault.
Dave.
Yes I had suspected that the Russian authorities had a hand in the 'deception' as you say.
I also thought the Brits had something to do with the deception because at that specific time of the discovery of the bones Russia's Yeltsin was in a fight for democracy and the British Government made it known that it would actively help preserve Russia's transition. Did this mean they would help falsify the study on the bones? I don't know.
What made me skeptical of Dr. Gill...to this day...is how his team didn't question the samples provided to them. Simply accepted the samples from the Russians without questioning the handling of the samples or complaining that the samples may have been contaminated due to the lack of security at the discovered grave site.
All the scientists from Dr. Maples to Dr. Gill and the rest of the team seemed to have skipped all of these necessary safeguards and accepted the samples from the Russians as official Romanov samples without question. No self respecting scientist would have accepted all that nonsense unless there were ulterior motives/ orders by the British Gov.
I am not going to judge Dr. Gill and his team although I think better judgement should have been used by them. Best regards. JonC.
Helen, I shall ask you directly, as I think you are the only one of us actually involved in this sort of employ.
Just what cost does this sort of project entail?
Best,
Robert
Wait a minute.
I just recognized that there was no way that the bone was covered with fresh blood of Prince Philip.
Dr. Gill did two tests.
1) mtDNA matched with Prince philip’s mtDNA.
2) Nuclear DNA’s karyotype was XX (female) , not XY (male).
If it’s Prince Philip’s fresh blood, it should show a XY (male) type.
What do you think JonC?
P.S. this XY-XX can also be determined by PCR, not by microscope. I am 100% sure about this, because I saw it on the CSI show.
Um, I'm sorry, but are you saying you believe something because you saw it on tv? Isn't CSI a fictional drama? For the masses as opposed to scientists?
"Cost should not be a factor"??
A chronic "sponging" ne'er do well would make such a comment, but that would be someone like Litwin, not JonC.
Um, I'm sorry, but are you saying you believe something because you saw it on tv? Isn't CSI a fictional drama? For the masses as opposed to scientists?
JonC,
Take your time.
To make the hoax theory alive, only possibility is that they used fresh blood from some female, but not from Prince Philip.
But here is some more challenges: there are FOUR different nuclear DNAs "XX type" evidences and all four mtDNAs are same as Prince Philip. If they had used fresh blood, you have to fulfill four condition:
1) they had to collect four different blood.
2) this four person's relationship must be thee daughters and one mother. All living.
3) all 4 have to be maternal relative of Tzarina.
4) father of daughters have to be maternal living relative of Tzar.
Do you think of any 4 females in British royal family who fulfills this conditon? Does Prince philip have three daughters by any chance? Is it possible that Prince Philip's wife got all three daughters from affair with grandson of Louise of Hesse-Cassel who was Tzar's maternal relative?
Dashkova, my dear abrasive woman. I feel so ashamed for you when I read your posts that I wonder if there is anything I could do for you to help you.
Your Communist upbringing/ tendencies have apparently left you devoid of any sensitivity of the necessity for brotherly love. I feel sad for you and I will pray for you. JonC.
That’s ad hominem attack. Truth is truth, no matter where it came from. Don’t trust/distrust anything just because it came from authentic/dubious journal, that’s why I respect JonC’s incessant Crusade against a prestigious study from leading scientists in an authentic scientific journal. “National Enquirer” and “Globe” has often more truth than New York Times which published articles by Jason Blair.
Besides, Jerry Bruckheimer was telling that all science in the drama is true because they have scientific advisory board which includes many real scientists.
DaveK, and JonC I'm amazed at the points you have both raised. What you have pointed out is something to reflect upon. What a conspiracy!
I didn't know about sister Pascalina Lehnert. Could it be that the Orthodox church and the Catholic church were both working together to save the children. That to me is a good possibility.
Helen, I was referring to AGRBear's article on Pope Pius XII's housekeeper, Sister Pascalina Lehnert. She claimed that she met the Grand Duchesses Olga and Maria at the Vatican where Pope Pius received them secretly and gave them money.
I also think that JonC has a point.
I am quite glad that we now have a wide spread of users, in many timezones, like LA and Scotland, so that I can get a little sleep on a Sunday night. :P
Jon,
Dave's science is exactly correct. Your comments indicate that while you have only a minor understanding of genetics, you need to learn more in order to dive into "the deep end of the pool" where you are now. While I personally am not a geneticist, I have spoken to several Genetic experts about the studies and must tell you that Dave is spot on correct, and your interpretation is wholly incorrect. SO
personal attacks will cease.
... they blew "Rodger's" conspiracy theory all to hell.
The original shill on this Board for the Knight report, "Rodger", freaked out when I told him that private testing had been conducted on Princess Katherine of Yugoslavia, a maternal line Victorian descendant, BEFORE a sample was requested from Prince Philip. These tests were conducted in the United States and their results were completely unknown until a few years ago. However, they exactly matched Philip's mtDNA. I am not a scientist, but I would imagine these tend to strengthen the results obtained by Dr. Gill. Oh, and they blew "Rodger's" conspiracy theory all to hell.
Our suspicion, which may of course be wrong, is that no peer-review publication has yet accepted the new Knight paper. Dr. Knight declined to name the specific journal when asked, which led us to conclude that it had not yet agreed to publish the work. His answer of "any day now, very very soon" does not jibe with the rather long period of several weeks now, without a word.
P.S.
Just to clear things up, Princess Charlotte and Tsarina Alexandra were first cousins and they were both daughters of Queen Victoria's daughters. Feodora was Charlotte's daughter. They all inherited the same mtDNA of Queen Victoria.
Helen,
I am no royal family expert (remember I am just a guy who watches CSI), but here is info from the book:
------------------------------------------------------------------
Queen Victoria (Alexandrina Victoria )(1819-1901)
------------------------------------------------------------------
Her daughter: Victoria (1840-1901) Princess Royal Crown Princess of Prussia and German Empress
------------------------------------------------------------------
Victoria’s daughter: Charlotte (1860-1919) of Prussia
------------------------------------------------------------------
Charlette’s daughter: Feodora (1879-1945) of Saxe-Meiningen
DaveK, " mtDNA from Feodora's grave did NOT match Prince Philip's mtDNA." Was it totally different or did it not match in only some places.
Is there a site where one can view the results and comparisons?
Regards,
Candice
It makes you wonder if this "supposed" paper is going to be published at all.It really doesn't seem like it's going to to me.I was looking so forward to reading it too and seeing what kind of crack pot stuff was in it. ;D
sorry, because of copy right issue with my library, i had to remove the post.
Dave, if you've time, would you mind posting the citations for the articles/letters, so that others can locate them in the journal and/or databases? Thank you.
I think the very most damning point made, should be made again. Dr. Gill sequenced the Ekaterinburg remains BEFORE a single sample was taken from Prince Philip, so there is NO possible way for the alleged contamination to have occured. I didn't see any rabbits out of a hat from Dr. K's response to explain this.
Perhaps our suspicions are correct and no self respecting journal was willing to accept the new paper, not even Annals of Human Biology which for some strange reason was willing to accept his last paper without questioning it.
Check the editorial board of this Annals of Human Biology. One of editor is L A Zhivotsky. Sounds familiar? Isnt’ he the co-author of Knight paper? Spelling is not same, but I think it is a typo (I’ll ask the journal to clear this out). If so, authors are submitting a paper to a journal where author himself is a judge? I am sure that it was also reviewed by multiple revieweres other than him, but this explains a lot.
---------------------------------------------------------
Annals of Human Biology
Editorial Advisory Board:
K Aoki - Tokyo, Japan
K. ASHIZAWA - Tokyo, Japan
A. D. G. BAXTER-JONES - Saskatoon, Canada
G. P. C. BEUNEN - Leuven, Belgium
------------
M. VAN T'HOFF - Nijmegen, The Netherlands
W. WANG - Beijing, China
J. WOROBEY - New Brunswick, USA
L A Zhivotsky - Moscow, Russia
---------------------------------------------------------
Yes, that is bound to be Lev Zhivotovsky, just a typo. And yes, co-author of the Knight paper, also known to have worked with author Shay McNeal.
Dave, if you've time, would you mind posting the citations for the articles/letters, so that others can locate them in the journal and/or databases? Thank you.
sorry about it. i am using a public terminal and my library has a big sign that says they will prosecute offender when they find it. but helen posted.
Here is the URL for Lev A. Zhivotovsky's homepage, complete with photo:
http://genetics.biology.kyushu-u.ac.jp/pgen/staff/lz.htm
He is the same guy who is posing with Alec Knight and the "Elizabeth finger" DNA sequence, on Knight's website, right?
I found the posting that is trashing DNA result by Peter Gill without any reason. (it was posted by “_Rodger_” on June 29th.) It says “The problem Lisa, is that the tested Victorian lineage doesn't match the Gill results. This isn't too surprising because there is published variance at position 16111 between T and C in several female line QV descendants, with no heteroplasmy. This variance is published in Purple Secret: Genes, Madness and the Royal House of Windsor, London, 1998.” (emphasis by me)
It is a regretable co-incidence that one of the co-authors is a member of the Editorial Board of the Annals of Human Biology. ;)
Unfortunately not all of us are able to access this J.
Candice, it doesn't matter if this mtDNA was totally different or only a little different, it didn't match to Charlotte's (Queen Victoria's granddaughter and Feodora's mother), nor to Prince Philip's, which means that the remains in this grave were not those of a maternal descendant of Queen Victoria.... Are you trying to figure out whose DNA it did match? Please PLEASE don't propose another conspiracy theory! ::)
Helen
. A. Summers, T. Mangold, The File on The Tsar (Gollancz, London, 1976). [/b]
OHHHGawwwd
Now I know this will be a very odd scientific report!
I'd laugh, but I ought to cry.
rskkiya
Helen, I'm not proposing another conspiracy. CandiceWhew! ;D
. A. Summers, T. Mangold, The File on The Tsar (Gollancz, London, 1976). [/b]
OHHHGawwwd
Now I know this will be a very odd scientific report!
I'd laugh, but I ought to cry.
rskkiya
Helen
Bellisima!
I do hope that you would be willing to present this entirely rational and cogent responce in a magazine (Nature Genetics perhaps ?) or in some other environment where collegues of Dr. Knight might see it --simply because I wonder if a lot of such experts are that familiar with this site!
Thank you so very much!
r.
Wait a minute.
I just recognized that there was no way that the bone was covered with fresh blood of Prince Philip.
Dr. Gill did two tests.
1) mtDNA matched with Prince philip’s mtDNA.
2) Nuclear DNA’s karyotype was XX (female) , not XY (male).
If it’s Prince Philip’s fresh blood, it should show a XY (male) type.
What do you think JonC?
In JonC's post above, she or he comments about '...using a pseudonym as we all are on this site...so chill out, dude.' Leaving aside the question of the dubious taste of including a street expression in a post to a site whose tone is consistently somewhat higher, we do not all use pseudonyms, and what has their use or non-use to do with the matters under discussion in this thread? Katherine Alexandra M. Hines
JonC,
If you read back through the thread, you'll find that when DaveK first started posting, he was unknown to both Helen and Dashkova and therefore could not be a "hired gun." I thought I'd point this out, as Helen seems to be at the center of this monumental conspiracy you're convinced is being mounted against Dr. Knight and co.
In fact, when DaveK first posted you embraced him as a "man of character," (October 15th, 7:04PM) because, I think, you thought he agreed with your contamination theory. Now he seems to have joined the other side. Interesting.
Also, in your absence, it's been shown on this thread that contamination by Prince Philip's blood was impossible, as the Gill results were obtained before the Prince's blood sample was. Unless you'd like to propose time travel as part of the conspriacy. Say, could it have been the Master? Better call in the Doctor! A little tip of the hat to our favorite Gallifreyan Time Lord. It makes as much sense as the other theories bouncing around these pages.
Ilya
Helen.
Have your 'hired gun' please answer my question. Also, I would ask you to be civil and listen to the admonition of the FA. Best Regards. JonC
.
I do think Dr. Gill and his team was duped with evidence which was grossly mishandled and exagerated to mean it belonged to the Royal Family from origin.
I do think Dr. Gill and his team was duped with evidence which was grossly mishandled and exagerated to mean it belonged to the Royal Family from origin.
*Heavy sigh*
This is like planting petunias at the South Pole, a total waste of our time. Ilya
The original shill on this Board for the Knight report, "Rodger", freaked out when I told him that private testing had been conducted on Princess Katherine of Yugoslavia, a maternal line Victorian descendant, BEFORE a sample was requested from Prince Philip. These tests were conducted in the United States and their results were completely unknown until a few years ago.
It seems that there are a few scientists like Alec Knight.....
Let's admit it — and this is the real dirty secret of academic publishing — one can publish just about anything if one goes far enough down the list of impact factors. There are papers all around us containing problems glaring enough to fail their authors in undergraduate midterm exams.
The results were never published because the tests were done to see if a well healed claimant's mtDNA matched the Victorian maternal line. It did not.
.
The major problem with this statement is the unquestionable fact that Gill sequenced the remains BEFORE a sample was taken from Prince Philip. HOW can "mishandling" or "exaggeration" lead to the unquestionable result that it MATCHED Prince Philip's DNA to a certainty of over 99.5 percent??
In other words how do we know if the BONES belonged to Nicholas and his immediate family? For all we know the bones could be of relatives of the Royal Family because the gravesite was never preserved.
Regarding the updating of books: in this internet age, I think many of us assume that writers and publishers are up for this. It's simply not usually the case. Many of us would like Peter Kurth to update "Anastasia" and he is willing - but his publisher is not and if I recall correctly, the publisher owns the rights for any subsequent editions.
Hi very adamantly said "They are wrong!". So, looks like another author Dr Knight quoted in his paper and his rebuttal letter has been
Helen
It seems that there is not a single author or scientist who supports Knight study except Knight group.
Lisa,
I think the exact question directed at Massie was: "Considering that currently there so much more access to so many different archives that weren't available at the time you wrote N & A (in the 60's), would you now write something different or add anything new to what you had written then?" He answered that he wouldn't change anything at all, that he would keep it exactly the same. I also thought that sounded a little odd, surely there must be at least some new information that came to light that he would want to add. I don't think he meant it as in "the editor wouldn't let me", he meant it as in "this would be my own choice"...
I was wondering, do you know what Peter Kurth would change if he would update "Anastasia"? He hasn't changed his mind about her yet, has he?
Helen
| PCR Product | No. of clones | haplotype |
| E3 | 8 | 16327T, 16357T |
| 2 | 16327C, 16357T |
| Cambridge Reference Seq HVI* | CTGCCCCCACCTTCT |
| Servant 1 | +++++++++++C+++ |
| Servant 2 | ++++++++++++C++ |
| Servant 3 | ++++T++TG+++C++ |
| Dr Botkin (putative) | +++++T+++++++++ |
| Romanov Daughter 1 | T+++++++++++++C |
| Romanov Daughter 2 | T+++++++++++++C |
| Romanov Daughter 3 | T+++++++++++++C |
| Tsarina Alexandra | T+++++++++++++C |
| Prince Philip | T+++++++++++++C |
| Tzar Nicholas II | +C+Y+++++TT++++ |
| gg grandndson Loise Hesse C | +C+Y+++++TT++++ |
I am sorry that Massie is not interested in updating Nicholas and Alexandra. It is by far his best book. Perhaps since ex-wife Suzanne was such a big part of that book, it is not comfortable for him to revisit that work?
Sure, recent scholarship has uncovered much new information about N and A but the real value of Nicholas and Alexandra is that Massie was able to bring Nicholas and Alexandra to life for many readers thus making history interesting; something few authors or history professors can do.
Will they be performing a new DNA analysis on the body in Jerusalem?
The question is, where were the peer reviewers? How did they let this pass? Isn't that the whole point of peer review? Oh yes, I forgot, they are the friends of the co-author....
Will they be performing a new DNA analysis on the body in Jerusalem?
...the King report is due out?
Robert
Might it be her friend [Vera or Varvara, I think her name was, a nun] or was the finger someone's who wasn't found in the pit? Any other tests been made to identify the owner?
So, all of this discussion has been over a finger which was thought to be GD Elisabeth, the sister of Tsarina Alexandra.
The severed finger wasn't Elisabeth's, according to the DNA not matching Alexandra's.
2. Also, re: the discussions about if that is "really" GD Elizabeth in the grave on the Mount of Olives, I recall reading in ONE of my many books on the IF that the coffin eventually found its way to Cairo, where it was met by one of Elizabeth's and Alexandra's sisters (Irene maybe?), who wrote to their brother, Ernie. In her letter to him, she said something (and I'm paraphrasing here) that "her body was not corrupted, and it looked as if she were sleeping." Surely, her own SISTER would have "seen" the difference between her own sister and the nun, Barbara?
The only problem with this scenario is that the photographs of the corpses at Alapaievsk by White investigators clearly show that the remains of both Elizabeth and Sister Barbara were grotesquely swollen (i.e., corrupt, please forgive me for saying so) beyond any immediate or easy recognition.
Belochka,
Which book do you have?
So much that has been written about Ella is so devotional, emotional and reverential romanticism it is hard to take it objectively.