Alexander Palace Forum

Discussions about the Imperial Family and European Royalty => The Myth and Legends of Survivors => Topic started by: AGRBear on October 26, 2004, 04:05:10 PM

Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: AGRBear on October 26, 2004, 04:05:10 PM
If not Anastasia or Franziska Schanzkowska, then who was Anna Anderson?  How about this theory? Could Mrs. Unknown [FU] been a very well informed revolutionary who ended up liking the good life and enjoyed the game of being whom her new rich and royal friends wanted her to be, and, too,  she probably believed she should have been born a Grand Duchess, and, in old age,   her mind allowed her to be who she wasn't?

AGRBear

PS  If not a revolutionary:  Perhaps you'd have to start with a list of who she wasn't.  I assume the DNA proves Anna Anderson wasn't a Romanov's chambermaid's [servent's] child born out of wedlock?

---------
For those of you who are reading this thread for the first time, Penny Wilson, who started this thread, started this off by saying that there might be evidence found that Anna Anderson might not have been FS.  So, if  AA wasn't FS then who was she?

Penny pulled off her post after a great deal of harasement but has since returned. Unfortunately, we can't recover her posts.
------
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Candice on October 26, 2004, 05:20:36 PM
AGRBear, I watched the DNA analysis take place on TV years back and AA's DNA was compared to her male cousin Shanzkowska, and it did clearly match his. I don't know his first name, but he was on the documentary as well.  
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: IlyaBorisovich on October 26, 2004, 06:01:58 PM
Quote
 I assume the DNA proves Anna Anderson wasn't a Romanov's chambermaid's [servent's] child born out of wedlock?


I think the truth is much more mundane than that.  My most likely scenario is that she was the daughter of someone connected to the palace, who had contact with the Imperial family, and always dreamed of being a Grand Duchess.  I think she was envious of their lifestyle and promised herself one day she'd live like that.  Being in the palace would give her the opportunity to observe and remember things that she could later attribute to Anastasia.  We might christen her "the girl who dreamed of being a Grand Duchess," and who found a way to live her dream.

Ilya
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Robert_Hall on October 26, 2004, 06:11:58 PM
Ilya, I think that is the most logical scenario I have heard out of all this.
Cheers,
Robert
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: IlyaBorisovich on October 26, 2004, 06:32:05 PM
Quote
Ilya, I think that is the most logical scenario I have heard out of all this.
Cheers,
Robert


Robert, I thank you.  I guess the old saying is true, "even a blind squirrel finds a nut every now and then."  ;)

Ilya
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Dashkova on October 26, 2004, 07:42:57 PM
Ilya, your post really makes a lot of sense to me, and it also reminded me of the story of Helen Jewett, who was taken into a wealthy household, educated to a degree, then could not accept what social mores could offer a person of her station, so she reinvented herself, more than once, and though her life was short and her end tragic, and she had a career as a high class prostitute, she still achieved a certain glamour, desirability, devotion from educated men.

Maybe AA came out of a similar situation.
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: AGRBear on October 27, 2004, 03:35:29 PM
We can't let the mundane have the final word.

I have an article here from the United Press.  No date on the article.

Evidently  a "retired Richmond" Va. talks about his uncle having been  Nicholas II's  "double".

This uncle of his was hired by Nicholas II because he looked like him and was given an apartment in the Winter Palace and for his services was given a country villa.

He thinks the Bolsheviks killed his uncle, his wife and five children.

This is a stretch but here goes a wild theory:  Do you think one of the "double's" children could have been Anna Anderson who witnessed her  family being killed by the Bolsheviks.  One could see how confusion might have occured by one of the children, a girl about Anastasia/Maria's age. She, too,  had suffered a lost in the same way, execution by Bolsheviks.  Then in 1920 having escaped to Berlin, here she was seeing the person she thought was her father, who was really Nicholas II and not her father, in a mag. or newspaper, how this might have confused her even more.  She had  just jumped into the canal.  She was in a mental institution... Not all was right with Anna at that point in time...

 Hope I haven't confused  you.  If I have,  let me know.

The dentist thought his uncle's  family was killed at Tsarko-Selo.

The family came from Steblov.....

AGRBear
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Forum Admin on October 27, 2004, 03:51:05 PM
From all the records we have seen, Nicholas NEVER used a double to impersonate him.  Spiridovitch himself relates numerous occassions here Spiridovitch was in a carriage or car or railroad train, to confuse the anarchists, so why would he do so when there was a "double" for such a job? I don't believe a word of it.
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: IlyaBorisovich on October 27, 2004, 04:12:23 PM
Quote
We can't let the mundane have the final word.


Why not?  Why must the truth behind any mystery be a complicated mess from somewhere beyond left field?  I've found that the mundane often carries a much higher degree of probablility than the farfetched.  What is so unsatisfactory, or anti-climatic about a mundane solution to a mystery?  Just because this was a high profile case doesn't mean the truth can't be mundane.

Ilya
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: AGRBear on October 27, 2004, 05:50:19 PM
Wilson is looking for a needle in the hay stack and just saying it's mundane isn't going to give her any clues.  So,  quit being old stick in the muds and let your imaginations fly.  Believe me,  it's painless and fun.  

::)

AGRBear

PS  The article was real, not from my imagination.  The Dr.'s name was Meistoff.  I forgot to mention that....  The theory was from my imagination.   ;D :D :)
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Robert_Hall on October 27, 2004, 06:03:43 PM
I am sticking with Ilya's "mundane" theory. It makes a hell of a lot more sense than listenting to the same broken record repeatedly.  Why do some insist on cloak & dagger conspiricies, shades-of-Hitler doubles and bizarre escapes via the moon?
I guess if we found the court rosters & employment records, SOMEONE would have had a daughter that fits the bill !
Cheers,
Robert
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: AGRBear on October 27, 2004, 06:11:44 PM
Life is too short to be sooooo serious, Robert.  

The thread is:
>>Let's assume -- for the sake of this thread alone -- that Fraulein Unbekannt (FU) was neither Grand Duchess Anastasia (GDA) nor Franziska Schanzkowska (FS).
 
Who was she? <<


AGRBear
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Dashkova on October 27, 2004, 06:51:46 PM
Quote
Wilson is looking for a needle in the hay stack and just saying it's mundane isn't going to give her any clues.  So,  quit being old stick in the muds and let your imaginations fly.  Believe me,  it's painless and fun.  

 ::)

AGRBear

PS  The article was real, not from my imagination.  The Dr.'s name was Meistoff.  I forgot to mention that....  The theory was from my imagination.   ;D :D :)



There are usually rather mundane needles found in haystacks. Penny Wilson is a professional historian and that means what she is most interested in is the truth, right?
I agree that there are SO many who insist that this case is somehow *special* in some way, that it must have some romantic/dramatic/important secret to unravel.  This is kind of an immature approach to history.

The Helen Jewett comparison is a very probable answer to the AA dilemma.  The mundane may not capture our imaginations and may well disappoint, but this is most frequently where truth is found.
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Olga on October 28, 2004, 03:00:54 AM
Ilya's mundane theory sounds best to me.
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: rskkiya on October 28, 2004, 08:44:17 AM
Quote
If not Anastasia or Franziska Schanzkowska, then who was Anna Anderson?  How about this theory? Could Mrs. Unknown [FU] been a very well informed revolutionary who ended up liking the good life and enjoyed the game of being whom her new rich and royal friends wanted her to be, and, too,  she probably believed she should have been born a Grand Duchess, and, in old age,   her mind allowed her to be who she wasn't?

AGRBear


Agrbear?
   Why on earth do you think that she was a revolutionary? Is this related to the "Stalin planted her for misinformation" Theory?
Rskkiya
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: AGRBear on October 28, 2004, 10:48:36 AM
The range of conspiracy could range from a simple factory worker reading about the wealth which could be gained by deciet.... to a full bloom conspiracy from the top which was Lenin/Stalin  who wanted to cover the truth.

I used the word  "revolutionary" because it appears Anna Anderson knew information about the Royal Family which she would not have gained through newspapers/ mag. or casual conversations.  Therefore,  I'm leaning toward Lenin/Stalin.  Which means,  I don't think Anna Anderson  was a woman who jumped into a canal and ended up, just by chance,  in a bed, where for some reason,  someone thought she looked like Anastasia and her story was carried like wild fire to the Romanovs and others.    Too many puzzle  pieces do not fit for the mundane.  More puzzel pieces fit if the picture is that of a conspiracy.

AGRBear



Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: IlyaBorisovich on October 28, 2004, 10:57:40 AM
AGRBear,

Any piece will fit into any puzzle if you use a hammer.  Voltaire said, "Simplify, simplify."  The axion of engineering is K.I.S.S. (Keep It Simple, Stupid).  The more complex a conspiracy, the more chances there are for the whole thing to unravel.  The mundane knows no such annoyances, but stands on its own long after conspiracy theories bog down in their own ludicrocity.  Mudanes of the world, unite!

Ilya
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: AGRBear on October 28, 2004, 11:20:10 AM
So who WAS she?

A   Berliner?

A Polish immigrant?

A Russian immigrant?

I don't think she was:  
(1)Just someone who happen to have  ears are shaped like Anatasia [one of the ways people were indenitifed in those years], (2) who has scars that resembled she'd been injured by bayonets, (3)  who had ____ bunyans,  (4) same color eyes,  (5) same color hair,  (6)  about the right height,  (7) a shape of the face, eyes and chin which were similar,  (8 ) who didn't have any family that came forth and said she belonged to them, (9) who acted more like a GD than a farm girl would have.....

Don't need a hammer to pound these puzzel pieces into place.

I don't understand why so many of you reject the theory of a conspircy?   Just as I don't understand why some of you are worried if  her background was "mundane" or not.  

Let's help Penny Wilson and Greg King  find  the truth of:  WHO WAS SHE.

To me,  this is an exciting journey.  But then,  I always find the discovery of truth exciting.

AGRBear
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: rskkiya on October 28, 2004, 11:22:19 AM
Ilya!

--While in my vanity ( ;)) I dislike the "M" word - clearly such notions make a lot more sense than most popular conspiricies.
  For  the sake of arguement I don't quite understand who AA was if she was not Fransisca  S., but this is still an unusual topic.

Rskkiya
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: IlyaBorisovich on October 28, 2004, 03:47:13 PM
Quote
AGRBear,

Any piece will fit into any puzzle if you use a hammer.  Voltaire said, "Simplify, simplify."  The axion of engineering is K.I.S.S. (Keep It Simple, Stupid).  The more complex a conspiracy, the more chances there are for the whole thing to unravel.  The mundane knows no such annoyances, but stands on its own long after conspiracy theories bog down in their own ludicrocity.  Mudanes of the world, unite!


I forgot to add these words of wisdom:  

"The more pipes they put in, the easier it is to stop up the drain," and,

"Fool me once, shame on you.  Fool me twice, shame on me."

-Chief Engineer Montogomery "Scotty" Scott, USS Enterprise

I will ponder your "imagination flight" and let you know what I uncover.

Ilya
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Dashkova on October 28, 2004, 04:07:41 PM
I still agree with Ilya!  And also Voltaire (whom I adore).

I recently learned very well the truth in the "simplify, simplify" idea.  While working on a major project dealing with the Bayeux Tapestry it was SO easy and **tempting** to go off on ten dozen tangents.  It is COMPLEX, many-tentacled and treacherous, just like the Romanov saga.

If you allow yourself to become entangled you will never find the truth.

If you keep it simple I think you will be surprised at what pops up.
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: IlyaBorisovich on October 28, 2004, 04:30:13 PM
Quote
If not Anastasia or Franziska Schanzkowska, then who was Anna Anderson?  How about this theory? Could Mrs. Unknown [FU] been a very well informed revolutionary who ended up liking the good life and enjoyed the game of being whom her new rich and royal friends wanted her to be, and, too,  she probably believed she should have been born a Grand Duchess, and, in old age,   her mind allowed her to be who she wasn't?


I would assume that if she were a Revolutionary planted by Lenin/Stalin that she most likely would have been liquidated by the KGB the moment she started to enjoy her new life or show any signs of mental instability.  If she were a plant she wouldn't have been allowed to deteriorate like that at the risk of revealing her "secret."  Stalin was much too careful and/or paranoid for that.

Ilya
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: AGRBear on October 29, 2004, 02:14:46 PM
If you'd like to rule out Stalin,  that is fine,  since Lenin was dictator at that time and was probably the one involved if the conspiracy went the distant to Moscow.

AGRBear
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Robert_Hall on October 29, 2004, 03:04:17 PM
Lenin died in 1924. I doubt very much that he spent any time at all concerned about a bunch of silly, politically impotent Romanovs.
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: AGRBear on October 29, 2004, 03:14:50 PM
Not true.

Lenin worried a great deal about the masses and their devotion to the Tsar.

The peasant's devotion went deeply into their religion and the priests were talking as fast as they could about the "evil" of the Bolsheviks who didn't believe in God.

Lenin knew that anytime,  if the right person came along and swooped up Alexei and carried him back to the throne that he could lose his gripe on Russia....

Remember,  the Reds and the Whites were even in their so-called Civil War and it wasn't until 1925 that things finally fell toward the Reds.

It is my opinion,  of course, but I think Lenin had a huge interest in Anna Anderson....  And his part of her story may never be known.

AGRBear
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Annie on October 29, 2004, 03:20:36 PM
I know, I said I'd stay out of this and here I am. I'll try to be as 'civil' as possible. Don't you think if she were the daughter of someone at court she'd have spoken Russian? I don't see why it's a 'simple' or 'mundane' idea to guess she was the daughter of someone at court, it is kind of a stretch to me considering the (lack of) evidence. But by all means keep exploring.
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Robert_Hall on October 29, 2004, 05:01:32 PM
Annie, it could be just as possible that she might have been the daughter of someone who did not speak Russian. It was a pretty international court and family, afetr all. At the same time, spending enough time around Russian speakers, she also could have been familiar with the language, but not secure enough with it to actually speak it ??
Cheers,
Robert
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Annie on October 29, 2004, 05:03:56 PM
Well I won't even speculate since I am more than convinced she was FS so I will duck out of this thread.
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: rskkiya on October 29, 2004, 05:57:24 PM
I think Annie is right about this point-- as far as I can tell Anna was Francesksa...The more ifs we throw into this equation the sillier it seems --- By the way are there any books that the folks here would suggest about the "Identity" issue?

Rskkiya

PS.
Agrbear
Your faith in "the peasant's devotion to the Tsar" seems as sentimental, romantic and unjustifiable as Nicholas' similar notion...Too bad!
R ;)
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Dashkova on October 29, 2004, 06:49:01 PM
Oh God...what fun I've been missing....lol.

PLEASE someone who believes that peasants were in ANY way devoted to the worthless tsar, PLEASE post some quotes from peasants who expressed these views.

Quotes from nobility/aristocracy (unless said individuals were actually *living* among the peasants, and yes there were a few) won't do.
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Dashkova on October 29, 2004, 06:52:51 PM
Well, AGRBear, guess who shares your belief/interest that Lenin set up the AA character?  Someone who is so deluded that he thinks he's the next king of Russia.

Ah, excellent company to be in, indeed.  ;D

Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: rskkiya on October 29, 2004, 06:56:48 PM
Previet Dashkova Dearest!
Do you mean jonC or rodger?
love
Rskkiya
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: AGRBear on October 29, 2004, 07:00:04 PM
Quote
Let's assume -- for the sake of this thread alone -- that Fraulein Unbekannt (FU) was neither Grand Duchess Anastasia (GDA) nor Franziska Schanzkowska (FS).

Who was she?


Please note that Penny Wilson started this thread and is serious about finding the truth.

So, to a few,  let me give a little reminder about the subject:  Who was she?

AGRBear
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: rskkiya on October 29, 2004, 07:04:38 PM
agrebear


I am still looking for any good books on this topic! What do you suggest?

Rskkiya
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: AGRBear on October 29, 2004, 07:13:12 PM
Quote
agrebear
I am still looking for any good books on this topic! What do you suggest?

Rskkiya


This isn't my topic nor do I know of a book on this topic.

AGRBear
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Dashkova on October 29, 2004, 07:27:48 PM
Ok, one point and a suggestion, and gotta go...

1.  Ryskkiya, darling, you might want to check out Peter Kurth's very nice and clever website:  www.peterkurth.com  Scroll down to where you see photos of AA and ANR and there is a link you can click on where Kurth discusses the FS connection to the case.  As always, very well written and eminently readable.

2.  I think that AA was:  a young woman who came from the lower classes but went to work in the house of a *middle* class family (the middle class are always the most pretentious and aspiring to better themselves) where she attained some cultivation and learned and read and heard talk about the tsar and family.  She left that home and position to make her fortune (and overcome perhaps her social status. This was and is done by many young people in many countries) in the city (which one? have no idea, Berlin?) but things did not work out so well.  
Just my most recent theory.
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: rskkiya on November 02, 2004, 01:39:02 PM
Spasibah Dashkova!

r
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 07, 2004, 07:32:31 PM
Quote
PLEASE someone who believes that peasants were in ANY way devoted to the worthless tsar, PLEASE post some quotes from peasants who expressed these views.

Quotes from nobility/aristocracy (unless said individuals were actually *living* among the peasants, and yes there were a few) won't do.


Dashkova,

IMO, many of the peasants and workers who had any faith and loyalty to the Tsar pretty much lost it after the Bloody Sunday of 1905. The Tsar lost many "fans" on that day, even thought technically, it wasn't his doing...
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Robert_Hall on November 07, 2004, 07:52:21 PM
The 100th anniversary of which [Bloody Sunday] will occur either right before or right after my upcoming visit in Jan. 2005 !! [depending on which calendar one uses]
That does not sound "cheery" at all, to say the least !!!
Robert
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 07, 2004, 08:20:12 PM
Quote
Let's assume -- for the sake of this thread alone -- that Fraulein Unbekannt (FU) was neither Grand Duchess Anastasia (GDA) nor Franziska Schanzkowska (FS).

Who was she?

I realize we might not come up with any specific names -- but then again, we might.  It was almost universally recognized by those who met her that FU was "someone."  The Duke of Leuchtenberg did not believe that she was Grand Duchess Anastasia, but he DID believe that she was someone "from my own class."  Do we know of any other young women of royal or highly noble birth who went missing in the Revolutions/Great War?

If we can't come up with any specific and named candidates to actually be FU, what list can we make of known and agreed upon physical and character traits belonging to FU?  Such a list could be useful not only in discussions here, but also for identifying likely candidates if/when they appear.

N.B. If you don't believe that FU was GDA please don't dismiss this question as unimportant.  It could be very important indeed in disproving that FU was GDA.


Hi Penny,

I came across an article that addresses this issue about AA, and the author ferociously argues that she was FS, bringing in all kinds of reasons why he thinks so. I have no way of knowing if the info he provides in this article is factual or exaggerated. I think you probably know more than anyone else here about the subject of AA, so maybe you can respond to this author's comments in this article. I particularly would like you to address the comments I bolded, as these are the questions I have had about this case.
I will try to post the article but probably have to do it in parts because of truncation. So stay tuned.  Thanks in advance!

Helen
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 07, 2004, 08:21:06 PM
Here is the article:

Remembering Anna Anderson
John Godl
No pretender in the modern history of monarchy has created as much controversy as Anna Anderson, born Franziska Schanzkowska in Pomerania in 1896. The unstable 24 year old factory worker abruptly disappeared in 1920. Until pulled from the Landwehr Canal in Berlin shortly afterwards in a failed suicide attempt, and committed to the Dalldorf Asylum she refused to tell authorities her identity until 18 months later when she declared herself the Grand Duchess Anastasia.
The resultant controversy wasn't indisputably resolved until a portion of (the now deceased and cremated) Anna Anderson's preserved intestine was discovered at the Martha Jefferson Hospital in Charlottesville, a pathology specimen from an operation she had undergone in 1979. DNA testing in 1994 proved beyond doubt she wasn't a daughter of Nicholas II. Subsequent comparisons with DNA samples provided by Schanzkowska's great nephew Karl Maucher proved German newspaper reports of the 1920's identifying her as Franziska Schanzkowska had been correct all along.
When Anderson first came to notoriety Germany was racked by political instability, depression and uncertainty. People were anxious to escape the harshness around them and were irresistibly drawn to the tragic romance of a lost princess found, a real life Cinderella story that would enthrall the world.
Newspapers and their readers wanted to believe and allowed themselves to be led by her opportunistic supporters, credulously disregarding inconsistencies in her story and absence of tangible evidence. At the time no one knew for certain what fate had befallen the tsar and his family. Without going into detail the Bolshevik authorities announced they had shot the tsar and moved the family.
Sensational reports of their survival were published around the world, Russia's exile communities were abuzz with rumour for decades. Even after White Russian investigator Nicholas Sokolov officially reported the entire family had been murdered, findings supported by no less an authority than Trotsky himself, many still held out for a miracle.

Grand Duchess Anastasia

Most members of Russia's former ruling class were lucky to escape the Bolsheviks with their lives, few were fortunate to escape into exile with their wealth. In the years following the revolution Europe was
awash with poverty-stricken aristocrats, court officials, tsarist bureaucrats and servants. For many it was a humiliating change of circumstances, some being forced to drive cabs, wash dishes, wait on tables or other menial jobs to survive.
Rumours the tsar had transferred vast amounts of Russian gold out of the country during the revolution to sustain a government in exile, combined with the likelihood the Imperial Family kept personal wealth in foreign bank accounts, attracted the attention and speculation of the impoverished émigré community.
Franziska Schanzkowska (Anna Anderson) was the right person, at the right place, at the right time. When word circulated of an articulate young woman in Berlin claiming to be Anastasia the opportunity was seized by people with differing objectives, financial and political.
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 07, 2004, 08:21:46 PM
Article continued:

The Russian Refugee Office in Berlin, presided over by Serge Botkin, represented the interests of exiles in Germany and came to the aid of Anderson (then calling herself Mrs Tschaikovsky). The organization was basically a monarchist support group and the suicidally depressed woman soon found herself embraced by sympathetic exiles, many sending or bringing her flowers, sweets and letters of encouragement.
As the months passed they won her confidence and when released from the asylum she moved in with the first of a long line of supporters, who fed her information and encouraged her delusions. In time an impressive entourage formed around her, at first credulous exiles seeking a sizeable finders fee from the Dowager Empress before yielding to opportunists with sights set on imperial bank accounts. In the years ahead there were constant power struggles, clashes of egos, firing and rehiring, every dispute among them short of murder.
Few of Anna Anderson's supporters were more cunning, knowledgeable or influential than Gleb Botkin; nephew of Serge Botkin and son of the Imperial Family's personal physician Dr Eugene Botkin who perished with his royal patients in the Ipatiev House in 1918.
Gleb Botkin had an intimate knowledge of palace life, having spent much of his youth near the Imperial Family. As such it's impossible he was deceived by Anderson, he must have known she was a fraud and used her for his own aims. Botkin was one of many sources of obscure information Anderson would recount as "memories" to astound friend and foe alike. Beside abundant Russian émigrés another source were dissolute members of the German aristocracy, most having lost their wealth and power with the fall of the Kaiser.
Like most Russian exiles few expected communism to last, the Kronstadt uprising and growing discontentment with Soviet centralism made it seem a counter revolution was inevitable. When it came, as it surely must, who better to restore the old order then the martyred tsar's only surviving child, and who better to counsel her then those with years of political experience? Even if a counter-revolution failed to eventuate, Anderson being acknowledged by courts as the daughter and heir of Nicholas II would undoubtedly have resulted in her being hailed Russia's Empress in exile, regardless of strict imperial laws of succession.
With legal status and power sufficient for her supporters to raise the necessary funds to establish an Imperial Court and Government in exile, opening a politically disastrous can of worms Hitler almost certainly would have commandeered to divide Russia and intended installing as a subservient replacement to the Soviet Union when conquered.
When Anderson was questioned by Romanoff family representatives on specific events of her alleged youth she would frequently change subjects, attempt to bluff her way through or feign an emotional or physical breakdown to gain sympathy and extricate herself.
The fact she couldn't speak or read Russian, English or French at the time like all the tsar's daughters, was sufficient proof for former court tutor Pierre Gilliard she was an impostor, the fact she was unable to remember defining events of "her" life but could rattle off specific details of family bank accounts (including secret passwords) the real Anastasia would never have been told convinced even the most gullible.
Most "memories" she recited are inadmissible as evidence; the colour of palace rooms or furnishings, inane conversations overheard, family routine and other tidbits of trivia were easily obtained from former courtiers and servants among her entourage of expatriate disciples.
Gleb Botkin was a novelist and illustrator by profession and used his talents to almost triumphant effect, writing numerous articles and a book on the validity of Anderson's claims. He also created the prevailing myth the Grand Duchesses Xenia and Olga (sisters of Nicholas II) tried to bribe Anderson to renounce her claim with the offer of a house anywhere in the world and a generous annuity, an impossibility considering their precarious financial situations.
Neither were of independent means and were forced to live as guests of Crowned Heads in Grace & Favour accommodation, Olga later moved to Canada and died in a small apartment above a barber shop while Xenia lived her life in exile as a guest of the British Crown. Neither had the money or will to reward Anderson for being a nuisance, and were outraged the son of heroic Dr Botkin would defame his father's memory and that of the Imperial Family by inventing outlandish stories and attempting to pass a vile impostor off as their dead niece.
Anderson's supporters were also responsible for her childhood "memory" of Alexandra's brother, the Grand Duke of Hesse, visiting Russia during the First World War. Undoubtedly fiction, the allegation tantamount to treason was revenge for his family's intense criticism and opposition to their activities. It spiced up the story and laid the groundwork for conspiracy theories should their legal bids fail, deflecting attention away from their ridiculous case to sinister forces.
Anna Anderson made a good, if not inconstant, living out of being Anastasia. Her entourage perpetually solicited donations from well-heeled Russian expatriates and others, who gave generously. She toured Europe and America, attended fashion shows, was mobbed by the press and feted as a celebrity wherever she went. Living at other peoples' expense in fashionable hotels, Park Avenue apartments and private estates where she socialized with fashionable notables of the day who flocked to parties to see and be seen with her.
Her image was carefully managed like any celebrity and owes a great deal to the literary efforts of devotee Harriet Von Rathlef, whose 1928 portrait "Anastasia, A Woman's Fate as a Mirror of the World Catastrophe" was serialized in a Berlin newspaper which assisted future 'witness identification' by plastering city billboards with photographs of Anderson to promote the series.
In general, journalists took sides, frequently ignoring opposing perspectives which didn't sell newspapers.
Spawning an industry as books, an Oscar winning movie, plays and songs were produced to cash in on Anderson's fame and legitimize the legend. Which even in her reclusive latter years was sufficiently accepted for the then US citizen to receive an invitation from the White House to attend the inauguration of Richard Nixon, which she declined.
From the outset money was the principal objective, and Gleb Botkin became increasingly obsessed with tracing and claiming tsarist assets.
When paranoid legitimate claimants would beat them he urged legal action be taken to have Anderson recognized Nicholas II's heir.
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 07, 2004, 08:22:42 PM
Article continued:

To fund the extremely expensive treasure hunt their legal advisor Edward Fallows created an investment company called The Grandanor Corporation, investors being promised a relative percentage of any millions she eventually inherited. Fallows himself stood to collect $400.000, then 10% of all other assets inherited for his troubles Squabbling and litigation dragged out over a considerable part of the century, straddled World War II and outlived Botkin and Fallows.
Anderson's legal teams (like their opposition) were articulate and well organized. German Courts heard an almost endless procession of handwriting experts, historians and forensic scientists scrutinizing photographs and documents usually contradicting opposing depositions.
Anderson's team tried to influence courts with hints of conspiracies, dubious evidence and expert testimony, pre-empting the O.J. Simpsonstyle of legal deflection. That it would fail was inevitable, their last major legal defeat was in 1970, 50 years after Schanzkowska became Anastasia. By then most of her original supporters had given up and moved on with their lives, or died of old age waiting for a miracle.
Before she became Anastasia, Franziska Schanzkowska was mentally unstable. Incarcerated in two mental hospitals before disappearing in 1920, tantrums and breakdowns were regular occurrences and her most devoted supporters considered her impossible to live with.
Her psychiatric problems may have been caused or exacerbated by the serious head injuries suffered in 1916 from a hand grenade explosion, scares and injuries supporters attributed to Bolshevik brutality.
During a visit to the United States in 1930 she suffered a breakdown and was certified "dangerous to herself and others" and committed to a mental hospital, not the first or last such incarceration.
During the 1920's she was almost constantly in and out of one German hospital or another, mental or general. We can only speculate whether during any of these frequent spells away from prying eyes if Anderson underwent cosmetic surgery of some sort, to create or enhance features and flaws to match those of the real Anastasia.
Her being a lost Grand Duchess was, not surprisingly, suggested by another mental patient (Clara Peuthert) during her incarceration at the Dalldorf Asylum who suggested she was the Grand Duchess Tatiana. At first she accepted her identity, however the realisation she was considerably shorter was a factor in her switch to Anastasia.
I do not believe it can be discounted that before the pivotal events of her life Franziska Schanzkowska may have been a royal enthusiast, perhaps even aspired to one day move in such glamorous circles. The only surviving photograph of Schanzkowska was taken at the age of 16 and shows an attractive, bright eyed, obviously intelligent young woman not an uncouth peasant. Her childhood friends remembered her as pretentious, putting on airs and graces. She probably taught herself etiquette and deportment, like socially ambitious girls of her class and generation - however fate intervened with Pygmalion scale success.
Like others of her day she may have been an admirer of Nicholas II and his tragic court, enchanted by the majestic opulence of imperial Russiawith all its intrigues and mourned its passing.
While in the Dalldorf Asylum she is known to have read publications containing photographs and articles on Russia's last Imperial Family. According to nurses they included a copy of the 23 October 1921 edition of "Berlin Illustrated" which detailed the Imperial Family's executionand the belief the tsar's youngest daughter (Anastasia) escaped the carnage.
It and similar reports resulted in eight serious Anastasia claimants surfacing around the world, including one in Berlin's Dalldorf Asylum, where Schanzkowska's self destructive mind was rejecting its painfulpast, and embracing the glamorous identity of a lost Grand Duchess.
Pierre Gilliard's denunciation of her being "a cunning psychopath" was, although somewhat cruel, close to the mark.
Although no immediate relation of Nicholas II believed Anderson's claims, the soap opera was for many salt rubbed in an open wound.
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 07, 2004, 08:24:03 PM
Article concluded:

The Dowager Empress lost numerous family members, including her beloved sons and five grandchildren, she bore that pain every day of her life and took it to the grave.
The heartless, vitriolic attacks on the sisters of Nicholas II and Romanoff family in general by Gleb Botkin and accomplices deserves nothing but utter contempt.
Although they tried to attribute sinister or avaricious motives to the Grand Duke of Hesse and Lord Mountbatten pursuing them through the
German Courts their motives were elementary; the upholding of family honour. They could not allow a low impostor to gain legal recognition as their cousin and profit from a family tragedy.
The only positive outcome of the Anna Anderson saga has been the fact it inadvertently kept the memory of Nicholas II and his family in the modern consciousness, which otherwise may not have been the case. Their horrendous murders were a continual reminder and reproach to the brutality of communism, and the fate which befell millions of others in Russia during and after its revolution.
John Godl

Additional Notes.

Not everyone who acknowledged Anderson had a sinister or vested interest, some high profile supporters were simply gullible and accepted information which sounded impressive on the surface - failing to consider alternative origins, as few newspapers scrutinized those manipulating events.
The Imperial Family were so reclusive and isolated from Russian society many of their relatives and senior bureaucrats hardly saw them, seldom if ever spent significant quality time with the children. The positive identification of anyone, especially young adults, after such a passage of time was speculative at best, credulous at worst. Although some prominent German high nobleman acknowledged and assisted Anderson, it should be noted it frequently divided their families passionately, with the views of the head not necessarily representing those of the whole.
Slander Note: In the period following the establishment of the Weimar Republic many "progressive" politicians communists/socialists) spread malicious rumors about their former rulers, although the Kaiser had gone into exile there was still hope of a constitutional restoration among his loyal aristocracy and former subjects.
The prospect was bitterly opposed by republicans who wanted to keep power to themselves, and they initiated a nasty propaganda campaigns to discredit the old order. Blaming past rulers for all the nations ills including wartime defeat, spreading lies about treasonous conduct during hostilities to ruin reputations. Anna Andersons "memory" of the Grand Duke of Hesse and Darmstadt visiting Russia during the war may have been born this way, his being a high nobleman and brother of the late Empress of Russia made him a prime target for such allegations, as did his lobbying for a restoration. There has never been proof; travel documents, photographs or any tangible evidence to support the allegation. The only evidence ever produced were witness testimony solicited by Andersons legal teams, which was rightly dismissed as unsubstantiated hearsay by courts - John Godl


Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Dashkova on November 07, 2004, 10:11:26 PM
Quote

Dashkova,

IMO, many of the peasants and workers who had any faith and loyalty to the Tsar pretty much lost it after the Bloody Sunday of 1905. The Tsar lost many "fans" on that day, even thought technically, it wasn't his doing...

Yes, Bloody Sunday was rather a death knell, but it was more of a finality than a sudden retreat from tsar worship/admiration.
The point I think is important to make is that it's not that the peasants *hated* or *loved* the tsar, they just frankly didn't think about him at all!  It's so easy for people today, living lives of comfort, cozy in armchairs looking at pretty picture books of the romanovs, to say: oh my, how the people must have loved their tsar!

Well, people were too busy trying to keep a roof over their heads, a little bit of food on the table, worried about their future, their kids' health, frankly, a lot of despair.  The tsar and his family were overall irrelevant to the average Russian. I have a couple of family members who were born just after the revolution, but who remember well their parent's thoughts (as well as, in one case, their older spouse) about life and how people regarded the tsar, prior to the revolution.  They're both in their 80s but they still have their minds.  Their first response when I pose the question about love for the tsar is a slightly derisive laugh. Again, it's not that he was either hated or loved, he just...well, he just didn't figure into the average person's life.  These oldsters, after they laugh, go on to say mockingly, things like:  "Oh yes, every day my parents sighed and thought about how wonderful the tsar was."  That he was regarded as some sort of father figure is something both these young-at-heart ladies adamantly deny.
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Annie on November 08, 2004, 05:28:56 AM
Helen Azar, I have posted that article, in link forum, several times. While it makes excellent points which I mostly agree with, the AA supporters dismiss it as 'slanderous' and 'untrue' or simply ignore it. ::)
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: rskkiya on November 08, 2004, 10:07:23 AM
I was unaware of any plastic surgery being preformed on  AA in the 20s in Berlin but I had read that she often pulled at her hair --whether this is due to some attempt to change her appearence or an expression of her unstable mental state is debatable...

rskkiya
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Annie on November 08, 2004, 11:05:46 AM
Quote

This is a completely absurd statement that demonstrates how little Godl apparently knows of the facts surrounding Anna Anderson’s life.  Only after 1967, when she married John Manahan, was Anna Anderson finally financially secure.  


I took that to mean, she survived on it as opposed to working for a living, not that she was wealthy.



Quote
Again, I have posted elsewhere on this board about this issue.  Greg and I were privileged to be able to see and study Franziska Schanzkowska’s complete medical and psychiatric files-only the second people allowed to do so.  They contain contemporaneous reports regarding the 1916 incident, and make very clear that Franziska Schanzkowska suffered no serious wound, head wounds, or scarring from this incident.  Other posters here have speculated-without, of course, being able to offer evidence-that Franziska might have been treated elsewhere, for other injuries.  But the medical and psychiatric file on Franziska is remarkably complete and does not allow for such unsupported speculations.  Nor, as one poster has speculated-again without evidence-could Franziska simply have suffered such traumatic wounds as observed on Anna Anderson during some unexplained convenient interval in 1920, as the scars and wounds recorded on Anna Anderson were all observed and recorded to have been OLD wounds, of several years’ infliction.
[/b]

Since I must the the 'poster' in reference here, I still say, it is not impossible that she was treated elsewhere or recieved injuries that were not documented. As I've said before, a lot was unstable in Germany in those days and was later lost in WWII bombing. I also find it interesting that such a poor woman had such extensive medical records and that they never surfaced until now. Not during all those years of litigation, why? Is it possible someone is pulling your leg, showing you what you want to see? It makes no sense they'd be here now and not then when the trail was warmer and the participants still living ???

Quote
As a final point of importance: Greg and myself have accessed the complete police files on Franziska Schanzkowska, and they show one important fact: Anna Anderson jumped off the Bendler Bridge in Berlin on February 17, 1920, and was accounted for from that day on.  The official missing persons report on Franziska Schanzkowska indicates that she went missing in mid-March of 1920-that was the last time she was seen.  


Yes, it well could be a mistake, or she may not have been reported missing, or was even known to be missing, for weeks after she vanished. She was not around her family, it could have been a month before they went looking for her. Michael Jordan's father was missing for weeks, murdered, and decaying in a pond before his family reported him missing, and that was in 1994, and he was rich. She was poor in 1920 in a war torn nation.

Quote
Godl here engages not only in a fair bit of inference by deception, but also character assassination.  Gleb Botkin’s intimate knowledge of life at court came mainly from his father, but Godl twists this to indicate that because of this, Gleb knew “she was a fraud and used her for his own aims.”  Godl offers no evidence in support of his slanderous accusation, nor is there any-it is simply his opinion that this is what must have happened; he cannot allow that Gleb Botkin, like his sister Tatiana, genuinely believed that Anna Anderson was Anastasia.  This opinion-speculation on Godl’s part unsupported by any evidence whatsoever-is easily dismissed.  Gleb suffered years of financial hardship and ridicule for his support of Anna Anderson.


I have seen accounts of Gleb being close to the children, including the intro to the recent 'Tales for the Tsar's Children' book. He may not have been in close quarters with them in Tobolsk, but he was in the palace, which he described in his own memoirs as 'a glittering fairy land.'

Every time the subject of Gleb feeding her memories comes up, you get very defensive and aggressive, even calling the accusations 'slanderous'- why does this upset you so much? You didn't know him, you don't know for sure, and just because you know his family and they were nice to you doesn't mean he was perfect. There is no way Mr. Godl could be successfully sued in a slander suit because, honestly, there is no proof if what he says is true or not and we will never know because Gleb is deceased. (I also don't believe Father Serafis would have 'slanderous' material on his site) It is my personal opinion that perhaps if it were true that Gleb had a lot to do with the memories (and I do, I know he wasn't the first, but he could have been a big part of it) the entire AA thing suffers, it makes people go 'oh, of course!' and maybe you don't want them to do that because you want to prove she is AA so that's why you get so upset? Just an idea, not accusing you for sure, I can't read your mind!

While Godl may have no proof and should have put a disclaimer on his accusations such as 'maybe' or 'it's possible' or 'I think', it is likely that he is right. I know when I first thought of this after seeing the DNA results, years before seeing Godl's article on that website, I called my brother and we were discussing it and we felt so lame we hadn't put this piece of the puzzle in sooner. It makes so much sense and explains away so much. While it is true that Gleb did not profit much from AA, I don't think there is much question he certainly tried to as a journalist, it just didn't work out the way he wanted.


Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Michelle on November 08, 2004, 12:16:52 PM
Annie, your response shows evidence of anti-AA fanaticism as you ignore basically everything that Penny posted and dismiss her as having some sort of agenda.  Clearly, even though you deny it, YOU are the one seriously offended when anyone brings up AA being AN.  You even dismiss Godl's slander as not being there.  Don't you understand what slander is, anyway?  Annie, you let your blind ideology and ignorance get in the way of the facts.
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Annie on November 08, 2004, 12:45:24 PM
Michelle, you only don't want to hear what I say because it disagrees with what you want to believe. I have been reading up on AA and the IF since way before you were born, you don't know what you are talking about concerning me and what I think.

The real reason I am always fighting the AA stuff is because, Michelle, I hate to see dreamy eyed kids like you get your hopes up and get taken for fools.
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Annie on November 08, 2004, 12:59:06 PM
Another thing about this 'slanderous' site

http://www.serfes.org/royal/annaanderson.htm

It's a religious site, written mostly by Holy men and Orthodox priests who believe Anastasia to be a Holy Martyr and see all the pretender stories as disrespectful to her. It's their religious beliefs, they are not bad guys!
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 08, 2004, 03:55:11 PM
Annie, I didn't realize that you already posted this article,  I'm sorry, my bad - I should pay more attention. Nevertheless, I did have some specific questions I wanted answered, and I didn't really know where to find the answers, and this was the intent to begin with.

Penny, thanks for responding to these issues. I had some doubts about some of the comments made in this article, others sounded like pure speculation, yet others sounded accurate, so I felt it is only fair to hear the other side of the story.

Helen
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 08, 2004, 04:17:37 PM
Quote
Another thing about this 'slanderous' site

http://www.serfes.org/royal/annaanderson.htm

It's a religious site, written mostly by Holy men and Orthodox priests who believe Anastasia to be a Holy Martyr and see all the pretender stories as disrespectful to her. It's their religious beliefs, they are not bad guys!


In that case, I think this article could be biased. This, t me is along the same lines as the Russian Commission Abroad hiring scientists to re-investigate the Ekaterinburg remains, so that they could come up with the answers they are looking for.

I don't buy too much into the type of evidence this article talks about anyway, it is too subjective in my opinion. What it should ultimately come down to is objective evidence only - DNA evidence, as that provides a much more powerful "proof" than the shape of ears or feet or face, or handwriting, or ability to answer questions correctly or speaking languages, or anything like that. I have not seen any reason to doubt the DNA evidence so far, so I have to accept it as a definitive answer until, if ever, it proves to be false .
But this fact still doesn't give people the right to use false information to prove their point or to "stretch the truth" to make their case sound more convincing.

Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Annie on November 08, 2004, 04:25:20 PM
Helen- that's okay, it needed more attention anyway!

I think the only thing Mr. Godl did wrong was not use disclaimers such as 'it is possible' or 'imo' instead of making definite statements as fact. Since Gleb is no longer with us, we will never know what he really thought inside, and it's not right to speculate that he did or did not believe her because we don't really know.
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 08, 2004, 04:28:35 PM
Well, we cannot completely discount the possibilty at least, that Gleb Botkin, for whatever reason, may have had some ulterior motives and did in fact pass information to AA. Nobody really knows as we weren't there, and stranger things have happened: one thing I learned is that when you are dealing with human beings, anything is possible! This could explain a lot, but this is something that we will never know one way or another, no matter what we do or how much we investigate.
This is why I stated earlier that the only evidence that I can accept about this case is the DNA evidence, evidence that I know to be completely objective and conclusive, - unless it is proven to be false...

Helen
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 08, 2004, 05:22:05 PM
Penny, I noticed you didn't address one of the most interesting issues, the one about Grand Duke Ernest (unless I missed it in your responses?). I am really curious about this matter, did they find out one way or another if this was true? If this was shown to be true, it would be very compelling evidence in favor of AA, if false - then against her.

Anderson's supporters were also responsible for her childhood "memory" of Alexandra's brother, the Grand Duke of Hesse, visiting Russia during the First World War. Undoubtedly fiction, the allegation tantamount to treason was revenge for his family's intense criticism and opposition to their activities.

Thanks again.

Helen
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 08, 2004, 05:37:54 PM
Michelle,

We all need to be able to evaluate arguments and counter-argumets from both sides in order to make an informed decision one way or another. This has nothing to do with fanaticism or ignorance on either side - they are just defending their own arguments and challenging the opposing ones. So once again, please don't take it as a personal attack. This is what this discussion site is all about.

Quote
Annie, your response shows evidence of anti-AA fanaticism as you ignore basically everything that Penny posted and dismiss her as having some sort of agenda.  Clearly, even though you deny it, YOU are the one seriously offended when anyone brings up AA being AN.  You even dismiss Godl's slander as not being there.  Don't you understand what slander is, anyway?  Annie, you let your blind ideology and ignorance get in the way of the facts.

Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Greg_King on November 08, 2004, 06:57:47 PM
Quote
Penny, I noticed you didn't address one of the most interesting issues, the one about Grand Duke Ernest (unless I missed it in your responses?). I am really curious about this matter, did they find out one way or another if this was true? If this was shown to be true, it would be very compelling evidence in favor of AA, if false - then against her.

Anderson's supporters were also responsible for her childhood "memory" of Alexandra's brother, the Grand Duke of Hesse, visiting Russia during the First World War. Undoubtedly fiction, the allegation tantamount to treason was revenge for his family's intense criticism and opposition to their activities.

Thanks again.

Helen


Hi Helen-

I think Penny did cover this-see her responses above.  As she says, we're still engaged in research on the biography of Ernie, and so we cannot comment much further than what she says, but there is quite a bit of evidence independent from those around AA that supports the idea of the trip.  But my point-which gets lost-is that this doesn't really matter in the AA case-we're looking at it only as a part of the Ernie book-and whether it's true or false ultimately, you have to be able to separate it from the AA claim.  My own personal opinion is that even if we had absolute proof that the visit took place, it wouldn't necessarily bolster the AA case, because obviously a number of people knew and spoke about it later on.  It does indicate that, if true, that AA was privy to some very high-level information-but doesn't really prove or disprove anything.  I'd be happier if the subject of the trip, as a question of historical interest, could be severed from that of the AA case.

Greg King
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Annie on November 08, 2004, 07:06:21 PM
Quote
Michelle,

We all need to be able to evaluate arguments and counter-argumets from both sides in order to make an informed decision one way or another. This has nothing to do with fanaticism or ignorance on either side - they are just defending their own arguments and challenging the opposing ones. So once again, please don't take it as a personal attack. This is what this discussion site is all about.



Very true!

Quote
Originally posted by Michelle

  Don't you understand what slander is, anyway?  Annie, you let your blind ideology and ignorance get in the way of the facts.


Yes, I do, and I know that it has to be proven, and there is no way to prove what he said about Gleb is false. You also can't prove it's true. It's all speculation. And, btw, it's technically 'libel', not slander. Libel is written false damaging allegations, slander is when it's spoken out loud. So yes, I do know what slander is, and that's 2 reasons why Mr. Godl's work is not.;)
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 08, 2004, 08:01:03 PM
Quote

Hi Helen-

I think Penny did cover this-see her responses above.  As she says, we're still engaged in research on the biography of Ernie, and so we cannot comment much further than what she says, but there is quite a bit of evidence independent from those around AA that supports the idea of the trip.  But my point-which gets lost-is that this doesn't really matter in the AA case-we're looking at it only as a part of the Ernie book-and whether it's true or false ultimately, you have to be able to separate it from the AA claim.  My own personal opinion is that even if we had absolute proof that the visit took place, it wouldn't necessarily bolster the AA case, because obviously a number of people knew and spoke about it later on.  It does indicate that, if true, that AA was privy to some very high-level information-but doesn't really prove or disprove anything.  I'd be happier if the subject of the trip, as a question of historical interest, could be severed from that of the AA case.

Greg King


Thanks, Greg. I must have missed it in Penny's post. Yes, that's a very good point, if others knew about this "Ernie trip" then it is meaningless for the AA case, as it can be said that someone told her. I just wasn't really sure what the story was about this issue and was curious.
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Greg_King on November 09, 2004, 04:30:05 AM
Quote
On a very different note...
Greg and Penny,
This question is being asked alot in private emails, and so far I've not seen it posted. So, I'll be the one to ask it ( sigh ) ...
While we all eagerly await your books on Grand Duke Ernest and the Romanov pretenders, and most of us will keep an open mind and will probably devour them in one sitting (any estimated idea as to when the books might be published?) a question is being tossed around...
As you are both researching and seeing the exact same material, what is causing you to have a difference of opinion on the AA case? As Annie phrased it in an earlier post... Penny you have "stated your believe" in the AA/AN identity, but Greg has not stated an opinion either way. (As far as I know)
Why?
Jeremy


Jeremy-

I'm not quite sure why anyone would care what my opinion is on the issue one way or the other, nor can I really see what it has to do with anything.  In these various threads, I have tried only to correct mis-statements, opinion masquerading as fact, and factual errors as related to the issue of AA.  That said, I am not sure what difference of opinion you refer to.  But, for the record, my position is this: As I have posted elsewhere here, two-thirds of the DNA case against AA being Anastasia has now been shown to be either unreliable or less than compelling.  One plank remains-the mtDNA exclusion between the putative AA sample and the putative mtDNA Hessian profile.  As long as this remains unchallenged, history's verdict is that AA was not Anastasia, and I accept that verdict.  But I also try to keep an open mind, especially important in this case.  With the STR testing on the putative AA sample shown to be unreliable, and the fact that mtDNA is much less exclusive than believed 10 years ago, I would not be willing to bet my life that another 10-20 years of similar changes and advances in the still evolving science of DNA may not likewise bring serious challenges to this.  Simple logic dictates that if, in 10 years, the science has evolved to the point of discarding one third of the DNA case against AA, and to understanding that another third is less exclusive than was believed, it would probably be unwise to believe that nothing else involved in the process may change.  This latter point is perhaps best expressed by using the original 1994 FSS calculations of probability that AA was FS: 300 to 1 (i.e., the odds of a random match between the putative AA mtDNA profile and the Karl Maucher mtDNA profile was 1 person in 300).  After ten years of evolution in the science, and the increase in databases, however, we know now that that figure would actually be 100 to 4-much wider odds-as mtDNA is known to be far less exclusive than believed 10 years ago.  This is the gist of what Helen posted in another thread about mtDNA's inability to positively identify anyone.

That is not to say, again, that I do not accept the Hessian mtDNA exclusion, nor do I believe in or promote any conspiracy theory.  In this case, I just believe it is best to be cautious; history teaches that answers unravel slowly, and what may be believed to be the truth for decades can later be shown up as false (a perfect example is the belief, for 70 years, that the bodies of the Imperial Family were chopped up and dissolved in acid and that nothing remained to be found.  This was gospel, and yet we now know it to have been an erroneous assumption).  I'm far less interested in the whole "Was AA Anastasia" question than I am in exploring the life of Franziska Schanzkowska; all of the research Penny and myself, as well as several others, have undertaken in this arena have revealed such a wealth of information and contradictions that I can say my position is that AA was almost certainly not FS.  And it is this question-who was AA really-that I think is far more interesting than simply re-hashing the AA/Anastasia case.

Greg King
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: IlyaBorisovich on November 09, 2004, 10:59:17 AM
I agree with Greg on this.  I'm convinced that AA was not Anastasia.  I once believed the AA/FS case was open and shut, but after everything I've learned from these boards, I'm convinced that AA wasn't FS either.  Even someone who's been studying the Romanovs for a quarter-century or so should have an open enough mind to drop a gospel theory if additional evidence mandates it.

Ilya
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Annie on November 09, 2004, 11:47:15 AM
The evidence DOES show me that AA was most likely FS.
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: AGRBear on November 09, 2004, 12:16:56 PM
Since Grossmann had been working Berlin for who knows how long, maybe,  it was possible that AA may have, also, been a victim but one who had gotten away....

Physical wounds healed but not the mental wounds due to  such a trauma....  

If AA  had been a victim of Grossmann, and, had suffered wounds before escape,  they would have been similar to those if one had been a victim of a bayonet thrust as the Gr. Duchesses in the Impatieve House.  Also, the horror of having been an intended victim,  may have caused her mental stress.....

Down to her last coin, no where to go, hungery......  she  jumped into the canal and end it all only to be saved....  She ended up in the asylum.....

Berlin was full of emigrates from Russia..... I forget the total but it was huge......

Not all Russian emigrates spoke Russian.

Majority of German-Russian emigrantes spoke German which was  sprinkled with Russian words....  Polish-Russians spoke Polish which was sprinkled with Russian words..... etc.

Not all the emigrants were wretched and penniless beggars....

And, if AA had not been victim to Grossmann, perhaps, AA had been a victim of a Bolshevik in Russia who had been intent on killing her just as the guards had been intent on killing Anastasia in the Ipatiev House that night....  Or a victim of a German soldier who had hated Russians.... ???  
 
AGRBear
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Annie on November 09, 2004, 05:06:53 PM
Quote
Since Grossmann had been working Berlin for who knows how long, maybe,  it was possible that AA may have, also, been a victim but one who had gotten away....

Physical wounds healed but not the mental wounds due to  such a trauma....  

If AA  had been a victim of Grossmann, and, had suffered wounds before escape,  they would have been similar to those if one had been a victim of a bayonet thrust as the Gr. Duchesses in the Impatieve House.  Also, the horror of having been an intended victim,  may have caused her mental stress.....

 
AGRBear


That is an interesting theory, if she had been a victim of the killer and escaped, that would leave her injured and traumatized for sure.
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?  
Post by: Greg_King on November 09, 2004, 09:34:00 PM
No problem, Jeremy.  I don't mind answering questions, although I don't honestly know why what I personally believe should have any relevance on the issue.  But people do have a tendency to want to "peg" you and your views.  As I said, I try only to post actual facts, or correct mistakes, because I don't honestly care if anyone survived or not-for me it is purely a historical question, but one that, along with the entire phenomenon of claimants, I believe deserves to be examined carefully.  Penny and myself have poured many years and thousands of dollars into this research in particular, and of course far more over the course of other research, and it does get a bit frustrating at times to try to correct opinion masquerading as fact only to have the point completely ignored because someone "feels" something different.  That's why I am careful to always differentiate between something factual and something speculative-in the latter case I think it's fine to postulate theories.  But so much of what is involved in the discussion of AA/FS rests not on accurate history but on personal belief, opinion, and outright inaccuracy.  And while I don't care if anyone survived, I do care about attempting to be historically accurate with the facts, especially because, as you say, others who may be new to the story or not as knowledgable, should at least get facts and not merely opinion.

Greg King
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: AGRBear on November 10, 2004, 02:21:38 PM
A long time ago,  I learned while reading history,  history books held a very glaring unspoken fact.  One could tell a lot about the author of the history book by the facts stated within the book.  It become quite obvious, to me,  within the first few pages that a person learns a great deal more about the author than the subject of the book.   In fact,  I became so good at it, that I was beginning to tell the author's parentage and where they were raised.

This isn't a fact as true today due to the computer age and the internet.  

For example,  if I turned on FOX news here in the states,  I knew I could hear the Republican side of a story.  CNN was Kerry's....  Same truth for books.  

No matter how hard a person tries to keep his/her views out of their facts,  it just creeps into their book/books/articles/etc..

It is obvious that Kurth, Penny Wilson and others think it is posible that Ana Anderson was Anastasia.  

Penny Wilson wrote:
<< Did she supposedly suddenly teach herself the intricacies of aristocratic life and behavior while a patient at Dalldorf Asylum, cramming at night beneath the sheets....
Penny Wilson>>

Greg King voiced his opinon:
<< .... I do care about attempting to be historically accurate with the facts, especially because, as you say, others who may be new to the story or not as knowledgable, should at least get facts and not merely opinion.
 
Greg King >>  

This makes these two, King and Wilson, a good match, as they do their research and compare notes before they write their books....

It is obvious that others think the DNA testing will be the 99.9% answer that Ana Anderson was not Anastasia.

Me,  I'm still on the fence.  There is still too many questions that haven't been answered, as far as I'm concern.

I am glad that everyone has settled down and has made this thread into a very interesting conversation/debate.

Thanks.

AGRBear  

Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: KayTanaka on November 11, 2004, 03:34:17 PM
Dear Greg,

Facts are facts but, as I believe you are aware, sometimes things change. As I have said before on this website, I feel that the heart never lies. Sometimes I feel that facts are overrated and can become outdated somewhat like Newtonian Physics moving toward a more Quantum overview. Although it goes against my nature, I attempted for many years to live in the fact world so that I might be more socially and academically acceptable. However, when I relinquished that path for another and began following my heart, I found that a much more rewarding life ensued. To me the heart is like a hound with a scent.

In his recent bid for the Presidency, John Kerry put it to the American people in a different way by asking them to "check their gut"---a challenge which I think many voters found a quite frightening request.

So I just wanted to share with you how disturbing I found the statements in your recent post where you said not one time--but two--that you did not care whether anyone had survived. And that I think these young people who are messaging Jeremy might really be interested, as I am, in what drives your work.

One of my favorite expressions of what I am trying to say is from Albert Einstein, "The most beautiful and most profound emotion we can experience is the sensation of the mystical. It is the source of all true science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead. To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty which our full faculties can comprehend only in their most primitive forms--this is knowledge."

All Best, Kay.
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: rskkiya on November 11, 2004, 04:40:16 PM
Kay ?


   Your remarks about knowledge and wisdom/i] are charming and thought provoking...However, they are not really the safest basis on which to base a practical historical perspective...
   The Heart is a muscle that must grow and develope, or atrophy and  die --- it is not the best source of highly trustworthy scientific information, as it is constantly changing.

   Nevertheless, it is nice to have the voices of "mystics" here too.


rskkiya
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: KayTanaka on November 11, 2004, 04:47:47 PM
Hi Jeremy,

I am sorry about the situation with your young people not wanting to take a chance about posting on this website. Having said it quite a few times already, I will say it again-- that it's very unfortunate when some mistake sarcasm for wit or just go directly for the jugular. Many members, both oldies and newbies, have messaged me about this problem, saying how unpleasant it is for them. Some relate that they have lost heart, preferring not to participate at all. One person said it made them (physically) ill. I sometimes wonder if people would be acting this way if they were using their own names rather than the ones they have chosen to represent themselves. Perhaps your young people could come in incognito, using a name other than their own? That way it might not hurt so much if they do take a hit or, God forbid, their head falls off the block.

All Best, Kay.
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: rskkiya on November 11, 2004, 05:00:52 PM
    Well this is  only a web site --- not life or death!

   Some of the complains that I hear -- and they are  always third hand it seems (y'know -- "ABC!@#" senior member spoke to new visitor "7b7b7b" who got upset... but was afraid to say anything...) and they almost always appear to make a bit too much of the issue.
   Most young people who visit here are a great deal tougher and more savvy than we old fogies think!

   Nevertheless if we can all be civil - and that means all the sensive teens, tweens and kids as well as the seniors and the 30 somethings... we will all be fine!

rskkiya
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: KayTanaka on November 11, 2004, 05:12:54 PM
Hi Rskkiya,

It was Einstein talking about knowledge and wisdom. I was more or less bringing up the difference in thinking i. e., the Newtonian versus Quantum, or rather Quantum encompassing Newtonian. Or is it the other way around? Lots of leeway there.

Thank you for okaying Mystics on the website and I'd better get back on topic!

All Best, Kay.
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Evanescence on November 26, 2004, 08:10:21 PM
Quote
I know, I said I'd stay out of this and here I am. I'll try to be as 'civil' as possible. Don't you think if she were the daughter of someone at court she'd have spoken Russian? I don't see why it's a 'simple' or 'mundane' idea to guess she was the daughter of someone at court, it is kind of a stretch to me considering the (lack of) evidence. But by all means keep exploring.


Hey Annie,

Anna did speak Russian. A Russian nurse at the Dalldorf asylum (before Anna claimed to be Anastasia) said that Anna spoke good Russian with her. MANY others reported that she spoke Russian like a native. Many of these people were also enemies of Anna.

                                                         -Sarah
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Denise on November 26, 2004, 08:26:47 PM
Quote

Hey Annie,

Anna did speak Russian. A Russian nurse at the Dalldorf asylum (before Anna claimed to be Anastasia) said that Anna spoke good Russian with her. MANY others reported that she spoke Russian like a native. Many of these people were also enemies of Anna.

                                                          -Sarah


Sarah, do you have further info on this, names of people who heard AA and when that you could post on the "AA description of evidence" thread?  That is the kind of thing we are trying to get sources on.  Thanks!
D
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Abby on November 26, 2004, 11:07:54 PM
I read in both Peter Kurth's book and James Blair Lovell's book that she spoke Russian in her sleep and she could understand it when spoken to her but she didn't speak Russian consciously.
When you say that you would like sources, do you mean like exact page numbers and paragraphs? I don't have my books on me 'cuz I'm at college. I'm not making it up though  ;) And I read that she said the name of a mushroom in Russian, and it was a difficult word to pronounce.
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Denise on November 27, 2004, 06:09:07 AM
Quote
I read in both Peter Kurth's book and James Blair Lovell's book that she spoke Russian in her sleep and she could understand it when spoken to her but she didn't speak Russian consciously.
When you say that you would like sources, do you mean like exact page numbers and paragraphs? I don't have my books on me 'cuz I'm at college. I'm not making it up though  ;) And I read that she said the name of a mushroom in Russian, and it was a difficult word to pronounce.


Thanks Abby!!Oh no, if you don't have page #s that's OK.  More along the lines of figuring out what year she was heard and who heard her doing it. Just so we can track her claims....

Denise
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Annie on November 27, 2004, 07:58:53 AM
The 'spoke Russian in her sleep' thing is one of the language things I disregard because it has no real basis other than hearsay. Who said this, and when, and did they even know Russian? If it was the woman at the asylum she could have easily mistaken it for Polish. All of the language things on BOTH sides of the argument, including the one where someone claimed she broke out singing in Polish when she got old, are all really unofficial and unproven handed down hearsay so I do not consider them real evidence.
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 27, 2004, 08:16:56 AM
Quote
I read in both Peter Kurth's book and James Blair Lovell's book that she spoke Russian in her sleep and she could understand it when spoken to her but she didn't speak Russian consciously.
When you say that you would like sources, do you mean like exact page numbers and paragraphs? I don't have my books on me 'cuz I'm at college. I'm not making it up though  ;) And I read that she said the name of a mushroom in Russian, and it was a difficult word to pronounce.


Abby, I don't know one way or another about AA's language skills, but Lovell's book has been later shown to have many mistakes and inconsistencies and therefore whatever it tells us, it should probably be taken with a grain of salt. I am not really sure what being able to say the name of a mushroom proves, nothing really if you think about it.
What I do know is that many many Poles speak, and especially understand, Russian. Also, it is a lot easier to understand a language than to speak it (I am speaking from experience here  ;)). This by itself doesn't really mean anything, but it may explain some things. There is really no way for us to know for sure right now.
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Elisabeth on November 27, 2004, 08:30:55 AM
With all apologies to Lovell, "mushroom" in Russian is not a difficult word to pronounce. I don't know where he got that idea... it's a one-syllable word! Given the hundreds of Russian words that are polysyllabic and prefixed and almost impossible for the Westerner to get her tongue around -! Plus, I don't know, but I wouldn't be surprised if "mushroom" was much the same word in Polish as it is in Russian.

I gave up on Lovell's book when I flipped through it and saw in the photograph section that he had captioned a picture of Maria as "Anastasia."   :(
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 27, 2004, 09:07:33 AM
Quote
With all apologies to Lovell, "mushroom" in Russian is not a difficult word to pronounce. I don't know where he got that idea... it's a one-syllable word! Given the hundreds of Russian words that are polysyllabic and prefixed and almost impossible for the Westerner to get her tongue around -! Plus, I don't know, but I wouldn't be surprised if "mushroom" was much the same word in Polish as it is in Russian.

 


I think, and I may be wrong, that Abby meant it was a term that referred to a particular species of mushrooms and not just the word "mushroom", right? This is what I understood it as. If it was just the word "mushroom" than yes, it is an extremely easy word to pronounce for anyone in Russian.
But you are right, there are many words that are similar in Polish and in Russian.
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Abby on November 27, 2004, 01:55:24 PM
Oh, hmmm that's a good point, Helen! I forget what the word was -- it started with an 'r' . I don;t have my book here to look. It was referring to a certain kind of mushroom, I think. Oh, I guess I should find the exact reference before I keep on rambling!

It is true that perhaps the words were very similar in Russian and Polish. Maybe some nurses thought she was speaking Russian when it was really broken Polish.
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 27, 2004, 02:07:43 PM
Quote
Oh, hmmm that's a good point, Helen! I forget what the word was -- it started with an 'r' . I don;t have my book here to look. It was referring to a certain kind of mushroom, I think. Oh, I guess I should find the exact reference before I keep on rambling!

It is true that perhaps the words were very similar in Russian and Polish. Maybe some nurses thought she was speaking Russian when it was really broken Polish.

Abby, it would be interesting to find out what this "mushroom" word was, that it was cited as evidence in favor of AA being AN!  Did you say this was in the Kurth book or the Lovell? I have the Kurth book, if you can tell me where approximately you think this passage may be, I can try to find it (if this is the book you saw it in).

Polish people are often mistaken for Russian. For someone who is of neither heritage, it is hard to tell the difference because the accents are very similar, unless they are really in tune with subtle accents. If the nurses were German, they probably would have made that mistake. Sometimes even Russians and Poles make this mistake. So this is not something I would take as evidence.  
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Annie on November 27, 2004, 06:59:02 PM
Quote
Dear Greg,


In his recent bid for the Presidency, John Kerry put it to the American people in a different way by asking them to "check their gut"---a challenge which I think many voters found a quite frightening request.



All Best, Kay.


Or it could be that they DID check their gut, but what they found there was not what Kerry was hoping for;)
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Annie on November 27, 2004, 07:02:33 PM
Quote
It is true that perhaps the words were very similar in Russian and Polish. Maybe some nurses thought she was speaking Russian when it was really broken Polish.



That's what I thought too, and posted somewhere in all this. I doubt the 'spoke Russian in her sleep'  stuff because we don't have any accurately documented accounts of this, it's all he said she said. If it were only the nurses at the asylum, it is likely they were Germans with limited knowledge of Russian and Polish and mistook one for the other.
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Michelle on November 27, 2004, 07:36:07 PM
In Kurth's book, the nurse who said that AA spoke Russian in her sleep was actually a Russian nurse herself, and noted that AA's language was unmistakeably Russian.
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 27, 2004, 07:38:24 PM
Michelle,

What was the nurse's name, does he say?
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Michelle on November 27, 2004, 08:16:31 PM
Helen

I don't own the book.  Hopefully I will get it for Christmas, as I need it for situations like this.  But I know I read it in there.  I'd give you the specifics if I had them on hand.
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 27, 2004, 08:21:16 PM
Quote
Helen

I don't own the book.  Hopefully I will get it for Christmas, as I need it for situations like this.  But I know I read it in there.  I'd give you the specifics if I had them on hand.


Michelle, I have the book, and I was just looking at it trying to find that passage, but I can't find it. The only thing I found is something that says she was overheard conversing with the nurses in Russian, but it wasn't in her sleep.... it all sounds very ambiguous... But maybe I just can't find the exact paragraph.
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Michelle on November 27, 2004, 08:24:34 PM
Hmmmm.  I'm 99% positive I read it in there.  It'd be easier if I owned the book now.  I just know it's in there.
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 27, 2004, 08:32:22 PM
It's ok, you can just let us know after Christmas  ;)
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: rskkiya on November 27, 2004, 10:05:11 PM
    I thought that the quote was from Kurths book :-/--- and that the "nurse" was German, but had lived in Russia for a few years and knew passible Russian...
   I do not have the book in front of me so I may well be wrong...The comment came (I believe) from one of her many early health related problems...

rskkiya
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 27, 2004, 10:15:01 PM
Quote
   I thought that the quote was from Kurths book :-/
rskkiya


Yes, Michelle said it was from the Kurth book... I didn't  find the quote, yet.
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: daveK on December 30, 2004, 04:52:58 PM
Anna Anderson’s DNA and population genetics

In 1995, British forensic scientist Peter Gill published an article in a journal Nature Genetics that claimed that DNA from Anna Anderson (AA) did not match that of Romanov, but matched a great nephew of a polish worker Franziska Schanzkowska (FS).  Peter Gill, an internationally renowned forensic expert who pioneered both mtDNA- and STR-based DNA profiling technologies, concluded that the random chance for matching two is less than 1/300.

However, this physical evidence did not convince all.  The study has aroused strong opposition from pro-AA believers, a small but passionate group who supports the view of an influential author Peter Kurth (*1). The AA proponents are endlessly creative, generating a new theory which challenges the validity of the DNA result every year. By no means should I expect the defender of AA to show uncritical acceptance of the scientific study. However, all criticisms from pro-AA so far are rife with factual errors and fallacious argument often with the deceptive rhetoric device of pseudoscience.  

The purpose of this post is to offer scientific clarification to this issue by using the recent population genetics data obtained during past ten years, many of which were not available in 1995. For example, seven main phylogenetic lineages of mtDNA among European caucasian were not clearly identified in 1995. I will concern five questions:

1) Who is AA?
2) Is it true that AA’s mtDNA is actually much more prevalent than 1/300?
3) Because of the rapid evolution of forensic technology, will the “old” method Peter Gill used become invalid in the future?
4) Was DNA possiblily contaminated?
5) and Why all these reasoning never convince pro-AA believers.


Before tackling the serious issues, I will try to answer one pseudo-question
Q1) “Who is AA? Is AA possibly a distant relative of Tsar?”,
Because this question help us to understand how the population genetics work.  

Unlike the fingerprint, DNA contains “memory” of your genealogy information. Just like a name “Jacqueline Lee Bouvier Kennedy Onassis” can tell you her family history, the profile of mtDNA can tell you information of your ancestor, to a certain degree. Let’s use my own mtDNA as an example (you can get your own for $200). Mine has a G mutation at the site 16162 (i.e. 16162G). Table 1 shows that I belong to Helena clan (*2). I am a descendant of Helena, a Caucasian woman existed in Euproe 20,000 years ago, and her other descendant include Queen Victoria, Tsarina Alexandra, and Marie Antoinette.  

TABLE 1------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seven European mtDNA Haplogroups (or clan)









Haplogroup: Clan         mutation in HVI           population (%)
H: Helena (no change) 46%
U: Ursula   16270 21%
J: Jasmine 16069+16126 9%
T: Tara 16126+16294 9%
K: Katrine 16224+16311 6%
V: Velda 16298 4%
X: Xenia 16223 1%

(*Note) Douglas Wallace assigned seven letters to seven haplogroup, but an entrepreneur Bryan Sykes begun to use more familiar term “seven daughters (clan) of mitochondria Eve”. I try to use daughters’ names for non-scientists to understand them easily.

TABLE 2------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MtDNA haplotype of Romanov family and others

SampleHVI SeqHaplogroup: Clan mother













Cambridge Reference Seq HVI*CTGCCCCCACCTTCTH: Helena
Anna Anderson +C++++T++T+C+++T: Tara
G nephew of FS +C++++T++T+C+++T: Tara
Tsar Nicholas II +C+Y+++++TT++++T: Tara
Servant 1 +++++++++++C+++H: Helena
Servant 2 ++++++++++++C++H: Helena
Servant 3   ++++T++TG+++C++H: Helena
Dr Botkin (putative) +++++T+++++++++H: Helena
Romanov Daughter 1 T+++++++++++++CH: Helena
Tsarina Alexandra T+++++++++++++CH: Helena
Prince Philip T+++++++++++++CH: Helena
Marie Antoinette T+++++++++++++CH: Helena


(*15 positions in HVI are shown: 16111, 126, 129, 169, 261, 264, 266, 278, 293, 294, 296, 304, 311, 327, 357)
(“+” indicates no difference from Cambridge Reference)
AA’s mtDNA is 16126C, 16266T, 16294T, 16304C
Tsar’s mtDNA is 16126 C, 16169Y, 16294T, 16296T
(Note: * By the way, the fact all mtDNA from Gill’s study in 1994 matches with the Seven Daughers profile is important. Because if Gill’s group had “faked” the result it should show some inconsistency, because there was no way to predict “correct” Caucasian mtDNA type.)

TABLE 3------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
STR loci, Tsar’s genotype, Anna Anderson’s genotype
VWA--------- (15, 16)  (14, 16)
TH01--------- (7, 9.3b)  (7, 9.3)(*3)
F13A1-------- (7, 7)  (3.2, 7)
FES/FPS----- (12,12)  (11, 12)
ACTBP2----- (11, 32)  (15, 18 )

Let’s take a look at Romanov family’s mtDNA (Table2). Obvisouly Anna Anderson is not Tsarina’s daughter, but her mtDNA is similar to Tsar. Two out of four mutations are at exactly same position. Not only this, if you look at table 3, she shares four out five STR mutation with Tsar. Does it mean that Anna Anderson is a distant relative of Tsar? Some witness claimed striking similarity of almost mystic “atmosphere” of Anna Anderson to Anastasia. What if they are second cousin or something?

Thanks to data that was collected for past ten years, we can answer this question.   Both Tsar and Anna Anderson has a same ancestor Tara, who was one of seven daughters of Eve, who existed about 36,000 years ago. From this starting point, any mutations could occur in a stochastic fashion. If four new mutations which were not found in Tara occurred very very recently, Tsar and AA could be a relative each other. Is that so?

Unfortunately, genetic evidence doesn’t say so. All the data shows that these four mutations happened  long time ago, at least 10,000-30,000 years ago. This can be determined by the chronological order of mutation event. By drawing phylogenetic tree, the order of mutation in AA’s mtDNA was detemined and it’s 16126>16294>16304>16266. One Russian population study found that there is a few descendant clan of AA’s clan whose mtDNA is 16111, 16126, 16294, 16304, 16311, 16327,16266, i.e., 3 mutations in addition to AA’s 4 mutations, which indicates AA’s 4 mutations happened long time ago. So if we take the position that mutation occurred in a semi-linear fashion to a first approximation, which means every 12000 years, the following is likely:  
36,000 years ago----Tara
24,000 years ago----Mutation 16304 occured in AA’s ancestor. Mutation 16296 in Tsar’s.
12,000 years ago----Mutation 16266 occurred in AA’s ancestor. Mutation 16169 in Tsar’s.

In conclusion, (from the viewpoint of maternal lineage) AA and Tsar had a same ancestor, but it was about 36,000 years ago. That is to say, their great great great great great great great great ……(repeat 1800 times!!)…… great great great grandmother was a same woman.

--------Footnote------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*1, I hold some respect for Peter Kurth, as although he still believes AA is Anastasia, he does not employ pseudoscience tactics to convince other people. He simply say “I just don’t trust DNA”, which is like “I believe Jesus is the Son of God”. I have no right to criticize other people’s belief.
*2, it may be confusing. The table shows only 15 mutations, but it doesn’t show my mutation 16162. It means that I belong to Helena clan.
*3, Original Peter Gill’s paper shows (7, 9, 3b) as Tsar’s genotype, but it’s a typo of (7, 9.3b) as there is no (7.9) genotype.

Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: daveK on December 30, 2004, 04:53:12 PM
Question 2) Is  the random match probability of AA’s DNA really 1/300?

Some AA proponents assert that AA’s specific mtDNA type is very common type, therefore a match between AA and FS is just by accident. However, this argument is fundamentally flawed. If so, why don’t they just show the data of someone who has same mtDNA? There are more than dozens populaiton genetics papers that you can check very easily. They can’t, because their claim is not true.

Before showing the evidence,  I have to point out that the probability 1/300 reported in Peter Gill’s study in 1995 was outdated. Gill “guessed” the number from statistical average because he didn’t find AA’s mtDNA type in database available in 1995. Therefore, any unknown mtDNA in 1995 was estimated as “1/300” temporally, even if its actual probability is 1/5000 or 1/100,000 (!).  

To get more accurate estimate, I checked all mtDNA (HVI) database available to me that contained 8,902 sequences of European Caucasian including US Caucasian, British, French, German, Italian, Spanish, Polish, Russian, Hungarian, Austrian, Dutch, Norwegian, Swedish, Ashkenazic Jewish, Belgian, Icelandic, Austrian, Bulgarian, Portuguese and so on. I also checked African and Asian population just in case. Most convenient sources are major human genetics journals such as Annals of Human Genetics and American Journal of Human Genetics (especially Annals of Human Genetics vol 67 (2003), p281 was helpful). Also computerized database were used, such as NCBI GenBank, European Molecular Biology Laboratory (EMBL), and US Department of Justice FBI CODIS database.

The reason why I investigated different regions separately was to see “population structure” due to ethnic subgroup, but prevalence of Tara clan was 10 +/- 2% in all countries in Europe, which indicates there is no siginificant structure (also see Science Vol 254 p1735). I’ll discuss this issue in Question 3.

TABLE 4 (Some examples of European mtDNA (HVI) studies)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
French (total = 109)
9 person has the most common  type: CRS (no mutation)  
Almost all other 93 person has a unique mtDNA (does not share mtDNA each other).
No one has AA’s mtDNA  (16126C, 16266T, 16294T, 16304C)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Autstrian (total = 101)
9 person has the most common  type: CRS (no mutation)  
Almost all other 80 person has a unique mtDNA (does not share mtDNA each other).
No one has AA’s mtDNA  
----------------------------------------------------------------------
British (total = 100)
12 person has the most common  type: CRS (no mutation)  
No one has AA’s mtDNA  
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Russians and Ukrainians (total = 201)
22 person has the most common  type: CRS (no mutation)  
No one has AA’s mtDNA  
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Polish (total = 436)
67 person has the most common  type: CRS (no mutation)  
No one has AA’s mtDNA
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
US Caucasians total = 323
61 person has the most common  type: CRS (no mutation)  
No one has AA’s mtDNA


In all regions, by far the most common mtDNA haplotype (HVI) is CRS (Cambridge Reference sequence). About 10% of population in any country (except US) has this sequence (almost same prevalence as AB blood type), i.e. about 65 million European has an exactly same mtDNA sequence (at HVI). There is no known reason why this specific type is so prevalent. It seems just stochastic genetic drift event. A friend of mine jokes this mtDNA type is related to “beauty phenotype” expressed in their daughters, but I don’t think it’s true. (By the way, this CRS sequence itself from a British woman whose identity kept secret for some reason since 1981. A rumor goes that it was a researcher’s wife’s mtDNA.)

However, this CRS mtDNA is an exception. Almost all other mtDNA type is rare, usually less than 1%. For example, I checked Tsarina’s mtDNA type 16111T/16357C. There was 0 in database of 8902 caucasians. Tsar’s mtDNA was also rare, 0 out of 8902. And Anna Anderson’s mtDNA had 1 in 8902 (1 found in Iceland study). therefore the random match probability is  1/8902 = 0.01%: about 30 times rarer than the original Peter Gill’s estimate (1/300).

So, can I conclude from this DNA evidence alone? Not so fast. I think many people confuse DNA’s random match probability, likelihood ratio, with Posterior Odds. To discuss if AA is FS, we have to discuss posterior odds.

Bayesian inference is the logical/mathematical framework to interpret the combined probability of independent event. Forensic science in both US and UK are always interepreted in a logical sturucture of Bayesian inference. In the court, forensic exprert are instructed by judge to testify only regarding to “DNA random match probability” or “likelihood ratio”, but what really concern jury is the posterior odds. Here I try to be a jury rather than a DNA expert.

O (posterior) = O (prior) * DNA likelihood ratio

Roughly speaking, if two person’s sex, age, physical feature including height, hair color, face feature, prior odds are 1:10. Considering FS has been missing at almost exactly same time at same geological area as AA appeared, even conservative odds brings this to 1:100. DNA random probability is a simply inverse of likelihood ratio in this case, so my calculation shows:

O (posterior) = 1/100 x 1/9000 = 1/900,000 (that is to say, probability that AA is FS is 99.9999%)

As “reasonable doubt” is generally considered O(posterior)(threshold)
=1/10,000, it is reasonable to accept hypothesis that “AA is FS”.

Therefore, with overwhelming evidential support and lack of alternative scenario, I support the hypothesis that AA= FS.

Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: daveK on December 30, 2004, 04:53:20 PM
Question 3) Because of the rapid technical evolution, will the “old” method Peter Gill used become invalid in the future?

First of all, becoming "obsolete" and becoming "invalid" are two different issues. Any technology becomes obsolete eventually. Since the DNA Identification Act of 1994, US government spent significant amount of our tax dollars for Department of Justice to advance a forensic technology every year. In fact, FBI is now developing a “real” DNA profiling technology which can determine suspect’s hair color, eye color, height, and even facial virtual montage from crime scene DNA (As of 2004, only “red hair” gene was isolated). In the future (at least a decade), chance are that a scientist could generate a virtual montage picture of FS (?) from AA’s DNA, or daughters picture from Romanov bones.

Even if the forensic technology advances, all data shown in Gill’s article is rock-solid today. Using table 5, I explain two aspects of the STR technique: STR and number of probes.

TABLE 5------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timeline of main event in forensic technology
1986 -----First use of DNA in criminal case
1987 -----Castro case raised concern among forensic experts, prompting to establish a standard guideline and national database.
1988 -----First PCR combined with dot blot hybridization used
1991 -----First STR (4 multiplex STR) developed in UK.
1992 -----NRC report I, establishing controversial “ceiling principle”.
1992 -----First forensic use of mtDNA PCR
1994 -----Second generation STR (6 multiplex STR) developed in UK.
1994------First use of STR-PCR for anthological study by Peter Gill
1995 -----Peter Gill published the result of AA’s DNA.
1996 -----NRC report II announced in US, rejecting “ceiling principle”.
1997 -----US FBI announced the CODIS using 13 multiplex STR (match probability 10E-15).
2000 -----UK added 4 loci to STR, reducing the match probability to 10E-13.
2004 -----UK and US’s national DNA database’s profile size reached 2.5 millions, and 1.5 millions, respectively.  

First, It is true that DNA profiling in early development phase was not free from mistake. Notorious case was Castro case, when there was no objective guideline to interpret dot blot hybridization result, creating subjective bias in data evaluation. Another problem in earlier phase was “binning approach” using polymorphic VNTR. However, this is the very reason why Peter Gill developed multiplex STR, which is faster, better, and more accurate. He did not use any dot blot or binning approach in his paper. So this point is irreverent.

Secondly, there was a huge controversy regarding “ceiling principle” mandated by National Research council (NRC) repot I in 1992. This ceiling principle which overestimated population structure (ethnic group) was criticized sharply because it rationale was not academically founded and it produced the statistical result that is abnormally conservative. Because of the controversy, ceiling principle was abandoned in a new NCR repot II in 1996. Consensus among population geneticist was that although population structure does exists, its effect was negligible in practice. This point is irreverent to Gill's study. It was essentially irreverent to my answer two above, but just in case I considered population structure (and even substructure) by studying mtDNA type by each country, and there was no significant structure observed.

Thirdly, it is true that numbers of STR multiplx kept increasing from 4 STR to current FBI CODIS’s 13 STR. Logical fallacy that pro-AA believers employ is that 4 STR is less “accurate” than 13 STR. In fact, number of STR does not affect “accuracy” of each probe. The reason why the authority increased the STR multiplex is following:

(1) to perform screening process against DNA database which contains millions of potential suspect. In earlier day, this was not the issue, because database itself did not exist. And the main purpose of STR was not individualization of suspect, but to exculpate the innocent. Remember, the first phase of paternal test of Anna Anderson was also a exculpatory (to prove she was not daughters of Romanov)

(2) to distinguish the suspect from unknown brothers/sisters so that it can withstand the most rigorous challenge from defense attorney. Imagine the attorney challenges DNA expert like this:  “What if the suspect has a brother or sister who we don’t even know exists, and what if he/she committed the crime? As brothers have very similar DNA, is it possible that the DNA belongs to them?” Using 13 STR, which discriminate 600 trillions people, expert can now say “No, even if brother exists, it’s not him.” But obviously this special case does not concern AA case.

Even if it’s not exculpatory, STRs Gill used in the paper was still extremely rigorous. Table 6  is the calculation of allele frequency of Anna Andersons’ DNA:

TABLE 6------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VWA,-------  (14, 16) 0.125 x 0.22
TH01,------- (7, 9.3)(*3) 0.145 x 0.3080
F13A1------- (3.2, 7) 0.032 x 0.424
FES/FPS -----(11, 12) 0.4030 x 0.2450
ACTBP2 -----(15, 18 ) 0.037 x 0.0705
Amelogenin -----(X, X) 0.5
P = 0.125 x 0.22 x  0.145 x 0.3080 x 0.032 x 0.424 x 0.4030 x 0.2450 x 0.037 x 0.0705 = 0.0000000021.

The discrimination power of this STR is one in half billion. As population of Europe is about 600 millions, it is pretty high. Remember this was the first exculpatory test to “screen” the matching possibility.  And if Gill had match to parents (Tsar and Tsarina), he could have done the second phase of individualization using more STR. In fact, performing 20 STR for this first phase would be not only necessary, but inappropriate. If Gill performed 20 STR test, peer reviewer would have begun to suspect if there was something wrong with the whole procedure. There is no reason to waste a precious anthropological sample.  

What is most mysterious to me is that the handwriting or ear-mark (from old photo!) evidence that pro-AA believers worship has a overwhelmingly low power of discrimination. Both type of tests’s resolution is only  0.1-0.01. If they claim such evidences are reliable, how could they criticize 4-multiplex STR?  

Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: daveK on December 30, 2004, 04:53:36 PM
Question 4) Is contamination possible?

I agree that all PCR-based DNA result should be subject to rigorous scrutiny because of potential contamination. However, the ambiguous word “contatmination” generates misunderstanding.

For example, if you are trying to find dinosaur’s DNA from fossil, and if the sequenced result is similar to human, the contamination will be very likely, because human DNA is ABUNDANT in our environment. However, if you are working with human sample, you don’t have to worry about contamination of dinosaur’s DNA. This is called “directionality principle of contamination”, that is to say that contamination happens in an asymmetric way, only from abundant source of A to rare source of B (or if amont are almost equal, it’s bidirectinal).

Anna Anderson’s DNA was obtained from four samples, including one intestine sample and three hair samples. If all DNAs had shown the most common human mtDNA type (CRS), then the possibility of contamination would not be excluded so easily. But that is not the case.

Her mtDNA was very rare (1/8902). The chance of this contamination happening was:
p = 1/8902 x 1/8902 x 1/8902 x 1/8902 = 0.000000000000000000000016 (1 in 10,000 trillions). Therefore, with overwhelming evidential support and lack of alternative scenario, I support the hypothesis that contamination is extremely unlikely.

What about deliberate contamination, or conspiracy theory? Besides its violation of falsification principle, this theory violates physical law. Non-medical people misses an important point in the Gill’s paper. Anna Anderson’s DNA was from the formaldehyde fixed sample of intestine tissue. Our current biomedical technology has no way to generate intestine tissue in vitro, even if you use any type of stem cell-related regeneration or organ cloning technology.

Only way to fake this sample is to abduct one of AA’s maternal relative (!) and do surgery to remove intestine from their stomach while they are unconscious, which is as unlikely as alien abduction. Adding synthesized DNA is also impossible. Many pro-DNA believers don’t know the fact that there are so many possible DNA profiling tests (more than 200 STR, and many different VNTR, mtDNA, and all others STRs along three billions nucleotides of human DNA) that it is impossible to predict what test the scientist will perform. Also from chemical properties (methylation pattern, pyrimidine dimers etc), any synthesized DNA can be distinguished from endogenous DNA easily.

My conclusion: conspiracy is not possible.

Question 5) Why don't they accept the hypothesis based on evidence?

Finally, the most important question: Why do they believe such an absurd theory?: I am sure none of my conclusion above doesn’t shake the belief of AA proponent. You may regard them as almost pathologically gullible. I don’t think that’s the case. For past twenty years, many psychologists studied the belief system of brain of those who believe ESP, UFO, creationism, homeopathy, fortune teller, astrology, hypnosis, Freudian psychoanalysis and so on. What surprised psychologists is that most believers are actually very normal people; sane, sober, honest, educated, and intelligent. Then what makes a difference?  

According to psychologist James Alcock, our brain does not believe something because of its rationality. Rather, new belief is generated only when it is compatible with pre-established old belief. In addition, belief was solidified when data was combined with sensory information. As all sensory information go through the part of brain called amygdala, where emotions (fear, anger, joy, love, sympathy) affect incoming information dramatically, and our intellectual part of brain cannot control this process. This is like we fear trip by air plane even if we know it’s statistically safer than car.

If someone who was convinced by skilled writer like Peter Kurth because of its emotional impact towards “poor” Anna Anderson, any new information presented by some “esoteric” DNA evidence by abstruse scientist would have no chance to compete with the previous strong belief. As a result, they will forever seek for new “truth” until it match their belief, instead of matching truth to their belief.

I will welcome any refutation to my hypothesis, as long as it has an alternative scenario based on verifiable evidence which is at least as plausible as mine.  



Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Helen_Azar on December 30, 2004, 04:58:04 PM
Quote
Helen

I don't own the book.  Hopefully I will get it for Christmas, as I need it for situations like this.  But I know I read it in there.  I'd give you the specifics if I had them on hand.


Hey Michelle, did you get the book for Christmas?  ;)
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Denise on December 30, 2004, 05:26:25 PM
Wow!!  DaveK,  that was a fabulous explanation.  Thanks so much for the report.  It really explained the statistical likelihood of the AA/FS connection in plain terms.
I already believe that AA was FS, but as I am married to a statistician I can really appreciate your analysis... ;)
Denise
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Forum Admin on December 30, 2004, 05:41:33 PM
BRAVO to Dave K! Job well done.
Many thanks for this amazing work
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Helen_Azar on December 30, 2004, 06:32:39 PM
Quote

I will welcome any refutation to my hypothesis, as long as it has an alternative scenario based on verifiable evidence which is at least as plausible as mine.  



Thanks, DaveK. I would like to hear an alternative scenario to your hypothesis too, if someone is able to come up with it, that is ;).

H
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Belochka on December 31, 2004, 12:29:03 AM
Quote
Question 4) Is contamination possible?

If someone who was convinced by skilled writer like Peter Kurth because of its emotional impact towards “poor” Anna Anderson, any new information presented by some “esoteric” DNA evidence by abstruse scientist would have no chance to compete with the previous strong belief. As a result, they will forever seek for new “truth” until it match their belief, instead of matching truth to their belief.


Thanks you these words and your lengthy explanations DaveK.

Peter Kurth's belief reached a broader non scientific audience. His clever compilation pleaded with the emotional senses of his audience.

Few members of that same audience would have been be appraised with the pioneering work of Dr Gill and his team. Dr Gill's results targeted a smaller unemotional scientific community and a few interested parties.

The most difficult thing for a historian to do is to openly concede that they were wrong. Scientific truths do not bring glamor and fortune.

Prejudice can be considered as an impolite term, but it describes what is going on when judgement is reached before getting all facts.

While Kurth's controversial claims almost succeeded in fooling many of his readers, clearly it was Dr Gill's scientific determinations which succeeded in impacting on Russian history in the end.
 
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Alice on December 31, 2004, 03:39:55 AM
Thankyou, thankyou, thankyou, Dave!  :)

Quote
In the future (at least a decade), chance are that a scientist could generate a virtual montage picture of FS (?) from AA’s DNA, or daughters picture from Romanov bones.  


I hope I see this in my lifetime.

Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Helen_Azar on December 31, 2004, 07:33:22 AM
DaveK,

I just want to ask you to clarify something for me, as well as for others, since you obviously have done a significant amount of background research on this subject judging by your posts.

Does this mean that the notion that AA's particular mtDNA sequence is not as non-specific to the general population as we were lead to believe - i.e. 1 in 25 (4%) chance that her sequence could have matched randomly to FS's nephew Carl Maucher's mtDNA or anyone else's? Based on the data you provided here, it certainly doesn't sound like this is the case. I don't remember who first came up with the 1 in 25 numbers, but if this is not the case then where did they get those stats? Did you come across anything like this when you were researching this subject or did they just come out of the thin air? Originally it was said that chances of a random match were only 1 in 300, or something like that, then that was changed to 1 in 25 but there was no back-up evidence why the change in these numbers, we just accepted it face value. Where did these new numbers come from, do you know, and is there any basis to them?
Thanks again.

Helen
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Helen_Azar on December 31, 2004, 08:00:39 AM
Quote

Dr Gill's results targeted a smaller unemotional scientific community and a few interested parties.

  


This is the only way this kind of a case must be viewed in, in order to avoid prejudicial interpretations as we have seen figuring so prominently in the AA case. The power of "bias" or "prejudice", as Belochka called it, on the human mind is very powerful. This is why when all clinical drug experiments are performed they must be done in a double-blind manner, which means that neither the researcher nor the subject must know what is really being given to the subject - the experimental sample or the placebo. It has been proven that if these precautions are not taken, the results end up being skewed because of the influence perception will have on both the subject and the investigator.

Because such precautions are normally taken in "good" science, the results can be accepted as accurate and objective evidence (provided the tests are set up according to the correct experimental design), while other evidence that may appear conclusive often is not accurate and is prejudicial (very often subconsciously so).

Unfortunately this has been the problem in the AA case. Most, if not all, of the evidence used to support her case is not objective and is prejudicial, but it is evidence that plays on strong emotions and therefore is often accepted as accurate. We are only human, so inevitably we will fall into emotional traps like this without even recognizing it, the key is to recognize real evidence from evidence that can be based on emotions ("wishful thinking" if you will) when trying to learn real facts about cases like AA's.

This is why in the AA case and cases like it, hard scientific evidence only has to be considered and nothing else, which will give us the more accurate answers, ones least tainted, consciously or subconsciously, by the biases of the human mind.
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Robert_Hall on December 31, 2004, 09:37:59 AM
I came upon the following quotation which I think may be amusingly appropriate to severalof these threads:
"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing it's opponents and making them see the light, but rather because it's opponents eventually die out and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."
Max Planck 1934
Cheers,
Robert
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Helen_Azar on December 31, 2004, 09:59:11 AM
Quote
"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing it's opponents and making them see the light, but rather because it's opponents eventually die out and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."
Max Planck 1934
 Robert, this is a very accurate quote that can be applied to many cases. This must be the Max Planck of the Max Planck Institute in Germany.
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Annie on December 31, 2004, 11:35:47 AM
Thanks so much, that was great! I appreciate your hard work. I too would like to see a serious rebuttal of real evidence from the other side, especially those who have claimed emphatically that AA was NOT FS.
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: daveK on December 31, 2004, 08:31:44 PM
I may have caused some confusions. My argument was not against Peter Kurth, but against the postings below. I deliberately avoided to use his name, because of some conflict between him and AP site.

FA, you can delete this posting if there is a chance this makes AP site liable for libel suit (which is ridiculous). I really hope that whoever wants to make an argument should use the pen, not lawyer.

-----Quote from previous postings--------------------------------------------------------------------
171   Discussions about the Imperial Family and European Royalty / The Question of "Survivors" / Re: A question for those who disbelieve the DNA te  Aug 10th, 2004, 3:23am  
For me, at least, it isn't a questioning of disbelieving the DNA but rather understanding the evolution of the science.  Nor do I see this position as necessarily one that casts me as an Anna Anderson "supporter;" rather, I try to keep an open mind and explore the possibilities and the unanswered questions.

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.

The mtDNA match to the Maucher profile is also now known to be less reliable than everyone believed.  In 1994, mtDNA matches were believed to prove identity, and to be unique to related individuals.  Last year, an extensive UK study showed that out of a random 100 persons, four completely unrelated subjects shared exactly the same mtDNA profiles; extrapolate that here, on a board with 400 members: of the 400 of us posting here, 40 of us-unrelated to each other-would have identical mtDNA profiles, thus "proving" that we're related.  The odds of a random mtDNA match between the Manahan sample and the Maucher profile are indeed considerable given the size of the world’s population and the numbers involved.  I suspect, based on the continuing evolution of the science, that future studies will show mtDNA profiles to be even common than this.

My reservations about regarding the 1994 DNA tests as absolutely conclusive in the matter of Anastasia Manahan, therefore, rest on the advances of science.  Two of the three planks in the DNA case against her have now been shown to be either unreliable or less than compelling in a mere ten years.  Her exclusion from the Hessian mtDNA profile remains, and while the methods used to obtain the exclusion remain in practice, given the above changes I hesitate to presume that they, too, won’t be challenged as the science evolves; already in the last 2 years there have been two substantial challenges to the DNA testing done on the Ekaterinburg remains, and I suppose there will be more in the future that may or may not be valid.  This makes it theoretically possible-given the facts above about the first two DNA planks in the case-that ultimately in another generation none of the DNA identifications/exclusions in the Anderson case will matter-and the case will fall back to where it always rested before the DNA-to examination of physical traits, memories, recognitions, etc.

It seems to me, whether one wishes to believe in Anna Anderson or not (and I don't wish either way, incidentally), it’s best to keep an open mind and at least examine the facts as known now in the DNA case against Anastasia Manahan-as three separate issues-rather than repeatedly refer to ten year old tests that, taken as a whole, have lost two-thirds of their validity.

Greg King  

---------------------------------------------------------------------
1   Discussions about the Imperial Family and European Royalty / The Question of "Survivors" / Re: AA and FS  Nov 10th, 2004, 8:16am  
on Nov 10th, 2004, 12:23am,


Lisa-please see my fuller post on this (from which Helen derived the quote).  My position is simply laid out.  I don't challenge the Hessian mtDNA exclusion of AA as AN; I am, however, aware that 10 years have brought serious changes and challenges to the other two portions of the DNA case against AA and, as I say, I am not at all convinced to the point of absolute certainty that the third plank in the DNA case-the only one that remains today without change or challenge-may not in time also likewise be subjected to changes or modifications/revisions that would make it, too, obsolete or less than compelling.  This is why I don't take a position-because I am aware that changes can occur over time.  Perhaps in my lifetime nothing will change, and in that case, I accept the verdict, but I am extremely cautious in regarding the issue entirely at an end.  But, as I also said elsewhere, I'm far more interested in continuing exploration of FS, which is an area I feel rather confident about.  The work done by Penny and myself as well as others has left me with a very strong conviction, based on hard fact, that AA was almost certainly not FS, and that is a more important area to explore than attempting to argue the AA case, where the few known facts are often ignored in favor of personal opinion, or simply dismissed by those unwilling and unable to accept them.
 
Greg King  
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: daveK on December 31, 2004, 08:37:21 PM
Helen, No, it's not 1/25. Is the above  the reason why you are confused?


--------Quote----------------------------------------------------------
Does this mean that the notion that AA's particular mtDNA sequence is not as non-specific to the general population as we were lead to believe - i.e. 1 in 25 (4%) chance that her sequence could have matched randomly to FS's nephew Carl Maucher's mtDNA or anyone else's? Based on the data you provided here, it certainly doesn't sound like this is the case. I don't remember who first came up with the 1 in 25 numbers, but if this is not the case then where did they get those stats? Did you come across anything like this when you
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Forum Admin on December 31, 2004, 08:55:20 PM
I fear that I am the culprit, and perhaps misunderstood what I was reading. It was my understanding that mtDNA mutation rate was once in 25 generations, though some were saying 10 or 15 generations. I apologize for confusing the subject by being less than fully informed. Dave K is CLEARLY far better researched than I.
Title: Last year, an extensive URe: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Helen_Azar on January 01, 2005, 09:07:42 AM
Quote
Helen, No, it's not 1/25. Is the above  the reason why you are confused?
 


Thanks, DaveK.

The reason I was asking about these numbers is because I wanted to know where the "1 in 25" stats came from, and what they were based on, since for the purpose of this discussion we accepted them as fact without verifying the source.

I guess the "1 in 25" may have originally come from the statement you pasted above:
"Last year, an extensive UK study showed that out of a random 100 persons, four completely unrelated subjects shared exactly the same mtDNA profiles; extrapolate that here, on a board with 400 members: of the 400 of us posting here, 40 of us-unrelated to each other-would have identical mtDNA profiles..."  
Do you know what study Greg is talking about ?
But it is clear based on your earlier postings that the "1 in 25" stats in the AA case have no factual basis.
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: AGRBear on January 02, 2005, 12:48:19 PM
Thanks Dave K for all your hard work and then posting it in a way we can understand.

I can hear someone's foot taping even before I finish my post  ;D...

We have three cases.

Case #1:  There is a woman who called herself Anna Anderson (AA).

Case #2:  There was a woman known as  Franziska Schanzkowska (FS).

Case #3:  There was a daughter of Nicholas II's  whose body is missing from the Pig's Meadow grave and the majority believe the missing body was/is  Anastasia's or Maria's.

Case #1:  It is assumed by the majority that the "intestines" and "hair" which were tested for DNA were AA's.  This test, according to DaveK and others,  show the DNA can relate AA's DNA to that of Gertrude Schanzkowska's grandson Karl Maucher.  

Questioned raised by me and a few others is:  There is the possibility that Gertrude and FS did not have the same mothers, therefore, the DNA line was broken since the DNA is through the mother's line and not the father's.

The DNA test prove there is no connection of the  donner of the "intestines" and "hair" to Alexandra, wife of Nicholas II.
Therefore, if the donner was AA then she is and could not be GD Anastasia.  

Case #2:  Berlin Police reports indicate that FS may have been murdered 13 Aug. 1920 by Karl Grossmann who's diary indicated he had indeed murdered someone who name was spelled similar to Schanzkovska.  If this is true than FS couldn't have been AA.

This is the evidence King and Wilson are/ were  searching.

Case #1: In other words:  AA remains  "Mrs. Unknown", accept we know AA, whom the majority believe was the doner of the intestines and hair tested,   was related to Gertrude S.'s grandson Karl Maucher.

Case #3:  A body is missing and it is not known for sure if the body was Anastasia's or Maria's according to the reports.

There may be three different people (AA, FS and Anastasia/Marie), therefore, three different cases which the majority continue to "lump into one case".

AGRBear

PS Happy 2005 Everyone  :)
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Helen_Azar on January 02, 2005, 01:41:20 PM
Quote
We have three cases.

Case #1:  There is a woman who called herself Anna Anderson (AA).

Case #2:  There was a woman known as  Franziska Schanzkowska (FS).

Case #3:  There was a daughter of Nicholas II's  whose body is missing from the Pig's Meadow grave and the majority believe the missing body was/is  Anastasia's or Maria's.

 

Bear, I am not sure how much you understood of what DaveK had posted, but according to overwhelming statistical and scientific evidence he presented, the three cases you listed appear to be only two cases:

1. The case of the missing body of one of Tsar Nicholas II's daughters, probably Anastasia

and, independent of the above,

2. The case of an unknown woman who claimed to be the youngest daughter of the Tsar, who called herself Anna Anderson, and who after her death was scientifically proven not to have been the Tsar's daughter and most likely to have been*  the missing woman Franziska Schanzkowska.  

Everything else you mention is speculation and hearsay.

In order to continue insisting that this is not the case we would have to ignore all the statistical and scientific evidence in this case and deny a well established science in general.

*statistical semantics
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Forum Admin on January 02, 2005, 01:46:55 PM
Bear,
You STILL have yet to show any of the required minimum proof that the AA samples were NOT from Anna Anderson. please review the required burden of proof to even raise the question and ANSWER the questions. PLEASE. Until you do, you really CAN NOT question that.
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Helen_Azar on January 02, 2005, 01:54:23 PM
I suppose we are going to start going around in circles with this again, so in order to prevent frustration for all involved, let's just periodically keep referring back to that wonderful truism that Robert posted earlier:

"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing it's opponents and making them see the light, but rather because it's opponents eventually die out and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."

H  ;) ;D
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Annie on January 02, 2005, 01:55:03 PM
Also, I  think the 'half sister' and 'murder victim' things have more than run their course too since they were just speculation with NO basis of evidence or fact or proof!!
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Annie on January 02, 2005, 03:42:14 PM
Quote

...As far as YOU know -- which is not very far at all...


Then where is the EVIDENCE and PROOF of these things?

According to DaveK's anaysis, as well as all the other DNA results, AA WAS FS and matched Carl Maucher. I do not believe any scientists would have been silly enough to test a non maternal relative. That alone shows me the half sister thing has very little merit.

The murder thing? Where is the proof? No one has even mentioned this but you and AGR Bear and she got it from you. If she was so dead and  murdered why was this 'dead' woman so prominent in the AA trials? Why was her alleged family sought out and brought in as witnesses? It seems that the murder theory was only circumstantial speculation by the police at the time, missing girl + serial killer in the area= POSSIBLE murder victim, but the name in the diary wasn't even a match, and there was no body, no real evidence. If there is something we do not know please tell us!
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Helen_Azar on January 02, 2005, 03:56:26 PM
I have to admit, I never heard the "FS as serial murder victim"  theory before I read it on one of the threads here either, but then again I don't claim to know all that much about FS other than the basics.

In any case, even if this evidence exists, how can we then explain the statistical evidence in favor of AA=FS that  DaveK presented? Obviously it is not sample substitution. I was willing to keep my mind open somewhat while I thought that the 1 to 25 numbers were accurate, but it now appears that this is not the case, so what other explanation is there?  ??? Statistically speaking it would be most improbable that AA was not related to Carl Maucher. And it would be impossible that she was a child of Nicholas or Alexandra, or related to Prince Philip. This is what it comes down to.
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Helen_Azar on January 02, 2005, 04:23:59 PM
Quote
Are we to simply allow the DNA results to silence any continued conversation?  


Oh no, of course not, as long as accurate and rational counterarguments can be presented. The problem is, very often the counterarguments are not rational by far, and this I think is the source of much  frustration to many people here. It is difficult to continue debating something when valid arguments are labeled false only because some people don't understand them and would rather ignore them. I am not talking about anyone in particular here, just the general theme when it comes to this topic...
For some reason we (meaning "we" in general) just can't discuss this topic rationally the way we should be able to theoretically!  :(
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: AGRBear on January 02, 2005, 04:53:30 PM
I did not get my information from Penny Wilson about George Karl Grossmann.  [My mistake.  I've been calling him Karl lately, sorry for my errors.]

My husband bought a book b ack in 1962 titled:  Encyclopedia of Murder by Wilson and Pitman.  On pps. 243-244 is a section about Georg Karl Grossmann who  was a serial killer.  The case was known as Die Brat auf der Stulle -- the bread and butter brides.  

Therefore, this has been a well known fact since  1921 when he was discovered with a woman's carcass ready for butcher on his kitchen camp bed....  and placed on  trial.

----

There may be three (3) separate women which we've lumped into one case.
Case #1 :  Anna Anderson ,  Mrs. Unknown, whom the test show was somehow related to Karl Maucher, grandson of Gertrude Schanzkowska..... Tests also show she was not related to Alexandra, wife of Nicholas II;
Case #2: Franziska Schanzkowska may have been murdered in Aug of 1920 and if this is indeed the facts then FS could not have been AA...;
Case #3:  GD Anastasia/Maria.....

AGRBear
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Helen_Azar on January 03, 2005, 10:02:40 AM
Quote
Again, as I said, I don't know yet where everything will lead us, and I'm not going to speculate -- but for the people here and elsewhere who love the details of Romanov history, and the minutiae of the mystery itself, shouldn't ALL the evidence be laid out for them?  Even just for the joy of knowing it and being able to discuss it with fellow enthusiasts?  Where's the harm in knowing it?  
I mean, look around at this one forum.  There are probably a couple of thousand posts from people STILL debating and arguing this subject of survival in general and Anna Anderson in particular.  


I think it also depends on the reasons why people want to discuss this topic. Most people here always say that they want factual information so that they can find out the real truth about AA. In this case we must insist that subjective and misleading information should not be presented as conclusive, and clear distinction should be made between evidence like DNA and evidence like hearsay or speculation, just like in real court. There is a difference between undeniable scientific facts and other evidence that may seem factual but is subjective, and this is what I meant earlier when I said that all we need is the objective scientific info in order to make a decision in this case. So, if we are truly looking for facts here, then once we have accepted the DNA results as legit, the "search for the truth" in this case should theoretically stop right there. To continue looking at other evidence would mean that we do not accept the DNA evidence. If we don't accept the DNA evidence then we need to hear compelling legitimate reasons why we don't accept it and if they are legit reasons then we can move on to other evidence. The DNA evidence in this case appears to be legitimate and accurate, we have seen that over and over, which means we have our answer and don't need to look beyond it.

On the other hand, if people want to discuss this case just for the sake of discussing various scenarios, and not for the sake of learning the real truth, then by all means all evidence and speculation is welcome, as long as people understand the difference between fact and fiction. Sometimes I wonder though if some people truly understand this difference... Not that this is such a life and death situtation that it would make much of a difference one way or another, but I just don't like to see people accept wrong information as factual, and I feel that everyone deserves to know the real facts in order to make up their minds about something, and not to be misled, even inadvertantly, into believing things that are not correct... And I think many others share this feeling with me. This is not meant against anyone who has different ideas than I do, it is just an attempt to "educate" people on what is real evidence and what isn't, and what is the difference between the two, which I think everyone deserves to know....
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Annie on January 03, 2005, 01:07:29 PM
Bravo, Helen, take a bow! Very intellectually and beautifully put.
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: AGRBear on January 03, 2005, 01:22:24 PM
Helen wrote: "This is not meant against anyone who has different ideas than I do, it is just an attempt to "educate" people on what is real evidence and what isn't, and what is the difference between the two, which I think everyone deserves to know...."

Sounds good to me.  :)

Now,  we just have to agree upon what is "real" evidence.  

Was there three people?  (1) FS and (2) AA and (3) GD Anastasia?

Let's wait and see what evidence King and Wilson have found.


AGRBear
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Helen_Azar on January 03, 2005, 01:37:06 PM
Quote
Now,  we just have to agree upon what is "real" evidence.  

Was there three people?  (1) FS and (2) AA and (3) GD Anastasia?

AGRBear
 

According to the overwhelming DNA evidence and statistical evidence in this case (which is the only objective evidence we have) there are only two people:

1. GD Anastasia  and   2. FS aka AA

As I mentioned in my previous post: "To continue looking at other evidence would mean that we do not accept the DNA evidence. If we don't accept the DNA evidence then we need to hear compelling legitimate reasons why we don't accept it and if they are legit reasons then we can move on to other evidence. The DNA evidence in this case appears to be legitimate and accurate, we have seen that over and over, which means we have our answer and don't need to look beyond it."  

I don't know how else to explain it.
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Annie on January 03, 2005, 02:06:36 PM
Once again, I agree, Helen. Until someone can provide definitive proof of why the DNA tests, ALL the DNA tests should not be believed, nothing else really makes any difference.  And I don't mean hypothetical intestine switch conspiracy theories by a nameless, faceless 'they', I mean real proof.
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Helen_Azar on January 03, 2005, 02:49:03 PM
This doesn't mean that it wouldn't be interesting to hear what information others have about FS or AA, it just means that any other evidence in this case is meaningless unless the DNA evidence we have is proven to be inaccurate. That's all I am saying here.  :)
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: AGRBear on January 03, 2005, 10:40:53 PM
This thread speculated that  FS was not AA, BECAUSE,   FS may have been murdered in Aug. of 1920.

If FS was dead, she could not have been Anna Anderson.

And, that is what this thread is debating.

So, who WAS she, then?

According to the DNA she was related to Karl Maucher, grandson of Gertrude, the half sister of FS.  That is all we know, at this time.  The DNA does not tell us her name or  the name of her parents.  What do we know?   She became known as Anna Anderson, who's  life we know about  from the moment she was seen jumping into the Berlin canal.

AGRBear
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Annie on January 03, 2005, 10:49:50 PM
Quote
This thread speculated that  FS was not AA, BECAUSE,   FS may have been murdered in Aug. of 1920.

If FS was dead, she could not have been Anna Anderson.


If she were dead why was she such a part of the trial, why was her family brought in? Strange nothing was ever mentioned of this in AA's lifetime, or the entire trial.


Quote
According to the DNA she was related to Karl Maucher, grandson of Gertrude, the half sister of FS.  That is all we know, at this time.
AGRBear


PLEASE do NOT mention the 'half sister' thing as fact until it is proven. It is likely NOT TRUE!!!!!!


and  aren't we going around in circles here, this is where we started! I had so hoped that DaveK and Helen's excellent posts had finally put this to bed where it belongs.
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Annie on January 04, 2005, 07:31:22 AM
Quote


Annie, you have no idea what is true or "likely not true" in this particular part of the case.  This statement is only your opinion, and as such, bears no more weight than that of anyone else here -- including AGRBear. So please do not start telling people what they may or may not mention in what is, after all, a speculative thread.


First, no one is "anti-AA"- I like her very much as a person and feel sorry for her. We are only 'anti' any more dragging out of a case that has been solved unless you can produce real evidence. If all you're saying is 'wait and buy my book' that just proves what I've suspected all along, that you have an agenda in this. :-/

I didn't state anything as fact, I only said it was incorrect, in a search for the truth, to post things as facts that are not proven. Wouldn't the fact that the scientists searching for a maternal relative and choosing him be enough proof he was one? Otherwise, they may as well just have used you or me! It doesn't make any sense for him to not be a maternal relative, and I don't know of any  proof he isn't.



Quote
Because you know, there ARE provable facts in this case -- both historical and forensic -- which cannot be dismissed by the magic word "subjective."  


Would this be the foot and ear thing again?


Quote
There IS definite and provable evidence that can show that whoever AA was, she was not FS -- and THAT definitely DOES pose a problem for these allegedly infallible DNA results. So stand by to deal with this evidence, all you science-types!  ;)

And now I am going to zip my lip!   :-X


Proveable? And more valuable than DNA? And the fact that she looks just like her? Also, I can't understand why anyone would go to so much trouble to prove that she wasn't FS unless they were trying to tie it in that she 'was' AN ;) Now I'm not going to post on this anymore, because you don't like  me and my posts are easy targets you will always pick apart. What I'd really like to see is a response to DaveK's posts!
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Alice on January 04, 2005, 07:37:54 AM
Quote
You know, this is an interesting thing:  I have noticed that it's the anti-AA crowd that has been posting consistently on this thread, congratulating themselves over and over again on their cleverness in accepting the DNA evidence as "final proof," all the while attempting to stifle any further conversation.  I don't get why this thread exercises you guys so.  If you are happy that this has been "put to bed" in a satisfactory manner, then just walk on by -- and let those of us who still want to discuss the other evidence do so, shady as you might think it is.  No-one is being harmed by this, after all...  


As one of the "Anti-AA crowd" (for want of a better term . .  as she is a fascinating individual, AN or not) I have to say that I don't believe that I (and others) are trying to stifle any further conversation. I think it may be frustrating for some of us because some people fail to look at all the evidence, and only the bits that fit their (often, fairy-tale-ish) theories. So this leads to one or more of the "Anti-AA crowd" jumping in, reminding the fairy-tale theorists of the DNA evidence.

With that said, I think, unfortunately, despite the wealth of knowledge that they bring to the discussion, Helen A, Dave K, and others, are banging their heads against the proverbial brick wall. People will believe want they want to believe. Including fairy-tales.
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Michelle on January 04, 2005, 08:27:31 AM
Oh Penny please DO NOT zip that lip of yours!!!  As a pro AA person I applaud YOU for your comebacks and knowledge and for breaking up this little anti-AA DNA lovefest.  I totally agree with you 100%! ;)  And all you antis out there don't you dismiss me with that "oh you're just a fairy tale believer" crap.  

And I have a question as to something DaveK posted a few days ago about Peter Kurth.  Is there a problem with him and the AP site? :o  I thought he was a member! :-/ ???
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Helen_Azar on January 04, 2005, 08:37:49 AM
Quote

....THAT definitely DOES pose a problem for these allegedly infallible DNA results. So stand by to deal with this evidence, all you science-types!  ;)



Penny, would you please give us specific reasons why you feel that the DNA results are questionable? Obviously this is what it comes down to - you seem to feel that the DNA results are not completely accurate and this is why the other evidence should be more acceptable. I know you never said this exactly, but this is what seems to be implied here, otherwise I am sorry, I still can't see the logic behind your argument. ???.

The best way to argue this issue on your part would be to respond, statement by statement, to DaveK's posts. If you can successfully argue the points in his posts and show them to be questionable in some way, I will be more than happy to concede to your views. But please, only facts that can be backed up (the way DaveK did). Believe me, no one here is trying to stifle any kind of arguments here, we just want to hear valid counter arguments as to why we should take your view instead of the generally accepted view.

By saying that there is other evidence to counter the DNA evidence, you are indirectly saying that the DNA evidence is not really valid. But you cannot imply that the DNA evidence is in some way questionable without backing up that view directly, you have to be able to show why you think the DNA evidence is not valid. DaveK just showed to be invalid the previous interpretations and arguments about the DNA results not being statistically or technically conclusive . Therefore, if we are to continue doubting these DNA results and start accepting other, less compelling evidence, new arguments or valid counter arguments to DaveK's statements are needed. Only after you provide those, can bringing other evidence into the picture as counter proof be justified...  

I would very much like to see DaveK's posts counter-argued successfully, because the information he provided is what I, and many others are basing our decisions on.  Penny, I fully realize that you yourself will never  be completely convinced by the DNA evidence, which is ok, but since most others are already convinced by it, despite other evidence that may exist, then the burden of proof is with those who want other evidence to be accepted over the DNA results. In order to make others dismiss the primary DNA evidence and accept secondary evidence instead, we need to hear valid reasons why the primary evidence should be questioned.. In order to accept any other evidence over the DNA evidence, first and foremost the DNA evidence has to be invalidated. This is not because I like this idea, or because anyone else likes this idea, it is just the way it is...
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Forum Admin on January 04, 2005, 10:29:03 AM
Quote
And I have a question as to something DaveK posted a few days ago about Peter Kurth.  Is there a problem with him and the AP site? :o  I thought he was a member! :-/ ???


There is no problem at all with Peter and the AP site.  Peter is a well known and world acclaimed author and is indeed a privilege and honor to have him as member of the AP.  Bob hears from Peter quite regularly and we all consider Peter a friend and colleague.  Yes, a few years back there was some difference of opinion, but quite frankly, everyone has come to realize that we are all on the same side, bound up in our mutual appreciation of Imperial Russian history and our desire to constantly learn and discover more new facts about the period.  Peter is our friend.
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Helen_Azar on January 04, 2005, 10:45:48 AM
Penny, thanks for your reply. I am not at all closed minded or arrogant as you seem to think: as long as you can provide valid evidence against the one I have accepted, I am willing to listen. So therefore of course I am willing to read your book and evaluate the other evidence you have. But first I would like to see the DNA evidence refuted effectively. I hope that you can provide something for us right here before the book comes out.

Helen
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: AGRBear on January 04, 2005, 10:51:33 AM
 ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Penny: So glad you've returned to our forum.


AGRBear
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Michelle on January 04, 2005, 10:51:58 AM
Bravo Penny!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :D :D :D :D :D

I have to say that I find Robert Hall's little "truism" post to be rather despicable.  So you DNA-ers want your opponents to "die out?!" >:(  What an arrogant smart*** thing to say!  That just proves the personalities "pro-AAers" have to deal with. :P :P :P :P
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Helen_Azar on January 04, 2005, 11:07:00 AM
Quote
 So you DNA-ers want your opponents to "die out?!" >:(  


Michelle, don't be silly, this is not what this quote means.
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Annie on January 04, 2005, 11:53:37 AM
Quote

You most certainly are anti-AA.  Go back and read your more vitriolic posts, then tell me again that you're not. I won't believe you then, either.


I'm not anti-AA, I'm anti-AA being Anastasia, I'm anti-AA not being FS.

Quote
And let's clarify this "wait and buy my book" therefore I have an "agenda" crapola of yours.  My agenda is simply that I love to research and write history -- the past fascinates me, especially when there's a mystery involved, as there usually is.  If you think that I make a living wage writing books, then you are simply ignorant of the facts of being an author -- especially an author of historical biography.  We are not Tom Clancy or John Grisham here.  I make my research money through bartending and data-entry at my husband's lab.  Greg also has a job.  The vast, vast majority of historical writers have second and sometimes third jobs.  Are you arrogant enough now to demand to see my tax returns as proof?


Then why won't you divulge this 'info' you supposedly have before the book comes out?


Quote
Well, if YOU don't know, then it must not exist, right?  

And what you actually said was that the evidence contrary to Gertrude and Franziska being maternally related was "likely not true."  You are now engaging in revisionism, which makes me question your capability of being historically honest.

You don't know that our evidence is "likely not true" because you have not seen it.  End of story.


I am tired of people continually stating they were not whole sisters when they don't know either. I never said they were, I think they were because no scientist is stupid enough to get a non maternal relative to test, but if no one knows for sure, no one should state it as fact.


Quote
Well, maybe someone simply wants to know who this fascinating woman actually WAS.  What was in her history that led her down this path?  Just because she wasn't royal or imperial doesn't mean that she isn't worthwhile, you know.


But I can't image very many people caring who she was as long as she wasn't AA. I care, but I'm an extreme buff. It's really hard for me to believe anyone would bother to find out if there wasn't some exciting prospect involved. There is no one else she could have been, no other leads, just as there is no 'real killer' showing up in the OJ case.


Quote
You know, Annie, I'd feel sorry for you, except you and I both know that you are capable of being a completely vicious woman, don't we?



Feeling's mutual!

You know, I'd be a lot better off if this message board was my only problem in life, but it's not.
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Forum Admin on January 04, 2005, 12:02:01 PM
May we please keep this civil, not personal attacks and to the points. PLEASE.
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Forum Admin on January 04, 2005, 12:44:29 PM
Michelle.
Your reply was not proper for the public forum. We have the private message feature, and email for such personal messages. It adds nothing to what this thread is about. I have removed it. I will remove any further personal postings and/or edit out personal attacks from otherwise on topic posts.
I am frustrated that once again, civility has gone by the wayside.
FA
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: AGRBear on January 04, 2005, 03:55:38 PM
If FS was murdered in Aug of 1920 as reported by the Berlin police,  then she could not have been Anna Anderson.  

If Anna Anderson was not FS because FS was murdered in Aug of 1920, then who was she?

And,  yes,  there were/[are?] records since the man, Georg Karl Grossmann, was placed on trial and was convicted of murdering FS and others, in Berlin archives.

AGRBear
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: AGRBear on January 04, 2005, 05:20:28 PM
Have GD Anastasia fingerprints from old school books ever been compared to AA's or FS's fingerprints???

The fingerprints on the old school books were mentioned by Kurth:
Quote
While looking up some data last night,  I found the mention of fingerprints of GD Anastasia's on school workbooks..... p. 340 ANASTASIA, THE RIDDLE OF ANNA ANDERSON by Peter Kurth.   At the time,  the German police didn't have a method of lefting these prints  [said, "without destroying the documents"]...  This was during AA's trial in Germany.... 1965

I bet with the methods they have, now,  someone could.

And,  perhaps there are prints of FS on file....

One would think prints of Anna Anderson's could, also, be found.

We had talked about fingerprints earlier but where?  Thought I'd bring it up again.  

I don't recall being aware that Kurth had been talking about GD Anastasia's prints.  Did he?

AGRBear
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Michelle on January 05, 2005, 08:50:54 AM
As Penny has stated before, she cannot give away the contents of the research/book because of a contract with her publisher.  That sounds reasonable to me.
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Helen_Azar on January 05, 2005, 10:05:30 AM
So then this is a pointless discussion because we cannot discuss or argue any evidence if we don't know what it is  :)
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: AGRBear on January 05, 2005, 10:13:53 AM
Quote
So then this is a pointless discussion because we cannot discuss or argue any evidence if we don't know what it is  :)


This was true with just about everything dealing with the IF last days.  But it's never stopped us before....  [  ::)  This is my attempt to be humerous.]

AGRBear
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Helen_Azar on January 05, 2005, 10:34:47 AM
Quote

This was true with just about everything dealing with the IF last days.  But it's never stopped us before....  [  ::)  

Good point, Bear. So maybe we just all have too much time on our hands (my own attempt at humor)  ;)
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Helen_Azar on January 05, 2005, 10:48:29 AM
Quote
I swore I'd never post on this forum again, but here goes...

Annie, don't you see that if the story regarding GS and FS being half sisters wasn't true, Penny probably would've posted it by now?

Another question is, instead of assuming no scientist would proceed with DNA tests if he couldn't verify the maternal relationship between GS and FS you need to ask HOW the relationship was verfied. GS has no birth certificate registered. So How did he do it? (Likewise, it isn't a question as to whether or not two bodies are missing, save for the fact that AN is the likely missing female, rather the question is why not one single "witness" to the burning of the two corpses took the time out to record their burial site, as happened with the main burial pit. And no, whether or not the corpses where frozen would not have made a difference as to the size of the remains.

there's nothing wrong Penny saving her  information for her book. She works hard at what she does, When her book  comes out, we can all debate the evidence inside.

Message me in private, and I'll give you pointers on how to start your own search  like she has done.

I've got an audition to get too, so I"ll ask my question of Penny later.  


Jeremy, thanks for the info, I'm glad you decided to return to the forum. I hope you continue to keep us updated with all the interesting info you find  :)
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Michelle on January 07, 2005, 09:28:17 AM
Quote

Hey Michelle, did you get the book for Christmas?  ;)


Yes, Helen, I did.  And I found the person who said that AA spoke Russian in her sleep etc. "like a native."  Her name was Erna Bucholz.  She was a former German teacher and had lived in Russia for a while.  It's on page 10.  It goes on to say that it was the nurses who loved to compare her to photos of the IF in "cheap" magazines.  And they apparently saw a striking resemblance to the IF.  They came to the idea of comparing photos to the IF because she had such massive knowledge of Russia that was precise.  She knew everything about it.  They concluded that she must be someone of the highest social class and started to then try to satisfy their curiosity with her and IF.
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Helen_Azar on January 07, 2005, 09:53:15 AM
Thanks, Michelle. I hope you enjoy the book, it's a very good read.  :D

Here is a direct quote from "The Last Grand Duchess" by Ian Vorres, where Anastasia's aunt, GD Olga Alexandrovna, describes her initial meeting with AA:

p. 174

When Olga entered the room, the woman lying on a bed asked a nurse: “Ist das die Tante?”[Is this the Aunt?]  “That”, confessed Olga, “at once took me aback. A moment later I remembered that the young woman having spent five years in Germany, would naturally have learnt the language, but then I heard that when she was rescued from that canal in 1920, she spoke nothing but German – when she spoke at all- which was not often.  I readily admit that a ghastly horror experienced in one’s youth can work havoc with one’s memory but I have never heard of any ghastly experience endowing anyone with a knowledge they had not had before it happened. My nieces knew no German at all. Mrs Anderson did not seem to understand a word of Russian or English, the two languages all the four sisters had spoken since babyhood. French came a little later, but German was never spoken in the family”.

What you posted and what I just posted is, again, hearsay, even though the latter comes from a very close and reliable source. But there seem to be many testimonies like this - contradictory to each other. Call me "closed minded" and "arrogant" but I personally can't hold much weight by this type of evidence one way or another...  
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Michelle on January 07, 2005, 11:00:11 AM
To each his own, I suppose.  I myself have heard more testimonies (or read I guess I should say ::)) from people saying that she actually did no doubt speak Russian than the other way around.  And Anastasia and OTM most certainly DID know German!  I'm very surprised that Olga said they didn't know it at all.  Every account of them says they studied English, French, and German.  The girls were not very good at German, and neither was AA.  She only spoke in broken, imprecise German.  Olga's comment is a bit puzzling to me. ???
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Annie on January 07, 2005, 11:30:53 AM
While they surely did study German, it was not one they used. Pierre Gilliard, their longtime live-in tutor, said he never heard any of them speak one word of German. The family spoke Russian and English to each other and the court language was French  those were the ones commonly used. There was really no need for German since their German relations (Willy, Ernie, Ella, etc.) all spoke and wrote to them in English anyway. So Gilliard's statement does back up Olga's, and they both knew her well. Also, when Felix Y. met her, he said he asked her questions in all four languages and she only answered in German.

I find it strange that if someone was Anastasia German would be the most used language of the four when in reality it was the least used.
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Helen_Azar on January 07, 2005, 11:57:22 AM
Quote
To each his own, I suppose.  I myself have heard more testimonies (or read I guess I should say ::)) from people saying that she actually did no doubt speak Russian than the other way around.  And Anastasia and OTM most certainly DID know German!  I'm very surprised that Olga said they didn't know it at all.  Every account of them says they studied English, French, and German.  The girls were not very good at German, and neither was AA.  She only spoke in broken, imprecise German.  Olga's comment is a bit puzzling to me. ???


This is why I am always saying that this type of evidence should always be taken with a grain of salt, since people tend to get things wrong all the time. This goes for both sides of the argument. This is why I am a big advocate of using conclusive scientific evidence only. I know you don't like that idea, Michelle, but it is the only way to avoid 'puzzling' and subjective evidence such as these testimonies. There is nothing puzzling about DNA results if performed and understood correctly.

Ok, I will get off my arrogant soap box now and crawl back into my corner  ;)
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Helen_Azar on January 07, 2005, 12:15:15 PM
Ok, here is some more "puzzling" testimony, while we're at it (I just couldn't stay in that corner of mine for too long ;)):

Same book P. 175

The Grand Duchess [Olga Alexandrovna] remarked that the interviews were made all the more difficult by Mrs Anderson’s attitude. She would not answer some of the questions, and looked angry when those questions were repeated. Some Romanov photographs were shown to her, and there was not a flicker of recognition in her eyes. The Grand Duchess had brought a small icon of St Nicholas, the patron saint of the imperial family. Mrs Anderson looked at it so indifferently that it was obvious the icon said nothing to her.  

P. 176

Olga Alexandrovna: “…That child was as dear to me as if she were my own daughter. As soon as I sat down by that bed in the Mommsen Nursing Home, I knew I was looking at a stranger… I had left Denmark with something of a hope in my heart. I left Berlin with all hope extinguished. "  

“…The mistakes she made could not be all attributed to lapses of memory. For instance, she had a scar on one of her fingers and she kept telling everybody that it had been crushed because of a footman shutting the door of a landau too quickly. And at once I remembered the incident. It was Marie, her elder sister, who got her hand hurt rather badly, and it did not happen in a carriage but on board the imperial train. Obviously someone, having heard something of the incident, had passed a garbled version of it to Mrs Anderson.

“Then again I heard that a party in Berlin, when she was offered some vodka, Mrs Anderson said : ‘How nice! It does remind me of the days at Tsarskoe Selo!” Vodka certainly would not have brought any such reminder to my niece… My nieces never touched either wine or spirits – and indeed how could they at their age?…”  


Out of all the eyewitnesses who did or didn't recognize AA as AN, Olga Alexandrovna knew AN best - and she did not recognize AA as AN, even though she wanted it to be true. She felt sympathy for the woman she saw as sick and wretched with obvious mental problems. This later seems to have been distorted as her recognition and then denial of AA.

But again, none of this really matters because this kind of evidence should not play any part in this case since it is too easily distorted.
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: rskkiya on January 10, 2005, 11:39:19 AM
I was under the impression that the DNA results had more or less cleared this nasty little AA/AN discussion up?
Anna Anderson was not Anastasia N. -she may well have been Ms. Fransiska S.

Some people question this possiblility --  fine but without Penny's " unpublished information" we are all wasting our time!

rskkiya
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Mgmstl on January 23, 2005, 11:39:37 PM
What an interesting thread, as a newbie here this has taken me several hours to read & to reread, visit Peter Kurth's site.

While I remember reading a great deal about Anna Anderson, the people who supported her were definitely moved to support Ms Anderson,because they were convinced this was some one.

As Penny said, if she is NOT GDAN, nor FS, then WHO is she??? Who could she possibly be??  Another of the sisters?  

This thread does make a great deal of sense, we have to remember that the book "FOTR" took a great many assumptions that we have had about the Romanovs in captivity, and what happened to them, and shattered some myths.  

After reading Peter Kurths site I am reminded of how these people felt that she was indeed some one, and some one who knew enough about royalty & behaviour that she could not have been an actress playing a part for 60 odd years.  

It does make you wonder, exactly WHO this woman was.
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Olga on January 24, 2005, 06:00:33 AM
Quote
I'm very surprised that Olga said they didn't know it at all.


Are you saying you know better than Olga Alexandrovna?

Quote
The girls were not very good at German, and neither was AA.  She only spoke in broken, imprecise German.


Then how do you explain the "Ist dis der Tante?" comment?
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Helen_Azar on January 24, 2005, 09:01:53 AM
Quote
Who could she possibly be??  Another of the sisters?  
 


We can't say for sure who she was, but we can say for sure whom she wasn't... She couldn't have been another one of the sisters for the same reason she couldn't have been Anastasia, the DNA showed she could not in any way be related to N & A. Hence we will never be able to know for sure who AA was, we can only make some inferences based on her mtDNA and maybe the photo, but that's all we can do.
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Mgmstl on January 24, 2005, 10:06:05 AM
The girls did know & learn German.  I believe, French, English, German & Russian.   As their lesson books show.

I think it is also probable that Olga Alexandrovna, while wanting desperately to recognize this woman as her niece was under pressure NOT TO.  From her Mother, her sister, Xenia.  I am sure from the Vladimirovichi, and other members of the family.  In fact they didn't even want her to see this woman.  Irene of Prussia went, and it plagued her for the rest of her life.  

I wonder about the forensic studies done on AA during her long court case in Hamburg.  Would any of those reports be obsolete, or be useful in helping determine her identity assuming that for the sake of this threas she is neither AN nor FS.    

Was FS murdered in Berlin in the 1920's? Can anyone enlighten on that?
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Abby on January 24, 2005, 12:28:57 PM
There is no proof that she was murdered, she just went missing. There has been speculation that she was murdered by a serial killer but no concrete evidence.
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Annie on January 24, 2005, 01:31:43 PM
This 'murder' theory has only come up very recently, it was never mentioned during all those years of trials and testimony. If she was murdered, why make such a big deal out of FS during the trial? She was MISSING and thought at one time possibly killed simply because there was a serial killer in town and she disappeared, but there is no evidence (other than a name in a diary that would be a real stretch to make Schanskowska) to support this theory at all, especially since AA's DNA was a good match with the Schanskowska family.
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Mgmstl on January 24, 2005, 03:02:35 PM
Hmmmmm..... interesting.  In that case did the siblings of FS ever positively identify AA as FS? Did they sign an affadavit and stick to their story??

There are too many factions in this case that had agendas to push on both sides.  At this stage in the game it would be hard to seperate fact from fiction.

On to Olga's memories. you know it's strange how quickly you forget things, small things.  My father died in Dec 2003, and during the service at the cemetery while the honor guard was firing its rounds and taps played, I  focused on something to keep from thinking about what was happening.  I seem to see myself sitting at the far end of the row of chairs however, when one of my sisters pointed out that I was in the first chair next to my Mother.   Just a year has passed, and already this detail left my memory until jogged by my sister, and then I saw it in my mind as clear as day.

What I am saying is with all of the tragedy & the horror of the revolution, their total displacement in the world & society in general, it would be very possible for Olga to have forgotten that her nieces knew German or learned German, when you are worrying about such mundane daily things as food, clothes, shelter, etc.  That is why Helen is correct ALL of this should be taken with a grain of salt.

I think that Olga was under too much pressure to make a decision against AA, which of course we all know that the DNA shows that AA is NOT AN, and this may not have been something she wanted to be involved in.

I remember reading a quote by Irene of Prussia, and I think it was sometime shortly before her death in reference to AA,  "she is similar, she is similar, but what does that mean is it is not she?"  

Perhaps they knew more than they ever let on about the identity of AA...
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Annie on January 24, 2005, 03:55:42 PM
I know you're new and coming in late on this, somewhere in these threads are the answers to all these questions.

On the family, they originally recognized her, then denied it officially, yet years later there are letters and comments to prove they DID know it was their sister and denied her to avoid financial responsibity for her and her situation and legal fees, and not to spoil her 'career' as 'Anastasia.' There is a letter from her sister's lawyer stating this, you no longer have to worry about lying about her not being your sister, the time limit is up. They felt she'd be better off with whatever life she could have as "Anastasia" and left it at that. So that's the story of the family and their 'denial.' I could go back and find all the parts of threads if my computer weren't so slow and I remembered exactly what thread they were in. It's all here!

And, NO, a huge, emphatic NO to the question that Nicholas or Alexandra's families 'knew more than they let on.' I find that insulting that anyone would think they would deny their traumatized niece, especiallly since there turned out to be no money and that was the main excuse used. They would have loved to find Anastasia, unfortunately, they found an imposter.
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Mgmstl on January 24, 2005, 04:14:53 PM
I realize you have some 1486 posts to your credit, but I find your tone a bit more than insulting. After all I am just asking questions, or can we only discuss issues you haven't already covered???  

To think that these people and groups did NOT have agendas, think again.  The GD of Hesse did not want to risk knowledge about his secret visit to Russia in the war,  there was money & claims to be considered, and these people were far from the extreme wealth they used to posess even though not poverty stricken.

Don't delude yourself into thinking that money did NOT play a part in the actions and motives of some of these people.  While I don't believe that was the issue in the case of Olga Alexandrovna.

I am not impugning anyone's motives, I am just stating that sometimes it is easier to remember someone the way they were, than how they now are.  Also I firmly believe AA was NOT AN.  I also think that ANY survivor would have met the same stone wall that AA met.  These are just feelings of my own.  

Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Helen_Azar on January 24, 2005, 04:28:33 PM
Quote
ANY survivor would have met the same stone wall that AA met.  
But at least in AA's case, they did give her the benefit of the doubt by having Olga Alexandrovna go over to the hospital and meet her. There were countless other claimants who were pretty much ignored because of the absurdity of their claims... So you have to give the family credit for at least that. If they were trying to avoid ANY claimant, I don't think Olga would have even bothered to go meet her, don't you think.  And of course,  they couldn't really meet up with every delusional person who claimed to be one of the survived children, there were too many of them and their stories were too outlandish. AA stood out because for whatever reasons she had a much stronger case than many of the others, and any stronger cases seemed to have been seriously considered by the family, at least by some members of the family. Unfortunately, AA turned out to be a false lead, as was confirmed later on.
And I am really not so sure that there was to be a lot of monetary gains from all this, neither for the family nor for the claimant. They may have been embarrased more than anything by the whole thing and this is why they became so hostile to AA in the end... Again, we can only speculate because it is difficult to accept people's testimonies one way or another as completely reliable.
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Mgmstl on January 24, 2005, 05:01:40 PM
I agree with that Helen, but at the time that AA came along in the early to mid 20's  did they know that all of  the Tsar's overseas accounts were gone, with the exception of what remained in the Mendolsen Bank?

I am sure that it would have been heartbreaking amongst other things to interview every delusional crackpot that said they were survivors of Ekaterinburg, but then that would have made those guards pretty lousy shots.

What I am trying to say regardless of what has been discussed is that there were motives on all sides of this controversy, and while in the end the monetary gain for the family was little it was still something.  To think that there would not be any suspicion of a survivor, of how they did survive, that the survivor would not arrive in a flowing white dress, fresh faced, young, and eager, but possibly scarred as AA was, and her many similarities which did result in visits from Pcss Irene & GDcss Olga.

After reading Peter Kurths site I am more than a bit distrustful of these DNA tests and how they were conducted, along with the exhumations, rereading the DNA chapters in FOTR, and other articles makes me even more suspicious.  On this subject I am not sure what I believe anymore.  
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Annie on January 24, 2005, 05:37:03 PM
Quote
I realize you have some 1486 posts to your credit, but I find your tone a bit more than insulting. After all I am just asking questions, or can we only discuss issues you haven't already covered???  


Sorry :( What I mean is, this forum is a wealth of recorded info if you go back and read all the threads.


Quote
Don't delude yourself into thinking that money did NOT play a part in the actions and motives of some of these people.  While I don't believe that was the issue in the case of Olga Alexandrovna.


And don't delude YOURSELF into thinking that Gleb Botkin and perhaps AA herself may have had a monetary agenda ;) I will never believe that Ernie, Olga or any  other relative (except Kyril, he'd do it) would reject an authentic Anastasia.


Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Mgmstl on January 24, 2005, 05:50:11 PM
Annie, I firmly believe Gleb Botkins motives and agendas were finanical, and so was AA's to a point.  However I don't have any illusions about the Royals either....

I will look further through the threads, and I apologize if I offended you. :)
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: AGRBear on January 24, 2005, 07:27:10 PM
Quote
Annie, I firmly believe Gleb Botkins motives and agendas were finanical, and so was AA's to a point.  However I don't have any illusions about the Royals either....

I will look further through the threads, and I apologize if I offended you. :)


What did Gleb Botkin do which has set so many of you against him?  

Since I have not been that interested in  the Anna Anderson data and have only  read a couple of books which were just about her, Kurths's and Klier's,  could you give me some kind of example  which shows me this was true of him?

AGRBear
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Abby on January 24, 2005, 07:58:05 PM
Quote

"This murder theory" isn't a recent discovery -- it's as old as this case.  FS's mother and step-father refused to meet Fraulein Unbekannt because they were satisfied that the Berlin Police has solved Franziska's disappearance by showing that she was likely a victim of Georg Grossman.


This is very interesting indeed, Penny! i anticipate learning what else there is to know about FS.
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Helen_Azar on January 24, 2005, 09:30:57 PM
Quote
  I am more than a bit distrustful of these DNA tests and how they were conducted...


Michael,

Which part of the DNA results or methods that they used are you distrustful of? Maybe I can help clarify some things about that. We have been through it before numerous times on other threads, but there is still some confusion, so we can try to go over it again if you would like...

Quote

Olga recognized her [AA] when she was dying, but withdrew her recognition when she lived....



Penny,

I was wondering what is the source of this info - I never read anywhere that Olga was among the people who recognized AA as AN, only that she felt sorry for her as a human being and therefore sent her a few letters and little presents... And what would be the point of recognizing her when she was dying? If they were going to deny her, even if she was dying, wouldn't Olga be told even before she met AA that she must not recognize her no matter what? This is a very serious accusation against Olga Alexandrovna's character, it would be almost monstrous to think that she knew that AA was AN but because of family pressures denied her. I find it very difficult to believe. Of course, as you say, anything is possible, but in the case of OA it seems so unlikely that she would do something like that, as she never really seemed to care about monetary rewards or what have you. In fact, she didn't really seem to care that much what the family thought of her before the revolution, and you would think much less so after. So would she really go along with what the family commanded her in this case, when it would involve her doing something like this? I don't know...  I find it extremely hard to believe.  

So now it seems that we are back to trying to prove that AA may in fact have been AN, in which case we have to prove that the DNA results were wrong. I am sorry to keep going around in circles with that, but logically this is the only way to accept the other evidence. If you can show that the DNA evidence that says that AA couldn't possibly be AN is inaccurate then all the other evidence can come into play...  

Quote
You have no problem getting it right with the evidence against Fraulein Unbekannt's being Grand Duchess Anastasia.  If only you could be as correct in your recitation of the evidence in her favor.


The evidence of her being FS is not as clear cut as her not being AN. We can't prove via DNA that she was FS, but we can exclude her via DNA from being AN. There is a difference there...  

Helen
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Mgmstl on January 24, 2005, 10:41:31 PM
Helen,

It may take me a day to get my thoughts together on what I am questioning.  One of my first questions though would be why doesn't the DNA testing prove
conclusively whether she is or is not FS as it rules out her being AN.  Is it the difference between mitochondrial DNA and DNA?  

Two other issues come to mind quickly, the way that the grave was excavated, and the other is the way that the Russian scientists were forcing the issue that the body was that of Anastasia's and not Marie's.  Perhaps the methods that they used are in question.

The other issue that arises Helen,(and thanks for taking the time to help me out here.) is after rereading Peter Kurths site, I seem to remember that AA some supporters that were clearly believed she was not AN,
she was either an actress of very quick study, she knew things about royalty, understood Russian, who could this woman have been??  She had to be someone, these are things one doesn't pick up overnight.  I know
this is a mystery, but I just don't think that it can be explained that she was an actress, an adventuress.

After extensive reading I do question everyone's motives in this case.   Tell me what you think as you have been posting here longer than I have.
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Kransnoeselo on January 24, 2005, 11:17:28 PM
Hey everyone.

I want to thank everyone for participating in this subject.  It is very refreshing to have an avenue to discuss this matter.

Regarding Olga Alexandrovna Kulinovskii's visit to AA I thought Id include some of Harriet von Rathlef Keilmann's notes on the matter- since Olga, who after reading part of Harriet's manuscript told Ambassador Herluf Zahle: (that it was 'correct in its depection' [of the meetings in Berlin]; but she hadn't read the rest [of the manuscript] because she had no great command of German) Kurth: Anastasia The RIddle of Anna Anderson page 407 footnote 24.

The account was from Harriet's book Anastasia: Survivor of Yekaterinburg 1929

"On the afternoon of the same day there was a knock at the door.  A lady (Olga) in a violet cloak entered, followed by the Danish Ambassador.  She went straight to the invalid's bed...The lady (Olga) spoke to her (AA) in Russian, but she (AA) replied in her halting German....After some time she (AA) inquired: 'How is Grandmamma? How is her heart?' ...Only, after nearly two hours, when the latter (Olga) had left the room for a few moments, did Mr Zahle (The Danish Ambassador) ask the invalid: 'Who is this lady?'  Thereupon she answered happily: 'Papa's sister, my Aunt Olga' "

"The Grand Duchess came again in the afternoon.   On this occassion she was not alone.  The lady who accompanied her had once visited the invalid in the Mary Hospital with Mr. Gillard.  It was the Shura the sufferer (AA) was longing to see.  Shura herself was excited.  She approached the bed and asked smiling in Russian: 'How are you?'  In great agitation, the invalid glanced at her face and examined her figure; she answers in German, and gave her her hand.  She did not kiss her hand as she had done with the Grand Duchess (Olga).  Smiling, she regarded the person standing before her.  Ther Grand Duchess bent over her, and asked her in a friendly and lively manner: 'Now, who is that?' 'Shura,' she replied.  We all heard it.  [Shura was Anastasia's nickname for her nursemaid Alexandra Tegleva-the rest of the family called her Sascha].  Thereupon, the Grand Duchess Olga Alexandrovna clapped her hands and, beaming with happiness, exclaimed: 'Right, right; but now we must speak Russian, because Shura does not understand German.' "  Anna continued in German while Shura spoke with her only in Russian.  

Continued in Peter Kuth's book: "Soon Grand Duchess Olga called Harriet von Rathlef out onto the balconey.  She pointed into the sickroom and said, 'Our little one and Shura seem very happy to have found one another again.' [Little one was a term of endearment used in the family both for Anastasia and Alexei] 'If I had any money, I would do everything for the little one, but I haven't any and must earn my own pocket money by painting.'   ...'I am so happy that I came, and I did it even though Mamma did not want me to.  She was so angry with me when I came.  And then my sister [Grand Duchess Xenia] wired me from England saying that under no circumstances shoud I come to see the little one.'  

Anna decidely understood Russian- and in many instances spoke it. As recounted by Princess Xenia Leeds.  As found in Peter Kurths book that "once, while Xenia stood unnoticed in her doorway, she heard Anastasia (Anna) speak to her birds for several minutes entirly in Russian- 'and perfectly acceptable Russian from the point of view of St. Petersburg society." (page 217).  Of course this has nothing to due with AA's claim to be AN but indeed stories like this must be considered when trying to determine the accuracy of the claim that AA was FS, when FS knew no Russian and spoke only "a little Polish and good German." according to FS's brother Felix. FS and her family were more German than Polish.  See Peter Kurth's website regarding their Kashubian origins.    

http://www.peterkurth.com/ANNA-ANASTASIA%20NOTES%20ON%20FRANZISKA%20SCHANZKOWSKA.htm

Thanks,
Tim
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Helen_Azar on January 24, 2005, 11:37:10 PM
Quote
 One of my first questions though would be why doesn't the DNA testing prove
conclusively whether she is or is not FS as it rules out her being AN.  Is it the difference between mitochondrial DNA and DNA?  


I'll try to answer this question as best as I can (these things tend to confuse many people). The reason you can exclude someone from having a certain identity is because it is a lot easier to show that something didn't match than that something matched entirely. When they compare DNA, they obviously can't compare the whole sequence (which is like the human genome), as it is way too long. So what they do is this, they compare several long regions. For example, if they compare three regions, and one of them doesn't match, then they can say that this is definitely not a match and they don't have to continue with the comparison. They can now say, this person has been excluded from being related because the DNA failed to match. However, if you are trying to prove someone's identity, it becomes more complicated. Then, even if the three regions match exactly, it doesn't mean that if they do another three that those will match. But even if the next three match, it still doesn't mean that the next one will. So the more regions you do, the more statistically solid your case becomes - if all the regions continue to match. After a while the statistics become very high, so you can sort of say, ok this person is probably related to whomever you are comparing them to, but you still can't exclude them from not being related because you haven't done the whole sequence (which is practically impossible of course). So you will use statistics to say, there is some % chance that this person is related. You can't ever say you have a 100% match unless you compare the entire sequence and it matches, which no one ever does, so you can't tell with 100% certainty someone's identity. But you can come pretty close, because after a while it just becomes semantics...

Hence, it is a lot easier to disprove who someone is, than to prove who someone is, to put it simply.


Quote
... the issue that the body was that of Anastasia's and not Marie's.  Perhaps the methods that they used are in question.
  
 They can't tell via DNA exactly which of the daughters these remains belong to, unless they had both girls DNA (confirmed samples) to compare it to. They can only tell with DNA that the remains belong to one of the daughters of N & A. The questions that arose about those remains are anthropological and forensic, I guess, not molecular, so it really has nothing to do with DNA... The one thing they know for sure about those remains (as told by DNA) is that this was the daughter of one of the male remains and one of the female remains found in the same grave, and that she was also a descendant of Queen Victoria.

Quote
...some supporters that were clearly believed she was not AN,
she was either an actress of very quick study, she knew things about royalty, understood Russian, who could this woman have been??  She had to be someone, these are things one doesn't pick up overnight.  I know
this is a mystery, but I just don't think that it can be explained that she was an actress, an adventuress.
 
 

I can't answer this because all this is hearsay, on both sides. I have no idea...  I can only go by the evidence I actually do understand and which is clear cut, which is the DNA evidence...



Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Helen_Azar on January 25, 2005, 12:03:49 AM
I actually do have Peter's book, and I've read it (sometimes it's hard to remember what I read where though), but it was a while ago and I can't remember much now. I will read it again at some point. This case is a mystery in a lot of ways, and although explanations exist I am sure, I am not so sure that everyone will ever agree on this subject! Which is ok because that just means hours and hours of additional entertainment as we continue discussing it for years to come    ;) ;D

BTW, history is now my discipline too!  :)

Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Alice on January 25, 2005, 05:09:03 AM
Quote
I don't find it hard to believe.  It was a difficult time for the Romanov family, and I can believe that hard decisions had to be made within the family circle -- as described by Xenia's grandson when he said that the family were forbidden by their elders to even mention Fraulein Unbekannt even though "we all knew it was her."


I don't think it's fair of Xenia's grandson to speak on behalf of the entire Romanov Family. I find it very difficult to believe that they "all knew it was her". I also find it difficult to believe that he knew that they "all knew it was her", too, if they were forbidden to talk about it.   ::)

As for Olga Alexandrovna, the very fact that it was a difficult time would've made it all the more wonderful, if she was to be re-united with her beloved niece Anastasia Nicholaevna, and know that AN did not meet a horrible, gruesome death in that cellar. So there's two sides of the coin here.

(Sadly, I can see this discussion going around in another "AA-was-or-wasn't-AN" circle . . . )
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Annie on January 25, 2005, 06:10:48 AM
Penny, I realize how defensive you are over this subject since your upcoming book depends on giving this case some believeability, but until you discount how the DNA came up so close to Carl Maucher, or why her face looks exactly like FS, or why there are correspondences between family members discussing their sister being Anastasia, nothing else matters.

If the parents believed the murder story, it was only because it seemed likely, missing girl + serial killer in town = possible victim, but we now know she didn't die. What a shame her parents didn't live to see the happy news! :D
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Annie on January 25, 2005, 06:34:45 AM
Quote

What did Gleb Botkin do which has set so many of you against him?  

Since I have not been that interested in  the Anna Anderson data and have only  read a couple of books which were just about her, Kurths's and Klier's,  could you give me some kind of example  which shows me this was true of him?

AGRBear


Of course no one is going to write it (other than the Orthodox Priests you guys bashed) and he never admitted it himself, but the theory makes more than a lot of sense. Gleb had info, knew Anastasia. Girl claims to be Anastasia. Gleb can give her info to help her. He's a writer and looking for a good story to make money. There's no proof, there's no proof of a lot of things we discuss here, but I can't believe anyone could totally rule this out based only on 'he's such a nice guy he'd never do that'

Did the parents really refuse to see her in the asylum? Interesting I've never heard that. I didn't even know they were still alive, I thought her father had died years before at least. I don't know who told you that but I find it very hard to believe. People will never give up on a missing child, or any relative, hell, even a missing pet! They will always keep hoping and checking out any possibility. I cannot believe any parent, who had never been given a body as evidence, would not check out any lead, people always hold out hope. Either your source is mistaken, or they didn't see her for some intangible reason (such as already having cashed in her life ins. policy?)
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Olga on January 25, 2005, 06:50:27 AM
Quote
....but until you discount how the DNA came up so close to Carl Maucher, or why her face looks exactly like FS, or why there are correspondences between family members discussing their sister being Anastasia, nothing else matters.


Penny, please explain how this can be discounted.
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Mgmstl on January 25, 2005, 09:47:56 AM
After having read so many of the these biographies it makes my head swim, I have come away the conclusion that these people involved in the AA-FS-AN  issue from its inception to the DNA tests ALL had motives, political,
financial, personal prejiduce.  

Some here tend to regard royalty as above the regular every day human being, tnat this family would have embraced a survivor with open arms etc... I tend to think the opposite, having situation arise involving property, money posessions, in my own family over the years. I have found that everyone has an agenda in these cases.  Don't ever overlook motives in this case.

Penny has made some excellent points about Peter Kurths well researched book, "The Riddle Of Anna Anderson".   All she has asked in this thread is that we not throw out the baby with the bathwater so to speak.

It is obvious that the DNA evidence rules out AA being AN, it leans towards FS, but it is not conclusive, but saying the evidence regarding FS possibly being the victim of a serial killer in Berlin 1920's is compelling, if that is the case, then WHO was this woman.

For me the case doesn't end with her not being A.N., it makes it more compelling at least to me to investigate discuss and think about the possibility.

Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Annie on January 25, 2005, 10:02:17 AM
I'm not putting royalty above others, but I do believe as family, any family, they would not reject her. She had no claim to the throne, even if she were alive, as a female she was not above Kyril and other men, so that doesn't even matter. There was also no money, and Olga A. got hardly any money herself and lived in very modest conditions the rest of her life (like a dirt farm and a one bedroom apt. over a barber shop) so she certainly had no financial motives!

On the subject of the offhand remark one of Xenia's sons said 'we knew it was her'- there are also many more by other relatives of Xenia saying it wasn't, and also several quotes from the Schanskowska family that they denied their sister as not to spoil her 'career as Anastasia.' So I guess people will highlight what suits their case and avoid what doesn't, like politicians do! Also, think of why FS played so prominently in the trial if she was 'dead?' This was back in the day when the participants were alive and the trail was still warm, and before things were later destroyed in bombings in Berlin. If FS being dead was never brought up in the trial by EITHER side, why would it even be an issue today? The only reason I can think of is that some people are desperately trying to get FS out of the picture so they can make it more likely AA was AN, but we know she wasn't, so why bother?

I really don't  believe anyone would bother to try so hard to prove AA was not FS unless they were trying prove she WAS AN. Come on, what purpose would this serve? There are no other leads or claimants, no one else claiming she was their missing crazy sister, nothing, just as there are no leads on the 'real killer' in the OJ case.

I am convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that AA was FS and that she died in VA in 1984  at the age of 88. AN probably died in Ekaterinburg in 1918 at age 17, but her body has never been found which leaves a very small window open that she did escape. However, even if she did, she was still not Anna Anderson Mahahan.
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Olga on January 25, 2005, 10:15:52 AM
Quote
What you read as my "defensiveness" over this subject is actually my frustration with your inability to read and retain any fact that disagrees with your pet theory.


And you do not have a pet theory of your own?

Quote
And how superior you must feel in your "knowledge" that Franziska's family were completely unable to identify her themselves.


Penny, I always get the impression that you consider yourself 'superior' in that you are the author of a book which deals specifically with the subject we are discussing. Am I right or wrong?

Quote
You are the most dangerous type of contributor to this forum, Annie, because you simply spout out whatever comes into your mind without regard to facts, details or truths.  I would remind you -- as you have reminded others -- that this forum is used by those seeking facts.  Therefore, you should govern yourself accordingly.


Civilty and tact is always the best approach. It's usually a good idea to practise what you preach.
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Helen_Azar on January 25, 2005, 10:16:26 AM
Quote
... these people involved in the AA-FS-AN  issue from its inception to the DNA tests ALL had motives, political,
financial, personal prejiduce.  


Michael, this may or may not be the case, but it's one thing to have motives, it's completely another to be able to pull off an elaborate conspiracy, "fenagle" DNA results without anyone suspecting, etc. The way it stands up under scrutiny, the conspiracy appears to be an impossibility, and if you look into that part of it more closely then you would see it too.

As to "who was she" question, yes, it would be interesing to find out for sure. Based on the scientific evidence and the photographs alone, it appears that she probably was FS. With all the other evidence thrown in, there is a chance she may have been someone else, someone probably related to the Schankowskys, anything is possible. Purely out of intellectual curiousity and the desire to solve a historical mystery once and for all, I can see why people would be interested in this. I don't know if too many people, but I am sure the real diehards would be. In any case, it is kind of fun to talk about...  ;)
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Mgmstl on January 25, 2005, 10:24:21 AM
Olga may have not gotten "a lot" of money. What she did get kept her between a decent life and starvation,
ALSO there may have been pressure from her Mother,
her sister, her husband, all bringing consdierable influence into what decision she made.

While I think Olga was probably the last person to care about money, jewelry, status, etc.  She did have a family to consider, and the well being of her aging mother.

She definitely was not AN, the DNA evidence leans towards FS but is not conclusive, considering the other factors involved in this case this is a mystery, yet to be solved of who was Anna Anderson.  Until the evidence can be explained satisfactorily, this rather amazing woman managed to "fool" a great many people who were well educated,  and members of the Romanov family.  After solving so many family mysteries of my own and being the inheritor of family lore, stories, etc., I find this one more than intriguing. Obviously it's a sore spot with others.    I enjoy a good mystery more than anything else.

Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Olga on January 25, 2005, 10:30:22 AM
Quote
She did have a family to consider, and the well being of her aging mother.


Olga Alexandrovna did not have to worry about Maria Fyodorovna's financial situation. That was taken care of by the (then) current Danish king, whose name escapes me at this moment in time.
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: AGRBear on January 25, 2005, 10:34:52 AM
Everyone always skirts around the possibility of the involvment of  the CHEKA, Ural Soviets, GPU, communists and KGB.  Some laugh out loud when it's mention because, these people say,  none of them had  any reason to create Anna Anderson.   OR, some say, all of them [Lenin, Stalin... ] in their turm wanted to make sure AA's claims could never be proven.

All you have to do is go into a library and look for ALL the books that deal with  non-fiction books that deal with all kinds of events in which one or all of these Russian groups were capable of accomplishing.

So,  that said,  why do you think this case, which Russians admit was a "thorn in the side of the Russians like Lenin and Stalin, could not have been tampered by them?

AGRBear
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Mgmstl on January 25, 2005, 10:39:49 AM
Helen, the motives I refer to are those of the survivors, people whose livelihoods depended on the generosity of others.  People who would stand to gain politically or monetarily if a monarchy was restored, if money was discovered, while not a great deal was discovered, I am sure it kept some from starvation.   Also there are those people out there who felt there was money to be gained who were not family members.

Another thing that keeps coming to my mind is this, was the appearance of AA, I think that many of them expected a fresh faced young girl in white, flushed from the tennis courts, & they were faced with someone who had extreme health problems, and footing the bills for her would have taken ALL of what they had.

So while I agree that a DNA conspiracy is not very likely, after digging out Peter Kurths book and rereading until 4 a.m. , I think that the mystery here is one that merits discussion.
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: AGRBear on January 25, 2005, 10:41:45 AM
There has been a discussion about the actual inheritance AA would have inherited had she been able to prove she was GD Anastasia.

http://hydrogen.pallasweb.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=anastasia;action=display;num=1098804752;start=0#0

AGRBear

PS  Just read Penny's post which occured while I writing.

Thanks Penny for taking time out of your busy day to keep us informed as well as your opinions.
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Mgmstl on January 25, 2005, 10:45:23 AM
But Olga, if they recognized AA a share of her mother's estate would have to go to AA as an heir, as a share did to George Brassov.

I am sure the financial issues at Hvidore were there, as Corene Hall's book shows that until someone was appointed to oversee the finances of the Empress Dowager, she went through her money pretty quickly.

I don't think King Christian supported her financially, in fact I think that he was pretty tight, didn't get along with his great aunt, which was the reason she moved from Amailenborg, and if I remember they had problems getting a state funeral for her.

I think there were motives to go around on all sides, and again I don't think she was Anastasia.
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Annie on January 25, 2005, 10:46:43 AM
Quote


As to your assertions regarding what I will "have to prove," again you are wrong.  As Helen says, the DNA test results are NOT conclusive in identifying AA as FS; her face looking "exactly like FS" is too objective for words and is NOT in actuality, a fact; and I have yet to see "correspondences" between two of FS's siblings -- I assume you must mean siblings as you refer to FS as "their sister" -- in which they openly admit that AA was FS and that they conspired to assist her in fraud.  Please direct me to them immediately.


Here's one, posted by another member a few months ago and always ignored by you:

At least two of the siblings recognized her,Felix and Gertrud even if they at the end of the day refused to sign a statement that they had. Gertrude said to AA: You are my sister,I know it! I read about a letter sent to Gertrude by the lawyer of Barbara of Mecklenburg who was the formal opposer of AA in the trials. The lawyer Hans-Herman Krampff wrote to Mrs Gertrude Ellerik the 11 April 1959: "The research made in the meantime has resulted that at the confrotation with Mrs Anderson in 1938 you were not the only one who recognized her as your sister Franziska. Your brothers and sisters also did but abstained to say so in order not to make obstacles of the career of their sister. Afterwards your sister Maria has died and your brother Valerian lives in Poland. So it´s only you and your brother Felix left who can be heard at the trial in Hamburg. I would like to inform you that you have nothing to fear if you told the truth now since the time of a criminal act has expired". From the French journalist Dominique Auclère´s book. Anastasia qui etes-vous?

There are still more, a letter between Felix S. and his niece openly calling AA/FS his 'sister' which I will continue to search for. Besides that, there are also quotes from members of the family, including Carl Maucher. It seems to be fairly common knowledge among the family that they knew AA was FS.


Quote
You are the most dangerous type of contributor to this forum, Annie, because you simply spout out whatever comes into your mind without regard to facts, details or truths.  I would remind you -- as you have reminded others -- that this forum is used by those seeking facts.  Therefore, you should govern yourself accordingly.


Search yourself before you accuse anyone else.
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: AGRBear on January 25, 2005, 10:59:12 AM
Helen and Penny,  please,  go and get some coffee or tea or a soda.

It's "time out".

Each, take a deep breath.

The rest of us are interested in what each of you have to say so calm down, no more accusations thrown at each other, just continue with the facts.  

Okay?  Okay.

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

AGRBear
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Mgmstl on January 25, 2005, 11:25:36 AM
Penny, I want to say that your mystery here has intrigued me.  This whole line of thought is so needed to bring the mystery to a close and as you said to indeed possibly help those "Anastasians" out there.

Thanks to you & Greg King for  "FOTR" and I look foreward to your upcoming books!
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Forum Admin on January 25, 2005, 11:25:41 AM
AGR, THANK you for your words to cool things down.

Penny, THANK you for taking the time to come back and visit us for a while.

Annie, I think Penny raises one good point here. Just because AA may not have been FS, it does NOT mean she WAS AN. Penny and Greg (correct me if I am wrong) believe that the mtDNA evidence is most likely conclusive evidence that AA was NOT AN.  So let's all agree on that point in this thread, and then look at who AA might well "have been". Even I concede that Penny and Greg raise valid questions on that point, and that there IS at least some reasonable doubt that AA may not have been FS, though am still not sure how the mtDNA could exactly match Carl Maucher's otherwise. BUT, Penny and Greg have done far more investigation into the question than I so I for one, defer to their evidence.

FA
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: AGRBear on January 25, 2005, 11:50:07 AM
Penny,  I'd be the last poster to ask anyone to "lay down" and give up.

Sorry Helen.

AGRBear
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: sparrow on January 25, 2005, 11:54:53 AM
why is it we do not want to believe in Anna?  it is such a far stretch to believe we can not  teach ourselves to be noble. and then to live it for the entire time.  i wonder about why the evidence gathered by the family that was to be against her was supressed.  is it because we dont like truth?  i also wonder why if a finger print {such as the ear analysis} was proof positive why we choose in our own wisdom to ignore it.  i have to ask when i read some of the info here in the forum how much you have read?  read the evidence, then let it speak for itself.    have you ever tried to reinvent yourself to be a royal person.  let me see if they won't spot you a mile away.  it is a breeding.  a smell,  only one who has, can tell one who has.  as it is with nobility.   ask someone who has old money.  
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Annie on January 25, 2005, 12:02:06 PM
Quote
why is it we do not want to believe in Anna?  


I DID want to believe, for many years. And I did. But I don't anymore because it's been proven she wasn't and now I can't believe I ever even saw in her pictures what I used to. It was wishful thinking.
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Annie on January 25, 2005, 12:10:48 PM
Quote
Annie, I think Penny raises one good point here. Just because AA may not have been FS, it does NOT mean she WAS AN. Penny and Greg (correct me if I am wrong) believe that the mtDNA evidence is most likely conclusive evidence that AA was NOT AN.  So let's all agree on that point in this thread, and then look at who AA might well "have been". Even I concede that Penny and Greg raise valid questions on that point, and that there IS at least some reasonable doubt that AA may not have been FS, though am still not sure how the mtDNA could exactly match Carl Maucher's otherwise. BUT, Penny and Greg have done far more investigation into the question than I so I for one, defer to their evidence.

FA


This is strange you should say this compared to your positions in the past, whatever!

But don't forget that some people will slant evidence their own way for their own purposes, so just because someone has done a lot of reasearch doesn't make it more valid to me than someone who hasn't had the advantage of so much research. I have my serious doubts about all this new evidence that runs contrary to everything we've known in the past, especially, as I always say, back when people were still alive! I would be very interested to know the sources and proof of this 'new' info that is so against everything else we already know. I'm not calling them, or their sources, liars, but I will need a lot more info before I accept it as fact. A lot of things can happen, documents can be falsified, people can 'tell you what you want to hear', and it can never be the fault of the researchers. I'm just saying that Penny's position is so different from everything else established as fact that I will need some hard proof to make me believe it, the fact that she's a writer and is researching actively does not make me 'defer' to her automatically. In fact, I have much more confidence in the research of someone who ISN'T writing a book because they have nothing to gain by pushing their position.

I also totally disagree that Penny doesn't care who AA was, everything she says and does so forcefully appears to be in every way trying to prove her 'pet theory.'

I don't care if I get bashed for this, because I know I speak for many others who feel the same but don't want to get into the mess of posting it on the open board.
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: sparrow on January 25, 2005, 12:11:08 PM
the question of truth is in the heart.  the evidence of truth is in the whole truth.  i seek the truth of Anna because i do not like things undone.  but will i ever in light of this be able to prove the truth. no.  i will however be able to gather the evidence.   i look at how many people have gone to death based solely on the fingerprint evidence.   where ever money and power are, there too shall be conspiricy.  Anna did not teach herself.  if she was fs then as  a poor farm girl she could not teach herself to be more than she was especially after the situation of the grenade and the time in asylums.  she would have been able to teach herself to maybe in time, to help herself recover,  reinvent never.  she had too many issues  visit the insane asylym and see the issues there and ask for a conherent life long change.  including the ear.  the dna could be faked but the ear.  never
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Forum Admin on January 25, 2005, 12:11:57 PM
Sparrow,
Your posting really is not appropriate for this specific thread. THIS thread starts with accepting the mtDNA as showing AA was not AN, and then, goes on to ask, Since AA wasn't AN, 'so who was she then?"
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Annie on January 25, 2005, 12:16:03 PM
Quote

Might I direct your attention a few posts up where I respond to this lawyer's letter? It's certainly a letter written by Herr Krampff -- I have a copy of it myself.  But the content of it is of questionable factual quality.  Felix denied that AA was FS, plain and simple.  Gertrude recognized her,  at the meeting of 9 July 1938; Felix, Valerian and Maria Juliana didn't.  It was at the end of the meeting that Gertrude shouted out, "You are my sister! I know it! You must recognize me! Admit it!  Admit it!"  Yet she also refused to sign an affadavit officially recognizing AA as Franziska.  Gertrude remains the only member of the Schanzkowsky family to have recognized Franziska in AA.


Is it any more 'questionable' than the evidence you present?


Quote
Nope.  Only Gertrude ever recognized her.  Felix never did.



Eh, I have read a quote by him that he said 'if she is my sister I don't have to be responsibility for her, do I?' He feared having to pay her expenses, that is a big reason why he denied her. Also, in correspondence with his niece, she urgets him to publically admit it was his sister, and they talk as it it is a given fact. My theory is, from what I've read, they DID know she was their sister, but denied it to avoid financial responisibilty for her and not to spoil her 'career.' She was better off as "Anastasia" to them. Then they had to keep up their charade (at least publically) because they feared getting in trouble for lying. But they knew it was her, and Carl Maucher told stories of this.
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Annie on January 25, 2005, 12:22:18 PM
Quote
 i have to ask when i read some of the info here in the forum how much you have read?


I've been reading about Anna Anderson for 31 years. I used to be a supporter, but now I know better.

Quote
 read the evidence, then let it speak for itself.


It has spoken, and it says AA was not AN.


Quote
   have you ever tried to reinvent yourself to be a royal person.  let me see if they won't spot you a mile away.  it is a breeding.  a smell,  only one who has, can tell one who has.  as it is with nobility.   ask someone who has old money.  


Have you ever seen videos of her? I didn't see her in the 30's-'50's when she was actively acting it out, but I have seen her in TV clips from the 60's- 80's and there was not one single ounce of high born breeding in this woman. She seemed very ordinary and even rough. She lived in a filthy house with dozens of animals and garbage all  over the yard. Does that smell like old money?
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Annie on January 25, 2005, 12:26:30 PM
Quote
Sparrow,
Your posting really is not appropriate for this specific thread. THIS thread starts with accepting the mtDNA as showing AA was not AN, and then, goes on to ask, Since AA wasn't AN, 'so who was she then?"


That's right, several of us have gotten off track including me  :-[ Sorry!

I would be interested to hear any other ideas of who she might have been, or I will continue to put it in the same category (once again) with the 'real killer' in the OJ case. If no one can come up with any legitimate leads there really isn't a case here. The DNA did not match the royals, so she's not AN. She closely matched the Schanskowskas, and I am still waiting, along with Olga, for someone to discount this before any other evidence can even be considered.
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Annie on January 25, 2005, 12:58:33 PM
I have no personal dislike for you and Greg, I don't even know you. As a matter of fact, Greg was (before he teamed with you and changed his attitude toward Alix) one of my all time favorite writers. I own 2 of his books and I enjoy them and admire his work. I don't know you personally so I can't say I dislike you as  a person, but I do dislike the way you sometimes behave on this forum and the viciousness with which you have sometimes trashed my posts (such as using the term 'crapola' and becoming intimidating, even threatening at times) Please explain why you are so upset that anyone would refuse to believe AA was anyone other than FS unless you have a reason for this? If you really didn't care, you wouldn't be so jumpy over it!

I wonder what you have found that contradicts everything else on the Schanskowska family, including all the hardcore evidence (and comments by Carl M.) on the Nova special?
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Annie on January 25, 2005, 01:03:13 PM
Quote

And Dr Brian Sykes has the same mtDNA as Emperor Nicholas II -- does this make him a Romanov?



If this is true, it is possible he is somehow related to MF's family line. It could be far back but less than 25 generations, or for those into theories, he could be an illegitimate descendant, such as, if one of Queen Alexandra of England's daughters had an illegitimate baby who was adopted out and this is her grandson? ;)

Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Annie on January 25, 2005, 01:09:18 PM
Quote
I could not "trash" your posts, as you put it, if you were careful with your facts.  You aren't.  


You don't have to be careful with your facts not to get called names like that. As much as I have found some posters' theories outright laughable and inaccurate, I have never called them 'crapola'- not even the intestine switches or this current one about Michael in Pig's Meadow! It's not nice or tactful for any reason.

Quote
I have never purposefully intimidated you.  That's your personal perception that I can't help.  Perhaps it would help if you just remembered that I don't intend to intimidate you.
 
I have never threatened you.  Never. Full stop.


Well I guess we all see and feel things differently.
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: AGRBear on January 25, 2005, 01:28:05 PM
Most people can't trace their famly back more than three or four generations and highly unlikely 25 generations.

If  AA's  family does have some kind of claim, like the FS family does,  to  some old nobility,  that ups her chances of them having a common ancestor with Prince Philip or Nicholas II or AA or Brian Sykes or Karl Mauser.   The nobility ate better and produced healthier children who produced more children.... thereby leaving more descendents...

Despite what people think,  all royal members of a family don't end up rich and famous.  Most of them have children who have children who have children who eat away at  wealth.... And, remember it's just the heirs who get something while the siblings get to be in the military, a priest/minister or end up as a horse theif...  After 25 generations the family tree will have everything from Kings to poorest of peasants in jail for having murdered someone .....

I don't have the figure in front of me but if you take one person, that person has two sets of grandparents who has four sets of grandparents who have eight....  Times this by 25 and you get a lot of people and a lot of possibilities.

AGRBear
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Annie on January 25, 2005, 01:33:03 PM
l...ll,ko
Quote


Now we're getting somewhere.  Brian Sykes claims to know his family tree far enough back to reasonably state that his family and the Romanovs are not related in the genealogical sense of the term.  Twenty-five generation is a long, long time -- several hundred years at any rate, depending on how many generations you attribute to a century.  In my family, for example, my maternal grandparents were born in 1898 and 1899; my mother was born in 1925, and I was born in 1966.  In other families, there might be four generations in 100 years.  Proceeding with the idea that there are four generations in a century, that's 600 years that we're playing with


I have a rare one because my Mom's dad was born way back in 1884 and she was born in 1928, then had me in 1961, and my son was born in 1986, barely 100 years after my Grandad. But I know families with 5 or even 6 generations dating back to the same time!

Quote
-- and sure, Brian Sykes' family could have crossed genetic paths with the Romanovs sometime in that period.  But so could the family from which AA was descended have crossed paths with the Schanzkowsky family in that same 600 years.  AA would then have the same mtDNA as Karl Maucher, but not be "related" to him in common familial terms.


Oh but the illegit baby switch was more fun ;) But that is realistic that he could be related to MF further back than he knows. Even if what you say about FS and Maucher is true,  it still wouldn't make her Anastasia :-/ (Sykes is closer to that!)
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Helen_Azar on January 25, 2005, 02:08:08 PM
Quote

And Dr Brian Sykes has the same mtDNA as Emperor Nicholas II -- does this make him a Romanov?



I believe this is possible although very very rare. This is why we can't say 100% to whom someone is related via mtDNA. This guy had to have been related somewhere along the way, way back when, but at this point may not even be considered to be related. At least he is more closely related than any of us if our own sequence doesn't match to NII's. BTW who is Dr Bryan Sykes and how do we know about his DNA?  ???
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Helen_Azar on January 25, 2005, 02:32:42 PM
Penny, I was wondering if you have any leads as to whom AA may have been, if not FS, that would also possibly explain her mtDNA match to Carl Maucher?
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Helen_Azar on January 25, 2005, 05:06:12 PM
Quote

Dr Sykes is a professor of genetics at Oxford University.  


Ok, thanks, I know who he is now.
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Helen_Azar on January 25, 2005, 05:08:45 PM
Quote

The Schanzkowsky family were not approached by anyone in the AA case about Franziska until 1926/27, some six or seven years after AA was fished out of the Berlin canal --
 I didn't know it was that long after that! So before that, no one suspected that AA may have been Franciska?

Quote

...the documentary is worth watching just for the information Sykes relates about burials, relatedness and DNA in general.


Penny, what is the name of this documentary? Sorry if you mentioned it already somewhere, I didn't see it...
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Annie on January 25, 2005, 05:27:02 PM
Quote

The Schanzkowsky family were not approached by anyone in the AA case about Franziska until 1926/27, some six or seven years after AA was fished out of the Berlin canal -- so they had no opportunity to visit or refuse to visit AA in the clinic.  It was also five or six years after the Berlin Police told them that Franziska was most likely the victim of Grossmann (sorry, I don't have the exact dates to hand, but I believe I remember Grossmann was apprehanded in 1921 or 22).  And when the family was approached, it wasn't by the police force  -- it was by a newspaper reporter.


Oh, I misunderstood, I thought you said that they knew of Fraulein Unknown right away and refused to see her.
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Greg_King on January 25, 2005, 11:23:35 PM
Quote
I have no personal dislike for you and Greg, I don't even know you. As a matter of fact, Greg was (before he teamed with you and changed his attitude toward Alix) one of my all time favorite writers.


Annie, although this is off-topic, I think it needs to be addressed here as you raised the above in this thread.  Please let me correct your erroneous insinuation above that my attitude toward the Romanovs changed after starting work with Penny.  This is not correct.  As I posted elsewhere on this board, even while working on my biograph of Alix I ignored evidence that I didn't like, which cast her in a negative light, because I was too emotionally involved with her as a subject.  As I have done other books, I have matured and developed, and my skills as a researcher have been sharpened.  My opinion on the Romanovs had thus grown to encompass a wealth of evidence either previously ignored or not available to me 15 years ago.  So, yes, my opinions have changed, but that's because my thinking process has matured.  My fascination with the family as characters of historical interest remains as vivid as ever, but I no longer have any emotional involvement with them.

Greg King
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: AGRBear on January 26, 2005, 11:20:41 AM
I think Greg has cleared up any misconception about his ability to view the world differently because he has matured.

Greg, just wait until you're a 62 old bear like I am and have more than a half century of information in your head and at your finger tips  on your dusty shelves.

So,  if AA wasn't FS or GD Anastasia, but related to Karl Mauser, then,  it's possible AA and Karl had some common ancestor.

Who was it who claimed the Schanzkowska was some old nobel family?  With all the new interest in genealogy,  maybe, someone could discover something about this family.

AGRBear
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Annie on January 26, 2005, 11:27:59 AM
So does that mean all of us who disagree with this new negative view of Alix are 'immature?' :-/

I won't comment on this further in this thread since it's off topic.
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: AGRBear on January 26, 2005, 11:35:30 AM
Quote
So does that mean all of us who disagree with this new view of Alix as a terrible mother are 'immature?' :-/


Hey,  I didn't say we have to agree with Greg's views.  He and I have disagree on other subjects, such as Lenin's involvement with the execution of  the IF.  

As for his view on Alix,  I'm afraid I haven't paid much attention to these views so I have no comment on this subject at this time.  And, the reply will need to be on a different thread, I assume.

So,  does anyone know FS's mother's maiden name?

AGRBear  
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Helen_Azar on January 26, 2005, 02:05:07 PM
Quote

Dr Sykes is a professor of genetics at Oxford University.  He is also the author of the book "The Seven Daughters of Eve."  The book explores theories Sykes has developed since 1997, when he was called to examine the 5,000-year-old remains of a man -- a man whom Sykes was able to prove was a European who had relatives alive in the UK today.



Here is an interesting argument about this issue that was reposted by the Bear on another thread today, but that was originally posted by DaveK on this thread a while ago.


TABLE 2------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MtDNA haplotype of Romanov family and others
Sample HVI Seq Haplogroup: Clan mother  
Cambridge Reference Seq HVI* CTGCCCCCACCTTCT H: Helena  
Anna Anderson +C++++T++T+C+++ T: Tara  
G nephew of FS +C++++T++T+C+++ T: Tara  
Tsar Nicholas II  +C+Y+++++TT++++ T: Tara  
Servant 1 +++++++++++C+++ H: Helena  
Servant 2 ++++++++++++C++ H: Helena  
Servant 3   ++++T++TG+++C++ H: Helena  
Dr Botkin (putative)  +++++T+++++++++ H: Helena  
Romanov Daughter 1  T+++++++++++++C H: Helena  
Tsarina Alexandra  T+++++++++++++C H: Helena  
Prince Philip  T+++++++++++++C H: Helena  
Marie Antoinette  T+++++++++++++C H: Helena  


TABLE 3------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
STR loci, Tsar’s genotype, Anna Anderson’s genotype
VWA--------- (15, 16)  (14, 16)
TH01--------- (7, 9.3b)  (7, 9.3)(*3)
F13A1-------- (7, 7)  (3.2, 7)
FES/FPS----- (12,12)  (11, 12)
ACTBP2----- (11, 32)  (15, 18 )

Let’s take a look at Romanov family’s mtDNA (Table2). Obvisouly Anna Anderson is not Tsarina’s daughter, but her mtDNA is similar to Tsar. Two out of four mutations are at exactly same position. Not only this, if you look at table 3, she shares four out five STR mutation with Tsar. Does it mean that Anna Anderson is a distant relative of Tsar? Some witness claimed striking similarity of almost mystic “atmosphere” of Anna Anderson to Anastasia. What if they are second cousin or something?  

Thanks to data that was collected for past ten years, we can answer this question.   Both Tsar and Anna Anderson has a same ancestor Tara, who was one of seven daughters of Eve, who existed about 36,000 years ago. From this starting point, any mutations could occur in a stochastic fashion. If four new mutations which were not found in Tara occurred very very recently, Tsar and AA could be a relative each other. Is that so?  

Unfortunately, genetic evidence doesn’t say so. All the data shows that these four mutations happened  long time ago, at least 10,000-30,000 years ago. This can be determined by the chronological order of mutation event. By drawing phylogenetic tree, the order of mutation in AA’s mtDNA was detemined and it’s 16126>16294>16304>16266. One Russian population study found that there is a few descendant clan of AA’s clan whose mtDNA is 16111, 16126, 16294, 16304, 16311, 16327,16266, i.e., 3 mutations in addition to AA’s 4 mutations, which indicates AA’s 4 mutations happened long time ago. So if we take the position that mutation occurred in a semi-linear fashion to a first approximation, which means every 12000 years, the following is likely:  
36,000 years ago----Tara
24,000 years ago----Mutation 16304 occured in AA’s ancestor. Mutation 16296 in Tsar’s.  
12,000 years ago----Mutation 16266 occurred in AA’s ancestor. Mutation 16169 in Tsar’s.  

In conclusion, (from the viewpoint of maternal lineage) AA and Tsar had a same ancestor, but it was about 36,000 years ago. That is to say, their great great great great great great great great ……(repeat 1800 times!!)…… great great great grandmother was a same woman.  
....
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: AGRBear on January 26, 2005, 02:53:05 PM
So, this test, according to Dr. Gill, proves AA [whom we are  to assume was the doner of the intestines and hair used for the tests] was not GD Anastasia.  It does not tell us she was FS only that she and FS had a common ancestor.

So,  still asking for information about FS's mother and her mother's maiden name.

AGRBear

PS   I reposted daveK's post to show what daveK, Helen and others view as absolute evidence.

I've no knowledge of this science, so,  I'm asking some questions over in the DNA thread.
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Mgmstl on January 26, 2005, 04:05:20 PM
Annie, I think you are being a bit unfair here.  Can someone NOT be an Alix "fan" ( I dislike that word for all it's implications) and be right?  :)

The question of who is she is legitimate if the DNA doesn't conclusively say she is FS.  

I used to like Alix a great deal until I read more about her, I read Greg's book, Carrolly Erikson's, Buxhoveden's & Dehn.  The more I read the more I realized, it was not that I admired or liked her, it was that I felt sorry for what happened to her.

Back to the topic at hand.  Helen, does anyone have the DNA results for Karl Mauer & FS, and what is the difference between the DNA of AA & Mauer, how was he related to her? Nephew???  Just curious.
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Helen_Azar on January 26, 2005, 04:29:02 PM
 
Quote
 Helen, does anyone have the DNA results for Karl Mauer & FS, and what is the difference between the DNA of AA & Mauer, how was he related to her? Nephew???  Just curious.


Their mtDNA sequence was identical which implies that they are maternally related, but doesn't tell us for sure that AA was in fact FS. He is her nephew, the son of her sister (or possibly half sister).

Quote
The question of who is she is legitimate if the DNA doesn't conclusively say she is FS.  
 Theoretically, yes. It is just a matter of how much one trusts/understands statistics and how much one believes in coincidences and unlikely events. But the possibility of course is there, although pretty low, that AA may not have been FS (strictly scientifically speaking). Other evidence may increase the possibilty somewhat but hard to say by how much...

Quote
So, this test, according to Dr. Gill, proves AA [whom we are  to assume was the donor of the intestines and hair used for the tests] was not GD Anastasia.  It does not tell us she was FS only that she and FS had a common ancestor.


Yes.

Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Annie on January 26, 2005, 05:53:48 PM
Quote
Annie, I think you are being a bit unfair here.  Can someone NOT be an Alix "fan" ( I dislike that word for all it's implications) and be right?  :)

The question of who is she is legitimate if the DNA doesn't conclusively say she is FS.  

I used to like Alix a great deal until I read more about her, I read Greg's book, Carrolly Erikson's, Buxhoveden's & Dehn.  The more I read the more I realized, it was not that I admired or liked her, it was that I felt sorry for what happened to her.


I don't like it when I don't think people have been fair to Alix. She made a lot of mistakes, some that no doubt led to the downfall of the dynasty. But I honestly believe she was a good hearted person with only the best intentions, even if she goofed sometimes (I can relate to this, which makes me feel for her and understand her more than others) But this is off topic so that's all.

Quote
Back to the topic at hand.  Helen, does anyone have the DNA results for Karl Mauer & FS, and what is the difference between the DNA of AA & Mauer, how was he related to her? Nephew???  Just curious.


Maucher was Franziska's great nephew, the grandson of her sister Gertrude. His mother was Gertrude's daughter, staying in the maternal line. Prince Phillip was the same relation to Alexandra- her sister's grandson, a great nephew through the maternal line (his mother, Princess Alice, was the daughter of Alix's sister Victoria)

Victoria of Hesse- Alice of Greece-Prince Phillip
Gertrude- daughter- Carl Maucher

Here is the DNA cluster chart that shows how AA matched well with Maucher and nothing with Prince Phillip:

http://www.dnai.org/bioserver/clustalw_anna_and_carl.html

also, for an alternative view to Kurth's, read this site:

http://www.serfes.org/royal/annaanderson.htm

Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Helen_Azar on January 26, 2005, 06:02:41 PM
Quote
Maucher was Franziska's great nephew, the grandson of her sister Gertrude.


Yes, sorry that was my mistake... grandnephew, not nephew...
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Annie on January 26, 2005, 06:19:43 PM
Quote
I know this subject is way, way back there in the posts but:

1. I was under the impression that Felix did say: "She is my sister, Franciska." This may be a quote from Peter Kurth's book.
Felix changed his mind after TALKING to AA, and Harriet Von Rathleff had him sign that highly suspicious document.


Maybe he backed off after talking to her because she begged him not to expose her ;)

Quote
her mind and not her heart.
She wanted AA to be AN. Just like many AA supporters still do. There's a difference between wanting her to be AN, and recognizing her as such.

  


Very good observation.
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Helen_Azar on January 26, 2005, 06:27:03 PM
Quote

...Dr Brian Sykes has the same mtDNA as Emperor Nicholas II....


Penny, I'm just curious, where did you get this info? Is it in his book? Or do they mention it in the documentary? Thanks!
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Helen_Azar on January 26, 2005, 06:31:06 PM
Quote
...Harriet Von Rathleff had him sign that highly suspicious document.
 


Wasn't Harriet Von Rathleff a fellow mental patient? I may confusing her with someone else.... Was she the woman who initially "recognized" AA as AN?
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Mgmstl on January 26, 2005, 07:14:49 PM
Interesting link on the DNA Annie, thank you. I have a question though it seemt that the DNA was matching in some areas vs others, and it seemed to match Phillips
in all but a few areas, is this why the results showing a relationship to FS is not conclusive?

As far as the other article goes. I don't trust ANYTHING put under ANY church's auspicies or guidance.  There were motives to go around enough for everyone those on both sides, royalty & non royal.  Especially the GD of Hesse & Lord Mountabatten.

I still believe it was Marie in the grave & Anastasia's body has not been found, why else would all of the rumor's circulate since 1918 about her supposed escape.  

I totally agree that AA is not AN, I just am not so sure about her being FS.    
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Helen_Azar on January 26, 2005, 07:44:32 PM
 
Quote
 DNA was matching in some areas vs others, and it seemed to match Phillips
in all but a few areas, is this why the results showing a relationship to FS is not conclusive?


No, this is not at all why it was inconclusive. In fact, it was not inconclusive at all, but it was very conclusive: it eliminated AA from being a direct descendant of Queen Victoria - a very conclusive result. What you are getting confused about, Michael, I think, is the fact that we can't conclusively say that AA was in fact FS even though her mtDNA matched FS's grand nephew exactly. This would be the case with anyone, not just AA, simply because you can never conclusively prove anyone's identity. You can only conclusively disprove it, as was the case here.
The fact that some of the regions matched among AA, her nephew and Philip does not mean anything at all. If we looked at your mtDNA for instance, some of the strands would match to Prince Philip too. It's the fact that it didn't match in several places that's much more significant. It appears that got six mismatches. That's a lot! This definitely shows that AA and Prince Philip could not have been related. But all AA's regions matched exactly to Karl Maucher. This shows that AA and Karl Maucher may have been related, or rather that we can't say that they were not related, as we did with Philip... That's all there is to it.
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Helen_Azar on January 26, 2005, 08:45:56 PM
Quote

Clara Peuthert, the asylum inmate/patient that you must mean, didn't come into the asylum until the end of 1921, but Fraulein Unbekannt came to trust her as a friend, and obviously confided something of her story in her.  Clara then looked at some photos and jumped to the conclusion that Fraulein U was Grand Duchess Tatiana.  She returned to the ward, ran to FU's bed, thrust the photos in her face and yelled, "I know you! You are Grand Duchess Tatiana!"  This is when FU took to her bed, refusing to speak, and pulled the blankets over her head.  Soon, however, FU began to suspect that Dalldorf wasn't safe anymore, what with the nurses having been told her story and Clara Peuthert knowing some of it (though continuing to believe that she was T and not A -- FU had asked the nurses NOT to talk to Clara about their private conversations, and they hadn't) and about to be released -- and as it turned out, Clara left the Dalldorf in January 1922, and "the 'Anastasia' affair began."


Thanks, Penny. I guess I was getting Harriet confused with Clara... I am going to have to read the book again soon in order to start remembering some of these facts!
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Mgmstl on January 26, 2005, 08:52:12 PM
Thanks Penny & Helen too.  I knew the womans name was Clara but I couldn't remember the last name, I recalled she & not Harriet started the Anastasia affair.

Which one of them went to the GD Of Hesse? Harriet or
Clara?

Helen thanks for clearing up my misunderstanding on DNA.  I don't have that much of a scientific background,
I am ashamed to say :-[, and Annie thanks for the links again.
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Helen_Azar on January 27, 2005, 08:50:04 PM
Quote

But, the subject seems to have died.
  


Jeremy,

This subject will never die  ;)  Go ahead and post  :)
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Annie on January 27, 2005, 09:15:35 PM
Hold on, I'm confused about this parents thing. So now Penny claims the parents, or at least mother, was still alive? I thought both parents were dead before AA surfaced as possibly being FS ??? And, hey, I thought the AA-isn't-FS crowd claim that she had a different mother, meaning her mother was dead and father remarried, meaning stepmother and father, and now we have a natural mother and stepfather ??? My head is spinning. Which is it?!
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Helen_Azar on January 27, 2005, 09:24:12 PM
Quote
...Don't ask me exactly what the operation is called, because I don't remember...
 A cochlear implant?  :)
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Helen_Azar on January 27, 2005, 09:27:20 PM
Quote
...I thought the AA-isn't-FS crowd claim that she had a different mother, meaning her mother was dead and father remarried..
I may be wrong, but I think Franziska and Felix were the children of the second marriage, which means their mother was alive, but their father's first wife was dead. I am confused too  :-/.
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Helen_Azar on January 27, 2005, 11:11:42 PM
Quote

It might well be in his book, though I head him say it on television.  I've seen a couple of documentaries with him, but I'm not sure which one he said it in...


Penny, you really got my curiousity peaked about the Brian Sykes mtDNA matching Nicholas's, and I want to find out more about it. Do you remember if they did both regions 1 and 2, and if both matched, or was it just a partial match? Are you sure that this information was not  misinterpreted somehow? Maybe you can find out for sure where you got this info from and let me know? Something just doesn't sound right about it and I want to check the reference, but I can't find it. Thanks.

Helen
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Mgmstl on January 27, 2005, 11:35:40 PM
Annie, you've got my head spinning right now also..LOL ;D  Hope we get a clarification from Penny on this one.  If Karl Maucher was her nephew/great nephew would he have been from her half-sister, again wouldn't that have made the DNA inconclusive as to her being FS if that is the case, or am I totally off base.

Thanks for the patience folks, I appreciate it as I have so many questions.

Michael
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Annie on January 28, 2005, 06:08:09 AM
But hold on again, Felix and Franziska were the 2 oldest children, so the second wife thing still doesn't make sense. The half sister thing never made sense either. Maucher's DNA matched AA's. This would not have happened, and he would not even have been asked to be tested, if he were not a verifiable maternal relative. So either their mothers were sisters or first cousins with mothers who were sisters, or the entire half sister thing is half baked (which is my guess)

So, who was it allegedly not seeing AA now? All along the story was (for those who tout the fishy half sister thing) that the mother of FS and Felix was the first wife who died, the father remarried and had Gertrude and the others. Are there birth dates to prove who was older? I'm still very suspicious about this not seeing her thing. Everything I'd heard was that both parents were dead before she surfaced. It still isn't adding up.

So here are the stories:

option 1: all 5 kids were of the same parents, the father died young of drinking, the mother before AA surfaced. This is the original one.

option 2: Felix and FS were the children of the father's first marriage, Gertrude and the others younger ones of a different mother.

option 3: Now all of a sudden Felix and FS were the younger kids of the second marriage ??? where are the birthdates?

option 4: If option 2 (which had been touted by anti AA is FS types until now) is true, and the story of not seeing AA were true, then it would have been the stepfather and a new later wife who refused to see her. Ah, but conveniently, when this is brought up, the story now changes that it was the real mother and suddenly F and FS become the younger kids of the second marriage ???

I smell a rat. Something isn't making sense, the story keeps changing.
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Denise on January 28, 2005, 07:50:00 AM
Quote
But hold on again, Felix and Franziska were the 2 oldest children, so the second wife thing still doesn't make sense.


Annie, per Klier & Mingay on page 223, "Franziska Schanzkowska was born on 16 December 1896, in Bororwihlas, a small town in Kashubia, one of the Polish Provinces at that time forming part of the German Empire.   ...Her father married twice, and she was a child of the second marriage and close to her brother Felix.  The first family was very religious and straightlaced, while Franziska and Felix were more openminded."

So she was one of the younger children, not the older...

Denise
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Annie on January 28, 2005, 07:57:20 AM
That's just one book and it contradicts other things I've read. At this point I'm not even sure there was a second marriage. I'm still waiting for accurate confirmation of birth, death and marriage dates for all of this family. Anyone got a family tree? Sorry, I've heard and read too many conflicting reports, I want real evidence. I would also like to know why anyone bothered to test Carl Maucher if he wasn't maternally related to FS, surely they'd have checked that. And if he wasn't, why did the DNA match? Either the mothers were maternal relatives or the second marriage/half sister thing is bull (which I will believe until someone produces proof in the form of dates)
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Denise on January 28, 2005, 08:03:41 AM
Quote
That's just one book and it contradicts other things I've read. I'm still waiting for accurate confirmation of birth, death and marriage dates for all of this family. Anyone got a family tree? Sorry I've heard and read too many conflicting reports, I want real evidence.


I see what you mean.  This is what I have from Massie's Romanovs The Final Chapter, pg 249:

She was born in 1896 in the Prussian province of Posen, adjacent to the border with Poland, which was then a part of the Russian Empire.  Two hundred years before, her family had belonged to the lesser Polish nobility, but by the end of the nineteenth century, the family were farmworkers.  Franziska's father, an impoverished alcoholic, died when his children were young.  


So, did her father marry for a 3rd time, as mentioned by a pp, or did he die young.  These two books I have are fairly consistant on her being born in 1896.  Also, I have never read, Annie, that FS and her brother were from the 1st marriage or the oldest.  Can you tell me where you found that?

Thanks,
Denise


Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Annie on January 28, 2005, 08:14:03 AM
Quote

I see what you mean.  This is what I have from Massie's Romanovs The Final Chapter, pg 249:

She was born in 1896 in the Prussian province of Posen, adjacent to the border with Poland, which was then a part of the Russian Empire.  Two hundred years before, her family had belonged to the lesser Polish nobility, but by the end of the nineteenth century, the family were farmworkers.  Franziska's father, an impoverished alcoholic, died when his children were young.  


So, did her father marry for a 3rd time, as mentioned by a pp, or did he die young.  These two books I have are fairly consistant on her being born in 1896.  Also, I have never read, Annie, that FS and her brother were from the 1st marriage or the oldest.  Can you tell me where you found that?

Thanks,
Denise




Thanks for posting that. Yeah, this is what I mean, it's confusing, though of all the books written I do trust Massie the most.  I can't quote books I've read the other things in but I know I've seen it posted here. There is a lot of talk but no proof, no numbers. I want a family tree with names and dates of births, deaths and marriages before I will be convinced, and then I would have to have it confirmed by more than one source since some people want badly to prove the half sister thing for their own agenda that they are trying to prove FS not to be AA. I am really flustered with people claiming to have new myth breaking revelations that go against what we've always known, yet can't seem to prove it ??? This definitely needs to be cleared up before I will even consider it.

Doesn't anyone even have a birthdate for Gertrude? That would at least help with the birth order question.
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Denise on January 28, 2005, 08:35:37 AM
I agree about Gertrude.  I have heard (again, a "mystery source") that her birth was never registered at the church, so there is no parrish record as there are for the other Schanzkowsky children.  

I am wondering, if many books omit her as FS younger sister, merely because they stress how close Felix and FS are.  Again, this is speculation.  Have you ever read how many children were from the "first marriage" when FS father re-married?  I have never seen decisive information on this.  

Part of the problem here, of course, is that so many records were lost in both World Wars.  Also, who would have thought that over 100 years later, all this interest would be focused on a family of obscure Polish farmers?  

If there was a second marriage, and Gertrude was indeed from the 1st marriage, I would assume that the mothers were related.  Depending on the size of the village, I would imagine it would be possible for many of the people to be cousins as there is only so many marital combinations to go around...(I hope that was clear!!  ::))

Denise
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Helen_Azar on January 28, 2005, 09:15:14 AM
Quote
If there was a second marriage, and Gertrude was indeed from the 1st marriage, I would assume that the mothers were related.  Depending on the size of the village, I would imagine it would be possible for many of the people to be cousins as there is only so many marital combinations to go around...(I hope that was clear!!  ::))

Denise
 Yes, this indeed seems to be probable if the case of the second marriage/half sister is correct, because this would explain the mtDNA match...
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Denise on January 28, 2005, 09:26:15 AM
Exactly Helen.  I understand enough about mtDNA now (thanks to you and DaveK) that I find it fairly definitive. Even if AA was not FS (unlikely, but possible), I think it highly probable that she was some type of cousin to FS.  Look at the resemblance as well as the DNA results.  

As has been stated, we know she WAS NOT AN, or any other relation to Queen Victoria.  She does share mtDNA with the Schanzkowsky family.  Therefore the answer is obvious.....

Denise
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: AGRBear on January 28, 2005, 10:16:41 AM
Quote


There's no confusion here.  Franziska was the daughter of her father's second marriage.  The parents divorced and both later married again = mother and step-father (second husband); father and step-mother (third wife).

Mr Schanzkowsky's first wife died young.


CHART ONE

Oscar Schanzkowsky m. (1) to ___NN1____  [NN= no name known]
     Issue:
        1. Gertrude m. __NN___
                  Issue:
                         1) daughter m. ___Maucher
                                Issue:
                                      a. Karl Maucher
         2. others.....


Oscar Schnzkowsky m. (2) to ___NN2____ .  Marriage ended in divorse.  Both remarried.  [Mother remarried to ___NN___]
    Issue:
       1.  Franziska b. 16 December 1896
       2.  Felix

Oscar Schanzkowsky m. (3) to  ___NN3___
     Issue:


-----

Is this right?

AGRBear
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Helen_Azar on January 28, 2005, 10:22:35 AM
Quote

Oscar Schanzkowsky m. (1) to ___NN1____  [NN= no name known]
      Issue:
         1. Gertrude m. __NN___
                   Issue:
                          1) daughter m. ___Maucher
                                 Issue:
                                       a. Karl Maucher
          2. others.....
 

Oscar Schnzkowsky m. (2) to ___NN2____ .  Marriage ended in divorse.  Both remarried.  [Mother remarried to ___NN___]
     Issue:
        1.  Franziska b. 16 December 1896
        2.  Felix

Oscar Schanzkowsky m. (3) to  ___NN3___
      Issue:


 Bear, would you please cite your sources? Thanks!
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: AGRBear on January 28, 2005, 10:42:34 AM
Quote

CHART ONE

Oscar Schanzkowsky m. (1) to ___NN1____  [NN= no name known]
      Issue:
         1. Gertrude m. __NN___
                   Issue:
                          1) daughter m. ___Maucher
                                 Issue:
                                       a. Karl Maucher
          2. others.....
 

Oscar Schnzkowsky m. (2) to ___NN2____ .  Marriage ended in divorse.  Both remarried.  [Mother remarried to ___NN___]
     Issue:
        1.  Franziska b. 16 December 1896
        2.  Felix

Oscar Schanzkowsky m. (3) to  ___NN3___
      Issue:


-----
 
Is this right?

AGRBear



Or is this right?

CHART TWO:

Oscar Schanzkowsky m. (1) to ___NN1____  [NN= no name known] d. young
     Issue:
        1. ?


Oscar Schnzkowsky m. (2) to ___NN2____ .  Marriage ended in divorse.  Both remarried.  [Mother remarried to ___NN___]
    Issue:
       1.  Franziska b. 16 December 1896
       2.  Felix

Oscar Schanzkowsky m. (3) to  ___NN3___
     Issue:
       1. Gertrude m. __NN___
                  Issue:
                         1) daughter m. ___Maucher
                                Issue:
                                      a. Karl Maucher
       2. others....


----

AGRBear
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: AGRBear on January 28, 2005, 10:46:10 AM
Sorry Helen,  I didnt get my second post out quickly enough.  Had to go make some coffee.

Sources were from what was being said in the earlier posts.

I did this second chart once before on another thread and had some  sources.  I'll have to go check.  Might take me a few hours,  I have breakfast to make, a husband to get off to work, walk two dogs, feed a couple of cats.....  The life outside this board. ;D

AGRBear
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Helen_Azar on January 28, 2005, 10:53:07 AM
Quote
Sources were from what was being said in the earlier posts.


I think we need published sources for the original posts too, we have too much hearsay about this stuff. This info may have been cited already somewhere, but I don't remember. For something like this, you definitely need citations, too easy to get things mixed up....
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: AGRBear on January 28, 2005, 11:15:58 AM
Quote


Then go to Poland and Germany, do your own research, and build one!

.... [in part]....
 I can see that my efforts here are not understood and are unappreciated, so I won't offer any more assistance on the matter.  Especially as my results come from primary research on original documents which are unpublished -- and as Helen wants "published sources," well, I'm afraid I can't help any further.


Nooooooooooo!  Not true.  

Don't leave.

Is it CHART ONE  or CHART TWO or wrong on both counts???

AGRBear
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Denise on January 28, 2005, 11:18:37 AM
Quote


Then go to Poland and Germany, do your own research, and build one!

Annie, what with this and your "I smell a rat" comment of a little while ago (and OF COURSE the story shifts and changes as research develops -- DO use your brain!), I can see that my efforts here are not understood and are unappreciated, so I won't offer any more assistance on the matter.  Especially as my results come from primary research on original documents which are unpublished -- and as Helen wants "published sources," well, I'm afraid I can't help any further.


Penny, I do hope that you will continue to post on this.  I truly appreciate your input on the FS situation.  Because there are so many older conflicting sources, your research, coming from primary sources is invaluable.  I know that it is frustrating to be at odds with another poster, but please, there are others of us that appreciate the fresh viewpoint you offer....

Denise
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Val289 on January 28, 2005, 11:23:51 AM
Quote

Penny, I do hope that you will continue to post on this.  I truly appreciate your input on the FS situation.  Because there are so many older conflicting sources, your research, coming from primary sources is invaluable.  I know that it is frustrating to be at odds with another poster, but please, there are others of us that appreciate the fresh viewpoint you offer....

Denise



I'll second (or is it third?) that!  :D  I appreciate that you (and Greg) do share your research with us here on this board - even though I generally don't post in this particular thread often.  Please keep posting, Penny!  

-Val :)
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: AGRBear on January 28, 2005, 11:45:30 AM
Quote
... [in part]....
Chart Two is closer to what we have -- though F and F had a good half-dozen full siblings, a number of which died in young childhood.

It's an interesting family, but I wouldn't set too much store on their "nobility," which has been questioned on this forum.  Schanzkowskys were among those who fought with the victorious Jan II at Vienna; Jan ended up "nobilizing" most of his army -- the joke was that it was less expensive than medals or pay.   8)  So the Schanzkowskys -- or von Schanzkowskys as they were until Franziska's father dropped the "von" as he thought it pretentious -- never had been, before or after, anything other than men who worked the land.


Quote
.... [in part]....

CHART TWO:

Oscar Schanzkowsky m. (1) to ___NN1____  [NN= no name known] d. young
      Issue:
         1. ?
 

Oscar Schnzkowsky m. (2) to ___NN2____ .  Marriage ended in divorse.  Both remarried.  [Mother remarried to ___NN___]
     Issue:
        1.  Franziska b. 16 December 1896
        2.  Felix

Oscar Schanzkowsky m. (3) to  ___NN3___
      Issue:
        1. Gertrude m. __NN___
                   Issue:
                          1) daughter m. ___Maucher
                                 Issue:
                                       a. Karl Maucher
        2. others....


----

AGRBear



Penny: So glad, you didn't leave  :D  AND, thanks.

AGRBear
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Abby on January 28, 2005, 12:57:05 PM
Quote


I'll second (or is it third?) that!  :D  I appreciate that you (and Greg) do share your research with us here on this board - even though I generally don't post in this particular thread often.  Please keep posting, Penny!  

-Val :)


I agree with Val...I don't post a lot on this topic because I don't know that much abiut Franziska S's family lineage and I don't want to say anything stupid, but the combination of posts here are clarifying things a lot for me! I am sure there is really not that much published material out there on this topic, because it is pretty obscure and it seems like it is hard to find any information about this intriguing family.
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Helen_Azar on January 28, 2005, 12:58:16 PM
Quote

I can't recall where I saw it -- I don't think it was in the Lost Princess documentary.  But I definitely have heard him say it at least once.  It was something that seemed to tickle his funny bone very much -- that he should have the same DNA as Nicholas Romanov.  I really don't have time to dig around for all my videos to rewatch them -- but check out the Seven Daughters of Eve book, or even write to him.


Well,

I did pick up Brian Syke's book at the library today. Here is what he has to say on the subject of his mtDNA matching the Tsar's.

"Seven Daughters of Eve", p. 76

"...I have never considered myself a Romanov, but I couldn't help noticing that my own DNA sequence [he means mtDNA here] matched that of the Tsar Nicholas II. If we ignore for the moment the minor component of the Tsar's DNA introduced by heteroplasmy at position 169, we both have the notation 126, 294, 296. Had my grandmother decided to pursue a claim to be Anastasia... then it could not have been disproved by the same DNA test that eventually unmasked Anna Anderson. Does it mean that I am related to the Romanovs, even distantly? The amazing answer is 'yes'. "  

So this is basically what I had said before, that the fact that Sykes's mtDNA matches N's, he has to be related in some way. My guess is that perhaps one of the Danish royal female relatives had married a commoner at some point and Sykes is her descendant. So the point is, Sykes admits that because his mtDNA matched N's, it means he has to be related in some way. So the fact that AA's mtDNA matched Maucher's means that, even if she is not FS, she has to be related to the Schankowskis in some way.

Here is what Sykes says about the AA/FS case:

p.74

"... mitochondrial DNA was recovered from a stored biopsy from Anna Anderson, taken when she was in a hospital for an operation ..... It had a completely different sequence from the Tsarina's DNA. Anna Anderson could not possibly  have been Anastasia. A test that had taken a month at most to perform had demolished at a stroke one of the most enduring and romantic sagas... Such is the power of DNA to dispel myths - even those we might prefer to have believed. The sequence... however, did match a living maternal relative of one Franziska Schanzkowska, a patient in a Berlin mental home... Opponents of Anna Anderson's claim had always suspected her to be Franziska Schanzkowska, and not Anastasia as she claimed. DNA proved them right. "

Notice the term "proved" - he used it, not I. This man is one of the leaders in the field of genetics, and the above are his beliefs...
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: AGRBear on January 28, 2005, 01:00:25 PM
Over  on the DNA Annie [correction, it was not  Helen*] wrote this to me because of all my DNA and mtDNA questions:

Quote

Or ears, don't forget the ears ;) They're the definitive unquestionable proof, old, faded, shaded black and white pics though they are. I think the reason people doubt the DNA is so the story will continue because they don't want it to be over. I didn't either, but it is.
**

I think Annie's post has a smiliar ring as to what Penny Wilson has told you about FS.  She is telling you that you are looking at old evidence.  She is looking at new evidence, similar to your DNA evidence -- perhaps  not as conclusive as mtDNA--, but it is new evidence.   Perhaps,  you do not want to see what she has to say because the opposite is true,  you want it to be over but the new evidence just continues all of this another day, another year or  will prove "We just don't have all the answers."  And, so, like the Energizer Rabbit it continues to beat it drums....

AGRBear

PS *Sorry Helen, my error.  Was thinking one name and writing another.  Probably  all that DNA data you're trying to stuff into my head got in my line of thought.  ;)
PSS ** Sorry Annie, seems my quote and some of my words entangled when I clicked "copy" and I didn't notice this mixing of the two. I have corrected your quote.
PSS If I've made other errors yesterday, again, sorry.  I had some bad news and today the news has improved so hopefully I'll be error free  today 8)
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Helen_Azar on January 28, 2005, 02:09:40 PM
Quote
Over  on the DNA Helen wrote this to me because of all my DNA and mtDNA questions..


Bear, I didn't write it.
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Mgmstl on January 28, 2005, 03:36:43 PM
Penny, please don't leave this thread!!! I find this subject so interesting, and I believe that it is possible that AA was not FS.  I have always thought that was a possibility.

I can't tell you how much I enjoyed what was written in "FOTR" and that I can't wait for you next book & for Greg's.   I will admit in Jr High I read Massie's N & A, which started my interest in this subject, but after other books were published by Summers & Mangold, Peter Kurth & others, I have read everything I could on the subject.  I too always believed that AA was AN until the DNA tests.  

This discussion has made me realize how much I love this type of mystery.

Michael
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Denise on January 28, 2005, 03:50:20 PM
Quote
I believe that it is possible that AA was not FS.  I have always thought that was a possibility.

I can't tell you how much I enjoyed what was written in "FOTR" and that I can't wait for you next book & for Greg's.   I will admit in Jr High I read Massie's N & A, which started my interest in this subject, but after other books were published by Summers & Mangold, Peter Kurth & others, I have read everything I could on the subject.  I too always believed that AA was AN until the DNA tests.  

This discussion has made me realize how much I love this type of mystery.

Michael



Michael, I couldn't agree with you more.  It seems that the more comes out about who AA was NOT, the deeper the mystery becomes of who she actually was.  I just started reading FOTR, and am really appreciating the realistic, gritty approach the book has.It makes you realize hom much more interesting the primary source material is over what we have had for the last 30 years...

Denise

Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Mgmstl on January 28, 2005, 04:15:06 PM
Denise, exactly, it opens up the reality of what did happen to this family, & not the myths that we have been led to believe.  This was one of my favorite books this past year.  So many things I wondered about were revealed.  I can't state again how much "FOTR" answered my questions.

I am a genealogist/historian and when I started some 24 years ago at 19, one of the enduring family mysteries was my grandmother's grandfather who was supposedly born in France & brought over to the US by the man who raised him...good story right??? Well through research, and interviews, I found out it just didn't or couldn't have happened that way...I had a general sketch of what transpired, and then I had luck, by grandmother's last living Aunt, agreed to an interview which took an entire afternoon, and she told me the story that my great great grandfather related to her while walking through a field one day in 1917 to visit his mothers grave, and it turns out I had some of the story correct.  It was amazing, she said I was the first person she told in almost 70 years. Not her children or grandchildren.  I sat there and recorded and wrote down every word.  .  However I found out the family secret, which was something my great grandmother and her siblings and hidden from their children for years.  So in a way I know how hard that Penny & Greg have worked, and from their hard work came such excellent results
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Annie on January 28, 2005, 07:00:22 PM
Quote

Bear, I didn't write it.


The first part of the post is mine, the last part was added, I don't know where it came from ???

Penny- I don't know why you get so upset when your posts and info are questioned. Without citing sources or producing real evidence, the things you say carry no more weight than AGRBear's theories, or mine! If you can prove it please do so, but if you can't or won't you can't blame us for being inquisitive and lash out because you were asked for more information.
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Helen_Azar on January 28, 2005, 07:38:38 PM
Quote

Did this man map out his mtdna himself, or was it done for him?  I hope this is an honest mistake on his part but he's arguing that he has the same mtDNA as the Tsar, and, as we are talking about mtdna, he is reffering to his maternal grandmother? And that if she had decided to pursue a claim to be Anastasia "then it could not have been disproved  by the same DNA test that eventually unmasked Anna Anderson." Since when did the Tsar and Anastasia have the same mt DNA? That's a new one on me! ??? ??? ???


Jeremy, very good point,  I didn't even catch that because I was just concentrating on typing out his conclusions! I only read those couple of paragraphs from this book so far, as I just picked it up this morning. It seems that it was probably just an honest mistake on his part (or maybe his editor's) when he was trying to give an example that everyone can understand, I suppose. I sure hope this man knows that if his grandmother claimed to be Anastasia she wouldn't have a leg to stand on if she had the Tsar's mtDNA  ;).  She could have effectively claimed to be the Tsar's niece though  ;)... I don't know who did his mtDNA, I don't know if it's in this book, and I am not sure if he even mentions this again. Maybe he made the whole thing up  ;).  This is why published citations are very important!
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: AGRBear on January 29, 2005, 10:21:50 AM
Plain old farmers?  Nobel or not nobel?  Oh dear, dear Penny.  All it takes is a piece of paper and if the title is inherited, it, also, goes on and on through the generations, even if they become improvish and plain old farmers, or worst, a family without property....

Sometimes,  to acquire money, a title was sold, but I'm not sure how all that works according the WAPPEN [coat-of-arms] officials.

If Jan II  gave the family nobility,  then it can be traced.  I've never accomplished any searches in the area FS family lived, so, I have no suggestions, accept to work backwards go to the records of nobility.

Maybe contact a Polish  genealogy organization.

-----

Switching subject.

-----
Quote

Did this man map out his mtdna himself, or was it done for him?

I hope this is an honest mistake on his part but he's arguing that he has the same mtDNA as the Tsar, and, as we are talking about mtdna, he is reffering to his maternal grandmother? And that if she had decided to pursue a claim to be Anastasia "then it could not have been disproved  by the same DNA test that eventually unmasked Anna Anderson."

Since when did the Tsar and Anastasia have the same mt DNA? That's a new one on me! ??? ??? ???


Did he say he had the same mtDNA or just DNA?  I thought it was  Helen who incerted mtNDA in brackets.

Quote

Well,

I did pick up Brian Syke's book at the library today. Here is what he has to say on the subject of his mtDNA matching the Tsar's.

"Seven Daughters of Eve", p. 76

"...I have never considered myself a Romanov, but I couldn't help noticing that my own DNA sequence [he means mtDNA here] matched that of the Tsar Nicholas II. If we ignore for the moment the minor component of the Tsar's DNA introduced by heteroplasmy at position 169, we both have the notation 126, 294, 296. Had my grandmother decided to pursue a claim to be Anastasia... then it could not have been disproved by the same DNA test that eventually unmasked Anna Anderson. Does it mean that I am related to the Romanovs, even distantly? The amazing answer is 'yes'. "  

So this is basically what I had said before, that the fact that Sykes's mtDNA matches N's, he has to be related in some way. My guess is that perhaps one of the Danish royal female relatives had married a commoner at some point and Sykes is her descendant. So the point is, Sykes admits that because his mtDNA matched N's, it means he has to be related in some way. So the fact that AA's mtDNA matched Maucher's means that, even if she is not FS, she has to be related to the Schankowskis in some way.

Here is what Sykes says about the AA/FS case:

p.74

"... mitochondrial DNA was recovered from a stored biopsy from Anna Anderson, taken when she was in a hospital for an operation ..... It had a completely different sequence from the Tsarina's DNA. Anna Anderson could not possibly  have been Anastasia. A test that had taken a month at most to perform had demolished at a stroke one of the most enduring and romantic sagas... Such is the power of DNA to dispel myths - even those we might prefer to have believed. The sequence... however, did match a living maternal relative of one Franziska Schanzkowska, a patient in a Berlin mental home... Opponents of Anna Anderson's claim had always suspected her to be Franziska Schanzkowska, and not Anastasia as she claimed. DNA proved them right. "

Notice the term "proved" - he used it, not I. This man is one of the leaders in the field of genetics, and the above are his beliefs...


My next questions is:  Did Dr. Skyes know Maucher's grandmother , Gertrude, and FS had different mothers?

If a person doesn't have ALL the facts, wrong conclusions can occur.

So, does this mean Dr. Skyes is wrong on both of his conclusions???

AGRBear

PS  We should probably takae this DNA stuff back over to the DNA thread.

http://hydrogen.pallasweb.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=anastasia;action=display;num=1106338507;start=0
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: JonC on January 29, 2005, 11:21:01 AM
Once again I am compelled to remind everyone that if you compare, mathematically, the dimensions of AA's face with the mathematical dimensions of AN's face they DO NOT MATCH! They are clearly different persons altogether!

Also if Sykes's MtDNA matches that of Nicholas's MtDNA, as he claims, then he would be a descendant of Nicholas's Mother or her sisters.

I can comfortably believe that Empress Marie was not his ancestor. As for Queen Alexandra being his ancestor, that's out! Princess Thyra would be the only other possibility. I know she had an illegitimate child born who was spirited to Australia...according to G. Battiscombe, in a conversation by phone, with me, from her nursing home in England...but, where is the proof/ documentation that he came from Princess Thyra or anyone else in her family?

I don't see how anyone on this forum could possibly give credence to such claims. It's not like you! JonC.
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Annie on January 29, 2005, 11:51:15 AM
Quote
Once again I am compelled to remind everyone that if you compare, mathematically, the dimensions of AA's face with the mathematical dimensions of AN's face they DO NOT MATCH! They are clearly different persons altogether!


I totally agree!

Quote
Also if Sykes's MtDNA matches that of Nicholas's MtDNA, as he claims, then he would be a descendant of Nicholas's Mother or her sisters.

 I can comfortably believe that Empress Marie was not his ancestor. As for Queen Alexandra being his ancestor, that's out! Princess Thyra would be the only other possibility. I know she had an illegitimate child born who was spirited to Australia...according to G. Battiscombe, in a conversation by phone, with me, from her nursing home in England...but, where is the proof/ documentation that he came from Princess Thyra or anyone else in her family?

I don't see how anyone on this forum could possibly give credence to such claims. It's not like you! JonC.



It didn't have to be Marie or one of her sisters themselves, but any of their maternal ancestors dating back into the vast mists of time in the past. They could have had a common ancestor in the year 1066, mtDNA never changes. So the 1066 lady, MF, and someone born today would have the same mtDNA.

This is not to say I totally believe his claim, just giving a possibility if it is true.
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Helen_Azar on January 29, 2005, 12:09:47 PM
Quote

It didn't have to be Marie or one of her sisters themselves, but any of their maternal ancestors dating back into the vast mists of time in the past. They could have had a common ancestor in the year 1066, mtDNA never changes. So the 1066 lady, MF, and someone born today would have the same mtDNA.
  


MtDNA does change/mutate, but it takes many many generations, so yes, if Syke's claim is true, then he could have descended from any of the female relatives from that family, going back many generations, who may or may not have had an illegitimate child - it could have been a legitimate child too. When females from royal families marry commoners, their children are considered commoners, and their royal roots are forgotten in a few generations. After 20-25 generations, no one would even realize that these people descended from royalty, so this is what may have happened in Sykes's family.

JonC,

Having mtDNA in common doesn't necessarily mean having directly descended from the person you are compared to either or their mother, it just means common maternal ancestry, no way to predict which - it could be going way back....

In any case, I am not trying to say that what this guy Sykes says in his book is what we need to go by, we have plenty of other experts who are saying the same thing. I only posted the excerpt from this book because Penny mentioned that Sykes had the same mtDNA as Nicholas II but yet said he wasn't related to him. The point of this post was that Sykes did say that he had the same mtDNA as Nicholas but he also admitted that this means that he is related....
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Helen_Azar on January 29, 2005, 12:14:10 PM
Quote


Did he say he had the same mtDNA or just DNA?  I thought it was  Helen who incerted mtNDA in brackets.

  


Bear, why don't you pick up this book at your local library and that way you won't have to take anyone's word for it? But you probably need to do a lot of background reading about DNA first - to learn the differences between mt and nuclear, because you still seem to be very confused by it...
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Annie on January 29, 2005, 12:32:19 PM
Quote

MtDNA does change/mutate, but it takes many many generations, so yes, if Syke's claim is true, then he could have descended from any of the female relatives from that family, going back many generations, who may or may not have had an illegitimate child - it could have been a legitimate child too. When females from royal families marry commoners, their children are considered commoners, and their royal roots are forgotten in a few generations. After 20-25 generations, no one would even realize that these people descended from royalty, so this is what may have happened in Sykes's family.


 


Also if I remember correctly from MF's biography, her father was not the direct heir in line for the throne, but when the current one died childless and a new one was chosen it was him because of his political stand, or something. So if he was a lesser cousin his wife  may not have been all that high of royalty so her ancestors may not have been just nobility of some kind, and the Dr. may have had the same ancestors way back.
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Helen_Azar on January 29, 2005, 12:33:48 PM
Quote
... if you compare, mathematically, the dimensions of AA's face with the mathematical dimensions of AN's face they DO NOT MATCH! They are clearly different persons altogether!


JonC, we don't need to do any elaborate mathematical calculations/comparisons of their faces: AA's DNA already gave us conclusive evidence of this. You can not come up with any better evidence than that to show that she could not have been Anastasia.
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Helen_Azar on January 29, 2005, 12:42:27 PM
Quote

Also if I remember correctly from MF's biography, her father was not the direct heir in line for the throne, but when the current one died childless and a new one was chosen it was him because of his political stand, or something. So if he was a lesser cousin his wife  may not have been all that high of royalty so her ancestors may not have been just nobility of some kind, and the Dr. may have had the same ancestors way back.


I seem to remember something about Dagmar's mother being the one who had more of a claim to the Danish throne rather than her father, I could be wrong... In any case, even if they were pure royalty, this type of thing can be very possible. Didn't they say that Colin Powell and even W are descended from some British royalty? So it doesn't really mean all that much as far as that goes...

Think about this: in the case of the Romanovs, the daughter and grandson of Peter the Great and Martha Skavronkskaya (Catherine I) both became Russian monarchs.... This means that two of the Russian Emperors (Elizabeth and Peter III) actually had the mtDNA of a Luthianian peasant. So someone out there, perhaps in some Luthianian village, is running around with the mtDNA of the Russian Emperors, and doesn't even know it  ;). Enough said....

Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Annie on January 29, 2005, 04:35:09 PM
67
Quote

It's you, Annie.  You, and you alone, have been personally insulting to me -- and just plain vicious with your snide, impertinent and totally unnecessary comments regarding what you think is my "agenda."  You are the reason I am not going to bring any new research to this forum.  You should be pleased -- you are now free to clutter up the place with your ignorance.


You don't like me and see me as insulting because I don't fawn all over you and accept everything you say without question. And you're one to talk about being snide and vicious :-/

My IGNORANCE?? How nasty of you! I wouldn't call anyone ignorant, no matter how ridiculous their theory is! Are you leaving because people ask you things you can't or don't want to answer? Don't make me the scapegoat here. No one else has gotten this tiffy when I question their ideas.
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Olga on January 30, 2005, 08:54:03 AM
Penny, you are being unnecessarily nasty to Annie. It is you who is making the insulting and snide remarks.
Title: .Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Annie on January 30, 2005, 10:02:49 AM
Quote

Don't be so freaking ridiculous.  You have done nothing -- NOTHING -- but dump all over every piece of evidence I have brought to this forum.  So I am going to stop doing this.


I dump on other people's posts too and they dump on mine. This is a DISCUSSION forum. We do question each other, and we usually answer back best we can, but you usually fly off the handle with a 'how dare you question me' or 'I don't owe you any explainations' attitude instead of answering.


Quote
Yes, your ignorance.  You'll notice that I did NOT say stupidity.  "Ignorance" does not mean stupidity.  "Ignorance" simply means that you are uneducated in this topic -- and you are, willfully so.  


I am not at all uneducated on the topic, having studied it over 30 years. I do not automatically accept your posts as any more valid than anyone else's just because you are an author. Most of what you post runs contrary to everything we've known before, or as in the case of the parents of FS creates too many scenarios and we cannot prove which is right. All I ask for is your source and what makes yours better than any other author's, but you just get mad when I ask! NO ONE else does this! So it makes me wonder, what is the reason?
 

Quote
You do not, have not and apparently will not read Peter Kurth's book -- the absolute primer on this case.  If you had -- let's pick an example -- you would know that Gleb Botkin did not meet Fraulein Unbekannt until 1927 -- some six years AFTER she started telling her story.  Yet you insist on parroting this spurious idea that he somehow fed her information.  Really, Annie?  And how do you suppose Gleb met Fraulein Unbekannt before 1927?  He was in Japan in 1920, when she was fished out of the canal.  Then he was briefly in France, then in the United States.  Just WHEN did he meet Fraulein Unbekannt -- or Franziska Schanzkowska, as you insist on insisting?  How on earth would his path have crossed Franziska's?  And please provide the absolute proof that you require of me -- documents, letters, diaries, names, dates, times. Provide some proof for your assertions, please.


I have read his book, many years ago, and again last year. I do enjoy the book, but taking  into consideration his strong belief in AA makes me wonder if perhaps contrary evidence was omitted (as anyone would do if it would hurt any case) so I don't know if it's the whole story or not.

I am not claiming Gleb was the ONLY source of her info! I have said many times, she met with many Russian emigres', it was likely a number of different people and we will never know for sure who! The reason Gleb is an active suspect is because her entire taking her case and claim to the world thing came about near the same time she took up with him, so it is reasonable to wonder if perhaps he was responsible for this! I can't prove anything, none of us can one way or the other. These people are dead and I'm sure if they did leave anything in diaries it's been destroyed. But SOMEONE FED  HER MEMORIES BECAUSE SHE WAS NOT ANASTASIA!!!! That we do know for a fact. We can all have our suspects, some make more sense than others, but there is NO QUESTION SHE GOT THEM SOMEWHERE BESIDES  HER OWN HEAD BECAUSE SHE WAS NOT ANASTASIA.

Quote
And I'm not "leaving," Annie.  I am simply ceasing to bring new information to this forum.  And you are the reason for this -- not the "scapegoat."

There are certainly things that I cannot answer: I don't know the whole story.  There are also things I will not answer: I am under contract to a publisher.  I've told you this before, yet you continue to harp on it.  I don't know what else I can do here except pull out.


If you don't know the whole story, just say so! If you can't tell us the whole story, why come here with stuff you can't or won't back up and then get mad when someone questions you? But there is no excuse for the way you just get mad and lash out over it.
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Annie on January 30, 2005, 10:06:52 AM
Quote
Penny, you are being unnecessarily nasty to Annie. It is you who is making the insulting and snide remarks.



Thank you very much for posting this. I appreciate it. You are not the only person who has noticed.
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: AGRBear on January 30, 2005, 11:01:23 AM
I hate to tell  Helen, Annie, Darth Olga and others,  but the new evidence just might prove you are wrong.  AA may NOT have been FS.

So, get over the shock, and let Penny and others keep us informed.

We are ALL aware you don't like new evidence which seems to be    headed into a different direction than you want it.  Life often throws curves and most people can't hit curves.  [Baseball fact.]

AGRBear




Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Denise on January 30, 2005, 11:09:28 AM
Quote
I hate to tell  Helen, Annie, Darth Olga and others,  but the new evidence just might prove you are wrong.  AA may NOT have been FS.

So, get over the shock, and let Penny and others keep us informed.

We are ALL aware you don't like new evidence which seems to be    headed into a different direction than you want it.  Life often throws curves and most people can't hit curves.  [Baseball fact.]

AGRBear







I concur, Bear.  It isn't as if I have a personal stake in the results, and I welcome new ideas, even when they differ from beliefs I formally had.  This forum is a learning experience for most of us, and I want to be able to read ALL the evidence on the Romanovs, not just what fits a pet theory.  

Denise
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Annie on January 30, 2005, 11:17:53 AM
Oh please, it's not that we don't like new evidence, any real new evidence would be exciting. But in this case, it seems highly unlikely because:

1. There was a court case that lasted 4 decades where everything on BOTH sides could be found was presented. Where were these earthshattering revelations back then? Surely the lawyer in the pro-AA case would have loved to jump on the murder story if he thought it was true. Apparently even he didn't think it mattered.

2. Much of what we already know was discovered when these people involved were alive, the trial was still warm, and much of Europe had not been destroyed by bombing. Why now would something suddenly come up after they're all dead, the story is half forgotten, and some of the important things we need were lost or destroyed during WWII?

3. The DNA has proven that AA was not AN and was more than likely FS. That's a big one.
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Mgmstl on January 30, 2005, 11:25:51 AM
I formerly held the belief that AA was FS, however since rereading, & of course FOTR, I realize that there were other possibilites that have been overlooked.

It may turn out that AA was FS, I don't know that it won't, but in making discoveries in my own research, I found it is always best to keep an on open mind, and in family or historical research don't always count on what you think as being the truth, is fact, it often is the total opposite.  
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: AGRBear on January 30, 2005, 12:43:15 PM
Quote
Oh please, it's not that we don't like new evidence, any real new evidence would be exciting. But in this case, it seems highly unlikely because:

1. There was a court case that lasted 4 decades where everything on BOTH sides could be found was presented. Where were these earthshattering revelations back then? Surely the lawyer in the pro-AA case would have loved to jump on the murder story if he thought it was true. Apparently even he didn't think it mattered.

2. Much of what we already know was discovered when these people involved were alive, the trial was still warm, and much of Europe had not been destroyed by bombing. Why now would something suddenly come up after they're all dead, the story is half forgotten, and some of the important things we need were lost or destroyed during WWII?

3. The DNA has proven that AA was not AN and was more than likely FS. That's a big one.


1.  There was a court case and it ended in a "no decision", which means, there wasn't a winner, only losers.  It, also, left the door open for AA to return with more evidence.
2.  Ahhhh, yes, the people were alive in those days and talking about people who were alive but what does that mean?  And despite what people think about Europe being bombed, this doesn't mean there still isn't new evidence out there somewhere to be discovered.
3.  The mtDNA when using the "donners" intestintes and hair proves the doner was not GD Anastasia.  The mtDNA does prove that the "donner" is probably related to Karl Maucher's  mother, grandmother, great grandmother times 25. However,  this evidence cannot prove the "donner" was AA, although in a court of law there is enough proof to make this probably a mute point and it would be desided the "donner" was AA.  The mtDNA can not prove if the "donner" was FS.  The mtDNA can prove who AA was was not, and, cannot prove who she was.  And that is the reason for this thread.  If she wasn't FS   "so who was she then?"

AGRBear
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Annie on January 30, 2005, 05:51:32 PM
Quote

If you had read the book, you would know that Peter includes both sides.  Someone with an unshakeable belief in Anna Anderson is STILL capable of telling the truth, you know.
 


I did read the book, and I have even posted here that despite his belief his book was much more fair to both sides than Lovell's. I am not saying he lied or falsified anything, no! I'm only saying he may not have included things more damning to the case than not. That's natural, most people would do the same when presenting a case. I even enjoy reading the book, and I LIKE Anna as a person. But I am not going to let emotion overrule reality, she wasn't AN.
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Denise on January 30, 2005, 06:23:36 PM
As an aside, you folks just made me order Peter's book off Amazon.  It was so long since I read it that I need to re-read it to jump in here!!  1.99 for a like new hardcover isn't bad....

Anyway, let's resume!!  ;D
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Helen_Azar on January 30, 2005, 08:27:14 PM
Quote

The mtDNA when using the "donners" intestintes and hair proves the doner was not GD Anastasia.  The mtDNA does prove that the "donner" is probably related to Karl Maucher's  mother, grandmother, great grandmother times 25. However,  this evidence cannot prove the "donner" was AA, although in a court of law there is enough proof to make this probably a mute point and it would be desided the "donner" was AA.  


Bear, it sounds like you still think that the samples may have been switched? The way you phrased this sentence, it sounds like you are still skeptical about the  donor  indeed being AA...  Why?
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Mgmstl on January 30, 2005, 10:11:41 PM
Helen, I think what Bear may be saying, is at the time the tests were done, and the results came out, weren't there questions about the validity of the tissue sample.

I don't agree with that, how else could the DNA match with Maucher be attained?  

Again I am stating that I agree AA is not AN, but I still have my doubts about her being FS, and my mind is not closed to other possibilites.  
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Helen_Azar on January 30, 2005, 10:21:11 PM
Quote
Helen, I think what Bear may be saying, is at the time the tests were done, and the results came out, weren't there questions about the validity of the tissue sample.


Nope, there were never any questions by those involved in the testing about the validity of these samples. Before the sample was used, it was confirmed that it indeed belonged to AA via chain of custody at the hospital. Also another independent sample of AA's was tested and the result was the same DNA sequence, which confirmed that the DNA from the intestine indeed belonged to AA. If any tampering was done, they would have had to switch the hair sample too, but it was obtained from a completely different location by completely different people who had no ties to the intestine from the hospital. Thus, it was reconfirmed that both samples belonged to AA, and there was no possibility that they were tampered with.  
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Olga on January 31, 2005, 07:41:28 AM
Quote
I hate to tell  Helen, Annie, Darth Olga and others,  but the new evidence just might prove you are wrong.  AA may NOT have been FS.


I don't usually participate in this section of the Fourm and only occasionally drop in in. As you can see AGRBear, the subject matter of FS/FU/AA/AN doesn't really interest me. I was just asking Penny to stop being rude and nasty to Annie.
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Helen_Azar on January 31, 2005, 08:36:46 AM
Quote
I hate to tell  Helen... but the new evidence just might prove you are wrong.  AA may NOT have been FS.


And I hate to tell you, Bear, once again, that I have never disputed the fact that there remains this possibility, although as of now it appears to be statistically a very small possibility. It is the fact that you do not interpret my posts correctly that compells you to make these statements about me. I would like to remind you that I have been saying all along that I would very much like to see this new evidence, and then decide whether it does stand up effectively against the evidence we already have.

Bear, I would like to, once again, ask you to please stop constantly putting words in my mouth and to please read my posts more carefully. I am  getting very annoyed with you about this.
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: AGRBear on January 31, 2005, 11:10:44 AM
I wrote this on another thread, and, hope this answers some of your questions about my thoughts on the "switch".

Quote

I am not on the side of the "switch theory" even though I asked a lot of questions on another thread.  I thought the answers as to how the process worked made the switch improbable.

This does not mean, however, the task of switching was impossible.

Some of you make a switch sound so difficult and so impossible.  I think if someone wanted to switch the samples, that task would have been simple.  They didn't have to change any records only the sample of the intestines sitting all alone in some storage room....  As for the hair, that switch, too, would have been simply done.  Unless, of course,  Karl Maucher or his mother or her mother were bald, then that task would have proven more difficult.  Who knows about the intestines?   Anyone know if Karl, his mother or Gertrude or any of the other sibilings ever had surgery?  I know I don't.  Do you know?

Even if the switching sound downright silly,  if someone did do a switch,  they must have had a darn good reason to go through all that effort and expense.

Again, the switch is improbable but not impossible.  Until someone comes up with evidence of tampering,  all I can do is speculate about the improbable.

AGRBear


"Improbable" but "not impossible".

So,  who would want to to through the effort of "switching" the intestines and the hairs?   Your guess is as good as mine.  It could have been the KGB.  Could have been people, who had counted up the "inheritiance" of GD Anastasia as well as the prestige of AA being the daughter of a murdered Tsar, and hoped to get rich themselves by riding on her coat tails.   Who else?  I've a great imagination.  How about a bank which held millions of dollars and that would have doubled, tripled.... in just interest from 1918 to the 1960s..... who would have preferred not to share this wealth therefore  they had no intentions of ever giving up....  Crimes, such as tampering with evidence,  have been done for far less.   Gosh,  there is an endless list if you use my imagination.

I doubt AA did any switching on her own.

Putting all that "could have been" stuff aside,  here is the only reason I hesitate and use the word "donner".  Since AA was cremated,  there is no real way we can make sure the intestines or hairs were hers.  Pretty simple.  However, according to my excellent sources of the DA's office,  the evidence of the "intestines" seems to be in order and since there is no evidence that the "intestines" were tampered -- either in the lab or during the process of transportation-- the courts would probably say the tests were legitimate  in the court of law to prove the "intestines" were AA's.  The hairs may not be so easily proven and would only be used in addition to the tests of mtDNA of the "intestines"..

AGRBear
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: AGRBear on January 31, 2005, 11:20:15 AM
Quote
I hate to tell  Helen, Annie, Darth Olga and others,  but the new evidence just might prove you are wrong.  AA may NOT have been FS.

So, get over the shock, and let Penny and others keep us informed.

We are ALL aware you don't like new evidence which seems to be    headed into a different direction than you want it.  Life often throws curves and most people can't hit curves.  [Baseball fact.]

AGRBear



To Helen and others:

If I named you, as I did Helen, and you believe you don't belong on my post,  I apologize.

AGRBear
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: JonC on January 31, 2005, 11:01:48 PM
Maybe I'm missing something here but I really don't understand what the problem is all about.

If we all agree that AA is NOT AN and FS is NOT AN then who in Sam Hill cares if AA is FS or not? What's the point? JonC.
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Robert_Hall on January 31, 2005, 11:04:11 PM
I asked the exact same question almost one year ago !
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Alice on February 01, 2005, 05:45:38 AM
Quote
Maybe I'm missing something here but I really don't understand what the problem is all about.

If we all agree that AA is NOT AN and FS is NOT AN then who in Sam Hill cares if AA is FS or not? What's the point? JonC.


The problem is that:

1. We do not "all agree" that AA is NOT AN. (As unfortunate as it is)

2. People DO care if AA was FS or not. Why? Because if she wasn't AN, she has to be someone.
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Helen_Azar on February 01, 2005, 09:33:49 AM
Quote
1. We do not "all agree" that AA is NOT AN. (As unfortunate as it is)

And this is ok, as long as they can explain, realistically, how it could be possible, considering the DNA tests, that she could still be AN. No one has come out and done that, and I am not so sure they will.

Quote
2. People DO care if AA was FS or not. Why? Because if she wasn't AN, she has to be someone.

And this is ok too, since we cannot prove that AA was FS, even though her mtDNA matched Carl Maucher's. This is what this thread is supposed to be about, except that we don't seem to be able to come up with any other realistic candidates for AA's identity (other than FS), at least they haven't been proposed here. And some "random noblewoman" doesn't count as a candidate, because somehow we need to explain how this random person's DNA happened to match Carl Maucher's, or why she resembles FS so much. If a "switch" of both the samples is proposed as an explanation, it needs to be shown how that could have been pulled off. So if someone can do that, more power to them, and then we can accept the theory that AA was not FS. But so far we haven't heard anything that even came close to explaining these things....

Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: AGRBear on February 01, 2005, 10:05:42 AM
For the sake of this debate,  let's make a huge assumption.  Let's say the KGB, who just like they've done in thousands of mystery novels before the fall of the Berlin wall,  wanted to make sure that AA could never prove her case.  So, in broad daylight, an agent, who had become a employee of the hospital, went into the storage room with his mops and pails, and, with no difficulty, made the switch of the intestines.  

The hairs were easy.  They could have used Karl Maucher's or his mother's hair.

But, there was a flaw in all of this switching which caused the house of cards to fall.  The KGB did not know that Karl Maucher's grandmother and FS had different mothers.

This fact was discovered by a bunch of people on a computer board.

Trouble is, the bunch of people on the computer board haven't discovered the "whys" or "who's intestines was used" or AA's identity.  But give them time.

"So who WAS she, then?"

::)  AGRBear
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Katya04 on February 01, 2005, 12:06:40 PM
Quote


2. People DO care if AA was FS or not. Why? Because if she wasn't AN, she has to be someone.



So if she turned out to be some other anonymous Polish factory worker, is that going to change history?
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: AGRBear on February 01, 2005, 12:25:50 PM
What if she wasn't just another Polish worker?  What if she was an agent of the CHEKA?  

AGRBear
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Zenaida1861 on February 01, 2005, 12:47:37 PM
on Today at 10:05am, AGRBear wrote:

Quote
For the sake of this debate, let's make a huge assumption. Let's say the KGB, who just like they've done in thousands of mystery novels before the fall of the Berlin wall, wanted to make sure that AA could never prove her case.
     


Did you forget the Soviet government fell in 1991, and the DNA test was done in 1994?  ;)

Quote

So, in broad daylight, an agent, who had become a employee of the hospital, went into the storage room with his mops and pails, and, with no difficulty, made the switch of the intestines.       



Where did he get the other sample, whom did he operate on to remove it? You say Carl and his mother donated hair, but intestines too? You are also making a huge assumption about how lax the security at the hospital would be.

Quote

The hairs were easy. They could have used Karl Maucher's or his mother's hair.
     


Assuming they were cooperative, and why would they be?

Quote

But, there was a flaw in all of this switching which caused the house of cards to fall. The KGB did not know that Karl Maucher's grandmother and FS had different mothers.       



I suppose their research was no better than the scientists who undertook the project.

Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Helen_Azar on February 01, 2005, 01:12:35 PM
Perhaps it was those darn aliens again (they turn up at the most unexpected places it seems!), who pretended to be the KGB agents who pretended to be the hospital workers...
And they are also known for their shabby research.  ;)
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Georgiy on February 01, 2005, 02:03:20 PM
That's because they are too busy fighting the Soviet armies. They don't have the time to do their research thoroughly.  ;D

The truth is out there.....
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Sian_Turner on February 01, 2005, 02:44:15 PM
I have spent some time over the past two days reading the posts on this discussion and really cannot sit silent any longer.  

I'm afraid, Annie, that your attitude makes me incredibly angry.  You storm in when people make any kind of comment about the DNA or survival question with dismissive remarks which add nothing to proper, rational or intelligent discussion.  I read your scathing remarks about the "File on the Tsar" in another post saying you laughed at it when you re-read it.  I fully agree that some of their conclusions have since proved to be wrong but the book was written nearly 30 years ago, at a time when it was unthinkable that anyone would be allowed access to Russian archives.  Hindsight makes "experts" of us all, as someone once said.  I'm not sure if you can remember how closed and  inaccessible Eastern Europe was at that time, you might do well to consider that before throwing scorn on a book which was, in it's day, the first and most detailed look at what lay behind Sokolov's investigation and which used previously unseen material.  It still remains, to my mind, an incredible piece of work and not one which should be sneered at in such a childish manner.

Neither you, nor other doubters on this forum, have ever adequately explained why the Bolsheviks, at a time when man power was desperately needed in fighting a rearguard action to save their very new, and very shaky regime, would actively hunt down, at their own admission, a lost grand duchess - cf the account given by Count Carl Bonde of the Red Cross and several others.  Why put up notices threatening anyone found harbouring a grand duchess if, in fact, they had all been murdered.

Secondly.  You state that you have "researched" this subject for 30 years.  Whilst I have also spent the past 30 years reading every book I could concerning the fate of the Imperial Family, and Anna Anderson's claims I would not be so grandiose as you - I would hardly call it research, more in-depth reading.  You always pour scorn on Peter Kurth's magnificent work! How dare you.  Have you spent the amount of time and effort that he did looking at original sources, or talking to people who knew her?

I would like to address some of your "regular" notions which you parade as facts.

a)  Anna Anderson did speak Russian.  She not only spoke Russian when lucid, she spoke it when under the influence of anasthaesia, under the influence of huge doses of morphine, and she spoke it to members of the Romanov family - "and perfectly acceptable Russian by the standards of St Petersburg society".  That quote is from someone who was part of St Petersburg society.  You are not!  If I was you I would bow to their experience.

b)  You bring out as a piece of evidence the fact that she didn't seem Royal to you in a television interview.   Would you like to tell us what you consider being "Royal" is like?  Her manners, deportment, actions all convinced people who had a far greater knowledge of the strict requirements and traditions of the Russian Imperial court than either you or I do, again I would bow to their experience if I was you.

c)  I am pretty sure that, as Imperial Grand Duchesses, the Romanov girls would have had practically no experience or knowledge of how to keep a house clean.  Having come across several members of the British aristocracy in my life I think you'd be totally amazed at how completely oblivious they are to household tidiness or cleanliness.  I have lived with someone who was, in every way, a member of the upper classes with a very long pedigree and she and her friends were absolutely useless when it came to anything to do with cleaning!  

You should remember that OTMA were brought up in a place where everything was cleaned for them.  One of the most interesting pieces of information from the FOTR is that the girls had to be taught how to make bread and how to do the laundry.  They were brought up in a time which is so very different to ours.  They would never, ever have been expected to do any form of housework, as upper class women they would run households not clean them.  Do not, in future, place your late 20th century experience, on to the behaviour or actions of people from an utterly, utterly different time period.  The early 20th century is as different to the present and the 16th century.  You cannot compare attitudes, morals or beliefs btween the two.

d)  You say that you once ferverently believed AA was AN, you now seem to equally ferverently believe that she was not.  Fine, but please stop jumping on everyone who has an alternative view point.

Your "research" seems to be much the same as mine, limited to reading books on the subject.  You, like myself, have not spent hours sorting through papers in archives.  You , like myself, have not seen original documents or transcripts.  You, like myself, have not spoken to the many people who knew and spent time with Anna Anderson.

You pour scorn on people who have seen original documents, spoken with people who knew her, or who have actually spent time in the archives pulling information together.  

You do not "Discuss" things as far as I can tell, you assume that you are right and anyone who disagrees with you is wrong.  So if Felix Dassel, Tatiana Botkin, Nancy Leeds, Lili Dehn, Grand Duke Andrew Vladimirovitch, Shura Gilliard and all the many others who were there at the time said that they believed she was who she said she was, if they were to stand in front of you and reiterate that, would you still then say no you are wrong and I am right?

When you have spent the time and intellectual effort that others like Penny, Greg or Peter Kurth have in studying documents and evidence, then and only then will you be able to challenge what they say on a level footing.  Until then both you and I must accept that we have only scratched the surface of an immense subject which still remains to be concluded.

I cannot tell you how angry I am at your comments, your snideness and childish manners.  Your comments ruin what would otherwise be an fascinating forum.  I take a great deal of what is posted on these pages with a very large dose of salts.  There are quite a few people who post with total tripe and some who post with their rose tinted glasses firmly attached.  But your comments are in another league altogether.  

I hope you are proud of the fact that you are responsible for driving away at least one serious author on the subject.  Personally if I was you I would treat them with a great deal more respect as you only make yourself look foolish and ignorant.

My apologies to all sensible members of hte forum for this outburst but I have had enough of reading drivel and misinformation.

Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Arleen on February 01, 2005, 03:33:45 PM
THANK GOODNESS AND MERCY FOR YOU, SIAN!!  You dared to post exactly what I was thinking about Annie and was afraid to post.  We have lost good people because of the rude disrespectful drivel that goes on in some of these posts.  I myself leave for days at a time not able to take any more of all of the infighting and of the personal details about peoples lives in the PRESENT, that belong on IM's or e-mails that I am not interested in and don't belong HERE.
Tho it does feel good to vent sometimes......Arleen  
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Helen_Azar on February 01, 2005, 03:39:21 PM
So then are we back to: AA may have been Anastasia after all?   :o
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Denise on February 01, 2005, 03:50:33 PM
Quote
So then are we back to: AA may have been Anastasia after all?   :o


I don't believe that, Helen!  But I think (hope) that what Arleen was referring to was Sian speaking up to Annie regarding many of her facts.  Also, that a lot of Annie's comments belonged to PM, as requested by the FA a number of times....

I know from other posts that Sian does believe that AA=AN.  That is her right.  But I still believe in the DNA and wonder just who the heck AA really was!!

Denise
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Georgiy on February 01, 2005, 04:00:16 PM
Yes,
I think the most puzzling thing about her is that she was able to convince people that she was from an "imperial" class of society - not such an easy thing to do if you aren't to the manner born as it were. So was she a displaced noble with severe amnesia?
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Annie on February 01, 2005, 04:02:50 PM
"Sian" (if that is indeed your real name)

First, let me say that if you had read my last post, you would have seen that I had decided to leave the discussion, if not the forum entirely, because I can no longer keep a straight face or take seriously any more silly stories about AA being AN! It has long since passed the point where reason has left the building, and since I can't try to explain my position without being accused of being rude, there is nothing left to say. But now that you have posted this scathing critique of me, I must answer. BTW, I am all but totally convinced you are a friend of Penny's sent to defend her, like the one who came to Amazon and gave her a 5 star review (along with her own) after her book was given a bad review by some. How DARE you call anyone rude and childish if you defend Penny, she acts both, and being a 'professional' makes it even worse. I have talked to several people in private, no names, but there are many who feel very differently than you, and to keep from getting personal against Penny I will have to leave it at that.

Quote
I have spent some time over the past two days reading the posts on this discussion and really cannot sit silent any longer.  

I'm afraid, Annie, that your attitude makes me incredibly angry.  You storm in when people make any kind of comment about the DNA or survival question with dismissive remarks which add nothing to proper, rational or intelligent discussion.


I'm sorry, but I no longer believe that the words 'rational' and 'intelligent' can be attached to the survivor stories. Any author or historian of any respect and credibility regard these stories as no more than soap opera plots or taboid sensationalism (not my words but those of someone who wrote to me) You mention "Peter Kurth's magnificant work" (and it is an excellent book I enjoy, though I don't agree with his opinon on AA) which gives away, along with other comments, that you are an avid AA supporter and just hate me for the way I actively try to shoot holes in all the theories about her being AN. I'm not going to go on, it's no use. I hope you have also read DaveK and Helen's insightful, intelligent and informative posts on the DNA so you can know that though there are things we will never know, one thing we know for sure is that AA was not AN. No matter what you say or think of me, that isn't going to change.

That's it, I had planned to answer each charge, but it's no use. I've said all I can in my posts, let them speak for themselves. Some like them, some don't. Oh well!
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Georgiy on February 01, 2005, 04:12:48 PM
I think it is time for everyone to take a deep breath and calm down, and for all of us to develop much thicker skins.
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Helen_Azar on February 01, 2005, 04:15:03 PM
Quote

I don't believe that, Helen!  But I think (hope) that what Arleen was referring to was Sian speaking up to Annie regarding many of her facts.  Also, that a lot of Annie's comments belonged to PM, as requested by the FA a number of times....

I know from other posts that Sian believes that AA=AN.  That is her right.  But I still believe in the DNA and wonder just who the heck AA really was!!

Denise


I agree that a lot of Annie's comments, as well as Penny's, belonged on PM. Both of them should not have gone as far as they did here.

It doesn't matter to me whether Sian, etc. believe that AA was AN or that AA was a KGB agent or an alien, or whatever. What I think is a shame is that the school kids who are reading these posts to learn facts are getting a lot of confusing, wrong or even absurd information. And I don't mean just about AA in particular, no one really will really care about that in the long run, but about general things like you should never trust science, even when it stands up to scrutiny and always look for a conspiracy hiding behind every bush, even when there is no basis in reality. This type thing is turning these threads into some kind of a sensationalist, "National Enquirer" type of topic. I mean some of these theories are down right embarrassing.

But looking on the bright side, maybe this will teach many of these kids to think critically and not just accept "theories" that are thrown at them, and to learn the difference between something that can be confirmed and something that just emerges out of thin air - just because there is nothing else to argue the point with. So that's a good thing.

Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Helen_Azar on February 01, 2005, 04:21:40 PM
Quote
Yes,
 I think the most puzzling thing about her is that she was able to convince people that she was from an "imperial" class of society - not such an easy thing to do if you aren't to the manner born as it were.


Most people are really not all that hard to convince of things like this. AA was not the first, and probably not the last, impostor who had done so. If you read about various "royal" impostors throughout history (and there were plenty!), you will see that this is the case... No, not puzzling at all.
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Georgiy on February 01, 2005, 04:23:13 PM
I guess it is a matter of 'seeing' what you want to believe. :D
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Arleen on February 01, 2005, 04:24:49 PM
I wish you guys would stop fussing.  Penny and Greg are heroes to me I hate to see them slandered when they put what they believe in print.     Arleen
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Annie on February 01, 2005, 04:33:15 PM
Quote
I wish you guys would stop fussing.  Penny and Greg are heroes to me I hate to see them slandered when they put what they believe in print.     Arleen


Honestly, I am tired of being accused of 'slander' for disagreeing with someone's position, questioning their theories, and defending myself when being put down personally by Penny. We ALL disagree with each other's posts, but it's only Penny and some of her supporters who become venomous about it! I realize I am your enemy for challenging your 'hero" but there is no excuse for some of the things I have been called on this board.
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Helen_Azar on February 01, 2005, 04:40:15 PM
Quote
I wish you guys would stop fussing.  Penny and Greg are heroes to me I hate to see them slandered when they put what they believe in print.     Arleen


Arleen, what are you talking about? I hope you were not referring to anything I said?  
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: jolie on February 01, 2005, 04:44:42 PM
Funny, but I too have been reading along daily.   From my point of view,  Annie has the guts to stand up to anyone, no matter WHO they are, and ask questions.  Yes, she can be abrupt and might come across as "nasty", but  sitting here I can feel her frustration.  Seems some here don't DARE be questioned about their theory's, or they cry foul.  .

That being said, I understand Penny's frustration also.  BUT, until she has info that she can divulge, maybe it's just best she keep it to herself for now.  

This is only a website, folks.  Ya'll take it way to seriously.  If someone says something you don't like, you CAN ignore it.  

And for heaven's sakes.........stop threatening to leave!!   It's silly and childish.  

Annie and Penny.......you both were rude to eachother.  Ignore eachother's posts if you can't be civil.  Has anyone noticed how alike Annie and Penny really are??  Both incredibly curious, intelligent, stubborn, great thinkers...............etc. etc.    :)


Now I'll go back to oblivion and keep on reading............


Just my 2 cents.




;)
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Helen_Azar on February 01, 2005, 04:50:21 PM
Quote
...From my point of view,  Annie has the guts to stand up to anyone, no matter WHO they are, and ask questions.  Yes, she can be abrupt and might come across as "nasty", but  sitting here I can feel her frustration.  Seems some here don't DARE be questioned about their theory's, or they cry foul. That being said, I understand Penny's frustration also.  BUT, until she has info that she can divulge, maybe it's just best she keep it to herself for now.   Annie and Penny.......you both were rude to eachother.  Ignore eachother's posts if you can't be civil.  Has anyone noticed how alike Annie and Penny really are??  Both incredibly curious, intelligent, stubborn, great thinkers...............etc. etc.  


Jolie, I agree with you completely on all counts.
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: AGRBear on February 01, 2005, 05:13:22 PM
Quote
...[in part]... [numbers added by AGRBear

(1) Did you forget the Soviet government fell in 1991, and the DNA test was done in 1994?  ;)

(2)  Where did he get the other sample, whom did he operate on to remove it? You say Carl and his mother donated hair, but intestines too? You are also making a huge assumption about how lax the security at the hospital would be.

(3) Assuming they were cooperative, and why would they be?

(4) I suppose their research was no better than the scientists who undertook the project.



Good points Zenaida.

(1) The Soviet Govt. did fall in 1991, but, still the people invovled in digging up the bones were still unsure of their govt.'s reaction to having found the bons.

 You say 1994 for the tests with the intestines and hair.  If you tell me that's when they were done,  I have no reason to agrue.  It doesn't make any difference in the speculation of tampering.
Because: If someone wanted to switch the intestines in 1980 or 1990 or 1994,  I'm not sure the dates would have made a difference.
(2) To get samples of hair,  no one needs to know.  Getting hair from someone's hair brush, pulling out a few hairs in a crowded elevator...  There are a lot of ways of getting hair and the doner wouldn't even know.  As for intestines,  that is a sticky point to the "switching theory".  I suppose, it too is possible for someone to track down a match of some kind.  Like I said,  I don't know the medical history of Karl Maucher, his mother, his grandmother or cousins.  

Let's be fair here.  If a switch occured,  these people would not have been dummies.  Accept, they may have not know about Karl Maucher's grandmother Gerturde and FS having different mothers.  And, that one little important fact may in the end make their house of cards fall.  If there is a House of Cards.

(3) They FS famly members would not have to know, therefore, there was no need for them to be cooperative.

(4) At no time have I suggested that anyone in the hostipal were not good at there job.  In fact, over on the threads about this subject,  I went into great length about the hospital and it's staff being excellent.  We also talked about the storage room and the lack of guards, because, afterall, this isn't a secure room.  Heck,  just last week,  I walked, accidently, into a similar room when looking for my father.  No alarms went off.  No one confronted me then or later.  No one knew.  And, please,  don't make remarks about the hospital I was in because  and I won't name, however, I'm sure it'll match the one in which the intestines had been stored.
......
And,  let me, state, again,  I have not seen evidence up to this point in time that that there was a switch.  A switch was highly improbable.  But not impossible.  Especially by professionals.

HIGHLY IMPROBABLE but NOT IMPOSSIBLE.

We CAN dabble with the imposible without people having to  quit this thread.

AGRBear
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Forum Admin on February 01, 2005, 05:30:21 PM
"Because: If someone wanted to switch the intestines in 1980 or 1990 or 1994,  I'm not sure the dates would have made a difference. "

Actually, as I have pointed out before, the dates make a world of difference.  In 1980, no one had the slightest idea about doing mtDNA testing, the science didn't even exist. They would never have any REASON to switch the samples. In 1990, they still couldn't do the work. In fact, one reason the AA samples were tested was to PROVE that the work could be done and get good results. So you must see that NO ONE would have thought there would be a  need to switch the samples UNTIL they were found and the idea of testing was first suggested. It creates a MUCH narrow window of opportunity.
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Forum Admin on February 01, 2005, 05:35:00 PM
On another point. Annie please take any discussion about Penny to the private arena, IMs or email.  There simply is no need for this personal bickering here in the public forum. I have asked before that it stop and yet it  doesnt.  I genuinely do not want to lock yet another thread but will do so if it doesnt stop NOW.

Frankly, adults can rise above and simply not respond. And, if you don't like the discussion, there are hundreds and hundreds of other threads to read.

My patience is sorely at an end.
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: JonC on February 01, 2005, 05:37:37 PM
Sian and others...it seems that this discussion/argument is really a contest.

I.E. all those who like Penny on this side...now all those who like Annie on this side....Then fly the slings and arrows. Its ridiculous.

Then it becomes more ridiculous when we read, on subject, that there are STILL some who believe that AA could possibly be AN. Its been proven that Anthropologically and Genetically AA could never have been AN!!!

So, who cares who AA or FS were? We are all running around circles chasing our tales wondering about such nonsense. Why? These people don't mean anything to anyone anymore except to God himself. What's the Beef? AND where's the Beef?

You all know who I believe AN was and where her family is today. Anthropologically my claimant's maternal grandmother is a perfect match. Genetically he is the closest match if the claimant can prove his tie to Queen Alexandra of England. I think he will. JonC.
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: AnastasiaFan on February 01, 2005, 05:38:33 PM
Quote
Funny, but I too have been reading along daily.   From my point of view,  Annie has the guts to stand up to anyone, no matter WHO they are, and ask questions.  


I rarely come to this part of the forum because I believe AA was a fraud and Anastasia died on July 17, 1918, so I don't have much to say on the matter. It was just today that someone drew my attention to this thread. That said, I agree with what Jolie said. Annie, you have every right to question anyone you wish.....anyone. As long as it remains civil, there isn't anything wrong. So everyone keep it civil, and ask whatever you want. And Annie, I also think you have guts!
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: AGRBear on February 01, 2005, 06:18:44 PM
Quote
AGRBear: "Because: If someone wanted to switch the intestines in 1980 or 1990 or 1994,  I'm not sure the dates would have made a difference. "

Actually, as I have pointed out before, the dates make a world of difference.  In 1980, no one had the slightest idea about doing mtDNA testing, the science didn't even exist. They would never have any REASON to switch the samples. In 1990, they still couldn't do the work. In fact, one reason the AA samples were tested was to PROVE that the work could be done and get good results. So you must see that NO ONE would have thought there would be a  need to switch the samples UNTIL they were found and the idea of testing was first suggested. It creates a MUCH narrow window of opportunity.


Since it appears there is a reason to think the date of a possible "switch" was made  then why not in 1991 or the week before in 1994?

AGRBear
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Annie on February 01, 2005, 06:42:24 PM
Quote
On another point. Annie please take any discussion about Penny to the private arena, IMs or email.  

 


I HAD given up the discussion but returned after seeing myself being attacked. I have to say I do deeply resent being singled out here as the only one who needs to take it to PM, she has been ruder than me, with her open attacks, and now she's got her buddies posting long critiques, that's why I responded. I have done nothing but question her posts, as we all do to each other, yet I become hated and villainized for it. Ever notice things NEVER get nasty between us when she's not around?

Thank you to all those who posted and sent messages in support of me. It means a lot. I am so glad some people can see what's going on here and have the guts to comment on it. You all rule.
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: AGRBear on February 01, 2005, 06:55:04 PM
Can we p-l-e-a-se get back to the subject?

AGRBear
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: rskkiya on February 01, 2005, 06:56:47 PM
OK...

     I am not convinced that Anna Anderson was not in fact, Fransiska S., an upwardly mobile - if possibly delusional factory worker, who forgot herself and remembered someone else... however is she was not FS, I am still not persuaded by the various murder victim/DNA conspiracy theories.

     Lets assume (just for the moment) that Anna A was not FS ...well, she was someone then --- but I have to admit - any vague hints of curiousity as to the facts have long been squashed by all the crude words and childish behaviour here - Annie, as far as I can tell, has the right to discuss this issue!

civility please
r
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: AGRBear on February 01, 2005, 07:07:20 PM
This is thread is about Anna Anderson's identity, since we are assuming on this thread, that  FS was murdered by Grossmann or went off to England to be a nanny but not to be AA [claimant Mrs. Unknown].

We do not know yet if Penny has enough evidence to prove FS was murdered but this doesn't matter because the thread, she started, is asking:
"So who WAS she, then?"

Maybe, one of the question we should ask is: If FS was murdered  then who wanted us to believe AA was FS and why?

AGRBear
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Denise on February 01, 2005, 07:19:28 PM
Quote

Maybe, one of the question we should ask is: If FS was murdered  then who wanted us to believe AA was FS and why?

AGRBear


I was wondering if many of these Schanzkowska family quotes about FS "airs" were an invention after the fact to try to get some publicity off the FS name.  Maybe the nieces and nephews who never knew her would say anything to keep her name up there with AA.  After all, why else would there be conflicting stories--some say FS was a poorly educated girl, other (Massie) state that she spent her time reading in the hay stacks and her older sisters didn't like her because she was hoity toity.  

It is worth speculating at the least.  Who knows what the letters Annie referred to really meant, the ones by Felix talking about his "sister Anastasia"?  It may have been a facetious comment, not fact.  Perhaps he really felt it was ludicrous that someone would believe his sister could successfully impersonate a Russian Grand Duchess.

Denise
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Mgmstl on February 01, 2005, 08:08:17 PM
Ok, I want to say first that the reasons that I believe it is possible for AA not to be FS is some of the early descriptions of her manners, her general bearing, and the fact that she became more eccentric as the years went on doesn't matter IMO, to her being or not being FS.  As a footnote to history I think it is interesting that she possibly could have been someone else other than FS.  If it turns out she was FS after reading, then fine.

If anyone has read The Riddle Of Anna Anderson by Peter Kurth, some of these descriptions are taken from the Hamburg transcripts.  I just enjoy the fine unsolvable mysteries of history.



Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Helen_Azar on February 01, 2005, 08:54:30 PM
Ok, so does anyone have any suggestions as to AA's possible identity, if not FS?  Remember, this candidate would have to strongly resemble FS from the front (according to her brother, see "Anastasia: The Riddle of Anna Anderson") and also have mtDNA that matches Carl Maucher's. The only person I can think of who would fit this profile is some sort of a relative of the Schankowski family...
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Mgmstl on February 01, 2005, 08:59:53 PM
On May 9, 1927  AA was taken for a meeting with Felix Schanzkowska the brother of Francisca.

The meeting took place at an in Wasserburg some few miles nw of Seeon.  Felix S. was sitting the beer garden with Dr. Voller, while Harriet von Rathlef wisely kept out of sight.  As she walked toward his table, AA asked the Duke, "Which one of the gentlemen is it?"

Felix stared at her.

Who is that lady, asked Dr Voller,  "That is my sister Francisca ." replied Felix.   All eyes turned to Anastasia,  
"Well, stammered the Duke, thoroughly amazed, "go and talk with your brother."   Dr Voller had already prepared an affadavit for Felix to sign, stating that this was indeed his sister Franciska S., and that he recognized her beyond any doubt.  Frau Rathlef was crushed, she handed the document to Felix, when she suddenly heard him say " No, I won't do it.  She isn't my sister."  

"She isn't your sister?" asked Frau Rathlef stunned by this about face.  

"No, said Felix again, adding that he would not sign a false declaration that might land him in jail."

Dr Voller drew up another affadavit that Felix did not hesitate to sigh it"

" There does exist a strong resemblance between her and my sister.  The resemblance is strong when you look from the front, but not when you look from the side.....Frau Tschaikovsky's speech...as well as the general expression of her manner is totally different from that of my sister, Franziska.... At today's consultation I spoke repeatedly with Frau Tshaikovsky.  There can be no doubt that she did not have the slightest idea who I was.  You could clearly see that she did no know me.  I went toward her and she gave me her hand and talked to me with perfect unconcern.  She showed no sign either of astonishment or of the slightest fear.  She behaved rather as one behaves towards a third pary to whom one is just being introduced."

Then Harriet Rathlef went over the check list:  There were scars and birthmarks,  "My sister Franzsiska had no scars or birthmarks";  Teeth;  My sister Franziska had a full set of teeth. "  Languages; "My sister Franziska spoke a little polish and good german."  Feet;   "My sister Franziska had no deformities of the feet."  Here Felix took off his shoes and "with sort of a vanity", declared that Franziska has "pretty" feet, "just like mine."

That is in Riddle of Anna Anderson  pgs 173-174....

Michael
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Michelle on February 01, 2005, 09:03:18 PM
Okay, as I've come across numerous comments about how "ridiculous" it is to "STILL" have people believing  AA was AN, I would like to ask just exactly why it is so unacceptable?  It really comes across as arrogant and snide, not to mention demeaning to our intelligence.  And why is it so important for AA to not be AN?  I come across a lot of those comments too, like "It doesn't matter who she was as long as she wasn't AN."  Just why is it so important that she wasn't AN?  The switching theory could be true, you know.

And Penny, keep on posting, girly!  Your invalueable intelligence and access to unknown information is essential in order for this forum to retain its fascinating nature.  Don't let totally unreasonable pettiness and downright nastiness deter you from posting! :)
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Helen_Azar on February 01, 2005, 09:07:12 PM
Michael, so what do you think, who else could she have been, considering that apparently she looked a lot like FS (at least from the front) and had matching mtDNA... ? Could it have been that much of a coincidence? I am not saying that it couldn't be, I am just asking...
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Forum Admin on February 01, 2005, 09:08:06 PM
No, the "switching" theory is virtually pure fiction. NO ONE can be shown to have the means, motive, knowledge and opportunity to have fabricated exact copies of the path. samples and then switched them. IT IS VIRTUALLY IMPOSSIBLE. PERIOD.  What is demeaning to intelligence is how the logic and facts can't be accepted by rational adults.

this isn't snide or rude. this is REALITY. Not some fantasy island. The mtDNA has proven AA can NOT be AN. to a certainty of less than one in a MILLION otherwise.
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: jolie on February 01, 2005, 09:11:22 PM
Question:

Where did this switching notion come from in the first place?    
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Helen_Azar on February 01, 2005, 09:14:25 PM
Quote
...why is it so important for AA to not be AN?  I come across a lot of those comments too, like "It doesn't matter who she was as long as she wasn't AN."  Just why is it so important that she wasn't AN?  The switching theory could be true, you know.
 Michelle, it is not a matter of importance for anyone that AA was not AN, it is a matter of fact. It would only be possible for AA to have been AN if the switching theory is true. I don't think too many people believe that the DNA was tampered with, in fact you can probably count them on one hand. I know that you don't trust too many people's opinions about this, but certainly Penny, someone whose opinion you respect, has never stated that she believed that the DNA was tampered with. Penny, in fact stated that she accepted these DNA results as they now stand. If I am wrong about this, Penny, please correct me. Michelle, I think you need to give up on the "switching the DNA" theory...
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Forum Admin on February 01, 2005, 09:15:34 PM
Some of the same conspiracy theorists who believe that the moon landing was faked seem to have glommed onto the notion that someone found Carl Maucher BEFORE the mtDNA tests were performed, removed the exact same section of HIS intestine as AA, and somehow exactly replicated the storage protocol and labeling of the AA hospital pathology lab and snuck into the path lab and switched the "real" AA sample with a phony to match Carl M.  that or they lurked in post offices or FedEx depots looking for the sample packages sent to the DNA labs and made the switch there.
This is a LUDICROUS notion that no one can show the slighest evidence to be possible beyond the hypothetical "maybe".
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: jolie on February 01, 2005, 09:19:57 PM
I know WHAT they believe, but I'm wondering if it's just a handle of member on this board with this belief.....or if they latched on to some "expert's" theory??

I guess what I mean is:  is the "switching" theory exclusive to the 3-4 members of this board?

Thanks.
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Helen_Azar on February 01, 2005, 09:25:31 PM
Quote
Question:

Where did this switching notion come from in the first place?    


I think that was an argument formulated by someone on this forum, I believe, when there was no other possible argument.
The way it appears, there are people who want to believe what they want to believe, no matter what evidence there is, or how illogical and unrealistic it may be. I am convinced that if AA was alive today and she publically confessed that she was not Anastasia and the whole thing was a fraud, and even gave expalnations as to how she did it, some of these people would say "she was forced to say this" or that she lost her mind and doesn't know what she is talking about. Or, if Anastasia's remains were found, tested and shown to be hers, these people would say the results were tampered with. Or if there was a way to go back in time and witness the execution and actually see AN getting killed, they would say it was her double and not really her. So basically no matter  what kind of proof exists, some people will still insist that it is not true... and there is nothing anyone can say or do to convince them otherwise. This is just the way it is.  :)
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Robert_Hall on February 01, 2005, 09:29:49 PM
You are so very correct about that, Helen, andI think we knew it would be that way all along.
Cheers anyway !
Robert
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Helen_Azar on February 01, 2005, 09:31:27 PM
Quote
... is the "switching" theory exclusive to the 3-4 members of this board?
  

Jolie, it appears to be the case, but I could be wrong...  
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: jolie on February 01, 2005, 09:33:11 PM
Re: my above post:  handle = handful!


Helen,

I think you are correct.  Probably the same people that believe we REALLY didn't land on the moon.

I am a member of a political website so I'm familiar with what we call "tinfoilers"   ::)    

btw, your patience in explaning the many aspects of DNA and other facts is appreciated!  Same goes for FA.


Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Helen_Azar on February 01, 2005, 09:36:07 PM
Quote
You are so very correct about that, Helen, andI think we knew it would be that way all along.
Cheers anyway !
Robert


Well, Robert, before all this, I actually was under the impression that everyone had the capability to understand logic and the judgment to see the difference between reality and fantasy, but I guess I was wrong!  8)
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Helen_Azar on February 01, 2005, 09:37:14 PM
Quote
 Probably the same people that believe we REALLY didn't land on the moon.

 I suspect you may be right about that  ;). Oh well.
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Georgiy on February 01, 2005, 09:59:12 PM
I suspect it is all very real for the people who want it to be real. It is not a case where you could be, for want of a better word, 'agnostic'. It is impossible for AA to be AN. Whoever she really was, she was obviously a very captivating and interesting person otherwise we wouldn't still be talking about her.
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Helen_Azar on February 01, 2005, 10:07:44 PM
Quote
I suspect it is all very real for the people who want it to be real. It is not a case where you could be, for want of a better word, 'agnostic'.  


Georgiy, you are right, this is almost like religion for some people, a matter of faith, no matter what kind of evidence exists against it.
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Mgmstl on February 01, 2005, 10:13:09 PM
Helen, I am at loss to state who she could be.  I am sure that AN was shot that night in Ekaterinburg, and was killed along with the rest of her family.

Now that I understand the DNA a bit better and have been rereading different books on this subject.  I am sure that the DNA tests were conducted under the highest scrutiny & the best available technology at the time these tests were done.  As far as the hospital goes I agree that the theory of switching is ludicrous.

While I would like to say the AA is absolutely FS, I can't.
I have found in my own research on my own family it is difficult to ferret out the truth.  Regardless of whether she is or is not FS, I find this story fascinating.  

Who would you think she could be other than FS?
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Helen_Azar on February 01, 2005, 10:30:17 PM
Quote
Who would you think she could be other than FS?


Well, as I mentioned before, the only other person whom I think she could possibly have been is some sort of a relative of the Schankowskis. I mean, think about it, this woman looked a lot like FS, to a point where her own brother had mistook her for his sister at first (providing he was telling the truth about mistaking her and not that he just lied about her not being his sister). Her DNA matches the Schankowski relative. Could these two things really be a coincidence, with her not being either FS or not being related? We can't say it isn't possible at all, almost anything is, but really.... Evidence as we know it overwhelmingly points to the fact that she had to have been FS. I am willing to concede that there is a chance she may not be, because of some other evidence that is supposed to exist, but that we don't know about. Suppose there really is some compelling evidence against AA being FS. In this case, if she was not FS, she had to be a relative.... This is the way I see it, I can't imagine that she could have been anyone else, providing the level of coincidence...
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Mgmstl on February 01, 2005, 10:37:57 PM
I agree she could be a relative of FS's....

You know Helen I have said all along, there were agenda's on all sides of this long running legal debate that fueled fire & press for many years, whether or not it was on AA's side or on the side of the I.F. or the Hesse family.  

Many motives remain unclear, such as why members of the Shanzkowska family recognize her, then say it is definitely not her.   Why Olga & Shura recognize her as AN, but then later decide she is not.  

I think the battle of the different sides & their agendas, we lost track of who she is , and really will we be able to find out for sure at this late date.  I agree with your statement though.
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Helen_Azar on February 01, 2005, 10:53:05 PM
Quote
....will we be able to find out for sure at this late date.  
 What would constitute undeniable proof of her identity? At this point it is impossible to come up with that. We can only make conjectures from the evidence that exists.  
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Alice on February 02, 2005, 03:40:51 AM
Quote
And this is ok, as long as they can explain, realistically, how it could be possible, considering the DNA tests, that she could still be AN. No one has come out and done that, and I am not so sure they will.

And this is ok too, since we cannot prove that AA was FS, even though her mtDNA matched Carl Maucher's. This is what this thread is supposed to be about, except that we don't seem to be able to come up with any other realistic candidates for AA's identity (other than FS), at least they haven't been proposed here. And some "random noblewoman" doesn't count as a candidate, because somehow we need to explain how this random person's DNA happened to match Carl Maucher's, or why she resembles FS so much. If a "switch" of both the samples is proposed as an explanation, it needs to be shown how that could have been pulled off. So if someone can do that, more power to them, and then we can accept the theory that AA was not FS. But so far we haven't heard anything that even came close to explaining these things....



I refute the "random noblewoman" theory. It has to be a "noblewoman-that's-related-to-Carl-Maucher-and-resembles-FS".  ;D

Penny says that she has evidence that AA was not FS (but understandably, cannot publish it for us, because her book is not finished).

If there's evidence that AA was not FS, what about evidence that she was someone other than FS? It's one thing to prove that a person wasn't another person, but another thing to prove that a person was another person.

So, if we:

1. prove that AA was not FS, we then have to:

2. prove who AA was, to solve the mystery.

I'm not sure that we've adequately solved no. 1, and we have no candidates for no. 2.

For no. 2: whoever AA was, her DNA matched Carl Maucher's. So, we have to start by examining Carl Maucher's relatives. The obvious is FS. The criteria for any candidate is:

1. Must be related to Carl Maucher.

2. Must resemble FS (as Helen said, her own brother mistook her for her sister, so obviously, she did resemble FS).

3. Must be unaccounted for after the time that AA surfaced.

4. Must be approx. the same age, height, etc, as AA.

So! Anyone have such a candidate?  ;D
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Annie on February 02, 2005, 06:17:35 AM
This post by Annie has been removed.
FA
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Sian_Turner on February 02, 2005, 07:38:20 AM
(this section of the post has been removed. FA)

We others should certainly clarify and question areas which we do not understand or agree with - but in a polite, respectful and appropriate way.  Sensible, constructive and (above all) intelligent discussion is the only way younger members of the fora will learn anything of the subject.

Many thanks to those who sent messages of support.
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Mgmstl on February 02, 2005, 08:25:11 AM
Alice, Felix's 1927 signed affadavit is listed here on this thread, while he states that "there is a strong resemblence between her & my sister"  (FROM THE FRONT ONLY)  he also goes on to state that AA's manner of speech & deoprtment were not like his sister's, and when you look at her from the side, the resemblance ended.  Also, certain physical characteristics such as the feet (hallux valgus), the bayonet scars etc.  AA had, FS did not.

It seems that the only one of the family to insist that FS was indeed AA was Gertrude.

As I have stated before I won't rule it out, that AA=FS, but I am open to other ideas, that is if they can prove that she was the victim of a serial killer.
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: AGRBear on February 02, 2005, 09:13:25 AM
If FS was murdered in Aug. of 1920 then who wanted us to believe AA was FS and why?

AGRBeasr
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Forum Admin on February 02, 2005, 10:27:21 AM
Annie,
You can block PMs if you don't want to receive them from users. You will NOT post the personal messages here. Both you and Penny feel you have been personally slighted and feel the need to defend yourselves and you both want the last word. well, guess what? I"M having the last word. and that is ENOUGH.

Annie, Greg and Penny are published authors. You have the right to discuss their work itself, but leave the personal attacks out. Penny, I believe we all now clearly get your position and feelings, so I think perhaps we can now stop? Someone has to call an end to this and it is ME. You're both right and both wrong.
I am sick of being playground monitor as it drains my time from the constructive work of the Website and drains my patience.

*addendum* Any further off topic personal discussion here in this thread WILL be removed without notice or discussion.*

As for the ON TOPIC discussion, I feel we should remember that many people desparatly WANTED AA to be AN and so would see in her exactly what they expected to see. Some were sure she wasn't so THEY saw what they expected to see. That, IMO, can explain alot of the diverging opinions of the people who met her.
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Helen_Azar on February 02, 2005, 11:19:07 AM
Quote
Alice, Felix's 1927 signed affadavit is listed here on this thread, while he states that "there is a strong resemblence between her & my sister"  (FROM THE FRONT ONLY)...  


Michael, I am going to re-post what I posted on the other thread here, since it is relevant here too.

Quote
" There does exist a strong resemblance between her and my sister.  The resemblance is strong when you look from the front, but not when you look from the side.....Frau Tschaikovsky's speech....
 Just an observation, but could this have been due to the fact that most of her teeth were now missing? That can really change the shape of one's face dramatically, especially in profile... and affect the speech of course... This woman obviously suffered a huge mental break down, and between the time that FS's brother last saw FS and the time he saw AA at the mental hospital, years had passed with this huge breakdown in between, so that could have changed her personality and manner a lot.... The brother may genuinely not have been sure at this point if she was his sister or not. But the interesting thing is, that she still resembled his sister a lot, or so it says in Peter Kurth's book....


Quote
...he also goes on to state that AA's manner of speech & deoprtment were not like his sister's...


As far as manners/behavior, I think that can change, dramatically, particularly with the mentally ill. I have seen it happen. It doesn't really happen overnight of course, but it can happen over a period of several years, or even as short as a year or six months, it just depends on the illness. We must remember  that everything points to AA being delusional (at the very least the fact that she thought she was Anastasia while we know she wasn't). With a person who is delusional, a personality change is almost inevitable in time. Remember people with split personalities? This is something that is real, not made up, it exists. A person can have two or more completely different personalities, and not even realize it! Mental illness is a very powerful thing, and for those who have not been in contact with it or don't know much about it, it is hard to imagine that something like this is possible, but it most definitely is. I am not saying that AA had a split personality, but with someone who was probably mentally ill/delusional it would not be that much of a stretch. In a way, delusions are sort of like split personality when it involves taking on someone else's identity. You would be amazed at how mental illness can manifest itself! And believe me, some of these people can be extremely convincing, and if you don't know any better, they come off as completely "normal" for a long time until it begins to dawn on you that something just doesn't make sense. Again, I have witnessed this, and when I saw it for the first time, I could not believe it was possible, but it was not only possible, it was in fact very often a text book example. So no, the "manner/behavior" argument does not convince me at all either...  

Quote
...certain physical characteristics such as the feet (hallux valgus), the bayonet scars etc.  AA had, FS did not.
 


For all it's worth, about the foot deformity AA had, hallux valgus - which seems to be used very heavily to argue in favor of this case - from what I understand this is a condition that is not only extremely common, but something that can develop over time and not something you are usually born with. It is also known as "bunions", and I am pretty sure we all know at least one person who has this condition. I know at least three people who do. And I also know that none of these people were born with it, they developed it a little later in life. This type of thing can develop from wearing ill fitting shoes, among other things. So to me, the "foot deformity" is not really much to go by... not convincing at all.    

Quote
It seems that the only one of the family to insist that FS was indeed AA was Gertrude.  

For me, the fact that at least one family member insisted that she was her sister speaks volumes. Why would she, if she wasn't? For some reason it is easier for me to accept that they would lie about her not being their sister, in order to avoid responsibility for her (not to mention the embarassment), than lie about her being their sister. What would have been Gertrude's motive to do that? I don't know, maybe it's just me...

In any case, the way I still see this, why on earth would we go by those things rather than the DNA evidence? There are reasonable explanations for all that but there is no reasonable explanation as to how AA ended up with Carl Maucher's mtDNA or the fact that she strongly resembles FS.

The more 'evidence' like the above I read, the more convinced I become that AA had to have been FS. I'm sorry, but personally I need evidence that is a lot more compelling than what has been presented so far to convince me that AA was not FS (or at the very least her relative, which would basically amount to the same thing as her being FS), in order to override the DNA evidence and some other evidence that we already have...  

These are of course just my own opinions and maybe more compelling evidence does exist. But I haven't seen it, and until I do and it actually is convincing to me, I will not "look for unicorns until I run out of ponies"...   :)
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Michelle on February 02, 2005, 12:03:11 PM
Quote
Re: my above post:  handle = handful!


Helen,

I think you are correct.  Probably the same people that believe we REALLY didn't land on the moon.

I am a member of a political website so I'm familiar with what we call "tinfoilers"   ::)    


Oh please.

For what it's worth (and I'm sure it's worth nothing), I don't see a "strong" resemblance to FS in AA.  And don't try to pinpoint me as a someone who isn't in agreement with reality.  It's insulting to mine and other's intelligence.
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Helen_Azar on February 02, 2005, 12:17:23 PM
Quote

Oh please.

For what it's worth (and I'm sure it's worth nothing), I don't see a "strong" resemblance to FS in AA.  And don't try to pinpoint me as a someone who isn't in agreement with reality.  It's insulting to mine and other's intelligence.

Michelle, the quote about AA's resemblance to FS came directly from Peter Kurth's book, no one pulled it out of thin air just to victimize you. According to Kurth, Felix, FS's brother said that at first he mistook AA for his sister because she looked like her so much from the front, but not from the side (which may be due the missing teeth issue). So no one is insulting your, or anyone else's intelligence here, we are quoting from the sources that have no reason to make this up...  If you are going to make any arguments on this thread, why don't you address the things I mentioned in my earlier post, which I think are valid, instead of getting confrontational about semantics and playing the victim?  
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: AGRBear on February 02, 2005, 12:33:03 PM
Is this the old story of "he said" and "she said"?

Did Gertrude every sign a piece of paper saying FS was her sister?

AGRBear
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Helen_Azar on February 02, 2005, 12:36:32 PM
Quote
Is this the old story of "he said" and "she said"?


Exactly. This is why this type of evidence doesn't really do much for me. I would like something more substantial, like DNA.  :)
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: AGRBear on February 02, 2005, 12:44:21 PM
You have your DNA which matches Karl Maucher, who's grandmother, Gertrude, apparently,  was  half sister to FS.

Since the mtDNA is traced through the maternal line, then you'll have to find what Gertrude's mother's maiden name was so some of us can research some of the records and see if we can find a cousin who is about the same age or younger who is a canidate to be AA.

AGRBear
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Helen_Azar on February 02, 2005, 12:47:52 PM
Quote
You have your DNA which matches Karl Maucher, who's grandmother, Gertrude, apparently,  was  half sister to FS.



Yes, exactly. But first we need to confirm whether Gertrude was a half sister or a full sister, so far we just have rumors. Then we can take it from there.  
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: AGRBear on February 02, 2005, 12:59:41 PM
Then just give me the maiden name of Gertrude's mother and I'll run it through some genealogy search engines, find her marriage and since we have FS's birth date, I can see how they match up.

AGRBear

PS  Do I work with FS's birth date:

Quote
....[in part]...
Annie, per Klier & Mingay on page 223, "Franziska Schanzkowska was born on 16 December 1896, in Bororwihlas, a small town in Kashubia, one of the Polish Provinces at that time forming part of the German Empire....

Denise


Or is there a different date or place name in some other book?

PSS   Just found this from Denise:
Quote

....[in part]...

I see what you mean.  This is what I have from Massie's Romanovs The Final Chapter, pg 249:

She was born in 1896 in the Prussian province of Posen, adjacent to the border with Poland, which was then a part of the Russian Empire.  Two hundred years before, her family had belonged to the lesser Polish nobility, but by the end of the nineteenth century, the family were farmworkers.  Franziska's father, an impoverished alcoholic, died when his children were young.  
.....

Denise

...
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Helen_Azar on February 02, 2005, 01:07:08 PM
Quote
Then just give me the maiden name of Gertrude's mother and I'll run it through some genealogy search engines, find her marriage and since we have FS's birth date, I can see how they match up.

AGRBear
I don't know her mother's maiden name. We don't even know at this point whether they really had different mothers or not, right now it is just a theory from what I understand. Maybe Penny knows the maiden name...
Title: http://www.rootsweb.com/~polwgw/towns-b.html
Post by: AGRBear on February 02, 2005, 01:19:13 PM
For those who want to dig around and get the answer before I do, start with the following:

http://www.rootsweb.com/~polwgw/kujaw.html

look under the words:  Pomerania-Kasubia, Wladyslawowo

We'll be able to find the small village of Bororwihlas once we nail down the general area.

AGRBear

PS  Here is just a sample of the number of names when using "soundex equivalents" [second one down the list given] that show how many ways one name can be spelled, and, type in Schanskowska:

http://surhelp.rootsweb.com/srchall.html

PSS  A Polish site:
http://www.rootsweb.com/~polwgw/polandgen.html

PSS Names of villages:
http://www.rootsweb.com/~polwgw/towns-b.html

Look for something similar to Bororwihlas like Borowiliec or _____ in Pozan' [Posen]

PSSS  Go to Mapquest, tpye in Wladyslawowo, Posen, Poland and you'll get a map of the area.  Finding Bororwihlas didn't work but at least you can see the general area.  I'll keep looking.
http://www.mapquest.com
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Arleen on February 02, 2005, 01:42:56 PM
BRAVO AGRBear!!  At last something constructive.....thank you so much.......Arleen
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Helen_Azar on February 02, 2005, 01:49:52 PM
Quote
BRAVO AGRBear!!  At last something constructive.....thank you so much.......Arleen


Arleen, how about you follow up on this and see what you can find out?
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Mgmstl on February 02, 2005, 01:58:58 PM
Just an FYI, Kurth's book never mentions whether or not these are full or half brothers and sisters.  There are:
Felix, Valerina, Marie-Juliana, & Gertrude.  Gertrude was the only member of the siblings to say she recognized her sister.  The others refused, saying it was not FS.
Gertrude's meeting with her did not come until 1938/39 shortly before WW II.

Helen, I remembered the question I wanted to ask the other day, does it make a difference if the two people have one lineal ancestor in common (i.e. parent). Does it make any difference in the result?
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Helen_Azar on February 02, 2005, 02:30:19 PM
Quote
Helen, I remembered the question I wanted to ask the other day, does it make a difference if the two people have one lineal ancestor in common (i.e. parent). Does it make any difference in the result?



Michael, could you be a little more specific, a result of what?
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Annie on February 02, 2005, 03:26:39 PM
Quote
Annie,
You can block PMs if you don't want to receive them from users. You will NOT post the personal messages here. Both you and Penny feel you have been personally slighted and feel the need to defend yourselves and you both want the last word. well, guess what? I"M having the last word. and that is ENOUGH.


It's MORE than enough. But I must state emphatically that I never attacked Penny personally, I only questioned her work, which made her attack ME personally. I don't care if she's a published author or a bartender or a bookeeper. What she did to me (especially in the PMs) was personal, offensive, and abusive. It was not about history, it was about me. I am hurt and perplexed that we would even be lumped into the same category for these reasons.
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Mgmstl on February 02, 2005, 03:27:39 PM
Helen I am sorry, I don't know why I wasn't clearer , I meant the in the result of the DNA testing?
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Helen_Azar on February 02, 2005, 03:30:38 PM
Quote
Helen I am sorry, I don't know why I wasn't clearer , I meant the in the result of the DNA testing?


I'm sorry, I should have probably asked you to clarify the entire question, what do you mean by "two people have one lineal ancestor in common (i.e. parent)"? Do you mean if they have at least one parent in common?
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Mgmstl on February 02, 2005, 04:03:06 PM
Yes I mean if they have one parent in common .
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Helen_Azar on February 02, 2005, 04:54:20 PM
So your question, Michael, is: would it make a difference in the mtDNA result if two people had the same father but not the same mother? Or the same mother but not the same father?

If they had the same father but different mothers, then the mtDNA would be different, unless the two mothers were maternally related (as in maternal cousins or maternal second or third or fourth cousins, etc). If the two people in question had the same mothers but different fathers, then the mtDNA would be the same since mtDNA has nothing to do with the father whatsoever. Was this what you were asking?
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Mgmstl on February 02, 2005, 05:33:42 PM
Yes Helen, that answers my question.  Now IF the DNA of AA & Carl Maucher (Gertude's grandson) matched then we would assume that they share the same DNA through the mother, UNLESS, FS & Gertrude had 2 different mothers that were related.

So since the DNA is a match.  That narrows the possibilities of who she could be.  Interesting.

I would love to know more of what Greg & Penny's research shows.

Also if this serial killer Grossmann, actually did kill FS, then how could AA be FS.  Just a few things to think about.
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Helen_Azar on February 02, 2005, 05:52:59 PM
Quote
So since the DNA is a match.  That narrows the possibilities of who she could be.  

Yes, exactly. Since the mtDNA did match, then we have to assume that even if they had different mothers, the two mothers had to be related maternally. But we still have no proof that they indeed had different mothers, only hearsay. Maybe someone will be able to find out...

Quote
Also if this serial killer Grossmann, actually did kill FS, then how could AA be FS.


Of course if FS was indeed killed by a serial killer, then of course she couldn't have been AA. In that case AA would have to be some sort of relative considering the DNA match and the strong resemblance. But so far, from what we have heard about the serial killer theory, it all sounds like a big if. Remember there was no body, only a similar-sounding name in a psychopath's notebook... Again, in order for me to buy into this theory, I would have to have more evidence about this alleged murder than just that. The victim could have easily been someone else... I mean how seriously should we take Grossman's writings? Was there any additional evidence? We don't know.

Quote

I would love to know more of what Greg & Penny's research shows.


Yes, I would too. Hopefully we will soon.
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: JonC on February 02, 2005, 11:41:41 PM
I can't believe that this subject has drawn more interest than the Romanov family itself.

Why AA or FS has so much pull on everyone's imagination is beyond me. I can see how poor Mr. Kurth got so captivated with this subject. No-one on this thread has answered my question which , to me, is very valid. What's the point? Who cares who AA or FS was?

If she/they have been proven not to be Anastasia N. Romanov why all the hard feelings and incriminations between posters on this thread?

I believe PK regrets his involvement since the DNA evidence has proven that AA could not possibly be AN.
Similarly, these discussions seem to be just another 'tempest in a teapot'. Can someone please make some sense of this?JonC.
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Malenkaya on February 03, 2005, 01:54:44 AM
Quote
Why AA or FS has so much pull on everyone's imagination is beyond me. I can see how poor Mr. Kurth got so captivated with this subject. No-one on this thread has answered my question which , to me, is very valid. What's the point? Who cares who AA or FS was?


For me, it's because AA's claim is what kept the Anastasia "legend" alive for all these years.  Without her story, there are a lot of people who never would have known, or cared, about the Romanovs at all.

In the long run we learned she wasn't AN.  But AA is still the reason for the Anastasia stories.  And as such, as closure to this amazing story, people want to know who she really was.  Maybe it's not historically important in the grand scheme of things, but for those of us who have followed this for so long, how can you not want to follow it through until you know who she was?  Stopping by finding out who she wasn't seems like taking the easy way out.

The "Riddle Of Anna Anderson" has yet to be solved.  And it sounds like there still may be some interesting twists to the story.

Anastasia
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Alice on February 03, 2005, 03:45:08 AM
Quote
Yes Helen, that answers my question.  Now IF the DNA of AA & Carl Maucher (Gertude's grandson) matched then we would assume that they share the same DNA through the mother, UNLESS, FS & Gertrude had 2 different mothers that were related.

So since the DNA is a match.  That narrows the possibilities of who she could be.  Interesting.

I would love to know more of what Greg & Penny's research shows.

Also if this serial killer Grossmann, actually did kill FS, then how could AA be FS.  Just a few things to think about.


Yes, but it's difficult to prove a murder when you haven't got a body . . .

Was Grossman ever charged with her murder?
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Annie on February 03, 2005, 06:01:36 AM
Quote

Yes, but it's difficult to prove a murder when you haven't got a body . . .

Was Grossman ever charged with her murder?


That's why I see this 'murder' theory as no more than a desperate attempt to get rid of FS so AA can still be AN. No body, no charges, only that 'savsnoski' name in his diary which is not that close to Schanskowska. Not much was made of this back then, they must have known there wasn't much to it, so I can't see why it's suddenly become such a big deal now.
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Helen_Azar on February 03, 2005, 08:05:04 AM
Quote
For me, it's because AA's claim is what kept the Anastasia "legend" alive for all these years.  Without her story, there are a lot of people who never would have known, or cared, about the Romanovs at all.
  


I agree with you there. I think Anna Anderson was almost single handedly responsible for keeping the legend and the memory of the family's story alive into the 21 century. Albeit it was by default, but she should still be given credit...
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Helen_Azar on February 03, 2005, 08:13:49 AM
Quote
Not much was made of this back then, they must have known there wasn't much to it, so I can't see why it's suddenly become such a big deal now.


Come to think of it, why wasn't this information in Peter Kurth's book if it figured prominently during the trial as Penny said? Or was it in his book? I should check myself, since I do have the book, but at this moment I am too lazy to go look for it, so does anyone know?  :)
If it was accepted back then that FS was murdered, even by her parents, why didn't we hear about it until recently, wouldn't it have come out when it was first announced that AA was FS by the private detective hired by Ernie of Hesse? I mean if the case was closed by the police in 1920 and it was decided that FS was in fact murdered, at the very least it should have been argued that AA could not have been FS because of that. Yet, they went on for years pursuing the idea that she was FS and no one thought of this or was disproven? They even went as far as doing the DNA tests in the 90's, without it occuring to them that FS was murdered and it couldn't have been she? This really doesn't sound right to me. I think somewhere along the way the murder story got embellished somehow and given more credence than it was worth. Unless someone has more concrete proof?
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Helen_Azar on February 03, 2005, 08:17:06 AM
Quote
I believe PK regrets his involvement since the DNA evidence has proven that AA could not possibly be AN.
 
 

According to his website, he doesn't regret it and still believes that AA was Anastasia. He just feels that the DNA results are wrong.
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Abby on February 03, 2005, 11:06:46 AM
Helen I agree. Why wouldn't they stop to question the fact that she was FS back then if they thought FS was murdered and there had already been a police investigation? Maybe they had no other ideas and just thought that she was either AN or FS...and since DNA technology wasn't around to disprove her then, they just took one side of the fence or another.

Interesting!

I agree with Malenkaya that we are all so interested in AA's true identity because of what she did for the Romanov's  popularity after 1918. She was the reason many of us (not all) were introduced to the story of the last Imperial family, and we have read so much about her and the information that she knew which allowed her to fool so many people. For all of us who are so involved, it is a matter that will nag at our brains til we find out just who the heck she was! A woman cannot appear out of thin air. She was born somewhere, sometime, and she came to know a lot about the Imperial Family!
Historically significant? Probably not so much. But on a seperate parrallel, the case of AA is just as intriguing as the case of the murder of the IF. (At least for me  ;) )
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Mgmstl on February 03, 2005, 01:33:26 PM
Annie, I don't see too many people stating that AA is AN.
I think you just keep assuming this, and attributing motives to people who are interested in this subject that they don't have.

I think it is an interesting that you keep saying this.  I for one don't believe AA was AN, and I have stated this. I am just interested in who she was and solving this incredible footnote to history.

What if FS was murdered by Grossman, it would be interesting to see the police file on this, and what it contains.

I don't agree with Peter Kurth that she is AN, I think it is impossible.  FS on the other hand, we know so little about her, that I think we should try to find out as much as possible.
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Michelle on February 03, 2005, 02:33:50 PM
Quote
Michelle, the quote about AA's resemblance to FS came directly from Peter Kurth's book, no one pulled it out of thin air just to victimize you. According to Kurth, Felix, FS's brother said that at first he mistook AA for his sister because she looked like her so much from the front, but not from the side (which may be due the missing teeth issue). So no one is insulting your, or anyone else's intelligence here, we are quoting from the sources that have no reason to make this up...  If you are going to make any arguments on this thread, why don't you address the things I mentioned in my earlier post, which I think are valid, instead of getting confrontational about semantics and playing the victim?  


Helen, I am hardly trying to "play the victim."  You are spinning.  And it seems like you don't notice even your own hostility and belittling nature when it comes to anyone believing AA was AN (of course you are not as bad as others).  Just about every time I or someone else mentions that we believe her to be AN, someone jumps on us and makes fun of us with sarcasm and saying that "oh they must be the people who think we didn't really land on the moon."  And that is of course ridiculous and rather tiresome.  I was telling people not to just dismiss me because I believe in AA because it has happened before.  And I as well as others get pretty sick of it.

Yes, I know that the bit about AA looking like FS from the front is from Kurth's book.  But you seemed to be dominating the conversation saying frequently "her strong resemblance to FS."  I disagreed and wanted others to know that not everyone was going along with what you were saying like dogs on a leash.  I just don't see a "strong resemblance" between the two.  Sorry.  

And I'm not sure which post you wanted me to respond to. ???  Was it something specifically addressing me?
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Helen_Azar on February 03, 2005, 02:39:26 PM
Quote
I don't agree with Peter Kurth that she is AN, I think it is impossible.  FS on the other hand, we know so little about her, that I think we should try to find out as much as possible.


Michael, I agree with this statement. Although statistically it seems likely that AA was indeed FS, there is still a possibility that she may not have been, due to some other evidence that is at this time unclear. So we should give it the benefit of the doubt until we hear all the relevant evidence, that hopefully can be backed up somehow.

Quote
Annie, I don't see too many people stating that AA is AN.


I think the reason Annie feels this way is because there are still people like Sian_Turner, who keep saying that it is possible that AA was AN, and then get upset if you try to reason with them as to why it is not possible, or if you ask them how it can be possible given DNA evidence. I am sure you have witnessed this. And when you try to explain to these people the fact that it really isn't possible, they attack you and accuse you of bullying them and forcing them out of the forum. This can be extremely frustrating. I think we should probably just ignore these people because it never leads to anything productive to try to reason with them or discuss these types of things with them. It is very unfortunate to have to stoop to that because this after all is a discussion   forum, but it seems to be the only solution....  

Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Phil_tomaselli on February 03, 2005, 02:53:02 PM
Once upon a time, a good few years ago, while I was even then quite an old man, I was working for a Building Society (a British lending institution) & I was asked to prove to a borrower a set of calculations about a sum of money he'd borrowed.  

It turned out that the rules that governed the calculation had been lost & I was tasked with explaining it.  I suggested that we just say "this is it, lump it or forget it" when a quite young girl who worked for me said "If you can't prove it to an amateur it doesn't exist".

I'm afraid she was right.  Just falling back on the "we know what we are talking about & you obviously don't" is not a defence.

We ignoramuses are entitled to some kind of easily explicable answers or we're entitled to ignore your replies and keep demanding more.

Sorry

Phil Tomaselli (BA Hons Exon 1980)
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Helen_Azar on February 03, 2005, 02:55:30 PM
Quote

And I'm not sure which post you wanted me to respond to. ???  Was it something specifically addressing me?


No, it wasn't anything specifically directed at you, it was just some comments that were part of the discussion. I asked you to focus on the the discussion itself as opposed to talking about how you are being dismissed and made fun of. Michelle, you are not being dismissed or made fun of, but if you want your views to be taken more seriously by many, you need to learn to back up your statements with something and not just throw them out there, especially if they go against the "popular" view. I've said this before and I will continue saying it. Just because someone challenges your views it doesn't mean they are bullying you or hating you or making fun of you. That's all I meant....
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Helen_Azar on February 03, 2005, 03:01:02 PM
Quote
Just falling back on the "we know what we are talking about & you obviously don't" is not a defence.


Phil, please say you are joking! Have you read any of this thread or any of the related threads? How many more explanations do you require? What specific questions do you have that have not been answered yet? What haven't we covered? If the explanations provided here are not understood, then I really don't know what language to use to give the explanations in...  
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Forum Admin on February 03, 2005, 03:07:30 PM
Here is a simple explanation, which I put up quite some time ago. I cannot find the exact quote now, so am re-writing from memory.

AS far as I can recall, Peter believes that the mtDNA analysis protocols which were used in 1994 are "out dated" by modern advances in the science.  I have never gotten a specific answer as to how exactly this is supposed to be the case. But has said the changes in methodology used in
1994 versus 2003 have been shown to bring about vastly different
results in matches and exclusions and the mtDNA testing methods of ten years ago are now known to give a high percentage of false positive results.

In 2003 I personally wrote to Dr. Terry Melton President/CEO/Laboratory Director of Mitotyping Technologies,, who is considered a world expert in forensic DNA analysis, and who's testimony is accepted as reliable by the US Courts. I asked her point blank if there was ANYTHING which has been discovered or advances made in the protocols which SHE herself used in doing the AA analysis in 1994, which would either invalidate or somehow discredit the 1994 work and as a result of which, a retesting might be in order for a more accurate result.

Dr. Melton's reply:

"Nothing has changed or will change in the technology that would EVER
render  those results invalid.  What was done was the standard-even
today-mtDNA protocol: DNA extraction, PCR amplification of the two
hypervariable mtDNA  regions, and DNA sequencing, which is what is
currently done by all  forensic labs practicing mtDNA analysis.  What
is different today is that  the sequencing is automated...however the
basic chemistry for this is the  same as ever, just adapted to new
instrumentation.  Extraction and  amplification are exactly the same,
in fact, my ASCLD/LAB accredited lab is using almost exactly the same
protocols that we used at Penn State to do  the testing on the
Anderson hairs.

To my knowledge, all the labs that did the original testing (FSS,
AFDIL,  Penn State) and got the corresponding agreements on the
original material  (intestinal tissue and hair) are still performing
mtDNA analyses that have  evolved (very little, as pointed out above)
in the same fashion.  Therefore  there is simply no need to re-test."
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: jolie on February 03, 2005, 03:10:48 PM
FA,

Maybe you should post that on every thread at the very beginning?   Maybe you could make it an "automatic" post!    


jolie
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Helen_Azar on February 03, 2005, 03:13:55 PM
Thanks, FA. This can also serve as an answer to Penny question as to what is wrong with Peter's reasoning about DNA, so you just saved me the trouble of having to write this up. I am going to repost it there and Penny can forward it to Peter.
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Mgmstl on February 03, 2005, 03:21:02 PM
I want to say again that Peter Kurth's book does state that the only family member to state that Anastasia was without a doubt their sister FS was Gertrude.

The only person in the family to have seen her since 1920 was Felix in 1927.  Could Gertrude's verbal assault on AA been because she was unable to recognize FS, this took place in 1938.

Shades of Matin Guerre/Sommersby, would ANY of us recognize someone we hadn't seen in 18 years.  I do think that the Schanzkowska family history would provide us with some much needed answers, or like my family histories, the mystery deepens.

To me the thought that she fooled the world and the Romanov family for all those years is amazing, that all of these forensic sciences, handwriting, face, ear, were adamant in putting their reputations on the line that she was AN.  

All I can say in response to anyone is this: Before making a decision on definitely who AA is, we need this evidence, dates, names places to decide where some of the truth lies.
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Olga on February 04, 2005, 08:06:21 AM
Quote
Phil Tomaselli (BA Hons Exon 1980)



I see, because Phil has a degree his opinion must be worth more than ours.  ::)
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Mgmstl on February 04, 2005, 10:57:40 AM
In my post on the affadavit of Felix Schanzkowski, a brother to FS, I should have stated that the Duke referred to was George, Duke Of Leuchtenberg, and that she was staying at Castle Seeon at the time as his guest.   I apologize for not making that clear at the time.
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: AGRBear on February 04, 2005, 11:23:23 AM

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooooooooooooooooooo!
Do not chase another poster away with these kind of remarks:

Quote


I see, because Phil has a degree his opinion must be worth more than ours.  ::)


Didn't we just get over this sort of  "no need to write this kind of stuff"  on the other threads ???

Subject
P-L-E-A-S-E.

ALL, not just Darth Olga, please go read Admin. Forum's notes on how to be a good poster.


AGRBEAR
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Forum Admin on February 04, 2005, 11:27:08 AM
Speaking of a user feeling "chased out", I am sad to report, but do by way of example, that the user "goula" has removed each and every posting and his registration as a user. We should ALL feel saddened that ANYONE wanting to participate was made to feel unwelcomed by other users.

:'(
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Mgmstl on February 04, 2005, 12:54:55 PM
FA, why would Goula have felt that way? Did anyone attack or insult the poster?  I don't seem to remember any of their posts on this thread.
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Forum Admin on February 04, 2005, 12:57:03 PM
He did not say, and I am not sure why.
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: AGRBear on February 04, 2005, 01:44:08 PM
He did say why on another thread, where he was being rediculed, however,  I didn't see any posts but the two.  And, I see all but one has remained.

I really don't think people realize how harsh our "matter-of-fact" words sound to some people.  And,  I don't think it translates well  nor does a translation show what we intended as humor.

So, back to the subject.  

I just bought a couple of light bulbs..... :)

I wonder if that means they are not heavy and that is why we should call them lightbulbs ???  But then, I never held  a heavy lightbulb.  Hmmm,  I guess the one of the lightbulbs in those huge floodlights --or is it flood lights-- might be heavy.  

AGRBear :-/ is confused, again.

Oh, yes, you are right,  lightbulbs aren't the subject.

"So who WAS she, then?"

No, it was Michael G. who said:

[modified:  I was just using Michael G.'s post to get back on the subject.....]

Quote
I want to say again that Peter Kurth's book does state that the only family member to state that Anastasia was without a doubt their sister FS was Gertrude.

The only person in the family to have seen her since 1920 was Felix in 1927.  Could Gertrude's verbal assault on AA been because she was unable to recognize FS, this took place in 1938.

Shades of Matin Guerre/Sommersby, would ANY of us recognize someone we hadn't seen in 18 years.  I do think that the Schanzkowska family history would provide us with some much needed answers, or like my family histories, the mystery deepens.

To me the thought that she fooled the world and the Romanov family for all those years is amazing, that all of these forensic sciences, handwriting, face, ear, were adamant in putting their reputations on the line that she was AN.  

All I can say in response to anyone is this: Before making a decision on definitely who AA is, we need this evidence, dates, names places to decide where some of the truth lies.


AGRBear

PS  To answer a certain person who blocks my messages so I can't reply PM.  This is the light bulb message:

Quote

Thanks, Rob!

This is an oldie, but a goodie, so I thought I'd post it to highlight our foibles:

How many forum members does it takes to change a light bulb?

1 to change the light bulb and to post that the light bulb has been changed
14 to share similar experiences of changing light bulbs and how the light bulb could have been changed differently
7 to caution about the dangers of changing light bulbs
1 to move it to the Lighting section
2 to argue then move it to the Electricals section
7 to point out spelling/grammar errors in posts about changing light bulbs
5 to flame the spell checkers
3 to correct spelling/grammar flames
6 to argue over whether it's "lightbulb" or "light bulb" ... another 6 to condemn those 6 as stupid
2 industry professionals to inform the group that the proper term is "lamp"
15 know-it-alls who claim they were in the industry, and that "light bulb" is perfectly correct
19 to post that this forum is not about light bulbs and to please take this discussion to a lightbulb forum
11 to defend the posting to this forum saying that we all use light bulbs and therefore the posts are relevant to this forum
36 to debate which method of changing light bulbs is superior, where to buy the best light bulbs, what brand of light bulbs work best for this technique and what brands are faulty
7 to post URL's where one can see examples of different light bulbs
4 to post that the URL's were posted incorrectly and then post the corrected URL's
3 to post about links they found from the URL's that are relevant to this group which makes light bulbs relevant to this group
13 to link all posts to date, quote them in their entirety including all headers and signatures, and add "Me too"
5 to post to the group that they will no longer post because they cannot handle the light bulb controversy
4 to say "didn't we go through this already a short time ago?"
13 to say "do a Google search on light bulbs before posting questions about light bulbs"
1 forum lurker to respond to the original post 6 months from now and start it all over again

 
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Dashkova on February 04, 2005, 02:26:35 PM
Quote
Speaking of a user feeling "chased out", I am sad to report, but do by way of example, that the user "goula" has removed each and every posting and his registration as a user. We should ALL feel saddened that ANYONE wanting to participate was made to feel unwelcomed by other users.

 :'(


It seems that there are some who feel "unwelcome" whenever anyone even disagrees with their views.  I agree that it certainly isn't *comfortable* when that happens, but it will happen time and again, as it *should*.  
And it certainly shouldn't mean that those who *do* have dissenting views should be silenced or severely alter their personalities in order to conform.  I have been annoyed and even insulted many times on this forum, but I'm wise enough to realize that such experiences have nothing to do with who I am or what I think.
Spirited debate requires a thick skin, no matter *where* it happens.  Looking over Goula's posts the other day, in an attempt to discover *why* he thought I had sent little red brigades chasing after him, I was made aware that considering his sensitive personality perhaps he should have stuck with the threads where his vast knowledge of palace interiors and such were serving in such an educational capacity.  But of course, there is little to no spirited debate on such threads, is there?!
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Mgmstl on February 04, 2005, 02:28:24 PM
Bear, I am not sure what you mean? Could you explain further, did I say something wrong or offend you or Goula?  My opinion is just mine, could be right, could be wrong.  
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Dashkova on February 04, 2005, 02:34:41 PM
Quote
Bear, I am not sure what you mean? Could you explain further, did I say something wrong or offend you or Goula?  My opinion is just mine, could be right, could be wrong.  


Michael, I don't think anyone's saying you have offended, apparently, if you look on the Russian Rev. thread of "Was the Revolution Inevitable" you can see that this has something to do with *me* and apparently everyone here BELIEVES Goula's ridiculous suggestion that I have sent "minions" to torture him with unwanted messages of some variety.

I have NO idea what any of this is about, but wouldn't mind being told, because it is just so *strange*!
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Helen_Azar on February 04, 2005, 03:27:39 PM
Quote

It seems that there are some who feel "unwelcome" whenever anyone even disagrees with their views.  I agree that it certainly isn't *comfortable* when that happens, but it will happen time and again, as it *should*.  


Yes, I agree. And even when one is polite and acts appropriately, one can still get accused of being a "bully" and called other names just because one asks questions that the other person can't or does not wish to answer. I don't really know what happened with Goula, but I myself had an unfortunate experience like this yesterday, just because I politely challenged something someone stated. Maybe we also need specific rules as to what is and what is not acceptable on the forum as far as the discussion goes? Most people are perfectly ok with being questioned or challenged, it is the few who feel that they should never be challenged by anyone who pose a problem.

Questions and challenges issued politely and within the context of the discussion = ok

Name calling, insults, throwing tantrums and threatening to leave the forum just because you don't like the perfectly justifiable questions directed at you = not ok.
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: AGRBear on February 04, 2005, 03:33:35 PM
Sorry Michael G..  I was just trying to get everyone back on the subject and I had to go all the way back to your last post.

So,  I reposted it.

Evidently, I wasn't clear  on what I had done...  

AGRBear
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Denise on February 04, 2005, 03:38:59 PM
I'm frightened, Bear--I understood what you had done there!!   ;)

Denise
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: AGRBear on February 04, 2005, 03:40:59 PM
LOL

;D ;D ;D

It's called "bear talk" around our house.

AGRBear
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Helen_Azar on February 04, 2005, 03:44:35 PM
Quote
I want to say again that Peter Kurth's book does state that the only family member to state that Anastasia was without a doubt their sister FS was Gertrude.

The only person in the family to have seen her since 1920 was Felix in 1927.  Could Gertrude's verbal assault on AA been because she was unable to recognize FS, this took place in 1938.

Shades of Matin Guerre/Sommersby, would ANY of us recognize someone we hadn't seen in 18 years.  I do think that the Schanzkowska family history would provide us with some much needed answers, or like my family histories, the mystery deepens.

To me the thought that she fooled the world and the Romanov family for all those years is amazing, that all of these forensic sciences, handwriting, face, ear, were adamant in putting their reputations on the line that she was AN.  

All I can say in response to anyone is this: Before making a decision on definitely who AA is, we need this evidence, dates, names places to decide where some of the truth lies.

Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Mgmstl on February 04, 2005, 05:37:56 PM
My sincere apologies Bear!! :D :D  I have had a slight headache all day and I guess it interfered with my brain power or my ability to understand.  With the recent ballyhoo over bullying etc., I was just not sure what had happened.   So again I am sorry for any confusion on my part.  

Yes, let's all get back on topic!!  
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Denise on February 04, 2005, 05:46:05 PM
Michael, you are one of the most mannerly posters here.  It is a pleasure to read your posts.  Please don't think we would accuse you of disorderly conduct!!

Denise
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: rskkiya on February 04, 2005, 07:39:42 PM
Good People

 Please remember we all need to try to post with some level of responsibility for our comments!
    Thus, we all need to realize than not everyone will agree with us - or even care for our remarks. So rather than shower some posters with rather infantile threats or 10,000  >:( icons, or accuse one another of being (lisping voice) "willy willy cwuel and nasty!"  ( ;))  lets just recognize the basic fact that we all may disagree best in an adult, mature manner!

(And If you disagree with me I will NEVER TALK TO YOU EVER AGAIN! BLAAAAH!) [ that's sarcasm!]  hehe

luv
rskkiya

Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: AGRBear on February 05, 2005, 11:18:57 AM
If we assume in this thread that FS was murdered by Grossmann:  Proabably, AA was a cousin of FS's half sister/sister Gertrude, the grandmother of Karl Maucher, according to the DNA tests.  By the way,  I've forgotten.  Who did these tests?

Only we do not know how far back we need to go in the family genealogy to discover someone else who resembled GD Anastasia ....


AGRBear
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Helen_Azar on February 05, 2005, 11:38:02 AM
Quote
 By the way,  I've forgotten.  Who did these tests?


There were several labs that did these tests. Peter Gill was one of them, and I think also Terry Melton (?).
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: AGRBear on February 05, 2005, 11:42:06 AM
How did they receive their samples of intestines?  Carrier?  Mail?

AGRBear
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Forum Admin on February 05, 2005, 11:57:08 AM
There were four labs. One was Univ. of Penn (Dr. Melton), one was the US Armed Forces, I don't recall the others off hand one was Dr. Gill.
The point I will reiterate AGAIN, is that the "carrier" DOES NOT MATTER! The AA samples were done first and there was NO WAY to know who's dna was "supposed to match" or not. Also, whatever courier method was used was secure enough to meet legal criteria and standards. Again, someone is supposed to have snuck into a US post office or Fedex depot and searched thru all the parcels to find THE one, open it, make a switch and RESEAL it exactly so that it showed no signs of tampering? PLEASE take that theory to "grasping at straws" as that is the place for it.
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Helen_Azar on February 05, 2005, 12:03:14 PM
Quote
How did they receive their samples of intestines?  Carrier?  Mail?

AGRBear

Bear, you should try to get your hands on that Nova episode, the whole procedure was recorded on video tape, including the part when they officially sealed the samples at the hospital to get them ready to go to the lab and even when they drew Carl Maucher's blood. This show can really help you understand exactly what the procedure was as it is all recorded on tape.... You can probably get it at your library, or maybe back order from the PBS website... "Nova" episode, 1995 (I think).

You can contact PBS through this link and ask them how you can get this episode...

http://www.shoppbs.org/helpdesk/index.jsp?display=store&subdisplay=contact
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Denise on February 05, 2005, 12:11:55 PM
Quote
Bear, you should try to get your hands on that Nova episode, the whole procedure was recorded on video tape, including the part when they officially sealed the samples at the hospital to get them ready to go to the lab and even when they drew Carl Maucher's blood. This show can really help you understand exactly what the procedure was as it is all recorded on tape.... You can probably get it at your library, or maybe back order from the PBS website... "Nova" episode, 1995 (I think).


You know, I keep hearing about this Nova special.  I think a trip to Amazon or Ebay is in order.  It seems to have a lot of good info from what you've been saying, Helen.  The thorough readings of the procedures done in the testing are as not as effective for me as a visual.  

Denise
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Helen_Azar on February 05, 2005, 12:16:40 PM
Quote

You know, I keep hearing about this Nova special.  I think a trip to Amazon or Ebay is in order.  It seems to have a lot of good info from what you've been saying, Helen.  The thorough readings of the procedures done in the testing are as not as effective for me as a visual.  

Denise


Yes, it's very good, actually. I have it because I recorded it when it was shown again several years ago, and when we started discussing this subject, I dug it out and watched it again recently. I think it is a must-see for all interested in this subject. I may be able to have it transferred onto a few DVD's, maybe I can share it with some of the others somehow (mail them to FA for distribution?). Let me see what I can do. I believe it is possible that some libraries may have it, as I think I have seen it in mine...
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Denise on February 05, 2005, 12:40:17 PM
Quote
I think it is a must-see for all interested in this subject. I may be able to have it transferred onto a few DVD's, maybe I can share it with some of the others somehow (mail them to FA for distribution?). Let me see what I can do. I believe it is possible that some libraries may have it, as I think I have seen it in mine...


Helen, you are too nice!!  My husband would welcome that offer, as between the Romanovs and scrapbooking my kids I am rapidly stretching our budget!!  :o ::) :o

Denise
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Helen_Azar on February 05, 2005, 01:21:54 PM
Let me see if I can work something out about making DVDs out of this video, and then we can figure out how they can be distributed to those who are interested... I am not sure yet if I can do it, but I will try!
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: AGRBear on February 05, 2005, 01:33:04 PM
Quote
There were four labs. One was Univ. of Penn (Dr. Melton), one was the US Armed Forces, I don't recall the others off hand one was Dr. Gill.
The point I will reiterate AGAIN, is that the "carrier" DOES NOT MATTER! The AA samples were done first and there was NO WAY to know who's dna was "supposed to match" or not. Also, whatever courier method was used was secure enough to meet legal criteria and standards. Again, someone is supposed to have snuck into a US post office or Fedex depot and searched thru all the parcels to find THE one, open it, make a switch and RESEAL it exactly so that it showed no signs of tampering? PLEASE take that theory to "grasping at straws" as that is the place for it.


Did I mention "the switch"?  All I ask was how was it delievered?  By mail or carrier?  Why such an outburst?  On another thread I did ask about if it was possible.  It received the same outburst.   Once it was explained that tampering was impossible,  I think the subject dropped.  However,  I don't recall learning the answer as to how the samples were delivered.  And,  I'm still wondering.  Carrier or mail?

And, thanks Helen.  Think I'll order the tape.

AGRBear

PS  Forgot to ask.  What's the title?
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Annie on February 05, 2005, 02:01:23 PM
No bear you didn't ask this time but your rep preceded you ;) can't blame anyone for thinking that's what you meant!  ;)

Helen, I would LOVE a copy of the NOVA special! I'd pay the postage, and I'll send you my addy!
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Helen_Azar on February 05, 2005, 02:17:50 PM
Bear, the title of the Nova episode is "Anastasia, Dead or Alive?", and I believe it is from 1995...

It may take a little while for me to get these DVD's done because my friend who can do it for me is in Boston, and he is in the middle of moving to another apartment. So it may be about a month or so. I will let you guys know when I have them. I'll try to get at least two or three of them done.
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Abby on February 05, 2005, 06:56:01 PM
Helen me too!! I would love to have a copy; I've never seen it before. I would pay you!
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Helen_Azar on February 05, 2005, 08:07:06 PM
Abby,  I will try to get at least three of them made. I don't need anyone to pay me, I don't think the postage is going to be all that much. But I will let you guys know when I have them...
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Robert_Hall on February 05, 2005, 08:08:55 PM
The Nova programme, Anastasia, Dead or Alive ??? It is available for sale at the NOVA shop.
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Forum Admin on February 05, 2005, 09:55:00 PM
Dear Bear,
"if" there is no question about switching samples, then WHY question the method of delivery? If you felt "jumped" on, I apoloize truly...but, if delivery of samples was not questioned, it seemed to me "who cares? if is DHL, Fedex, UPS, Post Office or private courier" as if NO ONE questioned the switching of samples, the method of delivery is immaterial...
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: AGRBear on February 08, 2005, 02:05:32 PM
It was to get to the next step mail/ carrier to what happen next kind of question.  AND,  I am wondering.  Anyone know the answer?  Mail?  Carrier?

At the moment bear is having a senior moment and I don't recall what question I was going to ask next.

I'll think of it probably today or in the middle of the night.

Apology accepted.

Sorry I was a little cranky.  Bear has the sniffles, sore throat.... I'm going to go get some hot tea and honey.... [Cough, cough].

AGRBear

PS  Forgot why I came back to this thread in the first place.  Over on "grabbing at straw" I speculate that AA was a CHEKA agent....
PS:  http://hydrogen.pallasweb.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=anastasia;action=display;num=1103390507;start=375#394
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: daveK on February 10, 2005, 05:11:40 PM
This was the top news from this week's Nature.  Basically, North Korea gave ashes of dead Japanese girl back to Japan, who was abducted from Japan in 1977 to train as spy. Japanese scientists sequenced DNA from tiny amount of ashes (!), and identified it was a different person.

Although they can't exclude the possibility of contamination, if this is really true, this is the first case of DNA testing from cremated ashes. I am very suspicious as to if DNA survive 1200oC heat, but I am sure Nature asked all the experts including P Gill, and if the expert think it’s laughable, they wouldn’t have published this story in the front page of news section.

I brought this issue up, because if AA’s ashes can be located, it could be possible to test the DNA to end the never-ending “sample-swapping” conspiracy theory. But wait, even if the ashes are FS, people still could say that “ashes were swapped”....




-------------------------------------------------------------------
Nature 433, 445 (03 February 2005); doi:10.1038/433445a

DNA is burning issue as Japan and Korea clash over kidnaps

DAVID CYRANOSKI

Cremated remains fail to prove fate of Japanese girl abducted in 1977.

[TOKYO] A bitter dispute has erupted between Japan and North Korea over DNA tests used to establish whether cremated remains belong to a Japanese citizen abducted in 1977.

The argument is the latest twist in an episode that has soured relations between the two countries for years. During the 1970s and 1980s, North Korea was believed to have abducted at least 13, and perhaps as many as 100, Japanese citizens to work in its espionage programme. Now the two nations are falling out over the feasibility of correctly identifying DNA from the ashes of one of those abducted.

In the autumn of 2002, North Korea ended years of denials and admitted that members of its armed forces abducted 13 Japanese citizens from Japan and Europe. The North Korean leader, Kim Jong-il, claimed that the abductions were carried out by the military without government permission. Japan says it has evidence of two more abductees, and believes that there were in fact many more.

Pressure on North Korea to release survivors has since seen five abductees return to Japan accompanied by their families. Information on eight others, which North Korea says are dead, has been slow to arrive, leading to speculation that some of them are still alive.

On 15 November last year, Japanese officials returned from talks in Pyongyang carrying what North Korea claimed to be the cremated remains of Megumi Yokota, who was abducted in 1977 at the age of 13. According to North Korean reports, Yokota married a North Korean, but later killed herself after entering a mental hospital.

At Teikyo University in Tokyo, tests on five samples of the ashes found DNA from two sources — but neither of them matched DNA from Yokota's umbilical cord, which had been kept by her parents, as is common in Japan. In December, these results were passed to North Korea, but on 26 January the Korean government issued a statement that branded them a "fabrication".

According to Hatsuhisa Takashima, a spokesman for Japan's foreign ministry, North Korea called into question the methods used in the tests and claimed that the remains, which had been heated to 1,200 °C, could not contain any surviving DNA. The North Korean statement also asked why researchers at Teikyo University were able to extract DNA when the National Research Institute of Police Science in Tokyo, which also had five samples to work with, had been unable to do so.

Sample survival
Teikyo University's Tomio Yoshii, one of Japan's leading forensics experts, says there are several reasons why he managed to extract DNA from all five of his samples. These include the fact that he used a highly sensitive process called the nested polymerase chain reaction (PCR), which amplifies DNA twice instead of once as in conventional PCR, and the possibility that his original samples were of better quality than those at the other lab. "Everyone has their own method" of handling DNA samples, he notes. "There is no standardization."

Little forensic work has been done on cremated specimens in Japan, and most experts, including Yoshii, thought it unlikely that DNA would have survived cremation at 1,200 °C. "I was totally surprised," says Yoshii. But DNA could survive if exposed to such heat for only a short time. "You can't tell anything from temperature alone," says Hirofumi Fukushima, a forensics expert at Shinshu University.

Nonetheless Yoshii, who has no previous experience with cremated specimens, admits his tests are not conclusive and that it is possible the samples were contaminated. "The bones are like stiff sponges that can absorb anything. If sweat or oils of someone that was handling them soaked in, it would be impossible to get them out no matter how well they were prepared," he says.

Takashima says that North Korea has sent remains that it said belonged to an abductee in the past, only to admit later that they were from another source.

The Japanese government responded to the current incident on 26 January by calling North Korea's handling of the situation "deplorable". It threatened "stringent actions" that, according to Takashima, may include the cancellation of 125,000 tonnes of food aid and other trade sanctions.

Japanese officials also say that they want to retest the DNA in question. But Yoshii says his five samples — the largest of which weighed only 1.5 grams — were used up in his tests. And that, observers say, leaves little prospect of the disagreement being resolved.
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Abby on February 10, 2005, 05:39:51 PM
Whoa :o this is mind-boggling. I don't understand how the DNA could stand heat up to that temperature without the bonds denaturing. That would have caused unrepairable damage. However, I don't know enough about this nested PCR technique to really weigh in about it. We are taught a little about regular PCR but I don't see how that could amplyify such a small remnant of nucleic acid to get a good enough reading to identify someone.

Very interesting find, daveK.
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Helen_Azar on February 10, 2005, 05:56:56 PM
Quote
I don't understand how the DNA could stand heat up to that temperature without the bonds denaturing. That would have caused unrepairable damage. However, I don't know enough about this nested PCR technique to really weigh in about it. We are taught a little about regular PCR but I don't see how that could amplyify such a small remnant of nucleic acid to get a good enough reading to identify someone.
Very interesting find, daveK.


Yes, this is very interesting. I don't think denaturing would be as much of a problem since they have to do that anyway when they do PCR. The problem is if the whole sequence just completely breaks up into too small pieces due to the heat, but perhaps the DNA chain is more resistant to the heat than we thought. Maybe it did end up in very small pieces and this is why they used nested PCR technique?  Apparently Nature didn't think this was impossible to achieve, otherwise they wouldn't put it in their news. Unfortunately it sounds like there is no way to reproduce these results because they ran out of sample, so they will never know for sure if this was contamination or not... But this opens up some additional possibilites with AA's ashes. Just kidding!  :o ;)
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: daveK on February 10, 2005, 06:05:57 PM
re: nested PCR
I also have to point out:
Peter Gill is the person who established the nested PCR for mtDNA typing. Using the method, he was able to accomplish the 1994 Romanov bone study.
Alec Knight repeated the PCR experiment, but he didn't even do the nested PCR. What was he thinking?!
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Helen_Azar on February 10, 2005, 06:18:01 PM
Quote

Alec Knight repeated the PCR experiment, but he didn't even do the nested PCR. What was he thinking?!


DaveK, this was the least of the problems with Alec Knight's work  ;).
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: daveK on February 10, 2005, 06:32:59 PM
Like the Karl Popper’s falsifiability principle, the truth can be founded only when you offer the way by which it can disprove your own hypothesis. I can offer at least three methods to disprove my hypothesis AA=FS.

I suggest some simple experiments if you want to disprove AA=FS. Someone like Penny Wilson who has money, time and resource could easily do it.
1. Sequence HVII region of AA's mtDNA, then compare to FS’s nephew’s mtDNA. If they are different persons, there may be a difference. Peter Kurth has AA’s hair from which you can get mtDNA. P Gill didn’t sequence HVII.
2. You can also sequence the whole mtDNA 16000nt from AA’s hair. Although HVI and HVII are well-documented “hot spots”, there are other hot spots among the total mtDNA seq. If AA and FS are totally different person, you’ll find the difference.

3rd method would be a little bit more difficult, but it’s possible.
3. Dig up FS’s mother/father, and get nuclear DNA. Get a AA’s nuclear DNA from the intestinal sample. Run STRs (at least 10 loci) to perform paternal test. If AA is not FS, of course you can tell that easily.

Dave
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: AlexeiLVR on February 10, 2005, 06:45:42 PM
Who's Anastasia Manahan? Is she Anna Anderson?
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Denise on February 10, 2005, 06:48:42 PM
Quote
Who's Anastasia Manahan? Is she Anna Anderson?


Yes.  When she came to the US she chose the name Anna Anderson.  Once she was here she married a history professor in Virginia and the name she used while married was Anastasia Manahan.
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Helen_Azar on February 10, 2005, 06:55:23 PM
Quote

1. Sequence HVII region of AA's mtDNA, then compare to FS’s nephew’s mtDNA. If they are different persons, there may be a difference. Peter Kurth has AA’s hair from which you can get mtDNA.


This is a good idea, Dave. I believe that they would need a new sample from an FS maternal relative for this though, wouldn't they? I wonder if any of them would go for it again... But this suggestion is probably the most reasonable and the cheapest... And it would be a good way to figure out the answer to this once and for all.

Quote


3. Dig up FS’s mother/father, and get nuclear DNA. Get a AA’s nuclear DNA from the intestinal sample. Run STRs (at least 10 loci) to perform paternal test. If AA is not FS, of course you can tell that easily.


This method would be a bit drastic but harder to question later on because it would be very conclusive. However, I don't think anyone will allow us to dig up FS's parents!  :o ;) Besides, as you know the source of the intestine is already being questioned by some, so we may dig those poor parents up for nothing after all  ;)! But really, these are really good suggestions. I wish someone would do this, even though I am sure not everyone will accept the results still...

I still like the first method the best... It can certainly be done relatively easily!
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Helen_Azar on February 10, 2005, 07:00:05 PM
Quote
 That's why I work at Babylon...


What is Babylon?
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: jeremygaleaz on February 10, 2005, 07:23:28 PM
Hi everyone

MY schedule seems to be getting tighter and tighter, and I've less time to spend on this site.And, FS has moved to the backburner, as other projects come to the front in my life. But my Austrian friend is still working on getting in touch with the Schankowski family. If she is successful, I will let everyone know. I'd rather not print anything until I have a definite answer on the subject. Otherwise, it's just endless speculation.

IN the meantime, I know many of you are eager to start your own research. So, I'm posting some resources to help you. When you contact these places, please have all the information you need (such as dates) to help them in their research. It also may help you if you know someone in the area (Or are going to be traveling to Germany )

If you are after mental health records relating to FS's stay in mental insitutions:
for the courts responsible for berlin schoeneberg, please contact

amtsgericht schoenberg
grunewaldstrasse 66-67
d-10823 berlin

for neuruppio

amtsgericht neuruppin
karl-marx-strasse 180
d-16816 neuruppin

for magazines and newspapers related to the  "unmaskiing of AA", please contact the following libraries:

staatsbibliothek zu berlin
unter den linden 8
d-10117 berlin (mitte)

staatsbibliothek zu berlin
potsdamer str.33
d-10785 berlin (tiergarter)

And, I believe this is the address of the main library:

staatsbibliothek zu berlin
zeitungsabteilung
westhafenstr.1
d-13353 berlin

for civil registration records related to the Schankowski family (marriage licenses, etc.), please go the following website

www.gdansk.ap.gov.pl

I also have some microfilm numbers (Somewhere!-sigh ???) listing catholic church records for the area FS was born, and grew up in. This microfilm can be ordered through your local mormon church. When I find the numbers I'll post them.

I may also have other resource material to help everyone along.

Next week I'll post some information related to the Rodziankos in America,as well as some information on a maid of honor to ALexandra, after which I may print some  age-progression photographs of the girls. So, I hope I can find those microfilm numbers by then. If not, feel free to  call the family history center in Salt lake City. The number is:1-801-348-8180. If i'm wrong about the number, just call information, and then when you get through, ask for the international library.

Good luck
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Helen_Azar on February 10, 2005, 07:28:01 PM
Quote

It's a restaurant/bar -- definitely Mediterranean in the food department, with lots of Greek and Turkish influences, but vaguely Middle-Eastern in the bar with shishas and belly-dancers (no, NOT me -- but wouldn't that be a link to Larissa Feodorovna?  :D  )


Hey sounds like a fun place to work in  ;)! I remember now, it's a chain restaurant, and we have one but it's too far from where I live, alas (I love middle eastern food)  :(.
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Helen_Azar on February 10, 2005, 07:44:22 PM
Jeremy, thanks for posting that info. Can't wait to hear what you find out and to see those photos!
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Helen_Azar on February 10, 2005, 07:54:40 PM
Oh ok. They do have a Medditeranian chain restaurant called Babylon too (at least I think it's a chain) in NY and NJ, and apparently Chicago and London too!  :)
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Annie on February 10, 2005, 09:01:55 PM
Jeremy, thanks for the info! I'll see if a German friend of mine will have time to write those places. Let us know what you and your friend find out, good luck!
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Mgmstl on February 10, 2005, 10:45:58 PM
Penny, I love Middle Eastern cuisine, we have a place in St. Louis called Saleem's that is excellent.  I lived near a Marionite Catholic Church called St. Raymonds Of Lebannon and we used to go there for dinner once or twice a month.  One of my great aunts is Syrian, the food was always so good, and in such contrast to the ususal southern oriented foods brought to our family reunions.   Kibbee (sp) was one of my favorites.

Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Mgmstl on February 10, 2005, 10:48:25 PM
I think that Carl Maucher must not want too much involvement in this case.  It could be that they don't want the notariety, but who ever finds them, and approaches them should make sure that they are up front with them about what we are interested in.  Are there laws in Germany for invasion of privacy or harrassment?  Just use caution would be my advice.
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Denise on February 12, 2005, 10:13:11 PM
Penny, just wondering if there have ever been any other clues to surface re AA's identity OTHER than FS.  I know that the DNA indicated that AA and FS share a maternal ancestor, but wondering if anything else has ever turned up?

(And if you can't talk about it due to your publisher, just tell me to wait for the book!  ;))

D
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Annie on February 13, 2005, 09:03:25 AM
Quote
Like the Karl Popper’s falsifiability principle, the truth can be founded only when you offer the way by which it can disprove your own hypothesis. I can offer at least three methods to disprove my hypothesis AA=FS.

I suggest some simple experiments if you want to disprove AA=FS. Someone like Penny Wilson who has money, time and resource could easily do it.


It is a shame the people with the time, money and resources seem to be AA people. I'm sure someone on the other side would have an even easier time proving AA IS FS, unfortunately, no one is bothering to do that. I guess they figure they have science and history on their side and why bother?


Quote
Peter Kurth has AA’s hair from which you can get mtDNA. P Gill didn’t sequence HVII.


He does? Why has he not handed it over for testing? ??? Well, never mind, if the intestines were switched, the hair could be too, to someone not related to Maucher.  :-/ ;)


Quote
2. You can also sequence the whole mtDNA 16000nt from AA’s hair. Although HVI and HVII are well-documented “hot spots”, there are other hot spots among the total mtDNA seq. If AA and FS are totally different person, you’ll find the difference.


Interesting! I hope someone unbiased will do that.

Quote
3rd method would be a little bit more difficult, but it’s possible.
3. Dig up FS’s mother/father, and get nuclear DNA. Get a AA’s nuclear DNA from the intestinal sample. Run STRs (at least 10 loci) to perform paternal test. If AA is not FS, of course you can tell that easily.

Dave


They dug up the Tsar's brother, why not? Of course, this would take someone with money and interest, and I doubt we'll find such a person (on the AA =FS side anyway)

But good ideas, maybe you can do this someday! If I hit the powerball I will fund you ;)
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Denise on February 13, 2005, 09:09:06 AM
Quote

They dug up the Tsar's brother, why not? Of course, this would take someone with money and interest, and I doubt we'll find such a person (on the AA =FS side anyway)



I doubt that the family would agree at this point.  FRom things I have read on this board, the Schanzkowsky family is not that interested in the FS story any longer.  
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Annie on February 13, 2005, 10:18:51 AM
Quote

I doubt that the family would agree at this point.  FRom things I have read on this board, the Schanzkowsky family is not that interested in the FS story any longer.  


Yeah, they know AA was FS and it's been proven to them so that's the end of it for them. But not everyone is ready to give it up.
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Helen_Azar on February 13, 2005, 10:43:19 AM
Quote

It is a shame the people with the time, money and resources seem to be AA people. I'm sure someone on the other side would have an even easier time proving AA IS FS, unfortunately, no one is bothering to do that. I guess they figure they have science and history on their side and why bother?


Well, the people who initiated the DNA testing to find out whether AA was AN or FS were Marina and Richard Schweitzer, who were convinced that AA was AN. They obtained the intestine samples, they hired Peter Gill to do the comparison testing between Prince Philip's mtDNA and Karl Maucher's mtDNA, they initiated the whole thing. And in the end they didn't believe their own results...

Quote
Why has he not handed it over for testing? ??? Well, never mind, if the intestines were switched, the hair could be too, to someone not related to Maucher.  :-/ ;)


Peter Kurth did provide these hairs for testing, I believe... They were one of AA's samples tested. And then in the end he did not believe the results either...  ???

So basically my point it, I am not so sure if anyone, even if hired by the people who still believe that AA was Anastasia, would ever be viewed as impartial and free of suspicion if they do this testing. There will always be suspicion of tampering if the DNA results don't come out the "right" way - no matter who does the work or how stringent the conditions are, so I am not sure if there is any point to doing these tests again.
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Helen_Azar on February 13, 2005, 10:48:36 AM
Quote
Penny, just wondering if there have ever been any other clues to surface re AA's identity OTHER than FS.  I know that the DNA indicated that AA and FS share a maternal ancestor, but wondering if anything else has ever turned up?


It doesn't seem that way as of right now - that's one of the problems I have with this theory: who else could AA possibly have been if not FS, if her DNA matched the FS relative and she resembled FS a lot?
But I think Penny did mention that they may have some info about that in the upcoming book, so we'll just have wait and take her word for it in the meantime  ;).
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Annie on February 13, 2005, 12:45:10 PM
Quote

Well, the people who initiated the DNA testing to find out whether AA was AN or FS were Marina and Richard Schweitzer, who were convinced that AA was AN.


 They obtained the intestine samples, they hired Peter Gill to do the comparison testing between Prince Philip's mtDNA and Karl Maucher's mtDNA, they initiated the whole thing. And in the end they didn't believe their own results...


Peter Kurth did provide these hairs for testing, I believe... They were one of AA's samples tested. And then in the end he did not believe the results either...  ???

So basically my point it, I am not so sure if anyone, even if hired by the people who still believe that AA was Anastasia, would ever be viewed as impartial and free of suspicion if they do this testing. There will always be suspicion of tampering if the DNA results don't come out the "right" way - no matter who does the work or how stringent the conditions are, so I am not sure if there is any point to doing these tests again.



So really why bother? When will it ever be enough? It's like I asked bear once, you search for the truth, but what will it take to be truth to you? If no one is ever going to be convinced, it's all pointless :-/
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Denise on February 13, 2005, 07:27:23 PM
Quote

So really why bother? When will it ever be enough? It's like I asked bear once, you search for the truth, but what will it take to be truth to you? If no one is ever going to be convinced, it's all pointless :-/


I bother because although I know that there are people who will not accept the truth, I will know MY truth when I find it.  For each of us it is different.  I think the key here is to try to be satisfied with YOUR  truth, and not to be too hard on those who don't share your vision.  For myself, this gets hard when I read viewpoints diametrically opposed to my own.  However, people grow in their own time.

I think that because so much of the latest data revolves around the scierntifically complex issue of DNA, there are many who are unable to accept this yet, as it is a difficult thing to understand.  The romantics will always rotate to the AA story of the lost Grand Duchess.  But, I still would like to get a definitive scientific answer to these questions.  I can understand how those who knew AA have a hard time accepting these DNA results.  We never met her so don't understand her charisma--we just read the elderly eccentric stories, and the twempermental claimant stories and make out judgments based on someone else's subjective interpretations.

Sorry to ramble.  I was on a philosophical bent tonight....
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: daveK on February 13, 2005, 11:32:04 PM
Quote


He does? Why has he not handed it over for testing? ??? Well, never mind, if the intestines were switched, the hair could be too, to someone not related to Maucher.  :-/ ;)




Actually, he did. In 1995, Peter Kurth gave his hair samples to Peter Gill, believing that it would prove AA=AN. Peter Gill sequenced it and it matched FS. Peter Kurth refused to take the result, saying that "I don't believe it, there is something wrong."
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: daveK on February 13, 2005, 11:54:20 PM
Quote

How "easy" for you to say this!  Penny Wilson may have the resources to perform the tests, but money is not exactly thick on the ground over here.  That's why I work at Babylon...


This is the misconception lay people have. I read your FOTR, and understood that you invested ENORMOUS amount of time (at least more than a year) and labor to dig up informations from Russian archives. Compare to that effort, DNA experiment (option #1 and #2 I described) IS a simple experiment. Peter Gill used Peter Kurth’s hair sample, which you have an access. Extracting DNA takes only a day. Reagents costs probably $20. PCR takes 2h and requires primers, but two primer costs $20. Sequencing takes a few hours, and  reagent costs $20. Remember, now all forensic labs around the country process hundreds of DNA every day, it must be cheap and easy.

You don’t have to do it. Considering you and Greg King are already well known in this field, you could find some scientists who cooperate this easily.  What about Alec Knight, for example? Or Nagai?

So, I don’t think I am unreasonable (remember, i said option #3 is more difficult). Just spending two days and a few hundred bucks, you could get the hard evidence which may won you national headline news and Pulitzer prize (I don’t know any example that non-scientist author overturn the result published in Nature by a prominent scientist). So good luck with it.   
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Mgmstl on February 13, 2005, 11:56:33 PM
I have not heard of the testing of the hair, can you provide futher information on this test, or the site where you got the information from??

Annie, we all have to search for our own truth, as a historian, I am interested in the case as a whole, not ending because in someone's opinion AA=FS.  I still am not 100% sure that AA is FS, however the issue that still gnaws at me is, if she is FS as you state so often why didn't the DNA match 100%?  Why wasn't it conclusive enough.  

Some of us interested in pursuing it beyond AA=FS, and looking at other options, we all agree I believe that AA is not AN, at least that much is fact.  
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: daveK on February 14, 2005, 12:15:45 AM
Quote

It is a shame the people with the time, money and resources seem to be AA people. I'm sure someone on the other side would have an even easier time proving AA IS FS, unfortunately, no one is bothering to do that. I guess they figure they have science and history on their side and why bother?




This is an important point. As far as I know, P Gill doing this type of history search was deplored by many biomedical scientists. Their rationale was that if the scientists have time to do such a “tabloid history stuff’, they should spend the time to do “real science”,  finding a cure for cancer or something, as the institution was built by tax payer’s money.

If there are sufficient amount of general audience’s interest, TV/Hollywood people or some rich person would invest money for the research though. For example, to search the Amelia Earhart’s air plane, the $1.7 million expedition was funded by Nauticos, with significant support from private investors.

It's a shame that no one is doing the same for Romanov related investigation. Or this is simply because no serious person doubts the DNA result by P Gill.
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: daveK on February 14, 2005, 12:20:45 AM
Quote
I have not heard of the testing of the hair, can you provide futher information on this test, or the site where you got the information from??

  


You have to read this origianal article in your library, as no one has pdf or html file of this.

"Establishing the identity of Anna Anderson Manahan", by Peter Gill, Colin Kimpton, Rosemary Aliston-Greiner, Kevin Sullivan, Mark Stoneking, Terry Melton, Julian Nott, Suzanne Barritt, Rhonda Roby, Mitchell Holland, and Victor Weedn, in Nature Genetics, Vol. 9, January 1995, pp. 9-10, and in Vol. 10, February 1995, pg. 218.
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Mgmstl on February 14, 2005, 12:22:08 AM
Thanks Dave for puttiing that article out there I will try to get to it in a couple of days.  Appreciate it.
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: daveK on February 14, 2005, 12:24:21 AM
Quote
if she is FS as you state so often why didn't the DNA match 100%?  Why wasn't it conclusive enough.  
  


Please stop this type of disinformation campign. It was 100% match for mtDNA HVI. If it was 99% match, no one claim AA=FS.

PLEASE read the original article.  
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: daveK on February 14, 2005, 12:59:47 AM
Again, for clarification, DNA match is 100%.
However, there is very small chance that AA is not FS. That’s why I have been trying to express the degree of certainty using objective number.
Based on population genetics and Bayesian inference, the probability that AA is FS is 99.9999% as I posted before.    
I don’t personally care if AA is FS or AN or anybody. I am ready to accept any hypothesis as long as it is logically sound.

But I would strongly go against someone who says “1+1=3”.
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Annie on February 14, 2005, 06:08:29 AM
Quote

I bother because although I know that there are people who will not accept the truth, I will know MY truth when I find it.  For each of us it is different.  I think the key here is to try to be satisfied with YOUR  truth, and not to be too hard on those who don't share your vision. on a philosophical bent tonight....


But, how can there accurately be different 'truths' for different people finding THEIR own ??? I mean, the truth, the real truth, is the truth, there cannot be several different options for various people to choose the one they like best. There is only ONE truth, and we all must accept it, regardless of it's the one we want. If each person gets to pick their own 'truth' then there is no truth, no answer, no end.
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Annie on February 14, 2005, 06:11:43 AM
Quote
Again, for clarification, DNA match is 100%.
However, there is very small chance that AA is not FS. That’s why I have been trying to express the degree of certainty using objective number.
Based on population genetics and Bayesian inference, the probability that AA is FS is 99.9999% as I posted before.    
I don’t personally care if AA is FS or AN or anybody. I am ready to accept any hypothesis as long as it is logically sound.

 But I would strongly go against someone who says “1+1=3”.


Thanks Dave!

Even on those 'who's the daddy' talk shows where they test for paternity, nothing comes up 100%, there's always a 99.999% type of thing, but that's good enough for most rational people. I've never seen anyone, even the dumbest hick, stand up and go 'ahh so there's still a 0000.0001% chance this isn't really my kid? I'm not paying!"
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Annie on February 14, 2005, 06:17:31 AM
Quote

This is an important point. As far as I know, P Gill doing this type of history search was deplored by many biomedical scientists. Their rationale was that if the scientists have time to do such a “tabloid history stuff’, they should spend the time to do “real science”,  finding a cure for cancer or something, as the institution was built by tax payer’s money.

If there are sufficient amount of general audience’s interest, TV/Hollywood people or some rich person would invest money for the research though. For example, to search the Amelia Earhart’s air plane, the $1.7 million expedition was funded by Nauticos, with significant support from private investors.


Oh, I never thought about these points. That makes a lot of sense, thanks.


Quote
It's a shame that no one is doing the same for Romanov related investigation. Or this is simply because no serious person doubts the DNA result by P Gill.


But the saddest thing is, it's the small vocal minority who still wants to push the AA story who are getting all the attention. While serious scientists and historians have put it to rest and moved on, there are still those trying to find some way to make AA be AN, or at least not FS (probably so she can still possibly be AN) and if these people are the ones writing the books, bringing it up and discussing it, the public will still get the idea that there's still a chance. That is why I fight this so hard on this message board. I can't leave it to what people 'want' to believe. Stirring up unecessary and inaccurate sensationalism may be more fun, but it's misleading. We have a duty to get this right, for the kids in school, for everyone, for history, for all time.IMO, we even owe this to the dead, AN and AA themselves. Thank you DaveK for doing your part to educate the world correctly.

Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Elocin on February 14, 2005, 06:17:45 AM
I am a little confused here, not that I am surprised given the time.

My genetics is a little rusty not having been used in awhile, so forgive me if I am obsessed with what should be an obvious and likely trivial bit of info.

Re: the testing done on the hair -> if I recall, hair isn't the best testing medium because to get a "good" match the root has to be still attached?

Assuming AA isn't FS (and beyond interest in the I got lost in the library variety, I do not really care if she was or wasn't) could it be likely she is some sort of cousin? If FS is from a small Polish village and the mtDNA is a match to CM (the nephew or whatever he was) it means they have to be related sometime within the last  500 years +/- a few years. My line here (forgive the convoluted thinking, i have spent 3 hours reading this thread and it's after 5 in the morning. I am hoping not to have my first post trounced upon *laughs*) is this: KNowing how small communities work you can assume a large number of the inhabitants share at least one common ancestor usually with in the last 100 years or so (or so it works in small town Alberta based on migration patterns of settlers) and I assume this holds true in europe.  If they share a common ancester our FS and CM (Carl Mauchnesr {sp?}) would have an mtDNA match barring any mutations, correct?

So if AA isn't FS but matches CM -> she could potentially be anyone from with in the same geographic region (which was my original point I think).  If AA was originally Polish is it not possible that she was perhaps either a relative of an individual that was in contact with the Imperial Family (perhaps a servant from one of the Polish hunting lodges as I am making a huge assumption that they kept some amount of local staff at those places), thus explaining her "insider knowledge" or perhaps AA herself was somehow connected in a very loose way with the Imperial family?  I realize that the question seems to be stretching things a bit, please bear with me.  I am going with all the second and third hand comments that claim AA did not speak or behave like a peasant (I can provide citations tomorrow when I can go raid my reading queue but I don't want to wake my husband up for that) -> if that is the case could she have either observed and imitated upper-class behaviours and mannerisms?  

I hope that made sense as re-reading it it doesn't seem to be a cohesive and logical arguement.  

I sincerely hope that I will come back and not be afraid to post any further comments.

Nicole  
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Annie on February 14, 2005, 06:37:04 AM
Welcome and I hope you will stay and post, in all the forums! :)

A lot has been discussed on all of these topics. Personally, I don't put much store in the second and third hand comments she wasn't like a peasant. There are also second and third hand comments that FS wanted to be an actress and put on airs above her station. Also every video clip I've seen of AA in her later years during my lifetime have portrayed her as a very common and rough woman. She lived in squalor for the last 20 years of her life with dozens of animals and filthy houses and yards.

On the possibilty that she was a cousin, what are the chances of that, considering this person does have the same DNA as FS, and fits her general description. FS vanished about the same time AA appeared. As I've said before, that would be as much of a stretch as saying OJ didn't do it, he had this mysterious unknown cousin who looked just like him, also played football and also had a reason to want to kill OJ's ex wife, who came out of nowhere and did it. It's just so much of a stretch it comes out as so unlikely I can't go there. I could believe one of the IF escaped before I could believe that. Also referencing the OJ case, in all these years there have been no other suspects, which makes it more likely she was FS.
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Elocin on February 14, 2005, 06:55:55 AM
I should have been more clear about what i meant by cousin.  I meant some sort of relation to the umpteenth remove.

I look at my family on which my Dad's side came from Ukraine via Austria in the late 1800's.  In the place they settled there was something like 100 people related by blood (siblings, cousins, aunt's etc. at the time of sttlement).  Now 100 years later there are literally 1000's of the family in Western Canada alone and some confirmed "relatives" still in Austria and Ukraine. That being said I use quotations around the word relative because they are so far removed I have a greater chance of being closely related in a genetic sense to my next door neighbour.  Basically when I meant cousin I meant some sort of distant relative that shared maternal ancestry.

Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Annie on February 14, 2005, 07:42:03 AM
Quote
I should have been more clear about what i meant by cousin.  I meant some sort of relation to the umpteenth remove.




Oh I know, but I still find the odds overwhelmingly astronomical against that theory (and several others have also brought it up, nothing against you) especially considering most evidence points to her being FS. :-/
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Helen_Azar on February 14, 2005, 07:48:54 AM
Quote
I have not heard of the testing of the hair, can you provide futher information on this test, or the site where you got the information from??
 


Michael, it is a known fact that along with the intestine, testing was also done on AA's hair (it had some roots). This hair alone would not have stood up to the criteria because it was not a secure official sample like the intestine was. But because the mtDNA extracted from this hair matched exactly the DNA extracted from the intestine sample, it confirmed the fact that both samples came from the same person, i.e. Anna Anderson. The hair sample was provided to the scientists by Peter Kurth from what I understand, but for some reason he still won't accept the results...  ???

Quote
why didn't the DNA match 100%?  Why wasn't it conclusive enough.  
 


Michael, I think you are still getting confused between 100% match and 100% conclusive. As I mentioned before, there is no such thing as 100% conclusive in science. There is always that minute-microscopic  chance that something could have gone on that would make it not 100% (as in the "identical twin" example I made in another post - I don't know if you read it). Of course most of these 0.0000000001% chances are pretty absurd for real life, and we can all agree they are impossible, but in science you have to consider them, that's just the way it is. So this is why instead of saying 100% it is usually said "99.9%" or "99.999%" or whatever.

In the AA case, the match between Karl Maucher and AA was 100% which still doesn't mean that we can say that it is 100% conclusive as far as science goes, due to the reasons I mentioned. I think it is very difficult for someone who is not used to thinking this way to start thinking this way, and this is why there is so much confusion among non-science people about this....  
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Helen_Azar on February 14, 2005, 08:30:02 AM
Quote
Assuming AA isn't FS (and beyond interest in the I got lost in the library variety, I do not really care if she was or wasn't) could it be likely she is some sort of cousin? If FS is from a small Polish village and the mtDNA is a match to CM (the nephew or whatever he was) it means they have to be related sometime within the last  500 years +/- a few years.  


Hi Nicole, welcome. Yes we have discussed this possibility too, where we thought that if AA was not FS, then she had to be some sort of a maternal cousin of Karl Maucher's. But there is also the fact that she resembled FS to a point where (if he wasn't lying in the first place) her brother Felix at first mistook AA for his sister FS. I have seen certain pictures of AA (on Peter Kurth's site in fact) where I had to do a doubletake and ask myself, wait a minute is this supposed to be AA or is this supposed to be another picture of FS? In any case, this type of thing is not proof of course, unless taken together with the mtDNA evidence and other evidence such as FS dissapearing at around the same time AA appeared, FS or her body never found, etc.

Apparently, there is more than 99% chance that AA was FS according to the DNA. The fact that she also looked a lot like FS confirms it even more. The fact that no one knows where FS is confirms it even more. The fact that we don't really have any other candidates (that I know of) as to whom else AA could have been who fits all the criteria also confirms it. Could the coincidence have been this high - i.e. a random woman who looks a lot like FS - who quite a few people insisted was FS for a long time, many years later turns out to have identical mtDNA as FS's relative? Yes, it is not completely impossible, but could it really have happened? What I am trying to say is that the more evidence like this I see, the more convinced I become that she had to be FS. Yes, there seems to be other evidence against this, but there is nothing really that I heard that can't be explained more or less reasonably, whereas the scientific evidence is a lot harder to explain. I am never going to say that it is 100% certain that AA was FS, but I feel pretty convinced based on what we have so far...  

If the DNA tests that DaveK proposes are done at some point, I think that can really help us confirm this one way or the other - it seems like the simplest and most straight forward solution (provided the results are accepted in the end), so maybe someone will do them eventually....  

Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Helen_Azar on February 14, 2005, 08:47:27 AM
Quote

But, how can there accurately be different 'truths' for different people finding THEIR own ??? I mean, the truth, the real truth, is the truth, there cannot be several different options for various people to choose the one they like best. There is only ONE truth, and we all must accept it, regardless of it's the one we want. If each person gets to pick their own 'truth' then there is no truth, no answer, no end.


In certain things, there is no absolute truth, in others there is. In the AA case, she either was born as FS or she wasn't, and there is a scientific (objective) way to confirm it (albeit not 100% conclusive but 99.99999% should be good enough for us).

There is an absolute truth in this case becase AA couldn't simultanuosly be FS and not be FS, it had to be either one or the other... This is why these DNA results are very valuable, much more so than any other evidence we have. It seems that the only way to put an end to all the speculation is to do these additional DNA tests, there is really no other way. It is not the most romantic way of resolving this question, but it is the most efficient.  :)
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Annie on February 14, 2005, 09:41:41 AM
Quote

In certain things, there is no absolute truth, in others there is. In the AA case, she either was born as FS or she wasn't, and there is a scientific (objective) way to confirm it (albeit not 100% conclusive but 99.99999% should be good enough for us).


Oh I know in religion and philosophy people have to find their own truths, but not history, because that would change the facts. To me, saying AA was AN at this point is like saying the South won the US Civil War. No matter what someone wants to see, it's not true!

And really, 99.9999% is as close as we're ever going to get, and there isn't much room in there. It reminds me of Dumb and Dumber where the girl told him there was less than a one in a million chance of them hooking up, and he smiled and said 'so you're telling me there's a chance...WHOOPEE!'

Quote
There is an absolute truth in this case becase AA couldn't simultanuosly be FS and not be FS, it had to be either one or the other... This is why these DNA results are very valuable, much more so than any other evidence we have. It seems that the only way to put an end to all the speculation is to do these additional DNA tests, there is really no other way. It is not the most romantic way of resolving this question, but it is the most efficient.  :)


True, but I don't see how even that will solve it if some people simply refuse to believe the results.
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Helen_Azar on February 14, 2005, 09:51:56 AM
Quote
True, but I don't see how even that will solve it if some people simply refuse to believe the results.


Well, yeah, this is why I wrote that little disclaimer  ;):

Quote
.... it seems like the simplest and most straight forward solution (provided the results are accepted in the end) ....  

Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Mgmstl on February 14, 2005, 09:59:21 AM
No Dave it is NOT disinformation. I will make up my mind myself, and not have your views or anyone else's forced down my throat.  Thank you.
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Helen_Azar on February 14, 2005, 10:06:53 AM
Quote
No Dave it is NOT disinformation. I will make up my mind myself, and not have your views or anyone else's forced down my throat.  Thank you.


Michael, I think what Dave meant is that you keep saying that the match between AA and Karl Maucher was not 100%, which is not true because it was 100%. But this is probably why he said that that is was disinformation. I don't think Dave realized that you are not trying deliberately to misinform people, but that you were probably just confused about that part...
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Mgmstl on February 14, 2005, 10:07:32 AM
I have said all along that I don't believe AA is AN.  However there are certain people on this board who want to force there views down everyone's throat & end the discussion.  If she believes AA is FS then why is she still participating in this discussion, as it should be over for her.  I am still not convinced that she is not someone else.  I will continue to hold that view until I am given proof otherwise so that I can reach my own conclusions.  
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Helen_Azar on February 14, 2005, 10:18:22 AM
Quote
I have said all along that I don't believe AA is AN.  However there are certain people on this board who want to force there views down everyone's throat & end the discussion.  If she believes AA is FS then why is she still participating in this discussion, as it should be over for her.  I am still not convinced that she is not someone else.  I will continue to hold that view until I am given proof otherwise so that I can reach my own conclusions.  


I don't think that AA being AN is any longer up for discussion as most reasonable people have accepted that this is not the case. We are now talking about AA being or not being FS, so all the latest postings have been referring only to that. You of course, have every right to disagree with the evidence, as long as there is that 0.00000001% chance that it may not be so.

As I said before, there will never be a time that anyone will be able to give you 100% proof of whether AA was or was not FS, they may come very very close to 100%, but never 100%. So you will never have proof if you want 100% proof, all you will have is various evidence for or against it and then you will just have to make up your mind as to which odds you want to accept...
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Mgmstl on February 14, 2005, 10:23:19 AM
Helen I understand that there will never be scientific proof.  However once the facts are in, I will be able to make up my own mind with the facts given.  
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Helen_Azar on February 14, 2005, 10:26:08 AM
Quote
Helen I understand that there will never be scientific proof.  However once the facts are in, I will be able to make up my own mind with the facts given.  


That's fair enough.
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: IlyaBorisovich on February 14, 2005, 10:55:44 AM
Quote
But the saddest thing is, it's the small vocal minority who still wants to push the AA story who are getting all the attention. While serious scientists and historians have put it to rest and moved on, there are still those trying to find some way to make AA be AN, or at least not FS (probably so she can still possibly be AN) and if these people are the ones writing the books, bringing it up and discussing it, the public will still get the idea that there's still a chance. That is why I fight this so hard on this message board. I can't leave it to what people 'want' to believe. Stirring up unecessary and inaccurate sensationalism may be more fun, but it's misleading. We have a duty to get this right, for the kids in school, for everyone, for history, for all time.IMO, we even owe this to the dead, AN and AA themselves. Thank you DaveK for doing your part to educate the world correctly.


Annie, why don't you publish your 30+ years' worth of research?  I, for one, would find your rebuttals to Peter Kurth, Penny Wilson, et al fascinating reading, as I'm sure many who frequent this form would.  Perhaps this would also make it easier for me to understand why you insist that if one doubts that AA was FS, then one believes AA=AN.  This alone would be worth the price of the book.

Cheers!
Ilya
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Annie on February 14, 2005, 11:00:37 AM
The facts ARE in.

If 99.9999% isn't good enough it's never going to be. That's all we're going to get.

And on the topic of 'shoving it down throats' and 'let me make up my own mind' as I said before, no matter what you choose to decide, if it's not factual it will never be the truth. We owe it to the kids coming here to learn, as well as history itself, to get this right. More wild stories and unlikely hypothesis are clouding the real issue. I'm sorry if you don't like what I say, but I am not going to stop because as long as people keep posting things like that I will be here to refute them, I feel it's my duty. It's more than just keeping someone happy on a message board. Too many people already stay out of it to appease those who don't want to hear it, but I will not, because reality deserves to stay in the discussion.
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Mgmstl on February 14, 2005, 11:04:00 AM
Back to Kurth though, I think that these AA supporter so fervrently believe that AA couldn't have been an impostor, that they refuse to think outside of the box. In their opinion, this woman was someone.

Again there is so much evidence to consider, however most of us on this board can say that AA is not AN.  Of course there are those who believe AA is FS they are entitled to their opinion too. Then there are those who accuse others of starting disinformation campaigns, they too are entitled to their opinion, even if it is misguided.

What we fail to comprehend IMO is that this woman made enough of an impression on people that some actually went BROKE supporting her.  So she was that impressive to some,  to others she was a fake, a charlatan, a Cagliostro, but whoever she was, she managed to convey to most people (before her declining & eccentric years) a sense of dignity & bearing, enough of these qualities to convince many that she was who she claimed to be.  DNA told us differently, so part of our task as to the original post is to think outside of the box, and ask ourselves who this woman was if she was not, FS.    

Whoever she was FS or not, I think that it is interesting that she has provoked this much discussion, probably much more so than the actual IF.   I raise my cup of coffee to her. (that's all I have at the moment)  
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: IlyaBorisovich on February 14, 2005, 11:04:37 AM
Annie,

All the more reason why you should publish.  Would I suggest that if I didn't want to hear what you say?  You owe it to the children!  Did I say one negative thing in my entire post?  I don't think so!  You really have to get over this paranoia thing.

Keep up the good work!
Ilya
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Annie on February 14, 2005, 11:04:59 AM
Quote

Annie, why don't you publish your 30+ years' worth of research?


I'd love to, and if I could write it just as a book I would. But to be a nonfiction book, you must document everything with footnotes and bibliography, and I do not have the time or the money or the ability to track down every single source for this. Maybe when I'm old if I live that long!


Quote
 I, for one, would find your rebuttals to Peter Kurth, Penny Wilson, et al fascinating reading, as I'm sure many who frequent this form would. Perhaps this would also make it easier for me to understand why you insist that if one doubts that AA was FS, then one believes AA=AN.  This alone would be worth the price of the book.

Cheers!
Ilya


Thanks, until then I'll just have to keep writing long winded posts! ;)
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Annie on February 14, 2005, 11:06:59 AM
Quote
Annie,

All the more reason why you should publish.  Would I suggest that if I didn't want to hear what you say?  You owe it to the children!  Did I say one negative thing in my entire post?  I don't think so!  You really have to get over this paranoia thing.

Keep up the good work!
Ilya


Sorry, your post came up while I was typing that response to Michael G.'s earlier posts. It was not aimed at you!
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Helen_Azar on February 14, 2005, 11:19:54 AM
Quote

Whoever she was FS or not, I think that it is interesting that she has provoked this much discussion, probably much more so than the actual IF.    


Yes, Michael, I agree. No matter who AA was, even if she was a Polish peasant, BTW so what if she was a Polish peasant? That doesn't make her a "nobody" -  I think it is insulting when people say that she couldn't have been FS because she was a"somebody" as if being a peasant means you are a "nobody"! So many great people in history did not come from aristocracy, but from very humble roots. Being royal or aristocratic does not make one special, or more talented, or more smart in any way. Often, I think it's quite the opposite  ;).  
In any case, even if she was FS, she was still a lot more interesting than the real Anastasia would probably have ever become. Most of the Romanovs (with a few exceptions) were quite ordinary people who never would have achieved any kind of fame or notoriety if it weren't for the accident of their birth. This woman came pretty much from nowhere and yet was able to cause such a stir in a few different countries, on two different continents and almost had history re-written on her account! She still has so much power more than 20 years after her death as to cause people who never knew her and who don't know each other to fight bitterly for long periods of time!  ;)

I say more power to her, she deserves to have biographies written about her and movies made about her, etc., probably much more so than any member of the Romanovs, because what she achieved, she actually achieved on her own  :).
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Mgmstl on February 14, 2005, 11:20:27 AM
Annie no one said you didn't have the right to your opinion, but clearly you have been somewhat hostile if not downright openly rude to those who don't see it your way, which has engendered a great deal of hostility on this board.  For one I almost hesitated after my first post on the subject, and your response.

You might feel that you are the only person here whose views are based in reality, but my views are my reality,
and Helen's are her's.  All anyone is asking is respect for those views.  I will tell you now that you will not or cannot change my mind, the only thing that can make up my mind for me is fact & reading review.  

Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Annie on February 14, 2005, 11:26:22 AM
Quote
Annie no one said you didn't have the right to your opinion, but clearly you have been somewhat hostile if not downright openly rude to those who don't see it your way, which has engendered a great deal of hostility on this board.  For one I almost hesitated after my first post on the subject, and your response.


Sigh. When an opinion can be proved wrong, it is no longer a valid position. I'm not going to shut up and let people continue to post likely misinformation without telling the other side. If you don't like my posts, I believe there is an ignore list. But short of shooting me or stealing my computer, I am not going to stop so you don't have to hear something you don't like. That's not how the world works.

Quote
You might feel that you are the only person here whose views are based in reality, but my views are my reality,
and Helen's are her's.  All anyone is asking is respect for those views.  I will tell you now that you will not or cannot change my mind, the only thing that can make up my mind for me is fact & reading review.  



I don't know how else to put this. No one can make reality what they want it to be, because it is what it is! Nothing is going to change your mind, you already said that. Even another DNA test that comes up 99.9999% will not be good enough for you. But I will not sit here and respect your 'opinion' as a fact when it isn't.

Again, if you dislike my posts, put me on ignore.
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Annie on February 14, 2005, 11:32:04 AM
Quote

 No matter who AA was, even if she was a Polish peasant, BTW so what if she was a Polish peasant? That doesn't make her a "nobody" -  I think it is insulting when people say that she couldn't have been FS because she was a"somebody" as if being a peasant means you are a "nobody"! So many great people in history did not come from aristocracy, but from very humble roots. Being royal or aristocratic does not make one special, or more talented, or more smart in any way. Often, I think it's quite the opposite  ;).  
In any case, even if she was FS, she was still a lot more interesting than the real Anastasia would probably have ever become. Most of the Romanovs (with a few exceptions) were quite ordinary people who never would have achieved any kind of fame or notoriety if it weren't for the accident of their birth. This woman came pretty much from nowhere and yet was able to cause such a stir in a few different countries, on two different continents and almost had history re-written on her account! She still has so much power more than 20 years after her death as to cause people who never knew her and who don't know each other to fight bitterly for long periods of time!  ;)

I say more power to her, she deserves to have biographies written about her and movies made about her, etc., probably much more so than any member of the Romanovs, because what she achieved, she actually achieved on her own  :).


That is perhaps the greatest irony of them all. She does deserve credit for being a part of history and a celebrity in her own right! That's another reason we need to admit she was FS so FS can take her rightful place in history :) Claiming she may be some distant anonymous cousin takes this away from what she's earned- fame!
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Mgmstl on February 14, 2005, 11:32:06 AM
I would suggest the same procedure for you also.  ::) ::)
No one said you had to shut up.  But I definitely would like to see you publish your 30 years worth of research & work on this subject, I for one would certainly keep an open mind on your work.
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Helen_Azar on February 14, 2005, 11:59:52 AM
Quote
...the only thing that can make up my mind for me is fact & reading review.  


Michael, I just want to add that most facts are here already, it is just a matter of understanding and interpreting them correctly, which I think is what causes most of the issues here on this board. I think most people are just not used to interpreting this type of evidence and therefore have a hard time accepting it for what it is. I think if the evidence was something like fingerprints, it would be accepted a lot more readily than DNA, but because DNA is still so abstract to a lot pf people, many tend not to trust it. The funny part is that DNA is much more solid and accurate evidence than even fingerprints, or than anything else that anyone can come up with, for that matter. But like I said, it's not so easy for people to accept because it is not as tangible as other evidence... So this I think is the problem here, unfortunately.  
Title: Dear FA
Post by: daveK on February 14, 2005, 12:02:29 PM
Dear FA,
I think it’s a GREAT idea if you could make one DNA KNOWLEDGEBASE page in AP’s official site. Just a simple one, but it must be NEUTRAL, it must be done BY YOU, not by me.

For example, there are three Nature Genetics papers regarding this subjects, one Knight paper, one discussion on Science. Peter Kurth, Greg King, and other people published their own hypothesis in their book or Atlantis magazine.

You shouldn’t claim which side is right, of course. Just the basic resource on which people should discuss, so that people can always LINK to it. (“please read FA’s site first, here is the link”)

Every month, there are new people who doesn’t know where to find the literatures. People google it, and find the site by some weirdo (look all survivor tales), and get wrong information.

I read New York Times article in which you said that you made the AP site so that young kids can get correct information. So it makes sense for you to do it, I wish I could say I am happy to help you, but I can’t. Because if I help to make it, it’s not neutral.

Dave

-------
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Helen_Azar on February 14, 2005, 12:17:08 PM
I think this is a good idea. That way, instead of going over the same arguments and DNA stuff over and over and over on these threads, the new people can just be referred to this page, where they can read everything - the arguments for and against, and make up their own minds...  Then if they have any specific questions about what is there, they can ask on the thread, as long as it is something that's not already covered on that page.
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Forum Admin on February 14, 2005, 12:30:16 PM
DaveK also sent this to me by PM. I agree it is an excellent idea and will construct it. However, I don't have full copies of all the papers and source material, so if anyone who does have them can email them to me I would be appreciative.

FA
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Annie on February 14, 2005, 12:32:00 PM
Excellent idea! Maybe a stickied thread at the top of this page?
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: daveK on February 14, 2005, 12:39:14 PM
Quote
Then there are those who accuse others of starting disinformation campaigns, they too are entitled to their opinion, even if it is misguided.

  

This is “straw man” fallacy.
I keep saying that people are entitled to their opinion based on their “conjecture”. But if you distort the “data” or fact, it’s a disinformation. I am not suggesting any element of malice though.

Peter Gill paper showed that AA’s mtDNA and FS’s mtDNA was 100% match (for HVI region). They repeated the test at least three times by different labs. But you said that “it’s not 100% match”. I think it is disinformation. Or if you show me any resource which states it’s not 100% match, I will apologize and accept AA is not FS.

Again, I don’t mind AA=FS or not, I support anyone’s right for their own hypothesis or conjecture. But I am against people who say “1+1=3”.

--------------------------------------
Dictionary
straw man
n. An argument or opponent set up so as to be easily refuted or defeated.
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Helen_Azar on February 14, 2005, 12:46:16 PM
Quote
DaveK also sent this to me by PM. I agree it is an excellent idea and will construct it. However, I don't have full copies of all the papers and source material, so if anyone who does have them can email them to me I would be appreciative.

FA


I have Gill, Knight and Zhivotovsky papers in PDF formats, do you need any of those? If yes, I can email them to you... I also have Ivanov hard copy, which I can make a copy and mail to you, or scan. Let me know if you need any of these.
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Forum Admin on February 14, 2005, 12:50:00 PM
Helen,
Please email what you have, PDFs or scans are both fine.
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Mgmstl on February 14, 2005, 12:50:32 PM
Dave no one is saying 1+1=3.   This is your assumption.
I just do not appreciate being told I am spreading disinformation by you or anyone else regardless of your understanding of DNA, I am speaking from a historical perspective, not a scientific one.  I am not a scientist nor a DNA expert by any term of the imagination, but I think the name calling by yourself and other parties needs to cease.  I never said 1+1=3.  Those are your words.
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Helen_Azar on February 14, 2005, 01:00:19 PM
Quote
Dave no one is saying 1+1=3.   This is your assumption.
I just do not appreciate being told I am spreading disinformation by you or anyone else regardless of your understanding of DNA, I am speaking from a historical perspective, not a scientific one.  I am not a scientist nor a DNA expert by any term of the imagination, but I think the name calling by yourself and other parties needs to cease.  I never said 1+1=3.  Those are your words.


Michael, to be fair, you did state that AA/FS DNA did not match 100%:

Quote
... if she is FS as you state so often why didn't the DNA match 100%?  


All Dave is saying is that you made a wrong statement about the DNA. It had nothing to do with history, this was purely a scientific statement. This amounts to "1+1=3" for all intents and purposes. Dave could have been a  little nicer about the way he told you this, but technically he did not make a false statement about what you said. You should just admit that you made a mistake and we can all move on... and Dave just apologize for being abrupt (he already said that he didn't mean that you intended any malice).
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Helen_Azar on February 14, 2005, 01:03:29 PM
Quote
..telling us how we ought to spend our research dollars... .


Penny, I don't think anyone was telling you how to spend your money. It was just a suggestion (and a very practical one if you ask me). I don't see why you are resentful about it as this advice could save you a lot of money and time.
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Mgmstl on February 14, 2005, 01:09:37 PM
No Helen, what he said was in  a half assed smart alecked tone, and you can read into it what you want.
I don't think there was even a shred of an apology in what he said.  I guess it is time to leave this discussion because it is for the DNA experts only......

There is a group of AA fanatics that believe their opinion is the only opinion.  In the end they will prevail as they shout down and discourage any type of discussion on this topic.  





Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: daveK on February 14, 2005, 01:15:12 PM
Michael G,
I never questioned the integrity of your historical research. If you cite me saying that, I will apologize.

I am just asking you where you got the information “match was not 100%”. You have to back it up. Because in my opinion, that is wrong.

Let’s put it this way. If I say “Tsar actually had seven kids”. And if someone pointed out that I am wrong, and I cannot find any materials to back it up, I would simply apologize by saying “I was wrong”.

So, my question is simple. Do you still think the match is not 100%?
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: daveK on February 14, 2005, 01:23:09 PM
Quote
 I guess it is time to leave this discussion because it is for the DNA experts only......


You have to stop this nonsense. Should I say that I should leave the site because Penny Wilson is the foreign language expert? Greg King is the history expert? or Lisa Davidson is the royal family expert? Or FA is the web site expert?

No! Truth or fact is not affected by someone's expertise or profession. Everyone shares it!

All you have to say is that "I was wrong. The match was 100%." then the discussion goes on.  
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Mgmstl on February 14, 2005, 01:26:01 PM
Tell me where it says the DNA is an exact match to FS Dave.  Also, your the inference was there.   Perhaps you need to go back in the history of this thread and read
where I have EQUIVOCALLY & EMPHATICALLY stated, that I AA is NOT AN, but I don't necessarily believe at this point that AA is FS.  I also state that I don't rule out the fact that AA COULD BE FS, and I have stated it more than once.

All through this thread there are people stating that the tests do not prove & cannot prove that FS is AA  100%,
and then you pop up with your statement that it does prove that AA is FS.   So since you are the self professed DNA expert, (BTW what is your background in DNA, and your scientific expertise in this area??) you tell me why I should believe that these tests prove she is
FS.    
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: daveK on February 14, 2005, 01:30:44 PM
For examle, i got the fact wrong sometimes.
I mentioned the author Greg King's name as Greg Knight. I corrected it. I apologize. It was a simple mistake. (I even have mixed up Peter Kurth and Peter Gill's name once.)
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Helen_Azar on February 14, 2005, 01:38:08 PM
Quote
Tell me where it says the DNA is an exact match to FS Dave.  Also, your the inference was there.   Perhaps you need to go back in the history of this thread and read
where I have EQUIVOCALLY & EMPHATICALLY stated, that I AA is NOT AN, but I don't necessarily believe at this point that AA is FS.  I also state that I don't rule out the fact that AA COULD BE FS, and I have stated it more than once.
All through this thread there are people stating that the tests do not prove & cannot prove that FS is AA  100%,
and then you pop up with your statement that it does prove that AA is FS.   So since you are the self professed DNA expert, (BTW what is your background in DNA, and your scientific expertise in this area??) you tell me why I should believe that these tests prove she is
FS.    


Michael, I think you misunderstanding again. When you read the Gill paper, you will see that there was an exact 100% match between AA and FS's relative. This is not even up for discussion, it is a fact. What you are getting confused about (and no, I don't mean this patronizingly, no matter what Penny says) is the fact that 100% DNA match does not equal 100% proof of identity. 100% match does not prove AA was FS 100%, only pretty close to it. I am sorry to keep repeating this, but it is obviously still unclear. DaveK, in fact never said that there was 100% proof of this, he only said that the match was 100%. You don't have to believe him, or anyone else on this board. You can read the original source of this information that was cited before. That should solve this debate about 100% match.

Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: daveK on February 14, 2005, 01:51:10 PM
Quote

It wasn't advice.  It was a snotty and sophomoric comment intended to establish DaveK's primacy in the discussion.  No-one should coolly assume that they know the interior structure of my research and what has and hasn't been accomplished.  The flaw in your and DaveK's argument is that you think my adherence to my conclusion in the FS/AA issue is based only on nebulous belief. It isn't.


Penny,
You just started ad hominem attack. If you are a professional writer, you should stop it.
A writer of any opinion may be an arrogant bastard or a modest saint, or a twisted weirdo. But it’s nothing to do with their opinion. You should focus on the logic and fact of the opinion itself. Not the background character of the person behind it.

If you apply the same logic to yourself, publishing the history book may be very arrogant to someone, because people could say that you are showing off how smart you are. You know how crazy and ridiculous this sounds.      
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Denise on February 14, 2005, 02:14:56 PM
Hi all.  Can we please stay on topic?   :)

I would hate to see another interesting thread locked by our "nameless FA" because personal attacks and name calling are on the board and not in PM's.  

Thanks!!

I do think that DaveK has the right idea about further in depth testing in order to be a bit more conclusive as to the AA FS connection.

I am aware that there are some out there that will never be convinced, but I for one am interested in shutting this door...
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Forum Admin on February 14, 2005, 04:09:50 PM
A "time out" and admonishment for everyone to simmer down, and please get back on topic and discussing the facts themselves and not the personal stuff again.

Daddy has had a tough day today kiddies, has a headache (non forum caused!) and wants everyone to go back to playing nicely together.

Thanks
Title: DNA knowledge resource page at AP site
Post by: daveK on February 15, 2005, 12:49:30 PM
Dear Everyone,
I sent the following list of literatures regarding Romanov DNA to FA so that he can set up some sort of DNA information database at AP site. I am sure there are more materials that I don't know of. Please send any literatures (book, newspaper article, science journal etc) to FA.
Dave

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Gill P, Ivanov PL, Kimpton C, Piercy R, Benson N, Tully G, Evett I, Hagelberg E, Sullivan K.  
Identification of the remains of the Romanov family by DNA analysis.
Nature Genetics. 1994 Feb;6(2):130-5.  

Central Research and Support Establishment, Forensic Science Service, Aldermaston, Reading, Berkshire, UK.

Nine skeletons found in a shallow grave in Ekaterinburg, Russia, in July 1991, were tentatively identified by Russian forensic authorities as the remains of the last Tsar, Tsarina, three of their five children, the Royal Physician and three servants. We have performed DNA based sex testing and short tandem repeat (STR) analysis and confirm that a family group was present in the grave. Analysis of mitochondrial (mt) DNA reveals an exact sequence match between the putative Tsarina and the three children with a living maternal relative. Amplified mtDNA extracted from the remains of the putative Tsar has been cloned to demonstrate heteroplasmy at a single base within the mtDNA control region. One of these sequences matches two living maternal relatives of the Tsar. We conclude that the DNA evidence supports the hypothesis that the remains are those of the Romanov family.

------------------------------------------------------------------------ --------------

Gill P, Kimpton C, Aliston-Greiner R, Sullivan K, Stoneking M, Melton T, Nott J, Barritt S, Roby R, Holland M, et al.  
Establishing the identity of Anna Anderson Manahan.
Nature  Genetics. 1995 Jan;9(1):9-10.  

------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------------

Schweitzer RR.  
Anastasia and Anna Anderson.
Nature Genetics. 1995 Apr;9(4):345.
------------------------------------------------------------------------ --------------

Ivanov PL, Wadhams MJ, Roby RK, Holland MM, Weedn VW, Parsons TJ.  
Mitochondrial DNA sequence heteroplasmy in the Grand Duke of Russia Georgij Romanov establishes the authenticity of the remains of Tsar Nicholas II.
Nature Genetics. 1996 Apr;12(4):417-20.  

Engelhardt Institute of Molecular Biology, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow.

In 1991, nine sets of skeletal remains were excavated from a mass grave near Yekaterinburg, Russia which were believed to include the Russian Tsar Nicholas II, the Tsarina Alexandra, and three of their daughters. Nuclear DNA testing of the remains verified such a family group, and mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) sequences of the presumed Tsarina matched a known maternal relative, Prince Philip. mtDNA sequences from bone of the presumed Tsar matched two living maternal relatives except at a single position, where the bone sample had a mixture of matching (T) and mismatching (C) bases. Cloning experiments indicated that this mixture was due to heteroplasmy within the Tsar; nevertheless, the 'mismatch' fueled a lingering controversy concerning the authenticity of these remains. As a result, the official final report on the fate of the last Russian Royals has been postponed by Russian authorities pending additional, convincing DNA evidence. At the request of the Russian Federation government, we analysed the skeletal remains of the Tsar's brother Georgij Romanov in order to gain further insight into the occurrence and segregation of heteroplasmic mtDNA variants in the Tsar's maternal lineage. The mtDNA sequence of Georgij Romanov, matched that of the putative Tsar, and was heteroplasmic at the same position. This confirms heteroplasmy in the Tsar's lineage, and is powerful evidence supporting the identification of Tsar Nicholas II. The rapid intergenerational shift from heteroplasmy to homoplasmy, and the different heteroplasmic ratios in the brothers, is consistent with a 'bottleneck' mechanism of mtDNA segregation.

------------------------------------------------------------------------ --------------
Knight A, Zhivotovsky LA, Kass DH, Litwin DE, Green LD, White PS, Mountain JL.  
Molecular, forensic and haplotypic inconsistencies regarding the identity of the Ekaterinburg remains.
Annals of Human Biology 2004 Mar-Apr;31(2):129-38.  

Department of Anthropological Sciences, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA. aknight@stanford.edu

BACKGROUND: A set of human remains unearthed near Ekaterinburg, Russia has been attributed to the Romanov Imperial Family of Russia and their physician and servants. That conclusion was officially accepted by the Russian government following publication of DNA tests that were widely publicized. The published study included no discussion of major forensic discrepancies and the information regarding the burial site and remains included irregularities. Furthermore, its conclusion of Romanov identity was based on molecular behaviour that indicates contamination rather than endogenous DNA. The published claim to have amplified by PCR a 1223 bp region of degraded DNA in a single segment for nine individuals and then to have obtained sequence of PCR products derived from that segment without cloning indicates that the Ekaterinburg samples were contaminated with non-degraded, high molecular weight, 'fresh' DNA. AIM: Noting major violations of standard forensic practices, factual inconsistencies, and molecular behaviours that invalidate the claimed identity, we attempted to replicate the findings of the original DNA study. SUBJECT: We analysed mtDNA extracted from a sample of the relic of Grand Duchess Elisabeth, sister of Empress Alexandra. Results: Among clones of multiple PCR targets and products, we observed no complete mtDNA haplotype matching that reported for Alexandra. The consensus haplotype of Elisabeth differs from that reported for Alexandra at four sites. CONCLUSION: Considering molecular and forensic inconsistencies, the identity of the Ekaterinburg remains has not been established. Our mtDNA haplotype results for Elisabeth provide yet another line of conflicting evidence regarding the identity of the Ekaterinburg remains.

------------------------------------------------------------------------ --------------

Knight A, Zhivotovsky LA, Kass DH, Litwin DE, Green LD, White PS.    
Ongoing controversy over Romanov remains.
Science. 2004 Oct 15;306(5695):407-10. No abstract available.  

Gill P, Hagelberg E.  
Ongoing controversy over Romanov remains.
Science. 2004 Oct 15;306(5695):407-10.


------------------------------------------------------------------------ --------------

Jobling MA, Gill P.    
Encoded evidence: DNA in forensic analysis.
Nature Review Genetics. 2004 Oct;5(10):739-51. Review.  



Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: AGRBear on February 24, 2005, 01:41:39 PM
While browsing the morning on other threads,  I came across  these two posts  on some information on one the brother of Nicholas II who was GD George.
Quote

..[in part]...

But that's balanced again George's time in the Caucasus, where he was said to have contracted not one but two morganatic marriages, the first with a native Caucasian woman in 1893 shortly after arriving at Abbas Touman.  The union, said to have produced a child, was dissolved after two years.  In 1894, he was believed to have contracted a second morganatic marriage, this time with a local woman, Mlle. Orkovska, who bore him two sons and a daughter.  These children, allegedly given the surname of Romanovsky, as well as firm evidence to support either of the two unions, disappeared after the Revolution.  I do know one gentleman who lives in the United States and says he is a grandson, I think.  I've never asked for evidence, but he has provided it to some well-placed friends who have no doubt that his claim is true.  Of course, having offspring doesn't preclude one being gay-witness Grand Duke Konstantin Konstantinovich or Felix Yusupov.  But there are a number of claims about George that will probably never be resolved, given the lack of documentation.

Greg King



Here is another post:

Quote
Just my two cents on Grand Duke Georgy's alleged marriage: in the Enciclopedia Universal Europeo Americana, a very reliable and most detailed encyclopaedia published in 70 volumes in Madrid in 1905-1930, which is full of biographical data on royals, it is said that Grand Duke Georgy Alexandrovich "married morganatically princess Orkowska, who gave him three children". When I first read that in the encyclopaedia, I thought it was just a mistake, since the Gotha and other reliable sources made no mention of such wedding. However, reading Mr. Greg King's post, now I guess it was a somehow widespread rumor in the early XXth century.
Who made mlle. Orkowska a princess for the encyclopaedia, that I don't know...


Seems Georg had two wives and four children before his death:
Someone else wrote and I forgot to write down who:  "After spending his final years remote from the court, Georgy Alexandrovich died at Abas-Tuman on 28 June 1899."

So, by 1918 the four children would have been older than 17 years of age.
The eldest would have been abt. 24.  Do we know if the first child was a girl or a boy?

Surly someone must know about these children.  

So, let me warn you before you read my next speculation,  you'll think my honey was fermented again.

Ready?

No.  Even for me it's to far off the chart.

I was going to ask if it was possible that AA could have been a child of GD George's....

Probably not,  because  I assume that any children of George's couldn't have been AA since there would have been some DNA links that wre the same Nicholas II DNA charts ....

A female child of GD Georg's wife's  mtDNA certainly would not have  matched Alexandra's....   The wives of Georg were evidently from the Caucasus and perhaps from local families.....

Crashed and burned before take off.....

Maybe, I'd better go and check that honey supply of mine.

Anyway, I thought it was interesting that George did -- or was said to -- have four children and that three were known to have been females.  The youngest would have been about 17 and the oldest [we do not know if a girl or boy] would have been about 24  in 1918.

AGRBear

23 March 2005-- PS:  Over on another thread which is about GD George [Imperial Family], it is being debated that GD George may or may not have been married or had lovers which would have produced children as suggested above in my post.
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Mgmstl on March 22, 2005, 03:32:05 PM
I had never heard of GD George having contracted these morganatic marriages.  Very interesting where can one read more on this?
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Penny_Wilson on March 22, 2005, 05:38:13 PM
There's quite an extensive thread on the Imperial Family forum. You should check it out...  ::)
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: AGRBear on March 23, 2005, 10:26:35 AM
That thread has been locked down because tempers were flying, again.

Back to the subject.

Despite what people say, the DNA doesn't tell us that AA was FS, it has told us that she wasn't GD Anastasia and that there is some kind of mtDNA match to FS's sister/half sister Gertrude's grandson Karl Maucher.

daveK has given us some numbers which indicate AA's DNA is rare and that there might have been about 200 females in and around Berlin in 1920 who would have carried the same DNA.

We have talked about coincidence, even gone into a story about a man who claimed he was capable of stopping clocks. If  coincidence [a relationship of some kind between AA and Gertrude, and, maybe FS] did occured,  this may prove that we'll even have a harder time discovering who FS really was, if she wasn't AA.  Why?  I doubt we will be able to track down 2 let alone 200 females living at that time around Berlin.

AA and FS:  We've gone into heights and it seems there is evidence to say it was different.  We've gone into shoe sizes and there is evidence to say it  was different.  FS didn't know Russian, we're told by her family, but AA seem to speak it when it suited her and some people are not convinced despite evidence given in AA's trial in the 1960s....  Ear prints are in dispute but this didn't convince the court in the 1960s that AA wasn't GD Anastasia, I don't know if ear prints were done to compare AA and FS's.

It's my opinion, that we're back to square one and the question "So, who WAS she, then?" if AA wasn't FS???


AGRBear
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Helen_Azar on March 23, 2005, 11:17:58 PM
Quote
That thread has been locked down because tempers were flying, again.


No, it wasn't locked. You are getting it confused with another thread where tempers were flying even more  ;).
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Helen_Azar on March 23, 2005, 11:19:22 PM
Quote
... it has told us that she wasn't GD Anastasia and that there is some kind of mtDNA match to FS's sister/half sister Gertrude's grandson Karl Maucher.



Wrong again. It  wasn't "some kind of a match", it was an exact match.
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Helen_Azar on March 23, 2005, 11:20:42 PM
Quote
daveK has given us some numbers which indicate AA's DNA is rare and that there might have been about 200 females in and around Berlin in 1920 who would have carried the same DNA. We have talked about coincidence, even gone into a story about a man who claimed he was capable of stopping clocks. If  coincidence [a relationship of some kind between AA and Gertrude, and, maybe FS] did occured,  this may prove that we'll even have a harder time discovering who FS really was, if she wasn't AA.  Why?  I doubt we will be able to track down 2 let alone 200 females living at that time around Berlin.



It sounds like you totally misunderstood DaveK's post about this...  8)
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Helen_Azar on March 23, 2005, 11:21:54 PM
Quote
I don't know if ear prints were done to compare AA and FS's.
 


They didn't have pictures of FS's ears, remember?
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: AGRBear on March 29, 2005, 09:27:31 AM
Quote

Wrong again. It  wasn't "some kind of a match", it was an exact match.


I'm not wrong.  The mtDNA can not tell us who the person is, in otherwords, it cannot tell us that the person was AA or FS.  It can tell us who she isn't.  Unlike fingerprints, which can tell us exactly who a person is.

Nor am I wrong about what daveK told us.   There were many others, about 200, according to dave K's figures, who were in and around Berlin with the same mtDNA of Karl Maucher's, grandson of Gertrude [not FS's].  And, using the term "exact match" is misleading and I'm sure you don't want to mislead anyone.


And, no, I haven't misread daveK's figures which I trust is fairly accurate.

You are right the thread on GD George wasn't the one locked down.

AGRBear
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: AGRBear on March 29, 2005, 09:49:11 AM
Quote
 Bear, again, these are just semantics. You have to be able to use logic to deduce the rest.

Let me try to explain it this way:

Let's say a woman had two children, one of whom was kidnapped when he was a baby. 20 years later a 21 year old calls her up on the phone and tells her that he is her son. The 21-year old has a DNA test that reveals that he is a biological child of this woman. Even though the test doesn't tell her the exact identity of this person, obviously the woman is going to accept the fact that this is her son, because the DNA shows that he is her biological child and she only had two, one of whom is still with her. If both the children were kidnapped and they were both the same age and gender, then she wouldn't know which one is which, she would only know that they are both her children. But if only one was missing, then she can safely assume that it was the child that was kidnapped 20 years before.  So even if the DNA test doesn't show that it is him, as long as it shows that he is her child we can be safe to assume that it was him, right? This is called logic and along with scientific proof, we can make certain deductions.

The same thing in this case. Even though these DNA tests will not show who this person may be, the fact that they can show that this person is a descendant allows us to deduce certain things.  

I don't know which part of this concept you are still having trouble with, Bear,  but this is the best I can do with an explanation.


Let me repeat what Helen wrote:
>>
The same thing in this case. Even though these DNA tests will not show who this person may be, the fact that they can show that this person is a descendant allows us to deduce certain things.  


Logic can change as the facts change.

At this time, Penny is telling us that there still is a question as to Gertrude S.'s when she was born and to which wife of Gertrude and FS's father.  Which means, if Gertrude and FS had different mothers than the mtDNA may be affected and will have to be viewed different if FS had a different mother who was not related to Gertrude's mother

AGRBear
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: AGRBear on March 29, 2005, 09:59:47 AM
Quote

Franziska was one of six children born to Anton and Marianna:

Martin Christian b. 16 November 1895
Franziska b. 22 December 1896, baptized 24 December 1896
Michael b. 16 December 1899
Valerian (AKA Walther) b. 25 April 1901
Felix b. 17 February 1903
Juliane Marianna (AKA Maria Juliana) b. 30 April 1905

One possible birth-date for Gertrude is 12 November 1898, which is the date she sometimes claimed herself (it seems to have been an elastic issue for her), but there are no birth records for her in Borek, Borowy Las or Schwartz Damerkow.  These are the three places that the Schanzkowsky family lived.



Quote

Anton was married twice, once in 1890 to Josefina Peek, and the second time to Marianna in 1894.  Josefina simply disappears, there is no record of divorce, death or children from this first marriage.  

The marriage with Marianna produced at least the six children named -- we have birth and baptismal records for all of them, as do the Schanzkowsky descendants today.

There's nothing at all on Gertrude, which seems unusual, given that all the other children are well-recorded; however, as you say, it could be nothing more than coincidental that both birth and baptismal records on her are missing -- and entirely typical of the AA "mystery."  Nothing is ever straight-forward.  :D

Gertrude cannot be ruled out as a full sibling of the Schanzkowsky children -- but also she cannot be ruled in.
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: AGRBear on March 29, 2005, 10:03:35 AM
Quote
...[in part]...

But we are still searching, and are working with genealogical experts, including an individual in Poland through the LDS Library, in order to see what we can find -- either in a wider search of records, or in records other than birth and baptismal (perhaps school records will give us a clue, for example).

Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: rskkiya on March 29, 2005, 11:05:47 AM
Agrbear

   Well-- Penny will present her information if she chooses to when she chooses to ... I won't trouble myself waiting for her.
   Right now I think that we ought to discuss this issue with the facts that we have and not wait for "new evidence" to appear -- using what we have, we can come to an understanding about FS and AA.
   I still don't understand what you don't "get" - bear?

rskkiya
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: AGRBear on March 29, 2005, 11:16:13 AM
This thread is if AA was NOT FS then who was she?

What is it that I don't get?

If AA was NOT FS then she was one of the 200 possible people who matched AA's mtDNA and the 1% stat you and others push our way is longer in play.  What's in play is "coincidence" on this thread.

AGRBear
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: jeremygaleaz on March 29, 2005, 03:42:13 PM
Quote

I'm not wrong.

AGRBear


Actually, you're very wrong.

Bear, if you really want to understand this, and this is just a suggestion, why not   brush up on your understanding of genetics and statistics a bit? At times, it's best to put down the subjective historical evidence and move into a discpline that can give you much more concrete answers...math and science. That's if you really want the truth as you say. 
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: rskkiya on March 29, 2005, 03:57:16 PM
Agrbear...
I agree with Jeremy.
This much (the mDNA evidence) is clear to me (a mere historian, not a geneticist  :-/) and while I  do hope that you won't consider this to be posters "ganging up" on you, bear - but in this case- the facts stand.

rskkiya
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Penny_Wilson on March 29, 2005, 06:50:18 PM
Quote
Agrbear

    Well-- Penny will present her information if she chooses to when she chooses to ... I won't trouble myself waiting for her.
    Right now I think that we ought to discuss this issue with the facts that we have and not wait for "new evidence" to appear -- using what we have, we can come to an understanding about FS and AA.
    I still don't understand what you don't "get" - bear?

rskkiya


You are right not to wait for me and my research -- the book that Greg and I are writing as a follow-up to FOTR is still a couple of years away.  And I'm sure that "as a historian" yourself, you will want to perform your own research, and not rely on that of others.
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: AGRBear on March 29, 2005, 08:07:49 PM
Quote

Actually, you're very wrong.

Bear, if you really want to understand this, and this is just a suggestion, why not   brush up on your understanding of genetics and statistics a bit? At times, it's best to put down the subjective historical evidence and move into a discpline that can give you much more concrete answers...math and science. That's if you really want the truth as you say. 


If AA was FS then  mtDNA shows  this is probable.  HOWEVER,
this thread is about the speculation that if FS was murdered by Grossmann or ended up in England then she could NOT have been AA.  If AA was not FS: "So who WAS she, then?"

So, I don't think it is necssary for some to continue to tell me and others about the mtDNA or that we need to brush up on genetics or stats or historical evidence.

And, as many times as you'd like we can go around and around in circles like this or continue with the thread as intented.

AGRBear
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: jeremygaleaz on March 29, 2005, 11:53:12 PM
Quote

If AA was FS then  mtDNA shows  this is probable.  HOWEVER,
this thread is about the speculation that if FS was murdered by Grossmann or ended up in England then she could NOT have been AA.  If AA was not FS: "So who WAS she, then?"

So, I don't think it is necssary for some to continue to tell me and others about the mtDNA or that we need to brush up on genetics or stats or historical evidence.

And, as many times as you'd like we can go around and around in circles like this or continue with the thread as intented.

AGRBear


Whatever Bear  ::) It's just a suggestion you can keep going around in circles on your own with historical evidence that often ends up meaning absolutely nothing due to it's subjective nature,  or latch on to something more concrete  like math and science.
The choice is yours  ;)
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: AGRBear on March 30, 2005, 09:21:27 AM
This subject was not my choice and obvisouly it was not yours  ;D

Back to topic, please.

AGRBear
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: AGRBear on March 30, 2005, 09:29:34 AM
Differences between AA and FS:

I. Photographs:
Photograph comparisons won't make everyone happy as to their looking alike....  

II.  Shoe sizes
FS wore shoes that were three sizes larger than AA
 AA wore shoes that were three sizes smaller than FS

Shoes sizes still doesn't accomplish any agreement even though at the trial  there  shown that there was three size difference.

III. Pregnancy
AA- Evidence of a pregnancy but no proof of when.  Claimed to have had a son.
FS- No pregnancy known.

IV. Scars.
FS -  no unusual scars remembered by family; no scars inflicted in factory accident
AA - scars which were claimed to have been inflicted by a bayonet;  small scar on finger claimed to have been from a door; scar from removal of a mole..... Some scar may have been caused by tb and surgery.  Penny mentioned that AA had a "grove" on the side of her head which may prove to be a injury of some kind had occured....

IIV. Height
FS is reported to have been 5'6", which is about 4 inches taller than AA - Helen was th source on this fact.
AA was about 5'2"" tall

IIIV.  Knowledge of Languages
FS - knew German and Katchoubian.  Did not know Russian or English.
AA - knew Russian, German and English

IX.  Ears pierced
FS - one retouched photo shows earrings and pierced ears but this may be in error
AA - doesn't appear to have pierced ears

Anyone have anything to add?

AGRBear
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: rskkiya on March 30, 2005, 10:01:55 AM
Quote

You are right not to wait for me and my research -- the book that Greg and I are writing as a follow-up to FOTR is still a couple of years away.  And I'm sure that "as a historian" yourself, you will want to perform your own research, and not rely on that of others.



Penny,
You are quite right about my not waiting for your research -- however, I don't feel the need to reinvent the wheel.  I freely admit that I am no geneticist, so I am grateful for the advice offered by those more familiar with the information at this site, and as a medieval historian I don't have much time to spend taking remedial natural genetics classes -- but would you recommend them as a research tool?

rskkiya
with my poor maths skills, I am certain to need very remedial classes! LOL
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: AGRBear on March 30, 2005, 10:36:24 AM
There are many who think AA was FS, Gertrude's sister.  But we don't know this as a fact.  The birth records of Gertrude have not been found, as yet.

mtDNA can not tell us if Gertrude is AA's sister or 1st to 25th cousin.

daveK has turned out some marvelous stats over on the DNA threads.  Helen has tried to answer my  DNA questions.  And, if you have any, go over and ask.

HOWEVER, this thread is not about DNA or mtDNA, this thread is about if AA was not FS "who was she, then?".

TOPIC PLEASE

AGRBear
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Penny_Wilson on March 30, 2005, 10:41:21 AM
Quote

Penny,
...as a medieval historian I don't have much time to spend taking remedial natural genetics classes -- but would you recommend them as a research tool?


But of course!  :D  As you probably know from your own work, it's necessary to become as familiar as possible with many disciplines -- for example, when researching Russian history, it helps not only to have a good grasp of research principles, but also to have a reasonably good grasp of Russian, French and German.  There are many disciplines that we have to dabble in -- hopefully without becoming dilettantish...  8)

OT:  So you're into medieval history?  I love medieval novels, like The Sunne in Splendor and Katherine.  There's a really good site on John of Gaunt and Katherine Swynford, though of course, I can't find it now....

Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Elisabeth on March 30, 2005, 10:53:15 AM
Quote
Differences between AA and FS:

IX.  Ears pierced
FS - one retouched photo shows earrings and pierced ears but this may be in error
AA - doesn't appear to have pierced ears

Anyone have anything to add?

AGRBear


Bear, I think it's interesting that you are suddenly willing to consider as evidence a retouched photo of FS - because it seems to support your claims of physical differences between FS and AA. Yet on another thread you categorically refused to accept as evidence the computer-generated match between photos of FS and AA, precisely because you're convinced that the FS photo they used had been retouched!

The photo you are now citing as evidence that FS might have had pierced ears was published in a Berlin newspaper and was so obviously and badly retouched that not only does FS look like a cartoon character in it, but the "artist" (if you can call him that) even added earrings where there were none in the original!

So we simply don't know if FS had pierced ears or not. The whole issue is a red herring. And since we have already discussed this at some length on another thread, I have to wonder why are you bringing it up again here when you know for a fact that this retouched photo was in error?
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: AGRBear on March 30, 2005, 10:57:54 AM
IX.  Ears pierced
FS - one retouched photo shows earrings and pierced ears but this may be in error
AA - doesn't appear to have pierced ears
 
"one retouched photo"
The pierced ears may be in error.  Seems plain enough to me that this may be in error.  As to the story about the photo in the newspaper,  I hadn't read this.  Thanks for the additional information.  

If FS had pierced ears or did not have pierced ears, I don't know this as a fact one way or the other.  Do you?

AGRBear
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Penny_Wilson on March 30, 2005, 11:13:55 AM
Quote

Bear, I think it's interesting that you are suddenly willing to consider as evidence a retouched photo of FS - because it seems to support your claims of physical differences between FS and AA. Yet on another thread you categorically refused to accept as evidence the computer-generated match between photos of FS and AA, precisely because you're convinced that the FS photo they used had been retouched!

The photo you are now citing as evidence that FS might have had pierced ears was published in a Berlin newspaper and was so obviously and badly retouched that not only does FS look like a cartoon character in it, but the "artist" (if you can call him that) even added earrings where there were none in the original!

So we simply don't know if FS had pierced ears or not. The whole issue is a red herring. And since we have already discussed this at some length on another thread, I have to wonder why are you bringing it up again here when you know for a fact that this retouched photo was in error?
 


I believe we do know that Franziska did not have pierced ears.  I forget where I heard or read this -- but I think the issue has arisen in the past and been solved.
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: AGRBear on March 30, 2005, 12:28:11 PM
If someone remembers the source which tells us that FS did not have pierced ears, let me know and then I can place a footnote on my  list already written and then add it to my list when a new one is posted somewhere down the thread.

Thanks.

AGRBear
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: jaa on March 31, 2005, 10:51:29 AM
Quote
Photograph comparisons won't make everyone happy as to their looking alike....

Technology exists that could help determine this on a mathematical basis (facial recognition systems), and/or provide a clearer image for visual comparison (image enhancement).

Sorry to sound like a broken record. I wasn't sure if I was making sense about these computer-based technologies on the "fusion" photo thread.
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Helen_Azar on March 31, 2005, 11:43:28 AM
Quote
Technology exists that could help determine this on a mathematical basis (facial recognition systems), and/or provide a clearer image for visual comparison (image enhancement).
 


I think that this is precisely what they did with the AA/FS photos in the Nova documentary...


Quote
Sorry to sound like a broken record. I wasn't sure if I was making sense about these computer-based technologies on the "fusion" photo thread.


If you are going to be involved for any extended amount of time in these AA/FS threads, you will have to get used to sounding like a broken record, trust me!  ;) ;D

Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: jaa on March 31, 2005, 01:37:33 PM
Quote
I think that this is precisely what they did with the AA/FS photos in the Nova documentary...

I don't think so. The documentary is copyright 1995, which would put face recognition in the early stages of development; the first face recognition algorithms were proposed in 1989. There have been significant improvements in both technologies in the last ten years.

Ten years is a long time in computing. The best graphics workstation in 1995 would have been an SGI Onyx, now obsolete and a collector's item. The best business PC in 1995 was a Pentium Pro running Windows 95 or OS/2, and internet access for most users was a dial-up line and a 14.4 bps modem.

The technology moves fast. The last US government test of facial recognition systems was in 2002, and is now outdated enough that a new vendor test will be done late this summer.

Image enhancement has been similarly updated, most notably with NASA's Retinex technology. This didn't exist in 1995.

I should add that it's entirely possible that the FS image does not contain enough data. The negative would contain the most data, but since the NOVA documentary didn't even use the original photograph, it's doubtful that they had access to the negative, if it still exists.

Quote
If you are going to be involved for any extended amount of time in these AA/FS threads, you will have to get used to sounding like a broken record, trust me!  Wink Grin

LOL! I know, I've been lurking. I skip any post with the word "conspiracy." I just thought I'd pre-apologize for boring people.
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Helen_Azar on March 31, 2005, 02:08:44 PM
Thanks jaa for the info you were able to give us. I don't think any of us find it boring! Is there a simple and fast way anyone can compare the two images with the new computer technology, or does it have to be done by professionals?
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: lexi4 on March 31, 2005, 08:32:22 PM
AGRABear,
I am more than willing to leave the mundane behind and stretch my imagination especially when it leads me to a fun conspiracy theory. So as long as we are thinking out of the box, how about this theory.
Maybe Anna was a former Russian, loyal to the monarchy, who served as a ruse to keep people from finding the real Anastasia. And maybe the real Anastasia was living in exile somewhere, hoping to be restored to what was rightfully hers. Of course, I have no evidence of this.
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: AGRBear on March 31, 2005, 08:46:50 PM
You mentioned that word conspiracy  :o  and then you link it to Annie [AA***] ::) .   What fun ;D  BUT do you think she'll [AA***] tell us it ain't so  ??? [via Gypsy medium***] and ruin our out of box experience :-/ .  Oh, oh, I hear the footsteps of Admin.  Forum. Quick.  Back to the topic 8)



AGRBear

***PS:  Bear Humor Explained:  Yes, I knew we were talking about AA=Anna Anderson.  I didn't mention the gypsy who'd help us talk to our dearly departed AA..... Sorry for confusion.  There was to be no ref. to our poster Annie.  
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Mgmstl on April 01, 2005, 09:09:32 AM
Folks, just to put my 2 cents worth in here, which I know you were all breathlessly awaiting ;D

BUT, in the late 1800 early 1900's on tintypes, some pastel portraits, and photos, it was COMMON for people to add: earrings, wedding bands, buttons, paint them on as gold.  I have seen it many times, so it is no indication as to whether or not FS or AA had pierced ears.   It was done sometimes in the photography studio, and others did it at home.  It happened up to about 1920.  

Sometimes people would go to get a photo taken and they would wear clothes provided by the photographer or studio.  It was a big occasion for the common folk like us to go and have our pictures taken.  
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Mgmstl on April 01, 2005, 09:13:33 AM
We are not discussing conspiracy theories, some of us have an understanding of statistics and genetics, and realize that in all probability AA may end up being FS, but DNA is not the only issue for us, and it doesn't do enough in this case to close the glaring differences between these two women  AA & FS.  Just my opinion.

This is a real issue to us, with some differences that we feel cannot be overlooked, and chalked off to coincidence.  
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Forum Admin on April 01, 2005, 09:45:17 AM
I don't really understand why pierced ears or not means anything in this case.  My grandmother from Poland had pierced ears as a child into her teen years. She stopped wearing pierced earrings soon after her marriage to my grandfather....by the time I knew her, the holes had grown closed without even leaving a scar or trace... She told me about it on several occassions.
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Elisabeth on April 01, 2005, 10:27:42 AM
Quote
I don't really understand why pierced ears or not means anything in this case.  My grandmother from Poland had pierced ears as a child into her teen years. She stopped wearing pierced earrings soon after her marriage to my grandfather....by the time I knew her, the holes had grown closed without even leaving a scar or trace... She told me about it on several occassions.


Thank you, FA. Yet another good reason why, as I said before, this whole issue is a red herring!

But please, folks, let's all be consistent. Many of you had objections to the computer-generated match between photos of AA and FS, because you thought the photo of FS might have been retouched. Well, we know for a fact that this other "photo" showing FS with earrings is not merely retouched, it's an "artist's rendition" of a photo. So can we all agree that it shouldn't even be considered as evidence?
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: AGRBear on April 01, 2005, 10:37:44 AM
Okay with me, since I was the one trying to discover the original photo in the first place  ;D

Now, does anyone remember the source which tells if FS had pierced ears or not?

It took us five pages to find out about the photographs, I do hope we don't have to go in circles for five more just to find out if FS had or did not have pierced ears.

AGRBear
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Elisabeth on April 01, 2005, 11:02:55 AM
Quote
Okay with me, since I was the one trying to discover the original photo in the first place  ;D

Now, does anyone remember the source which tells if FS had pierced ears or not?

It took us five pages to find out about the photographs, I do hope we don't have to go in circles for five more just to find out if FS had or did not have pierced ears.

AGRBear


Bear, the FA just explained why it doesn't matter whether FS had pierced ears or not.

Let's pretend for a minute that she did. All she had to do was stop wearing earrings, and the holes in her ears would have closed up naturally within a matter of months, leaving no scars, no trace that she had ever had pierced ears.

So FS could have had pierced ears, and AA could have had no trace of pierced ears, but they could have still been the same person. Understand?

We don't have to discuss this for five more pages because it's a complete non-starter, not an issue.
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Annie on April 01, 2005, 11:21:10 AM
Quote
You mentioned that word conspiracy  :o  and then you link it to Annie  ::) .   What fun ;D  BUT do you think she'll tell us it ain't so  ??? and ruin our out of box experience :-/ .  Oh, oh, I hear the footsteps of Admin.  Forum. Quick.  Back to the topic 8)



AGRBear


I hate it when I get brought up in a bad way and I haven't even been on and don't know why  :(
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Elisabeth on April 01, 2005, 01:42:49 PM
Quote

I hate it when I get brought up in a bad way and I haven't even been on and don't know why  :(


Don't feel bad, Annie. If you read the previous posts you'll see that the Bear is actually confusing you with Anna Anderson. (Anna - Annie, get it?) Lexi4 was talking about a "fun conspiracy" theory involving Anna, not you. Maybe you should feel flattered -?! You're in highly esteemed company. LOL  ;)

BTW, it takes so long to load the pages to reply to this thread, I think it's time someone started a "So Who Was She, Then?, Part 2" thread.
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Annie on April 01, 2005, 01:58:20 PM
Quote

Don't feel bad, Annie. If you read the previous posts you'll see that the Bear is actually confusing you with Anna Anderson. (Anna - Annie, get it?) Lexi4 was talking about a "fun conspiracy" theory involving Anna, not you. Maybe you should feel flattered -?! You're in highly esteemed company. LOL  ;)


Thanks, but I don't think it's AA. Bear said 'do you think she'll link it to us and ruin our fun' and since AA is dead she won't be posting here :-/

Quote
BTW, it takes so long to load the pages to reply to this thread, I think it's time someone started a "So Who Was She, Then?, Part 2" thread.


I agree! I've had this problem for a long time. On another board I'm on, all threads are automatically closed at 500 posts now because of this problem.
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Helen_Azar on April 01, 2005, 02:35:46 PM
Quote

Thanks, but I don't think it's AA. Bear said 'do you think she'll link it to us and ruin our fun' and since AA is dead she won't be posting here :-/


Annie, Lexi4 meant AA (Anna), it was the Bear who got confused and thought she meant you (Annie).

Quote
Maybe Anna was a former Russian, loyal to the monarchy, who served as a ruse to keep people from finding the real Anastasia.


Quote
You mentioned that word conspiracy  :o  and then you link it to Annie  ::) .  



Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: lexi4 on April 01, 2005, 02:56:23 PM
Quote

Annie, Lexi4 meant AA (Anna), it was the Bear who got confused and thought she meant you (Annie).


This is true. I was talking about AA.


Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Annie on April 01, 2005, 04:17:21 PM
Thanks Helen, that clears it up. Lexi is a newbie and would not have known to reference me, I missed that part. I had never heard AA referred to as "Annie"  :P
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: jaa on April 02, 2005, 09:46:41 AM
Quote
Is there a simple and fast way anyone can compare the two images with the new computer technology, or does it have to be done by professionals?

Helen, the more expertise you have in photography and in imaging, the better and more accurate the results from image enhancement. Also, when enhanced images are used in court, there are strict guidelines as to what is admissable, as it is very easy to alter an image into inaccuracy.

NASA's Retinex technology is available under the commercial name PhotoFlair. There are stand-alone and PhotoShop plug-in versions.
http://www.truview.com

However, you would need a high-resolution scan of the original, and it is quite possible that the original does not contain enough data to work with. The negative would contain the most data, since the image could have been improperly focussed or over-esposed in the printing process. It's been maybe 15 years since my days in the darkroom, but I seem to remember negatives being sandwiched between glass, which had to be kept scrupulously clean or they would also blur the image. But since the NOVA documentary didn't even use the original photograph, it's doubtful that they had access to the negative, if it still exists.

Every time a photograph is copied, there is "generational loss" or "generational degradation," due to the random pattern of silver halide crystals that make up photographic film. In one 1950's military study of generational loss, it was determined that by the fourth generation (a copy of a copy of a copy of the original), photos taken by US spy planes were no longer useable; that is, the images had degraded to such a point that they no longer showed tanks, artillery etc.

If you're working from images scanned in from books, you're working with less information than even a fourth-generation copy. In books, images which were originally formed by crystals of silver halide in a random pattern are created by a regular pattern of dots. In an expensive art publication, these dots are relatively close. In books where the text matters more than the illustrations, the dots will be spaced farther apart.

I don't know that much about facial recognition systems, as it is a subset or superset of pattern recognition, and at present, only tangentially related to what I do for a living. All I've read is theory, and I have no knowledge of specific applications.

Here is a list of face recognition vendors:
http://www.biometritech.com/features/roundup051502.htm
http://www.frvt.org/FRVT2002/Participants.asp

MIT has been a pioneer in this area, and might be interested.
http://vismod.media.mit.edu/vismod/demos/facerec/index.html

Quote
the computer-generated match between photos of AA and FS

Elisabeth, this is not a computer-generated match. What the computer generated was a transition commonly used in movies and television. A dissolve: fade-out, fade-in.

A "computer-generated match" would be face recognition technology.
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: AGRBear on April 02, 2005, 10:15:35 AM
Quote
You mentioned that word conspiracy  :o  and then you link it to Annie [AA***] ::) .   What fun ;D  BUT do you think she'll [AA***] tell us it ain't so  ??? [via Gypsy medium***] and ruin our out of box experience :-/ .  Oh, oh, I hear the footsteps of Admin.  Forum. Quick.  Back to the topic 8)



AGRBear

***PS:  Bear Humor Explained:  Yes, I knew we were talking about AA=Anna Anderson.  I didn't mention the gypsy who'd help us talk to our dearly departed AA..... Sorry for confusion.  There was to be no ref. to our poster Annie.  
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: AGRBear on April 02, 2005, 10:24:28 AM
Quote
I don't really understand why pierced ears or not means anything in this case.  My grandmother from Poland had pierced ears as a child into her teen years. She stopped wearing pierced earrings soon after her marriage to my grandfather....by the time I knew her, the holes had grown closed without even leaving a scar or trace... She told me about it on several occassions.


My question about pierced ears is just a question.  There is really no reason to explain to me about the pierced holes fading or disapearing.  This question doesn't mean anything more than what I'm asking.  It is not unusal for Polish Catholic girls to have ears pierced when young.   Penny already said she thought someone had already proven she hadn't pierced ears.  And, so, I've asked if anyone remembers a source. Does anyone know the source?

I've noticed that Gertrude wasn't wearing earrings in the photo provided to us....

Like I said,  we don't need five pages to debate over an answer to a simple question, PLEASE.

AGRBear
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: AGRBear on April 02, 2005, 10:38:14 AM
Jaa wrote: >>Elisabeth, this is not a computer-generated match. What the computer generated was a transition commonly used in movies and television. A dissolve: fade-out, fade-in.
 
A "computer-generated match" would be face recognition technology. <<

In order to do a "fade- out"  and "fade-in", don't you need two faces that are at the same angles? Having faces the same size is a given, although complex.   In order to rotate a face you'd, also,  need the addition of 3D type of software?  If so, would this take more than a enlarged "flatten" photo?

I'm repeating what others have already said, we appreciate your knowledge on this subject.


AGRBear

Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: jaa on April 02, 2005, 02:39:02 PM
Oh, thank you, AGRBear. I enjoy history and reading the posts on this forum, but rarely post because I don't feel I know enough. It's nice to hear that maybe of bit of this geekspeak could be of use to historians.

Quote
In order to do a "fade- out"  and "fade-in", don't you need two faces that are at the same angles?

You would for film and television, because of the format of the screens.

But in the NOVA documentary, the resolution or graininess of the images didn't matter (except for the identification), so the images were simply re-sized and rotated. The dissolve was zoomed in with the edges of both photos off the screen, so the audience doesn't see the rotation.

However, there is a distortion problem when rotating an image on the computer. Photographic images are made up of polygonal grains in a random pattern. Computer images are a grid system of square pixels. When you rotate an image, the software  interpolates the position of the pixel to a new position, and that's what causes the distortion, which increases with every iteration. Every unsuccessful rotation must be followed by an Undo, or the image will be distorted. The distortion may not be visible until after a number of iterations, depending on the background and training of the viewer.

If all that is needed is to overlay the images, you don't need a computer. All that's needed is an art projector (sometimes called an opaque projector), or an overhead projector and a transparency. Move the projector until the image sizes agree, and rotate and align the transparency. You won't have the emotional impact of graphic dissolves and it won't be computer-generated, but the information is the same.

Quote
In order to rotate a face you'd, also,  need the addition of 3D type of software?  If so, would this take more than a enlarged "flatten" photo?

Creating a 3D model of a geometry as complicated as the human face is much more difficult than rotating a 2D image. We did have the software tools to do this in 1995, but re-creating a face from photographs is time-consuming and costly. In film, television, and games, the fastest and therefore cheapest way is to project a grid on an actor and photograph that to create the 3D geometry.

But you are right about the tilting of the head in the AA and FS photographs; AA's chin is slightly down. There will be a degree of foreshortening because of perspective, which is basically a mathematical description of photography. I don't know if the amount of foreshortening is enough to affect the apparent match shown in the dissolve.
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: AGRBear on April 03, 2005, 11:07:44 AM
I'm not sure how we ended up talking abou the fusion of the faces in the tv show over on this thread.  I carried it back over to the "fusion" thread.
http://hydrogen.pallasweb.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=anastasia;action=display;num=1111365984;start=100#106

Again, thanks for your knowledge, jaa.

AGRBear

PS  This thread is getting l-o-n-g.  Does someone want to start a Part II of "So who WAS she, then?"  ???
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Kransnoeselo on April 06, 2005, 09:06:25 PM
Hey,

Just wanted to add that it was Franziska's brother that stated his sister didnt have pierced ears-this was noted as a difference between Anna and his sister.  

Tim  
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: sokolova on April 09, 2005, 03:05:10 PM
Hi,
I'm new here and don't know anything about the politics or the personal clashes, so I can only hope I'm not breaking taboos or whatever, but I think there is a major problem with the FS/AA situation that has been a bit overlooked. I've started a new thread about it which may have been the wrong thing to do!!??, and so I am reposting my thoughts here to try and do it right.

It seems to me that the problem is  - if AA wasn't FS why does her DNA apparently show she was?

Can we dismiss it as coincidence? How likely is it that a daughter of a palace official or anyone else would just happen to end up having  the same DNA as the Polish factory worker who is picked out at random to be her alter ego?

Odds of at least 300-1 against aren't good.

Either AA was FS, or someone has messed with the DNA results. Speaking simply in terms of probability these seem to be the only two really plausible possibilities.

At least so it seems to me, though I admit I could be missing something. If I am please tell me as I am more interested in finding out than being 'right' or winning any fight!


[glb]   Sokolova
            [/glb]
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: rskkiya on April 09, 2005, 06:25:25 PM
NO, Sokolova - I don't think that one can dismiss the DNA evidence as coincidental.

rskkiya
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Helen_Azar on April 09, 2005, 06:56:15 PM
Hello Sokolova, welcome.

Quote
It seems to me that the problem is  - if AA wasn't FS why does her DNA apparently show she was? Can we dismiss it as coincidence? How likely is it that a daughter of a palace official or anyone else would just happen to end up having  the same DNA as the Polish factory worker who is picked out at random to be her alter ego?
  


You are absolutely correct, and these points have been brought up numerous times, by a few of us, to those who insist that Anna Anderson could not have been FS. Penny Wilson, who is the leading proponent of the "AA is not FS" theory, had even admitted in one of her posts that this could not have been a coincidence (this post most likely has already been deleted by her along with many others in a fit of anger). Unfortunately PW won't give an alternative explanation for this "coincidence", if she in fact has one.
It seems that those who want to prove that AA could not have been  FS would prefer to ignore the DNA results, or at least leave them out of the discussion. This of course is not possible to do if we are to look at this case critically, but when someone tries to point this out, they are often accused of having an agenda  ???.

This is what makes the discussion on this topic one of the most frustrating experiences for some of us  :P

Helen


Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: AGRBear on April 13, 2005, 07:26:39 PM
I don't deny the DNA testing.  

Most of us do not deny the DNA testing.

What we do is question the statement that  AA was the factory worker known as FS.

Why?

The DNA evidence is telling us that  AA is related to Gertrude S..  However, Gertrude and  FS may not have had the same mothers which means their mtDNA would not have been the same.

If this is true, then AA was related just to Gertrude's grandmother, Gertrude, her daughter and then to Karl Maucher.....

This. also, means that AA and Gertrude may have a different mtDNA than FS.

Pretty simple, really.

So, all we can do is wait and see what the genealogy records can show us then go forward from that point.

AGRBear
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Helen_Azar on April 14, 2005, 10:31:18 AM
Quote
The DNA evidence is telling us that  AA is related to Gertrude S..  However, Gertrude and  FS may not have had the same mothers which means their mtDNA would not have been the same.

If this is true, then AA was related just to Gertrude's grandmother, Gertrude, her daughter and then to Karl Maucher.....

This. also, means that AA and Gertrude may have a different mtDNA than FS.

Pretty simple, really.

So, all we can do is wait and see what the genealogy records can show us then go forward from that point.

AGRBear


AA's mtDNA matched Gertrude's maternal grandson's. This means that AA was maternally related to Gertrude. The chances of this being a random match are less than 1 in 8000, or less than 0.000125%, which is pretty much none. The fact about them having different mothers at this point is just pure speculation which has no proof. AA looked a lot like FS, AA appeared at the same time as FS dissapeared. What other evidence do we need as to whom AA really was?

If it looks like a duck and it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck, and it has the duck's DNA, believe me - it's a duck.  
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: AGRBear on April 14, 2005, 11:23:31 AM
We may have three ducks who walked and looked alike but that doesn't mean they were sisters.  

The mtDNA tells us to this point in time that AA wasn't GD Anastasia.

The mtDNA tells us that Gertrude, Karl Maucher and AA were related.

We do not have a separate sample of FS's mtDNA to match AA's mtDNA tested from hair and intestines.

If Gertrude and FS had the same mothers then we can assume there is a chain of mtDNA that is the same.  If Gertrude and FS did not have the same mothers than all we have is Gertrude and AA's mtDNA.  We do not have FS's if Gertrude and FS did not have the same mothers.

It doesn't make the DNA test wrong, it just means we'd have too look elsewhere for the answers as to who AA was and how was she related to Gertrude.

We'd also have to ask if Gertrude's and FS's mothers were related such as 1st cousins or 10th cousins and maybe as distantly as 25th cousin.

AGRBear
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Helen_Azar on April 14, 2005, 02:14:33 PM
Quote
 If Gertrude and FS had the same mothers then we can assume there is a chain of mtDNA that is the same.  If Gertrude and FS did not have the same mothers than all we have is Gertrude and AA's mtDNA.  


There is no reason for us to think that Gertrude and FS had different mothers. There would have been a reason for us to think so if AA's mtDNA and Carl Maucher's mtDNA did not match, but since it did match, why are we questioning that the original assumption was accurate? I'll tell you why: to try to prove that AA was not FS. That's the only reason. Well, that's not a good reason, we need some other compelling evidence of this, but there really is none. Unless it can be proven that their mothers were different, this is a moot point. The burden of proof lies with whomever is saying that they had different mothers, not with someone who is saying they had the same mothers.
Just because Gertrude's baptismal papers are missing, it does not prove anything, in fact, it doesn't even imply anything. Only if the DNA did not match would we have a reason to come up with the "different mothers" theory, but this of course is not the case, and we have no other compelling evidence that this is the case, so why is this even being seriously considered.  
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: AGRBear on April 14, 2005, 02:31:37 PM
In other threads, perhaps, but this thread isn't about to make this "moot" since it is about a speculation that if AA wasn't FS, So who WAS she, then?

AGRBear
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: jeremygaleaz on April 14, 2005, 02:49:06 PM
Quote
In other threads, perhaps, but this thread isn't about to make this "moot" since it is about a speculation that if AA wasn't FS, So who WAS she, then?

AGRBear


Bear, scroll back up to the top of the page and see who brought the half sister issue over to this thread.
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: AGRBear on April 14, 2005, 03:08:24 PM
I don't understand, jeremy?

If it's proven that AA wasn't FS because of a birth certificate then the question of this thread takes on a different meaning because it will be talking about new evidence rather than just speculating.

If it proves FS and Gertrude were full sisters then this thread will have a few more posts and we'll all go to other threads and continue other debates.

AGRBear
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: stepan on April 14, 2005, 04:04:40 PM
I know that long before the DNA testing some people believed that Anna Anderson was really a Romanov because of her amazing knowledge about the imperial court. And they thought that she was perhaps the result of the liaison between Nicholas and Matilde Khessinska. Princess Vera Konstantinovna said after a visit from the Manahans that "the woman was not Anastasia. But there was something strange with her. Maybe she was the result of some escapade."   That she was a Polish peasant-factory worker was absolutely impossible to believe for most people who met her.  One who believed in the Schanzkowska theory was Dmitry Leuchtenberg, the son of George Leuchtenberg with whom AA stayed in1927. I believe he(Dmitry) was present at the confrontation in Wasserburg  with Felix Schanzkowsky and that he was sure she recognized. him. Felix Yussopov also visited her at castle Seeon and believed she was a nervous crazy actress. What was typical with her case was the absolutely different opinions people had of her.
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: lexi4 on April 14, 2005, 11:02:43 PM
Stephan,
What is the Schanzkowska theory? Is that the theory that AA might have been the daughter of Nicolas and Matilde Khessinska?
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Olga on April 15, 2005, 12:06:13 AM
It's a crock.  ;)
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: stepan on April 15, 2005, 05:51:24 AM
Quote
Stephan,
What is the Schanzkowska theory? Is that the theory that AA might have been the daughter of Nicolas and Matilde Khessinska?


No ofcourse not!   :-[ They are two separate stories.  Maybe my post was confusing in this.  People used to discuss her case especially among Russian emigrees and the idea came up that she might be an illegitimate Romanov offspring.  But that was long before the result of the DNA test was made.  
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Helen_Azar on April 15, 2005, 07:14:20 AM
I just want to add again, that AA being someone who randomly matched Carl Maucher's mtDNA, is less than 1 chance in 8000, which is less than 0.000125%. Therefore, she could not have been some distant cousin whom no one even knew was related but who was nevertheless a maternal relative and just happened to randomly match Gertrude's mtDNA.

On the other hand, if she was a close cousin, why did they pick FS when they tried to prove AA's identity, when they could have easily picked this cousin instead and would not have to do any 'maneuvering" as claimed? Who really cared whether AA was FS, or FS's cousin, as long as she wasn't Anastasia. Would they really be that intent on proving specifically that she was FS for some weird reason? If she was really FS's missing cousin, then they could have just easily shown that and that would have been the end of that. BTW, was there a cousin of Gertrude and FS who went missing during the same time as FS dissapeared and AA appeared? If the answer is yes, then wouldn't someone have heard about that by now and figured it out?

So if you think about it, it comes down to this:

1. Either AA was in fact FS,

or

2. Some maternal relative of Gertrude Schankowska was purposefully planted there by someone for some reason, to pretend to be the Grand Duchess Anastasia, because someone back in the early 1920's somehow knew all about mtDNA and figured that in the 1990's DNA tests would be done on AA's intestine sample and would then match FS's relative, and that way AA can be accused of being FS,  ???

or

3. Against all odds the almost impossible happened and it was a completely random match with some distant relative, who by random chance also happened to look a lot like FS - practically a miracle due to the fact that there is only 0.000125% chance of a random DNA match happening.

I don't know about anyone else, but I tend to go with the most reasonable option.  The only thing that would make sense when you look at this evidence is if AA was FS, which in fact I am now convinced of, even if I wasn't 100% convinced earlier. The other evidence that implies the contrary must be mistaken or must have some other explanation.
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: AGRBear on April 15, 2005, 10:30:33 AM
We don't know if FS and Gertrude had the same mothers because we haven't seen the birth/bap. certificates, so, no one knows one way or the other.  Therefore, no evidence has been placed in front of us.  This possibility remains speculation.

I hate to break the news but a  certificate/certificates  just might tell us they did have different mothers.

As for AA and Gertrude ending up with the same mtDNA, well, I believe the word you're avoiding is called "coincidence" which occurs enough that a word was invented for things that happen randomly and chances of it occuring again is huge.  But, it does happen. daveK and his "clock" story provided us with just one example of "coincidence".  Remember?

Are you really suggesting if the certificate/certificates tell us FS and Gertrude did have different mothers that it's a mistake?  :o.

Okay, let's say Penny has given us the proof of a certificate and Gertrude is the daughter of Anton S.'s first wife and Gertrude is in fact not FS's full sister. [ This is just a "what if" scenario and no one is saying you have to believe it when replying.  But let's just say this is true.]  What kind of response will you really have to explain the mtDNA?  Will you sound like the AA followers who say, "It isn't possible." or will you look around for new possibilities?

AGRBear
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Annie on April 15, 2005, 11:55:26 AM
Quote
We don't know if FS and Gertrude had the same mothers because we haven't seen the birth/bap. certificates, so, no one knows one way or the other.  Therefore, no evidence has been placed in front of us.  This possibility remains speculation.


How convenient. Now it can never end and the game can go on!

Quote
I hate to break the news but a  certificate/certificates  just might tell us they did have different mothers.


Show me!

Quote
As for AA and Gertrude ending up with the same mtDNA, well, I believe the word you're avoiding is called "coincidence" which occurs enough that a word was invented for things that happen randomly and chances of it occuring again is huge.  But, it does happen. daveK and his "clock" story provided us with just one example of "coincidence".  Remember?


Remember Helen Azar's recent post that the chances of that are less than 0000.125%? Are you really that desperate? And adding to the fact that FS looked like AA and that they disappeared at the same time, I have to bring up the walk like a duck comment again.

Quote
Are you really suggesting if the certificate/certificates tell us FS and Gertrude did have different mothers that it's a mistake?  :o.


I said nothing of the kind, since there is no certificate. But I wonder if there is one, and it says they were whole sisters, that some will say it was falsified :P

Quote
Okay, let's say Penny has given us the proof of a certificate and Gertrude is the daughter of Anton S.'s first wife and Gertrude is in fact not FS's full sister. [ This is just a "what if" scenario and no one is saying you have to believe it when replying.  But let's just say this is true.]  What kind of response will you really have to explain the mtDNA?


I would seriously question the validity of such a document (as you would if it came out the other way!) I do think it's interesting that for awhile when this 'half sister' theory was being highly touted when seemed some believed the proof was within reach, and now that no proof now all of a sudden there is no birth record. I do wonder if maybe there was and it didn't say what it was supposed to and something happened to it! (no worse than your speculation, huh?) Or, if indeed there really is no certificate, (which could be true, as I said my aunt doesn't have one) then we will NEVER know so we will have to be satisfied with what we do have, or just keep playing games.
 

Quote
Will you sound like the AA followers who say, "It isn't possible." or will you look around for new possibilities?

AGRBear


Sorry but in this case I do not believe there is any more room left for other possibilities.

In other cases, I'm still open, like what happened to those 2 missing bodies?

I am not a cold skeptic by any means. I believe in ghosts, UFOs, lots of weirdness could be true. Strange things do happen and I find the unusual fascinating. However, this AA being someone other than FS thing just doesn't have a ghost of a chance anymore.
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Olga on April 15, 2005, 12:05:39 PM
Quote
I said nothing of the kind, since there is no certificate. But I wonder if there is one, and it says they were whole sisters, that some will say it was falsified :P


There are many scapegoats AGRBear could bring up for this. The Reds are by far her favourite.
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Olga on April 15, 2005, 12:12:53 PM
Quote
Okay, let's say Penny has given us the proof of a certificate and Gertrude is the daughter of Anton S.'s first wife and Gertrude is in fact not FS's full sister.


Why are you always relying on Penny for information? Can you not do your own research?
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: AGRBear on April 15, 2005, 12:17:33 PM
Quote

..[in part]...
I don't know about anyone else, but I tend to go with the most reasonable option.  The only thing that would make sense when you look at this evidence is if AA was FS, which in fact I am now convinced of, even if I wasn't 100% convinced earlier. The other evidence that implies the contrary must be mistaken or must have some other explanation.


>> The other evidence that implies the contrary must be mistaken or must have some other explanation.<<

It appears to me when you said  that  "...other evidence that implies the contrary must be a mistaken..." was also referring to a birth/bap. record if it is found.

Or are you reffering to the list of differences of AA and FS that I post every once in awhile?

Quote
Differences between AA and FS:

I. Photographs:
Photograph comparisons won't make everyone happy as to their looking alike....  

II.  Shoe sizes
FS wore shoes that were three sizes larger than AA
 AA wore shoes that were three sizes smaller than FS

Shoes sizes still doesn't accomplish any agreement even though at the trial  there  shown that there was three size difference.

III. Pregnancy
AA- Evidence of a pregnancy but no proof of when.  Claimed to have had a son.
FS- No pregnancy known.

IV. Scars.
FS -  no unusual scars remembered by family; no scars inflicted in factory accident
AA - scars which were claimed to have been inflicted by a bayonet;  small scar on finger claimed to have been from a door; scar from removal of a mole..... Some scar may have been caused by tb and surgery.  Penny mentioned that AA had a "grove" on the side of her head which may prove to be a injury of some kind had occured....

IIV. Height
FS is reported to have been 5'6", which is about 4 inches taller than AA - Helen was th source on this fact.
AA was about 5'2"" tall

IIIV.  Knowledge of Languages
FS - knew German and Katchoubian.  Did not know Russian or English.
AA - knew Russian, German and English

IX.  Ears pierced
FS - one retouched photo shows earrings and pierced ears but this may be in error
FS -Some said she did not have pierced ears
AA - doesn't appear to have pierced ears but some said she did

Anyone have anything to add?

AGRBear


AGRBear
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: AGRBear on April 15, 2005, 12:20:14 PM
Quote

There are many scapegoats AGRBear could bring up for this. The Reds are by far her favourite.


I don't know what Reds have to do with  birth/bap. certificiates.

Quote

Why are you always relying on Penny for information? Can you not do your own research?


It is obvious that you do not know how expensive it is to hire a professional genealogist who can read, write and speak the various languages needed to go through records in foreign villages, translate and then report their findings.

On another thread,  I've given people who do want to do there own search URLs where they can begin just such a search.  I, however, will accept Penny's findings on this subject.

AGRBear
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Helen_Azar on April 15, 2005, 06:47:08 PM
Quote
I hate to break the news but a  certificate/certificates  just might tell us they did have different mothers.


Yeah, and the earth just might be hit by a meteor tonight and we all go up in smoke  ::). Fact is, there is no certificate that says they had different mothers. There is no reason to think that they had different mothers - the only reason this was even brought up as a possibilty was to try to somehow prove that AA was not FS.  
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: rskkiya on April 15, 2005, 08:15:35 PM
Occamm's Razor seems to have it...Oh well.

Sarcasm warning -- Sarcasm warning


WWWWEEEELLLL ...  Maybe angels do dance on pinheads - and maybe hobgoblins/freemasons/aliens from Altair VI have the real DNA {hehehe} but until we know about the "oft hinted at but never revealed" new and secret information about the "TRUTH" we have to trust the materials we have ...

Warning Over


    To all doubters of the FS AA connection, you may have your reasons for questioning this and please know that I will gladly agree with you when and only when you can show me the evidence.

rskkiya
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Helen_Azar on April 15, 2005, 08:48:06 PM
Bear, in case you are wondering what Occam's Razor has to do with anything:

Occam's Razor is a logical principle attributed to the medieval philosopher William of Occam (or Ockham). The principle states that one should not make more assumptions than the minimum needed. This principle is often called the principle of parsimony. It underlies all scientific modelling and theory building. It admonishes us to choose from a set of otherwise equivalent models of a given phenomenon the simplest one. In any given model, Occam's Razor helps us to "shave off" those concepts, variables or constructs that are not really needed to explain the phenomenon. By doing that, developing the model will become much easier, and there is less chance of introducing inconsistencies, ambiguities and redundancies.
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: lexi4 on April 15, 2005, 11:23:59 PM
I am with you Helen. We don't have anything that tells us the two did have different mothers. From what I have been able to tell, this all stems from some obscure reference made by someone, I'm not even sure here. I think AA was coached by her supporters. I have no idea what their motives were. Maybe they thought there was something to be gained or maybe they couldn't deal with the reality that the IF was executed. I don't know. If someone comes up with any real evidence regarding different mothers, I will stand corrected. But I am not going to hold by breath on this one. I don't know who AA was, but I know who she wasn't. :)
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Olga on April 16, 2005, 06:25:15 AM
Lexi4, we're not talking about Anastasia Nikolaevna, but Franziska Schankowska. The tiniest minority of people think there were two mothers in the Schankowsky household (but not at the same time).
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: AGRBear on April 16, 2005, 10:36:31 AM
Let me see if I can get some of you to understand.  Because you're having a hard time.

This is Penny's thread.

Penny wanted to know if AA was NOT  FS then who could AA have been?

Very simple question.

And it is true, we do not have a birth certificate for Gerturde.

It is true, we're not talking about DNA.

Now, please tell me, what is it that some of you don't understand
???

It it the word:
So?
Or is it
WAS?
Or is it
She?
Or is it
then?

Of course, I know you understand the question  ;).

Hey, you know what it is that some of you are trouble having with this topic?  Gosh, how could I be such a cotton brain bear!?8) Some of you think AA is FS and FS is AA   ::)  [Bear gives a huge sigh.]  I know.  I know.  But I'm sorry to say  :-[, this isn't the topic.

TOPIC PELASE.

AAGRBear
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Helen_Azar on April 16, 2005, 10:41:25 AM
Quote
This is Penny's thread.
Penny wanted to know if AA was NOT  FS then who could AA have been? Very simple question.


Well, the very simple answer is that realistically speaking, based on strong scientific evidence, it appears that AA could not have been anyone other than FS. I am sorry that it is not as interesting of an answer as you would have liked.
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Olga on April 16, 2005, 10:43:38 AM
God, you are patronising, AGRBear.  >:(
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Helen_Azar on April 16, 2005, 10:53:43 AM
Quote
Let me see if I can get some of you to understand.  Because you're having a hard time.

This is Penny's thread.

Penny wanted to know if AA was NOT  FS then who could AA have been?

Very simple question.

And it is true, we do not have a birth certificate for Gerturde.

It is true, we're not talking about DNA.

Now, please tell me, what is it that some of you don't understand
???

It it the word:
So?
Or is it
WAS?
Or is it
She?
Or is it
then?

Of course, I know you understand the question  ;).

Hey, you know what it is that some of you are trouble having with this topic?  Gosh, how could I be such a cotton brain bear!?8) Some of you think AA is FS and FS is AA   ::)  [Bear gives a huge sigh.]  I know.  I know.  But I'm sorry to say  :-[, this isn't the topic.
TOPIC PELASE.

AAGRBear


Yes, if you continue in this tone, you may scare off some newbies or make some posters want to leave the forum! Practice what you preach, Bear.
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: AGRBear on April 16, 2005, 11:08:22 AM
 ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

I'm laughing quite hard.

Let me catch my breath.
[Bear giggles]

Now, let me wipe away my tears so I can see the screen.

[Bear trying not to giggle.]

I can't say this old bear has ever been accused of scaring away newbies and I find the accusation quite humerous.

Could we please, please, please, get back to the subject.  

SO WHO WAS SHE, THEN?

AGRBear

Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Helen_Azar on April 16, 2005, 11:11:23 AM
Quote
 humerous


That would be "humorous" or "humourous" if you are in Great Britain.
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Olga on April 16, 2005, 11:15:50 AM
This is quite strange. I've never seen the Bear express emotion. I do believe this is a first, people.
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: AGRBear on April 16, 2005, 11:46:58 AM
I am flattered that old bear has become the subject but like I've asked:  

Topic, Please.

So, who WAS she, then? if she wasn't AA or FS ???

AGRBear
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Helen_Azar on April 16, 2005, 12:09:11 PM
Quote
So, who WAS she, then? if she wasn't AA or FS ???


If who wasn't AA or FS?  ???
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Annie on April 16, 2005, 12:12:56 PM
You want topic, please? How about this for an answer: after months of discussing this NO ONE has been able to come up with even one name, one viable candidate for who she was if she wasn't FS, just as there has been no 'real killer' surface in the OJ case after 11 years. I have seen nothing presented that would even make me wonder if there was a different person, everything we've seen keeps coming right back full circle. The likelihood she was anyone else is about as high as the likelihood that I am really Anastasia's granddaughter. So I would conclude that AA really was FS after all. It may have been an interesting question in the beginning, but with nothing to contradict what we already know, (especially the dna) it looks like we have our answer. And don't say we never gave this a chance, look how long the thread is!
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Helen_Azar on April 16, 2005, 12:16:49 PM
Quote
How about this for an answer: after months of discussing this NO ONE has been able to come up with even one name, one viable candidate for who she was if she wasn't FS...


And this is because... she was FS! There is no one else she could have been and this is why no one was able to come with any other name!

Quote
...just as there has been no 'real killer' surface in the OJ case after 11 years.


There was no "real" killer surfacing for OJ because OJ was the killer. There is no other candidate surfacing for the identity of AA because she was FS!  ;D
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: AGRBear on April 16, 2005, 12:19:01 PM
Quote

If who wasn't AA or FS?  ???


;D ;D ;D

That was good, Helen.

If AA wasn't FS and if FS wasn't AA then who was AA?  THE TOPIC.

I don't have the slightest idea.  8)

This doesn't stop me from speculating.  ;D

Bear is having a fun morning on this bright and shinny "Satgrrday", hope all of you are, too.

AGRBear
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Helen_Azar on April 16, 2005, 12:40:33 PM
Quote
This doesn't stop me from speculating.  ;D


So where does the speculation end and acceptance of the "truth" begin? I thought you were big on "the truth".
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: AGRBear on April 16, 2005, 01:35:10 PM
"Truth ever lovely--since the world began
The foe of tyrants, and the friend of Man."

Campell, THE PLEASURES OF HOPE.


Speculation is to wonder and ponder and investigate possibilities, which may or may not lead us to old and new truths.

I for one would never eliminate "speculation", which by the way, is how and why this topic  "So who WAS she, then?" was created.

AGRBear
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: rskkiya on April 16, 2005, 05:17:20 PM
Quote

And this is because... she was FS! There is no one else she could have been and this is why no one was able to come with any other name!
 There is no other candidate surfacing for the identity of AA because she was FS!  ;D


    We look at the evidence - then we run around in a circle - and then look at the evidence some more!
    As far as I can see until we get the 'new information this topic is rather a glorious game of "mental m@st&rbati*n".
    Without the ever hinted at secret id/unknown sources/ new records - this is not turning into a very useful discussion, sadly it seems to be getting even more pointless...
     Agrbear can joke and make pithy comments and  thick/slow/fuzzy/bear headed statements all that she wishes, but she has not yet offered us any reason for her doubts - other than the fact that she likes to "question" things...  :(
     I give up.

rskkiya
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: jeremygaleaz on April 16, 2005, 07:37:53 PM
Quote

     We look at the evidence - then we run around in a circle - and then look at the evidence some more!
     As far as I can see until we get the 'new information this topic is rather a glorious game of "mental m@st&rbati*n".
     Without the ever hinted at secret id/unknown sources/ new records - this is not turning into a very useful discussion, sadly it seems to be getting even more pointless...
      Agrbear can joke and make pithy comments and  thick/slow/fuzzy/bear headed statements all that she wishes, but she has not yet offered us any reason for her doubts - other than the fact that she likes to "question" things...  :(
      I give up.

rskkiya


Not only that, I've come to the conclusion that perhaps some of the people involved in the discussion on the survivor threads are several french fries short of a happy meal, or just in very dddeeeepppp denial ! ;)

It's best not to get involved in the conversations (for me, anyway) as I find the only outcome is to become more frustrated. And I sense that the other side enjoys that, so why give them the pleasure?

I'll continue to post items and answer questions if I can. But reason and debate with some of these people? I give up too.

Sadly, I'm starting to see why war may forever be a part of human existence. If "Anna Anderson" was an issue that mattered, or was of any importance, (which she isn't),  the entire planet would probably have been nuked by now!
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Helen_Azar on April 16, 2005, 08:36:19 PM
Jeremy, you are absolutely right as I have come to the same conclusion. There are many other interesting threads out there, and just exchanging info here would be enough, arguing any points is useless and is like beating one's head against the wall. Anyone who is reasonable enough already knows the answers, those who are not, never will.
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: lexi4 on April 16, 2005, 10:01:59 PM
Jeremy and Helen,
I agree with you both. As I have already said, I don't have to know who AA was. I know who she was not. She was not the GD Anastasia.
But who am I? I think Elvis is dead too.  ;D
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: AGRBear on April 17, 2005, 11:36:53 AM
Let's say Penny has given us the proof of a certificate and it does tell us that Gertrude is the daughter of Anton S.'s first wife and Gertrude is in fact not FS's full sister. [ This is just a "what if" scenario and no one is saying you have to believe it when replying.  But let's just say this is true.]  What kind of response will you really have to explain the mtDNA?  Will you sound like the AA followers who say, "It isn't possible." or will you look around for new possibilities?
 
AGRBear
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Annie on April 17, 2005, 12:15:38 PM
I would personally have to see it verified by other sources before I would accept its validity.

At this point, my guess (or theory) is that:

a) there is no certificate and never will be

or possibly this (conspiracy type) theory:

b) one was found but backed up the whole sister story, and thus it's being claimed it doesn't exist by those who want the speculation to go on. (sure is funny some people were so sure about this and promised evidence forthcoming, then all of a sudden there is no certificate, and it's all died down from everyone but Bear ???  ;) )

But I don't believe the half sister thing, I never did. It was all just blown out of proportion by those trying to find a way to doubt the DNA.
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: AGRBear on April 17, 2005, 01:14:14 PM
Quote
Let's say Penny has given us the proof of a certificate and it does tell us that Gertrude is the daughter of Anton S.'s first wife and Gertrude is in fact not FS's full sister. [ This is just a "what if" scenario and no one is saying you have to believe it when replying.  But let's just say this is true.]  What kind of response will you really have to explain the mtDNA?  Will you sound like the AA followers who say, "It isn't possible." or will you look around for new possibilities?
 
AGRBear


It appears that some of you protest to much and so, I must assume, you are afraid to answer.  Why?  I don't know.  It is, afterall, just a hyptothetical question in a thread of speculation which cannot possibly  create any serious blows to what so many of you view from your "box" sitting up there on those high rocks.  
;D

AGRBear
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Lanie on April 17, 2005, 01:24:04 PM
Quote

It appears that some of you protest to much and so, I must assume, you are afraid to answer.  Why?  I don't know.  It is, afterall, just a hyptothetical question in a thread of speculation which cannot possibly  create any serious blows to what so many of you view from your "box" sitting up there on those high rocks.  
;D

AGRBear


See, Bear, the thing about DNA...it is or it isn't.  This half-sister nonsense obviously isn't true since the mtDNA matched.  It would not have matched if they were half-sisters with different mothers.  It's that simple, that's how it works. :)
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Annie on April 17, 2005, 01:37:30 PM
Exactly, Lanie.

But you know that Bear believes the DNA tests were rigged, intestines switched, etc.  :P
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: AGRBear on April 17, 2005, 02:11:40 PM
Quote

..[in part]...

 It would not have matched if they were half-sisters with different mothers.  It's that simple, that's how it works. :)



Hmmmm, could this be one of the reasons I'm waiting to hear from Penny about the birth/bap. records???

AGRBear
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Helen_Azar on April 17, 2005, 02:29:39 PM
Quote
Let's say Penny has given us the proof of a certificate and it does tell us that Gertrude is the daughter of Anton S.'s first wife and Gertrude is in fact not FS's full sister.


If Penny produced this certificate, and that's a HUGE "IF", and we could then somehow make sure that this certificate is authentic - then we would have to figure out what sort of a relationship FS had to Gertrude. The existance of such certificate wouldn't mean that AA was not FS, it would just mean that they probably had maternally related mothers.

But since there is no such certificate, and most likely never will be, then there is no point for such speculations.
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: AGRBear on April 17, 2005, 02:46:41 PM
Helen finally gave a reply I was hoping to see.

Quote

..in part]...

If Penny produced this certificate, and that's a HUGE "IF", and we could then somehow make sure that this certificate is authentic - then we would have to figure out what sort of a relationship FS had to Gertrude. The existance of such certificate wouldn't mean that AA was not FS, it would just mean that they probably had maternally related mothers.



Thanks.

The mtDNA tests does allow the possibility of AA's, Gertrude's and FS's mothers to be cousins through their mothers' lineage.

AGRBear
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: rskkiya on April 17, 2005, 03:59:33 PM
Quote
Helen finally gave a reply I was hoping to see.


Thanks.

The mtDNA tests does allow the possibility of AA's, Gertrude's and FS's mothers to be cousins through their mothers' lineage.

AGRBear


IF -IF -IF -IF -  :-[
I know -- lets all run counterclockwise rather than clockwise -- then it will start to make sence!

   Agrb, we can all happily discuss any real evidence when we can see it and only when we can see it!  All the rest is pointless speculation.


{What if FS was really an "alien"....HMMMM.... from Alpha Centari maybe? Or from Tantoine? AHA ! An EWOK that's what Agrbear is looking for -- a little teddy alien bear!} ;)

rskkiya
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Helen_Azar on April 17, 2005, 04:28:26 PM
Quote
The mtDNA tests does allow the possibility of AA's, Gertrude's and FS's mothers to be cousins through their mothers' lineage.


No Bear, IF this certificate of "different mothers" was ever produced, it would just mean that the mother of Gertrude and the mother of FS were maternally related. This would not mean that AA was not FS. AA and FS would still be one and the same person.

But we have no certificate like this, and I seriously doubt that it will ever be produced. And this should be the end of that story, because as rsskyia said, if you really want to know the "truth", as you so often claim, you should only consider real evidence, not made-up evidence.
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: AGRBear on April 17, 2005, 05:00:35 PM
IF AA is NOT FS then the following is correct:

The mtDNA tests does allow the possibility of AA's, Gertrude's and FS's mothers to be cousins through their mothers' lineage.

AGRBear
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: jeremygaleaz on April 17, 2005, 10:29:02 PM
Quote

IF -IF -IF -IF -  :-[I know -- lets all run counterclockwise rather than clockwise -- then it will start to make sence!


Yes, this  is just like that scene out of  "Alice In Wonderland" where everyone is running around in circles on the beach..... ???

Or, perhaps,  we're all trapped forever at a never ending tea party , hosted by -you know who -as the Mad Hatter, and AGRBear as the March Hare... ;)

But who then to play the Queen ("off with his head!") of Hearts?

Well, a very merry unbirthday to all, but ,perhaps for me, enough is enough. ;)
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Helen_Azar on April 18, 2005, 06:46:49 AM
Quote
IF AA is NOT FS then the following is correct: The mtDNA tests does allow the possibility of AA's, Gertrude's and FS's mothers to be cousins through their mothers' lineage.


Yes this is correct, just as long as you keep in mind that the chance of this being the case (AA not being FS but another random distant maternal relative) is only about 0.000125%, which is practically ZERO.

P.S. (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v152/WuvDaNick/banghead.gif)

Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: AGRBear on April 18, 2005, 02:22:13 PM
Quote
IF AA is NOT FS then the following is correct:

The mtDNA tests does allow the possibility of AA's, Gertrude's and FS's mothers to be cousins through their mothers' lineage.

AGRBear



Quote

Yes this is correct, just as long as you keep in mind that the chance of this being the case (AA not being FS but another random distant maternal relative) is only about 0.000125%, which is practically ZERO.

P.S. (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v152/WuvDaNick/banghead.gif)



If it's possible then it can not be "zero".

AGRBear  ;D
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Helen_Azar on April 18, 2005, 02:46:31 PM
Quote
If it's possible then it can not be "zero".
 

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v152/WuvDaNick/banghead.gif)(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v152/WuvDaNick/banghead.gif)(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v152/WuvDaNick/banghead.gif)
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Annie on April 19, 2005, 10:47:07 AM
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v152/WuvDaNick/banghead.gif)

and a few more that bear brings to mind


(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v152/WuvDaNick/1eyebrow.gif)  (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v152/WuvDaNick/1huh.gif) (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v152/WuvDaNick/1tsk.gif) (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v152/WuvDaNick/scream.gif)

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v152/WuvDaNick/sigh.gif)
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Mgmstl on April 19, 2005, 11:33:03 AM
Yes Jeremy and I have always wondered how many sandwiches your picnic basket is short of also.. more than once.   >:(

Personally I think the DNA fanatics are on some kind of jihad...
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: jeremygaleaz on April 19, 2005, 12:01:48 PM
Quote
Yes Jeremy and I have always wondered how many sandwiches your picnic basket is short of also.. more than once.   >:(

Personally I think the DNA fanatics are on some kind of jihad...


Welcome back to the Wonderland tea party/ beach run Michael G. Do you take sugar with your beverage? ;) ::)
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: AGRBear on April 19, 2005, 12:04:00 PM
Michale, hadn't you noticed, they are little heads banging against the wall of truth which we constantly remind them is still standing.

Heads of people who don't want to stay on topic>>(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v152/WuvDaNick/banghead.gif) <<Wall of truth


;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

So back on topic:

So, who Was she, then?

If AA wasn't  FS and FS wasn't AA _________  ______.

You're supose to fill in the blanks about who you think AA could have been.

Come on, try it.  I promise it won't hurt to speculate.

AGRBear
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Annie on April 19, 2005, 12:23:39 PM
bear, as I posted a few days ago, this has been dragging on for MONTHS and there are NO other leads, just as there is no real killer in the OJ case! No one has come up with even one viable candidate, even a name, just wild guesses of a  'Cheka plant' or an indentical cousin! Could it be the reason there is no one else is because we have our woman, and her name was FS? And again, don't say anyone was 'closed minded' or 'in a box' or didn't give this a chance, look at the size of this thread!!! Barring some earthshaking revelation (which ISN'T coming because it doesn't exist) this case is closed! We gave it a shot, but it's over!
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: AGRBear on April 19, 2005, 01:43:32 PM
You are probably right Annie.  25 pages is long enough.

There can be absolutely  no reason to continue to look around for possible answers.  Why would we want to know who AA was if she wasn't FS?

Silly old Bear.
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Mgmstl on April 19, 2005, 01:47:35 PM
Sorry Jeremy I only accept drinks from friends... ;D ;)
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: jeremygaleaz on April 19, 2005, 01:51:36 PM
Quote
Sorry Jeremy I only accept drinks from friends... ;D ;)


I'm heartbroken at your refusal!  ::)

Things are not going well very well for you today, are they Michael?

Perhaps you would like to take any personal problems with me over to PM ? Thank you!  ;)
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Mgmstl on April 19, 2005, 02:30:50 PM
No Jeremy, things are fine today, why do you ask? ::)

I just come back to find the DNA jihadists referring to people that don't believe as the do, as crazy, a little off the beam, etc...So I just fire back a few rounds to keep things in order, that's all.   ;D ;D
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Michelle on May 08, 2005, 09:26:16 PM
Yes, Micheal, I'm sick of the insults too.  >:(
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Annie on May 08, 2005, 10:03:28 PM
I've been sick of them for a very long time :(

(note the term 'jihadist' in his last post- is that not an insult?) :P
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Lanie on May 08, 2005, 10:17:25 PM
Quote
I've been sick of them for a very long time :(

(note the term 'jihadist' in his last post- is that not an insult?) :P


I jus take it all lightly with a grain of salt, the only way to stay sane.  So we can joke about being DNA terrorists now.  :-*
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Mgmstl on May 09, 2005, 02:14:32 AM
Quote
I've been sick of them for a very long time :(

(note the term 'jihadist' in his last post- is that not an insult?) :P


Somebody must be very bored, since they can't get an argument they try to bait & start them by responding to month old posts..... NEXT :o :o :o
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Annie on May 09, 2005, 06:48:16 AM
Quote

Somebody must be very bored, since they can't get an argument they try to bait & start them by responding to month old posts..... NEXT :o :o :o


Did you bother to notice it was Michelle who bumped the thread?
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Annie on May 09, 2005, 06:51:09 AM
Quote
Yes, Micheal, I'm sick of the insults too.  >:(


See, this is what I responded to, note the date and time, bumped yesterday, before my post. So you see Michael, your comment was inaccurate and pointless.
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: etonexile on May 09, 2005, 07:35:11 AM
Quote
No Jeremy, things are fine today, why do you ask? ::)

I just come back to find the DNA jihadists referring to people that don't believe as the do, as crazy, a little off the beam, etc...So I just fire back a few rounds to keep things in order, that's all.   ;D ;D


DNA science is a relatively new technique....some folk don't understand it and can't quite accept it...not unlike the ferment over finger printing in the late 19th century.We now generally understand this process and accept it as evidence. DNA will be better understood and accepted by the public with time...

I hope we can all behave as ladies and gentlemen in this wonderful forum....
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Mgmstl on May 09, 2005, 08:20:07 AM
Quote

See, this is what I responded to, note the date and time, bumped yesterday, before my post. So you see Michael, your comment was inaccurate and pointless.


No it wasn't inaaccurate & pointless, it was accurate and entirely to the point, as I saw Michelle "bumped" the thread, which of course didn't matter, but as usual you had to add more than your two cents worth in trying to stir the pot.   ::)

P.S.  I also KNEW you would be up early to stir it some more, and what your response would be.  I am suprised though that the term hate wasn't thrown in a few times for effect.  :)
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Annie on May 09, 2005, 09:17:15 AM
Quote

No it wasn't inaaccurate & pointless, it was accurate and entirely to the point, as I saw Michelle "bumped" the thread, which of course didn't matter,


No, it was inaccurate and pointless, because you accused me of being 'bored' and digging up fights in old threads, while I was not the one who bumped the old thread making a rude comment. "Of course it doesn't matter" you say, well, that just proves your ignorant bias, that if someone is on your 'side' they can do no wrong, it must always be the sinister plot of someone who doesn't agree with you!



Quote
usual you had to add more than your two cents worth in trying to stir the pot.   ::)

P.S.  I also KNEW you would be up early to stir it some more, and what your response would be.  I am suprised though that the term hate wasn't thrown in a few times for effect.  :)


Right back at ya, buddy. Look in the mirror, you did it too!


Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Mgmstl on May 09, 2005, 09:33:08 AM
Quote

No, it was inaccurate and pointless, because you accused me of being 'bored' and digging up fights in old threads, while I was not the one who bumped the old thread making a rude comment. "Of course it doesn't matter" you say, well, that just proves your ignorant bias, that if someone is on your 'side' they can do no wrong, it must always be the sinister plot of someone who doesn't agree with you!



Right back at ya, buddy. Look in the mirror, you did it too!






No it was accurate & concise in reference to you & to your motives as you had to chime in to start your usual round of stirring the pot.  If you are tired of the insults then my dear, my suggestion to you is to stop inciting the problem that leads to the insults.... Oh what playground responses: "I'm rubber you're glue..look in the mirror..."  

Get over yourself and your over dramatization of the issues here with this "sinister plot" garbage.  I see you stayed away from hate & hateful this time and are down to sinister, could it be that I just don't agree with you, and you can't accept that fact? This is just the same old garbage from you just to get something started.  I see that nothing will EVER change, so I am going back to ignoring you for the sake of what is best for this survivor thread. 8) 8)
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Annie on May 09, 2005, 10:09:37 AM
Quote



No it was accurate & concise in reference to you & to your motives as you had to chime in to start your usual round of stirring the pot.  If you are tired of the insults then my dear, my suggestion to you is to stop inciting the problem that leads to the insults.... Oh what playground responses: "I'm rubber you're glue..look in the mirror..."  



HAHAHAHA!! Can't you see you are doing EXACTLY what you are accusing me of?! Who's stirring the pot? Who's fighting? Is it only me? Get real!


If I were FA I'd close this thread, not just because of this garbage, but because it's too long and takes too long to load and locks up some people's computers. (mine too)
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: AGRBear on May 09, 2005, 11:05:02 AM
No more insults and DNA on this thread
:P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P

TOPIC PLEASE!

So, who WAS she, then?

If AA wasn't FS then who was she?



AGRBear
Title: Re: So who WAS she, then?
Post by: Forum Admin on May 09, 2005, 11:15:48 AM
Annie, I've said before if you think a thread is too long, start a new one yourself...I don't have to start all new threads...

but
THREAD LOCKED due to my zero tolerance policy for this personal attack garbage.  Y'all can thank Annie and Michael G for that.

FA