Author Topic: Re: New DNA article...  (Read 14624 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline _Rodger_

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 53
  • I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
    • View Profile
Re: New DNA article...
« Reply #15 on: March 14, 2004, 10:33:05 PM »
I watched 'The Mystery of the Last Tsar this evening.

It included actual video of the removal of the remains in question from the Ekaterinburg region gravesite.

What I noticed is the immediate vicinity was very muddy, with substantial stands of aspen and conifers in the area.

These trees cannot grow in permafrost.

This fact strengthens Knight's assertion that the extremely long DNA chains were the product of contamination, not preservation in permanent ice.
WARNING!!!!  This post may be hazardous to one's sense of things.  Read with caution.

Offline BobAtchison

  • Moderator
  • Knyaz
  • *****
  • Posts: 896
    • View Profile
    • The Alexander Palace
Re: New DNA article...
« Reply #16 on: March 22, 2004, 12:20:19 PM »
That just doesn't hold water.  I have seen the remains myself and met with the entire Russian team.  The evidence is solid, rock solid

They are the Romanovs.

Bob

Offline JM

  • Graf
  • ***
  • Posts: 406
    • View Profile
Re: New DNA article...
« Reply #17 on: March 22, 2004, 01:21:29 PM »
I was just wondering what the American teams view is on everything.

Offline BobAtchison

  • Moderator
  • Knyaz
  • *****
  • Posts: 896
    • View Profile
    • The Alexander Palace
Re: New DNA article...
« Reply #18 on: March 22, 2004, 03:04:33 PM »
How ridiculous.

I met with Gely Ryabov years ago on this - then with Avdonin and all of the people in Yekaterinburg, I have met with Soloviev several times and with the entire forensics team in Petersburg.  I have seen the remains with my own eyes - they aren't faked.  I have seen all of the documention - vast amounts of it.  You are telling me this was faked in some vast conspiracy?  I KNOW these people.  I cannot tell you how insane that sounds.

You must mean something else.

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

Offline _Rodger_

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 53
  • I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
    • View Profile
Re: New DNA article...
« Reply #19 on: March 22, 2004, 07:47:52 PM »
Bob, have you read the Gill paper?

He claims to have derived DNA 'almost as good as from fresh blood' from bones he himself described as in a severely degraded condition.  NOBODY experienced in DNA forensics other than those who had an interest in the Gill results believe that this can be reliably done.

And furthermore, can you look at old skeletons and tell who they were?  I can't.

Do royal skeletons have a stamp on them from God telling them apart from regular folk like you and me?

Bob, you're smarter than this.   ::)
WARNING!!!!  This post may be hazardous to one's sense of things.  Read with caution.

Offline JM

  • Graf
  • ***
  • Posts: 406
    • View Profile
Re: New DNA article...
« Reply #20 on: March 23, 2004, 04:07:53 PM »
Interesting . . .

Offline rjt

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 49
    • View Profile
Re: New DNA article...
« Reply #21 on: June 11, 2004, 07:33:18 AM »
<<Jumping up and down, waving arm like schoolboy>>

Ooh, ooh, I have a couple of questions!

[Before I begin: Please forgive me as the recovery/identification of the relics are rather a new subject for me so I am not alltogether up to speed. Thank you in advance.]

Q1.  Re: Olga Kulikovsky-Romanov's interview excerpted here:

                           http://www.roadtoemmaus.net/12w2003.html

Does anyone know what she means about Prince Nicholas Romanov's behaviour at a press conference at the time of the Tsar's interment?

Q2. Re: Same article. How valid are Mrs. Kulikovsky's objections to the manner in which the "matching" was achieved? How sustainable are the findings?

Q3. Re: Same article. The Regaev tests--anyone know about them?

Q4: Re: Same article. Were relatives of the retainers (not the IF) contacted and/or tested for match?

Q5: Is there a generally accepted theory as to why the Tsarevich and one of the Grand Duchesses are missing? (Not suggesting they survived the assassination, just wondering to where those particular relics may have disappeared.)

Is it an alarm clock or a calling that gets you out of bed each day? --Christopher Maluck, The Matthew Shepard Foundation

Offline C_Beard

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 3
  • I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
    • View Profile
Re: New DNA article...
« Reply #22 on: June 11, 2004, 08:50:52 AM »
I am no DNA expert but I have to agree with Bob here. It is too much to believe that the previous results were all false and the whole validation of the bodies is some vast conspiracy.

I do believe that an open mind shoul be kept, however. If the finger does not match with Prince Philip's blood, then either it is not GD Elizabeth's finger or Philip's blood sample had been tampered with.

One easy way to find out - get another blood sample.

I must admit I am often amazed at the sheer arrogance of scientists. It appears that they care little about the actual identification of the remains, and more about their own reputations.

Offline AGRBear

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 6611
  • The road to truth is the best one to travel.
    • View Profile
    • Romanov's  Russia
Re: New DNA article...
« Reply #23 on: July 01, 2004, 06:59:01 PM »
The answer is so simple.  If the tests were properly done than the finger isn't GD Elisabeth's.

It's the questions which follow that are complex.    If it's not the GDuchess than who's?  Or more importantly, where is the body/bones of GD Elisabeth?

AGRBear
"What is true by lamplight is not always true by sunlight."

Joubert, Pensees, No. 152

rskkiya

  • Guest
Re: New DNA article...
« Reply #24 on: July 01, 2004, 08:09:39 PM »
AGRBear,

Goodness, I thought that the poor woman had been buried in Jerusalem.

R