Theories About the Survial of the Imperial Family ... What if?

[ISteinke]

To the "anti-anna" people on this thread:

    The last several posts have been silly and stupid and flippant. In short, they have been intended to mock rather than discuss issues. I am becoming really angry at your clique [on this forum].  Every time someone of the opposite viewpoint starts a serious thread to discuss issues you guys start a fight, either that or turn the whole thing into a silly, stupid mockery.
    If you guys really believe that Anna Anderson's claim was preposterous show some real evidence, rather than just jibes intended to back up a few pieces of stupid tissue in a pietri dish. Otherwise, either be respectful or stay out of forums that your academic opponents take seriously.

[Belochka]

If for arguments sake, Alexei did have some kind of pediatric form of leukemia, such as Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia, which is the most common form in young children, the prognosis is very poor, if left untreated. The young patient would have deteriorated very quickly. In other words Alexei's condition would have been progressively worse over the course of his life.

He survived thirteen years ....

Alexei's episodes were periodic, sometimes bleeding was spontaneous (first observed soon after birth) and on other occassions, his episodes followed physical trauma.

Furthermore he would have been prone to numerous infections due to a deficiency of mature white blood cells which fight disease.

Alexei's symptomology profile does not fit anything else except hemophilia.

[ISteinke]

Good point, Belochka!

[helenazar]

    If you guys really believe that Anna Anderson's claim was preposterous show some real evidence, rather than just jibes intended to back up a few pieces of stupid tissue in a pietri dish. Otherwise, either be respectful or stay out of forums that your academic opponents take seriously.

Dear ISteinke,

I agree that noone should be mocking other people's opinions, but in all due respect, DNA evidence is not just a "few pieces of stupid tissue in a pietri dish", it happens to be very powerful legitimate evidence that is much more accurate than any other evidence we ever encountered, historically or scientifically. If everyone felt as you do, 90%+ of criminal cases in this country would have to be thrown out and murderers and rapists would go free. Just because you don't understand something, please do not disregard it, just try to learn more about it.

Helen A.

[Annie]

To the "anti-anna" people on this thread:

     The last several posts have been silly and stupid and flippant. In short, they have been intended to mock rather than discuss issues. I am becoming really angry at your clique [on this forum].  Every time someone of the opposite viewpoint starts a serious thread to discuss issues you guys start a fight, either that or turn the whole thing into a silly, stupid mockery.

We are not a 'clique'- it was just something that occured out of current ideas. We have never conspired together for anything else in the past!

If you guys really believe that Anna Anderson's claim was preposterous show some real evidence, rather than just jibes intended to back up a few pieces of stupid tissue in a pietri dish. Otherwise, either be respectful or stay out of forums that your academic opponents take seriously.

Like the last poster said, the DNA is powerful evidence. Other evidence to me is very different looking bone structure of the face, her questionable language skills, her memories which could easily have been fed to her by others who knew the family, and the likeliness (now backed up by the lawyer letter Stepan posted) that FS's family denied her to avoid responsibility for a troublesome sister, and not to spoil her 'career' as a claimant. Also the fact I don't believe her aunts and uncles would have denied a real Anastasia. There is nothing about AA that is not easily explained away to me. (this after examining the story some 30 years) I have listed them all in various other threads so I don't want to get into it again here but don't accuse me of not basing my opinion on evidence.

[LisaDavidson]

With respect, discussions about Anna Anderson belong in another topic area. Please move this discussion there.

[olga]

To the "anti-anna" people on this thread:

     The last several posts have been silly and stupid and flippant. In short, they have been intended to mock rather than discuss issues. I am becoming really angry at your clique [on this forum].  Every time someone of the opposite viewpoint starts a serious thread to discuss issues you guys start a fight, either that or turn the whole thing into a silly, stupid mockery.
     If you guys really believe that Anna Anderson's claim was preposterous show some real evidence, rather than just jibes intended to back up a few pieces of stupid tissue in a pietri dish. Otherwise, either be respectful or stay out of forums that your academic opponents take seriously.

They're just joking around. It wasn't directed at you.

[Alexandra]

On March 2, 1917, as Nicholas II pondered the matter of his successor, he summoned Professor Fedorov to ask,'Sergei Petrovich, please tell me frankly, is Alexei's disease incurable?'
'Sovereign, science tells us this disease is incurable. However, there are cases when a person suffering it can reach considerable age. The Duke of Abruzzi has lived to be forty-two. Nobody has lasted longer than that.'

cf.Perry and Pleshakov, _The Flight of the Romanovs_, p.152, citing Gilliard, 148-149; Shavelsky, II, 289-290.

Although the word 'haemophilia' is not, to my knowledge, contained in the quotations ascribed to the Tsarevich's physicians, there are instances of human conduct in which a situation  is so generally taken for granted that is it not necessarily named; hence, the comparative reference to the Duke of Abruzzi.
(It would make equal sense also to include Prince Leopold and Waldemar of Prussia, the son of Alexandra's sister Irene and Heinrich of Prussia, in any similar discussion. Each lived to adulthood, Waldemar into his fifties.)
Alexei's condition, as described in all sources of which I am aware, is quite consonant with the known symptomatology of haemophilia.

Alexandra

[Forum Admin]

Spiridovitch mentions in numerous places that the doctors had specifically diagnosed Haemophilia.

[Michelle]

They're just joking around. It wasn't directed at you.

Olga, ISteinke's point was was that we don't want you anti-Anna/anti-anything other than they died in Ekaterinburg people to turn this meant-to-be-serious thread into a completely idiotic funhouse like the last one which you guys ruined.  And I don't think ISteinke meant by your "clique" that you all "conspire" together; he meant that you all have found each other on this site and have become buddy-buddy on this issue.  NOT conspiring making "plans" and whatnot. Think back to your high school days when there were little cliques of people who just happened to like each other a lot (in the sense of friendship) and always hung out together and supported each other no matter what, discluding anyone outside of their clique.  

[rskkiya]

Ok everyone please ...
  Lets all try not to take any comments here in the wrong contexts...I don't think that there is any conspiracy to limit or suppress any valid information in this discussion.
OK?
rskkiya

[Forum Admin]

I think everyone needs to lighten up some, on both sides. A serious discussion of historical facts CAN have some humor without being personal attacks.

[ISteinke]

For many years I have been deeply interested in the story of the last Imperial Family of Russia, and particularly the question of what became of them [after July 16-17, 1918].  As I have studied I have been surprised to find that many reputable, scholarly reference works, such as World Book Encyclopedia, stated that their deaths were reported but unconfirmed. In other words it isn't a quackish idea.

One of the things that I have learned, since coming on the AP forum, is just how utterly narrow-minded, close-minded, vicious, and tunnel-visioned the anti-crowd can be at times.  The biggest impression that has been on me, is, "Wow! If these are the people opposing Anna Anderson, and they can't do any better than this, I really have to reevaluate what I think of their positions."  I feel as though the anti-anna argument consists of almost nothing but mantras and invective.

As far as the DNA tests are concerned. SCIENCE IS NOT INFALLIBLE. No area of human knowledge is infallible. The fatal weakness of all of your arguments is this. You folks place  a massively inordinate ammount of stock in a particular scientific procedure, as if that scientific procedure were holy scripture. Do you understand that DNA testing does not come from God. Again, it is a fallible human procedure, not a religious text, as the anti-anna crowd is making it out to be.

as science develops new ideas will come to the fore, which will debunk our present understanding of DNA. Then these tests which supposedly proved Anna Anderson "false" will seem like an archaic relic of the stone. This is what always happens, 100% of the time, to people and viewpoints that hold science as sancrosanct.

If DNA would have come out in AA's favor it would have simply been a victory for her supporters. Her detractors would have said that the tests didn't prove anything. sooner or later another forensic procedure would have arisen. Then they would've  tested Anna Anderson according to that procedure, and then said, "See. She's false. We don't care what the DNA says."

Again, woe to he who equates science with infallibility.

[helenazar]

I think everyone needs to lighten up some, on both sides. A serious discussion of historical facts CAN have some humor without being personal attacks.

I agree.

Michelle, I noticed that you tend to be overly sensitive to these issues, and constantly see yourself and some others as "victims". Lighten up, these are not serious attacks on anyone's opinions. As adults, or near adults, who are all willing participants in this forum, we should all be able handle some criticism of our views. After all, if you express your opinions publicly, you should expect challenges from others, and be willing and able to defend them.

[Michelle]

Excuse me, Helen.  I most definitely understand that there are other people who disagree with me and others.  My point was was that the anti-crowd many times resort to belittling and then complete and total mockery of the thread, which can ruin it for those of us who want to explore the possiblities.  It seems to me that the anti people just can't think of anything else to do but turn a certain thread into a funhouse.  That to me indicates that they don't want others to hear the views of those of us who see differently and are so quick to dismiss possiblities on account of their narrow mindedness.  Personally, I don't believe that every member of the family was murdered.  MOST of them, yes.  But I have doubts about Anastasia.  But I'm open to any new theories that come up.  It's the anti people who run like mad to scream out their rhetoric every time someone makes a statement contrary to their beliefs, and many times, sadly, it's in the form of belittling and attempts to turn the whole thread over to parody.  This in my opinion is because they are so very sensitive to the issue(s).