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

[rskkiya]

Please!
I don't think that anyone here is "screaming"---
although this topic certainly can excite some people to an almost fever pitch! In my poor oppinion the evidence that I have examined about 'survivals' is lacking, but I have not refused to consdider other discussions.
So lets all try to be open.  

rskkiya

[helenazar]

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).  

Michelle,

Of course everyone has the right to an opinion and the right to express it without being attacked for it. My point was, that in some cases, it is just a bunch of silliness, not a vicious attack, and shouldn't be taken as such. Sometimes these things just have to be taken in stride, as you will come across this sort of thing not just here on this forum, but in many other places with many other people in "real" life. That's all.

[helenazar]

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.

First, I want to say that God has absolutely nothing to do with any of this... Why would you bring that in?
Having said that, I will agree that of course science is not infallible, and no one ever said it was. We are talking about strong scientific evidence - a collection of evidence that has been repeated and shown to be consistent. No scientist will ever use the term "proven", they will always say "consistent with" whatever it is that they are talking about. A series of scientific evidence shows consistency with certain scenarios. Almost anything is possible, of course, but not anything is plausible, and reasonable people will go along with plausible scenarios based on consistent scientific evidence.
And no, you are wrong: if DNA results came out in AA's favor, I for one would most certainly accept it, and I am sure so would many others. The theory behind DNA testing has not changed, and if those tests were done today they would show the same results.
The problem is, that people who do not fully understand the science behind all this and think that they do, also feel that they have the ability to argue this point. And no matter how much evidence is presented to them, they will continue not fully understanding it and being convinced that they do. So there is no point in arguing about it, is there.

And, as someone already mentioned, this thread is not an AA thread, so lets not go on with this discussion.

[helenazar]

Penny,

I was wondering what these documents are about exactly, as I am not really familiar? It sounds interesting. Thanks.

Helen

[helenazar]

Hi other Helen, you're absolutely right. However, statistically speaking, there is always a chance that a scientist will get different results if he or she performs the same DNA-tests a second or third time on the very same material. If a scientist wants to indicate how accurate his or her tests are, he or she should consider the possibility of "falsely positive results" as well as that of "falsely negative results".

Yes, you are absolutely correct, Helen. This is what I meant when I mentioned that the scientific tests are repeated or replicated, only then can be accepted as consistent evidence. This is also why positive and negative controls are used.
For example, in the AA case, from what I understand, two different labs used two different tissue samples (along with controls of course) and got two identical results. This is usually accepted as definitive proof that the tests were done correctly and that the results are accurate. Unless we have reasons to suspect conspiracy.

The other Helen  

[Forum Admin]

Also, the possibility of false positives WAS accounted for in the AA mtDNA testing, and the match EXCLUDED AA from the Hesse line still was 99.9% certain to a probability of less than one in ten million.

[helenazar]

Other Helen & Forum Admin: Thanks for the additional information. It is always good to know that such controls were used. I fear that they are often not carried out. But of course, the scientists in a high-profile case like this made sure their results were as solid as possible.

All scientific experiments, not just high profile ones, must always include controls, otherwise the results cannot be accepted, precisely for the reasons we mentioned. This is a very standard practice...

[helenazar]

Of course, but I know from personal experience that it is not always done like that, unfortunately.

Yes, that's true, just like with anything else, these things happen in science. But usually the results from such experiments are not taken seriously by anyone in the scientific community and would rarely, if ever, get published. There are very stringent rules and standards for these things, precisely because these results can and will be questioned later on, as they are being questioned in the cases we are discussing. And rightly so, because there is a certain number of unethical scientists out there who, for one reason or another will try to get away with presenting false data. The whole idea of peer review is for one's work to be mercilessly scrutinized by colleagues, and one must be prepared to explain fully and stand behind one's results and methods. This is what peer reviews are intended for, to make sure that the tests are conducted properly, with appropriate controls, and that the results are consistent and beyond suspicion.

Helen A.

[bookworm857158367]

I think there is a good chance that Anastasia survived. There was a body missing from the grave and reports persist that one of the girls was missing. Then there's the testimony of someone in the town that he saw Grand Duchess Anastasia being treated for her wounds in a nearby house and that she as then taken away by a Red Soldier.

[Forum Admin]

Please take the Anastasia discussion to the Anastasia threads...THIS is not about Anastasia. Enough already....

[Michelle]

First, I want to say that God has absolutely nothing to do with any of this... Why would you bring that in?
Having said that, I will agree that of course science is not infallible, and no one ever said it was. We are talking about strong scientific evidence - a collection of evidence that has been repeated and shown to be consistent. No scientist will ever use the term "proven", they will always say "consistent with" whatever it is that they are talking about. A series of scientific evidence shows consistency with certain scenarios. Almost anything is possible, of course, but not anything is plausible, and reasonable people will go along with plausible scenarios based on consistent scientific evidence.
And no, you are wrong: if DNA results came out in AA's favor, I for one would most certainly accept it, and I am sure so would many others. The theory behind DNA testing has not changed, and if those tests were done today they would show the same results.
The problem is, that people who do not fully understand the science behind all this and think that they do, also feel that they have the ability to argue this point. And no matter how much evidence is presented to them, they will continue not fully understanding it and being convinced that they do. So there is no point in arguing about it, is there.

And, as someone already mentioned, this thread is not an AA thread, so lets not go on with this discussion.

Helen, do you have a problem with someone mentioning God?  I know this isn't a religious forum, of course, but why should you become offended if it's just mentioned in passing?

[helenazar]

Helen, do you have a problem with someone mentioning God?  I know this isn't a religious forum, of course, but why should you become offended if it's just mentioned in passing?

Michelle,

I wasn't offended, I simply mentioned in passing that God has nothing to do with any of this and was perplexed as to why the subject was brought into this discussion.

Helen A.

[Michelle]

Just wondering.

[ISteinke]

The forum administrator wrote that Anastasia has nothing to do with this, and that we should take discussion of "Anastasia" to other forums.

This forum was created so that people could discuss the question of what happened to the imperial family.

Was Anastasia Romanov not a member of the imperial family? Was she not, further, a member of the imperial family who disappeared the night of July 16-17, 1918?

Is she not very much a part of this discussion?

[helenazar]

The forum administrator wrote that Anastasia has nothing to do with this, and that we should take discussion of "Anastasia" to other forums.

This forum was created so that people could discuss the question of what happened to the imperial family.

Was Anastasia Romanov not a member of the imperial family? Was she not, further, a member of the imperial family who disappeared the night of July 16-17, 1918?

Is she not very much a part of this discussion?

ISteinke,

This is true, but I think the reason FA wants this discussion on another thread is because Anastasia has her own separate thread, and this one is  reserved for the rest of the family...

Helen A.