People Who Knew the Imperial Family and Anna Anderson

[Mari]

Thank you Mr. Schweitzer! You have been very forbearing.

[Annie]

The only specific question I could parse from #154 on point with this thread was:


I guess the one thing I'd really like to know, and it's not something you can answer, and that's did he really truly believe AA was AN, the whole time?


My answer is that it was not a question of "belief" on his part. He knew she was Anastasia, just as many would know someone, not just recognize them, or be convinced by some factors.

If you really, really believe that, I don't see any point in continuing this discussion, though I appreciate that you have shared your time wtih us. I really believe that it's been proven that AA wasn't Anastasia, so I have to look at it a different way, leaving us at a part in the road. No offense to anyone. It's the same thing I feel about the Mormons (don't want to offend anyone here either). I do not believe Joseph Smith's 'visions.' Does this mean I believe he lied to manipulate people, or that he honestly believed it, or that he had some sort of mental issue which made him believe it? I do not know which of those three is true, and I will never know. It's much the same scenario here. Some people believe him completely, but I don't, so I just have to leave it at that with them. Thanks again for being generous with your time and personal knowledge.

[Richard_Schweitzer]

By reply 157, I gather I am being waived off this flight deck.

Let me leave something to mull over:

Ever since humans have had enough leisure from mere survival to think, they have been faced with the distinctions between knowledge and belief; that is, belief without emperical demonstration or perception.

Information alone is not knowledge, they are distinct, but substantially all knowledge is based on information and connecting the relationships of the segments of information to one another. Practically all information is gained through the sensory order. as perceptions. But, knowledge requires more than perceptions, whereas what we accept as belief does not.

[LisaDavidson]

By reply 157, I gather I am being waived off this flight deck.

Let me leave something to mull over:

Ever since humans have had enough leisure from mere survival to think, they have been faced with the distinctions between knowledge and belief; that is, belief without emperical demonstration or perception.

Information alone is not knowledge, they are distinct, but substantially all knowledge is based on information and connecting the relationships of the segments of information to one another. Practically all information is gained through the sensory order. as perceptions. But, knowledge requires more than perceptions, whereas what we accept as belief does not.

Mr. Schweitzer: Annie does not speak for all of us. No one is waving you off this flight deck - or will for that matter. (and for whatever it's worth, I don't think she is either.)

My take on the situation with your father in law is that he sincerely believed that Mrs. Manahan was the grand duchess. This is, of course, only an opinion based upon what I know.

And, I love your point about the distinction between knowledge and belief.

I remain profoundly grateful for your own contributions to this era of Romanov history - and hope you will remain with us here for awhile.

Best,

Lisa

[AGRBear]

The only specific question I could parse from #154 on point with this thread was:


I guess the one thing I'd really like to know, and it's not something you can answer, and that's did he really truly believe AA was AN, the whole time?


My answer is that it was not a question of "belief" on his part. He knew she was Anastasia, just as many would know someone, not just recognize them, or be convinced by some factors.

If you really, really believe that, I don't see any point in continuing this discussion, though I appreciate that you have shared your time wtih us. I really believe that it's been proven that AA wasn't Anastasia, so I have to look at it a different way, leaving us at a part in the road. No offense to anyone. It's the same thing I feel about the Mormons (don't want to offend anyone here either). I do not believe Joseph Smith's 'visions.' Does this mean I believe he lied to manipulate people, or that he honestly believed it, or that he had some sort of mental issue which made him believe it? I do not know which of those three is true, and I will never know. It's much the same scenario here. Some people believe him completely, but I don't, so I just have to leave it at that with them. Thanks again for being generous with your time and personal knowledge.

You didn't know AA.

You didn't  know Botkin.

You didn't know  Joseph Smith.

You know about  each of them.

You gained your opinions about each of them.  As  I and many of  us have.

The difference is,  Richard Schweitzer knew AA and Botkin.

I value Richard's  knowledge about AA  and Botkin and he believes that Botkin believed  AA was GD Anastasia.

Botkin knew GD Anastasia.

And  nothing he heard from her or about her changed his belief.

Now,  it's easy for me to say,  "I never believed  AA was GD Anastasia."  

Did I ever meet AA or GD Anastasia?  No.  

Some of you did  meet AA.

None of us  met  GD Anastasia.

Some of us knew people who knew GD Anastasia.  

Bothkin  didn't have to ask other people.   He knew her.    And,  it didn't  matter the  amount of mintues or hours or days  they were with each other.  They had their own private moments which only they would have been able to share.

I do not think that money was the driving force for either of them.

They were wrapped in their own mystery and no one has the key.

Sure,  we can  have our opinions but  I'm  willing to hear what  Richard has to tell us  and perhaps we  can  learn what he knows about these two people so we can begin to understand AA and Botkin.

AGRBear

[Arleen_Ristau]

Bear and Lisa, you are so right. 

Please don't go Richard.  A lot of us really want to know what you have to say.

Arleen

[Annie]

Hey wait a minute, I'm sorry my post was misunderstood. No one is waving anyone off. I only meant the conversation was over FOR ME because I personally feel I have gotten all the info I can gather from Mr. Schweitzer considering his strong personal opinion. This does not mean I want him to go, I do not! Of course everyone else is more than welcome to continue to question him and he is more than welcome to stay! He'll just have one less person to bug him (me) I meant it was the end for me, not anyone else!

[helenazar]

Ever since humans have had enough leisure from mere survival to think, they have been faced with the distinctions between knowledge and belief; that is, belief without emperical demonstration or perception.
Information alone is not knowledge, they are distinct, but substantially all knowledge is based on information and connecting the relationships of the segments of information to one another. Practically all information is gained through the sensory order. as perceptions. But, knowledge requires more than perceptions, whereas what we accept as belief does not.

Mr Schweitzer, I think in this case it would be more correct to say "the difference between knowledge and dogma". And history has demonstrated that often dogma can be a dangerous thing to us humans...

[BobAtchison]

It doesn't matter what Gleb "knew" or didn't know.  He may have been personally convinced and claimed to 'know' but he was wrong.  Anna Anderson-Manahan/FS has been proved beyond any reasonable doubt not to have been Anastasia Romanov.  It is fact, not speculation or someone's opinion.

[Richard_Schweitzer]

Here is an "airdrop" to keep my commitment to follow up on Gleb's making (big?) money writing about Anastasia.

A collector of Gleb's writings advises me there are only two articles by Gleb, one from the North American Newspaer Alliance engagement, and an extract of that in the Readers Digest. There are of course,
The Woman Who Rose Again and The Real Romanovs. The collector notes that some have associated characters in his Baron's Fancy novel with persons involved with Anastasia during her first visit here. If anyone knows of more, I would be grateful to be directed to the source.

[Richard_Schweitzer]

Since my time for these postings is becoming limited, and I can only scan the topics from time to time now, What I will do is post responses or such information as I have on the one thread that someone set up with my name. I will put this specific post on all the threads that have put recent statements about my replies or questions to me. Earlier, I had copied out only one set of questions from “Rob,” that I will transfer to the single thread. Anyone else who wants follow-up will have to transfer their post to that thread. No guarantees of satisfaction.

I recognize that there is an effort to assure me that I am not Don Quixote, and that there are no windmills. I do not propose to “convince” anyone of anything. I do not advocate. When asked, I have stated my views. Such facts as I have, I share. I state them, I don’t try to prove them.

My reason for posting again, was being drawn in by the calumnies against those now dead; then drifting into two other threads of related topics. For a broader overview, some might consider going back over my posts to various threads on this site over years past. I think they will find they make up a consistent whole. If not, the fault is mine.

Dick Schweitzer

 

[Richard_Schweitzer]

For those who may wish to contact me directly, use: s24rrs@aol.com

R. Richard Schweitzer

[Arleen_Ristau]

What has happened to all of the posts that were on this thread yesterday? 


Censorship?   Someone enlighten us.

Arleen

[Arleen_Ristau]

Sorry, it is just me screwing up...PER USUAL!  I thought this was the Q & A as it came first in line.....

I'll now take myself off to the Q & A section.....

Arleen

[helenazar]

That thread was locked. You can always email Mr Schweitzer directly.