On facts and sources

[Annie]

I am always told here to quote sources. I can't always find the source, I know I've read it, but I don't have a huge library full of books to pull out. But anything I post, I have seen it somewhere. I realize that is not good enough for some of you, but you know what's not good enough for me? Labeling something a 'FACT' because it was written down somewhere that somebody said it. In this  category goes the foot size, language and height stuff, etc.,  which is all subjective, and different people have different comments on. Some can be lying, some mistaken, or simply remembered wrong like I always say about the rock star and the tub. Someone's opinion, just because it was it happened to be recorded in a book, does not mean it is actually a fact. Since there are descrepencies, someone had to have been wrong. The only real proof we have is the scientific evidence, which answered all the ifs, buts, he saids and she saids. So what I'm saying is, just because someone said something does not make it a FACT. Exhibit A for your consideration, okay. Part of the entire body of evidence, okay. But a FACT, that is taking too great a liberty. There is much more of a chance of human error in the subjective stuff than in the DNA!

And I'm going to mention this here since I can't on the list thread. Somebody said FS's family could not name the color of her eyes. So therefore, if they don't know that, how do you expect them to know if she had teeth, scars under her clothes, or if she'd been pregnant(which if she were she likely would have hid it?) You all know I believe the family was just coming up with reasons to get out of claiming her, and this is likely since they intially recognized her and she did turn out to be their sister in DNA tests. But even IF they weren't, saying they can't remember her eye color doesn't make them very credible on other things they said (like scars and feet) to back up your point. We need real facts, not speculation and opinion, even recorded opinion. So in a way, my remembered comments are just as valid as something someone remembered about her feet from 18 years ago. So what if they wrote it down and it was recorded. I'm recorded too, right here on this board, you can look it up on google.

The only real FACT we have is the DNA resources thread at the top of the page.

[Mgmstl]

That post is absolutely ridiculous.  You don't seem to be able to comprehend the concept, that for some of us it is more than the DNA.

For months now you have been quoting the original meeting between Felix & AA as "lasting over 6 hours", and been giving the impression that it involved more than one of the Shanzkowska siblings, when Felix was the only one who was present.  When neither was true.

You also seem to be able to quote these mysterious articles, that no one else has seen or has access to, quoting various members of the Schanzkowska family, and of this opinion & that opinion.  

What we are talking about Annie is: "source material",  a VALID source for the information you are providing to the thread.  Meaning, you can locate it in a book, in an affadavit, FIRST HAND SOURCE MATERIAL, not articles that a certain person on this thread "claims" to have, and yet never provide.  

What you don't seem to be able to grasp is that these sources when looked at objectively gives us a more accurate view of the AA case, as you know for some of us it is more than just the DNA, which is something that you don't seem able to accept.

The facts as you would have us look at them are not actual facts, but supposed statements from parties who had a no actual acquaintance with AA, and knew about the case from being a family member.  The statements are dubious in certain aspects as they come from a family member, who never actually knew AA, but has to be paid for making statements.   Do you see how that compromises their statements??  

No one is asking you to do the impossible Annie, we are just asking for factual information, clarity, and accuracy, not supposition and heresay.

[AGRBear]

Sources are very imporant when doing research of any kind.  And, as I've said on other threads,  if you need help in finding a source there are many other posters who will help.

To me, sources are like puzzle pieces needed to form the BIG picutre.


How many of you have put together a huge table size picture  puzzle?  It takes one puzzle piece at a time to be placed in the right place for the picture to start to form.  In time,  one can see the general picture but there are still many pieces missing.  Should we stop putting the puzzle together because we know generally what the picture looks like or should we continue because we like to see things completed?

To me,  I like seeing the completed puzzle.

If I can't find a piece,  it drives me crazy.  So the search is started.   Questions are asked such as, "Was the dog in the house...?"    A puzzle piece doesn't grow legs and get up an walk away so there has to be an answer.

And the other thing that drives me crazy is when I discover there are two different puzzles thrown into the same box.

The IF and AA mysteries reminds me of of the box with two different puzzle pieces mixed.

Because the puzzle pieces are mixed,  it is necessary to divide the two puzzles, if we can.

This is where opinions start occur.

I'm good with color.  My hubby is good with shapes.  Our kids and grandkids are a mixture of patience, no patience and don't care.

Somehow we survive this mixture of two puzzles.

It is my opinion that each of us here on the forum have something to offer but it is better to offer opinions with a source so the rest of us can go to it,  read it,  absorb it and test to see how it fits in the puzzle/puzzles.  

Remember, some puzzle pieces fit even though they are not part of the same puzzle and one discovers this at some time....

And, when we have completed the two puzzles, then it's up to the group as to what we want to do with it.  Do we past it on a board and keep the pretty picture, or do we take it apart and place it into two boxes or do we just throw the two puzzles back into one box?

Doesn't matter to me because to me the fun of it was the discovering of the pieces and placing them where they belong, AND, the time spent with hubby, kids and grandkids.... friends....

AGRBear

[Finelly]

dna results are just statements written down somewhere.

Peter Gill's comments, Dr. Ginther's comments, are all just statements written down somewhere.

[etonexile]

dna results are just statements written down somewhere.

Peter Gill's comments, Dr. Ginther's comments, are all just statements written down somewhere.

...Most of this forum is just statements written...or typed....down somewhere....

[lexi4]

So true, etonexile

[Mgmstl]

...Most of this forum is just statements written...or typed....down somewhere....

Perhaps you need to have better understanding of exactly WHAT we are trying to accomplish then on the survivor threads.

[Annie]

Just because something is typed and written down does not make it a valid source. All these threads show up as reference when you do a search of AA on google, try it! Somebody could be quoting us, even when what we say is not factual! If you quote Summers and Mangold, page whatever, does that make the Perm theory true? A lot has been written, and just because you can list a page number or a publish date that what somebody said was written down in does not make it a fact. It's only a piece of evidence submitted for consideration, it proves nothing.

[Finelly]

If you quote Summers and Mangold, page whatever, does that make the Perm theory true

No.  If you quote the statements they located about Perm, including the statements made by a variety of people interviewed in the 1920s, you will then look at their sources - ie, whether those statements were actually made.  If those statements were actually made (and I have a friend who went and looked at all of the statements cited, and they were) then you know they did not misquote anyone.

This does not mean that the statements are TRUE.  It means that the people made them.  Which is what Summers and Mangold said.

Summers and Mangold may have drawn some CONCLUSIONS about the Perm story.  Those are opinion.  They have since been refuted by the fact of the bones in the grave.  

So, for example, when I state that Gertrude absolutely denied that her sister had any distinguishing scars, moles, marks, was short and stocky and had normal-looking feet, and then cite the date and location of the statement as made, one can assume that the statement was made.   Now, did she lie? Possibly.  However, given her insistence that the woman known as AA was FS, when she saw her, it seems a bit strange that she would lie the opposite way in a sworn statement.  Which is why many of us give it extra credence.

When you provide the sources/cites for a statement you make, we can go and check whether that source/cite exists.  Otherwise, we can assume it is your private opinion only and has no basis in fact.

[RealAnastasia]

Facts are stated things, written in a book  (secondary source) or primary documents. Primary documents are more important than books, but most of us don't have acces to them: they are almost all of them in Germany or Russian, written in German and in Russian, languages that we doesn't know (most of us, anyway... ). Our only possibility is to read some of the info written right there, translated in English or in French for our dear historians. If they lied, I don't know. I hope not, for if the did, there are not reliable as historians. Of course, secondary sources have their problems: there is the author opinion. We must be careful and quote ONLY the fact, not the opinion. If, for example, Peter Kurth, states that AA didn't want to speak Russian before the Russian experts, we must write THIS, and only this: not the explanation he gives about the fact (She had suffered a trauma, so she couldn't speak Russian when tested). It's not so difficult. And I suppose you are able to remeber, without going to see it every time ,Which author said this, or that. If I need a more long quotation, I go to the book and copy it.

Even if you are pro AA claim or againts it, intellectual honestity is required for this excercise. I must quote the reasons for AA being AN, but also the opposite; the reasons of AA not being FS but the opposite. Sometimes, I don't like to agree that some reasons would contradict mines. But I must write them all the same. This is history.

And no problem with DNA issue: the first reasons quoted in "AA being not AN" and "AA being FS" is just the DNA. Go there and read it.

RealAnastasia.

[lexi4]

all of this illustrates why some of us are always asking for sources, so we can check for ourselves and then learn more. If I have a source, I can check it and read it. Citing sources is very important. If someone is reading these threads, they too will know where the information comes from. Citing a source is merely that, citing a source. When I make a statement and cite my source, it does not mean that I believe or disbelieve the statement, just that I am presenting if for discussion. Any by citing my source I am offering others a chance to learn. If I don't give my source, I am doing a disservice to my fellow posters.

[Mgmstl]

all of this illustrates why some of us are always asking for sources, so we can check for ourselves and then learn more. If I have a source, I can check it and read it. Citing sources is very important. If someone is reading these threads, they too will know where the information comes from. Citing a source is merely that, citing a source. When I make a statement and cite my source, it does not mean that I believe or disbelieve the statement, just that I am presenting if for discussion. Any by citing my source I am offering others a chance to learn. If I don't give my source, I am doing a disservice to my fellow posters.

Exactly Lexi.  This is something that we need to stress.
The use of primary & secondary source material is something we need to demand out of posters when they start making blanket statements regarding the Schanzkowska family or the nieces we know literally nothing about.  If they cannot share their sources then they need to leave these statements out of the debate.

They need to be concerned that they are not doing the service to young posters as they claim to be, and those out there who are just reading the postings, by posting ad hoc anything that backs up their side or point of view.  

It doesn't matter WHERE the debate ends, and the puzzle is finally put together as long as WE have done the best job possible in putting together a complete as picture as possible for all to see.

[lexi4]

I agree Michael. I get frustrated when I can't check the source.

[Inquiring_Mind]

I don't post here often unless it's to ask a question. Or to tell a story from my frame of reverence.

People here have done their homework. They keep notes. They are very serious.They are readers.

I think about every word I post here. I don't even like to keep a grocery list.

At work I keep a dictionary by my side, because a wonderful teacher once told me...you can write but you can't spell.

Take the time to claim the source.

If you have to post the same info over and over and over again, then maybe it isn't effective and you need to look to something with more volume.