Author Topic: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4  (Read 68710 times)

0 Members and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.

JonC

  • Guest
Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
« Reply #135 on: August 13, 2005, 10:41:40 PM »
A final note on my accusatory statement that Greg King made up facts in his book 'The Last Empress'.

I am thoroughly disappointed that I could not get a straight answer from him or anyone else in this forum. I would think that with respect to scholarship no-one should be given a pass.

A simple request to any author concerning his/her source(s) concerning a 'factual' statement made in his/her book should not unleash a barrage of insults by that author, and supporters to the one making that simple request.

Greg you were wrong to say in your book that Alice 'felt the baby kicking' because there is no proof from her writings ( unless you have a secret letter that only you are privy to) that she made that statement or that she was pregnant at all. Noel's source..the December 12th 1871 letter..I can't find it! So, it probably doesn't exist! Do you have it? Show it to me by putting it on the this thread. If not you were therefor wrong to use Noel's source without finding out if it existed in the first place. If the letter is a lie you compounded it further.

Subsequently you should be the one to appologize for your uncalled for remarks. JonC.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by JonC »

Offline Louis_Charles

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 1498
    • View Profile
Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
« Reply #136 on: August 14, 2005, 12:03:45 AM »
Unfreakingbelievable

I am posting in response to this because of the a) tone, which is unworthy of someone engaged in intellectual discourse and b) because, as we are constantly and correctly reminded, this board is a resource for students of history.

Alice wrote that she felt the baby coming to life. In most pregnancies from time immemorial, this meant that the child had quickened, i.e. moved in the womb. This is sometimes referred to as "kicking", although I think most people do not think that the baby is driving its' foot against the uterine wall.

But that is really beside the point, as Finelly posted. You accused a reputable historian in a public forum of "making it up."  The clear implication of a nasty little remark like that is that his book is a tissue of unsupported facts. Mr. King is right to be angry, and this lame attempt at turning the issue back on him is simply pouring gasoline on the fire.

This is not how historians work. And for the record, I hold a degree in history from a major American public university. I hold a degree in common courtesy from the school of hard knocks.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by Louis_Charles »
"Simon --- Classy AND Compassionate!"
   
"The road to enlightenment is long and difficult, so take snacks and a magazine."

Finelly

  • Guest
Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
« Reply #137 on: August 14, 2005, 12:31:02 AM »
Well said, Louis Charles.

When a person comes to a board (or any place for that matter) and announces that he doesn't have the books in question, but that he feels sure that an author lied in a cite of a source, one must wonder.

When that accuser than demands that OTHER people on the board PROVIDE HIM with the evidence of the lie, one wonders more.

When the accuser then demands that the AUTHOR come up with evidence one way or the other, we no longer wonder.  

Of course, Greg King is not going to respond.  He does respond to respectful questions about sources, something of which I have first hand knowledge.  I emailed him a few days ago about a source he used and he replied within 10 hours.  Answered my question quite articulately. Of course, I didn't accuse him of LYING, and perhaps that had something to do with his willingness to answer my questions.






lexi4

  • Guest
Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
« Reply #138 on: August 14, 2005, 12:55:42 AM »
Louis Charles has it right. Any woman who has ever been pregnant will tell you what "come to life means." In this century we use the word kicking. Because that is what if feels like. But it is a moment when you know the baby is alive. Greg used a word  commonly used today is all. Get over it.

JonC

  • Guest
Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
« Reply #139 on: August 14, 2005, 11:39:53 AM »
words, words, exasperation, ridicule..,etc,etc,...Show me the SOURCE! Where is the reference?

As far as 'the baby kicking' is concerned, according to the Discovery Science channel which had a whole show on the creation of a baby from sperm & egg to birth it clearly mentioned that a baby starts with spasms, which seem like kicking, from 12 weeks on. On December 12, 1871 when she 'wrote' the letter and not necessarily when she had felt the 'spasms' she would have been  at most 9 weeks pregnant. According to the program the difference between 9 and 12 weeks for a fetus is a whole new metamorphosis. Its a fantastic jump, gas considered. Alice, having had children before would have known the difference. She could not have been pregnant at all.

Please note that it's not just about 'the baby kicking' that we are talking about here or about Greg King. The belief that she was the mother of Alexandra is key for me and any student of history. My discovery commences with debunking the belief that she was ever pregnant by demanding sources from Greg and by whoever writes the same content. If a source cannot be given well then it doesn't exist! If it doesn't exist then it is possible that Alice was not Alexandra's mother.

In October of 1871, when Alice was supposed to get pregnant Louis 4th, her husband, had left for Darmstadt not willing to be around while his wife was taking care of Queen Victoria's ailments. They had gone to Sandringham for the festivities there but when Edward got sick with Typhoid Fever he decided to go home. Now if he left in October how did Alice get pregnant?

No one interested in history can dismiss these points. Also does Alexandra have a birth certificate or record of birth in some fashion or other? My questions are legitimate and should be allowed discussions.

In any case where is the source? Show me the source!JonC. FA why don't you put this discussion on its own thread?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by JonC »

Offline Louis_Charles

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 1498
    • View Profile
Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
« Reply #140 on: August 14, 2005, 12:19:08 PM »
Quote
words, words, exasperation, ridicule..,etc,etc,...Show me the SOURCE! Where is the reference?

As far as 'the baby kicking' is concerned, according to the Discovery Science channel which had a whole show on the creation of a baby from sperm & egg to birth it clearly mentioned that a baby starts with spasms, which seem like kicking, from 12 weeks on. On December 12, 1871 when she 'wrote' the letter and not necessarily when she had felt the 'spasms' she would have been  at most 9 weeks pregnant. According to the program the difference between 9 and 12 weeks for a fetus is a whole new metamorphosis. Its a fantastic jump, gas considered. Alice, having had children before would have known the difference. She could not have been pregnant at all.

Please note that it's not just about 'the baby kicking' that we are talking about here or about Greg King. The belief that she was the mother of Alexandra is key for me and any student of history. My discovery commences with debunking the belief that she was ever pregnant by demanding sources from Greg and by whoever writes the same content. If a source cannot be given well then it doesn't exist! If it doesn't exist then it is possible that Alice was not Alexandra's mother.

In October of 1871, when Alice was supposed to get pregnant Louis 4th, her husband, had left for Darmstadt not willing to be around while his wife was taking care of Queen Victoria's ailments. They had gone to Sandringham for the festivities there but when Edward got sick with Typhoid Fever he decided to go home. Now if he left in October how did Alice get pregnant?

No one interested in history can dismiss these points. Also does Alexandra have a birth certificate or record of birth in some fashion or other? My questions are legitimate and should be allowed discussions.

In any case where is the source? Show me the source!JonC. FA why don't you put this discussion on its own thread?

If it doesn't exist then it is possible that Alice was not Alexandra's mother.???

Okay, I'm out.
"Simon --- Classy AND Compassionate!"
   
"The road to enlightenment is long and difficult, so take snacks and a magazine."

Offline AGRBear

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 6611
  • The road to truth is the best one to travel.
    • View Profile
    • Romanov's  Russia
Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
« Reply #141 on: August 14, 2005, 12:27:44 PM »
Jon C and others who are not talking about Noses, you can start your own thread then copy the quotes you wish to address over to the new thread.

If you do not know how to accomplished this,  let me know,  I'd be glad to help you get one started.

But then,  noses isn't as interesting and wasn't going anywhere.  If I change the title then people will get confused.  So that's not a good option....

Wonder where our noses will take us next  :)

AGRBear
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by AGRBear »
"What is true by lamplight is not always true by sunlight."

Joubert, Pensees, No. 152

Offline AGRBear

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 6611
  • The road to truth is the best one to travel.
    • View Profile
    • Romanov's  Russia
Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
« Reply #142 on: January 24, 2006, 05:54:43 PM »
Bumping up because we're talking about FS's family and this thread has photographs of some of her siblings.

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

Joubert, Pensees, No. 152

dmitri

  • Guest
Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
« Reply #143 on: August 22, 2007, 07:34:31 AM »
He also he likes a range of opinions on this topic as well. His own shows a variance as do many others. It is good that a range of opinions are accepted here.

Offline AGRBear

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 6611
  • The road to truth is the best one to travel.
    • View Profile
    • Romanov's  Russia
Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
« Reply #144 on: August 22, 2007, 10:03:46 AM »
A photo of FS was taken in 1916.  The one shown here is a retouched copy of the original which is no longer reachable since no one knows who purchased it.  We, therefore,  do not know how similar of disimilar this copy is to the original.

In 1916,  FS would have been 20 in Dec. and this doesn't appear to be taken in the winter, therefore,  my guess is,  she was not yet 20.


There was a photo that was taken of her when FS was 16?

There are several threads about this photo and has nothing to do with this thread which is about the intestines used for testing the DNA / mtDNA.

AGRBear

I believe this is the photo they are referring to, the only known photo of FS before she transformed into "Anna Anderson":



She looks just about 20 years old...

« Last Edit: August 22, 2007, 10:06:16 AM by AGRBear »
"What is true by lamplight is not always true by sunlight."

Joubert, Pensees, No. 152

dmitri

  • Guest
Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
« Reply #145 on: August 22, 2007, 10:41:59 AM »
Wrong thread Bear. Maybe you have a photo of the intestines?

Olishka~ Pincess

  • Guest
Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
« Reply #146 on: August 22, 2007, 01:31:00 PM »
Yes we were off topic but, most of the posters were not talking about DNA testing they were talking about AA and A looks.Many started to talk about Kurth's book. I guess this topic is suppose to have some opinions, concerns and questions relating about the way the Americans did the DNA testing on the Romanovs bones.
« Last Edit: August 22, 2007, 01:33:28 PM by Elizabeth~Princess »

Offline LisaDavidson

  • Moderator
  • Velikye Knyaz
  • *****
  • Posts: 2665
    • View Profile
Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
« Reply #147 on: August 22, 2007, 01:40:21 PM »
Yes we were off topic but, most of the posters were not talking about DNA testing they were talking about AA and A looks.Many started to talk about Kurth's book. I guess this topic is suppose to have some opinions, concerns and questions relating about the way the Americans did the DNA testing on the Romanovs bones.

You are exactly correct.

Offline AGRBear

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 6611
  • The road to truth is the best one to travel.
    • View Profile
    • Romanov's  Russia
Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
« Reply #148 on: August 23, 2007, 04:40:05 PM »
Wrong thread Bear. Maybe you have a photo of the intestines?

My post was in ref. to #43 and #44 that was discussed earlier on this same thread.

I believe someone said there are slides of the intestines  which I suppose someone could take a photo if you'd like.

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

Joubert, Pensees, No. 152

dmitri

  • Guest
Re: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #4
« Reply #149 on: August 23, 2007, 08:46:46 PM »
DNA evidence has proved all of this. Greater minds than yours AGR Bear have worked on this. Give it a rest.