Anastasia's Supporter Among the Forum Members

[sparrow]

Hello   I have enjoyed reading this thread very much. I really wonder thought when discussions include words like duh"I would just like to enjoy the facts without the rudeness that seemst to run rampant in these threads conserning a old woman.   a good debate is always the greatest sign of intellegence.  we only resort to anger when we can not back our facts.  i enjoy real anastasia comments and questions.  sparrow

[RealAnastasia]

Thank you for your support, Sparrow! Beleiving that AA is AN is not easy. You may notice it reading the threados of the "Survivors" Forum.

You also made a good point: we must be respectful, not only of an old woman (who is the subject of these discussions) but also of each other. Some people here calls "irony" an attitude that is really rudennes and snideness.

Dear Etonexile: we already know that the intestine tissue samplers were tested in 4 different labs with the same result all the times.  We are not trying to confound people lying to them. We know the facts. We also know that all the previous info showed that AA couldn't possibily be Franziska Schanzkowska. Now, we are trying to understand why the first results of the identity proofs performed in this woman contradict the present ones. O.K...DNA is a "perfect"  method of human identification, the other are not so conclusive. But when you notice that ALL the precedent proofs confirmed her identity as Anastasia, you neeed to think a little about the whole story. Those "imperfect" test could have been contradictory themselves. I mean: one would have been positive in the fact that AA was AN, and another the opposite and so. This is not the case. So, we can doubt about DNA test performed on Anna.

And it is not true that the former methods of identifications are not reliable: people was identified like this for decads, and there were few errors. You must know that Anna Frank's diary was recognized as belonging to her, for the same graphologist who said that AA's writting was identical to AN one and that they belonged to the same person. Formerly, another graphologist (this time hired by the GD of Hesse) had said the same. And there were the photos. Not the ones we can see in Kurth's site but others that are in German Tryal Dossiers, taken by experts at AA's house, and compared AA with AN millimeter by millimeter...And there is P.I.K...And there is the ear comparison test (no one person in the whole world have the same shape of ears than another; no one person in the whole world have the same anatomical coincidences that P.I.K shows, than another...So DNA teach us a new scientifical rule: there ARE two, or perhaps more, persons who shares the same ears shape and have the same anatomical characteristics than another. Former science established that even twins people were different in those points. But all this is old, you know.Now, we know that clons were invented long before we supposed), and, and...

There is too many things to explain why I still thinks that AA was AN. These are the basic ones. And I do not care about 4 labs saying the same. Of course, they may do it.Switched or not, they tested always the same sample. It should give up the same results. This is pure logic. And when I speak about "switching" I'm not accusing any scientific involved in the case, as Dr. Gill. Switchs could be also made for persons not being scientific at all.

RealAnastasia.

[helenazar]

 they tested always the same sample.

Nope. They tested at least two different samples (possibly three?) . The second sample they tested, which matched the intestine exactly was the hair that was provided by Peter Kurth, that was said to belong to AA.  The DNA matched exactly. How would you explain that then - another coincidence? Another "switch"? Maybe Peter Kurth is on on the conspiracy and has just been a really good actor...  

[Louis_Charles]

Dear RA,

Helen brings up an interesting point. You were in error concerning the sample itself, and you provided the information to the Argentinian scientists upon which they based their conclusions. Is it possible that the misinformation affected their answers?

Regards,

Simon

[ChatNoir]

Hello all:
I just stumbled on this site, and I am amAZed how many people take interest in the Anastasia case.
As for the DNA: Anna Anderson's DNA did not match the bones found in the grave, but, interestingly enough, neither did Princess Elizabeth's. That means only one thing to me: The whole DNA theory is shot to hell. I welcome your comments.
Kind regards
Le Chat Noir

[etonexile]

Hello all:
I just stumbled on this site, and I am amAZed how many people take interest in the Anastasia case.
As for the DNA: Anna Anderson's DNA did not match the bones found in the grave, but, interestingly enough, neither did Princess Elizabeth's. That means only one thing to me: The whole DNA theory is shot to hell. I welcome your comments.
Kind regards
Le Chat Noir

Sorry...don't know the details of how someone called "Princess Elizabeth" might have been related to the IF. Are you refering to HM?...Please be more specific in these matters. You undermine any vague credibility to which you might aspire.

[lexi4]

Sorry...don't know the details of how someone called "Princess Elizabeth" might have been related to the IF. Are you refering to HM?...Please be more specific in these matters. You undermine any vague credibility to which you might aspire.

etonecxile,
Just ask Tedders...he know all.

[sparrow]

Good morning,  a question concerning a reference to the hair sample, was that hair sample not found in a box of books put up for auction and then claimed to be AA hair.   Also Dna testing in the eighties is not and I stress not the Dna testing in the year 2000.  In the early days of Dna testing (look it up) had so many flaws and gliches that many labs were shut down for contaminated evidence, including FBI labs.  Many workers did not understand the importance of chain of evidence and therefore did not respect the necessity of trasporting the evidence in the manner of today.  And even today Dna testing is not perfect, and will not stand alone.  It must have collaborating evidence to support it's findings.   Identical twins have the same dna and so can triplits.    There is room for a considerable amound of doubt here and one should not base the evidence solely on a piece of intestestine lost for three months and a hair found in a box of books from Auction.   sparrow

[Forum Admin]

umm sparrow,
PLEASE come up to speed on the actual FACTS before you start wasting bandwidth with incorrect statements.

The DNA testing at issue was done in 1994, not "the '80s", and the AA DNA test IS STILL THE SAME EXACT TEST DONE TODAY AND EVERY SINGLE EXPERT IN THE FIELD CONFIRMS THAT THIS TEST IS STILL EXACTLY AS RELIABLE AS EVER. I must INSIST that you provide specific scientific evidence published in peer review journals which shows that this specific test is in fact unreliable. (the peer review papers, on the other hand STILL cite the Gill testing of the AA material as solid valid and reliable work...just google it.)  We HAVE evidence to support the material as AA's. The RECORDS OF MARTHA JEFFERSON HOSPITAL...MJ Hospital has been contacted and asked to address the remote possibility of some "switch' during the period in question, and responded with "impossible" due the fact that the sample had only a code number on it, NOT AA' s name so NO ONE could have known what sample was her's.  As for the validity of the hair sample, please address that to the sample's owner, Peter Kurth. He is convinced it was her's

[AGRBear]

I'm not looking forward the FA's rath which rains down upon me when I get into the coversation of "contamination" but let me remind him that there is a difference between "contamination" and  the theory of a "switch".  

An act of "contamination" can be proven to be highly unlikely due to the various steps and procedures used from operating room to the lab and the method of saving the sample of intestines.

A "switch" was not impossible at Martha Jefferson Hospital then or, now, at any hosptial as good or better than Martha Jefferson Hospital if someone was provided with a  "reason", "opportunity" and the  "means".

The truth about this subject is:  At this time no one was provided any kind of evidence that "contamination" or a "switch" occured with the sample of the intestines labeled as having belonged to Anna Anderson.

Until such proof is provided,  FA and the majority of posters will not even entertain the theory "contamination" or a "switch could have occured.

AGRBear

[Forum Admin]

Until such proof is provided,  FA and the majority of posters will not even entertain the theory "contamination" or a "switch could have occured.

and the same goes for space aliens too. While I personally believe life exists elsewhere in the galaxy, until PROOF is shown that space aliens DO EXIST, I won't entertain any space alien theories either.

[Louis_Charles]

I'm not looking forward the FA's rath which rains down upon me when I get into the coversation of "contamination" but let me remind him that there is a difference between "contamination" and  the theory of a "switch".  

An act of "contamination" can be proven to be highly unlikely due to the various steps and procedures used from operating room to the lab and the method of saving the sample of intestines.

A "switch" was not impossible at Elisabeth Jefferson Hospital then or, now, at any hosptial as good or better than Elisabeth Jefferson Hospital if someone was provided with a  "reason", "opportunity" and the  "means".

The truth about this subject is:  At this time no one was provided any kind of evidence that "contamination" or a "switch" occured with the sample of the intestines labeled as having belonged to Anna Anderson.

Until such proof is provided,  FA and the majority of posters will not even entertain the theory "contamination" or a "switch could have occured.

AGRBear

Martha Jefferson Hospital.

[annaanderson]

Until such proof is provided,  FA and the majority of posters will not even entertain the theory "contamination" or a "switch could have occured.
 
and the same goes for space aliens too. While I personally believe life exists elsewhere in the galaxy, until PROOF is shown that space aliens DO EXIST, I won't entertain any space alien theories either.

But there is still the possibility of space aliens. Just look at Roswell, New Mexico. Many say there were UFOs there. Just because they can't prove dosen't mean it did not happen.

[annaanderson]

Hello all:
I just stumbled on this site, and I am amAZed how many people take interest in the Anastasia case.
As for the DNA: Anna Anderson's DNA did not match the bones found in the grave, but, interestingly enough, neither did Princess Elizabeth's. That means only one thing to me: The whole DNA theory is shot to hell. I welcome your comments.
Kind regards
Le Chat Noir

I also found it interesting how Empress Alexandra's own sister, Elizabeth's, finger did not even match the mtDNA of Empress Alexandra.  

[Louis_Charles]

But there is still the possibility of space aliens. Just look at Roswell, New Mexico. Many say there were UFOs there. Just because they can't prove dosen't mean it did not happen.

If we are going to admit the possibility of space aliens, I hereby apologize to Etonexile for not taking it seriously, and I suggest everyone else do the same.

Then I suggest we attempt to come back to planet Earth for some serious discussions.