Author Topic: One thing I find odd  (Read 109280 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Annie

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4756
    • View Profile
    • Anna Anderson Exposed!
Re: One thing I find odd
« Reply #225 on: October 31, 2006, 07:01:15 AM »

As Annie rightly brought up, Michael Romanov's body was never found.  But no one disputes his death.  Why are people so worried about the missing bodies of Alexei and one of his sisters, but not about Michael's? Why is Michael considered to be safely dead, but the other two not?



What a double standard! I'm still waiting for him to answer that. The answer seems to me to be that Michael had no claimants, so there's no need to pretend he lived. But if people can accept the Bolshevik's story of his death, with no body, why not Anastasia and Alexei, oh yeah, that's right, the claimants ::)

Offline OTMA-fan

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 15
    • View Profile
3 REASONS WHY TSARFAN IS WRONG
« Reply #226 on: October 31, 2006, 08:14:48 AM »

3 REASONS WHY TSARFAN IS WRONG.

Unfortunately, no one provided a new information to help to understand the "Sisu" account which Lexi4 posted here first. However, as I promised, I will refute some arguments made by Tsarfan.


#####1 Tsarfan says "Also, at the time this report was written, only Y-STR testing was available.  This would indicate whether any two males were related paternally, but it would not indicate who the males were.  (X-STR testing, which tests for paternal relationships between a male and a female, has only become available since 1994.)"

This is not true. The 1994 study used to analyze the Amelogenin gene, which exists on BOTH X and Y chromosome. Indeed, anyone who took Biology 101 knows that there is no such thing as "Y-STR testing", as this sex-type-PCR never works with either only X or only Y, it only works when you amplify BOTH, as each works as a control for another. It is such a mystery to me why Tsarfan has to fabricates such kind of funny testing.
(I quote from the original 1994 paper: "p131, The sex of the bones was determined by amplification of a portion of the X-Y homologous gene, amelogenin, which provide a robust method for typing samples of a very degraded nature: X and Y-specific products of 106 and 112 basepairs, respectively were generated....)

#####2. Tsar fans says "The conclusion that Alexei's body is missing is based on forensic physical examination of the skeletal remains in the grave, not on DNA evidence."

Again, This is not true. It is based on BOTH forensic and DNA evidence. There was no skeleton of a boy (Alexei), this was very obvious and simple, which Tsarfan understands. But there was also no DNA which matched Alexei, this part is what many people don't understand. Alexei's DNA should have had BOTH Y chromosome from nucleus, AND Hesse mtDNA type (i.e., 16111C/16357T). There were 4 individuals' DNA in the grave which had Hesse mtDNA, but all had only X chromosomes. None had Y Chromosome. Therefore, Alexei's DNA was missing.

#####3. Tsarfans keeps attacking the use of the word "supports". In academic circle, we use "supports" and "is consistent with" interchangeably on many occasions. "Evidence A supports B", does not necessary means "Because of Evidence A, the fact B is 100% certain." For example, if blood left on a crime scheme is Type A and the suspect’s Blood Type is also A, a prosecutor can say “the blood evidence supports the accusation that the defendant is a murderer”. If you read #1 and #2 above, you see the DNA evidence “supports” (or “is consistent with”) the Alexei's survival theory.

#####4. I do not think Alexei survived after multiple shots, IF he was indeed shot. As Yeltzin destroyed the Iptiev house, there is no physical evidence to support Yurovsky’s account.  As many people thought that Alexei will die sooner or later, it might be possible that he was removed from target thinking that it would be easy to kill him later. This is my conjecture, but I have some indirect evidence to support this, which I will post here later, when Lexi4 is able to post the page of "Sisu".

P.S.
And Ra-Ra-Rasputin, how many times should I tell you not to attack the motive or personality of the person who presents an argument ("Poisoning the Well"). The motive nothing to do with his/her argument. Indeed I never attacks the Tsarfan's agenda or motive, because I don't care.

And also, please don't confuse the argument unnecessarily. Please do not bring the Anastasia issue and say "Look all the crazy stuff AA said". That's absolutely irreverent here.   

Offline Louis_Charles

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 1498
    • View Profile
Re: One thing I find odd
« Reply #227 on: October 31, 2006, 08:31:48 AM »
"Irrelevant", not "irreverent".

And I am sorry to be dim, but why does the fact that Alexei's DNA not being found in the grave prove anything other than that his body was not in the grave?

Why would all of the eyewitnesses to the shootings place him in the Ipatiev cellar if he was not there? They also placed OTM, A&N, Botkin and the servants in the cellar, and they were there. Why have Anastasia and Alexei escape death? Why not the others?

You have extrapolated from the lack of two bodies to something that is at best . . .  improbable? And what on earth does the Finnish Prime Minister's testimony prove, other than he may have believed what he said? So? He didn't have any physical evidence either.

Cherry-picking.

Quote
#####3. Tsarfans keeps attacking the use of the word "supports". In academic circle, we use "supports" and "is consistent with" interchangeably on many occasions. "Evidence A supports B", does not necessary means "Because of Evidence A, the fact B is 100% certain." For example, if blood left on a crime scheme is Type A and the suspect’s Blood Type is also A, a prosecutor can say “the blood evidence supports the accusation that the defendant is a murderer”. If you read #1 and #2 above, you see the DNA evidence “supports” (or “is consistent with”) the Alexei's survival theory.

In academic circles we also support our sources. Can you provide one reputable historian or scientist who accepts the idea that Alexei was not shot? Who regards the fact that his body is not in the grave as equally strong evidence that he survived?

Simon
« Last Edit: October 31, 2006, 08:36:08 AM by Louis_Charles »
"Simon --- Classy AND Compassionate!"
   
"The road to enlightenment is long and difficult, so take snacks and a magazine."

Offline OTMA-fan

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 15
    • View Profile
Re: One thing I find odd
« Reply #228 on: October 31, 2006, 08:52:35 AM »
all right, today is tuesday, and I have to go to my work and school now. I will respond when I get back.
Simon, at the same time, please explain why Tsarfan had to invent the "Y-STR" testing.

Offline Tsarfan

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 1848
  • Miss the kings, but not the kingdoms
    • View Profile
Re: 3 REASONS WHY TSARFAN IS WRONG
« Reply #229 on: October 31, 2006, 09:12:04 AM »

. . . anyone who took Biology 101 knows that there is no such thing as "Y-STR testing"


Really?  Then why do numerous labs perform Y-STR paternal lineage testing?  Anyone can check this out by googling "Y-STR test".



Tsar fans says "The conclusion that Alexei's body is missing is based on forensic physical examination of the skeletal remains in the grave, not on DNA evidence."

Again, This is not true. It is based on BOTH forensic and DNA evidence. There was no skeleton of a boy (Alexei), this was very obvious and simple, which Tsarfan understands. But there was also no DNA which matched Alexei, this part is what many people don't understand. Alexei's DNA should have had BOTH Y chromosome from nucleus, AND Hesse mtDNA type (i.e., 16111C/16357T). There were 4 individuals' DNA in the grave which had Hesse mtDNA, but all had only X chromosomes. None had Y Chromosome. Therefore, Alexei's DNA was missing.


I stand corrected on this point.  I was recalling reports I read a while ago that said Alexei was determined to be missing because there were no bones with both the age markers of an adolescent and the signs of deformation from the hemophilia attacks that left him lame.  In any case, I have always agreed his skeleton is missing from the grave. 



Tsarfans keeps attacking the use of the word "supports".


I was not attacking the use of the word "supports".  I was attacking referring only to a DNA report as supporting Alexei's survival when the report, in fact, explictily said the findings supported a range of possibilities, including the burning of the missing bodies and separate burial -- which is exactly what participants in the massacre reported happened.  This was a debate about whether Alexei survived.  You adduced a report as supporting one side of the debate only, when it actually supported the possibility of both arguments.  Since you claim to be from "academic circles", shouldn't you adhere to the standards of intellectual rigor normally expected in that community when putting forward argumentation?


And, by the way . . . how did the title of this thread temporarily become "3 Reasons Why Tsarfan is Wrong" on the forum register?  I doubt if Ra-Ra-Rasputin, who started this thread, made the change.  Is hijacking a thread started by someone else to push a personal agenda also a practice in the "academic circles" in which you operate?

Offline AGRBear

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 6611
  • The road to truth is the best one to travel.
    • View Profile
    • Romanov's  Russia
Re: One thing I find odd
« Reply #230 on: October 31, 2006, 10:02:04 AM »
Why would Yurovsky  tell us the truth about nine bodies and not about two?

Pick one of the possible answers:

1)  Yurovsky lied about the buriel of the two missing bodies?

2) Yurovsky wasn''t present when the two bodies were buried and merely repeated what was told to him by those who were and did

3)  Yurovsky didn't have two bodies to bury

4)
"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: One thing I find odd
« Reply #231 on: October 31, 2006, 10:07:11 AM »
For some reason my above post can't be modified after a minute of posting so I'll explain:

The #4  was to have added to it:

"Add your reason as to why""

AGRBear


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

Joubert, Pensees, No. 152

Offline Ra-Ra-Rasputin

  • Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 814
  • Another Anastasia claimant; the ears match exactly
    • View Profile
Re: 3 REASONS WHY TSARFAN IS WRONG
« Reply #232 on: October 31, 2006, 10:11:47 AM »

P.S.
And Ra-Ra-Rasputin, how many times should I tell you not to attack the motive or personality of the person who presents an argument ("Poisoning the Well"). The motive nothing to do with his/her argument. Indeed I never attacks the Tsarfan's agenda or motive, because I don't care.

And also, please don't confuse the argument unnecessarily. Please do not bring the Anastasia issue and say "Look all the crazy stuff AA said". That's absolutely irreverent here.   


Three reasons why OTMA-fan is amusing:

1. OTMA-fan presumes to tell me what to do, and thinks I should do as he/she says, even though OTMA-fan doesn't read my posts properly (please refer to point 3).
2. OTMA-fan thinks he/she hasn't attacked Tsarfan, and yet has changed the title of MY post, without MY permission, to 'Three reasons why Tsarfan is wrong'. If that isn't attacking anyone, I don't know what is.
3. OTMA-fan misquotes me and uses that to tell me off.  I don't think I've ever in my life used the phrase 'poisoning the well', so I suggest that you read more carefully to check the origin of the post you're referring to next time, dear.


I don't see why we keep going around and around and around in circles here. Alexei's body is not in the grave.  This has been determined by DNA testing and forensic analysis.  Why does this matter? His body not being there proves nothing except that his body is not there.  It does not mean he didn't die in the massacre.  It does not mean he escaped.  It does not mean he survived and grew up to be Heino Tammet.  It simply means that for a reason we aren't sure about, his body isn't in the grave.

Why make this into something more than it is?

Annie and I are both waiting to hear why it is that Alexei's missing body must mean he survived and yet Michael Romanov's body is still missing...no one is that bothered as to his potential whereabouts...why not? As Annie suggests, perhaps it's because he hasn't got anyone pretending to be him...no fake survivor to attach yourself to and start making up exciting alternative life stories for?

And OTMA-fan, please stop telling me what I can and cannot discuss- I started this thread.  I'll say what I want on it.

Rachel
xx
 
'History teaches that history teaches us nothing' ~ Hegel

Offline Ra-Ra-Rasputin

  • Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 814
  • Another Anastasia claimant; the ears match exactly
    • View Profile
Re: One thing I find odd
« Reply #233 on: October 31, 2006, 10:13:10 AM »
Why would Yurovsky  tell us the truth about nine bodies and not about two?

Pick one of the possible answers:

1)  Yurovsky lied about the burial of the two missing bodies?

2) Yurovsky wasn''t present when the two bodies were buried and merely repeated what was told to him by those who were and did

3)  Yurovsky didn't have two bodies to bury

4) Add your reason as to why

5) Yurovsky wasn't lying and there are two bodies still left to be found (always a possibility?)

Rachel
xx
'History teaches that history teaches us nothing' ~ Hegel

Offline Lemur

  • Graf
  • ***
  • Posts: 268
  • reach for the top!
    • View Profile
Re: One thing I find odd
« Reply #234 on: October 31, 2006, 10:39:59 AM »
I agree with the statement that the absence of finding a body to date does not argue for the remote possibility of survival.


People have been convicted of murder when the body of their victim was never found, if there is enough circumstantial evidence and/or a confession. In this case, we have both.

Offline Lemur

  • Graf
  • ***
  • Posts: 268
  • reach for the top!
    • View Profile
Re: One thing I find odd
« Reply #235 on: October 31, 2006, 10:42:15 AM »

As Annie rightly brought up, Michael Romanov's body was never found.  But no one disputes his death.  Why are people so worried about the missing bodies of Alexei and one of his sisters, but not about Michael's? Why is Michael considered to be safely dead, but the other two not?



What a double standard! I'm still waiting for him to answer that. The answer seems to me to be that Michael had no claimants, so there's no need to pretend he lived. But if people can accept the Bolshevik's story of his death, with no body, why not Anastasia and Alexei, oh yeah, that's right, the claimants ::)

Good questions, why are the "Alexei lived" crowd who keep using lack of a body as 'proof' avoiding answering this? I'd like to see their reasoning.

Offline skirt

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 35
    • View Profile
Re: One thing I find odd
« Reply #236 on: October 31, 2006, 11:18:04 AM »
Quote
OTMAFan, I think the idea of this thread, is to express what one finds odd about whatever it is that is 'odd' on this thread.
That is what people are allowed to do is to state what they wish, nothing less. I think you have articulated what is of interest as well. Since there are no actual bodies to date, speculation will continue, and people will chose what they will, because that is just what people do, globally.

Remember again, though there are those whom post on these threads, there are countless thousands who have not shared their vote with anyone, and the vote at large has never been taken, and the bodies never found. So again, continue to offer your views freely, because there are some who may agree with you, and then some who will not. But, whatever is offered, or not, members and non members will draw their own conclusions, and come to what they wish to believe, as they do with everything in life.   As I recall on the other threads, people were almost crucified just for offering their thoughts on anything, and I hope that this will not again transpire. Thanks for sharing.

Tatiana+

 
I'd like to acknowledge this post with thanks.  Many threads do indeed become battle-grounds and people with different thoughts or opinions. It can be quite intimidating for us 'newbies'!!  Being attacked in person or via the internet for ones personal beliefs or thoughts is concidered bullying even assault. I'm sure there are many members and non-members that enjoy this forum and keep opinions to themselves (for many reasons I won't assume to guess). It is so important to keep communication clear and available without personal insults and attacks on character based on musings or opinions!!
With so many scholars and educated members/ non-members in so many parts of the world this is a virtual smorgasborg of information- without intimidations, people like lexi4 will be able to continually contribute most valuable otherwise unfound or unrecognised information.  I have learned SO much visiting here- with access to (historical) information that would take me YEARS to attain from my local liabrary!

I think that a former Finnish Prime Minister making a comment in his autobiography is fascinating and is likely nothing that I would be able to access or THINK to access on my own. Whether it equates that the tsarvich escaped a horrendous masacre is (IMHO) a stretch but is it necessary to devalue the fact that he said it/ it occured because you dont agree that Alexei survived?  this is great stuff !

Offline lori_c

  • Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 687
    • View Profile
Re: One thing I find odd
« Reply #237 on: October 31, 2006, 11:50:12 AM »
all right, today is tuesday, and I have to go to my work and school now. I will respond when I get back.
Simon, at the same time, please explain why Tsarfan had to invent the "Y-STR" testing.

Could this be referring to Y chromosome haplotyping?

Offline Tsarfan

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 1848
  • Miss the kings, but not the kingdoms
    • View Profile
Re: 3 REASONS WHY TSARFAN IS WRONG
« Reply #238 on: October 31, 2006, 12:42:58 PM »
I don't see why we keep going around and around and around in circles here. Alexei's body is not in the grave.  This has been determined by DNA testing and forensic analysis.  Why does this matter? His body not being there proves nothing except that his body is not there.  It does not mean he didn't die in the massacre.  It does not mean he escaped.  It does not mean he survived and grew up to be Heino Tammet.  It simply means that for a reason we aren't sure about, his body isn't in the grave.

I think everyone should take a time out and re-read Yurovsky's 1934 account of the massacre and the 24-hour period succeeding it.  (It's on the main Alexander Palace website.)  Far from being a cover-up of the mess he and others made of the events, his report candidly discusses the things for which he failed to plan as well as the plans he executed clumsily.  For instance, he admits he had given no forethought to how the bodies would be removed from the basement or to the fact that the murder room had a window from which sound would escape and a brick wall which made firing at close quarters dangerous.

His description of the actual shootings is critical.  He said that each shooter was assigned a specific victim, and then he admits that discipline quickly broke down once firing began and the shooters pressed in through the door and began firing indiscriminately.  He then reports how he finally managed to re-establish order and how each shooter then proceeded to be sure his assigned target was shot.  Yurovsky said that it was only at this point, with some semblance of calm restored, that he personally shot Alexei.  He also frankly reports the difficulty they had in killing the women and admits it was because they had managed to hide valuables in their clothing without his knowledge.

Then the discussion turns to the complete disarray surrounding the disposition of the bodies.  That effort was led by Yermovsky, whom others reported to be a heavy drinker who was deep into his cups the night of the murder.  Without informing Yurovsky, Yermovsky had assembled a large group of people near the planned burial site.  When word spread that there were valuables on the bodies, this horde descended on them and something sounding almost like a melee broke out.  Beyond that incident, the disposal squad came upon a group of peasants who had unexpectedly camped in the area of the mine pit which was intended as the burial site.  That mine pit turned out not to be large enough to hold all the bodies, which had to be fished out while another site was found.  There was a proposal to burn the bodies, followed by a realization that no one knew how.  Yurovksy left the scene to meet with his superiors in an attempt to bring this chaos to heel.

By the time a site was finally found, the disposal squad had been working more than 24 hours.  Every step of their way had been met with unexpected observers and scavengers pawing at the bodies for loot.  There was a momentary revolt as the exhausted squad at first refused to dig a grave.  Meanwhile, an attempt was made to try burning a couple of bodies . . . bodies which Yurovsky remembered to be Alexei and Demidova.  (He obviously got Demidova wrong.  But remember these were naked and mangled corpses with faces that had been shot or bashed in.  It would have been hard to make a mistake about the only adolescent male body in the pile but much easier to confuse the bodies of the females.)

In assessing why Alexei's body is missing, one has several choices.  One can believe Yurovsky's story, much of which was corroborated in other particulars by various means.  One can surmise that a couple of bodies might have been hauled off earlier in the evening by people trying to scavenge the bodies for valuables and who wanted a bit more time to do their work before the guards brought the confusion in the clearing back under control.  One could surmise that a couple of bodies fell off the overloaded truck as it was bumping through the woods in darkness. One could surmise that a couple of bodies could not be fished from the first mine pit and that Yurovsky was not told and did not realize it in the confusion.

Or . . . one could surmise that Alexei either was never in the murder room at all, despite the absence of even one scintilla of evidence.  Or . . . one can believe that Yurovsky for some mysterious reason did not so much as wound the heir to the throne.   Or . . . one can believe Alexis was so badly wounded he appeared dead but was, in fact, rescued by someone able to treat his hemophiliac's wounds better than any of Europe's best doctors.

His death requires picking from the first group of choices.  His survival requires picking from the second group.

The first group of choices requires one to believe the nostrum that, when something can go wrong, it usually will.  The second group requires believing in mysterious conspiracies by people with means to accomplish near-miraculous feats.





Offline Bev

  • Graf
  • ***
  • Posts: 254
    • View Profile
Re: One thing I find odd
« Reply #239 on: October 31, 2006, 01:05:24 PM »
I have never heard the two phrases "supports" and "is consistent with" used interchangeably, in "academic circles" because they mean two very different things.  

I've read your arguments in support of your hypothesis, several times, and I'm afraid that they are demonstrably false.  There is no evidence to support your hypothesis that Alexei survived.  First of all, you're assuming that absence of evidence is evidence of absence, and that is a logical fallacy.  We have a priori knowledge that he was killed - a small room, multiple shooters and eyewitnesses to his presence in the room.  We therefore have a prior probablity of event A - Pr(A).

We then have a posteriori knowledge - statements from the perpetrators, circumstantial evidence at the body disposal site (the contents of his pockets), eyewitnesses to his death and subsequent disposal and bullets and bullet holes in the Ipatiev House and at the disposal site.  We then have the conditional probability of event A based on information of event B or Pr(A\B). (With of course the given that Pr(B\A) is the conditional probability of B, given A, upon which we can all agree, I believe.)

In other words, I can prove that statistically, the likelihood that the son survived is so infinitely small as to be statistically non-existent and the likelihood that he was killed is statistically overwhelming:

Pr(A\B) = Pr(B\A) Pr(A)  \ Pr(B) or the posterior = the standardized likelihood x the prior.

Your claim that "A supports B" makes no sense if A is the likely survival of the son and B is the absence of evidence.  If B is non-existent, it doesn't support or refute either theory, it simply is not there at all.  Your example of the prosecutor mystefies me - if a prosecutor claims that because type A blood was found at the scene of a crime and the defendent has type A blood, therefore it "supports the accusation" it would be called a prosecutor's fallacy, because the defendant could prove quite easily that given the population, a significant proportion would have type A.  What a prosecutor offers is cumulative evidence, that taken as a whole, the likelihood that the defendant committed the crime is beyond reasonable doubt.

Those that promote the survival theory have no evidence whatsoever, and what is offered by "Sisu" is an anecdote, which may or may not be true.  Lyndon Johnson maintained all his life that Castro had Kennedy killed, but all of the evidence supports the Oswald theory, and there is no evidence at all that Castro was involved.  (In fact, there is evidence that he was not.)  Prime ministers and presidents have no particular lease on truth or facts or even understanding of events.  (Which might explain the current administration's incompetence.)