One thing i find odd part two.

[AGRBear]

You're still assuming that just because Mrs. Gertrude said it on page 222 that it's a 'fact.' In all these he said she said things, it's possible Mrs. Gertrude lied,,,,

Bear's Answer: 
Not only did Mrs. Gertrude say it on page 222,  maybe over on page 224 there is proof she said it in court under oath.  Of course,  it still could be a lie.  But are you the only person who can make that judgement for all of us?

Annie:

..., and it's also possible that her words were twisted or even fabricated by someone else along the line.

 

Bear's Answer:

Again, Mrs. Gertrude words may have been twisted by the author so then it IS important to know who the author is and his position on the subject of Mrs. Gertrude. 

Annie:

On the other hand, DNA tests are not twisted (and no intestines get switched) so they hold much more weight than what Miss Woopee said about a pair of shoes.

Bear's Answer:
The above statements about twisting facts can also be true of those providing the DNA tests, so,   knowing if the tester was the  high school drop out  named Black or a welll known scientists like Dr. Gilliusmann would help the rest of us to deside which tests are probably more accurate than the other.

Annie:

Then of course with shoes, it's even more subjective, and human error (in addition to possibe lying) comes into play. People may be unsure after so many years, or they may even be the wrong shoes and the originals long gone

Bear's Answer:
If Jane Doe's motherr told the court that her daughter wore size 2 shoe,  and, the court was provided with evidence that AA, who was seated in court, wore size 5 shoe,  I think it would help show that Jane Doe wasn't AA.

Each piece of evidence builds a case.

There are times when DNA/mtDNA  tells us that  Jane Doe  and AA have a match, however, this does not mean Jan Doe and AA are the same person.  An expert like Mr. Sky can testified and explains that it is  just coincidence that Jane Doe's and AA's DNA/mtDNA match.  And then the expert would  give the number of others,  about 200,who were walking around in the world who are probably carrying the same DNA/mtDNA ....

Annie:

. So what it comes down to is all the little tidbits AA touters like to hold to as 'everything else I can't ignore' really don't mean anything compared to the DNA.

Bear's Answer:
Why do you think anyone has to ignore the DNA/mtDNA between AA and Jane Doe.  Just because there is a match of DNA and mtDNA  doesn't mean the tests were wrong.

As for "all the little tidbits AA touters",  I assume you are, now, referring to the people who believe Anna Anderson was GD Anastasia. 

So tell me Annie:   Is there any reason not to answer  "AA touters' "  questions with facts with sources attached?  I know I can and I know you can.  All of us who don't believe AA was GD Anastasia can even do so  without calling the believers  stupid or crazy or telling them they must be seeing little green men.

Sure,  sometimes it seems like we've said it all before over on XX thread or XXX thread but that's the way it is.

AGRBear

[AGRBear]

Btw, what was "the one thing I fund odd"? I don't even remember. 

I've been saying that for awhile now! I suppose it's ALL odd!

Here is the first post which tells us the subject:

Another Anastasia claimant; the ears match exactly Posts: 748

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)
One thing I find odd
Sorry if this has already been discussed, but this board is crazy with its 1 million posting threads and I can't be bothered to read through them all.


One thing that has always struck me as odd is that AA claimed she was AN before the bones were ever found.

COINCIDENTALLY, the bones of one of the grand duchesses and Alexei were missing, giving AA an even stronger claim to being AN before the DNA results came out and proved she wasn't.

Don't you think it's a bit weird that AA decided to pretend she was AN and then lo and behold AN's bones were missing from the grave? (Of course, that's if you believe they are AN's bones that are missing, which I do, and which I believe is the scientific consensus, but I may be wrong on that).  I always found that an odd coincidence. ?!?

But then, AA never mentioned Alexei surviving or escaping.  If the reason some people believe AA was AN is because of the missing bones, how do they explain the absence of Alexei? They can't BOTH have escaped without notice.  And if they DID, which would explain the absence of both sets of bones neatly, why didn't AA ever mention it?  She would surely have escaped with her brother. Obviously because it never happened, but you know...just being provocative. This board needs a new discussion.  Wink

Any thoughts on the matter??

Rachel
xx

[Lemur]

Oh, I see, so that's how Alexei was brought into this, because the question was why didn't any claimant mention escaping with her brother?

For the record, did Tammet not mention escaping with his sister? I will take this to the Tammet thread.

[Annie]

So tell me Annie:   Is there any reason not to answer  "AA touters' "  questions with facts with sources attached?  I know I can and I know you can.

Because the DNA ended all that speculation, IF you TRULY believe the DNA!

Think of it as a court case for a crime. Bill is accused of a murder, but he claims Joe did it. Amy said she saw Joe at the house that night. The footprints, smeared in mud, seem more Joe's size. Bill's mother claimed he was at her house all night the night of the murder. But when DNA testing is done on evidence found on the body, Bill is proven to be the killer. Now some may yell, 'what about the footprints?' 'what about what Amy and the mother said?' Well, guess what, DNA is the FINAL answer, and NONE of that matters anymore! We can only presume intelligently that Bill's mother must have lied, Amy was mistaken, and that the smeared footprints were not accurately measured. When the DNA comes in, the judge doesn't want to hear all the piddly crap anymore, because it's OVER and the PROOF is there!

 

All of us who don't believe AA was GD Anastasia can even do so  without calling the believers  stupid or crazy or telling them they must be seeing little green men.

Bear, if you really don't believe AA was AN, WHY do you ENDLESSLY try so hard to prove she was any way you can? ALL of your posts are PRO AA!! I have said this before, if you were even partially unbiased and tried to give info on BOTH sides, I would believe you were really seeking the 'truth' but since you are always on the side of the claimant, I can't believe you. Actions speak louder than words!

Sure,  sometimes it seems like we've said it all before over on XX thread or XXX thread but that's the way it is.

AGRBear

Boy and how!

[Tania]

I am beginning to see much about what DNA is and is not, but I'm honestly getting more confused now with all the footprints, mud, shoe sizes, etc. I think the scientific approach of explaining DNA is much preferred by those addressing intelligent bonifide scholarly information. I don't do well with footprints, and mud explanations. I'm serious, no joke intended !

As to anyone's opinion being pro or con, imho, it's still up to the individual anywhere to look at all the evidence, including the essential remains,  so all actual and identifiable tests can be taken, etc. For me that spells an intelligent approach, period. Thanks for your kindness to hear me through  Oops, gotta run, The President is speaking about, Rumsfield, can't miss that,    ....

Tatiana+

[Annie]

I am beginning to see much about what DNA is and is not, but I'm honestly getting more confused now with all the footprints, mud, shoe sizes, etc.

Then you have totally missed my point. I was trying to compare a modern day court case to the silly shoes, buttons, hair color, ears, she said blah, and all that stuff from the AA case that some use as 'evidence' to rival the DNA.

I think the scientific approach of explaining DNA is much preferred by those addressing intelligent bonifide scholarly information. I don't do well with footprints, and mud explanations. I'm serious, no joke intended !

If you are truly interested, there is a good thread on DNA resources at the top of the page on this section of the forum.

[Tania]

Thank you Annie Dear, but I'm already understanding about DNA, as a member of the family is fully involved in it.

Tatiana+

[lexi4]

Btw, what was "the one thing I fund odd"? I don't even remember. 

I've been saying that for awhile now! I suppose it's ALL odd!

I think you are right Lemur, it is all odd. 
Here is the one thing I find odd. Let's see if I can ask this without getting my head bit off.
If there is a thread about Tammett, or AA or any other survivor it is probably there because it is of interest to some posters. So why can't those posters just have their discussion without the continued attacks of those for whom the survivor issues are resoloved? Why bother responding. Does that question make any sense?

[AGRBear]

Annie's quote in part:

Bear, if you really don't believe AA was AN, WHY do you ENDLESSLY try so hard to prove she was any way you can? ALL of your posts are PRO AA!! I have said this before, if you were even partially unbiased and tried to give info on BOTH sides, I would believe you were really seeking the 'truth' but since you are always on the side of the claimant, I can't believe you. Actions speak louder than words!

What part of this statement : " I do not think that AA was GD Anastasia." do you fail to understand?

AGRBear



 

[Phil_tomaselli]

Annie said:

"Because the DNA ended all that speculation, IF you TRULY believe the DNA!

Think of it as a court case for a crime. Bill is accused of a murder, but he claims Joe did it. Amy said she saw Joe at the house that night. The footprints, smeared in mud, seem more Joe's size. Bill's mother claimed he was at her house all night the night of the murder. But when DNA testing is done on evidence found on the body, Bill is proven to be the killer. Now some may yell, 'what about the footprints?' 'what about what Amy and the mother said?' Well, guess what, DNA is the FINAL answer, and NONE of that matters anymore! We can only presume intelligently that Bill's mother must have lied, Amy was mistaken, and that the smeared footprints were not accurately measured. When the DNA comes in, the judge doesn't want to hear all the piddly crap anymore, because it's OVER and the PROOF is there!"

Unfortunately DNA is not so cut and dried.  It might work if we thought the victim was Bill, but the DNA proved that the victim was Joe.  It CAN'T prove that the murderer was Bill, though it might shoot a hole in his alibi if he claimed he wasn't there and his DNA turned up on the body or the weapon.  Proof of who the actual murderer was would depend on a variety of other evidence including motive, opportunity and method.

Consider an alleged rape case - the DNA might prove that Mr X had sex with Miss Y (and if he denied the act that would be pretty damning) but it couldn't prove lack of consent, that would depend on other evidence and the considered veracity of the witnesses.

There have been several cases in the UK where DNA evidence has been conspicuously absent but its absence has not been enough to have the accused declared not guilty.

In questions of identity DNA appears to be pretty conclusive but it isn't the be all and end all.  I seem to recall that in the 19th century a scientific method of proving identity based on accurate measurements of various features was considered infallible and widely used.  It was totally discredited when a man was absolutely identified using the method but the man he was identified as turned out to be in prison at the time!  If I can recall the case & method I'll put it on the board sometime.

Phil Tomaselli 

[Annie]

Annie's quote in part:

Bear, if you really don't believe AA was AN, WHY do you ENDLESSLY try so hard to prove she was any way you can? ALL of your posts are PRO AA!! I have said this before, if you were even partially unbiased and tried to give info on BOTH sides, I would believe you were really seeking the 'truth' but since you are always on the side of the claimant, I can't believe you. Actions speak louder than words!

What part of this statement : " I do not think that AA was GD Anastasia." do you fail to understand?

AGRBear

As I said, actions speak  louder than words. All of your posts are pro AA. Everything you say and do is that of a person trying desperately to prove AA was AN. So your disclaimer means nothing unless you back it up with proof! (making posts that show you know AA was an imposter,not continually trying to find ways why her story could be true!) You are not even fair to both sides, you are always pro AA! So unless your posts change, I have no choice but to believe you must think she is AN.
 

[Tania]

Thank you very much Phil_Tomaselli. You always offer the most exceptional explanations, and I prefer what and how you offer them to many others, especially when it comes to DNA. As well, I think Bear has already had too many times expressed how she feels and need not be harasssed over and over by endless attacks, of how she should or should not think about any given issue. She has expressed quite well to all viewers, and to all AP Forum Members by the following statment :

                                             "I do not think that AA was GD Anastasia" !

For most readers here, we comprehend fully and exactly what she has stated. It could not be plainer, and is in our native language of English. 

There is nothing more for Bear to offer here or in any following threads. Go Bear, Go !   

Tatiana+

[Annie]

If I went around proclaiming "I BELIEVE AA WAS AN!!!" yet all of my posts were refuting her claim, wouldn't that look strange? Wouldn't it be hard to believe me? But of course a lot on this board defies common logic

[Eddie_uk]

Don't trouble Annie dear. This has been gone over again and again. It just shows the horse isn't quite dead! 

[Annie]

Don't trouble Annie dear. This has been gone over again and again. It just shows the horse isn't quite dead! 

So true and bear will always have her cotton wool and honey pot!