Author Topic: Re: So who WAS she, then?  (Read 112646 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

rskkiya

  • Guest
Re: So who WAS she, then?
« Reply #600 on: April 16, 2005, 05:17:20 PM »
Quote

And this is because... she was FS! There is no one else she could have been and this is why no one was able to come with any other name!
 There is no other candidate surfacing for the identity of AA because she was FS!  ;D


    We look at the evidence - then we run around in a circle - and then look at the evidence some more!
    As far as I can see until we get the 'new information this topic is rather a glorious game of "mental m@st&rbati*n".
    Without the ever hinted at secret id/unknown sources/ new records - this is not turning into a very useful discussion, sadly it seems to be getting even more pointless...
     Agrbear can joke and make pithy comments and  thick/slow/fuzzy/bear headed statements all that she wishes, but she has not yet offered us any reason for her doubts - other than the fact that she likes to "question" things...  :(
     I give up.

rskkiya

jeremygaleaz

  • Guest
Re: So who WAS she, then?
« Reply #601 on: April 16, 2005, 07:37:53 PM »
Quote

     We look at the evidence - then we run around in a circle - and then look at the evidence some more!
     As far as I can see until we get the 'new information this topic is rather a glorious game of "mental m@st&rbati*n".
     Without the ever hinted at secret id/unknown sources/ new records - this is not turning into a very useful discussion, sadly it seems to be getting even more pointless...
      Agrbear can joke and make pithy comments and  thick/slow/fuzzy/bear headed statements all that she wishes, but she has not yet offered us any reason for her doubts - other than the fact that she likes to "question" things...  :(
      I give up.

rskkiya


Not only that, I've come to the conclusion that perhaps some of the people involved in the discussion on the survivor threads are several french fries short of a happy meal, or just in very dddeeeepppp denial ! ;)

It's best not to get involved in the conversations (for me, anyway) as I find the only outcome is to become more frustrated. And I sense that the other side enjoys that, so why give them the pleasure?

I'll continue to post items and answer questions if I can. But reason and debate with some of these people? I give up too.

Sadly, I'm starting to see why war may forever be a part of human existence. If "Anna Anderson" was an issue that mattered, or was of any importance, (which she isn't),  the entire planet would probably have been nuked by now!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by jeremygaleaz »

Offline Helen_Azar

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 7472
  • Coming up Fall 2015: Tatiana's diaries and letters
    • View Profile
    • War-time diaries of Grand Duchess Olga Nikolaevna Romanov
Re: So who WAS she, then?
« Reply #602 on: April 16, 2005, 08:36:19 PM »
Jeremy, you are absolutely right as I have come to the same conclusion. There are many other interesting threads out there, and just exchanging info here would be enough, arguing any points is useless and is like beating one's head against the wall. Anyone who is reasonable enough already knows the answers, those who are not, never will.

Offline lexi4

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 1914
  • don't take yourself too seriously
    • View Profile
Re: So who WAS she, then?
« Reply #603 on: April 16, 2005, 10:01:59 PM »
Jeremy and Helen,
I agree with you both. As I have already said, I don't have to know who AA was. I know who she was not. She was not the GD Anastasia.
But who am I? I think Elvis is dead too.  ;D
Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely, in a pretty and well preserved body; but rather to skid in broadside, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming, "Wow ---- What a ride!!!"

Offline AGRBear

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 6611
  • The road to truth is the best one to travel.
    • View Profile
    • Romanov's  Russia
Re: So who WAS she, then?
« Reply #604 on: April 17, 2005, 11:36:53 AM »
Let's say Penny has given us the proof of a certificate and it does tell us that Gertrude is the daughter of Anton S.'s first wife and Gertrude is in fact not FS's full sister. [ This is just a "what if" scenario and no one is saying you have to believe it when replying.  But let's just say this is true.]  What kind of response will you really have to explain the mtDNA?  Will you sound like the AA followers who say, "It isn't possible." or will you look around for new possibilities?
 
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 Annie

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4756
    • View Profile
    • Anna Anderson Exposed!
Re: So who WAS she, then?
« Reply #605 on: April 17, 2005, 12:15:38 PM »
I would personally have to see it verified by other sources before I would accept its validity.

At this point, my guess (or theory) is that:

a) there is no certificate and never will be

or possibly this (conspiracy type) theory:

b) one was found but backed up the whole sister story, and thus it's being claimed it doesn't exist by those who want the speculation to go on. (sure is funny some people were so sure about this and promised evidence forthcoming, then all of a sudden there is no certificate, and it's all died down from everyone but Bear ???  ;) )

But I don't believe the half sister thing, I never did. It was all just blown out of proportion by those trying to find a way to doubt the DNA.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by Annie »

Offline AGRBear

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 6611
  • The road to truth is the best one to travel.
    • View Profile
    • Romanov's  Russia
Re: So who WAS she, then?
« Reply #606 on: April 17, 2005, 01:14:14 PM »
Quote
Let's say Penny has given us the proof of a certificate and it does tell us that Gertrude is the daughter of Anton S.'s first wife and Gertrude is in fact not FS's full sister. [ This is just a "what if" scenario and no one is saying you have to believe it when replying.  But let's just say this is true.]  What kind of response will you really have to explain the mtDNA?  Will you sound like the AA followers who say, "It isn't possible." or will you look around for new possibilities?
 
AGRBear


It appears that some of you protest to much and so, I must assume, you are afraid to answer.  Why?  I don't know.  It is, afterall, just a hyptothetical question in a thread of speculation which cannot possibly  create any serious blows to what so many of you view from your "box" sitting up there on those high rocks.  
;D

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 Lanie

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 1533
    • View Profile
Re: So who WAS she, then?
« Reply #607 on: April 17, 2005, 01:24:04 PM »
Quote

It appears that some of you protest to much and so, I must assume, you are afraid to answer.  Why?  I don't know.  It is, afterall, just a hyptothetical question in a thread of speculation which cannot possibly  create any serious blows to what so many of you view from your "box" sitting up there on those high rocks.  
;D

AGRBear


See, Bear, the thing about DNA...it is or it isn't.  This half-sister nonsense obviously isn't true since the mtDNA matched.  It would not have matched if they were half-sisters with different mothers.  It's that simple, that's how it works. :)

Offline Annie

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4756
    • View Profile
    • Anna Anderson Exposed!
Re: So who WAS she, then?
« Reply #608 on: April 17, 2005, 01:37:30 PM »
Exactly, Lanie.

But you know that Bear believes the DNA tests were rigged, intestines switched, etc.  :P

Offline AGRBear

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 6611
  • The road to truth is the best one to travel.
    • View Profile
    • Romanov's  Russia
Re: So who WAS she, then?
« Reply #609 on: April 17, 2005, 02:11:40 PM »
Quote

..[in part]...

 It would not have matched if they were half-sisters with different mothers.  It's that simple, that's how it works. :)



Hmmmm, could this be one of the reasons I'm waiting to hear from Penny about the birth/bap. records???

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

Joubert, Pensees, No. 152

Offline Helen_Azar

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 7472
  • Coming up Fall 2015: Tatiana's diaries and letters
    • View Profile
    • War-time diaries of Grand Duchess Olga Nikolaevna Romanov
Re: So who WAS she, then?
« Reply #610 on: April 17, 2005, 02:29:39 PM »
Quote
Let's say Penny has given us the proof of a certificate and it does tell us that Gertrude is the daughter of Anton S.'s first wife and Gertrude is in fact not FS's full sister.


If Penny produced this certificate, and that's a HUGE "IF", and we could then somehow make sure that this certificate is authentic - then we would have to figure out what sort of a relationship FS had to Gertrude. The existance of such certificate wouldn't mean that AA was not FS, it would just mean that they probably had maternally related mothers.

But since there is no such certificate, and most likely never will be, then there is no point for such speculations.

Offline AGRBear

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 6611
  • The road to truth is the best one to travel.
    • View Profile
    • Romanov's  Russia
Re: So who WAS she, then?
« Reply #611 on: April 17, 2005, 02:46:41 PM »
Helen finally gave a reply I was hoping to see.

Quote

..in part]...

If Penny produced this certificate, and that's a HUGE "IF", and we could then somehow make sure that this certificate is authentic - then we would have to figure out what sort of a relationship FS had to Gertrude. The existance of such certificate wouldn't mean that AA was not FS, it would just mean that they probably had maternally related mothers.



Thanks.

The mtDNA tests does allow the possibility of AA's, Gertrude's and FS's mothers to be cousins through their mothers' lineage.

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

rskkiya

  • Guest
Re: So who WAS she, then?
« Reply #612 on: April 17, 2005, 03:59:33 PM »
Quote
Helen finally gave a reply I was hoping to see.


Thanks.

The mtDNA tests does allow the possibility of AA's, Gertrude's and FS's mothers to be cousins through their mothers' lineage.

AGRBear


IF -IF -IF -IF -  :-[
I know -- lets all run counterclockwise rather than clockwise -- then it will start to make sence!

   Agrb, we can all happily discuss any real evidence when we can see it and only when we can see it!  All the rest is pointless speculation.


{What if FS was really an "alien"....HMMMM.... from Alpha Centari maybe? Or from Tantoine? AHA ! An EWOK that's what Agrbear is looking for -- a little teddy alien bear!} ;)

rskkiya

Offline Helen_Azar

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 7472
  • Coming up Fall 2015: Tatiana's diaries and letters
    • View Profile
    • War-time diaries of Grand Duchess Olga Nikolaevna Romanov
Re: So who WAS she, then?
« Reply #613 on: April 17, 2005, 04:28:26 PM »
Quote
The mtDNA tests does allow the possibility of AA's, Gertrude's and FS's mothers to be cousins through their mothers' lineage.


No Bear, IF this certificate of "different mothers" was ever produced, it would just mean that the mother of Gertrude and the mother of FS were maternally related. This would not mean that AA was not FS. AA and FS would still be one and the same person.

But we have no certificate like this, and I seriously doubt that it will ever be produced. And this should be the end of that story, because as rsskyia said, if you really want to know the "truth", as you so often claim, you should only consider real evidence, not made-up evidence.

Offline AGRBear

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 6611
  • The road to truth is the best one to travel.
    • View Profile
    • Romanov's  Russia
Re: So who WAS she, then?
« Reply #614 on: April 17, 2005, 05:00:35 PM »
IF AA is NOT FS then the following is correct:

The mtDNA tests does allow the possibility of AA's, Gertrude's and FS's mothers to be cousins through their mothers' lineage.

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

Joubert, Pensees, No. 152