Anna Anderson's claim to be Grand Duchess Anastasia

[ChatNoir]

So from this extract of a published book, it would appear that he burned the papers because he thought the case was closed. Which is a litle different from your original comment which started this digression, which was "Don't worry, Gilliard had to confess in the Hamburg court that he had been telling, eh, untruths. Why do you think he burned his papers?"

It would appear that he burned his papers because he thought the case was closed, not because he had been telling, eh, untruths. I think we're still waiting for backup for the "telling untruths" assertion. Surely this is a major enough story that it appears somewhere other than some obscure trial transcripts stored somewhere in Germany.

A historian who burns his archives? A corpse that stinks.....

As far as lies, he asserted in "False Anastasia" that AN knew no German. His own schedules and AN's schoolbooks tell us otherwise. When AA talked about the Malachite room, he stated that there was no such room in the palace. His photo of FS was heavily retouched to heighten the resemblance to AA, even earrings were added to indicate pierced ears. And when giving Bischoff a photo of AN for a photo comparison, he provided a photo of Olga instead so a comparison would result in a negative verdict. (Rathlef Keilmann.) When AA stated that the Empress' car had a little swastika on the hood, Gilliard published a photo of same car with a big swastika drawn in on the door of the car to show the world that anybody could see it. (Rathlef Keilmann.) And you still wonder why he burned his archives?

 

[Menarue]

Well Chat I don´t "wonder", I "know" because he stated why, he burnt his papers because he thought that the whole sad case was closed. Perhaps we should all take an example from him and burn our papers about this case and start filing the positive identification articles in a brand new filing cabinet. Keep a few papers claiming that AA was GDA to have a little laugh occasionally and to remember how silly some people were to be taken in.

 

[ChatNoir]

Well Chat I don´t "wonder", I "know" because he stated why, he burnt his papers because he thought that the whole sad case was closed. Perhaps we should all take an example from him and burn our papers about this case and start filing the positive identification articles in a brand new filing cabinet. Keep a few papers claiming that AA was GDA to have a little laugh occasionally and to remember how silly some people were to be taken in.

Yes, let's have a little book-burning party and erase our memories of AA/AN/FS. Fahrenheit 451 comes to mind....

 

[Menarue]

Chat I didn´t say books. I said let´s burn all the false information we have in our files as it is now redundant. Actually I have no memories of AA, I didn´t know her and I wouldn´t have wanted to know her, the same goes for FS, and I wouldn´t probably want to have known GDA or any of the IF, it would be too sad. If so many emotions can arise among people who have never known them just imagine how one would feel if one really knew them personally. Too depressing to even contemplate.

 

[Anna was Franziska]

Chat, you are only assuming he lied based on what you think. There is no evidence here! You keep dragging the 'she KNEW German' thing around the block, yet those who knew her, like Olga A., said she didn't know, didn't use, or only knew a very few words of it. This is technically NOT KNOWING GERMAN. As I've said many times before, I know a lot of people who took German classes, had German schoolbooks, and still do not know German.If you do, well good for you, but that's not everybody. The only reason you hold onto this is because AA used German almost exclusively, and that really hurts her chances of being AN since it was by far AN's worst language and AA didn't use or wasn't good at the three AN knew much better. This is beyond a dead horse beaten to a pulp. The swastika? If it is there, isn't it very possible the man never saw or noticed it? This doesn't qualify as lying! So AA/FS saw it in a book or a photo, or was told about it, and Gilliard never paid any attention. That doesn't prove a thing, it's your own speculation- something you will not accept from me or others! And after all, if he was such an, uh, untruth teller, how do you know he was being honest when he said he burned the papers? If you believe him, then why is he so dishonest about other things that don't suit you?

 

[ferrymansdaughter]

Because, sometimes they really don't..

And more often than not, they really do.

You take him at his word? But I thought he was a 'liar?' It always happens, if he says something you and Chat want to believe, he's telling the truth, if not, he's a liar..

He is a liar - he told lies and was found out. As you know perfectly well, we are not saying that every single word that ever came out of his mouth was a lie - just certain things relating to certain events and why the heck would he lie about burning the papers when it made him look suspicious?

Even if he did burn them it doesn't necessarily mean he had anything to hide. He could possibly have burned them because he was fed up with the whole mess and didn't want to deal with it anymore.

What - and not preserve them for posterity? Not nearly as likely as the fact that he was telling the truth.

 

[ferrymansdaughter]

His testimony as written in Auclere's book (posted) doesn't say when.

You just never know when they might turn up! Look at this!
Burnt Hendrix guitar to be sold in London - Yahoo! News

Menarue, I am so sorry about your family photos, I know how that feels. I have an elderly aunt who threw away many one of a kind photos of people there were only one picture, including the only one ever taken of a great great grandmother. It's a terrible loss that can never be replaced, all because of one minute of bad decision making.

Well my grandmother did something similar, got rid of quite a lot of photos including those of her parents and her eldest child who died aged 5. As a family historian, it drives me nuts that she did it but she certainly wasn't anything other than 100& lucid and I am sure she had her reasons, even though I can't fathom them. They were her photos to do with as she pleased - it's not quite the same thing as burning papers relating to an international law suit.

 

[ferrymansdaughter]

You keep dragging the 'she KNEW German' thing around the block, yet those who knew her, like Olga A., said she didn't know, didn't use, or only knew a very few words of it. This is technically NOT KNOWING GERMAN. As I've said many times before, I know a lot of people who took German classes, had German schoolbooks, and still do not know German.If you do, well good for you, but that's not everybody.

We've been through this a million times - when will you accept that she had lessons several times a week for several years (The Times trial report of 11 June 1965 says that AA’s lawyers had “presented old school books of Grand Duchess Anastasia dating from 1913 to 1916”. ) Therefore she technically – as you put it – DID KNOW GERMAN. As I have pointed out before – and you keep ignoring – we are not saying that she conversed regularly with Auntie Olga or other family members in German but that after all those lessons she must have had a working knowledge of it. I don’t speak German with my family – but I know it to a reasonable degree. Incidentally, can you give us the quote where Olga said that - I'd like to know exactly what she said.

The only reason you hold onto this is because AA used German almost exclusively, and that really hurts her chances of being AN since it was by far AN's worst language and AA didn't use or wasn't good at the three AN knew much better

Massie p 181 - Faith Lavington referred to AA's "purest and best English accent." I certainly think that she would know a proper English accent when she heard one. (You do know who she was, don't you?)

The swastika? If it is there, isn't it very possible the man never saw or noticed it? This doesn't qualify as lying! So AA/FS saw it in a book or a photo, or was told about it, and Gilliard never paid any attention. That doesn't prove a thing, it's your own speculation- something you will not accept from me or others!

Well this is nothing but YOUR speculation. Of course, if you can find a photo of the Tsarina’s car showing the swastika and published before AA told this story, then it will not longer be speculation but a fact.

 

[tian]

Well this is nothing but YOUR speculation. Of course, if you can find a photo of the Tsarina’s car showing the swastika and published before AA told this story, then it will not longer be speculation but a fact.

There are pictures of Nicholas visiting troops with a car and the swastika hood ornament is clearly visible. These pictures can be seen in Larisa Yermilova's Last Tsar.

 

[Anna was Franziska]

There are pictures of Nicholas visiting troops with a car and the swastika hood ornament is clearly visible. These pictures can be seen in Larisa Yermilova's Last Tsar.

And here I've been reading and looking up stuff on the Romanovs for 34 years and I've never seen that book and never seen or heard of that pic until now. It's very possible Gilliard never noticed it or paid any attention. This still does not mean he lied.

Besides it's all pointless now to try to validate or to disprove one of her 'memories' since they've all been disproven by DNA tests.

 

[Anna was Franziska]

Therefore she technically – as you put it – DID KNOW GERMAN.

Technically, she knew a few German words, she did not know or speak German. Big difference. Sophie B. said (this is quoted in the La Fausse thread) AN 'only knew a few German words.' Even I know a 'few German words' but have no working knowledge of it.

Incidentally, can you give us the quote where Olga said that - I'd like to know exactly what she said.

Again? Hasn't this been posted tons of times already? See this is why we need to keep threads on topics so they don't all turn out the same and have all the info lost. Okay here goes!

The Last Grand Duchess" by Ian Vorres: p. 174

When Olga entered the room, the woman lying on a bed asked a nurse: “Ist das die Tante?”[Is this the Aunt?] “That”, confessed Olga, “at once took me aback. A moment later I remembered that the young woman having spent five years in Germany, would naturally have learnt the language, but then I heard that when she was rescued from that canal in 1920, she spoke nothing but German – when she spoke at all- which was not often. I readily admit that a ghastly horror experienced in one’s youth can work havoc with one’s memory but I have never heard of any ghastly experience endowing anyone with a knowledge they had not had before it happened. My nieces knew no German at all. Mrs Anderson did not seem to understand a word of Russian or English, the two languages all the four sisters had spoken since babyhood. French came a little later, but German was never spoken in the family."

Massie p 181 - Faith Lavington referred to AA's "purest and best English accent." I certainly think that she would know a proper English accent when she heard one. (You do know who she was, don't you?)

Yet above, Olga tells us she not only didn't speak English but didn't understand it. Felix Yussoupov also stated that she would only speak German, no English, French or Russian. Sophie B. stated (again in the La Fausse thread) that she spoke to her in English phrases she had used on the Grand Duchesses, but it was clear by her face and her lack of response she didn't understand a word, and kept looking to the nurse and speaking to her in German.


"It was not the English of someone who had spoken English since childhood as Anastasia did." said the English writer, Michael Thornton, when he met her in 1960. "The accent was Germanic, the sentence structure German, the grammar hopeless." (Klier and Mingay)



Dave Howey, who met Anderson, by then Mrs. Manahan, when he was a cadet at a Virginia military academy in 1977, wrote of their meeting that "Her husband talked for her since she spoke very little English. Her only functional language was German, her Russian having been wiped out, we were told, as a result of the trauma from seeing her family gunned down in the cellar of a house in Ekaterinburg, Russia."

Listen to the tapes of her speaking. Her English was horrible even after living many years in the US. If anyone said she had a nice English accent, (assuming she's telling the truth) it must have meant AA was recently coached, and later lost the skill.

Well this is nothing but YOUR speculation. Of course, if you can find a photo of the Tsarina’s car showing the swastika and published before AA told this story, then it will not longer be speculation but a fact.

The whole thing is your speculation. As I said it's very possible Gilliard honestly never noticed the details of the car, it doesn't mean he lied.

 

[Elspeth]

A historian who burns his archives? A corpse that stinks.....

As far as lies, he asserted in "False Anastasia" that AN knew no German. His own schedules and AN's schoolbooks tell us otherwise. When AA talked about the Malachite room, he stated that there was no such room in the palace. His photo of FS was heavily retouched to heighten the resemblance to AA, even earrings were added to indicate pierced ears. And when giving Bischoff a photo of AN for a photo comparison, he provided a photo of Olga instead so a comparison would result in a negative verdict. (Rathlef Keilmann.) When AA stated that the Empress' car had a little swastika on the hood, Gilliard published a photo of same car with a big swastika drawn in on the door of the car to show the world that anybody could see it. (Rathlef Keilmann.) And you still wonder why he burned his archives?

No, I don't wonder why he burned his archives because he said why he did so (assuming Peter Kurth's book is correct on that count).

If you believe he burned his archives for some other reason, you need to make it very clear it's simply your opinion and that it contradicts what's been written about the episode. In that post you made it appear that it's a verified fact that he burned the archives because he'd been caught lying under oath, and then we find that the truth is a bit more mundane than that.

 

[Elspeth]

He is a liar - he told lies and was found out. As you know perfectly well, we are not saying that every single word that ever came out of his mouth was a lie - just certain things relating to certain events and why the heck would he lie about burning the papers when it made him look suspicious?

Do you mean to say that he admitted that he burned his papers because he'd been caught lying? If so, please give some details about where this admission is published. If not, the answer to your last question appears to be the statement in Peter Kurth's book that he burned his papers because he thought the case was closed. You might not agree with that statement, but it still seems to be the closest thing we have to published verification of his motives.

 

[AGRBear]

I'm asking how you know that the King-Ginther work wasn't published because of the prior publication of the Gill work. As opposed to not being published for some other reason.

Sorry everyone, but I've been really busy because of the addition to our home and my aging parents.

I contacted Curious One, who was the one who had told me about King's lost of interest, she couldn't recall Dr. Ginther exact words spoken on the telephone which was some time ago. But that was the impression she had gotten.

AGRBear

 

[AGRBear]

Ferrymansdaughter, it's strange you would be so critical and doubtful of a piece of information that has been used and documented over many decades yet accept another's alleged existence sight unseen when no one can even produce a quote from it much less hard evidence. We have some very basic realities to go on- AA was FS, FS had scars. AA was not AN therefore she did not get the scars from "Ekaterinburg". AA was 99.9% FS therefore it's 'eminently likely' that she received those scars at the grenade factory. Still trying to prove AA to be AN simply isn't a valid position, regardless of these issues, due to the DNA testing.

Sometimes an assumption is repeated so many times it takes on it's own life and become a fact.

In this case, FS did not receive anything more physically then a headache ad a few scratches from the grenade which killed her foreman. There is an unpublished AEG doctors report and recorded information from Gertrude Ellrich.

If AA was not FS then we have no idea how she received all of her "old healed wounds", which the doctors at Dalldorf reported AA had when she was admitted.

As far as I'm concern, the evidence, especially the timelines of FS & AA should help prove they were the same person without the use of DNA/mtDNA but it does not. And this REALLY puzzles Bear. Just as it must have the German judges in AA's trial.

AGRBear

 

[Anna was Franziska]

Sometimes an assumption is repeated so many times it takes on it's own life and become a fact.

I agree, I have seen this happen very often with AA supporters, but when I do background checks on what they claim, it rarely adds up to what was told for the truth.

There is an unpublished AEG doctors report

There is said to be, by one person on one message board. There is no proof, and until such proof is produced, this cannot be stated as fact. If you choose to believe one person on one message board, that is up to you, but you should not go around listing it among facts to everyone else when it doesn't qualify as one, especially since it is the opposite of previously published accounts of her injuries that have been around for years.

If AA was not FS then we have no idea how she received all of her "old healed wounds", which the doctors at Dalldorf reported AA had when she was admitted.

One thing we do know for sure, she sure didn't get them in Ekaterinburg.

As far as I'm concern, the evidence, especially the timelines of FS & AA should help prove they were the same person without the use of DNA/mtDNA but it does not. And this REALLY puzzles Bear. Just as it must have the German judges in AA's trial.

AGRBear

In what way? FS was reported missing 3 weeks after AA appeared. This is not unusual, considering the time and place and circumstances. Just the other day in my own newspaper, a family just now reported a man missing because they came concerned after not hearing from him for 3 weeks- and this in the days of cell phones and email, imagine how much less likely people were to have daily contact in those days. There is absolutely no proof they were 'accounted for at the same time' as AA supporters claim. I am puzzled at how you can put a few assumptions and pieces of questionable hearsay over the DNA and mtDNA.

 

[Anna was Franziska]

He is a liar - he told lies and was found out.

This is an assumption that has not been proven.

As you know perfectly well, we are not saying that every single word that ever came out of his mouth was a lie - just certain things relating to certain events

Yes, I do know perfectly well, I have noticed that to you and Chat, anything that harms AA's case is a 'lie' and anything that appears to help her is not only given the benefit of the doubt, but even stated as fact. His lying must be very selective.

and why the heck would he lie about burning the papers when it made him look suspicious?

What - and not preserve them for posterity? Not nearly as likely as the fact that he was telling the truth.

Everyone feels differently about this. I am a packrat, very sentimental and keep everything. This doesn't mean everyone else does the same. This is evident from our own family stories published here. When my grandfather died, my uncle burned all his diaries, letters and old magazines, just because they were cluttering a closet he wanted to remodel. They would have meant so much to me, but to my uncle they were just a mess that needed to be cleaned. Not everyone thinks of saving things for posterity. Gilliard already had his published book left for 'posterity' and it contained all his evidence anyway. You have drawn a lot of conclusions based on your own assumptions without proof.

 

[AGRBear]

Bear, we've been through this many times before, but for the benefit (and misfortune) of anyone who hasn't seen it before I'll do my part. What you show here, bear, is people who are traveling together, in a well organized party, such as the pioneers in the US "Oregon Trail". Sure, a group like that, using main roads, busy towns and river ferries could possibly have made AA's alleged journey in 5 months, but that's not what the AA story tells us.

Remember that (and this is just for the sake of discussion, of course her story is false) AA said they had to hide from Bolsheviks and were in constant fear of being caught and killed. For goodness sakes, she was a Grand Duchess who escaped a massacre and he a deserted red soldier, sure to be shot on sight! They wouldn't have had the 'luxury' of main roads, towns, ferries and help from anyone. They'd have to be hiding, staying off roads, going through muddy areas, forests, sneaking around, I think one of her accounts claimed they only traveled at night. Don't forget that she was allegedly very injured and had no medical care. The infection alone would have killed her, if the wounds did not. How did they eat? What did they do in bad weather?

I really don't think those who invented this story took all this into consideration, or the rocky mountains and rough terrain along the way, and especially the very early and harsh Russian winter. Ever heard of the Donner party? They had planned to cross the mountains before the first snowfall but it caught them early and deadly. People on those organized trips such as shown in bear's picture, in any country, made sure winter would not be a factor and planned their trips accordingly. Leaving in July is TOO LATE. An alleged 'witness' claims to have helped them cross the Dniester in early Dec.- but considering the time and place, the river would have been frozen! The entire story is logistically impossible UNDER THE CONDITIONS DESCRIBED.

an online trip calculator estimated the distance between Ekaterinburg and Bucharest to be 1,719 AIR miles, as the crow flies...but considering it would have been, according her her own story, on back roads, unimproved, and at some places no roads at all, it would have been a much longer distance and taken much more time than their claimed Dec. 5, 1918 arrival date. Online map sites tell me they cannot calculate a driving distance between the two cities, meaning that even today, there aren't enough improved roads to make a direct connection. Adding it up via the legend on a world atlas, the trip would have been at least 2,300 miles, perhaps as many as 2,800 if they had to go around certain impassible terrain. So you see the logisitics of such a trip under the circumstances is completely impossible.

And bear, I really want to know, WHY, if you 'don't believe she was AN' do ALL yes ALL of your posts support AA and her supporters, you are a common ally of them and always against those of us telling the other side? If you don't believe she was AN, why don't your posts reflect this? Look- suppose I put at the top of my posts "I BELIEVE AA WAS AN!" then everything in my posts was against that position. Would you believe me? This really does make one wonder.

I've already told you that this trip was not impossible and explained that others, some also wounded, survived this same trip. Remember, just in Berlin alone there were 50,000* Russians who fled the Bolsheviks. The majority walked beside carts pulled by horse or oxen or dogs or humans. I've read many of the diaries and letters. Have you?

We agree that AA wasn't GD Anastasia, however, if the real GD Anastasia had not been executed, she could have survived even with severe wounds and found herself in Bucherest by Dec. of 1918.

As for my posts asking you to be accurate, I'll continue to do so. Everyone who believes AA wasn't GD Anastasia should demand the same from you and anyone else who posts.

AGRBear

*Should read 500,000

 

[Elspeth]

Sorry everyone, but I've been really busy because of the addition to our home and my aging parents.

I contacted Curious One, who was the one who had told me about King's lost of interest, she couldn't recall Dr. Ginther exact words spoken on the telephone which was some time ago. But that was the impression she had gotten.

AGRBear

I see. But that doesn't alter the fact that Dr Ginther said in his letter that his sample was too contaminated to give consistent results, that there was very little original DNA present, and that the results were therefore not believable. That alone would make the results unpublishable.

 

[ChatNoir]

No, I don't wonder why he burned his archives because he said why he did so (assuming Peter Kurth's book is correct on that count).

If you believe he burned his archives for some other reason, you need to make it very clear it's simply your opinion and that it contradicts what's been written about the episode. In that post you made it appear that it's a verified fact that he burned the archives because he'd been caught lying under oath, and then we find that the truth is a bit more mundane than that.

I never said he burned his archives because he was found lying under oath, the burning took place more than 20 years before the trial. And the reason he gave for the burning, is stated in Aucleres II. (Kurth)

 

[ChatNoir]

And here I've been reading and looking up stuff on the Romanovs for 34 years and I've never seen that book and never seen or heard of that pic until now. It's very possible Gilliard never noticed it or paid any attention. This still does not mean he lied.

So what is your definition of drawing in details in a photo after the fact?

 

[ChatNoir]

Technically, she knew a few German words, she did not know or speak German. Big difference. Sophie B. said (this is quoted in the La Fausse thread) AN 'only knew a few German words.' Even I know a 'few German words' but have no working knowledge of it.

This is correct. Her German was, according to witnesses, "very bad with a very small vocabulary." Not something you would have expected from Franziska Schanzkowska.

 

[AGRBear]

I agree, I have seen this happen very often with AA supporters, but when I do background checks on what they claim, it rarely adds up to what was told for the truth.

There is said to be, by one person on one message board. There is no proof, and until such proof is produced, this cannot be stated as fact. If you choose to believe one person on one message board, that is up to you, but you should not go around listing it among facts to everyone else when it doesn't qualify as one, especially since it is the opposite of previously published accounts of her injuries that have been around for years.

One thing we do know for sure, she sure didn't get them in Ekaterinburg.

In what way? FS was reported missing 3 weeks after AA appeared. This is not unusual, considering the time and place and circumstances. Just the other day in my own newspaper, a family just now reported a man missing because they came concerned after not hearing from him for 3 weeks- and this in the days of cell phones and email, imagine how much less likely people were to have daily contact in those days. There is absolutely no proof they were 'accounted for at the same time' as AA supporters claim. I am puzzled at how you can put a few assumptions and pieces of questionable hearsay over the DNA and mtDNA.

Let us take this one step at a time and see if you can finally convince me that AA was FS without the use of DNA/mtDNA.

AA jumped into the Berlin canal 17 Feb 1918.

About 3 weeks later: The report of the police [I forget the term Chat used earlier on this thread] tells us that the Wingenders established, I believe, it was around the 12th of March 1918 that AA had not returned to her place of residence, which was a room in their home/flat/apartment building [this is unclear to me].

This is not an assumption nor "questionable heresay", this is a report which is dated. And, evidence like this should be noted by everyone.

If Chat has time, perhaps he could repeat this information so we have the dates and the rest of the information correct.

AGRBear

 

[Anna was Franziska]

I've already told you that this trip was not impossible and explained that others, some also wounded, survived this same trip.

It wasn't 'the same trip.' Hers was in hiding not using the same roads. The people in your pictures could have come from different areas and not had to cross the same terrain. And don't forget the harsh early winter. You also ignore the civil war and political implications- Bux describes these in her book and how hard it was to avoid them, which is why it took her and Gibbes and Gilliard 13 months (as opposed to AA's alleged 5 months in a cart) to get out of Russia, though they usually had the use of motorized vehicles. The people you keep bringing up were going to Germany, not Romania, meaning they would have taken a different path with different roads and terrain.

There are few details of just how AA's trip was done, of course, since it never happened. So speculating what is or is not possible by either of us is useless. If you want to write a novel on what you think happened, it might be an interesting read. Otherwise, what other people did in different circumstances means nothing.

Remember, just in Berlin alone there were 50,000 Russians who fled the Bolsheviks. The majority walked beside carts pulled by horse or oxen or dogs or humans.

Actually it was 500,000 and most of them were aristocrats who most likely had better transportation after they left the country.

We agree that AA wasn't GD Anastasia, however, if the real GD Anastasia had not been executed, she could have survived even with severe wounds and found herself in Bucherest by Dec. of 1918.

This is no more than your estimation and hypothetical guess, and what's the difference between yours and mine? That's all either of them are.

As for my posts asking you to be accurate, I'll continue to do so. Everyone who believes AA wasn't GD Anastasia should demand the same from you and anyone else who posts.

AGRBear

You make bold claims of 'accuracy' when all you have are possibilities and theories. You won't accept that of me, and I won't accept it from you.

 

[Anna was Franziska]

Let us take this one step at a time and see if you can finally convince me that AA was FS without the use of DNA/mtDNA.

AA jumped into the Berlin canal 17 Feb 1918.

About 3 weeks later: The report of the police [I forget the term Chat used earlier on this thread] tells us that the Wingenders established, I believe, it was around the 12th of March 1918 that AA had not returned to her place of residence, which was a room in their home/flat/apartment building [this is unclear to me].

This is not an assumption nor "questionable heresay", this is a report which is dated. And, evidence like this should be noted by everyone.

If Chat has time, perhaps he could repeat this information so we have the dates and the rest of the information correct.

AGRBear

Chat himself gave me the date of March 9. March 12 was the day the Weimar gov't fell in a coup, causing turmoil in the city. As I said before, being reported missing weeks later is not uncommon and does not mean AA was not FS. (especiall since the DNA matched)

 

[AGRBear]

I see. But that doesn't alter the fact that Dr Ginther said in his letter that his sample was too contaminated to give consistent results, that there was very little original DNA present, and that the results were therefore not believable. That alone would make the results unpublishable.

I've never said or even hinted that Dr. Ginther's unpublished results of the slide and the other objects were wrong. How in the world did you get the impression that I had?

AGRBear

 

[Empress]

Everyone needs to take a breather here, and remember to refrain from personal attacks. If you have something to say that does not contribute to the thread as a whole, and if you must say it, then please do so via PM.

This is not a forum for members to wage wars that were begun outside of this forum, nor is it the proper place to wage war against one another in the first place.

EVERYONE is entitled to their own opinion, whether someone else thinks that it is right or wrong.


Empress - Royal Forums Administrator

 

[Anna was Franziska]

[/color][/font]

This is correct. Her German was, according to witnesses, "very bad with a very small vocabulary." Not something you would have expected from Franziska Schanzkowska.

No, no, no. I mean a few words as in a few words, such as counting to 10 and literally a few words. Other family members say they spoke none at all. AA clearly used German to communicate, meaning she was more than functional in the language and chose to use it over any other. As Bux said, she ignored her English and spoke German to the nurse. Olga was taken aback because she knew the real AN did not have a command of German. FS would have used German as her language of choice, over her other one Kashub Polish. Also AA, as Olga mentioned, didn't talk much, so her grunting words here and there could have been misread as bad German. AN knew English, Russian and French. Strange she'd forget all three so quickly (as Olga mentioned in the quote I posted, she was told she was pulled from the canal speaking German exclusively) Even aphasia victims don't forget entire languages. I really do think you AA supporters have tried this German thing long enough, and it will never excuse why a girl who spoke fluent Russian, nearly fluent English and a lot of French and a 'few German words' to 'no German at all' suddenly only used German. It was because she was FS!

 

[ferrymansdaughter]

There are pictures of Nicholas visiting troops with a car and the swastika hood ornament is clearly visible. These pictures can be seen in Larisa Yermilova's Last Tsar.

But that book wasn't published until 1996, after AA died.

 

[ferrymansdaughter]

And here I've been reading and looking up stuff on the Romanovs for 34 years and I've never seen that book and never seen or heard of that pic until now. .

But you haven't read everything have you?

Besides it's all pointless now to try to validate or to disprove one of her 'memories' since they've all been disproven by DNA tests.

If that's what you think, why are you still trying to disprove it?