Have the remains of the Imperial Family been found?

[Jo of Palatine]

Originally Posted by AnastasiaEvidence

Seriously? I don't believe that there is a body missing. I think those remains are of Anastasia and Alexei. This will bring up more theories.

Yes, and I could argue that Anastasia's body is not found because it cannot be found because her body or what is left of it is buried somewhere else entirely. So what?

These forums are about discussion, not about fixed opinions and the need to be a missionary for one's own ideas. IMHO, of course.

[ferrymansdaughter]

And why do they keep insisting that it is Maria when Dr Maples and his team clearly demonstrated - in a number of ways - that the body which has now been assigned by the Russians to Anastasia - was too developed physically to have been her. According to the Russians' viewpoint, Anastasia had developed physically more than her older sister and we know that is not true.

Also, why did they say they estimated the body which they think is Alexei to be 4 ft 10 when we know he was almost the same height as his father - 5 foot 7? Of course it could just be an error -after all the Russian scientists originally - and for quite some time - identified the body of Demidova as being that of the Tsar. Identifying the gender of a body from the pelvis is a basic anthropological procedure and yet they made a very elementary mistake.

[BorisRom]

INTERFAX today:
http://www.interfax-religion.ru/?act=news&div=25134 (in Russian):
The Sverdlovsk area will finance new archeological works at a place of detection of " imperial remains "
Ekaterinburg. On June, 26th. InterFax - For research so-called "imperial remains" in Sverdlovsk area in 2008 from additional sources it will be allocated 5,2 million roubles.
1,3 million (from 5,2) will go for an ending of archeological excavations, - chairman of the government of region Victor Koksharov has informed "Interfax" on Thursday.
After the ending of all researches and after a final verdict of the State Office of Public Prosecutor of the Russian Federation the project of a memorial will be developed.
************************************************************************
My comment:
Necessity of NEW archeological works means, that the researches of so-called "Alexi/Maria's remains" have not allowed to draw final conclusions.

[bbb]

Bones said those of missing Romanovs - UPI.com

*quote from article

*a spokesman for the committee investigating the remains discovered in 2007 near Yekaterinburg, said the bones are those of a boy age 12 to 14 and a young woman in her late teens,

*both DNA testing and historical and archaeological analysis made the identification of the bones as Alexei, the 13-year-old son of Czar Nicholas II, and Grand Duchess Maria,

*
The committee expects to publish definitive results in July.

[AGRBear]

Originally Posted by ferrymansdaughter

And why do they keep insisting that it is Maria when Dr Maples and his team clearly demonstrated - in a number of ways - that the body which has now been assigned by the Russians to Anastasia - was too developed physically to have been her. According to the Russians' viewpoint, Anastasia had developed physically more than her older sister and we know that is not true.

Also, why did they say they estimated the body which they think is Alexei to be 4 ft 10 when we know he was almost the same height as his father - 5 foot 7? Of course it could just be an error -after all the Russian scientists originally - and for quite some time - identified the body of Demidova as being that of the Tsar. Identifying the gender of a body from the pelvis is a basic anthropological procedure and yet they made a very elementary mistake.

Here is the actual quote:
1 Oct 2007
Russian Newspaper: Intefax

Interfax wrote article on the new discovery in which the following is a part:



Since I don't read Russian, I have been told that this tells us that the Russians are indicating the remains of the female, Marie, estimated height is 160 cm = 5 feet 2.5 inches tall and that the male, Alexei, estimated height is 142-143 cm or 143= 4 feet 6.9 inches tall.

I will take my remarks to the How Tall Was Alexei When He Died thread.

AGRBear<<



This photo was taken 4/17 Oct 1916 and the girls are not lined up as they are in the next photo so heights are difficult to determine:


Here is a video taken during this photo shot:



Nicholas II was 5 feet 7 inches tall.

About four months later:

This photo was taken in the Sping of 1917:


All the girls look about the same height as in the Oct. 1916 photo.

Tatiana who looks about 5 feet 6 inches - taller than Olga and Marie
Anastasia - shortest of the girls and believed to be about 5 feet 2 inches
Alexei - 3 months later was said to be 5 feet and 1/2 inch tall


BEAR's OPINION:

I think Alexei was close to his father's height 5 feet 6 to 5 feet 7 inches tall by July of 1918. Why? The average growith for a boy this age is 3.5 inches a year. If Alexi was 5 feet 1/2 inch on 1 Jan. 1917 then from 1 Jan. 1917 to 1 Jan 1918 he would have been about 5 feet 4 inches tall. Add another seven months and add another 2 inches and that would make him about 5 feet 6 inches tall.

His weight was probably more than 80 pounds because in one of the diaries we are told that Alexei was feeling better and his appetite had increased AND that that he was eating well. He still wasn't mobile enough to burn off any calories. By this time there was more starch in their meals than meat. Probably weight closer to 90 pounds.

Since Anastasia was known to be about 5 feet 2. inches tall in 1918, we can tell by the photos that Marie was taller. Most think she was about 5 feet 6 inches. She was taller than 5 feet 2 inches.

The estimated height of Alexei and Marie, as told in the news Interfax, [seen in above post] indicates they believe the two newly found remains are 4 feet 6 inches for Alexei and 5 feet 2.5 inches for Marie. The reporter must have been in error when he reported what the scientist told them. If the report is true and this is what the Russian scientists believe, then, it would appear that someone didn't estimate the heights correctly, or, the remains are not Alexei and GD Marie.


AGRBear

[Anna was Franziska]

Please don't make too much of the height estimates, they don't appear to be official and were only in that one story. I have to agree there is no way Alexei was 4'10- he was measured as 5'1" in early 1917, and had grown a great deal during his 'long and lanky' adolescence. His last photos show a long faced, long limbed young man very different from the cute faced tsarevich we all know and love. Had he lived, he probably would have been like his famously tall ancestors (All the Romanov men were tall, well over 6 ft., only his father missed out on those genes)

But I do believe it's Alexei in the pit and the numbers are wrong. Really, there is NO WAY TO ACCURATELY ESTIMATE HEIGHT if you don't have an INTACT LONG BONE from the arm or leg available to measure. This is why a height was never given for the height of Olga N. in the original grave since her bones had been either broken or cut. In the case of the new pit, because only a few bone fragments were recovered, it's literally IMPOSSIBLE to determine the height of either victim.

[AGRBear]

Please reread the article. It tell us the estimated height of Alexei is 4 feet 6.9 inches.

Olga's femur was intact. The Russians cut it. Maples estimated her height in his book.

It is true, only 44 fragments were found. However, it is not Bear who estimated their height. This is given to us in the article.

AND, in one of the first articles, the newsman claim that the man who found the skull of the male said the skull was small and that of a child's. Alexei's skull should not be small but as large as his father's if he was 5 feet 5 inches or taller.

Like the mass grave, there are too many bone fragments missing if indeed this is the buriel place of two bodies.

A lot of question need answers which I hope are forthcoming this month.

AGRBear

[Anna was Franziska]

It is impossible to estimate height from a few charred fragments.

That one story in Russian has never been duplicated or verified by any other source. It's really not reliable or solid enough to make it such an issue.

[J Kendrick]

Originally Posted by Anna was Franziska

It is impossible to estimate height from a few charred fragments.

That one story in Russian has never been duplicated or verified by any other source. It's really not reliable or solid enough to make it such an issue.

The height estimates based on preliminary examinations of the bone fragments were given as 160 cm for a female and 142-143 cm for a male in a public statement made on September 28th, 2007 by Viktor Zvyagin, head of Identification at the Russian Center of Medical Examination.

JK

[AnastasiaEvidence]

But I do believe it's Alexei in the pit and the numbers are wrong. Really, there is NO WAY TO ACCURATELY ESTIMATE HEIGHT if you don't have an INTACT LONG BONE from the arm or leg available to measure. This is why a height was never given for the height of Olga N. in the original grave since her bones had been either broken or cut. In the case of the new pit, because only a few bone fragments were recovered, it's literally IMPOSSIBLE to determine the height of either victim.

I do believe that the two new discovered remains are of Alexei and Anastasia. It is hard to figure the height of the bones because it's very little fragments of them. But, the point is they figured the age of both the female and male. It was between Alexei's age of 13 and Anastasia's age of 17.

I think Tatiana was a little taller than 5ft 6in. I believe she was 5ft 8in.

Since Anastasia was known to be about 5 feet 2. inches tall in 1918, we can tell by the photos that Marie was taller. Most think she was about 5 feet 6 inches. She was taller than 5 feet 2 inches.

I agree, I think Anastasia may have grown one inch taller maybe at 5ft 3in. Many said that Maria was 5ft 7in. Olga was 5ft 6in. Tatiana may have been 5ft 8in. Alexei, I'm not certain about him because he could have had a possible growth spurt. But, there's really not enough information prove the exact height of OTMAA in June/July 1918.
But, Alexei could have had a growth spurt? You can't be sure that those were the postive heights during their deaths.

[lexi4]

Originally Posted by AnastasiaEvidence

But, Alexei could have had a growth spurt? You can't be sure that those were the postive heights during their deaths.

That would be some growth spurt.

[AnastasiaEvidence]

That would be some growth spurt.

Yeah, but males grow differently from females.

I think Alexei was close to his father's height 5 feet 6 to 5 feet 7 inches tall by July of 1918. Why? The average growith for a boy this age is 3.5 inches a year. If Alexi was 5 feet 1/2 inch on 1 Jan. 1917 then from 1 Jan. 1917 to 1 Jan 1918 he would have been about 5 feet 4 inches tall. Add another seven months and add another 2 inches and that would make him about 5 feet 6 inches tall.

Yeah, that is true. Boys usually grow faster than girls. I agree, Alexei could have been that possible height in July 1918.

[Russophile]

Originally Posted by AnastasiaEvidence

Yeah, but males grow differently from females.


Yeah, that is true. Boys usually grow faster than girls. I agree, Alexei could have been that possible height in July 1918.

Now not necessarily. Our family is different in that we're late bloomers. I have a brother who's 6'4" and didn't get there until after he turned 18. and he would have been taller.
My soldier son is 19, soon to be 20 this year and still hasn't grown to his full height. He's over 6'2".
There was height in the Romanovs over in NN's side of the family. Does anybody know how NAR's side grew? Alexander the 3rd was a large man.

[Anna was Franziska]

All the Romanov men were tall. (Peter the Great was 6'5") Only Nicholas who took after his mother was not. Michael was tall, as were all the uncles and cousins.

In my family, everyone is well grown by about 14 and never grow again. My son is 6'4" and was over 6 feet by the time he was 13. As early as 9 he was getting snide remarks on Halloween about being too old to trick or treat because he was tall and they thought he was older. I haven't grown an inch since 9th grade.

[AnastasiaEvidence]

Now not necessarily. Our family is different in that we're late bloomers. I have a brother who's 6'4" and didn't get there until after he turned 18. and he would have been taller.
My soldier son is 19, soon to be 20 this year and still hasn't grown to his full height. He's over 6'2".

Usually people would say they stop growing in their early teenage years.

In my family, everyone is well grown by about 14 and never grow again. My son is 6'4" and was over 6 feet by the time he was 13. As early as 9 he was getting snide remarks on Halloween about being too old to trick or treat because he was tall and they thought he was older. I haven't grown an inch since 9th grade.

Yeah, but some men grow short, so not all men grow tall. It depends on how tall their parents and family were.

[Menarue]

A friend´s family was so tall that they were called "the giant" family except for her youngest son, he was 14 and very small for his age. She was so worried that she was talking about it all the time and buying all kinds of supplements etc. Suddenly at 17 he shot up just as tall as his brother and sister. Both boys are airline pilots now so I hope those planes have plenty of leg room.
By the way I love that phrase AnastasiaR - "some men grow short".
I am afraid that as a woman I grew short too.
I have a daughter 5.0" married to a 6.4" man, he said that he was quite short until he was about 16, while his brother stayed short. I really don´t think there is any magical pattern.