Have the remains of the Imperial Family been found?

[Anna was Franziska]

Originally Posted by AGRBear

If it is true that someone took bones from the mass grave and planted them in the two pits: Taking a few bones from three grand duchess would not be missed in 1918 to 2007.

But please consider again my explainations as to why it was pointless in 1918!

I agree no one in 1918 knew about DNA and mtDNA.

Then you admit it would have been a non factor to 'plant' anything, or for anyone to even think of it in those days, for that reason?

In 1994-95, OJ's defense team was successful in convincing a jury that there was a possibility his DNA was planted at the scene. However, in 1918, when no one ever heard of such tests because they didn't exist, there was no way anyone could pre plan to plant it.

But, we do, now, and I'd like to see all the results:

1. Markers that there were four grand duchesses.

I wouldn't mind seeing this, either, because I want there to be as much evidence as possible. However, there is no way that all the scientific tests and reports from all the labs in the world will ever satisfy those of you who don't believe the results of the DNA tests we already have, so why bother? No matter how much scientific, peer reviewed proof we have, some will always say they were wrong, tampered with, switched, planted, somebody was paid off, etc. If there were a court decision, somebody would just say the judge was paid off. So there's no hope of convincing the conspiracy theorists by evidence alone, because they'll never accept what they don't choose to believe.

2. Evidence that Alexandra was a carrier of hemophia;Alexis had hemophilia; and which, if any, were the grand duchess carriers of hemophilia.

We know she was, because Alexei had it (never mind JK's theories, they're sometimes more desperate than yours!) Alexandra's brother Frittie had it, and her sister Irene had two sons with the disease. There is no question it was in her family, so why would Alexei's bleeding disorder be anything else? Besides, the best and most expensive doctors of the time verified it was indeed hemophilia.

If it's possible to get this from such damaged bones, that would be great. However, I don't think not being able to get such detailed info from such damaged bones means it's not there.

BBC video on the proof the last 2 children died and were identified:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eRNMnBGh-vc

[AGRBear]

Originally Posted by AGRBear

...

I agree no one in 1918 knew about DNA and mtDNA.

.....[in part]
AGRBear

Originally Posted by Anna was Franziska

Then you admit it would have been a non factor to 'plant' anything, or for anyone to even think of it in those days, for that reason?...

No. I do not admit planting bones were a non factor in 1918. And, of course, there were reasons, if this is what happen. One reason that I pull off the top of my head would have been "M-O-N-E-Y". A lot of money, or, so everyone thought in 1918 and into the 1970s. Even, now, everyone who has studied the money path of Nicholas II, aren't ready to say there isn't the possibility of a great deal of money which was never unfound and may have just kinda melted into some banks' or corporations deep pockets where no one would ever find it. At that time, the Bolsheviks were actually losing the war and needed money desperately....

Yes. I do admit that planting bones for the sake of the DNA/mtDNA was of no concern in 1918 and to the time this kind of research was made known.

AWF, I am more than happy to anwer your questions, but, don't you think you could answer one or two of mine? It would only be fair. Give a try on telling everyone the amount of wood and kerosene it would take the burning of two bodies in two hours that would have left the remains in the condition they were found in 2007.

AGRBear

[AGRBear]

Originally Posted by Anna was Franziska

...[in part]...
BBC video on the proof the last 2 children died and were identified:

This is a newscast. I've seen it and have a link to it from my own forum.

The newsperson repeats the general information being broadcasted by the Russians. Did the news people on that station really know anything about they were reporting? Or where they just mouthing what was on the paper before them? There were film clips which show scientists and some bones in plastic bags. However, it fails to provide us with the DNA/mtDNA and the rest of the story.

Now, the National Geographic Special did give us a quick glance at some DNA/mtDNA of Alexei's chart. Like the newscast, it fell short on presenting the evidence which proves there have been found four grand duchesses by showing us their markers. I suspect, it's because they didn't have the answer to this part of the story when they broadcasted.

AGRBear

[Anna was Franziska]

Originally Posted by AGRBear

No. I do not admit planting bones were a non factor in 1918. And, of course, there were reasons, if this is what happen. One reason that I pull off the top of my head would have been "M-O-N-E-Y". A lot of money, or, so everyone thought in 1918 and into the 1970s.

Please explain how in the world anyone could get money from planting a bone that was purposely never supposed to be found, in a time when it could not be tested? What is this supposed to prove?

Even, now, everyone who has studied the money path of Nicholas II, aren't ready to say there isn't the possibility of a great deal of money which was never unfound and may have just kinda melted into some banks' or corporations deep pockets where no one would ever find it. At that time, the Bolsheviks were actually losing the war and needed money desperately....

The lure of alleged money from Nicholas is what drove AA's claim, but it never materialized. If the Bolsheviks had wanted money, they could have started by selling the jewels found on the bodies, yet they didn't. Since they controlled the government at the time, they would have had all the access they wanted or needed to bank accounts and other assets of the Tsar. They likely didn't even know of the rumors of money in other countries, and wouldn't have been able to obtain it if it was there, anyway. Again, since the bone was not supposed to be found, and couldn't be tested, how exactly do you think it could have made anyone money?

Yes. I do admit that planting bones for the sake of the DNA/mtDNA was of no concern in 1918 and to the time this kind of research was made known.

Are you accusing someone of planting them in recent times? Who and why?

AWF, I am more than happy to anwer your questions, but, don't you think you could answer one or two of mine? It would only be fair. Give a try on telling everyone the amount of wood and kerosene it would take the burning of two bodies in two hours that would have left the remains in the condition they were found in 2007.

AGRBear

I believe I have answered this in my post where I said the wood you show in your picture was way too much, and that I don't believe they were burned on a literal funeral pyre as seen in pictures and movies. So I say your woodpile is much too large. The Bolsheviks only mentioned a few logs, and that's all I think they used, just enough to lay the body across. They wouldn't have time to build anything big or elaborate, and they wouldn't have wanted a large fire to send off a signal to the Whites or local residents. I think the fire was small and close to the ground, and 'pyre' and 'sacrificial altar' were only symbolic terms. I have no idea how much gas was used, but the bones found had been burned and had acid poured on them and I believe it happened just as the Bolsheviks stated. They would have no reason to make that up, and what found matched up, even the container of acid which was the same Japanese brand as the one from the mass grave.

Now, about Yurovsky not knowing which body was burned, this doesn't mean a second one wasn't burned. It meant that due to the condition of the bodies and the fact that he may not have known each girl individually well enough to tell one from another, he couldn't say. Because he (according to one report) was trying to burn Alexandra but thought he burned Demidova, this makes me even more sure the burned girl was Anastasia and not Marie, for whichever GD was burned, she was mistaken for a middle aged woman. Anastasia had been reported as being 'plump' by her mother in letters, 'very fat as Marie was', assuming Marie had slimmed down. Ermakov did name Anastasia by name as the GD who was burned. I honestly do not know how the idea of Marie being burned ever came about, and I agree with Maples on that issue.

[AGRBear]

Originally Posted by Anna was Franziska

....[in part]....
4. The Bolsheviks never intended for the grave to be found ("The world will never know what we did with them"), their goal was destruction, burning dissolving in acid- nothing was planted to trick anyone if it was found, because they made sure it wasn't found, and ....

Have you ever wondered that the reason the Bolsheviks/communist didn't want the grave/graves to be made public? The reason they gave was political. Everything about the execution and burials was political. Announcing that the family survived and that they had only shot Nicholas II was political. Even, now, the subject of "rehabilitation" has all the ear marks of being political. Making a quick announcement in August 2007 about the findings of the 2 pits before any tests were made was political.

The Russians want all of this behind them. They want this to be finished even more than AWF does.

AGRBear

[Anna was Franziska]

How would it make any difference to them now if all the family died or not? It would actually look better on them if someone did live, so I don't see it to their advantage to fake them dying if they lived. But since DNA tests proved that AA was not AN, and that the bones found were the last two kids, that is the end of it, unless you believe they faked the whole thing, which really makes no sense especially since it was private search teams looking for the remains and not the government. Do you really, really believe they'd pay off or trick labs in other countries? That is really, really a stretch. I'm sure scientists could tell the bone had been burned long ago and not recently. I don't know why some people can't accept that the whole family really did die that night and there is no reason for any kind of wild coverup.

[AGRBear]

Originally Posted by Anna was Franziska

....

Now, about Yurovsky not knowing which body was burned, this doesn't mean a second one wasn't burned. It meant that due to the condition of the bodies and the fact that he may not have known each girl individually well enough to tell one from another, he couldn't say. Because he (according to one report) was trying to burn Alexandra but thought he burned Demidova...

Please, tell me how these men could fail to not have noticed the difference between a plump middle aged woman's body and a slim youthful body of Marie's [the Russians continue to claim the recently found remains is that of Marie's]? Didn't happen.

And, if the body was not Marie's but Anastasia's, even if she was plump, I still don't think these men would have failed to have noticed the difference.


AGRBear

[AGRBear]

Originally Posted by Anna was Franziska

.... Do you really, really believe they'd pay off or trick labs in other countries? ...

"No."

and

"No."

AGRBear

[Anna was Franziska]

Originally Posted by AGRBear

Please, tell me how these men could fail to not have noticed the difference between a plump middle aged woman's body and a slim youthful body of Marie's [the Russians continue to claim the recently found remains is that of Marie's]? Didn't happen.

Being bloody, battered, shot, and cut up by bayonets would have a lot to do with not being able to identify the face. Also they were nude, so their clothing wouldn't matter. Ermakov mentioned Anastasia by name, maybe he paid more attention to individual girls' faces than Yurovsky. Or maybe Yurovsky was so paranoid and rushed and in fear of getting busted he didn't pay enough attention.

I do not believe Marie was burned. There are no accounts of her being burned, yet there are accounts of this for Anastasia. The only reason the Russians think it was Marie was due to facial reconstruction, but the skulls were badly broken, and there wasn't much left of the skull other than the browbone, and Anastasia and Marie resembled across the forehead. Also don't forget that the skeleton labeled as "Anastasia" is 5'7" which was Marie's height. So I am with Maples on this all the way.

And, if the body was not Marie's but Anastasia's, even if she was plump, I still don't think these men would have failed to have noticed the difference.

In the turmoil, it was possible, especially considering their hurried and grisly circumstances. (see above)

"No."

and

"No."


AGRBear

Then why not accept the labs' reports that it's Alexei and the last GD?

[AGRBear]

Originally Posted by Anna was Franziska

Being bloody, battered, shot, and cut up by bayonets would have a lot to do with not being able to identify the face. Also they were nude, so their clothing wouldn't matter. Ermakov mentioned Anastasia by name, maybe he paid more attention to individual girls' faces than Yurovsky. Or maybe Yurovsky was so paranoid and rushed and in fear of getting busted he didn't pay enough attention.

I do not believe Marie was burned. There are no accounts of her being burned, yet there are accounts of this for Anastasia. The only reason the Russians think it was Marie was due to facial reconstruction, but the skulls were badly broken, and there wasn't much left of the skull other than the browbone, and Anastasia and Marie resembled across the forehead. Also don't forget that the skeleton labeled as "Anastasia" is 5'7" which was Marie's height. So I am with Maples on this all the way.

In the turmoil, it was possible, especially considering their hurried and grisly circumstances. (see above)

Then why not accept the labs' reports that it's Alexei and the last GD?

The bodies had been washed by freezing water of the Four Brother's Mine shaft and it had helped to preserved the bodies in their original state.

p. 326
FATE OF THE ROMANOVS by King and Wilson

>>Rodzinsky himself recalled the moment the emperor's body was pulled from the mine. "They laid him out on the grass," he said, "and we all paused to admire his wonderful physique. He was very ;powerfully built, with very developed musles in his arms, back and legs", as he later recalled, "wondering at his body; he had a particular nice, firm rear."<<

It appears the men did take notice of the bodies.


I have not voice a belief or disbelief that a fourth grand duchess was found. I reserve my opinion until after I read the final report. Until then, I have questions just like you have questions about the grand duchess whom the Russians claim was found in the two pits. They believe she was GD Marie, whom we know was atleast five feet six and not Anastasia, whom we believe was probably closer to five feet two inches by July of 1917.

The first group of reports, also, said that the skull found was that of a childs and that the remains height was four feet eight inches tall. We know that Alexei had reached five feet long before they left for Siberia and was probably closer to five feet seven inches tall. As for his skull, it would have been the size of his father's who was said to be five feet seven inches. According to the National Geographic Special, scientist do believe the one set of bones found in the two pits in July of 2007 is Alexei's remains. So, I assume that the report on the skull and his height was incorrect and will be corrected in the final report. If not, then, of course, I'll wonder why.

AGRBear

[Anna was Franziska]

Bear, I do agree on the height, I have always said the height of 4'10" for Alexei was ridiculous. While he did have a skinny head and was not developed yet, I don't think his skull would have been the equal of Nicholas's, I don't think it would have been 'obviously a child's', either. One of the reports said "you could tell it was from a child." It was only a piece, nowhere near enough to tell for sure the size it would have been whole. Yes, we do know in the end he was at least the height of his father. However, I have also always said that it's impossible to estimate height without long bones being found, we learned this from the reports by scientists who worked on the first grave, and how Olga's legs were broken so there was no accurate height for her. So how in the world can anyone estimate by a few broken, burned pieces of bone? I am guessing they were guessing based on their own predetermined ideas of size, perhaps influenced by such incorrect images as the statue recently built in Ekaterinburg which portrays Nicholas carrying Alexei who looks no more than a toddler!

BUT, I do not believe anything crooked is going on, and I do accept the results from the labs in Russia, US, and Austria, that the fragments were from a son and daughter of N and A. I do not believe any piece of the first three daughters was 'planted' for all the reasons I've already mentioned. I just think a few people who didn't really have all the details said a few inaccurate things. I do hope the final report satisfies you, but I doubt it. You seem to want your 'road to truth' to keep going in circles until it finally gives you the answer you want, but it can't, because the truth is they all died that night.

[AGRBear]

When I reread my post about Alexei's height which I wrote yesterday, it didn't seem correct. So, I went and dug out my quote with the news article. I discovered I did give the wrong height and that I had inadvertently added several inches from what the article said.

[quote author=1 post_id=926 date=1194733477]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

[Anna was Franziska]

Yes, bear, the heights given in that one, Russian only report, are obviously wrong. I never saw it in any of the official news stories, so I doubt it's very accurate. As I said before, scientists will tell you if there aren't intact long bones from the arm or leg, height cannot be estimated, therefore, anyone who tried to estimate from the burned fragments was wrong and could not have gotten any kind of real reading from them. I don't see this is a big deal, and it certainly does not cast any doubt on the authenticity of the remains or the DNA testing. The results from labs in Russia, US and Austria all confirmed the fact that a son and daughter of N and A were found. No more kids are missing.

[Michael HR]

Once again this seems to be going in circles. Should we not all wait for the DNA results to see what they say? I agree with Bear that I would like to see four nDNA showing four separate daughters of the Tsar and Tsarina thus accounting for all female members beyond any doubt and further argument. In so far as the heir is concerned I think he presence has been answered by mtDNA and shows that he was in the second grave and is accounted for.

Lets all wait and see what the reports say when they are published hopefully sooner than later

[AGRBear]

Does this mean we're suppose to sit on our hands and not ask any more questions?

AGRBear