Identification of the remains found in 2007: Alexei and Marie (Coble, 2009)

[AGRBear]

>>They can't show what they don't have! <<
Since we know the scientists are NOT buffoons, we know they either have or can do the markers showing us there are four grand duchesses.

[Anna was Franziska]

They could make them, but as I stated, it never enters anyone's mind to do so since the topic is only being brought up and discussed here by only a handful of us. Perhaps you should write the scientists a letter telling them your doubts and asking for the profiles. You may get an answer as to why they feel they are not necessary.

[AGRBear]

>>... it never enters anyone's mind to do so...<<

Good grief, you continue to make them sound like they are "buffoons", which I don't think they are.

Of course they, since they are forensic scientists, would have thought of making sure there are four grand duchesses by providing, if they can, four markers for proof.

I hardly think a letter from me is necessary. Besides, I'm not sure any of them can read English.

AGRBear

[Anna was Franziska]

Originally Posted by AGRBear

>>... it never enters anyone's mind to do so...<<

Good grief, you continue to make them sound like they are "buffoons", which I don't think they are.

I was not implying the scientists were "buffoons" and I certainly do not think that. The point I'm trying to make is that the reason they haven't made four different profiles is because to them it isn't necessary or important. The only ones who keep pushing for the four profiles are those who refuse to give up on claimant stories.

Of course they, since they are forensic scientists, would have thought of making sure there are four grand duchesses by providing, if they can, four markers for proof.

Remember in the NG special, they said there was no way to tell if the burned body was AN or Marie, but, quote, 'it doesn't matter since now we know we have all four.' That is good enough for them.

We must also consider that the bones of the other GDs are buried, resting in peace, and special permission would be needed to exhume them for making profiles. This may not be possible or acceptable, legally or religiously,(remember they are Holy Martyrs) and who's going to pay for it? They gave some parts from N and A to prove these were their children, that's all any of the scientists needed. Th conspiracy theories of bones taken from the mass grave, burned, and planted in the burn pit to tricks someone 90 years later is so preposterous I'm sure no one would consider it a valid reason for disturbing the graves.

I hardly think a letter from me is necessary. Besides, I'm not sure any of them can read English.

AGRBear

American scientists also worked on the testing.

[AGRBear]

The fragments of the female bones found in July of 2007 are said to be missing from the mass grave, they may or may not be, therefore, to eliminate any rumors, the four markers should be established.

As for the money involved. That is up to those involved.

I'm not going to get into the religious part of all this, however, I assume if it was alright to take samples for the first tests then it should be alright for farther tests.

As for my remark about the scientists not knowing English, that was out of line. I apologize if I have offended anyone. Speaking of the Americans, do we know any of their names? I don't recall if any, who were involved in the actual DNA/mtDNA, were mentioned in the National Geographic Special.

AGRBear

[Anna was Franziska]

Originally Posted by AGRBear

The fragments of the female bones found in July of 2007 are said to be missing from the mass grave,
AGRBear

By who? You and a couple others on this site? It's not a credible theory to the scientists. They've never heard it, unless they read this board, but I'm sure they, and the historians and forensics people involved would all disregard it as completely false and impossible as well as pointless.

[AGRBear]

Originally Posted by Anna was Franziska

By who? You and a couple others on this site? It's not a credible theory to the scientists. They've never heard it, unless they read this board, but I'm sure they, and the historians and forensics people involved would all disregard it as completely false and impossible as well as pointless.

The photos made public show what's missing.



AGRBear

[Anna was Franziska]

There isn't any sinister meaning behind anything that's missing, bodies do deteriorate and decay in the ground after many decades, especially in a bog. Also, in the case of the Romanovs, acid was poured all over them, so the parts that got the most acid would have dissolved faster than those that didn't.

[AGRBear]

Originally Posted by Anna was Franziska

There isn't any sinister meaning behind anything that's missing, bodies do deteriorate and decay in the ground after many decades, especially in a bog. Also, in the case of the Romanovs, acid was poured all over them, so the parts that got the most acid would have dissolved faster than those that didn't.

I don't understand your point about the acid because it was used in the mass grave in Pig's Meadow and apparently in the two pits at a higher level of ground found July 2007.

AGRBear

[Anna was Franziska]

My point is that if bones are missing it was due to normal decay and the acid, not anyone stealing parts and planting them somewhere else.

[Russophile]

Originally Posted by Anna was Franziska

My point is that if bones are missing it was due to normal decay and the acid, not anyone stealing parts and planting them somewhere else.

Wouldn't there be some "normal" movement from animals? They love to dig and snatch bones.

[Anna was Franziska]

If animals had found the pit, they'd have carried off a lot more. Imagine what a feast all those femurs would be to a starving wolf in the Siberian winter! The bones were buried under railroad ties, so no animal could get to them.

[AGRBear]

Originally Posted by Anna was Franziska

If animals had found the pit, they'd have carried off a lot more. Imagine what a feast all those femurs would be to a starving wolf in the Siberian winter! The bones were buried under railroad ties, so no animal could get to them.

Don't be mislead by Peter and the Wolf story. In some areas of Russia, the wolves by 1918 were eliminated, so, I'm not sure if there were any around Ekaterinburg. Perhaps there is a poster who could inform us about the activities of wolves in the area of Pig's Meadow and the two pits in 1918 to the July 2007.

Originally Posted by Anna was Franziska

My point is that if bones are missing it was due to normal decay and the acid, not anyone stealing parts and planting them somewhere else.

Since we have the mass grave to compare the remains with the two pits, normal decay would have been about the same, accept there was more acid and standing water in Pig's Meadow then the higher area of the two pits, which would have caused the remains in the meadow to deteriorate more than in the two pits. So, I don't think your suggestion that it was normal decay and acid which resulted in so few bones found in the two pits.

AGRBear

[Anna was Franziska]

Originally Posted by AGRBear

Don't be mislead by Peter and the Wolf story. In some areas of Russia, the wolves by 1918 were eliminated, so, I'm not sure if there were any around Ekaterinburg. Perhaps there is a poster who could inform us about the activities of wolves in the area of Pig's Meadow and the two pits in 1918 to the July 2007.

You are telling the wrong person. I was responding to Russophile's post above mine suggesting animals at the bones, and I was disagreeing.

So, I don't think your suggestion that it was normal decay and acid which resulted in so few bones found in the two pits.

AGRBear

What's your suggestion, bear? That someone stole them and planted them in the burn pit(you have said this before) to make everyone think Anastasia was dead but she was really AA? That's a lot more far fetched than normal decay.

[AnastasiaEvidence]

What's your suggestion, bear? That someone stole them and planted them in the burn pit(you have said this before) to make everyone think Anastasia was dead but she was really AA? That's a lot more far fetched than normal decay.

That is hearsay. This can't be possible, THERE IS NO PROOF ! You don't have major evidence to back that up. Nobody could have possibly ever planted the bones somewhere. This is highly unlikely theory.

[Anna was Franziska]

Originally Posted by AnastasiaEvidence

That is hearsay. This can't be possible, THERE IS NO PROOF ! You don't have concreate evidence to back that up. Nobody could have possibly ever planted the bones somewhere. This is highly unlikely theory.

It's worse than hearsay, Bear made it up. Nobody else ever said that.It's just her own wild theory that makes no sense at all.

[AGRBear]

Originally Posted by AGRBear

The fragments of the female bones found in July of 2007 are said to be missing from the mass grave, they may or may not be, therefore, to eliminate any rumors, the four markers should be established. .....
AGRBear

Until the Russians presents the four markers of the four grand duchesses, whom the Russians claim have been found, the rumors and theories will continue.

As far as I'm concern, my opinions lean toward Dr. Maples conclusion p. 262 in his book DEAD MEN DO TELL TALES on the remains found in Pig's Meadow:

>>None of the nine skeletons could be attributed to the fourteen-year-old Tsarevich Alexei, and none of them despite the Russians' initial hopes, could be identified with a girl seventeen years and one month old: Anastasia.<<

The Russians, for some reason, despite their "initial hopes" refuse to admit that Anastasia was not in the mass grave and continue to claim the missing remains are Marie's, whom they, now, claim, have been found in the two pits in July of 2007. This means, the bones found are still too old according to forensic science to be that of Anastasia. Therefore, it is possible that the bones found were taken from the mass grave and planted by someone to make it appear that all four grand duchesses have been found.

Until the scientists provide us with four markers showing there are four grand duchesses, and, that Anastasia, not Marie, was found in the two pits, I will continue to ask questions.

My questions about the real Anastasia's fate is separate from the story of Anna Anderson, whom I don't think was GD Anastasia or Franziska Schanzkowska. So, posters, don't be taken in my AWF's campaign in which she tries to claim I'm an AA = GD Anastasia supporter. I'm not. I'm just trying to untangle the information in search of the truth. And, I don't care where it takes me, I'm just enjoying the journey.

AGRBear

Just in cast some of you do not know who Dr. Maples was let me give provide you with the information provided on the back cover of his book:

>>Until his death in Februrary 1997, DR. WILLIAM R. MAPLES was distinguished service professor and curation-in-charge of the C.A. Pound Human Identification Laboratory at the Florida Museum of Natural History in Gainesville. He was president of the American Board of Forensic Antropology and a fellow of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences.
...<<

GD Anastasia's remains missing from the mass grave was Dr. Maples' theory not Bear's.

[Anna was Franziska]

Originally Posted by AGRBear

Just in cast some of you do not know who Dr. Maples was let me give provide you with the information provided on the back cover of his book:

>>Until his death in Februrary 1997, DR. WILLIAM R. MAPLES was distinguished service professor and curation-in-charge of the C.A. Pound Human Identification Laboratory at the Florida Museum of Natural History in Gainesville. He was president of the American Board of Forensic Antropology and a fellow of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences.
...<<

GD Anastasia's remains missing from the mass grave was Dr. Maples' theory not Bear's.

Bear, I do agree with Maples- and you- that Anastasia and not Marie was missing from the original grave. But everything is different now that the last two bodies have been found, meaning even if Anastasia had been missing, she's not anymore. The theory you made up is that there was no fourth girl found in the new grave, that some snuck pieces of one of the other three girls out of the old grave and planted them there to trick people. That's what I was talking about when I dissed your theory.

[AGRBear]

Originally Posted by Anna was Franziska

Bear, I do agree with Maples- and you- that Anastasia and not Marie was missing from the original grave. But everything is different now that the last two bodies have been found, meaning even if Anastasia had been missing, she's not anymore.
...[in part]..

We are told the 40 fragments are of a female, who's DNA/mtDNA show she is a sibling to the male bones which are Alexis', the son of Nicholas II and Alexandra.

The Russians tell us that the female remains belong to GD Marie. I assume this means the bones, also, tell us the female was the same age of 19 years plus four weeks which GD Marie was in July of 1918 and not the age of GD Anastasia who was 17 years plus five weeks old.

So, here is my concern. Dr. Maples with his knowledge of forensics has told us that GD Marie, age 19, was in the mass grave.

DEAD MEN DO TELL TALES p. 256:

>>.Body no. 5 belonged to a woman in her late teens or early twenties....Dr. Levine and I agree that she was the youngest of the five women....We concluded this from the fact that the root tips of her third molars were incomplete. Her sacrum, in the back of her pelvis, was not completely developed. Her limb bones showed that growth had only recently ended. Her back showed evidence of immaturity, but it was nevertheless the balck of a woman at least eighteen years old. We estimated her height at 67.5 inches. We believe this skeleton is that of Marie, who was nineteen years old at the time of the murders.<<


The Russians, however, tell us that the bones whom Dr. Maples believed were that of Marie's are not Marie's but Anastasia's, who was 17 years plus 1 month old, and that the remains found in the two pits are the 19 year old Marie's.

If the four duchesses have been found then two sets of bones should not forenicslly show two grand duchesses being 19 years old at the time of death in 1918. Therefore, one of the groups is mistaken. Or are they? Both can be correct if Marie's bones were taken from the mass grave and placed in the two pits.

So, let me ask this: Are all the female grand duchesses' hip bones found in the mass grave intact? If they were then the female's hip bone found in the two pits could not have been from the mass grave?

[Anna was Franziska]

Bear, what does the missing body in 1991 being Anastasia instead of Marie have anything to do with what's happening now? Whichever girl was missing she isn't anymore, since scientists have proven there were a male and a female in the burn pit, and added to the three girls from the first grave, that means ALL FIVE are now accounted for REGARDLESS of who was missing or not missing in 1991!

You, bear, seem to allege that the female found in the burn pit last year is not the fourth and missing daughter, but a part from one of the others. NO ONE in the news or anywhere else has even suggested this, just you, just here (except maybe on your forum too) Some AA supporters may agree with you out of a desire to keep their claimant dreams alive, but Bear,this theory is YOUR baby and no one else's, and it's really not valid.

Here's why:
1.The scientists and forensic specialists involved are satisfied all five children are now accounted for. No one has suggested proving it with separate profiles except you and a few other claimant supporters, and the scientists, unless they read these forums are totally unaware. Clearly, they are much more knowledgeable than any of us here on the subject, so if they are satisfied, why aren't you?
2. According to detailed accounts written by participants and reinacted in the National Geographic special, the two burned bodies were buried FIRST. The pit was completely covered up, ashes and all, and disguised. Realizing time did not permit burning all the others, they dumped eeryone else into the mass grave, covered it up and buried it with railroad ties on top.
3.This means that since the burn pit was buried FIRST and everything else was put in the mass grave, that completely shoots holes in any claims that residue from the mass grave accidently or incidently found its way into the burn pit- since the burn pit was first!
4.The idea that anyone could or would have taken a piece of the bodies of one of the three girls from the mass grave, burned it to match the burned body, and planted it in the burn pit to trick people years later IS PREPOSTEROUS and MAKES NO SENSE for the following reasons:
1- They were rushed for time, afraid of being caught. They wanted to get out of there, not goof around.
2-At the time, they were trying to hide the fact that the family was dead, not trying to cover up that someone lived (no one did) so the idea of 'survivors' or 'claimants' was not on their minds.
3-And most of all WHY would anyone do such a thing?
A: They never intended for the graves to be found- EVER- and made the famous quote 'the world will never know what we did with them.' So the idea that they'd plant anything to trick people who found the grave later is ridiculous.
B. Here's the biggie- DNA TESTING WOULD NOT BE INVENTED FOR ANOTHER SEVEN DECADES, meaning, at the time, no one would have had any idea such testing would come to exist, so why bother planting body parts so in the event of such tests you could fool them into thinking there was an extra girl? See how SILLY that is???!!

So, Bear, what exactly is it that you are alleging here? Please explain.

And don't bother posting all the Maples stuff, that is insignificant now, because it makes no difference which girl was missing since they've all been found. The issue at hand is, Bear seems to believe the fourth girl found in the burn pit last year is not the fourth girl but body parts from one of the other three. How and why?