AnastasiaEvidence
Nobility
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2008
- Messages
- 467
- City
- -----------
- Country
- United States
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.
Sorry to spoil the fun for all conspiracy theorists/hack writers and pretending scientists but this much is for sure,there are sets of remains found,one a boy fitting Alyosha's age,the other a girl fitting Marie's age,that much is for certain.
Within the next thirty days an official statement will be released on the findings, until then,anything else is hasbash really,by those I mention at the start of this post.All will be revealed at this statement,all.
< ed Warren: getting personal >Sorry to spoil the fun for all conspiracy theorists/hack writers and pretending scientists but this much is for sure,there are sets of remains found,one a boy fitting Alyosha's age,the other a girl fitting Marie's age,that much is for certain.
Within the next thirty days an official statement will be released on the findings,until then,anything else is hasbash really,by those I mention at the start of this post.All will be revealed at this statement,all.
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.
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.
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.
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.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 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.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.
But, Alexei could have had a growth spurt? You can't be sure that those were the postive heights during their deaths.
Yeah, but males grow differently from females.That would be some growth spurt.
Yeah, that is true. Boys usually grow faster than girls. I agree, Alexei could have been that possible height in July 1918.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.
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.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.
Usually people would say they stop growing in their early teenage years.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".
Yeah, but some men grow short, so not all men grow tall. It depends on how tall their parents and family were.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.
Now that's interesting genetics.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.
Now that's interesting genetics.
Does anybody know what they, the Romanovs did? Were they late bloomers or early growers?
The Japan samples have been tested before, and do not match the bones or blood from Nicholas's relatives such as Xenia Sfris. It's highly likely that while the shirt may belong to him, it has had so much contamination over the years it's not valuable for DNA testing anymore (like the AA slide from 1951) Back in 1891 no one preserved anything in sterile environs and had no idea DNA testing would ever exist. The first time a strange person handled it and sweated on it, it became useless. Just imagine how many times it's been moved and handled in 117 years.
Agree Anna,the shirt is useless,and besides...a 80% chance it really did belong to Nicky,and hundreds of,more or less,dirty hands....?It's got to be better then that.Or not,we don't need that shirt to prove anything,all the prove is there already,as we've sadly came to know.No clue which bulb at the Hermitage came up with these lines over a wodka or two...but ofcourse they too wish to be mentioned later as being extremely helpfull in the unveiling research in the outcome concerning the digging in the mud just outside Ekaterinenburg.
They all want a ride now,wait and see.....