Michael Goleniewski, born 1922 in Poland, is perhaps best known for having been at one time a “triple spy.” At the same time he was a spy for the Soviet government he was also the deputy head of military intelligence for the People’s Republic of Poland’s Ministry Of Public Security. As such he was privy not only to the most sensitive of state secrets but also to the identities of KGB agents in the West. After exposing them to the CIA he defected to the USA.
After defection he began to assert that he was, in fact, the youngest child, the only son of Tsar Nicholas II of Russia, Alexei Romanov. Never mind the fact, that the Alexei of history had been born in 1904, eighteen years before Goleniewski’s birth. A quick double check with 2D visual face recognition technology from http://www.visualfacerecognition.com developed by Mr. Bob Schmitt of Buffalo, New York underscores that he could not have been who he alleged he was. Nonetheless, he pressed his thankful CIA colleagues to help him find his “sister,” Anastasia, who he claimed he had known for two years was in the USA.
It is noteworthy that the founder of the CIA Polygraph Lie Detection Unit, Grover “Cleve” Backster, had just completed a 30 hour interrogation of aka “Evgenia Smetisko,” sometimes referred to as “Eugenia Smith” and self-identified as HIH Grand Duchess Anastasia Nicholaevna Romanov, with a startling conclusion: she was telling the truth. She had not been lying at all and had not died 1918 as world historians had claimed (and many still do.)
Indeed, not only did Backster affirm “Evgenia’s” identity as Anastasia, but at her death the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia (ROCOR) buried her with the pseudonym yet with the date of birth of the grand duchess, namely 18 June 1901. This date of birth is clearly that of Anastasia Romanov and never appeared on any naturalization and immigration records for “Smetisko.”
The same visual face recognition technology which easily illustrates that Goleniewski could never have been Alexei, insightfully informs the viewer that aka “Evgenia Smetisko” is a match both in 2D and 3D analyses with Anastasia Romanov.
Above a 2D side by side.
Above a 2D overlay of photos of Grand Duchess Anastasia and the woman known as “Evgenia Smetisko.”
Above a 3D side by side using 22 points of reference for each image creating a 3D mask which allows for rotation.
Was the ruse of being Alexei Romanov the entry that Goleniewski used to pry from the CIA its initial affirmation that “Mrs. Smetisko” was really Anastasia Romanov, who did not die by Cheka assassination in the night of July 16/17, 1918, who had instead made it to the USA using a pseudonym and fake documents created, perhaps with US government assistance, in the name of Smetisko?
Further investigation continues, but the first supposition is that Goleniewski wanted to see for himself what he knew from his intelligence sources, that the “official” portrayal of the Romanov demise was not as presented to the public in the East and West.
During the conversation between the false “Alexei” and the apparently real Anastasia, reported on in detail in the 1979 book, The Hunt for The Czar, by Guy Richards we learn that CIA Polygraph expert, Backster, was again present to tape the exchange. (Patriotically, Smetisko then turned the tape over to the Justice Department.)
Evgenia/Anastasia tells her former Soviet spy visitor that she had attempted to see her “Aunt Olga” (ie Olga Alexandrovna Romanov, sister of the Tsar) when she arrived in Toronto. Sadly, she admits, “She did not want to see me.” Many debunkers point to this fact to assert that Olga was rejecting yet another impostress. However, if we accept that aka “Evgenia” was truly Anastasia, might it be that Olga was careful NOT to divulge state secrets, ones that might imperil other Romanovs, even other members of the Tsar’s immediate family which were living with pseudonyms abroad?
Well known Romanov researcher, Marie Stravlo, will soon reveal with her research group information that deals with this possibility. The purpose of this author’s research, however, is to peel away the onion layers of the person known as “Evgenia Smetisko” buried with the date of birth of Grand Duchess Anastasia.
Richards points out that all involved with Backster’s polygraph lie detector test in 1963 were confident that “Evgenia” was Anastasia, but were baffled that there seemed to be waffling in the questions dealing with the alleged murder of the family. Either her recollection was foggy given the trauma of the moment, or, Richards postulates, something else was underlying her non conclusive answers. It was a possibility that had not even occurred to the witnesses in 1963, namely that there had been no execution at all in the Ipatiev House.
Instead of a gory massacre, doubted by some investigators who arrived shortly thereafter and reported seeing walls full of bullet holes but no signs of blood and murder, Evgenia/Anastasia was, perhaps, bound to a promise that she would always promote an “official” report, while knowing diametrically opposed truthful details.
Let us return to the case of the Tsar’s sister, now Mrs. Kulikovsky, who had found safety for herself and her family in Canada. A 2D visual face recognition analysis suggests that Olga and aka “Evgenia” could have easily been “aunt” and “niece.”
If so, we can only imagine the pain that Olga must have felt to have to deny her niece, Anastasia, to not embrace her and delight in common memories. While Evgenia/Anastasia would have suffered also to be rebuffed by her aunt, she did not understand, perhaps, that this “rejection” was really necessary to protect others. In today’s terminology it might be dubbed “tough love.”
More details will soon follow, but research as of 2018 is able to be accessed in the book below: