Author Topic: Re: Anastasia Claimant - Anna Anderson a.k.a Franziska Schanzkowska Part 5  (Read 78783 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline AGRBear

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 6611
  • The road to truth is the best one to travel.
    • View Profile
    • Romanov's  Russia
 I shall repeat, once again: We do not know what FS looked like in order to compare her with one or one thousand photographs of AA ."  Why?  Because none of us, as far as I know,  have ever seen an untouched photo of FS.


AGRBear
« Last Edit: June 20, 2007, 04:17:46 PM by AGRBear »
"What is true by lamplight is not always true by sunlight."

Joubert, Pensees, No. 152

Offline AGRBear

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 6611
  • The road to truth is the best one to travel.
    • View Profile
    • Romanov's  Russia
Follow my quote and it will take  you to one of the threads where this has been discussed:



...[in part]....

Quote
Greg King's post #132:
 ...[in part]....
>> 
  
As to the FS photo: All I can say is that there is no known unretouched version of it-the one posted here has been examined by a number of experts over the years and been shown to have been heavily drawn over, the hairline changed, the lips altered, etc., presumably to heighten the appearance to AA.  If we had an unretouched photo of FS it would be useful, but we don't.  
  
Greg King<<  

As to Greg's statement being old [out of date],  I believe his statement still stands as accurate since he certainly saw Annie's two white dot photograph and probably others before anyone brought any copies of it here to this forum.

There are no unretouched photographs of FS known to the public a this time.

The one Annie is showing has two white dotes in the hair.  This is one of the earlier copies because the photographer making the copy may have had lent on his slide which created the two white does, therefore, this one can be traced back to this particular copy.  Some think the lint may not have been lent at all but smudges of something used when a copy was retouched before being copied again...

The German courts had an expert who studied all of these photographs and he gave his report to the judges upon months of research during AA's trial.

I am not sure what Annie means when she said that she found her photograph.

The one above I found in the FILE ON THE TSAR by Summers and Mangold which was published in 1976.  This one can be traced  back to the photographer who copied it because his has the two white dotes in FS's hair.  

The Wengenders produced several other photographs of FS because it was suppose to have shown some dress.... during the German court trial of AA.  But these photographs were proven by the court's experts to have been tampered --everything from buttons to who knows what was drawn into those photographs....

Helen,  there is no need to call my remarks as being sinister.  Facts are facts.  

AGRBear
"What is true by lamplight is not always true by sunlight."

Joubert, Pensees, No. 152

Offline Annie

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4757
    • View Profile
    • Anna Anderson Exposed!
Bear, the pic you posted is not retouched. It may be a weak, faded COPY but it's not retouched. What could anyone have done to it? It's so blurry!

Compare: faded unretouched copy of FS photo on left, retouched on right. Big difference.


Offline Annie

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4757
    • View Profile
    • Anna Anderson Exposed!
Now for some feature comparisons:

Chin: AN's is longer and goes into  a deep oval shape. AA's is blunt and flat across the bottom



Face forward:

AA: big, bulging eyes, full lips, wide nose. AN: thin lips, heavily lidded eyes, more narrow nose





Noses and the infamous ears: AA's ears don't look the same to me!



Here you can really see a difference in the noses, and note AA biting her lips and hiding her jawline!



Look at those huge lips and eyes! Nothing like AN's! I guess the person who made this marked through the nose because it was so big and bulbous looking and nothing like AN's!




Now take another look at those lips! VERY full, and look at the top one, straight across




and compare to AN's delicate almost Betty Boop top lip shape:

« Last Edit: June 20, 2007, 06:06:15 PM by Annie »

Offline AGRBear

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 6611
  • The road to truth is the best one to travel.
    • View Profile
    • Romanov's  Russia
Knowing full well what you'd [Annie] say next,  I went looking for the old thread which would have the answers  which were  posted by a person who knew a great deal about  old photopraphs,  the process of retouching and how much a photographer/ artist could change a photo.  Couldn't find it.  When I find it,  I'll post it here so you can go and read the other posts.

AGRBear
« Last Edit: June 20, 2007, 06:08:46 PM by AGRBear »
"What is true by lamplight is not always true by sunlight."

Joubert, Pensees, No. 152

Offline Annie

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4757
    • View Profile
    • Anna Anderson Exposed!
Now let's go back to this beauty:



This was taken in 1920 soon after she was fished out of the canal, but before she started pretending to be AN. She wasn't yet biting her lips or trying to pose like AN, and what you see is a very rough woman who looks nothing like AN. Her face is scarred, most likely from the schrapnel from that grenade explosion. Look at the profile of that nose! Sooo not AN's! The big lips and big eyes! The hairline and part matching FS's!

Another thing to look at here: look how OLD she looks! She (FS) was 23-24 here, and when someone told her she looked over 30 she became upset and said "no, not so very old." Remember that AN would have been only 18 and a half in Feb. 1920! Even though FS looks like a terrible careworn 23, there's no way that face is 18!!



Look here, this is one of my all time favorite lip biters!!   :P



For more lip biters and pics obviously posed to copy the real AN, see Kurth's site! It's loaded with them, and they make me laugh! :D

« Last Edit: June 20, 2007, 06:21:29 PM by Annie »

Offline AGRBear

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 6611
  • The road to truth is the best one to travel.
    • View Profile
    • Romanov's  Russia
Kurth's photo is not the original but a copy of a copy which, I believe, he thinks is a liken image of  the original,  as did I,  until someone, I believe it was Helen, about the white smuges (china white??).....

Kurth's site shows 3 images. The leftmost image on his site (the grainy, contrasty one) is the original and does not appear to be retouched. The image of FS shown above is described as "three times retouched, as submitted in Pierre Gilliard and Konstantin Savitch’s La fausse Anastasie (Paris, Payot, 1929)."

Problems with the highlights and shading on the forehead are clearly visible. It looks as if there are cast shadows from foliage.

How accurate the retouched image is depends on the skill, experience, and training of the artist. If the artist was trained in a forensic lab, the retouching would be as accurate as possible. If trained in art and photography, there would be a skewing towards artistic or pleasing results. There would also be a problem if the artist used photographs of AA for reference.

The image used in the documentary appears to be the retouched photograph. But it is also possible that the original image was enhanced (there are several image enhancement services, including the FBI labs), and the retouched photograph is accurate.

Quote
Today, there are even simple software for drawing and photographs that can turn a human face into a face of a lion which is the same kind of software used for movies these days.
This called morphing. However, what is being shown in this documentary is a simple dissolve, a transition from one image to another; a fade-out, fade-in with two scenes overlapping. Dissolves like the one shown are often used in film, eg. when a character is played by actors of different ages.

Quote
the distance between the two eyes and the mouth
I wish I had seen the program. If anyone knows who did the analysis I can probably find out a bit more.

In computer-based facial recognition systems, approximately 80 nodes (points or vertices in graphics systems) are used. Most 2D facial recognition systems require at least 14 nodes for a match. It doesn't look like they used such software, but the documentary may simply have avoided getting too technical.

2D facial recognition systems still have problems with differences in poses and lighting. As you can see, AA's face is tilted downwards very slightly, which could cause problems because of foreshortening, depending on the algorithms used.


All the  formal sittings of the Royal Family were done my professionals, who or may not have "improved"  the  different photographs.   I'd rather use the family  browie camera kind-of photos  to compare to anyone who was/is a claimant.

Since I don't think AA was GD Anastasia,  I find no need to comment on  the comparison of photographs between  AA and GD Anastasia.

AGRBear
« Last Edit: June 20, 2007, 06:30:44 PM by AGRBear »
"What is true by lamplight is not always true by sunlight."

Joubert, Pensees, No. 152

Offline Annie

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4757
    • View Profile
    • Anna Anderson Exposed!
Bear, if you REALLY don't believe AA was AN, why do you always go out of your way to try your best to discredit the FS picture? Even fuzzy, the face shape matches up better than any of AN. If you REALLY don't believe AA was AN, then why not help me post pics that show how they look nothing alike? Despite your lip service, Bear, I have never in the three years I've been on this forum seen you post one blasted thing AGAINST AA's claim. It's always in favor, even if indirectly. If you REALLY want 'the truth' it's as plain as the nose on her face.

Offline Annie

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4757
    • View Profile
    • Anna Anderson Exposed!
I think this pic more than any other really emphasizes just how unlike AN AA's features really were. She's really openly exposed them all here.



Here's another matchup I found:


Offline AGRBear

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 6611
  • The road to truth is the best one to travel.
    • View Profile
    • Romanov's  Russia
Bear, the pic you posted is not retouched. It may be a weak, faded COPY but it's not retouched. What could anyone have done to it? It's so blurry!

Compare: faded unretouched copy of FS photo on left, retouched on right. Big difference.




You voiced that the pic was not retouched.  This was not correct.    The  reason I posted was to make sure people are aware of  facts behind the photo.   Gave them some of the old threads.  Now,  people can make up their own minds.


AGRBear



« Last Edit: June 20, 2007, 09:30:40 PM by AGRBear »
"What is true by lamplight is not always true by sunlight."

Joubert, Pensees, No. 152

ferrymansdaughter

  • Guest

Annie said "Are you sure it was the 1970's? The court case was over by the 60's, what was he doing it for?"

Firstly  the tests were done in 1977 - I checked last night.

  "I hate to be a taker of conspiracy theories, but the only thing I can think of is he was 'paid off' or influenced by someone in hopes of a  payoff if she won any money, or perhaps half blind, drunk, using faulty equipment or just plain mistaken"

Secondly I really find this appalling - Professor Furtmayr was an expert in the field of forensics and the PIK test which is supposedly as reliable as fingerprints and was used in the German courts.  You may disagree with him but to suggest he was "paid off" or "drunk" is outrageous and in my opinion, borders on being libellous.

I'm bowing out of this discussion.  I have no problem with anyone having a difference of opinion but to trash people like this is unacceptable and I won't be participating any further.


Offline Annie

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4757
    • View Profile
    • Anna Anderson Exposed!

Annie said "Are you sure it was the 1970's? The court case was over by the 60's, what was he doing it for?"

Firstly  the tests were done in 1977 - I checked last night.

  "I hate to be a taker of conspiracy theories, but the only thing I can think of is he was 'paid off' or influenced by someone in hopes of a  payoff if she won any money, or perhaps half blind, drunk, using faulty equipment or just plain mistaken"

Secondly I really find this appalling - Professor Furtmayr was an expert in the field of forensics and the PIK test which is supposedly as reliable as fingerprints and was used in the German courts.  You may disagree with him but to suggest he was "paid off" or "drunk" is outrageous and in my opinion, borders on being libellous.

Don't make me laugh! You AA supporters have said much worse about the DNA scientists! How is it okay to doubt  and disrespect and accuse them and not this guy? Oh that's right because you like what he says! And I never said any of those thing were fact, hell I don't know, I was just giving hypothetical and possible reasons why he could have gotten it wrong, because he was wrong.

Quote
I'm bowing out of this discussion.  I have no problem with anyone having a difference of opinion but to trash people like this is unacceptable and I won't be participating any further.



Then I hope you will not 'trash' the DNA scientists or the members of the family who denied AA anymore.
It's so amazing how AA fans can completely trash Olga A., Gilliard, the DNA scientists, then Queen, etc., but when you question one of their heroes, it suddenly becomes 'libelous' and 'unnacceptable.'  ::)

It's so sad these things always degrade into a fight. Why does it have to be that way? I guess because the stuff I'm posting is so damning to AA and those who want to believe her and want to make others believe her don't like that, so they have to get snitty over it. (not talking about you, Bear.) The very fact that they lash out like that only proves the desperation for a long lost cause.
« Last Edit: June 21, 2007, 09:25:57 AM by Annie »

ferrymansdaughter

  • Guest
Who's fighting?  Not me.   

I personally have never said anything derogatory about DNA scientists, the Romanov family, my Queen  or any of those who denied AA's identity. Indeed, I am not the one making unfounded accusations.  Everyone is entitled to their personal opinion and  I can respect that even if I disagree with them.  However,   I do not think personal attacks - either on myself or anybody else - are necessary.

Incidentally, I don't think I have ever expressed on this board whether I believe her to be Anastasia or not. I find the whole subject fascinating and am prepared to listen to any  reasoned viewpoint but I am certainly not desperate about this issue, one way or the other.  You have decided what my viewpoint is simply because I objected to some unfounded  comments you made about someone who probably is no longer around to defend himself.  You may disagree with him and that's fine, but calling him names will not help and also doesn't help us come up with a valid reason why he got the results he did.   Perhaps you would like to try and answer that question.

That's it.  I really am out of here now. 

Offline AGRBear

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 6611
  • The road to truth is the best one to travel.
    • View Profile
    • Romanov's  Russia
This is a note for newbies:

This kind of posturing between Annie and I is nothing new. 

She keeps repeating incorrectly   that  she  thinks that I think AA is GD Anastasia because I correct her  errors.   So, everyone once in awhile I  have to turn around and explain:  I don't care where the truth takes me,  I  am just enjoying the journey.

Hey, everyone,  this is gonna be a long long day.  Enjoy every minute.  I know I will.

Now,  where is that honey jar.....

AGRBear



« Last Edit: June 21, 2007, 01:03:41 PM by AGRBear »
"What is true by lamplight is not always true by sunlight."

Joubert, Pensees, No. 152

Offline Annie

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4757
    • View Profile
    • Anna Anderson Exposed!
Oh for Pete's sake. Why did I ever believe we could have a rational, civil discussion on this around here? I would really like to hear from people who actually want to comment and discuss this rationally instead of trying to start something, or the thread  might as well be closed.