Author Topic: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #2  (Read 51155 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline JonC

  • Boyar
  • **
  • Posts: 202
  • I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
    • View Profile
Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #2
« Reply #285 on: July 21, 2005, 01:45:36 PM »
Yes but I believe the suggestion, by you, was that AN is AA or visa versa which means to me that AN's ear was injured and changed into what AA's ear ended up being. right?

I've looked at the photos of those ears again. If AA had a bullet wound behind or in front her ear and changed from what AN's ear originally looked like( i.e. the ear on the right)into AA's ear (on the left) then I think plastic surgeons should start shooting people to make their changes instead of surgery.

Seriously, AA's ear looks too natural to be the end result of any injury, and very different from AN's ear.
AN's physical appearance could never have turned into AA's physical appearance. I guess her nose would have had to get hit by a shovel and her forehead expanded somehow.!?!?

I wish someone would step up and do another study using some of the science you mention in your previous posts. I would love to see the results. JonC.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by JonC »

Offline lexi4

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 1914
  • don't take yourself too seriously
    • View Profile
Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #2
« Reply #286 on: July 21, 2005, 06:58:38 PM »
Jon,
The study would be interesting but I don't think it will ever happen because most are convinced by the DNA that AA was not AN. So what would be the point?
Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely, in a pretty and well preserved body; but rather to skid in broadside, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming, "Wow ---- What a ride!!!"

Offline jaa

  • Boyar
  • **
  • Posts: 104
    • View Profile
Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #2
« Reply #287 on: July 22, 2005, 11:16:33 AM »
Right now, anyone writing a book or making a documentary about the AA case has to deal with the fact that experts testifying in the AA case, and experts as recently as ten years ago, found a match between AA's and AN's ear.

One approach for an author or filmmaker is to attempt to show that ear id is unreliable. We should know whether or not this is the case fairly soon: researchers in the UK are working on this issue, there is an EC project (see fearid.com) in the related area of ear prints, and new biometric technologies are being developed. There is increased support for these efforts because of the potential benefits in apprehending terrorists.

Another approach is to explain that the experts were working with older methods and technologies. I think, at this point, that that is the most reasonable explanation for why the ear evidence conflicts with the DNA evidence.

Quote
Yes but I believe the suggestion, by you, was that AN is AA or visa versa which means to me that AN's ear was injured and changed into what AA's ear ended up being. right?

I did not mention AN, nor did I mean to imply anything re AN. My apologies for poor phrasing and bad word choice. For what it's worth, here is my original post:

"The top of AA's right ear shows the results of injuries, like a boxer's cauliflower ear; this is consistent with the shattered right side of her jaw and a finger-width groove, probably caused by a grazing bullet wound, behind her right ear."

We know that experts, as recently as 1995, found a match between AA and AN. Most of the experts concentrated on the shapes and/or measurements of the inner part of the ear.

>If AA had a bullet wound behind or in front her ear

All descriptions of this scar identify it as behind the ear. There is no conflicting evidence about its existence, position or its general appearance.

>Seriously, AA's ear looks too natural to be the end result of any injury

I don't know if I agree or disagree at this point. I'll know a bit more when the Computer Vision article is published.

So far in my reading, the mathematical curve of the shape of the outer part of the ear is derived from a relatively small number of nodal points, or vertices. I'm guessing that's probably 6-8 points, and not more than 10 points. The curve of the outer part of AA's right ear appears to require more points, or specific changes to the tangency or weight of the points, depending on which type of curve being used. That is, if you were modeling AA's ear on a computer, you'd have to add points or tweak points to a template model. But again, that's only what I've been able to find out so far.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by jaa »

Offline AGRBear

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 6611
  • The road to truth is the best one to travel.
    • View Profile
    • Romanov's  Russia
Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #2
« Reply #288 on: July 22, 2005, 11:54:32 AM »
Thanks jaa,  interesting facts as always.

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

Joubert, Pensees, No. 152

Offline JonC

  • Boyar
  • **
  • Posts: 202
  • I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
    • View Profile
Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #2
« Reply #289 on: July 22, 2005, 02:13:02 PM »
lexi4,

I agree with your conclusion. It is frustrating though when I read posts like jaa's and I still get the feeling that there is some kind of ray of hope in these posters  that AA and AN are the same person. No matter how much they deny it. JonC.

Offline lexi4

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 1914
  • don't take yourself too seriously
    • View Profile
Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #2
« Reply #290 on: July 22, 2005, 02:54:52 PM »
The reality, as I understand it, is that we are 99.9 percent certain that AA was not AN. That's good enough for me.
Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely, in a pretty and well preserved body; but rather to skid in broadside, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming, "Wow ---- What a ride!!!"

Offline AGRBear

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 6611
  • The road to truth is the best one to travel.
    • View Profile
    • Romanov's  Russia
Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #2
« Reply #291 on: August 01, 2005, 05:02:22 PM »
AA's intestines specimens and questions that may surround them.


THE QUEST FOR ANASTASIA by John Klier and Mingay wrote on p. 225 about Martha Jefferson Hospital in Charlottesville where the specimens of AA was stored, found and later sent out to be tested for DNA / mtDNA:

"Was tampering possible?  The Martha Jefferson Hospital in Charlottesville has been storing specimens from patients since 1978, when it opened a pathology department.  The basement department was relatively easy to enter, according to visitors.  When the Manahan biopsy became the subject of such intense interest, the hospital authorites moved it to a safer place for storage, suggesting some concern by the hospital managment that the existing site was not secure."


At this point in the thread this is not about the matching of mtDNA with samples from Karl Maucher or Marg. Ellerick.    This is just about the possibility of someone  [matters not who] could have tampered with this evidence which is so important in proving AA was not GD Anatasia.

Let me add:  This is not a thread which has any purpose of condeming the hospital, it's staff, it's doctors or anyone responsible for the safe keeping of the specimen.  From reliable sources, I understand the hospital has an excellent reputation.

So let the discussion begin.

AGRBear
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by admin »
"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!
Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #2
« Reply #292 on: August 01, 2005, 05:41:37 PM »
Transferred my post from the other thread:

This was Martha Jefferson hospital, and unlike UVA med center which was found to have had an accidental baby switch a few years back, has an INFALLIBLE record of accuracy. First, there are no names on the samples, only code numbers, and these correspond to a name in the records accessed only by a few people. No one can just walk in off the street and switch things, they wouldn't even know what was what. And there is security! So unless you are among those who believe Queen Elizabeth paid for the switch, that's out of the question.

Also, consider that it was the Schweitzers who requested the sample, not some evil anti-AA person. They honestly wanted to know and believed they'd get a positive answer.  

And last of all, even IF it was switched, with WHO? Someone would have had to find a member of the Schanskowska family, cut them open and remove exactly the same portion of intestine AA had removed, and sneak it in! That's even less realistic than an invasion from Mars, come on.

Offline AGRBear

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 6611
  • The road to truth is the best one to travel.
    • View Profile
    • Romanov's  Russia
Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #2
« Reply #293 on: August 01, 2005, 06:51:45 PM »
Quote
I spoke earlier today (on an unrelated matter) with the head of a large and well respected DNA lab, that does DNA sequencing.  The man, a well respected biologist in the field, was kind enough to answer some questions about the AA testing for me.  Basically, he said this: The testing done on the AA samples is 100% accurate. Nothing today is at all different than then. The only difference is the work is done by special machine, instead of by hand. (This dittos what Dr. Melton said). There is virtually no possiblility that the AA sample was "contaminated". We then discussed the theories put forward about contamination, switching samples, conspiracy etc. He laughed. He said "You can never prove to someone something that never happened. These people want to believe it so they ignore everything else.  The statistical probablilty that anything like that happened is so small that it amounts to zero. These people just really don't understand how the samples are stored, handled or tested..." small pause..."You know, I believe that in England there still is a Flat Earth society that rejects the notion that the earth is round."

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

Joubert, Pensees, No. 152

Offline Inquiring_Mind

  • Graf
  • ***
  • Posts: 251
    • View Profile
Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #2
« Reply #294 on: August 01, 2005, 07:18:35 PM »
I need to do some reasearch to remove the thorn in my side that it is accepted that Martha Jefferson keeps slides forever. ( from previous discussions).

See this link
http://web.ask.com/fr?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rand.org%2Fpublications%2FMR%2FMR954%2FMR954.chap6.pdf&s=a&bu=http%3A%2F%2Fweb.ask.com%2Fweb%3Fq%3Dhow%2Blong%2Bdo%2Bhospitals%2Bkeep%2Bpathological%2Bslides%26o%3D0%26page%3D1&q=how+long+do+hospitals+keep+pathological+slides&o=0&qt=0&ma=...offices%2C%20community%20hospitals%20...%20To%20be%20accredited%2C%20laboratories%20must%20keep%20pathological%20...%20must%20retain%20cytology%20slides%20for%20...%20tissues...&mt=99%20Chapter%20Six%20PATHOLOGY%20SPECIMENS%20A%20large%20number%20of%20tissues%20are&mb=

Did you know the slide could have been used for research purposes?

See the time limits. Yes they can differ. And the law stated in the text is after AA's operation.  Were there controls before this? If they are coded and no one knows it belongs to a famous or infamous person..... How do everybody know it was still there?




I chose the road less traveled and now...where the heck am I????

Offline AGRBear

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 6611
  • The road to truth is the best one to travel.
    • View Profile
    • Romanov's  Russia
Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #2
« Reply #295 on: August 01, 2005, 07:34:06 PM »
That was very interesting.

Thanks

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
Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #2
« Reply #296 on: August 01, 2005, 07:41:55 PM »
Quote
I spoke earlier today (on an unrelated matter) with the head of a large and well respected DNA lab, that does DNA sequencing.  The man, a well respected biologist in the field, was kind enough to answer some questions about the AA testing for me.  Basically, he said this: The testing done on the AA samples is 100% accurate. Nothing today is at all different than then. The only difference is the work is done by special machine, instead of by hand. (This dittos what Dr. Melton said). There is virtually no possiblility that the AA sample was "contaminated". We then discussed the theories put forward about contamination, switching samples, conspiracy etc. He laughed. He said "You can never prove to someone something that never happened. These people want to believe it so they ignore everything else.  The statistical probablilty that anything like that happened is so small that it amounts to zero. These people just really don't understand how the samples are stored, handled or tested..." small pause..."You know, I believe that in England there still is a Flat Earth society that rejects the notion that the earth is round."



>:(I thought we were not going to use petty digs such as:  "You know, I believe that in England there still is a Flat Earth soceity that rejects the notion that the earth is round."  Although he may have said it, doesn't mean you had to repeat it.

 

AGRBear

:-/ PS

Is there any way that we can have Real Anastasia post with the URL fixed so we can read this thread without having to run all the way across the board to China  ;D  Thanks.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by AGRBear »
"What is true by lamplight is not always true by sunlight."

Joubert, Pensees, No. 152

Offline Inquiring_Mind

  • Graf
  • ***
  • Posts: 251
    • View Profile
Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #2
« Reply #297 on: August 01, 2005, 08:43:10 PM »
When did Anna M have her surgery?
I chose the road less traveled and now...where the heck am I????

Offline RealAnastasia

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 1890
  • I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
    • View Profile
Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #2
« Reply #298 on: August 01, 2005, 09:38:15 PM »
Quote

>:(I thought we were not going to use petty digs such as:  "You know, I believe that in England there still is a Flat Earth soceity that rejects the notion that the earth is round."  Although he may have said it, doesn't mean you had to repeat it.

:P  I don't think my questions has anything to do with taking a boat and sailing until I fall off the edge of the earth.  

AGRBear

:-/ PS

 Is there any way that we can have Real Anastasia post with the URL fixed so we can read this thread without having to run all the way across the board to China  ;D  Thanks.


Annie kindly posted my message in the "Tatiana-Anastasia" thread. I don't know how to post links about an "X" thread in another thread.  :-/ If someone explain me how to do it, I'll know it for the next time. :)

RealAnastasia.

Offline AGRBear

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 6611
  • The road to truth is the best one to travel.
    • View Profile
    • Romanov's  Russia
Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #2
« Reply #299 on: August 01, 2005, 11:58:13 PM »
Post by Michael G.:

« Reply #402 on: Today at 6:22pm »
Quote  Modify

on Today at 5:07pm, Annie wrote:



 
 
This has been discussed many times. No it couldn't. This was Martha Jefferson hospital, and unlike UVA med center which was found to have had an accidental baby switch a few years back, has an INFALLIBLE record of accuracy. First, there are no names on the samples, only code numbers, and these correspond to a name in the records accessed only by a few people. No one can just walk in off the street and switch things, they wouldn't even know what was what. And there is security! So unless you are among those who believe Queen Elizabeth paid for the switch, that's out of the question.

 
Are you saying there is no possibility of human error
With a hospital, no matter how highly regarded it is,
there is every chance for error, and a mistake in the protocols, etc.  
 
Quote:



Also, consider that it was the Schweitzers who requested the sample, not some evil anti-AA person. They honestly wanted to know and believed they'd get a positive answer.  

 
Evil anti-AA person Oh come now Annie, not a person here has said they are anti-AA.  We are just interested in investigating all areas of this mystery.
While the Schweitzer's might not have gotten the answer they want out of the test, they however deserve answers about the reliablity & accuracy & probability of that test.  
 
Quote:



And last of all, even IF it was switched, with WHO? Someone would have had to find a member of the Schanskowska family, cut them open and remove exactly the same portion of intestine AA had removed, and sneak it in! That's even less realistic than an invasion from Mars, come on.

 
I can recall no one saying it was actually switched, Pentetorri brought up a possiblity that it could actually be excluded as evidence in a US Court of Law.
 
Quote:



And on OJ's DNA evidence being tampered with, the jury did believe it, but that does not mean it was true. The jurors were mostly from neighborhoods that distrusted the LAPD due to the 92 riots and were much more likely than anyone else to accept the tampering theory which was never really proven, only used as a defense.

 
Let me state that while he "may" have not been innocent of the crimes committed, the LAPD were no better than criminals themselves by contaminating and possibly manufacturing evidence.  If they stoop to this level then they are no better than the criminals they are trying to convict.   They also have STRICT protocols in how evidence was to be gathered, stored, preserved, and documented, they didn't follow the guidelines, which was why the evidence was suspect.  
 
"What is true by lamplight is not always true by sunlight."

Joubert, Pensees, No. 152