Alexander Palace Forum

Discussions about the Imperial Family and European Royalty => The Myth and Legends of Survivors => Topic started by: Denise on November 01, 2004, 03:25:25 PM

Title: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Denise on November 01, 2004, 03:25:25 PM
You know, Jeremy, I was wondering the very same thing.  I know that the photo on this board of FS has been touched up numerous times, supposedly to look more like AA.  Ok, then where is the original?  On PK's site there are 3 versions of that photo on various stages of touch up, and they all still look like AA.

Personally, I have no problem with her being FS, and it is a theory that fits well to the evidence.  Why is there so much resistance to the idea that she was a peasant?  That was only the status of her birth, and if AA was FS she obviously rose past it.  

Either way, I would be interested in other people's opinions as well.

Denise

Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: ISteinke on November 01, 2004, 03:53:33 PM
Here's my take on it-
    I don't think the issue, while Anna Anderson was alive, had near so much to do with Franziska being a peasant, and from some sources I don't think that's the reasoning now.
    There really were/are a good number of people who believe that Anastasia Romanov and Anna Anderson were the same, identical human being. One's selfhood, one's identity, is a deeply precious and personal possession , maybe one of the most treasured things that any of us possess. I think the whole controversy [while AA was alive] had to do with this fundamental issue.
    Let's assume, for a moment, just for the sake of discussion, that Anna Anderson really was an adult Anastasia Romanov. If that were true, just imagine what a horror her life must have been- having nearly the whole world telling you that "you" are not in fact "you."
     
Anastasia: Hello! I'm alive!

Relative No. 1: No, you're not. You are not you. You'll have to prove that you exist.

Anastasia: I really do exist. Do you remember when we went to the lake together? Wasn't it such fun?

Relative No. 2: You don't really remember that? Someone told you. As a matter of fact, I have witnesses who will prove that you are not really you. In fact, I think you're a Polish girl named Franziska.

    Then, most of the world [listening to your relatives instead of you] denies you the right of your own identity, not for a year, or five years, but for 60 odd years of life afterward. Can you imagine what a horrible, isolated existance that would be?

     Imagine having to read headlines about yourself such as "The Lady's Not a Duchess."

     If AA really was Anastasia this may be the most notorious example of psychological manipulation of an individual's life [on a mass scale] that has ever occurred. Everyone had the right to decide who she was, except she. Would any of the rest of us submit to such a horrible, twisted twilight zone existance. How would you like to spend your whole life [proving that you were not dead] to a sceptical world? And by the way, who besides she really had any right to make an arrogant judgement call on her own identity?

    For those who knew her and loved her [such as Peter Kurth, the Melniks, and the Schweitzers] I believe that this is the motive. It isn't that they hate or hated  peasants in general It's that the whole peasant-Franziska thing was part of what they perceive as a mass injustice against someone they cared about. Part of the identity of that lady they cared about had to do with being a very educated, very cultured, very elegant [if somewhat eccentric] lady.

    If AA really had been Franziska, in the opinion of these people, I don't think they would deny it [just because she was a peasant]. I think in this case they see it as a serious affront to a friend, who had a very difficult life, due to an "identity crisis."
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Annie on November 01, 2004, 04:07:12 PM
I have no problem with her being FS,  I think she was FS, and that she was a nice lady.

IMO the people who have such a fit over her being FS do so because:

*they were fooled by her and don't want to be ashamed a 'peasant' tricked them or their family,

or

*they are trying to prove that AA was still AN and don't like contrary arguments, especially ones that make too much sense.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Robert_Hall on November 01, 2004, 05:08:24 PM
I have no problem with her being anyoone EXCEPT AN. I do not have an opinion on her being FS or FU or anyone else. I simply do not know or really care.
However, I am convinced she was NOT Anastasia.
And, there certainly is nothing wrong with being Polish,  of any social bracket for goodness sake.
Cheers,
Robert
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Michelle on November 01, 2004, 09:15:02 PM
I agree with ISteinke.  And it just doesn't make sense to me that she even remotely could've been FS.  As for AA supporters being afraid of her being a peasant that is completely absurd! By no means would that ever make her any less of a person!  The truth is, it just doesn't make sense!  I'm basing my view much on Peter Kurth's writings.  Yes, I've read anti-Anna material too, but Kurth seems to have EVERY single infinitesimal detail down pat about AA, and it all points to her being without any question, the Grand Duchess Anastasia Nikolaevna.  
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Val289 on November 01, 2004, 10:52:38 PM
I'm with ISteinke and Michelle on this one.  I think that AA's supporters didn't believe she was FS, simply because their experience with her (AA), and knowledge of her led them to believe otherwise.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Annie on November 02, 2004, 09:06:36 AM
How can you think the scientists who matched her so closely with FS was mistaken, yet the scientists examining the skeletons were not mistaken ??? as you stated on the other thread? At least in this case, there is a difference of opinion, US and UK scientists saying the skeleton is identified as Marie, Russians saying it's Anastasia. All the tests on FS/AA point to AA being not AN but FS with no second opinion on results :P
http://www.dnai.org/bioserver/clustalw_anna_and_carl.html
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: rskkiya on November 02, 2004, 09:49:17 AM
Quote
It has nothing at all to do with FS having been a "Polish peasant" -- which, by the way, is overstating the case -- and everything to do with life experiences between the classes at that time being so far apart.  There was no "pop culture" or "world culture" to even things out and homogenize them.  There would have been oceans of difference between a Katchoubian farm-bred country girl and a Grand Duchess of Russia -- from the way each comported herself to the way each would speak even languages held in common to table manners to work ethic -- things would have been very different.  Far too different for someone to stretch a charade out for sixty years.

Anastasia Manahan was NOT Franziska Schanzkowska.  She MAY have been Grand Duchess Anastasia.  If she wasn't Grand Duchess Anastasia, then she was someone to whom aristocratic manners were first nature.


   No- I really cannot agree with the suggestion that she MAY have been GD Anastasia (what with the mDNA and all). It just makes no sense...
   Although your arguements regarding the cultural differences between a young polish girl and a russian Grand duchess are well put, I still don't see that the AA/FS connection is completely unfounded!
   People are capable of learning charm and numerous social nicieties -- even emotionally unstable people!

Rskkiya

Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Val289 on November 02, 2004, 10:28:16 AM
Quote
 There would have been oceans of difference between a Katchoubian farm-bred country girl and a Grand Duchess of Russia -- from the way each comported herself to the way each would speak even languages held in common to table manners to work ethic -- things would have been very different.  Far too different for someone to stretch a charade out for sixty years.



Very well put, Penny.  And this is why I believe that most of AA's supporters do not believe she could have been FS.  Like rskkyia, I do believe that people can learn charm or certain social nicieties, but everything I've ever read about AA has been convincing enough to me to believe that she was NOT playing a part.    I believe that Princess Xenia Leeds once said that AA was completely herself... meaning that she never tried to be somebody that she was not.  In fact, she seems to never have gone out of her way to make (or keep!) friends or supporters.    It's seems to me that AA certainly believed herself to be Anastasia.  Obviously, whether she was or not, is probably a debate that will continue for a long time, in spite of any new evidence.  
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Annie on November 02, 2004, 10:43:10 AM
AA DID believe herself to be Anastasia, that is something I do agree with. But that still doesn't mean she was.

Didn't Xenia Leeds eventually withdrawl her endorsement of AA and feel she had been taken?

The languages hold no evidence for me one way or the other because there are too many different tales and differences on what she spoke and when, and most of the 'witnesses' are only one obscure source for each story, and all we have is that person's word. They could have been lying, they could have been mistaken. The person who heard her speak Polish may have been mistaken. The person who said she spoke Russian in her sleep could have been mistaken. Anyone could have lied. I have never seen any reports that she woke up in the asylum speaking and understanding all the languages Anastasia did, they all came later, and since I don't know when or how she acquired these skills I set no store by them. When Felix Y. met her in 1927, he reported she only answered in German out of the four languages tried. German seemed to be her language of choice at least in the early days, and the one she was most familiar with. Pierre Gilliard said that of the four languages, German was far less used in the household than Russian, English or French, so that was strange to him that the real "Anastasia" would use it as her main language. (I'm guessing German was least used by the family since Russian and English were what they spoke among each other and French being the language of the court, and most German relations (Kaiser, Ella, Ernie, etc.) spoke and wrote in English with the IF.)
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Val289 on November 02, 2004, 11:08:54 AM
Annie - I do not think that Xenia withdrew her support for AA.  I know they had a bit of a falling out during her last few months at the Leed's estate, but I do believe that Xenia 'supported' AA in court.  I'm just going off of memory from PK's book though.  Perhaps Penny or Greg (or anyone else) could verify that?  And I do agree with you - just because AA thought she was Anastasia doesn't mean she was.    ;)

As far as her languagues are concerned.........I do believe that she DID speak and understand Russian.  She certainly understood it, as many people would question her in that language, and she could answer them, but would answer in another language.  There were reports by the nurses at the Dalldorf Asylum (some of these nurses worked in Russia and knew the language, if I'm not mistaken), and various statements by Gleb (and Tatiana, I think)Botkin, Princess Nina of Russia (Princess Paul Chavchavadze), and many others who said that she DID speak Russian.  Although I can understand that many people think it's just one person's word over another's at this point...

I know that many people here believe that AA was FS, so I hope I haven't stepped on any toes.  I appreciate the fact that everyone is allowed to respectfully disagree on this forum :)
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Annie on November 02, 2004, 11:14:24 AM
Again, the reports of whether or not she did or did not speak languages are way too vague for me to put much value on their authenticity. I especially do not take the word of her most ardent supporters as truth, they could have been saying that trying to support her case.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: rskkiya on November 02, 2004, 01:30:10 PM
Ok  I may be labouring under false information but I was under the impression that the DNA of  AA matched up with relatives of Franceska ?  How off track am I in this assumption?

rskkiya
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Forum Admin on November 02, 2004, 01:37:39 PM
The mtDNA of AA matched FS relatives, but with a slight variance, which means it was less than conclusive. the report was that it was PROBABLE she was related, but not for sure.
Don't forget also, that the mtDNA showed without QUESTION AA could not be related to Alexandra Feodrovna. (Im still waiting for anyone to show me the science that says otherwise...people claim it, but so far, no one has shown us one single reliable report otherwise.)
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Elisabeth on November 02, 2004, 02:52:04 PM
I find it perfectly plausible that someone from a lower-class background, sufficiently intelligent and sufficiently motivated, could rise to become a grande dame in the highest social circles. Look at Jeanne Poisson (plain old Jane Fish, in English). She rose from the humblest origins imaginable to become Madame du Pompadour, maîtresse en titre of Louis XV, a highly cultivated patroness of the arts and a politician of considerable influence in her own right. And this was back in the eighteenth century, when there was even less mixing among the separate social classes than in the early 1900s, not to mention fewer popular publications about royalty to "study."
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Michelle on November 02, 2004, 06:16:32 PM
Quote
I know that many people here believe that AA was FS, so I hope I haven't stepped on any toes.  I appreciate the fact that everyone is allowed to respectfully disagree on this forum :)


Not everybody. ;)
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Aliard on November 02, 2004, 06:39:54 PM
Well, let's consider something; the grand-nephew of FS whose DNA was used is the grandson of one of FS half-siblings; They did not share the same mother. However, i was under the impression that the type of tests performed REQUIRED the two to share maternal ancestry? How, then, can this type of a test prove anything? And if this test was inncorrect, that kind of casts a shadow on the test proving AN and AA are not the same person...

IMO, the tests should be re-done; DNA testing has come far in the last decade, this time i don't think anyone will really be able to doubt the findings.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Annie on November 02, 2004, 07:01:50 PM
It was only a rumor and theory that they did not share the same mother. They probably did. If they didn't, the DNA would not have been such a match.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Val289 on November 02, 2004, 09:03:47 PM
Quote

Not everybody. ;)



Thanks Michelle   :)
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Alice on November 02, 2004, 10:00:24 PM
Quote

Anastasia Manahan was NOT Franziska Schanzkowska.  


I have to respectfully disagree. The photographic and DNA evidence says otherwise.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Michelle on November 03, 2004, 01:04:44 PM
Quote


Thanks Michelle   :)


You're welcome.  :)
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Forum Admin on November 03, 2004, 01:18:45 PM
Quote
And if this test was inncorrect, that kind of casts a shadow on the test proving AN and AA are not the same person...

IMO, the tests should be re-done; DNA testing has come far in the last decade, this time i don't think anyone will really be able to doubt the findings.


You misunderstand the nature of the mtDNA test. First, how can you begin to think that a problem (if there IS one) with the FS relative sample HAS ANY BEARING on the Hesse lineage test?? One has NOTHING to do with the other. AA's same dna was tested against 2 DIFFERENT modern samples.

Far more importantly, you confuse nuclear DNA with mtDNA...Yes, nuclear DNA has improved greatly over 10 years. HOWEVER, mtDNA testing is EXACTLY the same today as when done on the AA samples, except that the same work is now done by machines as was done by hand back then. I have spoken to Dr. Melton who did one set of the mtDNA tests, who is now a leading world authority on forensic DNA who is adament that the tests done then are still as conclusive as ever and that another test would be a waste of time and money as it would be re-doing the exact same test again. Nothing in mtDNA research has changed at all.

I'll be glad to send you Dr. Melton's contact info if you want to verify this for yourself.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: rskkiya on November 04, 2004, 10:46:29 AM
Quote
I thought occured to me.... If, indeed she was FS, perhaps our own ideas and prejudices on what makes a worthwhile person might be the best explanation as to why she held on to the identity of AN for so long.
Jeremy  


Well put!
What makes a person remarkable, significant or unique? Why is it possible that because some people accepted Alpha to be Zed that faith- like a  cultural or social "virus"- (given enough time and the right conditions) could so spead that even today, with scientific evidence questioning the entire notion - there are still "true believers" out there?

I do think that there are some unusual underlying "quasi religious" elements to all of this debate...
Comments?

rskkiya
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Michelle on November 05, 2004, 11:44:10 AM
So, rskkiya, you believe that faith is basically a virus?  Or are you talking about the AA issue?
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: rskkiya on November 05, 2004, 12:14:23 PM
michelle
I was making a metaphorical connection between the concept of a believe and a virus ( regarding the manner in which ideas/viruses can be spread)....I did not say that they were the same.  


rskkiya
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Annie on November 05, 2004, 04:37:43 PM
That different mother thing has no basis, it's only a rumor brought up by Kurth and other AA supporters. It makes no sense, since the DNA DID match! FS and Gertrude WERE related maternally! NO ONE would have gone to so much trouble to seek out and test a relative who was not maternally related. The topic doesn't even deserve to be discussed anymore.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Denise on November 05, 2004, 07:04:55 PM
I can't remember where I read it   :( (but it may have been on one of these boards) but I have read recently that Gertrude was the younger sister of FS.  I have never questioned the DNA testing because as pp stated, who would waste the time and momey doing tests which are meaningless?

Denise
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Alice on November 06, 2004, 07:08:35 AM
Are there any photos of Gertrude? Cheers.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Annie on November 06, 2004, 09:58:37 AM
I didn't mean the rumor was invented by Kurth but certainly it was capitalized on and spread by AA supporters. But I am NOT 'very wrong' to say that with such a close DNA match the point seems obviously moot that FS and Gertrude were whole sisters. There is no way anyone would have wasted time tracking down and testing the wrong relative. It doesn't make sense.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: rskkiya on November 06, 2004, 08:05:55 PM
    I should like to approach this topic from an angle...
I have just seen an amazing film BIRTH and while its about reincarnation - not about Fransiska S. or the Romanovs, it explores the ways that memories can be manipulated and even fabricated altogether, and how perceptions and beliefs are remarkable malliable given the right circumstances...
   I do recommend it for adult audiences (R rated)

rskkiya
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 06, 2004, 08:10:37 PM
Quote
The mtDNA of AA matched FS relatives, but with a slight variance, which means it was less than conclusive. the report was that it was PROBABLE she was related, but not for sure.
Don't forget also, that the mtDNA showed without QUESTION AA could not be related to Alexandra Feodrovna. (Im still waiting for anyone to show me the science that says otherwise...people claim it, but so far, no one has shown us one single reliable report otherwise.)


FA, you are correct, if AA's mtDNA showed a mismatch with the Victorian DNA then it is conclusive evidence that AA could not have been a Victorian descendant, i.e. Anastasia (unless they suspect conspiracy). But even if AA's mtDNA exactly matched Victorian DNA or FS's relatives, that would not conclusively prove that she was AN or FS. The fact that her result was inconclusive for FS's relative(I didn't know that, I thought it was conclusive) tells us that she probably wasn't FS. I think people are confusing two things here: the fact that you cannot prove someone's identity with DNA and the fact that you can disprove someone's identity with DNA. When people talk about DNA tests being more accurate now than 10 years ago, I think that they are actually getting the two things mixed up. Yes, to prove someone's identity they now have a higher criteria, but not to disprove it. So yes, they now use more stringent DNA matches (more strands have to match than before) in criminal cases, but this is when they are trying to prove someone committed some crime - trying to prove that this person was the criminal. In AA's case, it was just the opposite, they were trying to show whom she was not and that is a lot easier to do. You can get a false positive DNA match, although this is rare, but you can't get a false negative(as far as I know). If the DNA doesn't match then this person is not the person they claim to be. But if the DNA matches, then they still may not be whom they claim to be because you may get a false positive or you need a more stringent test. That's all. I don't know if this makes any sense, I may have confused people even more!  :-/
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Helen_Azar on March 20, 2005, 06:49:36 PM
Ok Jeremy, let me try posting them.

These are from the Nova episode:

(http://img194.exs.cx/img194/1152/aa18jx.jpg)(http://img194.exs.cx/img194/9522/aa21de.jpg)

(http://img194.exs.cx/img194/5553/aa36yc.jpg)(http://img194.exs.cx/img194/8456/aa49jf.jpg)

(http://img194.exs.cx/img194/8369/aa57xp.jpg)(http://img194.exs.cx/img194/6046/aa68xz.jpg)  

(http://img194.exs.cx/img194/8511/aa75wb.jpg)(http://img194.exs.cx/img194/4780/aa81ec.jpg)
(http://img194.exs.cx/img194/2298/aa91gk.jpg)

(http://img194.exs.cx/img194/864/compfs6vx.jpg)(http://img194.exs.cx/img194/3484/compaa3wm.jpg)

(http://img200.exs.cx/img200/301/aa3iw.jpg)(http://img65.exs.cx/img65/7039/fs7sc.jpg)

Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Elisabeth on March 21, 2005, 10:41:04 AM
So in other words, they had a perfect match?

Helen, how reliable do you think this method of identification is? Didn't the Russians use a very similar method in attempting to match photos of the imperial family with the skulls found in the mass grave?
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Annie on March 21, 2005, 10:43:16 AM
Thanks Helen and Jeremy. For me, pure looks tell the tale, but this is good to know. I remember seeing this on the NOVA episode Helen made, it was a match.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: jeremygaleaz on March 21, 2005, 01:09:43 PM
Quote
So in other words, they had a perfect match?

Helen, how reliable do you think this method of identification is? Didn't the Russians use a very similar method in attempting to match photos of the imperial family with the skulls found in the mass grave?


From what I understand, the Russians did the best they could, but their technology wasn't as up to speed as that of the west. And, comparing photograph to photograph is a bit different than photograph to skull. (Helen, am I wrong about this?)

The AA picture was turned red and the FS picture green. (The FS picture was probably slightly angled by the computer too, as in the original FS photograph she is looking straight at the camera (and wearing earrings? at least she is in the retouched photo), while AA's head is tilted. Does anyone get the impression FS is squinting too? The FS picture is an outdoor photograph so the sun was probably in front of her, behind the photographer.The sun may also explain why the FS features aren't as detailed as some might like.)

But the distance between the two eyes, and the distance and shape of the mouth were found to be identical.

If AA was not FS, then maybe she was that "mysterious anonymous identical cousin with the same mtDNA that went missing at the same time!" Hey, Annie? ;)    

edited to add: Cue the "Patty Duke Show" theme song!

"But they're cousins...identical cousins all the way...."
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Helen_Azar on March 21, 2005, 03:51:48 PM
Quote
... comparing photograph to photograph is a bit different than photograph to skull. (Helen, am I wrong about this?)


I am certainly not an expert of this, but I would think that comparing skulls and comparing points on facial features from photographs would be quite different. I personally think that the skull comparison was stretching it a bit (although I really don't know that much about that either), but that comparing actual faces is more reasonable. At the very least, if the distance between the features didn't match , it could be ruled out that AA was FS. In this case, they did match, so it couldn't be ruled out....
This, taken with the fact that the mtDNA matched and that one dissapeared around the same time the other appeared gives the theory that they are one and same person a whole lot of credibility.

Quote
... the original FS photograph she is looking straight at the camera (and wearing earrings? at least she is in the retouched photo)...


I looked at the original photo, at the retouched one and also at the sketch. Not sure about the retouched photo, but it seems that whoever did the sketch later (and he or she did not do a very good job of it!), had mistaken something in the background from the original photo for earrings. When you look closely at the original, it is quite obvious that FS is not wearing earrings (but at first glance it sort of looks like she is!)  :D  
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: AGRBear on March 21, 2005, 04:17:22 PM
When it was mentioned that the book on Vasily Filatov showed proof of him being Alexei by this same method, I do believe it was many of the same people using it, now, who said this was a maniulation of photographs.  How is it different when the same method is used here to prove AA was FS?

AGRBear
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Helen_Azar on March 21, 2005, 04:23:22 PM
Quote
When it was mentioned that the book on Vasily Filatov showed proof of him being Alexei by this same method, I do believe it was many of the same people using it, now, who said this was a maniulation of photographs.  How is it different when the same method is used here to prove AA was FS?

AGRBear


Once again, as I mentioned above, these photos are not any way "proof", they are just another piece of evidence - a tool that can, along with other evidence confirm or rule something out.

If Vassily Filatov also showed that his mtDNA results matched a Romanov relative along with the photo comparison, then he would have a leg to stand on.


Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Penny_Wilson on March 21, 2005, 04:51:52 PM
Quote
When it was mentioned that the book on Vasily Filatov showed proof of him being Alexei by this same method, I do believe it was many of the same people using it, now, who said this was a maniulation of photographs.  How is it different when the same method is used here to prove AA was FS?

AGRBear



The answer to this question is self-evident:  Don't confuse the issue by expecting a fair hearing here for all the various pieces of evidence.

This lack of even-handedness is why I'm not in the mood these days to translate and add documents from the Hamburg trial transcript.  The way this forum is progressing, I think I am better served by saving the information for Greg's and my book -- we'll reach a bigger audience that way, too.  ::)
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: jeremygaleaz on March 21, 2005, 06:47:33 PM
Quote

.


Not sure about the retouched photo, but it seems that whoever did the sketch later (and he or she did not do a very good job of it!), had mistaken something in the background from the original photo for earrings. :D  


My bad. I should have said sketch and not retouched photo
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Helen_Azar on March 21, 2005, 09:29:43 PM
Quote

The answer to this question is self-evident:  Don't confuse the issue by expecting a fair hearing here for all the various pieces of evidence.



Or confuse the issue by ignoring the existant physical evidence that is more compelling than any other evidence in this case ...  ;)
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Annie on March 22, 2005, 09:40:56 AM
Quote


If AA was not FS, then maybe she was that "mysterious anonymous identical cousin with the same mtDNA that went missing at the same time!" Hey, Annie? ;)    

edited to add: Cue the "Patty Duke Show" theme song!

"But they're cousins...identical cousins all the way...."


EXACTLY what comes to mind every time this comes up! :D ;D

I thought that about the show too, they were only first cousins on the father's side, they only shared one fourth the same gene pool so it's impossible to be identical. Even most siblings (other than twins) don't look as  much alike as FS and AA. So it's a WILD stretch to claim that she wasn't FS but a family member with the same DNA who just happened ::) to look just like her?

But I still believe the reasons for doubting AA is FS return to the old 'maybe she's Anastasia' thing. Nobody cares, or would bother to dig around or spend money searching for some nameless lookalike cousin. What kind of story is that? So it will take quite a bit to convince me there still aren't those with such an agenda, and so far I have seen nothing to prove me wrong, only more to give me more confirming of my suspicions.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: jeremygaleaz on March 22, 2005, 11:33:12 AM
Helen
(or anyone else with the technology)

Is there anyway you can work on the picture of AA by changing the color to the same shade of green as the FS picture as well as taking away all shadow from around AA's eyes and mouth? This would probably heighten the resemblence even more. The FS photo was taken at a distance, outside in the sun (which would explain the lack of shadow)  and the AA photo was taken close up, and indoors.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Elisabeth on March 22, 2005, 11:57:45 AM
Jeremy's right, there's the issue of the distance of the photographer from his subject, but also note that the heads are posed in slightly different positions.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Penny_Wilson on March 22, 2005, 12:17:33 PM
Quote
Helen
(or anyone else with the technology)

Is there anyway you can work on the picture of AA by changing the color to the same shade of green as the FS picture as well as taking away all shadow from around AA's eyes and mouth? This would probably heighten the resemblence even more. The FS photo was taken at a distance, outside in the sun (which would explain the lack of shadow)  and the AA photo was taken close up, and indoors.


So you want to doctor the image to "heighten the resemblence (sic)"?  Shady, shady, shady...  8)

Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: AGRBear on March 22, 2005, 12:57:34 PM
Show me the resemblance with photographs which haven't been distorted, please.

AGRBear

PS Note 28 March 2005:  When I mentioned distortion, it was because I don't recall seeing a photo which can be matched between FS and AA.  I probably shouldn't have said what I said as I said it.  Because, I didn't mean to imply the people in the tv show had distorted the images.  The man on the series, I assume, used the photos which he was given.  Later on in this thread, I am trying to discover what photographs of AA and FS [copy of the original one known photo or those copies which appear to have been changed]  were used in the tv show.  This note is to clarifiy my position.

PSS The tv program can be found under the title:  Anastasia, Dead or Alive.  It was a Nova production.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: AGRBear on March 22, 2005, 02:13:05 PM
I have seen photographs of a television show series where someone was trying to prove a match between AA and FS.  

It is my oppinion that manipulated photographs is very easy to do because one can turn a face into another face with ease if that is what they wished to do.

I'd like to see the originals of both before I can make any kind of opinion one way or the other.

This has nothing to do with what Helen as provided us.  It has to do with what the program provided.

AGRBear
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: jeremygaleaz on March 22, 2005, 03:29:08 PM
Quote
I have seen photographs of a television show series where someone was trying to prove a match between AA and FS.  

It is my oppinion that manipulated photographs is very easy to do because one can turn a face into another face with ease if that is what they wished to do.

I'd like to see the originals of both before I can make any kind of opinion one way or the other.

This has nothing to do with what Helen as provided us.  It has to do with what the program provided.

AGRBear


Bear, what sort of manipulation do you think occured here? (Beyond the obvious of turning what photos red and green so the audience could tell the difference between the two photos. The photo of FS was a full body photo originally. The head was enlarged (which would explain why features aren't as clear) and perhaps   FS's head was slightly tilted , (and, last time I checked, most humans can tilt their head) in order to match perfectly with that of AA.

So, what manipulation?

And, I'm quite sure you've seen the originals-on many occasions!
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Kransnoeselo on March 22, 2005, 09:54:06 PM
    I think it should be duly noted that the photo of Franziska had been altered to look like Anna. This is well documented.  Im not surprised in the least that they match. It was said the china white used on the face was so thick that it was crusted.  

    If anyone were to compare a photo of AA and a retouched photo of Anastasia and say "Look they match perfectly" no one would believe it.  Thus, I cannot believe this is a credible piece of evidence.

Tim
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Helen_Azar on March 22, 2005, 10:08:14 PM
Quote
   I think it should be duly noted that the photo of Franziska had been altered to look like Anna. This is well documented.  


Tim, do you know who retouched this photo and when? As far as I know, and even accroding to Peter Kurth's site, this version was not the retouched one, although a retouched version does exist - the retouching was done to clarify the features a bit - not to change them at all. And there is a third version which is an artist's sketch which really looks nothing like AA at all. All three versions are posted on one of these AA threads, I think it is on "Reasons other than DNA".

Does anyone know where this original photo of FS came from? Was it given to someone by a family member? I don't think this was ever mentioned before, or else I missed it.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: jeremygaleaz on March 23, 2005, 09:52:48 AM
Quote
   I think it should be duly noted that the photo of Franziska had been altered to look like Anna. This is well documented.  Im not surprised in the least that they match. It was said the china white used on the face was so thick that it was crusted.  


Tim


How would china white alter the distance between the two eyes and distance of the mouth?
Besides which, this is from the original photograph of FS, (and I don't think the retouched photo was doctored to heighten resemblence, only to make the features clearer)

All of which is beside the point, the distance between the eyes and mouth, as well as the shape of the mouth , is the same in both the original and "retouched" pictures of FS as well as the photo of AA.  
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: AGRBear on March 23, 2005, 10:05:14 AM
I can see none of you are readers of mystery.  

Let me explain.  Photographs are easily "doctored"  [please see note which corrects what I should have said] ***_____
Nor, does it seem that any of you are aware of photography and what can be done in processing the film.

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.

From what I understand there no longer is a "original" portrait of FS.

There are many photographs of AA who was making every effort to look like GD Anastasia.  

AGRBear

****  What I wrote above was not what I meant to say:
I said >>Photographs are easily "doctored" and in this case, that is what appears to be occuring.<<

 I should have said "In this case, I'd like to see the originals so I can see for myself that this didn't happen."  I apologize for sounding as if I was accusing someone of wrong doing.  :-/  Sorry.  
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: jeremygaleaz on March 23, 2005, 10:12:09 AM
Quote
I can see none of you are readers of mystery.  

Let me explain.  Photographs are easily "doctored" and in this case, that is what appears to be occuring.  Of course, that is my opinion, because I don't know the person who has accomplished this for the tv show.

Nor, does it seem that any of you are aware of photography and what can be done in processing the film.

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.

From what I understand there no longer is a "original" portrait of FS.

There are many photographs of AA who was making every effort to look like GD Anastasia.   ;)

AGRBear


Hi Bear

This probably isn't going to work... but why don't you go and measure the distance between the two eyes and the mouth yourself? Are you suggesting the people on the TV took a great risk to their proffesional reputation and altered the distance in order to get positive results? How do you feel a manipulation occured?

But, back to one of Helen's earlier posts

photographic evidence + DNA = very convincing

photographic evidence-DNA = not very convincing

And that's it!

P.S. Yes, there is an original, non retouched photograph of FS. I guess they used that in order to avoid talk of photo manipulation/doctoring. But I guess that didn't work!
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: AGRBear on March 23, 2005, 10:36:18 AM
I'd like to see the original photographs of AA used and the original photographs of FS used.  Then I'd like to see themside by side.  Is there any on any of the threads?  And, I'd like to know the source of where these were copied.

From all the photographs I've seen, I don't recall any of them which could be used to show what Helen has so generously provided from the tv show.

AGRBear
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: jeremygaleaz on March 23, 2005, 11:00:06 AM
Quote
I'd like to see the original photographs of AA used and the original photographs of FS used.  Then I'd like to see themside by side.  Is there any on any of the threads?  And, I'd like to know the source of where these were copied.

From all the photographs I've seen, I don't recall any of them which could be used to show what Helen has so generously provided from the tv show.

AGRBear


These are  original photographs!

Bear, why don't you do some research on how these tests were done? If I find more detailed info, I'll post it.

However, I get the impression you must see a strong resemblence, or else we wouldn't even be talking about this ;)
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: rskkiya on March 23, 2005, 02:17:06 PM
Bear
   I don't see how the images have been "altered"- but if they had been -- then who "altered" them?(Conspiracy?)
  I get the impression that you don't trust anyone about this point.  Can you find any unaltered images to compare?

rskkiya
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: AGRBear on March 23, 2005, 02:34:18 PM
Sometimes, trying to get sources is like pulling teeth.

Quote
I'd like to see the original photographs of AA used and the original photographs of FS used.  Then I'd like to see themside by side.  Is there any on any of the threads?  And, I'd like to know the source of where these were copied.

From all the photographs I've seen, I don't recall any of them which could be used to show what Helen has so generously provided from the tv show.

AGRBear

What I see are images from a television show.

I'm just trying to discover what photographs they used.  

Simple request.

AGRBear

Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Helen_Azar on March 23, 2005, 11:13:37 PM
Quote
Helen, where did you get his particular photo which you copied?
 


Bear, look on Peter Kurth's AA site, I believe that both photos are there - in their original form. Just scroll down and look for them, they should be there....

http://www.peterkurth.com/ANNA-ANASTASIA%20NOTES%20ON%20FRANZISKA%20SCHANZKOWSKA.htm

Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Annie on March 24, 2005, 12:31:48 PM
Quote
Bear
    I don't see how the images have been "altered"- but if they had been -- then who "altered" them?(Conspiracy?)
   I get the impression that you don't trust anyone about this point.  Can you find any unaltered images to compare?

rskkiya


I agree, there seems to be a conspiracy for everything here. The intestines were switched, the bodies were switched with the bodies of George's alleged bastard children, and now the pics are altered? When will it all end!? :P
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: AGRBear on March 24, 2005, 01:39:10 PM
If asking for two photographs, one of FS and one of AA which were used on the tv show,  is being part of a conspiracy then I guess I'm guilty along with other conpirators looking for the truth.   You got me, Annie! ::)


Meanwhile,  I'll go over to the Kurth thread and take another look.

AGRBear

PS

[On left]  This is FS.  Is this from the original or the copy shown as from a book 1929?:
(http://img136.exs.cx/img136/8238/fs4uw.jpg)  (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v471/AGRBear/AAMassies.jpg) [AA on right]

I don't see any  photographs of AA's which can be used from Kurths that can be used to transpose over FS's photo. This is the only one I see, at the moment, that comes close to a photo which anyone could have used.  So, it's obviously not the right one.  Could someone please provide us with the correct one used.
Thank you.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: jaa on March 24, 2005, 03:50:01 PM
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.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Denise on March 24, 2005, 04:17:44 PM
The picture of AA used in the comparison was on PK's site, Bear.  It was above the title "anastasia, the riddle of AA" and next to a picture of OTMA.  It is a small photo of AA in a sweater with a wide white collar above it.  Check it out....
http://www.peterkurth.com/ANNA-ANASTASIA%20NOTES%20ON%20FRANZISKA%20SCHANZKOWSKA.htm
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: AGRBear on March 24, 2005, 06:55:06 PM
Denise, I see it.  Thanks.  It's about the same as the one I found but a little different angle.

Jaa, thanks for the additional information.  Can someone run through their copy and find out the name of the person who did they overlay for Jaa..

Maybe it's my conputer because I'm not seeing what eveyone else is seeing.  The photographs from the tv screen look distorted to me.  

AGRBear


Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Denise on March 24, 2005, 07:03:35 PM
Perhaps because they are pictures ON the television.  The screen will distort the image somewhat.  Top that off with a photo of the TV.  So it won't look the same as the picture, because again with the colored filter added it further changes what you see.  

Bear, I have seen this special, and it is VERY convincing when you see it on a moving computer screen.  

Denise
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Denise on March 24, 2005, 07:14:59 PM
Quote
I have offered to send Bear this DVD so she could see this for herself, but she refused. That's because it's a lot more fun to keep imagining "photo retouching conspiracies" isn't it Bear?  ;)


Conspiracy or not Bear, you really need to see this DVD.  The information on it is impressive--even my non-Romanov obsessed husband enjoyed and we were able to talk about the DNA together.  Quite a first, as he usually has no interest in my historical research.  But I think anyone interested in the AA case needs to watch firsthand how the DNA testing was done, plus see interviews with the major players and storytellers--Dr Maples, Dr Gill, Peter Kurth, Edward Radzinsky, the Schweitzers.  

Give it another thought Bear...you owe it to yourself!  :D
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: jaa on March 25, 2005, 07:43:28 AM
Distributing copies is illegal. It doesn't matter if you taped it off the air.

You can tape a television program for later viewing, but you cannot distribute copies.

'...the concept of "fair use" provides limited exemption, and does not encompass wholesale copying and distribution of copyrighted work for educational or any other purpose, without permission.'
http://infoshare1.princeton.edu/reserves/libcitcopyright.html#genfair

I agree with Tim's point about the retouched photo, if that is what was used. Perhaps this was done so it would look clearer on television, but it's strange that an expert would use a retouched photo instead of an original.

Jeremy, one suggestion if you want to include this type of comparison in your documentary: a few facial recognition companies might be interested in testing the match between the photos of AA and the one unretouched photo of FS. Also, image enhancement companies might also be interested in working with the FS photo.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: jeremygaleaz on March 25, 2005, 08:42:06 AM
Quote
I agree with Tim's point about the retouched photo, if that is what was used. Perhaps this was done so it would look clearer on television, but it's strange that an expert would use a retouched photo instead of an original.

Jeremy, one suggestion if you want to include this type of comparison in your documentary: a few facial recognition companies might be interested in testing the match between the photos of AA and the one unretouched photo of FS. Also, image enhancement companies might also be interested in working with the FS photo.


Thanks Jaa for the suggestion


I'm pretty sure it was the original that was used, judging from the information I've been able to gather. I think what Tim was missing though is that measurements of the distance between the eyes as well as size and shape of the mouth were exactly the same on all three photos. The measurements didn't change as a result of any touch up work done in the 1920s or 30s

Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: jaa on March 25, 2005, 09:30:04 AM
Can you share any of the information you gathered?

It's hard to tell from the screen shots, but it does appear to be the retouched photo. The program was originally aired in 1995, and I don't remember what image enhancement technology was like ten years ago.

A photo retouched for a book entitled "The False Anastasia" is not credible source material. The nodal points could be accurate, but the original should have been used regardless.

If you can get a facial recognition company to do an analysis for you, be sure to provide them with the original 1916 photo.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Penny_Wilson on March 25, 2005, 11:53:19 AM
Quote

I'm pretty sure it was the original that was used, judging from the information I've been able to gather.



It might be a copy of the original -- or a copy of a copy of the original -- but it's not the 1916 original.  I telephoned the owner of the original this morning, and he has not loaned it to this documentary.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Mgmstl on March 25, 2005, 12:20:22 PM
In genalogy & history I have COPIED with my camera a great many photographs.  You do lose something of quality in a photo that is a copy of a copy of a copy.

I am sure that the original may not be that different from what we are seeing.  How do we know the difference between the retouched version & the original and it's copies??
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Penny_Wilson on March 25, 2005, 12:44:08 PM
I have seen both the untouched and retouched photos side-by-side, and its evident that the one is heavily corrected with "china white," which looks thick and heavy, like white-out.

I am pretty sure that copies of the original are just as good as the copying itself -- I have seen bad copies of original photos and good ones, too.  But I don't know if the same can be said of copies of copies of copies -- I don't know if quality fades over the process of copying and re-copying.

I'd be interested to know if the photo of AA used was taken before or after the removal of teeth -- and what a professional opinon might make of any change to her appearance.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: jeremygaleaz on March 25, 2005, 02:13:46 PM
I'll check my notes on the subject when I get back home to L.A.
But, it does not matter if the photograph is retouched, or if it was a copy of a copy of a copy  the measurements are still the same when all points are blown up to the same size. And the measurements are what this test was about. (Not to mention the very strong resemblence, regardless of the "irishman the day after st. patricks"  shade of red skin tones of the AA photo, verses the "wicked witch of the west" green skin tones of the FS photograph !)

And, again:

DNA (plus statistics)  + photograph= very convincing evidence

photograph-DNA= not very convincing evidence.      

I think in a few more posts we'll be back to conspiracy theorists. Which is unavoidable I guess! ;)

 And when the age progression photographs of OTMA and Alexei, as well as AA, are done, will  there be such questions too? Oy vey, I don't think I want to put the artist through that! ;)..it never ends! (And, of course, there's the additional info on the Schankowsky family)
 ;)


In any case, I think I'll be taking a break from the AA
threads too, and just observe. ;)
  
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: AGRBear on March 25, 2005, 03:23:53 PM
Still seeking the correct photographs used for AA and FS.

Is this the one used for AA??
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v471/AGRBear/Anne3.jpg) AA


This one seems to be a better angle:(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v471/AGRBear/AA4.jpg)  AA

(http://img136.exs.cx/img136/8238/fs4uw.jpg) FS

AGRBear
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Annie on March 25, 2005, 03:30:46 PM
Quote
Still seeking the correct photographs used for AA and FS.

Is this the one used for AA??
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v471/AGRBear/Anne3.jpg)


Sure looks like it!

Quote
This one seems to be a better angle:


(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v471/AGRBear/AA4.jpg)

AGRBear


That one looks very much like an older version of our famous Franziska picture, IMO.


Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: AGRBear on March 25, 2005, 03:45:41 PM
I think it was Helen who showed us on another thread of some of the photographs of AA because I remember commenting on her teeth.  

Someone will have to answer Annie's questions.  

These two photographs are from Kurth's page.

AGRBear
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Annie on March 25, 2005, 03:48:18 PM
I was just commenting on your pics, Bear! Very good detective work!
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: AGRBear on March 25, 2005, 04:17:12 PM
I assume this is a copy of a copy but this one does show the entire photo of FS in Summers and Mangold book called The File on the Tsar.

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v471/AGRBear/FSManSumBK1.jpg) (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v471/AGRBear/FSMangSum2.jpg)
Enlarged the upper part of the same photo.

Note the two white patches in the hair in two photos above.  Are these patches sunlight, leaves or hair pins?
(http://img136.exs.cx/img136/8238/fs4uw.jpg)

 I'm not sure if this shows the white spots what I'm seeing in the ones  above.  What do some of you think?

AGRBear
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Val289 on March 25, 2005, 06:28:25 PM
Bear - thanks for posting the pictures.  For what it's worth - I cannot make out the two white spots in the very last picture that you've posted.    I certainly see them in the first two pictures, as far as what those white spots might be - I have no clue.   Perhaps they are patches of sunlight.  Would women of that time period wear hair pins at the front of their hair (I mean, they seem pretty large) ? - perhaps I am thinking more of hat pins - or pins that would have been worn at the back of their heads - near where one would have a bun ??
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Lanie on March 26, 2005, 02:05:11 AM
In many older photos there are spots like that.  It just seems to happen.  Perhaps just age.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: jaa on March 26, 2005, 09:48:19 AM
The right dot has been interpreted as a highlight in the retouched photo. The left dot could be anything, including a piece of lint on the offset plate when the book was printed.

Quote
It was nice of you to explain to Helen and others about  copyrights laws.

Actually I was shocked to see a post about pirating a television show on this forum. This is just as illegal as pirating software.

Quote
But, it does not matter if the photograph is retouched, or if it was a copy of a copy of a copy the measurements are still the same when all points are blown up to the same size. And the measurements are what this test was about.

An extensively retouched photo has the potential to change those dimensions; all it takes is a slip of a 000 sable, blown up. That's why an expert would want to work from an original or a good first- or second-generation copy of an original.

Quote
And when the age progression photographs of OTMA and Alexei, as well as AA, are done, will  there be such questions too? Oy vey, I don't think I want to put the artist through that!

Your artist should do fine if she has training in forensic anthropology. It would be great if she would answer questions. What these artist-scientists do is really interesting.

Quote
I have seen both the untouched and retouched photos side-by-side, and its evident that the one is heavily corrected with "china white," which looks thick and heavy, like white-out.

Penny, this is trivia, but since I don't know what details a historian would be interested in, "China white" probably refers to "Chinese White," a watercolor zinc white first marketed by Winsor & Newton in 1834. (Source for this is Ralph Mayer's "Artist's Handbook of Materials and Techniques.") Zinc whites do not have a high degree of opacity, unlike titanium and lead whites. That lack of opacity may account for the thickness of the paint; more layers were needed to create highlights.

Quote
I am pretty sure that copies of the original are just as good as the copying itself -- I have seen bad copies of original photos and good ones, too.  But I don't know if the same can be said of copies of copies of copies -- I don't know if quality fades over the process of copying and re-copying.

In photography this is called "generational loss" or "generational degradation." It refers to the image degradation (loss of detail and range of values) that comes from copying copies. Digital photography, which uses pixels instead of film grain to create images, theoretically has no generational loss.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: AGRBear on March 26, 2005, 10:24:36 AM
Does anyone know the size of the original photographs?

The one that Helen had appears to show more detail in the hair and the white spots are different as if scattered [not lint from plate].


AGRBear
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: AGRBear on March 26, 2005, 10:40:33 AM
One of Annie's post had these photographs:
Quote
Also, Michael, here is a collage Lisa posted before you got here. The only known pic of FS was in the middle, the others are all AA.

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v152/WuvDaNick/aafs.jpg)

Even though there are cries the pic has been retouched, it does not change its basic bone structure or the placings of the features. Here, compare the spacing of the eyes, and the shape of the chin to AN (left) and AA (right) Also notice AA had a much larger mouth and thicker lips (which is why I think she usually bit them in some photos)

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v152/WuvDaNick/anaa.jpg)


Again, the white spots in FS's hair is different, again.

Here it does look more like a hat pin.  I wonder if the original has FS with one of those flat Mary Poppin's kind-of hat on her head which has been changed into her hair.....  Ahhh, no.  Probably not.

AGRBear
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Penny_Wilson on March 26, 2005, 10:49:28 AM
Quote
Penny, this is trivia, but since I don't know what details a historian would be interested in, "China white" probably refers to "Chinese White," a watercolor zinc white first marketed by Winsor & Newton in 1834. (Source for this is Ralph Mayer's "Artist's Handbook of Materials and Techniques.") Zinc whites do not have a high degree of opacity, unlike titanium and lead whites. That lack of opacity may account for the thickness of the paint; more layers were needed to create highlights.


Thanks, jaa!  This must be it -- I think I have heard "china white" called "zinc white" in connection with this retouched photo...

Quote
In photography this is called "generational loss" or "generational degradation." It refers to the image degradation (loss of detail and range of values) that comes from copying copies.


Over what sort of span does generational loss become significant for this sort of photo-matching?

And do you know how shadows are removed?  I'm not certain that I have phrased that question correctly, but  I am thinking of photos, where the eyes are shadowed  -- either by the sockets or by the nose --  how would the expert "see" through the shadowing to the actual dimensions of the eyes?
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: AGRBear on March 26, 2005, 11:07:51 AM
From a weekend artist point of view, I can explain that anything can be done with a photograph.

A little shade, a little highlight and the nose can be a little broader or it can become narrower...  Corners of the eye can be lenghten or shorten.

Remember, we're talking about an old photograph.  Unlike the new digital cameras, with which anything can be  changed with software programs,  the older photgraph with a copy would be done with paint and brush then a new photo would have been taken.  A technic lost these days because no one is colorizing the black and whites for a living because back then there wasn't color photographs.

Over on another thread several people are doing marvelous coloring of old photographs with software.

AGRBear

PS  Forgot to say, the lost of detail by copying varies.  It depends upon the person doing the copying.  If the person was a real professional and good at his/her work, then very little is lost.  After over a hundred years and a lot of copying through various means, who knows what was lost.  The photographs above show the differences of one that was probably a better copy than some of the others.

PS "China white" or "zinc" white is a "bright" white and would not have been used by a pro.  Very few things in real life or "bright" white accept highlights and that usually has some kind of color mix.

PSS  Forgot to comment on how one would tell what was changed.  You could tell only if a person showed you the copy upon which the paint was placed.  Once a photo is taken, the same patterns of a photo would reappear and the actual brush strokes would be gone.  This is why seeing the originals is so important before we can take the tv series overlays as being proof.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: AGRBear on March 26, 2005, 11:24:18 AM
I just recalled.  Someone mentioned that AA had a widows peak and had pulled out thoses hairs to make herself look more like GD Anastasia.  Is this true?  If so, what is the source, please?

AGRBear
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: AGRBear on March 26, 2005, 11:28:02 AM
Note, the second photo down shows one white spot in FS's hair.

The third one down shows her wearing earrings and that FS had piereced ears.

Five and six are AA.

New Note - 28 March 2005:  The first photo may be a direct or an early copy of the untouched photograph.

Quote
I just found this FS photo which is supposedly the original version - before it was manipulated (next to it are the two "re-touched" versions):

(http://img153.exs.cx/img153/961/fsoriginal8wx.png)(http://img153.exs.cx/img153/1440/fstouchedup2kz.png)(http://img224.exs.cx/img224/2489/fsretouched4vm.png)
Un-retouched version of the photo^^

The first re-touched version doesn't look that different to me, only the features are more clear. It doesn't really look as much as it was re-touched as an attempt to make the photo more clear, this was probably the purpose for it. The second picture just looks like a bad artist's rendition, and is neither here nor there...

There are certain photos of AA, not all, that bear a striking resemblance to this FS photo (unre-touched). What do you think?

(http://img153.exs.cx/img153/961/fsoriginal8wx.png)(http://img153.exs.cx/img153/3800/aa31id.png)(http://img164.exs.cx/img164/791/aa38ep.png)

Fraziska Schankowzska (unre-touched photo)                      Anna Anderson                                                       Anna Anderson

To be honest, even based on these three photos alone , I would say that there is a really good chance that this is one and the same person - I mean the resemblance is really uncanny here!


Last two [five and six] are AA.

AGRBear
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: AGRBear on March 26, 2005, 11:50:25 AM
And, speaking of photographs, does anyone know of the original photo which the Berlin police took of AA?

I've pulled the following over from our locked thread and it tells you what I posted earlier:

----
When looking for one thing, I find something else.  
 
Anastasia, The Riddle of Anna Anderson by Kurth p. 6:
 
"After another two months...the doctors at Dalldorf summoned the Berlin police...."
 
"Her picture and prints were sent out to Stuttgart, Brunswick, Hamburg, Munich, Dresden-- to all the corners of the Western Republic..."
 
"The records of all the Berlin's hospitals and madhouses were dutifully checked....."
 
p. 7
"...she was asked...if she were another Maria, surnamed Wachowiak, who had disappeared recently from the cityy of Posen."
 
The Berlin police did take her fingerprints,  did they collected the  fingerprints of people in asylums and so had FS's already in the system.  If they had, then their prints didn't match and that's evidence outside of DNA.
 
And who is this Maria Wachowiak?   From Posen....  
 
Forgotten what I was looking for in the first place.  Oh yes, the magazines.... Still looking.
----
 
AGRBear
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: jeremygaleaz on March 26, 2005, 01:54:00 PM
Quote
An extensively retouched photo has the potential to change those dimensions; all it takes is a slip of a 000 sable, blown up. That's why an expert would want to work from an original or a good first- or second-generation copy of an original.


What makes you think the artist didn't take that into consideration? ;)

Your artist should do fine if she has training in forensic anthropology. It would be great if she would answer questions. What these artist-scientists do is really interesting.[/quote]

He does, but, (this isn't directed at you, JAA as I hardly know your views on the subject at all) so many people are in deep, deep denial over the likelyhood that AA and FS were the same person, I just don't want to see the guy attacked. I'll save it all for any film or book work I'll do in the future. He's a nice guy and I don't want to put him through that. However, the choice is his.    

Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: AGRBear on March 26, 2005, 02:04:03 PM
No one is attacking anyone.

We're talking about "original" photographs.  

The fellow on the tv series worked with whatever photographs he was given.  And, more than likely,  he  probably isn't into the Romanov like many of us on the forum and  he probably assumed he had the originals.

So, this is why I'm asking about the originals.

When satisfied we have the originals then we can take the next step and agree that the  images uses were the images which should have been used.  Following this is the question of the overlay and the process used.  

Again, this to me seems like a simple request and one that should be made in this research.


AGRBear
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Elisabeth on March 26, 2005, 02:19:21 PM
Even if the FS photo was retouched way back when, I have difficulty believing that even the most skillful artist could make FS look so much like AA, unless there was a strong underlying resemblance to begin with. I'm wondering, do all of us admit that there IS a resemblance? Or are some of you saying, there's no resemblance, even though the photo was retouched to make FS look like AA?

It seems to me that the retouching was either successful or it wasn't, but you can't have it both ways!

For that matter, how do we know that some of the AA photos were not retouched to make AA look more like AN? If we're going to start nitpicking to this extent, worrying about not just retouching but also about copies of copies of copies, their precise age and so on, we might as well go all the way...

 
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: AGRBear on March 26, 2005, 02:40:13 PM
Quote
Even if the FS photo was retouched way back when, I have difficulty believing that even the most skillful artist could make FS look so much like AA, unless there was a strong underlying resemblance to begin with. I'm wondering, do all of us admit that there IS a resemblance? Or are some of you saying, there's no resemblance, even though the photo was retouched to make FS look like AA?

It seems to me that the retouching was either successful or it wasn't, but you can't have it both ways!

For that matter, how do we know that some of the AA photos were not retouched to make AA look more like AN? If we're going to start nitpicking to this extent, worrying about not just retouching but also about copies of copies of copies, their precise age and so on, we might as well go all the way...

  


Asking to have copies of the two original used on the overlay process isn't "nitpicking" since some of you place so much weight on this and consider it "evidence" of proof.

It doesn't matter to me the outcome.  I'd just like to make sure it is the right one.

AGRBear
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Penny_Wilson on March 26, 2005, 03:42:27 PM
Quote
Even if the FS photo was retouched way back when, I have difficulty believing that even the most skillful artist could make FS look so much like AA, unless there was a strong underlying resemblance to begin with. I'm wondering, do all of us admit that there IS a resemblance? Or are some of you saying, there's no resemblance, even though the photo was retouched to make FS look like AA?


Of course there's a resemblance -- if there wasn't, people wouldn't see one.  :)    For myself, I see some photos of Fraulein Unbekannt that look like Franziska, and then other times, there are photos that look like GDss Anastasia, and still other times, she looks like neither.

Quote
For that matter, how do we know that some of the AA photos were not retouched to make AA look more like AN? If we're going to start nitpicking to this extent, worrying about not just retouching but also about copies of copies of copies, their precise age and so on, we might as well go all the way...


I agree -- and don't see it as "nitpicking."  It's a matter of being precise, and it applies to every piece of evidence in the case, no matter what the "side."  I don't think anyone here has ever suggested otherwise.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Sian_Turner on March 26, 2005, 04:49:42 PM
My intense difficulty with photographic comparisons of any kind (and I realise that this is irritating for some members of the discussion board community) is that you cannot really compare two photographs of people unless they are taken from exactly the same viewpoint, in exactly the same lighting conditions, and in similar if not the same context(s).  I'm really not trying to be deliberately difficult or awkward for the sake of my own particular beliefs, but in overlaying one photo onto another I really believe that the pictures need to display the two subjects in exactly the same position and posture.  This is not what I have seen earlier in this disccusion post and, so, causes me to have serious misgivings about our attempting to provide a yes or no answer from this.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Elisabeth on March 26, 2005, 05:02:37 PM
Quote
My intense difficulty with photographic comparisons of any kind (and I realise that this is irritating for some members of the discussion board community) is that you cannot really compare two photographs of people unless they are taken from exactly the same viewpoint, in exactly the same lighting conditions, and in similar if not the same context(s).  I'm really not trying to be deliberately difficult or awkward for the sake of my own particular beliefs, but in overlaying one photo onto another I really believe that the pictures need to display the two subjects in exactly the same position and posture.  This is not what I have seen earlier in this disccusion post and, so, causes me to have serious misgivings about our attempting to provide a yes or no answer from this.


I don't think you're being awkward or difficult at all, Sian. In fact, if this photograph comparison was supposed to be the "definitive" and only evidence that AA was FS, then I would not be satisfied with it. After all, I used to believe AA was AN based on the photographic evidence, and look how wrong I turned out to be...like a lot of other people! Remember all those comparisons of AN's ear with AA's ear, which showed them to be identical, and the determination of the German police that AA had more than 15 points of facial similarity in common with AN... all of those identifications were subjective, based on photographic "evidence," and proved to be wrong in the end.

No, I think most of us who believe that AA was really FS rely on the DNA evidence first and foremost - the more recent, computer-generated photographic comparisons merely buttress, as it were, the underlying foundation of scientific proof.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: AGRBear on March 27, 2005, 11:08:20 AM
DNA has not been a part of this thread.  The photographs which were on the tv program are.

So far, no one has produced the photograph of AA which matches the one of FS.  Even FS's photograph has been said wasn't from the original.

Sian and others are starting to see what I'm trying to do.  Thanks.

AGRBear
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: jaa on March 27, 2005, 11:32:44 AM
Quote
I think I have heard "china white" called "zinc white" in connection with this retouched photo...

There are three white pigments used by artists: zinc oxide, titanium dioxide, and lead. Zinc white is only semi-opaque. Lead or "Flake White" is the most opaque but will tarnish and darken if exposed to air; it is used mostly in oils.

The term China White could have been a common name for any white, just as "India Ink" is a common name for lampblack inks.

I don't know what types of paint were used for photo-retouching in the 20's and 30's. Kodak would be a good source, and they still manufacture liquid photo-retouch colors. There's an "Official Marshall's Handcoloring Guide," by Grace and George Schaub, for use with Marshall's Photo Oils.

Quote
Over what sort of span does generational loss become significant for this sort of photo-matching?

For facial recognition systems, the better the image, the greater the chance of an accurate identification. Since the image of FS is grainy and under-exposed to begin with, probably only the first- or second-generation copies of the photo would contain enough information.

I also don't think photo-matching is a good description. It is really a match dissolve (also known as a "form cut" or "graphic match"), a transition used in film and television. The compositional elements remain the same but the scene changes. This is a very old transition and goes back to silent films.

If I recall correctly, a match dissolve was used at the end of "Titanic," when Kate Winslett's young Rose became Gloria Stuart's elderly Rose. This is one common use for a match dissolve; it helps the audience to recognize the character even though she was played by two different actors.

Quote
And do you know how shadows are removed?  I'm not certain that I have phrased that question correctly, but  I am thinking of photos, where the eyes are shadowed  -- either by the sockets or by the nose --  how would the expert "see" through the shadowing to the actual dimensions of the eyes?

Prior to computer-based imaging, this would have been done while printing a photograph. The image, or parts of the image, would have been under-exposed to make it lighter. This is called "dodging." A fairly good explanation of dodging:
http://www3.telus.net/drkrm/burndodge.htm

With computers, a photo or a good copy would need to be scanned in at a high resolution. The image would then be enhanced by software; Photoshop is capable this and has a number of plug-ins for advanced work. There are also specialized programs for this purpose.

In addition, there are computer-based facial recognition systems. This article is slightly dated, but it is a good intro to the technology:
http://people.howstuffworks.com/facial-recognition.htm

Quote
An extensively retouched photo has the potential to change those dimensions;
What makes you think the artist didn't take that into consideration? ;)

If the retouching was done for a book entitled "The False Anastasia," that raises a lot of questions about its accuracy.

Quote
this isn't directed at you, JAA as I hardly know your views on the subject at all

For what it's worth, I think AA was probably FS. But I know a lot less about the subject than Penny, and she doesn't seem to think so, at least at this point in her research. I'm looking forward to her book.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Penny_Wilson on March 27, 2005, 12:01:22 PM
Quote

I also don't think photo-matching is a good description. It is really a match dissolve (also known as a "form cut" or "graphic match"), a transition used in film and television. The compositional elements remain the same but the scene changes. This is a very old transition and goes back to silent films.


Thank you for the correct terminology!  As someone who is immensely intimidated by her photo-taking cell-phone, I'm happy to have you give me all this photography information -- I'll file it all away for future reference... :)

Quote

If the retouching was done for a book entitled "The False Anastasia," that raises a lot of questions about its accuracy.


Every story I've ever heard about this photo has Pierre Gilliard doing the retouching -- though I don't know if this means that he literally did it himself, or if he caused someone to do the work for him.  In any event, the result is very "gloopy" looking and what I would call unprofessional -- though time and the physical medium of "china white" couldn't have been kind to the process.

Quote
For what it's worth, I think AA was probably FS. But I know a lot less about the subject than Penny, and she doesn't seem to think so, at least at this point in her research. I'm looking forward to her book.


In the final analysis, she might well turn out to have been FS -- but thus far in our research, we have ample evidence in our possession to continue questioning her identity, so we'll continue to do so -- and hopefully reach something like a definitive conclusion at the end.  We -- Greg and I -- are just people who like all our "i"'s dotted and "t"'s crossed...  Though again, at this point, it's my personal opinion that she was not FS.  (Sorry -- I just feel the need to keep re-stating my opinion here, lest it get lost in the huha).  ;D

And thanks again, jaa!
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Elisabeth on March 27, 2005, 01:12:11 PM
Quote
Every story I've ever heard about this photo has Pierre Gilliard doing the retouching -- though I don't know if this means that he literally did it himself, or if he caused someone to do the work for him.  In any event, the result is very "gloopy" looking and what I would call unprofessional -- though time and the physical medium of "china white" couldn't have been kind to the process.


The "gloopy looking" retouched photo of FS is one that Helen Azar reproduced here earlier, and it is very obviously and clumsily retouched, in so far as a rather cartoon-like FS is shown wearing earrings, whereas in the original photo no earrings are to be seen. The earrings were an obvious later addition by the person doing the retouching, based on a mistaken interpretation of a white spot under one of FS's ears in the original photo (Malenkaya noted this on another thread).

However, from comparing all these different versions of the one photograph we have of FS, it is quite clear that the version used for the computer-generated photographic comparison was not the clumsily retouched, "gloopy looking" one, but one very close to the original, if not the original itself then perhaps even a first-generation copy of the original.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: jaa on March 27, 2005, 03:18:04 PM
You're thinking of the image in the Berliner Nachtausgabe. The image being discussed is the one in "La fausse Anastasie," Pierre Gilliard and Konstantin Savitch. AGRBear has posted this image a few times in this thread.

Quote
the computer-generated photographic comparison

This is a match dissolve. Computers automate the process of making dissolves, but it's still a basic fade-out, fade-in.

From "The Complete Film Dictionary," Ira Konigsberg:

"dissolve (DISS), cross dissolve, lap dissolve, mix A transition between two scenes whereby the first gradually fades out as the second gradually fades in with some overlap between the two. This transition is normally made in an optical printer (in silent films it had to be obtained in the camera and so was not often used)..."

"match cut, match-image cut A cut from one shot to another in which the two shots are matched by action or subject by... (3) a similarity in the two subject's shape and form -- for example, close-ups of two characters engaged in conversation, a portrait becoming a live face..."

"match dissolve A dissolve from one scene to another in which the two images are matched or related by similarities of form or action. Sometimes a series of shots or images of the same subject can dissolve one into the other to suggest the passage of time or the process of aging. Horror films frequently show their transformation of man to werewolf or Jekyll to Hyde through a series of match dissolves."

Quote
Every story I've ever heard about this photo has Pierre Gilliard doing the retouching -- though I don't know if this means that he literally did it himself, or if he caused someone to do the work for him.

I wondered about Peter Kurth's description of a "three times retouched" image, and if that meant Gilliard rejected the artist's first two attempts.

It is possible, although improbable, that Gilliard was the artist. 19th and early 20th century education included sketching and watercolors. If I recall correctly, there are whole passages in Jane Eyre regarding this as a pastime of the educated classes.

Quote
In any event, the result is very "gloopy" looking and what I would call unprofessional -- though time and the physical medium of "china white" couldn't have been kind to the process.

Not necessarily unprofessional, since the finished work was meant for publication and the artist would likely have been familiar with offset printing processes as well as photography.

Another term (I'm glad you don't mind about these technical terms) for "gloopy" would be "impasto," which refers to the thickness of paint and the visibility of brush strokes. Van Goghs are heavily impastoed.

A retouched photo with heavy impasto would indicate that much of the underlying information was obscured.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Elisabeth on March 27, 2005, 04:11:05 PM
This is just getting way too confusing, folks  ???. IMHO, the Berliner Nachtausgabe photo is the only one that looks obviously and clumsily retouched ("gloopy looking," "heavily impastoed," or whatever). So which photo is from Gilliard's book? And which one is the original, or has no one located it yet?

This would be a lot easier if AGRBear wasn't referencing on another thread the Berliner Nachtausgabe photo as THE photo of FS that proves she had pierced ears... as if it were the original photo, which it clearly isn't!

Could someone please simply (re)post the Before and After pictures relevant to Gilliard side by side?

But dare I ask: why do we seem to be assuming that it was Gilliard's photo that was used for the computer-generated photo comparison? Isn't it safer to assume that there is an original (and/or copies of the original) in existence somewhere?  
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: jeremygaleaz on March 27, 2005, 05:22:29 PM
Quote
If the retouching was done for a book entitled "The False Anastasia," that raises a lot of questions about its accuracy.


This probably isn't your intention, but this is to go back into the idea that people were falsifying information, when, in reality, people like Pierre Gilliard were proven to be right all along. She was a "False Anastasie." He was simply trying to make her features clearer for publication.
Again, I'm pretty sure the original, or a copy of the original, was used for this test. When I get back to L.A. I'll check my notes to make sure my memory is accurate.

Meanwhile, does anyone else here have anymore information on this test?  


Quote

For what it's worth, I think AA was probably FS. But I know a lot less about the subject than Penny, and she doesn't seem to think so, at least at this point in her research. I'm looking forward to her book.


We are all curious about the book but history being a subjective displine, and if she arrives at the conclusion that AA was not FS,  I doubt it will be the last word on the subject  ;)
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: AGRBear on March 27, 2005, 07:04:29 PM
(http://img224.exs.cx/img224/2489/fsretouched4vm.png)

This is one of Helen's photographs.  She wrote under it
"Un-retouched version of the photo^^"

Just let me know which one this is and I'll mark the one on this thread as well as the other one.

Will deal with the earring after I know which one this is.

Great information Jaa.  Thanks.

AGRBear

PS Note of 28 March 2005:  Evidently this is a "touched" photo in which the artist is showing earrings which may or may not be earrings because the artist may have thought the shadows were earrings and not shadows.  All the  shadows make it difficult to tell from this copy.  Again, we'd have to go to the original and blow it up to see if there are earrings.

PSS  Shadows around the jaw line does not allow us to see where the shadows start and end.  The jaw line is not defined in the copy seen below in Jaa's  as it is in the artists view of the jaw line in the one I have posted above.

PSSS  "un-retouched version of the photo^^" to which Helen was referring was probably the top one in her post but the words fell under the touched version and I probably misread her post.  Sorry Helen for my confusion.  This photo to which Helen was probably referring  is the one just below this post in Jaa's post.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: jaa on March 28, 2005, 10:37:21 AM
(http://img153.exs.cx/img153/961/fsoriginal8wx.png)
This is the unretouched image.

Quote
the Berliner Nachtausgabe photo is the only one that looks obviously and clumsily retouched ("gloopy looking," "heavily impastoed,"

Elisabeth, you won't be able to see the impasto, or surface texture, in images from books. It's like the difference between paintings and reproductions; you have to see the actual object to see the surface texture. Penny has seen the retouched Gilliard photo, not a reproduction.

When retouched photos are re-photographed for publication, they're lit from opposite sides. Shadows cast by raised surfaces are washed out. The new image is then transferred onto aluminum plates in a pattern of dots (benday process) for printing. By the time the reader sees the illustration in a book, much of the information is lost, including brush strokes and cross-hatching, and the image looks more polished.

That's also why I don't think an impastoed surface means the artist was unprofessional. It could just mean that the artist knew about copy stands and benday screens.

Quote
why do we seem to be assuming that it was Gilliard's photo that was used for the computer-generated photo comparison?

I don't think we were. I can't tell if the image used for the dissolve was the non-retouched image or the image for Gilliard's book. In part because it's blurry and in part because the dissolve stops before the fade-in is completed. Jeremy said it didn't matter if it was the retouched version, I thought it did.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Elisabeth on March 28, 2005, 01:09:15 PM
Jaa, thanks for posting the original picture. I had no idea the image was so blurry.

Also many, many thanks for taking the time to explain the technical side of retouching photos - the process is a lot clearer to me now. No wonder they call it an art!
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: AGRBear on March 28, 2005, 02:21:08 PM
Since the photo is burry, I suspect it was taken from a smaller photograph.  Usually  photographs taken at the turn of the century were about postcard size.  However, they were usually quite clear and taken indoors.  That doesn't mean all photographs were taken inside.  Photographs taken outdoors were usually more about a home or a church in which the person or persons were near.

AGRBear
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: AGRBear on March 30, 2005, 11:17:19 AM
I mentioned pierced ears on another thread and this was Elisabeth's response which gives us more information on the photographs which shows FS wearing earrings.


Quote

Bear...

The photo you are now citing as evidence that FS might have had pierced ears was published in a Berlin newspaper and was so obviously and badly retouched that not only does FS look like a cartoon character in it, but the "artist" (if you can call him that) even added earrings where there were none in the original!

So we simply don't know if FS had pierced ears or not. The whole issue is a red herring. And since we have already discussed this at some length on another thread, I have to wonder why are you bringing it up again here when you know for a fact that this retouched photo was in error?
 

By the way, I was not saying that FS had pierced ears in the post on the other thread Elisabeth was responding, I said that particular  photo, which in an earlier post I said was touched by an artists or someone,   showed she had pierced ears which "may be in error" ....  From the photo that is close to the original, we can't tell if she is wearing earrings or not.

AGRBear
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Helen_Azar on March 31, 2005, 10:24:10 AM
Quote
(http://img224.exs.cx/img224/2489/fsretouched4vm.png)

This is one of Helen's photographs.  She wrote under it
"Un-retouched version of the photo^^"



Bear, please do not misquote me. I did not write that this was the unretouched photo of FS. In fact, I described this particular version as a very bad artist rendition of the FS photo.  Once again, I would appreciate it if you didn't put in my mouth as you often tend to do, for some reason.

This was my original posting:

Quote
I just found this FS photo which is supposedly the original version - before it was manipulated (next to it are the two "re-touched" versions):

(http://img153.exs.cx/img153/961/fsoriginal8wx.png)(http://img153.exs.cx/img153/1440/fstouchedup2kz.png)(http://img224.exs.cx/img224/2489/fsretouched4vm.png)
Un-retouched version of the photo^^

The first re-touched version doesn't look that different to me, only the features are more clear. It doesn't really look as much as it was re-touched as an attempt to make the photo more clear, this was probably the purpose for it. The second picture just looks like a bad artist's rendition, and is neither here nor there...

There are certain photos of AA, not all, that bear a striking resemblance to this FS photo (unre-touched). What do you think?

(http://img153.exs.cx/img153/961/fsoriginal8wx.png)(http://img153.exs.cx/img153/3800/aa31id.png)(http://img164.exs.cx/img164/791/aa38ep.png)

Fraziska Schankowzska (unre-touched photo)                      Anna Anderson                                                       Anna Anderson

To be honest, even based on these three photos alone , I would say that there is a really good chance that this is one and the same person - I mean the resemblance is really uncanny here!



Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: jaa on March 31, 2005, 10:47:58 AM
Quote
I had no idea the image was so blurry.

Part of that blurriness is caused by generational loss; a resized digital image of a cropped and enlarged photograph printed in a book. But the original would still be grainy and blurry, given the types of film, lenses, and photographic paper used in everyday photography in 1916. AGRBear posted the mostly uncropped image:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v471/AGRBear/FSManSumBK1.jpg)

The image used in the documentary appears to be clearer, but I can't tell if it is or if it's just picking up details from the underlying AA image. I wish they had completed the fade-in.

If it is clearer, it might have been image-enhanced. I hope they kept the first high-resolution scan. The program is copyright 1995, and there have been significant improvements in image enhancement technology in the last ten years.

Quote
Also many, many thanks for taking the time to explain the technical side of retouching photos - the process is a lot clearer to me now. No wonder they call it an art!

Thanks for the thanks (Penny and AGRBear too). I don't know what details would be of interest to a historian, but I thought I'd try to contribute what I know about the technical side.

One thing I don't understand about this dissolve is the rotation of the FS photo. Rotating a bit-mapped image on a computer causes a certain amount of distortion. This is because the software has to interpolate the new position and color of each pixel. I wonder why they didn't rotate the AA photo instead since it contains far more data and would therefore suffer less distortion. I'm not accusing anyone of falsifying anything, BTW. Maybe it's what would look better, since documentaries are a form of entertainment.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: AGRBear on March 31, 2005, 11:05:44 AM
Helen,

Unfortunately, you didn't read through all of the posts.  I already apologized for misreading your original post which had under the retouched photo the following words:  "Un-retouched version of the photo^^ ""  The two "^^"  were pointing at the retouched photo.  Just as they are, now, above in your post.

This is the "RETOUCHED" photo of FS.

(http://img224.exs.cx/img224/2489/fsretouched4vm.png)
"Un-retouched version of the photo^^"
[words which on my screen shows under the above photo]

Above the three photographs were these words which I obviously didn't read or didn't read it correctly where Helen explained the following three photographs:  >>I just found this FS photo which is supposedly the original version - before it was manipulated (next to it are the two "re-touched" versions): <<

Everyone, again, let me say:  I mistook the words under the photo as meaning it was pointing at that photo.  Sorry, again, Helen.

As far as I know, I have never tried to place words in Helen's mouth.  If I did, let me go and correct it immediately.

AGRBear

NOTE:  1 April 2005 -  One mystery solved,  my screen shows Helen's photos one on top of the other
X
X
X

And Helen's screen shows her photos in a row
X X X

Therein is the difference and the difference of the  position of the "^^" .....

So, a lesson learned.  Remember what you see on your screen may be different then what others see :)
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Helen_Azar on March 31, 2005, 11:36:03 AM
Quote
Helen,

Unfortunately, you didn't read through all of the posts.  I already apologized for misreading your original post which had under the retouched photo the following words:  "Un-retouched version of the photo^^ ""  The two "^^"  were pointing at the retouched photo.  


Bear, apology accepted. But please look closely at my original post again, and you will see that the arrows ^^ are pointing towards a different photo than the one you posted and quoted me as saying it was "unretouched'.  My arrows are pointing towards the actual unretouched photo and not the one I identified as a bad artist's rendition (it is not even a retouched photo) as you claimed.
Please be careful of how you quote people.


Quote
(http://img153.exs.cx/img153/961/fsoriginal8wx.png)(http://img153.exs.cx/img153/1440/fstouchedup2kz.png)(http://img224.exs.cx/img224/2489/fsretouched4vm.png)
Un-retouched version of the photo^^




Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: AGRBear on March 31, 2005, 11:41:42 AM
Quote
..[in part]...
(http://img153.exs.cx/img153/961/fsoriginal8wx.png)


What AA photo do I place next to FS which was used in the Nova's tv show for the overlay?


AGRBear
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: AGRBear on March 31, 2005, 07:15:03 PM
FS>(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v471/AGRBear/FSSumMang4.jpg)

[second photo is absent because it was changed by owner of photo to something else....]



AGRBear

PS  The FS is still a copy of a copy which shows the two white spots [perhaps lint which occurred during the copying of the original]  in her hair...  And AA's is also a copy and I don't know the origin....
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: jaa on April 04, 2005, 10:30:51 AM
Thanks for doing that, AGRBear. Sorry for derailing the thread.

I should also say that it's possible to re-create this 1995 dissolve with most image and video editors. If anyone wants to try it in PhotoShop, place the images on different layers and use the move, rotate, and resize tools to align the images. Then use ImageReady and tween the frames between the images.

Just a bit more about terminology, then I'll go back to lurking.

"Image fusion" refers to creating a composite, or combined, image from two different images. Artists use image fusion to create surrealistic images, eg. a composite image of a man and a tree. In mapping and the military, the images are of the same subject, usually under different lighting conditions, such as daylight and infrared. Image fusion is used extensively in medical imaging, such as creating a composite of a patient's CT scan and MRI.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: sokolova on April 09, 2005, 04:25:32 PM
I suppose I could be wrong - but as I remember it  (I saw the program), the  perfect match was not with AA and FS but with AA and AN! ???

Something is wrong here. Either my memory or someone's reporting. I have the program on video, so I will watch it again tonight and report the results.

This is all so fascinating to me!

Sokolova



Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Abby on April 09, 2005, 04:35:55 PM
Hi, Sokolova! I beleive you are thinking of the 'ear' test, which they performed in the same program as the 'fusion of the photos' test. When they compared Anna Anderson's right ear with that of Anastasia's, the ears matched. (The expert gave it a '4' on a scale of 1-5, 5 being a perfect match. He would've given the match a 5, he said, if the angles of the photos were identical, but they weren't).
The fusion photo test compared the photographed face of AA with FS's, and all the points on the computer screen matched up.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Helen_Azar on April 09, 2005, 07:18:14 PM
Yes, Abby is right. They did perform two visual tests on the program: one was the ear test between AA and AN and another was the photo fusion between AA and FS. Both gave matching results. I must point out that neither one of the tests is considered scientific like DNA, since both results are open to interpretation, unlike DNA.

So if I had to put my life on the line for either result, I wouldn't  ;). The only results we can completely trust in this case are the DNA results  :).

H
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: jaa on April 09, 2005, 09:05:10 PM
Sorry to be so technical, but what was in the NOVA documentary is not image fusion. Fusion of the AA and FS images would be image manipulation.

This is an example of fusion between a Noh mask and a Hellenistic or Roman bronze, from a software tutorial:
(http://www.mathworks.com/access/helpdesk/help/toolbox/wavelet/fusion3.gif)

All that was done with the images on the NOVA documentary was a film transition called a dissolve. Fade in, fade out with the images overlapping.

Dissolves are a very old transition, originating with silent film. This is a cinematic technique. As far as I know, dissolves are not usually used for any kind of scientific imaging.

The technology used today would be face recognition. The copyright date of the documentary is 1995, at which time face recognition was in the early stages of development. Today, it is being used and tested in venues like airports to help identify terrorists and other security risks. Computer-based face recognition relies on a mathematical description of points on the face.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: AGRBear on April 15, 2005, 04:34:06 PM
The comparison of faces on the TV show had to do with two photographs which, I assume, were manipulated to show the angle of the faces to be the same because they were not in the originals if the two photos above in my post are the ones Geoff ____ [forgot his last name] used in Nova.

Geoff ____ used his pointer to show the points which seem to match in the process he was showing the TV viewer.

But were they [angles of the faces]  changed when the angle of the faces were turned for the fusion of the photographs?

Here is Vasily Flatov and Alexei in the book THE ESCAPE OF ALEXEI, Son of Tsar Nicholas II by Petrov, Lysenho and Egorov who like Geoff was using the "points" of a face to show similarities on pps. 130 and 131.

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v471/AGRBear/AFaceVFface1.jpg)

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v471/AGRBear/AFVFFace2.jpg)

Not many of us are convinced by these photographs that Vasily Flatov was Alexei.  Even though the "points" seem to be the same.

So, I'm wondering, about a number of things.

I think I'd like to see someone do a new fusion with our modern software which is used today.  And, I'd like to know which photograph of AA is being used.

Also, what are the numbers on how many people faces when  using points are similar and if it's even a good method of using accept in the process of elimination.

AGRBear
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: jaa on April 16, 2005, 02:38:48 AM
Quote
But were they [angels of the faces]  changed when the angel of the faces were turned for the fusion of the photographs?

The FS image was rotated. Take a photograph, lay it on a table and spin it around. That's rotation. However, on a computer there is a chance of distortion when images are rotated, so steps have to be taken to minimize the distortion.

Sorry to harp on this, but this is not fusion. Fusion is similar to morphing. If you took a photo of AA and FS and morphed a composite image, that would be fusion.

Fusion would be inherently deceptive in this case.

All that was shown in the NOVA documentary was a dissolve, a basic transition used in movies and television. As far as I can tell, the computer only replaced the photos and transparencies that an expert would use manually. And it added a dissolve. Here is a simple dissolve, part of a PhotoShop tutorial:
(http://www.insidegraphics.com/image_ready/images/image_ready_tutorial.gif)

Quote
Also, what are the numbers on how many peoplefaces when  using points are similar and if it's even a good method of using accept in the process of elimination.

I know facial recognition is now being used at airports and sporting events to spot terrorists, and in prisons, banks, and other secure facilities. One proposed future use for face recognition, as costs go down, is a replacement for PIN numbers at ATMs.

We'll know a bit more about these systems in the fall, when the US government publishes its findings on its latest face recognition vendor comparison. The comparison will take place in August or September.

I suspect that a face recognition system will find that AA looks like FS. And that she looks like AN. This case has so many bizarre coincidences it wouldn't surprise me.

A face recognition system uses nodes, or vector-based points. The nodal points are typically expressed as XYZ coordinates, with X being a horizontal distance, Y a vertical distance, and Z a nearer or further distance. These points are not dots or pixels; vector-based graphics are mathematical and usually have an accuracy of at least fourteen significant digits of precision. That's why, for example, a circle drawn in a raster-based paint program will look jagged when zoomed in, but will look round in a CAD program regardless of the zoom factor.

This image, from MIT's site, shows nodal points used for face recognition. Typically, face recognition systems use a dozen or more nodes, but only four are shown here: the pupils of the eyes, the tip of the nose, and the midpoint of the mouth.
(http://vismod.media.mit.edu/vismod/demos/facerec/Images/p3.gif)

As for the images of Alexei and Filatov, there are lots of inaccuracies. Look at the line ruled through Alexei's eyes - tangent to the outer part of the bottom right lid and the inner part of the left. There's a similar problem with the line ruled on the photo of Filatov. Look at the lines for the included angle of the faces; the lines on the right side of the faces are tangent to the cheekbone and jaw, but the other lines are tangent only to the sideburns and have no other point of tangency. Also the line ruled through Alexei's mouth is off; it should be slightly lower. IMHO the images are so full of drafting errors that they're pretty much useless.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: AGRBear on April 16, 2005, 10:50:47 AM
I just love jaa's posts.  They are so full of information.  He knows his subject and what a great image of a green apple with a red apple  [or is it red with a green ;) ).  Anyway, let me say, thanks.

And, you're right the points for Alexei and V. F.  don't match even though them seem to match when you glance at them.

And, yes,  it does appear that FS's  and AA's faces are the same in the tv series but knowing what I know about how objects can be distorted during the rotation by the older software, that is why I questioned this process in the first place.

Again, thanks for all the information, jaa.

AGRBear
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Annie on May 04, 2005, 11:35:24 AM
The photo on the right is much lighter, so we can't see the defined lines of the lips. AA had very full lips, which is one reason I can't understand anyone thinking she looked like AN, who had thin lips.

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v152/WuvDaNick/anaa.jpg)

Yes, I know this is about AA and FS only, so here's the collage Lisa made us awhile back, FS in the middle, all others are AA:

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v152/WuvDaNick/aafs.jpg)
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Mgmstl on May 04, 2005, 01:36:21 PM
Alice

Is the photo of FS in the middle of this montage the doctored version of the photo OR the original version,
Alice you posted two versions of the same photo on another thread, one looks some what faded and near the original, the bottom one looks as though the lips have been enhanced.

I am just checking as when making photographic comparisons in identifying individuals or making those comparisons as to likeness within a family doctored or enhanced photos shouldn't be used or people should be made aware that a doctored/enhnaced photograph is being used.  Just an opinion.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: AGRBear on May 04, 2005, 02:34:23 PM
Alice and others,

 Fusion of photographs of AA and FS is a discussion of the similarities of the two images used, as well as questions about the photographs and the originals and some interesting stuff from jaa.  Don't miss his last comment about angles which he shows using an apple.

Evidently  the two known photographs of FS were altered and this is in evidence of AA's trial.

AGRBear
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: AGRBear on May 04, 2005, 02:53:57 PM
During the court trial of 1958-61 the photographs of Wingender were presented.  

Wingender said that the one photo was of Franziska

Wingender said one was of Schanzkowska in the summer of 1922 and then there was one of herself in 1920.  Both were wearing the same dress.

The experts discovered that the one photographs which was FS  had been altered and buttons had been added and that the two dresses were not the same.  The photo of Wingender had also been altered and someone in the photo had been removed.

These photos were important because it was how Wingender was proving she had seen FS in 1922 during the time frame when AA's time is not accountable.

Wingender than refused to swear a oath that she was speaking the truth about FS.  She refused to return to court.

I'll have to dig around for the information on the changes made to FS's photo of her standing with an apron near some trees.
AGRBear
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: AGRBear on May 04, 2005, 03:55:07 PM
And this is interesting:

Quote
Hi All,

Since so much of the identification of Anna Anderson centered around comparing her features with photographs of Anastasia I thought I'd share two articles on this topic with the group.  

A photograph of a young man was found and a case was made that it showed Abraham Lincoln, the 16th president of the US.  When I looked at the picture I thought it looked nothing like him, but the article talks about how the man's identity was established as Lincoln.  There is an interesting bit about how weight loss affects a person's looks, which two parts of the face remain the same throughout life, comparing photos taken 20-30 years apart, the effects of aging, etc.  Here is the link:  http://www.lincolnportrait.com/authenti.htm

Another article with a similar topic talks about how they authenticated a photo (purchased on ebay!) of a woman purported to be Emily Dickinson, the poetess.  In this case, the subject had gained weight.  Here is the link: http://www.common-place.org/vol-04/no-02/gura/

I hope you enjoy them.

Best,

Sarah
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Alice on May 04, 2005, 06:21:06 PM
Quote
Alice

Is the photo of FS in the middle of this montage the doctored version of the photo OR the original version,
Alice you posted two versions of the same photo on another thread, one looks some what faded and near the original, the bottom one looks as though the lips have been enhanced.

I am just checking as when making photographic comparisons in identifying individuals or making those comparisons as to likeness within a family doctored or enhanced photos shouldn't be used or people should be made aware that a doctored/enhnaced photograph is being used.  Just an opinion.


Uh . . . are you confusing Annie and I? I only posted these two photos, I didn't post any on "another thread" and the montage wasn't posted by me, either. The photo of FS I have used is the original published in Kurth's book.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: etonexile on May 04, 2005, 06:32:51 PM
AN didn't have that odd,creased upper lip...and I don't recall any other Royal relations with that lip...oh...yes...and the DNA...
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: AGRBear on May 04, 2005, 07:20:40 PM
Some of us have made up our mind about FS/AA, however, others may be new or still haven't made up their minds, so, please show patience.  

There are many threads dealing with DNA, please, Topic:  FS/AA Photographic Comparison.

AGRBear
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: lexi4 on May 05, 2005, 12:02:00 AM
It is so hard for me to tell anything because the picture of FS is so grainy. I wish I could see a better photo of FS that hasn't been altered.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Annie on May 05, 2005, 09:24:46 AM
Quote
It is so hard for me to tell anything because the picture of FS is so grainy. I wish I could see a better photo of FS that hasn't been altered.


And it's so pale and washed out you can't see what her lips really look like, so it's not fair to say the shape of the mouth isn't the same based on that.

Quote
posted by AGRBear:

Franziska Schanskowska unre-touched photo
(http://img153.exs.cx/img153/961/fsoriginal8wx.png)

Anna Anderson

(http://img164.exs.cx/img164/791/aa38ep.png)



There's a match! How could anyone not see the resemblance?
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Mgmstl on May 05, 2005, 10:55:08 AM
Quote
It is so hard for me to tell anything because the picture of FS is so grainy. I wish I could see a better photo of FS that hasn't been altered.



Lexi, I agree.  However I am sure that you realize from the response already given you will be told that you don't have the right to your own opinion or that if you don't see the resemblance you are not dealing with a full deck.    I don't think the mouth or the face look like they are exactly the same.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Annie on May 05, 2005, 11:02:21 AM
I'm not saying anyone doesn't have a right to an opinion for Pete's sake, but I am saying that you can't tell for sure the shape of the mouth because the pic of FS is too light and washed out in that area to get an accurate representation, which means I agree with Lexi on that. Though that is the reason the shape of the mouth can't totally be made out, I'm sure you, Michael, will use that as a reason to deny the obvious otherwise because you are too hardheaded to ever admit you were wrong about FS not being AA.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: IlyaBorisovich on May 05, 2005, 11:06:24 AM
Quote

There's a match! How could anyone not see the resemblance?


I swore to myself I'd keep off this thread, but sometimes curiosity compells me to respond.  Similarities, like beauty, are in the eye of the beholder.  You cannot say, "There's a match!" because it's an objective question.  It's like an ink blot test.  Every person who looks at it will see something different.  Nothing as arbitrary as this can ever be stated absolutely.  It's a contradiction of terms.

Ilya
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: rskkiya on May 05, 2005, 12:22:53 PM
Michael G
The previous statement was a valid one. If you can disprove it do If you cannot do not post... :(

My two kopecs...
    It's difficult to compare some images, due to the fact that faces are often at different angles, or in partial profile, nevertheless it's not difficult to pose so as to appear to look more like one picture than another...
   Mind you I don't think that that was AA's constant attempt, but some of the photos, such as the 1927 (?) image of her all in white (sorry I don't have the photo) was certainly "staged" just as any wedding photo might be. I of course am no photo expert!

Patiently waiting to be lambasted  8)

rskkiya

(I am still having serious computer problems, I don't know if I will be able to stay here at  the AP  :()
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: lexi4 on May 05, 2005, 12:44:34 PM
Quote

I swore to myself I'd keep off this thread, but sometimes curiosity compells me to respond.  Similarities, like beauty, are in the eye of the beholder.  You cannot say, "There's a match!" because it's an objective question.  It's like an ink blot test.  Every person who looks at it will see something different.  Nothing as arbitrary as this can ever be stated absolutely.  It's a contradiction of terms.

Ilya

Very good point. Thank you.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Mgmstl on May 05, 2005, 02:03:12 PM


Is the sepia toned version the ACTUAL original photograph before any retouching or morphing has been done to it?   IF it is , then how can the image be said to resemble Franziska.  It is grainy and faded, while with today's technology it could probably be restored, the mouth and the lips and the shape of the face look a bit different to me.

 I have a photo of two of my 4th great grandfathers, and they have amazingly been preserved well.   MANY times in those days photos were taken by travelling photographers, who rinsed their photos in buckets of water, instead of using fresh water for each photo, they used the same water, thereby causing the acids from the previous photo to coat upon the photographic image and thereby increasing the chances of fading.
I would imagine the same can be said of photos in the early 1900's - 1920's...   I am not saying the image is not FS, I am saying it is unclear to me that she looks like AA.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Denise on May 05, 2005, 02:43:18 PM
I will throw my 2 pennies worth in here too.  What the hey, right?  Everyone else has... ::)

I believe that AA and FS had very similar lips.  They seem fleshy and not well defined (ie-no perfect cupid's bow--the top lip has a very ill defined "dip" (can't remember the word for that).  The lips of these women were MORE similar to each other than either were to AN's lips. (yes Bear, I know AN has nothing to do with this thread.)

I believe that it would be easier to note the lip similarities of these women if we could find a head on photo of AA WITHOUT that little smirk.  It is beginning to annoy me, that smirk.  Just a relaxed full face shot might show the same shadoes of the face.

There!  My 2 cents for the day is done.   ;D

Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Denise on May 05, 2005, 02:46:55 PM
One other thing.  I know that the points match for the eyes in the analyses of these pictures, but it always seems to me that AA had bigger eyes than FS.  Perhaps that is due to FS distance from the photographer, but FS seems to have small almond eyes that are straight across her face, while AA has almond eyes that are larger and angle up at the ends.  

OK, so I gave y'all 4 cents today....

Denise
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Lanie on May 05, 2005, 03:33:08 PM
If we had a picture of FS looking somewhat tilted down at the camera--like the one photo of AA--the resemblance would be even more obvious.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Denise on May 05, 2005, 03:54:30 PM
Quote
If we had a picture of FS looking somewhat tilted down at the camera--like the one photo of AA--the resemblance would be even more obvious.


Probably so.  I think the other thing that confuses people who see these pictures is that they were taken at 2 different times in life.  FS' photo was of a younger woman (I'd say-16-17), healthier, and with altogether a more conservative style of dress and atmosphere.  The AA pictures show someone who is more mature, has been sick, and appears a bit more knowing about the world.  The women in these two pictures appear to carry themselves differently and show different body language.  

This doesn't make them different people.  The same woman could change dramatically in 6-7 years through traumatic life experience, which we know FS had.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: etonexile on May 06, 2005, 06:15:48 AM
Am I the only person about who doesn't feel that AA,AM,and FS looked like AN?...Yes,they were both European females...but that's about it....
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Denise on May 06, 2005, 06:17:36 AM
Quote
Am I the only person about who doesn't feel that AA,AM,and FS looked like AN?...Yes,they were both European females...but that's about it....


She didn't to my mind either, but that is irrelevent to this thread.  This is comparing AA to FS in photos.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Annie on May 06, 2005, 10:19:56 AM
Quote



I agree about the body language, and the different ways they carry themselves,


...and exactly when did you see either of the subjects in question 'carry themselves?' There's nothing but that one pic of FS standing up, and several posed pics of AA, and a few videos of her later in life, seated. How do you, or any of us, really know how this dead woman 'carried herself?'
(I'm not going to fall into the trap of saying "these 2 women", since they are one in the same)
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Mgmstl on May 06, 2005, 11:08:41 AM
Quote
Am I the only person about who doesn't feel that AA,AM,and FS looked like AN?...Yes,they were both European females...but that's about it....



I don't see where she looked at all like AN either
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: AGRBear on May 06, 2005, 12:10:13 PM
Has anyone seen the Wingender photographs?

AGRBear
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Denise on May 08, 2005, 09:16:25 AM
Quote

Oh for Pete's sake! That's the problem, you always look at being questioned as an attack! This is an honest question important to the point here. I will ask you, Denise, or anyone else, how do we determine how FS 'carried herself' from one fuzzy, washed out pic of only the top half of her body? Then how does one presume to compare that to pics of AA and how she 'carried herself' when we never saw her carry herself anywhere! I think it's a valid inquiry. Can you explain?


I was thinking about this.  I was basing my comment earlier on the expression on the face.  FS expression seemed more reserved.  AA always seems to have a more "knowing, sly" kind of look on her face, at least in some of those where she is looking straight at the camera.  As I don't know what photographic technique was used to take FS photo, it is possible that her stance is due to stillness required to get the picture on the plate.  If it were a Brownie type camera, then it may just be that she was a bit reserved.

We can't know for certain on most of this, but we are basing these speculations on what we can see (and the entire full body shot of FS is on the forum here).  This is as valid as any of the other speculations about FS, including a few of yours, Annie.   ;)

Denise

Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: jaa on May 08, 2005, 03:53:45 PM
Quote
As I don't know what photographic technique was used to take FS photo, it is possible that her stance is due to stillness required to get the picture on the plate.  If it were a Brownie type camera, then it may just be that she was a bit reserved.
It's unlikely that a plate was used. Kodak introduced the first roll film camera in the 1890's. From "The Photographic Collector's Notebook" at http://www.rit.edu/~andpph/tphs-filmnumbers.html :
Quote
A Brief History of Kodak Roll Film Numbers

The earliest Kodak roll films were made for specific cameras and were listed by the camera name. For example: The year 1900 Kodak Condensed Price List stated under:

Eastman's Transparent Film, Light Proof Kodak Cartridges: Roll Film, 6 Exposures, 2 1/4 x 3 1/4 inches, for the No.1 Folding Pocket Kodak Roll Film for the No, 1 Panorama Kodak, 3 exposures,

As more cameras were introduced using the same film size, the listings of camera names became cumbersome, particularly with the limited space on film cartons.

In 1912 or 1913, it was decided to  bring more system to the film size problem and assign numbers to each film. First listing was in the Condensed Price List of 1914, which gave the cameras by name with their corresponding film number. In 1919 the camera listing was deleted and the film was listed only by number.

Starting with No. 101, the numbers, seemed to have been assigned in the order in which the film was introduced to the market. For example:

             101 (3 1/2" x 3 1/2") was originally produced for the No. 2 Bullet camera, announced in 1895

             102 (1 1/2" x 2") for the Pocket Kodak was also announced in 1895

             115 (7" x 5) for the No 5 Cartridge Kodak Camera announced in 1898

             120 (2 1/4 x 3 1/4) for No. 2 Brownie announced in 1901
I think a Brownie-type camera is a good guess. The Brownie was first introduced in 1900 (source: http://www.kodak.com/global/en/consumer/products/techInfo/aa13/aa13.shtml ). A cheap camera, it was marketed towards children and sold for $1. Millions of the box Brownies and folding Brownies were sold in the US and Europe (Kodak manufactured the Brownies in the US, the UK, and France). Among the important German camera companies were Zeiss, Voightlander, and AFGA, although I don't know if they made similar cameras.


The Brownie used medium-size films. The No. 2 Brownie produced a 2.25" x 3.25" negative, large enough for a contact print, a photograph made without enlargement and the negative in direct contact with the paper. Note the lower photo in the album shown above; that's quite likely a contact print.

If the original FS photo is a contact print, the actual image could be much clearer, since it would avoid focusing and other problems associated with enlargements. This photo is apparently still in existence; I asked if it was used for the NOVA documentary and Penny phoned the owner who said it had not been loaned for that documentary.

It may be possible to enhance this photograph, depending on the quality of the original. However, as you note, it is a full body shot and the face is a small area, hence the graininess when it is cropped and enlarged.

I'd be very hesitant to say that I knew what FS looked like based on the reproductions I have seen. One easy way to tell if you are seeing a good reproduction is to look for the dots from half-tone screening (used in reproducing photographs for offset printing). If you can easily be see the dots with the naked eye, a coarse screen has been used; the coarser the screen, the greater the loss of detail. I'd argue that we don't even know what the photo looks like, let alone what FS looked like.

I also think the point that the photograph was taken at two different ages is a very good one. People can change a lot; I think everyone has seen nearly unrecognizable photos of actors in their teenage years.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Denise on May 08, 2005, 05:01:14 PM
Thanks jaa!!  That was really helpful.  The only reason I mentioned plates is that it was mentioned on a thread that the reason that certain royals had grim expressions was because of the length of time it took to get the photos.  I know the expressions in pictures of settlers of the American West always look quite grim for the same reason....
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Inquiring_Mind on May 08, 2005, 05:52:19 PM
Quote
Has anyone seen the Wingender photographs?

AGRBear


AGR Bear,

What photos are you speaking of? Are they the ones in the AA trials where they were retouched to prove a point the first time and then retouched further the second time?
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Annie on May 08, 2005, 09:57:59 PM
Thanks for your response, Denise :)

If AA looked more 'sly', maybe it's because she was ;) at that time, she was sly, playing Anastasia!

As for the cameras, of course old cameras are always still used, even today, but by the time that pic was taken there were cameras that you did not have to stand still for  like the ones used for those old west pics (yes those are some sour faces!) I know that by the 1910's such 'higher tech' cameras did exist, because my Grandmother had one. She won it on a punch card as a teenager, and she still had it, and it still worked, when I was a kid in the 1960's. You did not have to stay still like the old fashioned ones, it worked just like modern cameras, click and go!

Ironically, it's all come full circle, since some of the new digitals make you have to freeze your pose again and if you move they blur, just like old timey ones :-/
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: AGRBear on May 09, 2005, 11:20:29 AM
Here is my earlier post about the photographs being changed and there is mention of Wingender's photograph about a dress which was suppose to prove that AA was FS but the experts discovered the photographs were altered and this is when the court asked Wingender to swear and oath and she refused.

Quote
During the court trial of 1958-61 the photographs of Wingender were presented.  

Wingender said that the one photo was of Franziska

Wingender said one was of Schanzkowska in the summer of 1922 and then there was one of herself in 1920.  Both were wearing the same dress.

The experts discovered that the one photographs which was FS  had been altered and buttons had been added and that the two dresses were not the same.  The photo of Wingender had also been altered and someone in the photo had been removed.

These photos were important because it was how Wingender was proving she had seen FS in 1922 during the time frame when AA's time is not accountable.

Wingender than refused to swear a oath that she was speaking the truth about FS.  She refused to return to court.

I'll have to dig around for the information on the changes made to FS's photo of her standing with an apron near some trees.
AGRBear


To me this shows someone was tampering with evidence which in this case were photographs.

Does anyone know which two photographs these were?  Anyone seen these photographs?

AGRBear
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: jaa on May 09, 2005, 06:32:29 PM
There's an old post from Penny that I can't find. She talked about being unable to locate the photos of FS that had been used in court. I'm fairly sure she said they hadn't "surfaced." Also that "Ian" (I'm pretty sure that's Ian Lilburn) had said that the published photo of FS was the one that looked the least like her, based upon the other photos.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: jaa on May 09, 2005, 06:39:29 PM
Quote
Thanks jaa!!  That was really helpful.  The only reason I mentioned plates is that it was mentioned on a thread that the reason that certain royals had grim expressions was because of the length of time it took to get the photos.  I know the expressions in pictures of settlers of the American West always look quite grim for the same reason....

Denise, thanks. I never know what sort of information a historian could use, so it's nice to know that some of this is useful.

The first Daguerreotypes, introduced in 1839, required exposures of 10-20 minutes. Understandably, the earliest Daguerrotypes are mostly of architecture. But within a couple of years, improvements in photo emulsions and lenses cut the exposure time down to 10-30 seconds. Still a long time to sit still and try not to blink. There's a very interesting Daguerrotype site at http://www.daguerre.org

Other types of 19th century photography included the Calotype, albumen (egg white, also used in artist's tempera colors), collodion, and Ambrotypes. In the 1880's, the dry plate process, using gelatin, was invented, and that led to George Eastman's roll film and the first Kodak camera in the early 1890's. There is, or used to be, a fine site at www.eastman.org, but it's been down for some time.

I'm not sure exactly when what particular advance was made, but sometime between the 1840's and 1900, lenses and photo emulsions improved to the point where faster shutter speeds were possible.

However, it wasn't just the technical part of photography that caused those stiff, formal poses. Photographers were also struggling for the acceptance of photography as a legitimate art. Portrait photos tended to duplicate the poses of portrait painting, and photographs portraying candid poses were frowned upon. Royals and aristocrats, already accustomed to posing for portraits, would assume similar poses for photographs. If they sometimes look a little grim, it's partly because the photograph lacks the painter's ability to idealize a face.

That proscription against non-candid poses changed, however, not only because of changes in photographic technology, but also because of changes in printing technology. The first halftone newspaper photograph appeared in the New York Tribune in 1897 (source: Time-Life's "Photojournalism," p. 15). Prior to that, artists would copy photographs, usually into relief prints.

By the 1920's, magazines and newspapers included halftone reproductions of photographs; they looked like magazines in the way we're used to seeing them today. And the people whose images they reproduced were, as they are today, unglamorous politicians and glamorous celebrities. More or less candid poses became familiar and acceptable.

I agree that photos of AA were posed, since almost everyone poses when they know they are being photographed. In some of the photos taken in the mid-20's through the 30's, I think she poses like a old movie star. That knowing look and half-smile was very popular in publicity photos of film stars in the 20's and 30's.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Mgmstl on May 10, 2005, 04:19:14 PM
Quote
Denise, thanks. I never know what sort of information a historian could use, so it's nice to know that some of this is useful.

The first Daguerreotypes, introduced in 1839, required exposures of 10-20 minutes. Understandably, the earliest Daguerrotypes are mostly of architecture. But within a couple of years, improvements in photo emulsions and lenses cut the exposure time down to 10-30 seconds. Still a long time to sit still and try not to blink. There's a very interesting Daguerrotype site at http://www.daguerre.org

Other types of 19th century photography included the Calotype, albumen (egg white, also used in artist's tempera colors), collodion, and Ambrotypes. In the 1880's, the dry plate process, using gelatin, was invented, and that led to George Eastman's roll film and the first Kodak camera in the early 1890's. There is, or used to be, a fine site at www.eastman.org, but it's been down for some time.

I'm not sure exactly when what particular advance was made, but sometime between the 1840's and 1900, lenses and photo emulsions improved to the point where faster shutter speeds were possible.

However, it wasn't just the technical part of photography that caused those stiff, formal poses. Photographers were also struggling for the acceptance of photography as a legitimate art. Portrait photos tended to duplicate the poses of portrait painting, and photographs portraying candid poses were frowned upon. Royals and aristocrats, already accustomed to posing for portraits, would assume similar poses for photographs. If they sometimes look a little grim, it's partly because the photograph lacks the painter's ability to idealize a face.

That proscription against non-candid poses changed, however, not only because of changes in photographic technology, but also because of changes in printing technology. The first halftone newspaper photograph appeared in the New York Tribune in 1897 (source: Time-Life's "Photojournalism," p. 15). Prior to that, artists would copy photographs, usually into relief prints.

By the 1920's, magazines and newspapers included halftone reproductions of photographs; they looked like magazines in the way we're used to seeing them today. And the people whose images they reproduced were, as they are today, unglamorous politicians and glamorous celebrities. More or less candid poses became familiar and acceptable.

I agree that photos of AA were posed, since almost everyone poses when they know they are being photographed. In some of the photos taken in the mid-20's through the 30's, I think she poses like a old movie star. That knowing look and half-smile was very popular in publicity photos of film stars in the 20's and 30's.


Does anyone remember the year that the original photo of FS was taken?  Wasn't it between 1914-1916? Is the original as faded as the one photo on this thread is? What I want to know for myself, is which photo am I looking at, one that has been retouched or enhanced or not.    I find it hard that a peasant farm family had a camera or money for photos. So I wonder about the origin of this photo.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Denise on May 10, 2005, 05:41:19 PM
Quote

I find it hard that a peasant farm family had a camera or money for photos. So I wonder about the origin of this photo.


Remember Michael, Penny mentioned that the word peasant was a misnomer.  They were a farm family, not dirt poor.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Annie on May 10, 2005, 07:41:06 PM
While we are on the subject of comparing photos, is there any way someone could make a video still shot of Karl Maucher from the Nova special and post it here? He was only shown for a few seconds, but that should be enough. He sure did resemble young AA, and I'd like to see their pics posted side by side if this is possible.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Mgmstl on May 10, 2005, 08:52:43 PM
Quote

Remember Michael, Penny mentioned that the word peasant was a misnomer.  They were a farm family, not dirt poor.


I come from a farm family, my grandmother is 91, she grew up as a farmers daughter, they didn't have they money for luxuries, or for cameras.  I should not have used the term peasant,  but I was not sure what she meant by farm family in Europe.

however I would like to see the actual original without any type of enhancement.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Robert_Hall on May 10, 2005, 09:37:21 PM
peasant: member of a European class of persons tilling the soil.  [pais-country]. Webster.s.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: etonexile on May 10, 2005, 10:13:11 PM
Almost everyone by WWI could afford a little Brownie camera...And many folk traveled from village to village...taking pics for a small price...I have a snap of my Yank great-grandfather...surrounded by his 26 children,and his 3rd wife....she looks quite young...and tired.... ::)
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Abby on May 11, 2005, 07:44:46 AM
Quote
While we are on the subject of comparing photos, is there any way someone could make a video still shot of Karl Maucher from the Nova special and post it here? He was only shown for a few seconds, but that should be enough. He sure did resemble young AA, and I'd like to see their pics posted side by side if this is possible.



:o I have the Nova show but I don't know how to make video caps...if I could I would. Annie I didn't even catch that scene the last time I watched it. I am going to have to view it again!!
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: jaa on May 11, 2005, 12:30:51 PM
Abby, select Help or press F1 while using your DVD program. Then search for "capture." If you're using Windows Media Player, on the View menu, point to DVD Features, and then click Capture Image.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: jaa on May 11, 2005, 12:41:16 PM
Quote
Does anyone remember the year that the original photo of FS was taken?  Wasn't it between 1914-1916? Is the original as faded as the one photo on this thread is? What I want to know for myself, is which photo am I looking at, one that has been retouched or enhanced or not.

Here is the more or less uncropped original image:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v471/AGRBear/FSManSumBK1.jpg )
Photos are usually cropped and the contrast adjusted for publication. It's also uncommon to see a full body shot with the feet cropped out, so the area of the face relative to the whole photo is probably smaller than appears here.

The halftone dots are clearly visible; this is not a high quality reproduction. I haven't seen a good reproduction of this photo or the enlargement of the face, which is why I have doubts when I see posts about what FS looked like.

It's very possible that the original may be a contact print. If so, it's probably clearer. The NOVA documentary appeared to show a fairly good scan, but they stopped the fade-in before it was completed.

Quote
I find it hard that a peasant farm family had a camera or money for photos. So I wonder about the origin of this photo.

I don't know when Kodak's competitors started manufacturing similar cameras, but I  think it's safe to assume that Brownies and similar cheap mass-market cameras were sold throughout Europe starting around 1900. I think it's quite possible that a European farm family could have owned one, or had friends who did.

One thing that etonexile and Annie alluded to is film speed. From etonexile's description of the photo of his/her great-grandfather, it was taken on fine grain film. Annie's complaint about the newer digital cameras requiring slower shutter speeds ("just like old-timey ones") is related to resolution.

Very generally speaking, the higher the resolution (fine grain), the slower the film speed. For example, the official photos of the IF were taken with fine grain, slow speed film. The subjects of these photos had to stay still for a bit, but the advantage of slow speed film is the amount of detail and high resolution. The candid photos taken by the family and their friends were taken with high speed film, so there is less detail. Snapshots don't require tripods or long exposures, but their convenience is offset by graininess and lower resolution.

From the graininess of the FS photo, it was probably taken with a consumer-level, relatively high speed film. So a Brownie or similar snapshot camera is a good guess.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: AGRBear on May 11, 2005, 01:57:00 PM
It you take a close look at the photo jaa has presented, you will see two white dotes in FS's hair.  This tells us that it is a copy.  Evidently, the photographer had lint on his lens or glass side or whatever was used and this gives us the two white dotes.

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v471/AGRBear/FSMangSum2.jpg)
See the white dotes???

(http://img136.exs.cx/img136/8238/fs4uw.jpg)


 
So, this is a copy of a copy etc. etc. etc. .. with the white dotes brushed ever so slightly as if to make them appear as highlights..

Also, thake notice, the head is no longer at an angle but upright in appearance.

The original photo, from what I understand, does not have the two white dotes.

AGRBear
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Inquiring_Mind on May 11, 2005, 02:12:37 PM
She seems to have a bow at her neck. And something is hanging over it...not a necklace...maybe a cloth type mask to cover her face? The kind that medical people used before disposable ones.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: AGRBear on May 11, 2005, 02:41:09 PM
As to who owned cameras who who did not in the early 1900s.

I have found that the country people [farmers] went to the  a traveling photographer who  was  taking photographs on a particular day.  I have found that entire sets of photographs of various families from the same village have the same exact chair [the man is seated] and the woman is standing.   If there are children then the pose is different.  The mother and father are seated and the children gathered around them.   The backdrop may vary and the variety depended on the photographer's sucess in his business.  If you find enough of these photos you can almost pin the year down and sometimes even the date.

The farmers [wealthy or poor] didn't waste their money on buying a camera.

If the wealthy wanted a photograph, then it was done by a professional and they could afford one.

Photogaphs among the country side residences are sparse.

However, in the big cities, photographs were often taken and cameras were not uncommonly owned.

The city and town people were always first to take on new gadgets like cameras.

For the country people and the city people there were usually three reasons a photograph was taken.  Wedding pose,  a family  pose and death.  Sometimes individual photographs were taken of each child but not often.

Another reason for having photographs taken was before the men went off to war.  They posed for photographs so their families had images of them until they returned [many did not].  And the man going off to war wanted an image of his own family or sweetheart which he carried next to his heart or in his hat.

Could the image of FS been one taken for her lover who was about to go off to war?

FS  appears to be standing alone with a background of trees.  This is unusal for a professional photo who carried backdrops and wanted good lights so he'd not need to take more than one or two ....

Wish we knew more about the photo of FS in her apron.

AGRBear
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Annie on May 11, 2005, 04:07:11 PM
Which is why my Grandmother, a country girl born in 1901 and living in West Virginia, was lucky to have won her camera in a punch card contest in 1917 :D It was not a brownie, but a flat foldout camera that took size 610 roll  of film.

Maybe one of FS's friends had her own camera. Maybe there were a group of friends in the picture and the rest were cut out because they didn't want to be involved in the AA case.  I too would like to know the story behind the pic.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Anastasia_R on May 11, 2005, 04:38:46 PM
W/ AA,if you check out the website I've posted below,you'll note that AN doesn't have a crooked nose and has thin lips.AA has thick lips,as mentioned by other posters,and has a crooked nose.I'm just adding this,the eyes somehow look different...
http://members.tripod.com/~Pharaoh30/index-14.html
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: AGRBear on May 11, 2005, 05:23:51 PM
Quote
She seems to have a bow at her neck. And something is hanging over it...not a necklace...maybe a cloth type mask to cover her face? The kind that medical people used before disposable ones.


It's hard to tell about the bow.  (http://img136.exs.cx/img136/8238/fs4uw.jpg)
There is that line that runs over the bow to our right.....

Hmmmmmm.

AGRBear
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: jaa on May 11, 2005, 06:15:16 PM
That could be the seam of a lapel. The image shown is retouched. I've seen versions of this image in which the clothing looks linear and hand-drawn, like an Ingres sketch.

I suspect the retouching was done by a professional commercial artist (a graphic artist in today's terminology). I think that because there was testimony in court that the image had been retouched at least twice. An expert could tell this because Chinese White, or zinc white, makes a brittle paint film and is prone to cracking (sources: Ralph Mayer, "Artist's Handbook of Materials and Techniques," and "The Painter's Craft"). Commercial or graphic artists are trained to meet the specifications of their clients; most work goes through a few iterations before the client is satisfied.

Among the tools a commercial artist would have used in the 1920's are the pantograph, art projector, and the camera lucida; these devices could have been used to trace AA's features onto this photo. These would have been among the valid and acceptable options for a professional commercial artist to get an image to the client on time and under budget.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Inquiring_Mind on May 11, 2005, 07:11:42 PM
I didn't realize that the picture was possibly retouched.

What I think I see is a kerchief tied into a bow and over it an old fashioned surgical mask.

I'm getting old because the first example I went to look for was Dr. Kildare from the tv program of the 60's.

Please see what I mean by the mask.

http://www.tvtome.com/tvtome/servlet/ShowMainServlet/showid-231/Dr_Kildare/
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Denise on May 11, 2005, 07:26:39 PM
It looks like a surgical mask to me, too, IM.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: AGRBear on May 11, 2005, 08:14:36 PM
inquiring mind: I don't know about the surgical mask but I can see how you might see it.  As for  Richard Chamberlain, he did tweak a few hearts back then.

jaa: A seam to a collar or lapel.  I can see how you might see it.

Heck, I see earrings like the artist drew for the newspaper.
(http://www.aeverard.com/comparison.jpg)

However, I am having a hard time seeing FS as AA.  To me, the eyes are all wrong.  FS's are narrow and what I call snow eyes, because if she smiled and curved her lip upwards to cause her face to crease  they would close into slits.  AA's eyes are rounder and more open. Her left eye is a little wider than her right.  The eyebrows are different.  AA's nose is longer in lenght and and flares up so you can see the nostrils and FS's nose is shorter and doesn't protrude from her face as much.  And the lips, well, the lips of AA's are pinched and fuller but drawn in to made them appear not as wide and show lines running down from her nose to her cheeks. FS's lips are narrower. AA's cheek bones are not as wide making her face more longated whereas FS's is wider and and the lenght of her face is shorter.  The ears of AA are higher than her nose tip and FS are at the same level.  There is a slight rise of the forehead on her right side on AA but don't see this in FS.  There is a blemish of some sort on AA's right cheek  but not FS's.  The neck of AA is slightly shorter than FS. The shoulders of AA slope down but FS stands more erect with her shoulder back.  We can't tell the color of hair but I'd say AA's was lighter than FS's.

From the angles of FS's body I'd say she was taller than AA.  The lenght of the apron tells us that a lot of the photo is absent and that FS's height is in her legs.

If you stand in front of a mirror and place your hands down at your side, your finger tips would reach just past your hips by a hands lenght.  If you take FS's arm and make it straight, her thighs would be a hands lenght past her hips and to her thighs or just above the slant of the apron where it goes down into a "V".  The point of the "V" would be only part way down her lower leg bone.  So we're not seeing her lower leg or her feet in the photo.

I bet if you take two photographs, match the nose and eyebrows on their faces and see if the height of their body is the same and you'll find AA is shorter.

Where is my photoshop.  I'm going to have to try this.....

Anyone know where I can find a photo of AA standing upright and full body and in her younger years?

AGRBear
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Annie on May 11, 2005, 08:31:03 PM
The FS pic is too faded and washed out to accurately tell the shape of the mouth. I would say if the pic were clearer, they would be a match. Also, AA's head is tilted.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Mgmstl on May 11, 2005, 09:32:25 PM
Quote
It you take a close look at the photo jaa has presented, you will see two white dotes in FS's hair.  This tells us that it is a copy.  Evidently, the photographer had lent on his lens or glass side or whatever was used and this gives us the two white dotes.

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v471/AGRBear/FSMangSum2.jpg)
See the white dotes???

(http://img136.exs.cx/img136/8238/fs4uw.jpg)


 
So, this is a copy of a copy etc. etc. etc. .. with the white dotes brushed ever so slightly as if to make them appear as highlights..

Also, thake notice, the head is no longer at an angle but upright in appearance.

The original photo, from what I understand, does not have the two white dotes.

AGRBear



Also if you take a look at the smaller photo, it is obviously been retouched or enhanced, ESPECIALLY around the mouth, and the eyes.  The white dots could be from anything Bear, even fading, IMO.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Mgmstl on May 11, 2005, 09:36:50 PM
Quote
It you take a close look at the photo jaa has presented, you will see two white dotes in FS's hair.  This tells us that it is a copy.  Evidently, the photographer had lent on his lens or glass side or whatever was used and this gives us the two white dotes.

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v471/AGRBear/FSMangSum2.jpg)
See the white dotes???

(http://img136.exs.cx/img136/8238/fs4uw.jpg)


 
So, this is a copy of a copy etc. etc. etc. .. with the white dotes brushed ever so slightly as if to make them appear as highlights..

Also, thake notice, the head is no longer at an angle but upright in appearance.

The original photo, from what I understand, does not have the two white dotes.

AGRBear



You can tell it's been retouched or enhanced from the original by a photographic artist, definitely around the right side of the upper lip on the mouth, there is a prominence and thickness there that cannot be readily distinguished in the original photo.

The neckpiece is probably that of bow made out of cotton, or kerchief material.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Abby on May 11, 2005, 09:40:37 PM
A young, full-body shot of AA exists as the whole image of this one in the MIDDLE:

(http://www.peterkurth.com/ANNA-ANASTASIA%20NOTES%20ON%20FRANZISKA%20SCHANZKOWSKA_files/image005.jpg)
but I can't find it anywhere right now :-/

here is another where we can kind of see the length of her arms: http://www.peterkurth.com/ANNA-ANASTASIA%20NOTES%20ON%20FRANZISKA%20SCHANZKOWSKA_files/image012.jpg

and this has nothing to do with that question but I think she kind of looks like FS in these pics
http://www.peterkurth.com/ANNA-ANASTASIA%20NOTES%20ON%20FRANZISKA%20SCHANZKOWSKA_files/image049.jpg
http://www.peterkurth.com/ANNA-ANASTASIA%20NOTES%20ON%20FRANZISKA%20SCHANZKOWSKA_files/image048.jpg
http://www.peterkurth.com/ANNA-ANASTASIA%20NOTES%20ON%20FRANZISKA%20SCHANZKOWSKA_files/image029.jpg
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Annie on May 12, 2005, 09:34:49 AM
Quote
A young, full-body shot of AA exists as the whole image of this one in the MIDDLE:

(http://www.peterkurth.com/ANNA-ANASTASIA%20NOTES%20ON%20FRANZISKA%20SCHANZKOWSKA_files/image005.jpg)
but I can't find it anywhere right now :-/


That one in the middle is a perfect example of how she bit her lips to make them look thinner, like AN's, and also to mock the little quirky smile AN often sported in pics.


Quote
and this has nothing to do with that question but I think she kind of looks like FS in these pics
http://www.peterkurth.com/ANNA-ANASTASIA%20NOTES%20ON%20FRANZISKA%


That one REALLY looks like FS!!


Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Val289 on May 12, 2005, 10:27:04 AM
AGRBear - If you're still looking for a picture of AA in her younger years (standing) - Abby is right about the 2nd picture she's posted.  It was taken in 1930, and  there's a full length version of it in Peter Kurth's Tsar.  In my book, it's on page 213.  If I had a scanner now, I'd scan it in and post it - maybe somebody else can?

-Val :)
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: AGRBear on May 12, 2005, 10:53:45 AM
Thanks Val.  I'll go find it and see what I can do.

AGRBear
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Denise on May 12, 2005, 10:59:33 AM
Quote
AGRBear - If you're still looking for a picture of AA in her younger years (standing) - Abby is right about the 2nd picture she's posted.  It was taken in 1930, and  there's a full length version of it in Peter Kurth's Tsar.  In my book, it's on page 213.  If I had a scanner now, I'd scan it in and post it - maybe somebody else can?

-Val :)


Wow!!  My copy of Tsar was right by the computer, so I pulled it out.  AA's squareness through the shoulders is just like the photo of FS above.  The slight head tilt to her left is the same as well....
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: AGRBear on May 12, 2005, 11:22:13 AM
Let's say for the sake of this thread that all DNA tests were proven to be contaminated and can not be used as evidence to prove AA [Anna Anderson] and FS [Franziska Schanzkowska] were the same person.  So, we'll have to go back in time and find evidence which proves AA is  FS.

What would the similarities be?

AGRBear

Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Mgmstl on May 12, 2005, 11:37:55 AM
Quote

That one in the middle is a perfect example of how she bit her lips to make them look thinner, like AN's, and also to mock the little quirky smile AN often sported in pics.



That one REALLY looks like FS!!





The one in the middle looks like a woman who needs dentures to be quite frank.   As far as looking like FS, that is subjective.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Mgmstl on May 12, 2005, 03:51:22 PM
Quote

Isn't it all?  ;D



Yes I agree to a point.  However after seeing that original faded photo and ALL of the bogus enhanced and altered photos, I cannot say that FS looks like AA.

That one faded photograph isn't enough to make an identification of an individual.  I mean this is ridiculous,
all of these people saying; "Oh it looks so much like AA!" Come on, I have studied photographs for years, and collected THOUSANDS of family photographs and those photos look nothing alike.  The ones that were enhanced and altered to look like AA of course those bear a resemblance..

Honestly I can, look at that original photo and tell you that I could not say that they even look like the same person.  The carriage of the head is different, the mouth is different.

Which is why we should use ONLY the original photo's in this case and not the altered ones.  It brings in too many invalid comparisons.  
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Lanie on May 12, 2005, 05:08:40 PM
The same sort of features.  Even though the FS photo is grainy one can tell a definite resemblance between the two.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: AGRBear on May 12, 2005, 05:54:45 PM
Tell me which photographs you think FS and AA look alike and I'll pull them into this thread.

Thanks.

AGRBear
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Lanie on May 12, 2005, 06:07:31 PM
The ones I posted from 1920 and the untouched only known pic of FS.  I see a major resemblance there no matter how grainy the one of FS is.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Helen_Azar on May 13, 2005, 09:32:39 AM
IMO, this is the picture that looks the most like FS. In fact, when I first saw it, I thought it was another picture of FS, but then read the caption that said it was AA. To me, this really looks like the same individual but perhaps some years apart...

(http://img164.echo.cx/img164/791/aa38ep.png) (http://img153.echo.cx/img153/961/fsoriginal8wx.png)

And BTW, this picture of FS is the unretouched version...

Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Annie on May 13, 2005, 09:37:21 AM
Helen, those are good comparisons. I would have to say anyone who doesn't see a striking resemblance really doesn't want to. ;)
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Mgmstl on May 13, 2005, 09:44:15 AM
Quote
Here is the more or less uncropped original image:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v471/AGRBear/FSManSumBK1.jpg )
Photos are usually cropped and the contrast adjusted for publication. It's also uncommon to see a full body shot with the feet cropped out, so the area of the face relative to the whole photo is probably smaller than appears here.

The halftone dots are clearly visible; this is not a high quality reproduction. I haven't seen a good reproduction of this photo or the enlargement of the face, which is why I have doubts when I see posts about what FS looked like.

It's very possible that the original may be a contact print. If so, it's probably clearer. The NOVA documentary appeared to show a fairly good scan, but they stopped the fade-in before it was completed.

I don't know when Kodak's competitors started manufacturing similar cameras, but I  think it's safe to assume that Brownies and similar cheap mass-market cameras were sold throughout Europe starting around 1900. I think it's quite possible that a European farm family could have owned one, or had friends who did.

One thing that etonexile and Annie alluded to is film speed. From etonexile's description of the photo of his/her great-grandfather, it was taken on fine grain film. Annie's complaint about the newer digital cameras requiring slower shutter speeds ("just like old-timey ones") is related to resolution.

Very generally speaking, the higher the resolution (fine grain), the slower the film speed. For example, the official photos of the IF were taken with fine grain, slow speed film. The subjects of these photos had to stay still for a bit, but the advantage of slow speed film is the amount of detail and high resolution. The candid photos taken by the family and their friends were taken with high speed film, so there is less detail. Snapshots don't require tripods or long exposures, but their convenience is offset by graininess and lower resolution.

From the graininess of the FS photo, it was probably taken with a consumer-level, relatively high speed film. So a Brownie or similar snapshot camera is a good guess.



Helen, THIS is the unretouched, unenhanced version of the photograph.    

Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Mgmstl on May 13, 2005, 09:46:15 AM
Quote
It you take a close look at the photo jaa has presented, you will see two white dotes in FS's hair.  This tells us that it is a copy.  Evidently, the photographer had lent on his lens or glass side or whatever was used and this gives us the two white dotes.

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v471/AGRBear/FSMangSum2.jpg)
See the white dotes???

(http://img136.exs.cx/img136/8238/fs4uw.jpg)


 
So, this is a copy of a copy etc. etc. etc. .. with the white dotes brushed ever so slightly as if to make them appear as highlights..

Also, thake notice, the head is no longer at an angle but upright in appearance.

The original photo, from what I understand, does not have the two white dotes.

AGRBear


This is the unenhanced version  vs. an enhanced version.

You can tell the 2nd photo has been restored.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Helen_Azar on May 13, 2005, 09:49:00 AM
Quote


I see the Merry go round is starting again.....


Yep, you're absolutely right. But this is exactly why you can't just discuss completely subjective evidence like photos and leave out objective evidence like DNA. If you do that, you doubtlelessly end up on a merry-go-round. To avoid this merry-go-round - "I think this and he thinks that" - you need to always consider the conclusive objective evidence like DNA, which everyone can accept regardless of personal opinions or perceptions (or almost everyone  ;)).
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Helen_Azar on May 13, 2005, 09:53:26 AM
Quote

This is the unenhanced version  vs. an enhanced version.

You can tell the 2nd photo has been restored.


Yes, it has been restored, so what? What does that have to do with the fact that AA also closely resembles the original unrestored photo and that the restored photo also looks like the unrestored photo, only clearer? Frankly, I don't see any problem with it, it's not like they changed her features to look like someone else... If anything, to me the unrestored version looks more like AA than the restored one.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Mgmstl on May 13, 2005, 09:56:20 AM
Quote

Yep, you're absolutely right. But this is exactly why you can't just discuss completely subjective evidence like photos and leave out objective evidence like DNA. If you do that, you doubtlelessly end up on a merry-go-round. To avoid this merry-go-round - "I think this and he thinks that" - you need to always consider the conclusive objective evidence like DNA, which everyone can accept regarding of personal opinions or perceptions (or almost everyone  ;)).


Who is leaving out DNA?????  As I have stated the DNA proves to me that AA is not AN, and that is all it proves.
I am still not convinced FS is AA, and there is nothing you can do to convince me that she is.  We will end up on the merry go round because some people have to push it to the edge with their comments.

Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Helen_Azar on May 13, 2005, 09:59:34 AM
Quote

Who is leaving out DNA?????  As I have stated the DNA proves to me that AA is not AN, and that is all it proves.


Yes, but I guess the part I don't understand is why would you accept the former but not the latter DNA results? Both results are at over 99% certainty, so what's the difference? Why be so selective as to which DNA results to accept and which not to?  ???
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Mgmstl on May 13, 2005, 09:59:56 AM
Quote

Yes, it has been restored, so what? What does that have to do with the fact that AA also closely resembles the original unrestored photo and that the restored photo also looks like the unrestored photo, only clearer? Frankly, I don't see any problem with it, it's not like they changed her features to look like someone else...



So what??????  When you are using an artist restored version or an obviously enhanced version then it is like using someone else's DNA for a test.  It has been altered to FAVOR the looks of one person over another.
Especially through the mouth.  That is like using a source document that has been transcribed with obvious mistakes.   It can change the whole meaning of the outcome, and as a "scientist" I would think you of all people would want things to be done in a fair & unbiased manner.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Annie on May 13, 2005, 10:03:37 AM
I think the original, unretouched photo looks the most like AA.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Mgmstl on May 13, 2005, 10:05:12 AM
Quote

Yes, but I guess the part I don't understand is why would you accept the former but not the latter DNA results? Both results are at over 99% certainty, so what's the difference? Why be so selective as to which DNA results to accept and which not to?  ???



Because I have stated to you numerous times, the subjective evidence leaves me in complete doubt as to the results of that part of the test.  We have been over this before, and my opinion has not changed.  We have even discussed this by PM, I have made the same statements.    To me the subjective evidence in total has as much weight as this DNA test.   My point to you is and always has been, WHY, are you against any discussion or investigation of the subjectve evidence, if it will stand to make the case of the DNA stronger ???
Again if it turns out after the subjective evidence is gathered, categorized, reviewed and analyzed, that she is FS, then so be it.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Helen_Azar on May 13, 2005, 10:07:27 AM
Quote


Because I have stated to you numerous times, the subjective evidence leaves me in complete doubt as to the results of that part of the test.  We have been over this before, and my opinion has not changed.  We have even discussed this by PM, I have made the same statements.    To me the subjective evidence in total has as much weight as this DNA test.   My point to you is and always has been, WHY, are you against any discussion or investigation of the subjective evidence, if it will stand to make the case of the DNA stronger ???
Again if it turns out after the subjective evidence is gathered, categorized, reviewed and analyzed, that she is FS, then so be it.

In which case, why not continue questioning the AA/AN results too since there is a lot of subjective evidence against those too? Questioning the FS results amounts to basically the same thing. You are not being consistent in your logic, and this is why I am very confused by it...  ???
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Mgmstl on May 13, 2005, 10:09:03 AM
Quote

Michael, again, the picture I am looking was not retouched. I was not even initially talking about the retouched photo, I was talking about the strong resemblence with the unretouched one. You are the one who keeps bringing in the restored photos and insisting that the unretouched photos is retouched, I don't really know why...

And BTW, you cannot compare a retouched photo to using someone else's DNA - photos and DNA are a completely different ball game.



Helen in some form that photo HAS BEEN enhanced or restored.   I have taken a copy of the original photo and tried to enlarge the face......several different ways, it can't be done.     The mouth is so faded you can't see the lips.

That mouth and face line on that photo has been altered.

Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Mgmstl on May 13, 2005, 10:12:50 AM
Quote

In which case, why not continue questioning the AA/AN results too since there is a lot of subjective evidence against those too? Questioning the FS resutls amounts to basically the same thing. You are not being consistent in your logic, and this is why I am very confused by it...  ???


I said ALL subjective evidence didn't I, not just the ones that favor the AA is not FS.  I am being consistent, for the case to be put to rest once and for all, while we have interested authors, and historians to do the work, it needs to be done.   Why do you keep up the Vera line of saying my logic isn't consistent.   My statements and my beliefs on this have stayed the same since day 1.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Annie on May 13, 2005, 10:15:43 AM
Quote

Yes, but I guess the part I don't understand is why would you accept the former but not the latter DNA results? Both results are at over 99% certainty, so what's the difference? Why be so selective as to which DNA results to accept and which not to?  ???


This is what is really stumping me, and I don't mean this to target just one person, I mean this for everyone and anyone who claims to accept the AN results but not the FS ones. Regardless of anything else, the DNA tests proved that not only was she not related to Alexandra, she was related to the Schanskowskas. How could -->ANYONE IN THE WORLD<-- say they accept one set but not the other? ??? They are both DNA tests, if one is valid why not the other one? Because of some old shoes that may not have even been hers? If such people don't believe she was FS, they HAVE to believe  the DNA was tampered with (and as outrageous as this conspiracy theory is, and the .000125% chance it was not her, or the mysterious identical long lost cousin stories are,  I respect a person a lot more for just admitting that is actually what they think instead of denying it yet giving no other logical explaination, only getting angry when asked!!!)

Again, to anyone who still says they accept the AN results but not the FS ones, please explain, in sensible terms, and not claiming to be being picked on, WHY do you believe one set and not the other??
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Helen_Azar on May 13, 2005, 10:17:21 AM
Quote
To me the subjective evidence in total has as much weight as this DNA test.  


Michael, by this statement you have just demonstrated how much you don't understand the DNA science. I don't mean this in a nasty way... I am just truly amazed and I really hope you never end up as a juror in a criminal case which involves DNA evidence...  

Quote
My point to you is and always has been, WHY, are you against any discussion or investigation of the subjectve evidence, if it will stand to make the case of the DNA stronger ???


BTW, I have nothing against discussing all this other speculatory stuff, just as long as we stay within the realm of scientific reality. I don't want my little niece who reads this forum to learn, as well as others, to be thrown off track and become confused about what all this means. I would like them to really understand what scientific evidence is all about vs other evidence. Just look at what this kind of ignorance did to the OJ Simpson case!

Even if this is just in case the people who read this ever become jurors in a case with DNA evidence, hopefully they will have learned enough to know that nothing - no other evidence- can negate DNA, it doesn't even come close.

Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Annie on May 13, 2005, 10:18:15 AM
Quote


I am still not convinced FS is AA, and there is nothing you can do to convince me that she is.  


Then what's the use ???
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Mgmstl on May 13, 2005, 10:36:30 AM
Quote

Michael, by this statement you have just demonstrated how much you don't understand the DNA science. I don't mean this in a nasty way... I am just truly amazed and I really hope you never end up as a juror in a criminal case which involves DNA evidence...  


BTW, I have nothing against discussing all this other speculatory stuff, just as long as we stay within the realm of scientific reality. I don't want my little niece who reads this forum to learn, as well as others, to be thrown off track and become confused about what all this means. I would like them to really understand what scientific evidence is all about vs other evidence. Just look at what this kind of ignorance did to the OJ Simpson case!

Even if this is just in case the people who read this ever become jurors in a case with DNA evidence, hopefully they will have learned enough to know that nothing - no other evidence- can negate DNA, it doesn't even come close.



Helen the DNA test to me does not wash away the subjective issues.  As I have stated numerous times after the evidence is gathered, categorized, analyzed, reviewed, etc., and it turns out that she is FS, then I accept that.    I have always said that, why is it that it seems that you and the thing are always trying to force me to state something that I do not think, and make me out to be some how a bit "less" than you, for not thinking your way?  
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: AGRBear on May 13, 2005, 10:46:48 AM
This thread is about photographiic comparisons.

Where does it ask for DNA?

I have yet seen an unaltered version of FS photograph.

All the books and websites show copies of copies of copies of copies.....

Michael is correct.  We can not tell from the "blow-ups" of the ones we have of FS because all the features off the copies we know about fade.

Please, reread jaa's various posts, because I don't think some of you have.  You're far too busy worrying about DNA.  

My view about the photographs copies that we do have  is different than Helen and Annie's view.

Because of my hobby, a genealogist, I have handled hundreds of old photographs of family members, unfortunately too many not identified,  like Michael, I know that photographs can be tricky.  I know that one photographs can make a person look completely different than another photo.

There are a number of photos of AA which seem to be different people and not the same person.

I think it's part of this thead to post our opinions about the various photographs [the TOPIC]  and I really wish that is what ALL of us continue to do.


AGRBear
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Helen_Azar on May 13, 2005, 10:47:18 AM
Quote
why is it that it seems that you and the thing are always trying to force me to state something that I do not think, and make me out to be some how a bit "less" than you, for not thinking your way?  


Michael, that is not at all what I am doing and you know it. Your logic makes no sense to me* and I am just trying to understand it, that's all. But it looks like I probably never will.

* BTW, this has nothing to do with what "Vera" said about you or what anyone else did for that matter, as you seem to think, as I am perfectly capable of seeing this about you myself and forming my own opinion.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Helen_Azar on May 13, 2005, 10:51:28 AM
Quote
There are a number of photos of AA which seem to be different people and not the same person.


In which case what's the point of doing the photographic comparison with FS on this thread?  ??? We're obviously not going to get anywhere.   :)
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: AGRBear on May 13, 2005, 10:52:42 AM
Helen, just accept the fact that some of us don't agree with you at this point in time, PLEASE.

I do not see any comparison with your last photo of AA with the ONE copy of copies we have of FS.  Please, see my earlier post.  The two main features are the eyes and the lips.

AGRBear
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: AGRBear on May 13, 2005, 10:58:08 AM
Quote

In which case what's the point of doing the photographic comparison with FS on this thread?  ??? We're obviously not going to get anywhere.   :)


This is not a thread you created, therefore, please be nice enough to allow those who are interested to continue. Why?  Because we might discover something you may not know.  Then, again, we might not. Who knows.  Please allow us this space for our adventure looking for evidence.   Thank you for your future cooperation,

AGRBear
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Mgmstl on May 13, 2005, 11:01:56 AM
Quote

Michael, that is not at all what I am doing and you know it. Your logic makes no sense to me* and I am just trying to understand it, that's all. But it looks like I probably never will.

* BTW, this has nothing to do with what "Vera" said about you or what anyone else did for that matter, as you seem to think, as I am perfectly capable of seeing this about you myself and forming my own opinion.


I will try and explain it once more.  As big as this case was, and as sensational as it was for it's time, don't you think that these questions, this subjective evidence remaining, deserves to be answered & analyzed, once and for all.   If it was just the photograph, or just the Wingender's or just the Schanzkowska's I would probably be agreeing with you, without any hesitation, but the reason behind my hesitatation is that there is so much other subjective evidence, that really needs to be looked at.   While we have someone looking at the evidence, it may take 5 years or so.  Don't you think it is worth it to answer these small questions that bother people.  

Take my mothers illness for example.  On Wed. we saw a new neurologist, for a year or more we have been seeing a neurologist who was not giving us any answers.  An intelligent man, but within 45 mins., this new Dr. gave us what she had, and the possible progression of the disease.  I wanted an answer as did my Mother, regardless of what it was.  Now we can rest easier knowing the truth.  When someone tells me "Just take her home and keep her happy, don't talk about degeneration."   I want to know what I am in for, as does she.  However the news we got, while not good, was not the worst.  I accept that.  Perhaps what I am saying in a nutshell is, regardless of the outcome of the research, I want answers to these subjective issues. Once they are answered the subject can be put to rest.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Helen_Azar on May 13, 2005, 11:17:21 AM
Quote

I will try and explain it once more.  As big as this case was, and as sensational as it was for it's time, don't you think that these questions, this subjective evidence remaining, deserves to be answered & analyzed, once and for all.   If it was just the photograph, or just the Wingender's or just the Schanzkowska's I would probably be agreeing with you, without any hesitation, but the reason behind my hesitatation is that there is so much other subjective evidence, that really needs to be looked at.   While we have someone looking at the evidence, it may take 5 years or so.  Don't you think it is worth it to answer these small questions that bother people.  

Take my mothers illness for example.  On Wed. we saw a new neurologist, for a year or more we have been seeing a neurologist who was not giving us any answers.  An intelligent man, but within 45 mins., this new Dr. gave us what she had, and the possible progression of the disease.  I wanted an answer as did my Mother, regardless of what it was.  Now we can rest easier knowing the truth.  When someone tells me "Just take her home and keep her happy, don't talk about degeneration."   I want to know what I am in for, as does she.  However the news we got, while not good, was not the worst.  I accept that.  Perhaps what I am saying in a nutshell is, regardless of the outcome of the research, I want answers to these subjective issues. Once they are answered the subject can be put to rest.


Michael, I fully understand why you want the answers to these questions, of course it's very interesting to know. I am not disputing this, and you have every right to want to know the answers. The problem that I have with all this is that people seem to think that all this speculative evidence can be compared to the DNA evidence - it can't be, not even close. The question as to AA's identity has been answered by DNA. To say otherwise is to distort the science of DNA and to mislead people.

The only question that remains to be answered now is:  what is the explanation for the contradictory evidence about FS and AA (and there has to be one), and how was FS able to pull this off - this is what we should be discussing, not whether AA was FS or not. We already have the answer to that based on the DNA test results, there is no question about it any longer.

Medical science, as the case is with your mother's illness, is not the same as DNA science at all. In medical science there is a lot of guess work involved, and a lot of subjective conjecture, while with DNA there is none. With DNA there is an objective and definitive answer. It's all clear and conclusive. People tend to confuse the two sciences for some reason because someone else used this argument once before, but medical science and molecular science are totally different, it's like comparing history and horticulture.

But this is why DNA results are so powerful, they are not up for subjective interpretation or opinions as other science may be, they are what they are and they give you an answer that's no longer up for discussion.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Helen_Azar on May 13, 2005, 11:20:27 AM
In the meantime, I'll post mine.

(http://img164.echo.cx/img164/791/aa38ep.png) (http://img153.echo.cx/img153/961/fsoriginal8wx.png)
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: AGRBear on May 13, 2005, 11:42:28 AM
Looking at photographs is subjective.
I see lips that are different, Helen does not.
I see eyes that are too rounded, Helen does not.

This part of the debate is on topic.  

DNA is NOT ON TOPIC.

For those of you who care about the topic let me give you and example.

Take a pencile of a pen and draw:  "O".

One needs to swirl  a circle which has a free and open middle.

Take your tool and draw: "()"

You can see how the open middle has narrowed.

Take your tool and draw: "l".

The line is narrow.

Make the "l" bold  l and it is wider.

Try drawing the eyes of Helen's photo and then draw the eyes of FS's photo.

There is a huge difference in the shape, the lenght and the width.

AGRBear
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: AGRBear on May 13, 2005, 11:48:29 AM
List of Similarities:
I.  Photographs
FS-  There is one known photograph of FS standing under trees but we do not know what the original looks like, however, it seems we have copies of copies.
AA - There are many photographs of AA who was trying to prove she was GD Anastasia.
Conclusion:  Some think FS and AA look similar.  Some think FS and AA do not.  See photos so you may make your own conclusion.

AGRBear
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Forum Admin on May 13, 2005, 12:06:48 PM
Michael G. on this one you need to relax. I've reviewed the thread and Annie has not made any "catty personal comments". IF you are taking them personally, I think you need to chill.
BACK to topic or this one locked too.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: rskkiya on May 13, 2005, 12:27:49 PM
Quote

Sorry Bear, there is just no other way to respond to these catty remarks.   I am just going to chill out for a while.  

 
OOOOOKKKKKAAAAAYYYY
See yah' Michael...

   Anyway, as a NON photo expert, I think that part of this problem is found in general subjectivity - in the fact that some photos (even if they are of the same person) may not look alike, while others - of admittedly different individuals - may appear very similar at first glance!
   One photo of AA may look a great deal like FS while later ones do not... At this point emperical evidence with computers comparing the exact relevant coorelation of eyes to nose to mouth might help, although even this point is limited due to the image...IE: a profile may not compare well with a three quarters shot.

rskkiya

Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: AGRBear on May 13, 2005, 12:44:54 PM
As Helen knows, the post I brought here is  from another thread.  Did I say otherwise???  All a person has to do is click on your name above the post to know this because it takes you over to that particular thread.

And, it [the post]  is on TOPIC.

Since the comparison of photographs is subjective and since I have posted two photographs with my opinion, and, I asked Helen and anyone else who cares about my subjective point of view, to draw the eyes seen in those photographs.  The subjective becomes more, it starts to show fact on these two particular photographs.  Just these two photographs.  Let's not get bog down with other photographs.

If I have time today, I will click on my photoshop and give you a clearer impression as seen from an artist view.

AGRBear
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: AGRBear on May 13, 2005, 01:43:29 PM
I do see a difference when using these two photographs.

On the photo of AA I pulled over the eye and mouth of FS and made FS eye and lips  larger because  AA's photo is larger but I did not change AA's mouth or lips.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v471/AGRBear/FSAAComp4.jpg)
On the photo of FS I pulled over the eye and mouth of AA and made them slightly smaller to match the smaller photo of FS. I did not change the size of the lips and eye of FS.

Pleae notice that the head of AA is tilted down a little so the eye would be rounder then shown here had her head not been tilted.

Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Mgmstl on May 13, 2005, 03:03:00 PM

This is what I meant by the way she carries herself in different photographs.  The difference of the carriage of the head, also the mouth.  The mouth looks completely different to me.

I have baby photos of all of my grandparents, and I can look at them and tell that it is them and take a progression of photos & the person remains almost the same.  In these two photos the shape of the mouth and the lips look totally different.   Also the eyes.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Lanie on May 13, 2005, 03:05:13 PM
Quote
I have baby photos of all of my grandparents, and I can look at them and tell that it is them and take a progression of photos & the person remains almost the same.  In these two photos the shape of the mouth and the lips look totally different.   Also the eyes.


To you it looks different probably because of the angle of the first photograph with her head tilted down.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Abby on May 13, 2005, 03:14:37 PM
In the pic of AA posted above (her "mug shot" pic) she is kind of smiling a little, and so her mouth does not look as wide as FS'. It is quite easy to change the shape of our mouths and our eyes by our expressions!
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: AGRBear on May 13, 2005, 04:59:40 PM
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v471/AGRBear/FSAAComp6.jpg)

I think these two photos are about as similar as I'm going to be able to show.

In my opinion, the lips, eyes and nose are different.  AA's eyes are wider and more rounded.  FS's eyes are narrower, more almond shape.  The mouths are different.  AA's lips are fuller.  FS's not as full and not as wide.  AA's nose is longer than FS's nose.

Best I can do with the poor grade of quality of FS's photo.

With a clearer photo and more time,  I could show more similarities or less similarities whichever the photos provide.

Like I always say, it doesn't matter to me if FS is AA but if AA isn't FS then I'd sure like to know who she was.

I'm going to look for the photo, now, and deal with the height.

AGRBear

PS:  See noses.  I think FS and Felix have a similar nose:
http://hydrogen.pallasweb.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=anastasia;action=display;num=1115400048;start=0#0
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: AGRBear on May 13, 2005, 05:09:42 PM
This, to me, shows there is a resemblance between AA and FS.  

Quote
...[in part]...
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v471/AGRBear/FSAAComp6.jpg)

I think these two photos are about as similar as I'm going to be able to show.


...AGRBear.


Felix, FS's brother saw the similarities and stated this in his statement which he signed.  

AGRBear
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Denise on May 13, 2005, 06:22:00 PM
Bear, this is so subjective.  I personally see the mouths as identical, you don't.  Where is this leading?  
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Mgmstl on May 13, 2005, 06:47:59 PM
Quote
Bear, this is so subjective.  I personally see the mouths as identical, you don't.  Where is this leading?  



Denise,

I don't see the mouths or eyes or the face as identical, explain to me how the mouth, is identical between the 2 photos?
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Denise on May 13, 2005, 07:32:11 PM
I see both AA and FS as having the same ill defined "doughy" type of mouths.  Not in those two pictures, necessarily, but in all the pictures I have seen of AA I have seen the same shaped mouth.  

The eyes are a different story.  AA seems to have rounder eyes.  But truly, the picture of FS may have been taken with her facing the sun, so she as squinting.  We just don't know.  

And photo resemblance is highly subjective.  There are pictures of me that bear no resemblance to my usual appearance because they were taken from a funny angle.

I do think AA looks more like FS than she ever did AN.  As much as I believed her story (pre-DNA) I couldn't see the photo resemblance that strongly.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: AGRBear on May 13, 2005, 07:53:10 PM
I am trying to discover how  you see them differently or similar.  

I thought that if you could see what I think is different than you may explain to me what you, the poster,  see is different or similar.  This isn't a contest or drawing a line in the sand where I am on one side and those who believe AA is FS are on the other side.    This is a thread on comparisons of photographs.

Unfortunately, all we have is a poor enlargement of a copy of a copy of FS.

AGRBear
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Annie on May 14, 2005, 12:25:19 PM
Though I still see a resemblance, this was not the best pic to use (people will choose their pic based on which side they are on and what they set out to prove) But really, how can you judge when they are taken from 2 differnent angles, in 2 different types of lighting? If FS's lips look smaller, it's because the picture is much lighter and washed out. We cannot see the details of the shape of her mouth clearly. If her eyes are squintier, it's because she was outside, and perhaps the sun was shining in them. The AA pic is posed indoors. The nose isn't comparable either. The position of the noses in the way the faces are aimed at different angles and in 2 kinds of lighting causes shadows to form in different places (like the nostrils)
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: AGRBear on May 14, 2005, 12:37:11 PM
Quote
Though I still see a resemblance, this was not the best pic to use (people will choose their pic based on which side they are on and what they set out to prove) But really, how can you judge when they are taken from 2 differnent angles, in 2 different types of lighting? If FS's lips look smaller, it's because the picture is much lighter and washed out. We cannot see the details of the shape of her mouth clearly. If her eyes are squintier, it's because she was outside, and perhaps the sun was shining in them. The AA pic is posed indoors. The nose isn't comparable either. The position of the noses in the way the faces are aimed at different angles and in 2 kinds of lighting causes shadows to form in different places (like the nostrils)


Annie: >> But really, how can you judge when they are taken from 2 differnent angles, in 2 different types of lighting? If FS's lips look smaller, it's because the picture is much lighter and washed out.<<
Bear Ans:  The lips do look smaller, I agree.

Unfortunately we have only one photo of FS and this is a copy of a copy ...  However, this is the copy with which we compare all the photographs taken of AA.  

Annie, which one photograph of AA would you like me, or anyone else,  to use as an example when comparing her to FS's photo?

AGRBear
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Annie on May 14, 2005, 12:46:03 PM
To me, this one is most like FS:

(http://img153.exs.cx/img153/3800/aa31id.png)

But if you cut it up, it's not going to work, because the head is tilted back instead of straight, and the mouth is open instead of closed. I wonder if she purposely never posed exactly the same way as the FS pic once she was active in her claim, for that reason, just as she attempted to make her mouth look like Anastasia.

If you were to compare my 4 high school photos, they would not look like the same girl (I will have to scan and post them sometime to show you) Just as there are 'good' and 'bad' pics of us all, postion and lighting and distance have a great deal to do with how they all look. But in general, the resemblance of FS to AA is much greater than AA to AN, and since there are NO OTHER POSSIBLE SUSPECTS as to whom else she may have been, and this woman looks so much like her, it only stands to reason it must be her!
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: AGRBear on May 14, 2005, 12:51:13 PM
The photo you are showing, Annie, is this with her false teeth or is this taken before she had her teeth pulled?

And, I'll see what I can do with the one you've chosen.

We're headed out for a sail so I'm not sure I'll have time today so will get this done hopefully in the next few days.

AGRBear
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Annie on May 14, 2005, 12:58:07 PM
Bon Voyage! Have a safe trip! :)
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Mgmstl on May 14, 2005, 01:14:46 PM
Since the photo in the right is the ONLY KNOWN photo of FS, and it is not clear, and it looks a bit faded in detail, how can everyone be jumping the conclusion that FS & AA resemble each other??  I can tell little or nothing from the comparison of these two photos other than the eyes and the mouth don't look at all alike.  Before we all are forced on to the merry go round again as usual,  instead of insulting Bear's efforts, let's just look at what Bear did, she took her own time to isolate certain sections of the photograps to show a dissimilarity in the two women.

An admirable effort Bear, and I for one applaud you for it.  

The photographic comparison is really a difficult one to do as there is just the one photograph of FS... none previous to this, and to do a comparison that is at least proveable either way, we need more than one faded photograph which certain indviduals keep claiming they see the likeness.  I am sorry there is little or no likeness to be seen here, and without other photos to help us, then it is not a fair comparison.  We can tell so little from the actual photograph including whether it was taken inside or out.  The eyes don't look as though they are squinting.

MANY photograph booths, stores, travelling photographers supplied their own backgrounds. As I have stated many times the reason a photograph faded as in this one is the fact that in the rinse, fresh water is not used by the photographer.  Sometimes they would use the same water for a days worth of photos instead of getting fresh water, this would allow the acid from the other photos developed to lodge into the dots, causing fading.
  
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Annie on May 14, 2005, 02:23:58 PM
No one insulted bear's effort. I did say IMO that wasn't the best pic to use, that because of angle and pose there are others that look a lot more like FS's, and that people will choose one that suits their position best, as I did! We all do! So what! Bear is a good sport, loves to discuss, but never gets mean or takes anything too seriously. She's just having fun. Like she is right now on that boat!

FS pic- EYES=squinted outdoors, just like the one I just posted, MOUTH=no definitive line due to lighting
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: jaa on May 15, 2005, 10:35:02 AM
Quote
Since the photo in the right is the ONLY KNOWN photo of FS, and it is not clear, and it looks a bit faded in detail, how can everyone be jumping the conclusion that FS & AA resemble each other??

Felix said that AA looked like his sister from the front, and there's Gertrude's reaction at the 1938 meeting, so I think it's entirely reasonable to assume a resemblance. However, I agree that it's unlikely that anyone can know what FS looked like based on the published image.

I suspect some posters have conflated various images of AA and the retouched photo. In fact, some posters did not know that the photo was retouched. Others argue that the retouched photo is simply "clearer."

There is a process of facial recognition from 2D images. For example, it was initially difficult for me to distinguish the individual Grand Duchesses in their candid photos (with the exception of Anastasia because she was the shortest). But after seeing multiple photos, it's usually easy to identify them, even in photos where their heads were shaved. My experience is probably similar to some who are reading this post.

Here's a bit on facial recognition from Wikipedia. This is not in regard to recognizing faces from still photos, but it's interesting and most of it is applicable:

"One of the most widely accepted theories of face perception argues that understanding faces involves several stages; from basic perceptual manipulations on the sensory information to derive details about the person (such as age, gender or attractiveness), to being able to recall meaningful details such as their name and any relevant past experiences of the individual.

"This model (developed by psychologists Vicki Bruce and Andrew Young) argues that face perception might involve several independent sub-process working in unison.

"   1. A 'view centred description' is derived from the perceptual input. Simple physical aspects of the face are used to work out age, gender or simple facial expressions. Most analysis at this stage is on feature-by-feature basis.
"   2. This initial information is used to create a structural model of the face, which allows it to be compared to other faces in memory, and across views. This explains why that the same person seen from a novel angle can still be recognised. This structural encoding can be seen to be specific for upright faces as demonstrated by the Thatcher effect.
"   3. The structurally encoded representation is transferred to notional 'face recognition units' which in conjunction with 'person identity nodes' allow the person to be identified by information from semantic memory. Interestingly, the ability to produce someone's name when presented with their face has been shown to be selectively damaged in some cases of brain injury, suggesting that naming may be a separate process from being able to produce other information about a person."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Face_perception
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: jaa on May 15, 2005, 10:39:13 AM
Quote
Yes, it has been restored, so what? What does that have to do with the fact that AA also closely resembles the original unrestored photo and that the restored photo also looks like the unrestored photo, only clearer? Frankly, I don't see any problem with it, it's not like they changed her features to look like someone else... If anything, to me the unrestored version looks more like AA than the restored one.

Sorry to be replying to old posts; just haven't had time until today.

This is not a restored photo, which means that a photo is restored to its original condition.

Penny has seen the retouched photo, and described the paint on its surface as thick, heavy, and "gloopy." That is not restoration.

Penny also described it as looking, to her, "unprofessional." I have seen old paste-ups for ads, and they do look surprisingly messy; professional commercial artists knew that the final image would be the ad on the printed page, not the paste-up. There's also expert testimony that the image was retouched at least twice, which makes me think this retouching was done by a commercial artist, since their work usually goes through several iterations before the client is satisfied.

Among the tools used by commercial artists in the 1920's would have been the art projector, pantograph, camera lucida, light tables, and various types of transfer papers and films. These tools were used for "tracing" photographic images (this is how old movie posters, packaging, and ads were created). It's very possible that the features were altered to more closely resemble AA.

One easy way to see the extent of the alteration is to look for the areas of lightest value on the face. In the retouched photo, the lightest areas are on the forehead, particularly above FS's left brow. In one reproduction of the unretouched enlargement, with the contrast pushed way up for printing, the lightest areas are on the chin and around the bottom part of the face.

Another obvious visual clue as to the extent of the retouching can be seen in the specular highlights on the eyes, particularly FS's left eye. The highlight is extreme and slightly misplaced; it almost functions to shift the subject's line of sight. In the original image, FS is clearly looking at the photographer or the camera, quite common in candid photos. If you focus on FS's left eye in the retouched version, the direction of the gaze can appear to be up and to the left.

The retouched photo isn't clearer; so many changes have been made that it's arguably a different image.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: jaa on May 15, 2005, 11:03:21 AM
Quote
   Anyway, as a NON photo expert, I think that part of this problem is found in general subjectivity - in the fact that some photos (even if they are of the same person) may not look alike, while others - of admittedly different individuals - may appear very similar at first glance!
    One photo of AA may look a great deal like FS while later ones do not... At this point emperical evidence with computers comparing the exact relevant coorelation of eyes to nose to mouth might help, although even this point is limited due to the image...IE: a profile may not compare well with a three quarters shot.

rskkiya

There are two types of photographic comparison used by forensic anthropologists.

One is anthroposcopy, or an analysis of features. The link below is to an interesting and readable article about verifying an early daguerreotype of Lincoln (thanks to chintz22 for this link). Although the author is a plastic surgeon, I assume the process with be similar to anthroposcopy, since a plastic surgeon and a forensic anthropologist would be working from the same knowledge of craniofacial structures. There's also a very interesting part about how the French police use overlays in making such comparisons:

http://www.lincolnportrait.com/authenti.htm

I believe a feature-by-feature comparison was used by both Dr. Otto Reche and Dr. Moritz Furtmayr, two respected experts, who identified AA as AN. It was Reche who testified that if she was not Anastasia, she was her identical twin. As an aside, I don't understand the argument that AA looked nothing like AN; doubles and imposters usually resemble the people they are impersonating.

The other method is anthropometrics, or measuring landmarks on the face. These would include the overall width and height of head, and the distances between the pupils, the inside and outside corners of the eyes, tip of the nose, the distance between the nostrils, the midpoint of the mouth, etc. This simplified illustration shows some of the dimensions:
(http://www.bahid.org/images/topics/FaceAnalysis.jpg)

The problem with anthropometry is the accuracy of measuring devices and techniques. That's where computer-based technology comes in. We can make more accurate measurements on a computer, depending on which algorithms (basically math formulas in computer programs) are used for locating those landmarks.

I'd be interested in seeing the results of face recognition systems used to compare photos of AA and the one photo of FS. Or any other FS photos that Greg and Penny find in their research. I'd also be interested in a similar comparison between AA and AN.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: jaa on May 15, 2005, 11:08:34 AM
Quote
and the .000125% chance it was not her

This is incorrect. If you're going to use numbers, you should make sure the numbers are not the products of simple math errors.

The chances of a random match were derived from DaveK's posts (his math is correct, BTW, and these errors are not his). Based upon a database of 8902 samples, he hypothesized that the probability of a random match was 1 in 8902.

That 8902 was later incorrectly rounded to 8000 instead of 9000, the nearest thousand. Then the fraction was incorrectly converted to a percentage of .000125%. To convert a fraction to a percentage, divide the numerator by the denominator and multiply the result by 100.

1/8902 * 100 = 0.01123343%

Rounded to the nearest two decimal places, that's .01%.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: AGRBear on May 15, 2005, 12:47:26 PM
Here is a very very  generalized [since I'm not doing this for  court] matching of FS and AA's general appearence from two photographs.

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v471/AGRBear/AAFSHeight.jpg)

I tried to match them in size and in height [not thinking about the differences of 4 inches for this project].

AGRBear
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: AGRBear on May 15, 2005, 12:59:10 PM
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v471/AGRBear/AAFSHeight.jpg)

I'll let you, the poster, tell me if you see any similaries in this very general matching of two photographs between AA and FS.

AGRBear
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: jaa on May 16, 2005, 10:50:56 AM
Since you went through the trouble to do this, AGRBear, here are some dimensions. Just for fun.

I took your extension lines for the heads in both photos, and ran them through a simple raster-to-vector converter after using two thinning algorithms (Stentiford, and Zhang Suen).

The lines were then loaded into AutoCAD , scaled so that the vertical distance between the green line at the shoulders and the line at the top of the head was a unit of 1.000.

AA:
1 - top of head
.5301 - pupils
.3855 - nostrils
.3012 - mouth
.1446 - chin
0 - shoulders

FS:
1 - top of head
.5529 - pupils
.3647 - nostrils
.2823 - mouth
.1294 - chin
0 - shoulders
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Annie on May 16, 2005, 11:05:06 AM
Quote
This is incorrect. If you're going to use numbers, you should make sure the numbers are not the products of simple math errors.

The chances of a random match were derived from DaveK's posts (his math is correct, BTW, and these errors are not his). Based upon a database of 8902 samples, he hypothesized that the probability of a random match was 1 in 8902.

That 8902 was later incorrectly rounded to 8000 instead of 9000, the nearest thousand. Then the fraction was incorrectly converted to a percentage of .000125%. To convert a fraction to a percentage, divide the numerator by the denominator and multiply the result by 100.

1/8902 * 100 = 0.01123343%

Rounded to the nearest two decimal places, that's .01%.


I did get mine from scientific numbers in someone's post, it may not be exactly right, but I do believe it's less than .01%
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Annie on May 16, 2005, 11:20:39 AM
Since Bear didn't have time to do this one, I will post a side by side comparison of the pic I think looks most like FS, and FS.

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v152/WuvDaNick/AAFS2.jpg)

I do not have time to split up the features right now as I 'd have to pull each pic up into photoshop 3 times each to edit it with my photoshop program. If no one else does it I will attempt later.

While this may not be a perfect match due to head positions, it's the closest I've seen.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Inquiring_Mind on May 16, 2005, 11:33:29 AM


Thanks for taking the time to do this.

Can you please explain what it might mean?
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: CuriousOne on May 16, 2005, 12:21:19 PM
jaa is showing the differences of the distances of the various body parts from shoulder to chin to mouth to nose to eyes to top of the head of the photographic comparisons in Bear's post.

AA:                              FS:
1 - top of head----------1 - top of head
.5301 - pupils  ---------- .5529 - pupils
.3855 - nostrils---------- .3647 - nostrils
.3012 - mouth ---------- .2823 - mouth
.1446 - chin    ----------  .1294 - chin
0 - shoulders   ---------- 0 - shoulders


Started with the green line, the shoulders,  0-shoulders....

I assume the top of head numbers were not given because one has a hat on and the other does not, then, there is always the factor how a hair is brushed.
 
C1
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Annie on May 16, 2005, 01:48:00 PM
Okay, here are the features. Please keep in mind that AA's head was tilted back, and FS's face was straight. This means in the AA picture, you will see more of the nostrils and eyebrows. Also, AA's mouth was open, FS's closed.

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v152/WuvDaNick/AAFS2.jpg)

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v152/WuvDaNick/fsnose.jpg)(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v152/WuvDaNick/aanose.jpg)

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v152/WuvDaNick/fseye.jpg)(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v152/WuvDaNick/aaeyes2.jpg)


(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v152/WuvDaNick/fsmouth.jpg)(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v152/WuvDaNick/aamouth.jpg)
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: AGRBear on May 16, 2005, 07:06:59 PM
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v471/AGRBear/AAFSAnnieFc2.jpg)

I've drawn some lines on the same exact photographs Annie has used.

AGRBear
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: jaa on May 16, 2005, 08:07:41 PM
Well done. Let me know if you want those dimensioned. I've been using baseline or ordinate dimensions (from a 0 point) but I can do aligned dimensions (distance from chin-to-mouth, mouth-to-nostrils, nostrils-to-pupil) as well.

Does anyone know the average or median height of a European woman's face? (I can scale the witness lines to that, and give you a metric/inch conversions as well.) All I have here is some ANSI/ISO data but they're more concerned with ergonomics.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: jaa on May 16, 2005, 08:15:32 PM
Quote
Started with the green line, the shoulders,  0-shoulders....

I assume the top of head numbers were not given because one has a hat on and the other does not, then, there is always the factor how a hair is brushed.
 
C1

Sorry, I should have noted that better. The shoulder line is at 0.0000, the top of the head is at 1.0000.

You can load these numbers into a spreadsheet like Excel and obtain the dimensions between features. Or, you can use whatever the average female head height is as a scale factor.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: lexi4 on May 16, 2005, 08:19:56 PM
This is very interesting. jaa, would you mind interpreting your numbers for people like me, who are trying to grasp all of this?
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: jaa on May 16, 2005, 08:20:21 PM
Quote
I did get mine from scientific numbers in someone's post, it may not be exactly right, but I do believe it's less than .01%

1/8902 < .01% is False
1/8000 = .000125% is False

There's nothing complicated here. It's the basic math that children learn in school. The .000125% is from posts containing basic math errors, including rounding and converting fractions to percentages.
http://www.mathwizz.com/fractions/help/help8.htm

http://www.mathwizz.com/decimals/help/help1.htm
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: jaa on May 16, 2005, 08:33:23 PM
Quote
This is very interesting. jaa, would you mind interpreting your numbers for people like me, who are trying to grasp all of this?

I'll try. I speak techese all day, so if I'm not clear, just tell me I'm not making sense and I'll try again.

I used a unit of 1.0000 for the height of both faces, with 0.0000 at the shoulder and 1.0000 at the top of the head.

In AA's photo,
the distance from the shoulder to the chin is .1446,
the distance from the shoulder to the mouth is .3012,
the distance from the shoulder to the nostrils is .3855, and
the distance from the shoulder to the pupils is .5301.

All distances are vertical.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Inquiring_Mind on May 16, 2005, 09:14:22 PM
I tried to post this and it disapeared.

Does the measurements make FS/AN one and the same?
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Annie on May 17, 2005, 09:21:41 AM
Quote
Okay, here are the features. Please keep in mind that AA's head was tilted back, and FS's face was straight. This means in the AA picture, you will see more of the nostrils and eyebrows. Also, AA's mouth was open, FS's closed.

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v152/WuvDaNick/AAFS2.jpg)

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v152/WuvDaNick/fsnose.jpg)(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v152/WuvDaNick/aanose.jpg)

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v152/WuvDaNick/fseye.jpg)(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v152/WuvDaNick/aaeyes2.jpg)


(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v152/WuvDaNick/fsmouth.jpg)(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v152/WuvDaNick/aamouth.jpg)


NO comments at all on this ???

Bear, these are not good pics to match up side by side with lines since the AA pic is larger, and AA's head is tilted back at an angle. Of course they aren't going to match up. It wouldn't with any person in the world when comparing one straight ahead pic and one with the head bent back and face tilting upward.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: jaa on May 17, 2005, 11:14:39 AM
Quote
Bear, these are not good pics to match up side by side with lines since the AA pic is larger

Jumping in here (pardon me Bear), I can scale the extension lines so that they have exactly the same overall height. That's very easy and extremely accurate in AutoCAD (at least 14 significant digits of precision). It's not the photograph I'm dimensioning, just the vectorized extension lines.

Even if the lines don't match up, the numbers could come close.

Quote
and AA's head is tilted back at an angle. Of course they aren't going to match up. It wouldn't with any person in the world when comparing one straight ahead pic and one with the head bent back and face tilting upward.

There will be a problem from perspective foreshortening, but it's hard to tell by how much until the lines are vectorized, brought into AutoCAD, then scaled and dimensioned. Probably by this afternoon or evening.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: jaa on May 17, 2005, 11:17:37 AM
Quote
Does the measurements make FS/AN one and the same?

No, the proportions are different. But this is just for fun. The FS photo, at least as reproduced in books, contains so little detail that it's not useful for anything.

What AGRBear is attempting is part of what was done in evaluating the Lincoln daguerreotypes.
http://www.lincolnportrait.com/authenti.htm

However, in that case, they had good images to start with.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Mgmstl on May 17, 2005, 11:29:49 AM
Quote
Jumping in here (pardon me Bear), I can scale the extension lines so that they have exactly the same overall height. That's very easy and extremely accurate in AutoCAD (at least 14 significant digits of precision). It's not the photograph I'm dimensioning, just the vectorized extension lines.

Even if the lines don't match up, the numbers could come close.

There will be a problem from perspective foreshortening, but it's hard to tell by how much until the lines are vectorized, brought into AutoCAD, then scaled and dimensioned. Probably by this afternoon or evening.


I remember reading something regarding the study of AA and AN's head in photographs during forensic examinations during the trial.  I am not sure how this science stands today, but what I am remembering is that the cardinal points on the head need to align up.
I believe they used photographs for this.  I am not sure if this is even relevant to anything in today's scientific realm, but worth thinking about.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: jaa on May 17, 2005, 12:42:35 PM
Quote
I remember reading something regarding the study of AA and AN's head in photographs during forensic examinations during the trial.  I am not sure how this science stands today, but what I am remembering is that the cardinal points on the head need to align up.


The procedure used in the Lincoln photographs was to use the pupils of the eyes as registration points for enlarging and reducing (scaling). Then horizontal lines were drawn across the outstanding features. Although cumbersome, the reverse would have worked the same, drawing lines on transparencies, and then enlarging or reducing those to the same interpupillary distance.

From the Lincoln site:
"Although a prerequisite set of standardized photographs of Lincoln does not exist, I thought that cardinal or outstanding facial features - lips, eyelids, etc. - could still be used as vertical reference points if they were easily recognizable, regardless of the angle of the pose {15,16,17,18}.

"The measured distance between these points would be proportionately accurate in a given portrait if realistic limits were pre-defined. Errors in measurement, even of the same photographic subject, would be impossible to avoid, given the subjective conditions of this retrospective study. Nonetheless, such errors could be expected to be small compared with the gross differences that would be found in individuals having different facial structures.

<snip>

"Each of the selected images was re-photographed and then enlarged or reduced in order to standardize the interpupillary distances (Figure 3), thereby, in the pursuit of increasing accuracy, removing at least one of the variables. Each print measured 26.5 cm x 33 cm, with interpupillary (IP) distance of 5.4 cm. (Figure 4).
http://www.lincolnportrait.com/authenti.htm

Quote
I believe they used photographs for this.  I am not sure if this is even relevant to anything in today's scientific realm, but worth thinking about.

As I understand it, it is of relevance to forensic science, in attempting to identify suspects from video surveillance cameras. Those scientists and technicians are using photo enhancement techniques to make those images clearer. However, measurement tools and techniques are still a problem; sooner rather than later, those measurements will be generated automatically by computer-based systems. The hard part is writing the software to locate the exact center of the pupils and all the other points on a face.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: lexi4 on May 17, 2005, 03:12:02 PM
I read in TROAA that when AA jumped off the bridge she was first taken to the police station where she was fingerprinted and mug shots were taken. Has anyone ever seen the mug shots taken by police? Are those photos available? It might be interesting to compare photos from the mugs.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Annie on May 17, 2005, 03:19:39 PM
Quote
I read in TROAA that when AA jumped off the bridge she was first taken to the police station where she was fingerprinted and mug shots were taken. Has anyone ever seen the mug shots taken by police? Are those photos available? It might be interesting to compare photos from the mugs.


Yes that would be interesting. I betcha there are loads of AA pics out there we've never seen, mostly because most of the people who use them and write the books are trying to find the ones that look most like Anastasia. There could be dozens more that are the spitting image of FS.

I'm still surprised no one, on either side, has any comments about my face experiment?  ??? :-/
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: lexi4 on May 17, 2005, 03:21:53 PM
Annie,
I will have comments to come.  8) 8)
Just need to give it some thought.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: jaa on May 17, 2005, 05:39:12 PM
Quote
Feel free to jump into this at any time, in fact, I'll let you take the lead and sit back and see what you discover.
lol It will be a short lead, then. Proportions don't match again, but this doesn't mean much when the FS image is of such poor quality to begin with.

Anyway, following the same procedure as I did the last time, I scaled the extension lines for the chin, mouth, pupils, and brows to a height of 1.0000.

AA:
Chin to Brows: 1.0000
Chin to Pupils: .8696
Chin to Nose: .6196
Chin to Mouth: .3587
Chin: 0.0000

FS:
Chin to Brows: 1.0000
Chin to Pupils: .8589
Chin to Nose: .5530
Chin to Mouth: .3412
Chin: 0.0000

The only good scan of the FS photo, and they stopped the fade-in before it was completed. Frustrating.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: lexi4 on May 17, 2005, 05:45:38 PM
jaa,
Does the quality of the photos have anything to do with the decrepancies?
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: jaa on May 17, 2005, 06:26:51 PM
Absolutely. Not the all of photos, just the one published photo we have of FS. It's not as bad, but it's analogous to the famous Face on Mars; people can think they see something, but there just isn't enough data to support knowing anything about what the image actually shows.

I haven't spent any time doing this, so it really isn't a fair test, but I've tried edge-detection and sharpening algorithms (after using Fourier transforms to remove the halftone dots). It's GIGO: Garbage In, Garbage Out.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: AGRBear on May 18, 2005, 09:38:18 AM
Thanks jaa for the numbers.  

Find it interesting that they are not the same.  But, as you've said and I've said and Annie has said, the photo of FS isn't detailed enough to narrow down or raise the numbers.

Even though people keep sending me to photos which they think Nova used,  done of them seem to be the one they could have used because everyone is just not right.

Is there  another book out there, other than Summers and Mangold's THE FILE ON THE TSAR, which has a full shot photo of FS???  Looking for one which we may copy which would be without the "half tone dots".

AGRBear

Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: jaa on May 18, 2005, 11:07:34 AM
Quote
Thanks jaa for the numbers.  

Find it interesting that they are not the same.

Me too. I thought they'd be closer. This was very casual measuring, but still the numbers were surprising.

Quote
But, as you've said and I've said and Annie has said, te photo of FS isn't detailed enough to narrow down or raise the numbers.

That's right. I think the only disagreement is that some posters state they know what FS looks like, and I don't think that's possible.

Quote
Even though people keep sending me to photos which they think Nova used,  done of them seem to be the one they could have used because everyone is just not right.

For anyone that's looking for something to send you, it's only the FS photo that's important at this stage. If we don't have that, we have nothing to compare any AA photo to.

The details have to be visually obvious, without any guessing or effort. The most important details are irises and pupils of the eyes, and the outside corners of the eyes. The retouched photo is useless for this purpose.

If I thought the FS image could be enhanced, we would be working from high resolution scans (and therefore much larger images) for accuracy in locating the required points for dimensions. When Dr. Claude N. Frechette authenticated the Lincoln daguerreotype, he was working with 26.5 cm x 33 cm (10.4" x 13") enlargements.

If I could get a clearer image, I would follow what Dr. Frechette did: set up a horizontal axis through the points determined by the outer corners of the whites of the eyes, and then run a parallel line through the midpoint of the lips. That distance between the two lines is used to calculate offsets for the chin and nose by a factor of .618 (the Golden Mean).

That would show a similarity or dissimilarity in the vertical proportions (chin-to-mouth-to-nose-to-eyes) given the same interpupillary distance.

And that was a small part of Dr. Frechette's analysis of the photographs. The main part was a feature-by-feature analysis, which I don't think anyone posting is really qualified to do. That shouldn't discourage anyone from posting their opinions, though, in case it lures an anthropologist or surgeon out of lurking.

What was interesting in this, for me, is a greater appreciation for what forensic scientists do when they compare photographs. Much more is involved than simply looking at pictures and saying the subjects do or do not look like.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: jaa on May 22, 2005, 11:34:42 AM
Quote
I read in TROAA that when AA jumped off the bridge she was first taken to the police station where she was fingerprinted and mug shots were taken. Has anyone ever seen the mug shots taken by police? Are those photos available? It might be interesting to compare photos from the mugs.

This is from AGRBear's AA timeline:
">>17 June 1920 AA was fingerprinted and photographed.  These photographs were sent from Berlin out to   Stuttgart, Brunswick, Hamburg, Munich, Dresden... (Weimar Republic).  Places in Berlin, which probably included FS asylum where she spent some time more than once, were checked thoroughly...."

Not a single physician, nurse, or law enforcement officer who had cared for or dealt with FS recognized her from these photos.

AA's story received a lot of press attention starting in the mid 1920's; her photos were published in newspapers and magazines. Yet again, not a single doctor, nurse, police officer, recognized those photos and stepped forward. Not a single former coworker, friend, boyfriend, acquaintance, shopkeeper, librarian, etc.

One possibility is that FS's appearance changed significantly sometime between 1916 and 1920, perhaps because of the shattered right side of her jaw and weight loss. Stress and emotional problems will also affect appearance. That's an explanation that fits both the DNA evidence and the fact that no one recognized FS from those photos. However, the only available evidence for that hypothesis is a single grainy image.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Annie on May 22, 2005, 02:07:05 PM
Maybe she just wasn't somebody that was memorable and didn't stick out in people's minds, especially after time?
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: lexi4 on May 22, 2005, 08:32:39 PM
Thank you jaa!
I appreciate your efforts. I have a hard time grasping that someone in her family didn't recognize her. I guess it is possible, but seems a little far-fetched.
I was wondering, and perhaps this is in another thread that I can't find, when did FS first appear on the scene? Who first made the connection that FS and AA were the same person?
It sure is hard to see a resemblance between the photo generally circulated as FS and the one you posted.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: lexi4 on May 22, 2005, 08:49:46 PM
Bear,
I have a hard time with this because of the quality of the picture of FS. I can't draw any conclusions from the photos. I appreciate this post and would have posted sooner but wanted to read up. I can see some similarities in the mouth, but can't draw any conclusions about the rest. Wish I could.
What other similarities can we explore besides the photo?
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: AGRBear on May 23, 2005, 10:49:03 AM
Quote
Bear,
I have a hard time with this because of the quality of the picture of FS. I can't draw any conclusions from the photos. I appreciate this post and would have posted sooner but wanted to read up. I can see some similarities in the mouth, but can't draw any conclusions about the rest. Wish I could.
What other similarities can we explore besides the photo?


The reason I posted the photographs is because there are posters who think many of AA's and  the one photo of FS's look exactly alike.

As for other similarities,  I have been waiting for the same people who continue to claim AA and FS are the same to start a list but I guess they don't feel the need.  Meanwhile,  I'm still trying to find one thing which AA and FS had which was  similiar.  Do you have any suggestions?

AGRBear
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: lexi4 on May 23, 2005, 05:40:08 PM
Well, so far the only similaritie I can find is that they were both alive during the same time frame.  ;D I seriously haven't found anything else. Maybe I am not looking in the right places, but so far I can find nothing. That is why I got interested. You would think there would a some things they had in common, but I find none.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: jaa on May 25, 2005, 06:30:22 PM
Quote
Maybe she just wasn't somebody that was memorable and didn't stick out in people's minds, especially after time?

The time in the case of the Dalldorf photos was a matter of months. Between 1916 and 1920 FS had been in and out of hospitals and sanatoriums six times.

Denise stated the problem more clearly than I can. In a post from another thread.
Quote
My biggest question in looking at FS at being AA (at least the question of the moment  :P) concerns FS treatment in the Berlin mental hospitals.  If FS was in and out of them so much, why was she not recognized at Dalldorf?  They sent pictures all over to try to get an ID on Fraulein U.  No one responded with a positive ID.  Odd, if she was a "regular" in the mental health community, why wasn't she ID'd?  ???  :o  ???

Denise


As for the coworkers at AEG Farben, even ten years later, someone would have remembered the girl who dropped a grenade that killed a man.

Looking at the image, the distortion in the right side of her jaw is obvious. This would be much more visible in an actual photograph, where the resolution is an order of magnitude higher. It's not disfiguring, but it is visibly pulling her mouth to the right, and the muscles are bunching where there is normally a dimple; compare the left and right sides of her mouth. I don't know how much this injury changed her appearance, given that I don't know what FS looked like to begin with. The profile is taken of the right side.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: jaa on May 25, 2005, 06:54:32 PM
Quote
Thank you jaa!
I appreciate your efforts.

You're welcome, lexi4. I'm trying to understand this as well.

Quote
I have a hard time grasping that someone in her family didn't recognize her. I guess it is possible, but seems a little far-fetched.

I'm inclined to take their statements and actions at face value; basically they weren't certain enough to sign a document. Felix met her in 1927, eight years since he had last seen her, two years after she suffered from a life-threatening illness, weighing under 85 lbs. at one point. The other siblings hadn't seen her in nineteen years. Add to that changes in her appearance and demeanor.

Quote
I was wondering, and perhaps this is in another thread that I can't find, when did FS first appear on the scene? Who first made the connection that FS and AA were the same person?

About 1926-7 from Martin Knopf, a private detective employed by the attorneys for the Grand Duke of Hesse. Knopf wanted more money for the details of his investigation. Among other things, he argued that the reason AA understood Russian is that FS's native language was Polish. Since this was untrue (her native language was Kashubian), he was turned down.

I don't know where to ask these questions either. Perhaps in the AA timeline thread?
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: AGRBear on May 26, 2005, 11:44:45 AM
FS Timeline thread does have some of these questions and answers.

I started it because I was in need of a place to set things in some kind of order.

AGRBear



Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: RealAnastasia on June 15, 2005, 08:44:37 PM
Quote
This, to me, shows there is a resemblance between AA and FS.  


Felix, FS's brother saw the similarities and stated this in his statement which he signed.  

AGRBear


Hi, Bear:

                     You are right. There is a ressemblance. I think is there was not ANY ressemblance, they shouldn't have choosen this woman to said she was AA.

                       However; all stop there, with the strong similarity that even me (I'm one of these stupid persons who thinks AA was not FS) can notice. When you see her features more closely, her eyes, nose and mouth shapes, you are aware of the too many  differences between the two faces.

                         You may see I'm sincere: I don't believe that FS and AA were the same person, but I've the courage to said there was a STRONG  ressemblance between them both. I'm being much more sincere than some people who said without any blushing that "they didn't notice the single similarity between AA and AN". I see in fact LOTS of similarities, even in the photos I know from their feet!  ;D You must not said or believe that she was AN ...But the ressemblance was really there. As it was for AA and FS

RealAnastasia.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: etonexile on June 16, 2005, 09:28:27 AM
In light of certain "scientific evidence" which we aren't to mention in this site...It is very interesting how folk grab at any vague similarity of various grainy photos...This...again in light of that "unmentionable evidence" shows what tosh photo comparisons can be....
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Margarita Markovna on June 21, 2005, 09:29:31 PM
I feel sooooooo dumb but who are AA and FS?
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Mgmstl on June 21, 2005, 10:17:24 PM
Quote
I feel sooooooo dumb but who are AA and FS?



AA is Anna Anderson
FS stands for Franziska Schanzkowska

No reason to feel dumb, always ask questions, some one on this board will try to help.  We all learn from each other, in most cases. ;D
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: AGRBear on June 22, 2005, 11:55:43 AM
I know when I go to other posts, especially the royal family threads and just initals are being used,  I have no idea whom the posts are referring.  I apologize and have gone back to my first post and have added the names in brackets.

Thanks Michael for your help.

Gosh, this list hasn't grown.  I thought there were a lot more similarities which proves that AA and FS were the same person, but,  I guess there isn't.

Does this mean that AA wasn't and couldn't have been FS???

AGRBear
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Finelly on June 22, 2005, 12:21:24 PM
It's really hard to determine the similarities, at least the physical ones, when the photographic evidence is so lousy.  Grainy photos, touched up photos, etc just do not allow for much other than speculation.

By the way, I just compared two recent photos of myself and did the line thing between noses, lips, jaw, etc.  They were different.  This leads me to believe that I am not who I think I am.  Or that I am not who I was a month ago.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Margarita Markovna on June 22, 2005, 12:25:33 PM
Oh, I don't know how alike they might have looked but I do know that AA kind of had to be FS. Who else would she have been?

Thanks for telling me. I knew who the people were but not the abbreviations.  ;D
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Finelly on June 22, 2005, 06:29:08 PM
Yup, case not closed by a long shot.

I don't know if AA was Anastasia because I do not understand DNA and all the articles start to blur before my eyes.

But from what I know of FA without the DNA issue, it seems less likely than not.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: lexi4 on June 22, 2005, 08:51:04 PM
Quote
Oh, I don't know how alike they might have looked but I do know that AA kind of had to be FS. Who else would she have been?

Well...Is exactly for this, that I always keep saying: we most study AA's case further and further on, and don't consider it closed. At least, not now...

RealAnastasia.

RealAnastasia,
Please do not take this in the wrong way. It is a question that I have had for awhile and maybe I can get an answer or some things to think about. If we know that AA was not An, why does it matter whether or not she was FS? If she isn't FS, it would not change the fact that she was not AN, right?
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Finelly on June 22, 2005, 09:02:53 PM
Oh, please, Lexi.  STOP MAKING SENSE!  You're confusing me!
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: RealAnastasia on June 22, 2005, 09:13:02 PM
It's matter to ME. And I keep believing she was who she claimed to be. And well...You are free to shout to me that I'm a fantazising woman and all. I know that I'm not. As I always uses to said: we'll speak about this whole matter some years after. Today, nor you, nor me are aware from really truth. Perhaps, this truth is NOT the truth I suppose it is; perhaps both, you and me will be disappointed by the ACTUAL truth. But until today I still have too many doubts about the Romanov's fate, the DNA issue to consider the case closed. Don't laugh at me. For my personal believs are not important in this case, nor me. If you made ironical comments on me, you only will wound me. And , really...That's matters?

RealAnastasia.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: lexi4 on June 22, 2005, 09:16:04 PM
Quote
It's matter to ME. And I keep believing she was who she claimed to be. And well...You are free to shout to me that I'm a fantazising woman and all. I know that I'm not. As I always uses to said: we'll speak about this whole matter some years after. Today, nor you, nor me are aware from really truth. Perhaps, this truth is NOT the truth I suppose it is; perhaps both, you and me will be disappointed by the ACTUAL truth. But until today I still have too many doubts about the Romanov's fate, the DNA issue to consider the case closed. Don't laugh at me. For my personal believs are not important in this case, nor me. If you made ironical comments on me, you only will wound me. And , really...That's matters?

RealAnastasia.

I am not making fun of you or making "ironical comments." I am sincerely asking a question to which I do not have the answer. I am asking for your opinion that is all. Please do not take offense because absolutely none is intended.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Finelly on June 22, 2005, 09:35:11 PM
Well, if you believe that AA was Anastasia, then fine.  I am open-minded on that issue.

But what Lexi asked was, if she was NOT Anastasia, does it MATTER who she was?  I mean, if she's not who she says she was, who cares who she really was?

(and don't ask me to say that three times, fast)
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: delle on June 22, 2005, 10:16:40 PM
Everyone has their own opinions. But the question
that was posed in this thread--with the DNA set
aside, what were the similarities between AN and
FS?

Delle
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: lexi4 on June 22, 2005, 10:30:26 PM
Welcome Delle,
Of course you are correct, my question did veer from the topic. As you will see that happens quite often, one question leads to another. As you read other posts, you will see it happens a lot. I do understand it can be confusing, it is for me sometimes too.
To other posters, I would like for someone to answer my question. If I need to move this to another thread I can. I was just hoping for a simple answer.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Inquiring_Mind on June 23, 2005, 07:32:42 AM
Lexi.

 It does get confusing. I believe there was a thread called " If AA wasn't FS, than who was she" or something similar.

 IMHO there are people here that believe AA was somebody who might surprise us all. If this be true,  everything I can come up with is far fetched or quaranteed to cause a stir ::)

 Since I am unaware that AA ever revealed a believable coherent and unchanging account of her life before she became an unknown in a hospital ward, I don't see a trail to another identity we can follow.

 She still has me quessing though .

 As far as" does it matter"....I quess it must since we all keep talking about it. ;D
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Malenkaya on June 23, 2005, 12:15:16 PM
Quote
But what Lexi asked was, if she was NOT Anastasia, does it MATTER who she was?  I mean, if she's not who she says she was, who cares who she really was?


This question has been asked a few times, and I will continue to answer it.  A lot of people care who she really was, becase so much time has been invested in the "mystery" and I think the only way to tie up the loose ends and close the case it to know for sure who she was.

Why does it matter?  The easiest way I can put it is simply to say that Anna Anderson is the reason a lot of people know anything about the Romanovs.  She may not have been the most important person connected to them (and even if she wasn't who she said she was, she was still connected to them because of her claim) but she is a very big reason that we, even today, care about these people who died nearly 87 years ago.

I wear a nametag at work, and everyday I am asked (usually several times a day) "are you Russian?"  Everyone knows the story, the mystery.  Anastasia isn't a Russian name, it's a Greek name.  But the Russians made it famous.

Anastasia
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Inquiring_Mind on June 23, 2005, 12:35:03 PM
Excellent answer!
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Inquiring_Mind on June 23, 2005, 06:49:09 PM
I am way old enough to say "now now children, take it somewhere else."

This is Bear's topic and we need to have some respect. She keeps us all on track and we need to follow the leader.

I can understand how you feel about the IMs and not getting info on a public board. But this is a community and these things happen.

Back on topic....

The only things I see in common:

They were both female.

They were in the same geographic area.

They both had mental problems

They both seemed to have no family that would stick their necks out to claim them.

Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: RealAnastasia on June 26, 2005, 09:09:19 PM
Quote
Well, if you believe that AA was Anastasia, then fine.  I am open-minded on that issue.

But what Lexi asked was, if she was NOT Anastasia, does it MATTER who she was?  I mean, if she's not who she says she was, who cares who she really was?

(and don't ask me to say that three times, fast)


Well. You are right. But if she was not AN, I would like all the same to know who she really was. I'm just curious!  ;D

RealAnastasia.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: AGRBear on July 10, 2005, 12:55:14 PM
Those of you who believe AA was FS must have more evidence to show the doubters that this is true without using DNA.  Please,  I'd like to see more than just a comparision of the many AA photographs to the one photograph which we don't even know if it's a copy of the untouched original.  

AGRBear
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: jeremygaleaz on July 10, 2005, 11:43:53 PM
Quote
Those of you who believe AA was FS must have more evidence to show the doubters that this is true without using DNA.  Please,  I'd like to see more than just a comparison of the many AA photographs to the one photograph which we don't even know if it's a copy of the untouched original.  

AGRBear

Well, what you fail to realize Bear, is that the burden of proof actually rests on you. The DNA has the upper hand, and those that doubt it must make their case to those who believe it.

While I'll admit that gossip and rumors are sometimes correct, (hey, it was rumored that she was a polish factory worker) the people who believe AA was not FS only have gossip, rumors, and highly subjective evidence that can be interpreted many different ways. And that's hardly a concrete case.

Or, modern rumors suddenly surface, like this" half sister" issue, that has no basis in fact. As no one connected with the original case made any such statement, and no modern  published work makes any reference to it.


So, instead of discussing "Yankee Doodle," private conversations with Princess Michael of Kent  regarding her last name, playing golf on the same course as Prince Phillip, or childhood encounters with elderly Russian men who entrust secret Romanov survival stories to your care  which you then have locked up for safe keeping, (Were you being serious about any of that? :-/) Present a case driven by cold, hard,non-subjective facts.....


Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Mgmstl on July 11, 2005, 08:17:59 AM
Quote

 Present a case driven by cold, hard,non-subjective facts.....





Jay Ro Mee

This is impossible for Bear to do, as the subjective facts or circumstantial evidence is what is being considered.  
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: rskkiya on July 11, 2005, 11:37:55 AM
Quote
It's matter to ME. And I keep believing she was who she claimed to be. And well...You are free to shout to me that I'm a fantazising woman and all. I know that I'm not. As I always uses to said: we'll speak about this whole matter some years after. Today, nor you, nor me are aware from really truth. Perhaps, this truth is NOT the truth I suppose it is; perhaps both, you and me will be disappointed by the ACTUAL truth. But until today I still have too many doubts about the Romanov's fate, the DNA issue to consider the case closed. Don't laugh at me. For my personal believs are not important in this case, nor me. If you made ironical comments on me, you only will wound me. And , really...That's matters?

RealAnastasia.


OK...
I KNOW that the DNA evidence is NOT to be discussed here ...But I don't understand your reasons RA  - I don't know who you think is laughing at you...but do you believe this simply because you want to?

Please clarify
rs
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: AGRBear on July 11, 2005, 11:38:40 AM

I created this thread for  posters who believe AA is FS without the use of DNA.  If you wish to start a different thread, please do.

Proof in addition to DNA would be nice since that is why this thread was created.

The theory about the sister or half sister subject can be old or new, matters not to me.  However, just because no one has brought such a theory forward before doesn't mean it's a theory we should toss out.  That would be like tossing the baby out with the bath water, so to speak.

As for my personal history,   apparently it bothers you.  Sorry if the truth is difficult for you.

AGRBear  



 

Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: etonexile on July 11, 2005, 06:15:44 PM
I keep asking...in all seriousness....were there several female members of the "S" family floating about Europe after WWI....unaccounted for...what...10 or 12....that we can weed through and study....?
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: AGRBear on July 12, 2005, 04:52:31 PM
Quote
I keep asking...in all seriousness....were there several female members of the "S" family floating about Europe after WWI....unaccounted for...what...10 or 12....that we can weed through and study....?


I don't know of any other female members of the "S" family unaccounted for after WWI.

Perhaps a better question to ask were there any other females unaccounted or after WWI?  You bet there were.  And, the Berlin police brought people, including FS's family,  to Berlin to see if they could identify AA but done of them did.

Interestly enough, those brought in who thought AA was GD Anastasia had more positive results  than those who tried to claim AA was FS.

AGRBear
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: AGRBear on September 08, 2005, 11:05:40 AM
Quote
Here is a very very  generalized [since I'm not doing this for  court] matching of FS and AA's general appearence from two photographs.

 (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v471/AGRBear/AAFSHeight.jpg)

I tried to match them in size and in height [not thinking about the differences of 4 inches for this project].

AGRBear


AGRBear
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: LyliaM on September 27, 2005, 06:16:56 PM
Hello, Bear -- I'm sorry to trouble you, but I went looking for the  post of Greg King's addressing injuries to AA's face (which you mentioned on May 26th, on this thread,  that you had posted on the thread regarding AA and FS differences), and I can't seem to find it. Am I looking in the wrong place? Many thanks.

Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: AGRBear on September 28, 2005, 04:41:59 PM
No trouble.  Here is the quote within my quote:

Greg King's post #132:

>>I suggest you check Peter's book on this issue-Anastasia Manahan had extensive previous facial injuries when first examined in 1920, including the right side of her mouth and right jaw having been subjected to repeated blows that knocked teeth out and actually fractured or broke bones-this is why in the first photos of her she always was faced to the left, and even hid the right side of her jaw.  These were injuries estimated as having been a few years old by the doctors who examined her, and had obviously healed somewhat, but the effect remained-even as an old lady she still spoke with a handkerchief held up to the right side of her mouth.
 
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<<

 IP Logged



As far as we know, FS never had this kind of injury.

AGRBear[/quote]

Let be highlight what Greg told us:
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.

AGRBear
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Annie on September 28, 2005, 04:52:24 PM
I think he said that before the faded one I posted showed up on the forum. That one is clearly NOT retouched, it is too dim and daded out, I have seen several versions of the retouched one. Even if those 2 dots mean it's a copy, it's still a dull copy of the original.

Surely the Schanskowska family has more photos of FS, I wonder if we will ever be able to see them one day.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: LyliaM on September 28, 2005, 06:42:59 PM
Bear -- Many thanks for your post quoting Greg King.  It is worth noting (not to imply that the observation has not already been made herein) that a broken jaw will significantly distort an individual's  appearance in that both the manner of speaking (how the lips and jaw move during speech), and the positions of the upper and lower lips, will differ from pre-injury appearance.  I used to work for an organization that financed, among other entities, medical facilities devoted to individuals who had suffered head injuries, so I've had some opportunity to view firsthand the devastating effects wrought by severe head injuries and fractures such as AA sustained.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: RealAnastasia on September 28, 2005, 10:44:58 PM
Yes; one of my great-grand-aunties (she is 90 now) had a brain attack, when she was only 18 years old, she awakened one day and had her jaw toward the left. The below part of her face was totally distorted and her sisters used to said that their sister's face was different since this day. I saw several pics of her before and after the attack and yes...she seems to be a totally different person.Strange enough....

RealAnastasia.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: bigbi on October 13, 2005, 02:33:15 AM
The FS picture is too blurry for comparison for one thing. But I really don't see this match that you all are seeing. Sure, there are similar features, but don't forget Franziska, according to her sister, had no foot disorders. How could she make herself have hallux valgus? How could she have birth marks and scars in the same place as Anastasia? And how could she make make herself shrink? Despite that, she would have had to take a bayanet and stab herself in the foot which is highly unlikely. Also, if she was in a Berlin hospital, why didn't they claim her when she was put in the newspapers? Also, the woman hired by Ernest to say she was Franziska said she had gone missing in March 1920. Fraulen Unbekant was pulled from the canal in February 1920. FS's own siblings did not think they were the same person. Sorry, but AA is NOT FS. I know that you all think that my theory is indeed ridiculous, but I do believe that the tissue was switched. How hard would it be to obtain a tissue from a descendant of FS? There are just as many pictures where Anastasia and Anna Anderson look similar. I'm sorry, but I'm still not convinced that Anastasia and AA were not the same person.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Georgiy on October 13, 2005, 03:13:41 PM
The fact she crossed herself like a Roman Catholic instead of an Orthodox would suggest to me she wasn't Anastasia - it is so inate, you don't even think about how to do it, yet the way we cross ourselves is quite different from the Roman Church's way.
Also, I understand the foot deformity can develop over time in people with tightly fitting shoes.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Kimberly on October 13, 2005, 04:01:41 PM
Quite true Georgiy....the other name for them is "Bunions"
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Tania+ on October 13, 2005, 05:59:35 PM
Your very correct, Georgiy. For those who may still be a bit confused, allow me to express a like analogy.

Take for instance, when we are finished with our meal. In Europe, as well in Eastern Europe, most place their fork and knife together, and sometimes the knife blade, and the fork cross wise, so they meet in the center.

We cross ourselves, right to left, whereas, Catholics cross themselves, left to right.

Both of the above, you learn early on, and these natural basics, rarely if ever change.

As for the foot issues, I have no knowledge on that.

Hope I have not confused anyone.

Tatiana
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: rskkiya on October 13, 2005, 07:31:44 PM
Tania
Thank you for that articulate and thoughtful explanation of this subtle distinction. I had tried to make a similar comparision (in a different discussion) before.
Its a very good point.

rskkiya
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: AGRBear on October 19, 2005, 01:09:20 PM
The  crossing of one self is interesting,  however, I believe the subject should have been placed in the discussion on the differences between AA and GD Anastasia.  This thread is about  "Photographic Comparision" between FS and AA, who may not have been FS.

Has anyone seen a comparison of heights between AA's and the one photo of FS's.  From what I understand,  there is a 4 inch difference.  So, I'm wondering if the original of FS's showed her from head to shoe because none of the copies I've seen do show her head to shoe.


AGRBear
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: calebGmoney on December 30, 2005, 04:58:41 PM
Quote

Bear, apology accepted. But please look closely at my original post again, and you will see that the arrows ^^ are pointing towards a different photo than the one you posted and quoted me as saying it was "unretouched'.  My arrows are pointing towards the actual unretouched photo and not the one I identified as a bad artist's rendition (it is not even a retouched photo) as you claimed.
Please be careful of how you quote people.




The first photograph is indeed touched up. It's the version that appeared in the Berlin Newspaper back in 1927. Experts in 1927 did determine the photo had been touched up especially around the mouth and the eyes. Also noticed the photo on the right is even wider around the chin than the one on the left.

I should also point out that during this fusion, Franziska miraculously has a right ear where Anna Anderson does not:
(http://img194.exs.cx/img194/8456/aa49jf.jpg)
(http://img194.exs.cx/img194/5553/aa36yc.jpg)
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Tsarina_Liz on January 06, 2006, 08:34:39 PM
That AA and AN (or FS and AA) had similar scars and marks is hearsay in my book until definitive, clear photographs can be presented for comparison.  Word of mouth is just no good.  

Also, I am some what familiar with the pistols/revolvers used in the Basement and with bayonets and I have to say that if Anastasia had made it out of the basement that night her face would have been completely destroyed - not just altered.  Destroyed.  Crushed beyond repair.  The attacks were so vicious and the guards acted out their rage against the monarchy that had made them faceless servants to the crown so well by destroying the identity of their victims by destroying their faces.  
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: calebGmoney on January 07, 2006, 10:15:44 AM
Quote
That AA and AN (or FS and AA) had similar scars and marks is heresay in my book until definitive, clear photographs can be presented for comparison.  Word of mouth is just no good.  

Also, I am some what familiar with the pistols/revolvers used in the Basement and with bayonets and I have to say that if Anastasia had made it out of the basement that night her face would have been completely destroyed - not just altered.  Destroyed.  Crushed beyond repair.  The attacks were so vicious and the guards acted out their rage against the monarchy that had made them faceless servants to the crown so well by destroying the identity of their victims by destroying their faces.  

Technically, you don't know what her face would look like as you don't know what was inflicted upon her that night. And the scars were documented and recalled by witnesses. Almost all of History is based on documents and witnesses. Are we to doubt everything we know before cameras were invented?
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Tsarina_Liz on January 07, 2006, 10:38:46 AM
Quote
Technically, you don't know what her face would look like as you don't know what was inflicted upon her that night. And the scars were documented and recalled by witnesses. Almost all of History is based on documents and witnesses. Are we to doubt everything we know before cameras were invented?



Oh Caleb   :(.  Have you ever read the eyewitness testimonies?  The stories of the soldiers about how they went at the bodies stabbing and shooting and bludgeoning?  This is what I based my opinion on what Anastasia would be like.  And we have already been over schema and that in another thread.  

You must be careful when talking about eyewitnesses in cases such as these, such emotional and personally involved cases.  While I have no reason to doubt the stories about Anastasia's scars there is every reason to doubt Anna Anderson's.  Pick up the book "The Wrong Men" by Cohen and read the section on eyewitness testimony.  It's about modern death row cases, but he goes into the basics about the reliability of eye witness accounts.  There are some other books you should pick up, but they have already been mentioned in these threads.

Then, go to your local university and talk to: a biology professor (about DNA, genetics and modern testing), a criminology professor (about DNA testing, eye witness accounts, forensics) and a psychology professor (about group psychology, schizophrenia, survivor psychology).  And then go to your local armory (gun store, Caleb, gun store) and talk to the men at the counter, chances are they can tell you about guns from that era and the damage they can do.  
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Annie on January 07, 2006, 12:29:00 PM
Quote
Also, I am some what familiar with the pistols/revolvers used in the Basement and with bayonets and I have to say that if Anastasia had made it out of the basement that night her face would have been completely destroyed - not just altered.  Destroyed.  Crushed beyond repair.  The attacks were so vicious and the guards acted out their rage against the monarchy that had made them faceless servants to the crown so well by destroying the identity of their victims by destroying their faces.  


This could be another reason for conflicting reports of who was who we get from the Bolsheviks. I don't know that they could tell the women apart anyway, and having their faces destroyed must have led to further ID confusion. I don't think they so much lied as made errors.

What you say about the damage inflicted to the victims' faces is yet another good point to consider. Someone once tried to tell me here that AA's thicker lips and different face structure was due to being rifle butted in the face. I say, as you have posted, that if a person were to survive the attack, their face would be a hideous, disfigured version of their OWN face, not the normal looking face of a completely different person!

The scars AA had are much more likely attributed to the grenade factory explosion. Standing next to a person who is totally blown to bits, as FS was, is going to have to give you at least some damage.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Tsarina_Liz on January 07, 2006, 04:34:02 PM
Quote

What you say about the damage inflicted to the victims' faces is yet another good point to consider. Someone once tried to tell me here that AA's thicker lips and different face structure was due to being rifle butted in the face. I say, as you have posted, that if a person were to survive the attack, their face would be a hideous, disfigured version of their OWN face, not the normal looking face of a completely different person!


The scars AA had are much more likely attributed to the grenade factory explosion. Standing next to a person who is totally blown to bits, as FS was, is going to have to give you at least some damage.


I'm sorry, but rifle butts don't give you thicker lips or bugged out eyes or a raised hairline!  ;D  I just love how some people think!

The scars are one reason why I buy AA being FS more than I buy AA being AN.  Not the only reason, but still a selling point for me.  The scars people describe as being on Anna Anderson do seem very random and from serious injury (not just paper cuts or the occasional slip of a cutting knife).  I just wish there were pictures out where the scars were clearly visible.  
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: RealAnastasia on January 07, 2006, 08:46:52 PM
Quote

I'm sorry, but rifle butts don't give you thicker lips or bugged out eyes or a raised hairline!  ;D  I just love how some people think!

The scars are one reason why I buy AA being FS more than I buy AA being AN.  Not the only reason, but still a selling point for me.  The scars people describe as being on Anna Anderson do seem very random and from serious injury (not just paper cuts or the occasional slip of a cutting knife).  I just wish there were pictures out where the scars were clearly visible.  


In fact, accidents CAN make a person's lips full. I know personnally a woman who had a car accident, and now she have totally different lips, without speaking about what her chin and nose have become...Really awful to see.

However, Anna Anderson only had full lips when she was very ill, in Dalldorf. If you see her pics AFTER it, she was not those awfully fully lips. And Anastasia herself had not so thin lips. As far as I can notice watching carefully her photos, she had just normal lips.

As for the eyes, Anna Anderson had popped-out and fluffy eyes also when she was very ill. The fluffy thing is very noticeable, for she didn't have such appareance any more after she was all right again. The popped-out eyes, could also be produced by an eating-disease, malnutrition and hyper-tiroidism, The proof if that, when AA was portrayed in her years in America and Untenlengenhardt her eyes were normal.

Besides, when Otto Reche and other anthropologic and forensic experts made comparison between AA's face and AN's one, they would have noticed the "differences" you are pointing here. They didn't. They couldn't have been so unscientific!

RealAnastasia.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: RealAnastasia on January 07, 2006, 08:49:56 PM
Another point: if you believe that AA was FS for the serious scars she had in her body...Well. This is a huge problem. For there are records made when FS suffered the accident in the munition factory...and besides the psychological shock she suffered, the doctors DIDN'T FIND A SINGLE SCAR IN HER BODY. NO SCARS.

RealAnastasia.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Tsarina_Liz on January 07, 2006, 09:28:58 PM
Quote

In fact, accidents CAN make a person's lips full. I know personnally a woman who had a car accident, and now she have totally different lips, without speaking about what her chin and nose have become...Really awful to see.

However, Anna Anderson only had full lips when she was very ill, in Dalldorf. If you see her pics AFTER it, she was not those awfully fully lips. And Anastasia herself had not so thin lips. As far as I can notice watching carefully her photos, she had just normal lips.

As for the eyes, Anna Anderson had popped-out and fluffy eyes also when she was very ill. The fluffy thing is very noticeable, for she didn't have such appareance any more after she was all right again. The popped-out eyes, could also be produced by an eating-disease, malnutrition and hyper-tiroidism, The proof if that, when AA was portrayed in her years in America and Untenlengenhardt her eyes were normal.

Besides, when Otto Reche and other anthropologic and forensic experts made comparison between AA's face and AN's one, they would have noticed the "differences" you are pointing here. They didn't. They couldn't have been so unscientific!

RealAnastasia.


Yes, reconstruction and healing after accidents can make a person's lips fuller but they would be obviously altered.  AAs lips are natural looking with a well defined edge around the lip in all of her pictures.  Something AN did not have.  Further, from what I can see AAs top lip was much fuller even when healthy than ANs were.

With the bug eyes, yes they are more bugged out when she is sick (especially in her earlier photos) but I also see some slight popping in all of her other pictures.  Illness was exaggerating something that was already there.  But, like I have mentioned before, this really is in the eye of the beholder.    

You mentioned hyperthyroidism, something I am very familiar with.  This is not a condition that appears out of nowhere, people generally exhibit symptoms throughout their lives and it becomes more acute around adolescence.  Also, the condition resulting from hyperthyroidism (called Grave's opthalmopothy) that causes the pop eyed look is extremely uncommon.  And, from what I know, AN never presented any symptoms of hyperthyroidism especially any thing with her eyes.  Nor was AN ever malnourished and the degree of malnourishment it would take to create such a drastic change in facial features would take more than two years certainly to develop and present.  
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Tsarina_Liz on January 07, 2006, 09:30:00 PM
Quote
Another point: if you believe that AA was FS for the serious scars she had in her body...Well. This is a huge problem. For there are records made when FS suffered the accident in the munition factory...and besides the psychological shock she suffered, the doctors DIDN'T FIND A SINGLE SCAR IN HER BODY. NO SCARS.

RealAnastasia.


Where can I find the doctor's report?

Also... are you familiar with Dr. Reche?  While he was an anthropologist, he had (from what I have read) absolutely no background with facial comparisons and identification.  I also think that today he would be highly challenged and largely discredited - he was an anthropologist with limited training and a limited scope of experience.  He was interested mainly in "Ethnic studies" and wrote on the Aryan race.  He was a proponent of "racial hygiene".  I quote:

"The Wiener Gesellschaft für Rassenpflege (Viennese Society for Racial Hygiene)

Even though the immediate ideological forerunners of racial hygienic measures, coercive sterilization and "euthanasia" were embedded in the "Altreich" (the original expanse of the German Reich) and these activities had been administered by head quarters in Berlin (4), there were protagonists of "racial hygiene" in Austria as well. Biologistic and racialist theories were not less common in Austria than in Germany. Founded in 1924, the Wiener Gesellschaft für Rassenpflege, which right from the beginning was sponsored by the German society (founded 1905 by Prof. Dr. Alfred Ploetz, ancestor of "racial hygiene"), acted as an intellectual and political pioneer. Significantly the founding meeting of the Viennese society took place at the University of Vienna on March 18, 1925. Dr. Alois Scholz, who later became chairman of the society, explained the term "Rassenpflege", Germanization of "Rassenhygiene" (racial hygiene), as follows: "Just as the term implies, it deals with...the care for the gen-pool of the people. ...Only if we promote the strong and that which is able to live and wipe out that which is unable to live, as demanded by nature, are we promoting that hygiene, which is useful to the whole." (5) In 1925, the first chairman of this organization, Univ. Prof. Dr. Otto Reche, director of the Department of Anthropology at the University of Vienna, stated that "Rassenpflege must be the basis of all domestic policy and at least a part of foreign policy as well." (6)"

This site explains it pretty well: http://www.doew.at/information/mitarbeiter/beitraege/rachyg.html
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: calebGmoney on January 07, 2006, 11:58:29 PM
I don't know where you can find Franziska's doctor's reports but according to King and Kurth, the documents make it QUITE clear that Franziska received no wounds from the explosion. The doctors certified her legally insane. Don't forget not a single doctor who examined Anna ever thought she was in the least bit insane. Besides, having a grenade explode would most likely not cause the same kind of trauma that seeing your family murdered would cause.

One judge suggested that Anna had inflicted the scars upon herself. I think it is highly unlikely she would have fractured her skull intentionally unless she was desperate to be Anastasia. She did not have to do that because she was.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Tsarina_Liz on January 08, 2006, 10:39:39 AM
Quote
I don't know where you can find Franziska's docter reports but according to King and Kurth, the documents make it QUITE clear that Franziska recieved no wounds from the explosion. The docters certified her legally insane. Don't forget not a single docter who examined Anna ever thought she was in the least bit insane. Besides, having a grenade explode would most likely not cause the same kind of trauma that seeing your family murdered would cause.

One judge suggested that Anna had inflicted the scars upon herself. I think it is highly unlikely she would have fractured her skull intentionally unless she was desperate to be Anastasia. She did not have to do that because she was.


Caleb,
 There is no way that you can have a grenade dropped within reach of you and escape with nary a scratch.  It's mind bogglingly impossible - which makes me doubt the doctors who examined FS.  
 Also, having a grenade explode near you and seeing a coworker killed because of a mistake you made would lead to psychological problems similar to those a survivor of the basement would have.  Namely survivor's guilt.  Both survivors would probably been in such deep shock from the incidents they may have been open to falling into a psychogenic fugue.  
 And about this fractured skull (I have not read the doctor's reports) - how old was it?  Was it present when she was pulled from the canal?  In what stage of healing was it?  Was it completely open?  Had it partially healed?  Was it completely healed?  Was it properly or improperly healed?  Was there evidence of medical treatment?  Was there any sign of infection either at the time she was discovered or previously around the wound?  What did the wound look like (i.e. did it have a pattern consistent with known methods of head injury like falling or being hit with a weapon)?  I know this is a lot of questions, but like I said I have not seen the doctor's reports.  Where can I find them (in what book)?
 Fractured skulls can happen in a lot of ways, for example in previous botched suicide attempts.    
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: AGRBear on January 08, 2006, 03:10:04 PM
Quote

Caleb,
  There is no way that you can have a grenade dropped within reach of you and escape with nary a scratch.  It's mind bogglingly impossible - which makes me doubt the doctors who examined FS.  
  Also, having a grenade explode near you and seeing a coworker killed because of a mistake you made would lead to psychological problems similar to those a survivor of the basement would have.  Namely survivor's guilt.  Both survivors would probably been in such deep shock from the incidents they may have been open to falling into a psychogenic fugue.  
  And about this fractured skull (I have not read the doctor's reports) - how old was it?  Was it present when she was pulled from the canal?  In what stage of healing was it?  Was it completely open?  Had it partially healed?  Was it completely healed?  Was it properly or improperly healed?  Was there evidence of medical treatment?  Was there any sign of infection either at the time she was discovered or previously around the wound?  What did the wound look like (i.e. did it have a pattern consistent with known methods of head injury like falling or being hit with a weapon)?  I know this is a lot of questions, but like I said I have not seen the doctor's reports.  Where can I find them (in what book)?
  Fractured skulls can happen in a lot of ways, for example in previous botched suicide attempts.    



According to Penny Wilson the medical reports  state  FS did not recieve any wounds from the grenade accident.  

I believe this is a very clear statement and I have no reason to doubt Penny's statement.

What makes you think the grenade was next to FS?  Yes,  she may have dropped it but I believe they can roll and explode after something like the count of "ten" or something like that...  

Meanwhile,  the human brain often times reacts before we think what to do and I'm sure it was telling FS to move away....

Sometimes people freeze.

But,  if she didn't suffer any wounds then she must have moved away from it before the explosion occured.

As to AA's examination after she jumped into the canal.  The doctors reported that she had "old wounds" which were healed.

I don't have time to go find  these quotes today  but if you'd like me to find them,  I will when I do fine the time.

AGRBear
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: calebGmoney on January 08, 2006, 05:44:53 PM
Quote

Caleb,
  There is no way that you can have a grenade dropped within reach of you and escape with nary a scratch.  It's mind bogglingly impossible - which makes me doubt the doctors who examined FS.  
  Also, having a grenade explode near you and seeing a coworker killed because of a mistake you made would lead to psychological problems similar to those a survivor of the basement would have.  Namely survivor's guilt.  Both survivors would probably been in such deep shock from the incidents they may have been open to falling into a psychogenic fugue.  
  And about this fractured skull (I have not read the doctor's reports) - how old was it?  Was it present when she was pulled from the canal?  In what stage of healing was it?  Was it completely open?  Had it partially healed?  Was it completely healed?  Was it properly or improperly healed?  Was there evidence of medical treatment?  Was there any sign of infection either at the time she was discovered or previously around the wound?  What did the wound look like (i.e. did it have a pattern consistent with known methods of head injury like falling or being hit with a weapon)?  I know this is a lot of questions, but like I said I have not seen the doctor's reports.  Where can I find them (in what book)?
  Fractured skulls can happen in a lot of ways, for example in previous botched suicide attempts.    

You can read about the docter's reports in Peter Kurth's book. There were x-rays taken in 1925 I believe (although they dissappeared during the trials). I also want to know if anyone knows exactly how close she was to the grenade when it went off. If the documents make it clear that she was not injured, then I have no reason to doubt. And another thing, on her foot there was a star-shaped scar. What are the chances of getting this in an explosion in a grenade factory?
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Tsarina_Liz on January 08, 2006, 06:28:23 PM
Quote


According to Penny Wilson, who said she had seen the medical reports,  stated that the report states that FS did not receive any wounds from the grenade accident.  

I believe this is a very clear statement and I have no reason to doubt Penny's statement.

What makes you think the grenade was next to FS?  Yes,  she may have dropped it but I believe they can roll and explode after something like the count of "ten" or something like that...  

Meanwhile,  the human brain often times reacts before we think what to do and I'm sure it was telling FS to move away....

Sometimes people freeze.

But,  if she didn't suffer any wounds then she must have moved away from it before the explosion occurred.

As to AA's examination after she jumped into the canal.  The doctors reported that she had "old wounds" which were healed.

I don't have time to go find  these quotes today  but if you'd like me to find them,  I will when I do fine the time.

AGRBear

I don't have any reason to doubt Penny Wilson either, it's just that the story doesn't make sense to me and I'm trying to figure out why.  From what I've read about the explosion, FS dropped the grenade and it rolled a little way from her to right in front of a manger and exploded.  I'll recheck this, though, because obviously what I know's not right!  

"Old wounds" is a little to vague for me.  No reason to go and find the information, just maybe drop some names off the top of your head so I can go and rout out the information.  
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Tsarina_Liz on January 08, 2006, 06:33:04 PM
Quote
And another thing, on her foot there was a star-shaped scar. What are the chances of getting this in an explosion in a grenade factory?[/color]


Let's see: nail, screw driver, a spike, a large pitchfork prong, a sharp stick, a large splinter of wood, a large knife, a sword/saber.  All of these can cause scars in the shape of a star when stepped on especially if the victim panicked and messed with the object before ripping it out of the foot.  

If AA was FS, then schrapnel would be the most likely candidate.  It goes everywhere.  And a grenade explosion could destroy furniture etc. in the immediate vicinity causing more debris flying around or lying around to be stepped on.  
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: calebGmoney on January 08, 2006, 06:36:20 PM
Quote

Let's see: nail, screw driver, a spike, a large pitchfork prong, a sharp stick, a large splinter of wood, a large knife, a sword/saber.  All of these can cause scars in the shape of a star when stepped on especially if the victim panicked and messed with the object before ripping it out of the foot.  

If AA was FS, then schrapnel would be the most likely candidate.  It goes everywhere.  And a grenade explosion could destroy furniture etc. in the immediate vicinity causing more debris flying around or lying around to be stepped on.  

Medical experts who examined it during the trials confirmed it was the pattern of a Bolshevik bayonet.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: RealAnastasia on January 08, 2006, 08:36:01 PM
There are medical records saved in Berlin that CERTIFIED that Franziska Schanzkowska HAD NOT SCARS after the accident with the grenade explosion. Penny Wilson saw it, and there is no reason to doubt about her info. Besides, all people can look for this record and find it in Berlin....You must speak and read German, however. ;D

RealAnastasia.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Annie on January 09, 2006, 06:38:02 AM
Quote
There are medical records saved in Berlin that CERTIFIED that Franziska Schanzkowska HAD NOT SCARS after the accident with the grenade explosion. Penny Wilson saw it, and there is no reason to doubt about her info. Besides, all people can look for this record and find it in Berlin....You must speak and read German, however. ;D

RealAnastasia.


ONE PERSON'S word alone does not do it for me, ANY one person, but especially when this one person has been known to express her pro AA is AN views. She is working on a claimants book, and is working with the best known AA supporter. I'm afraid this taints it for me due to possible bias because of this agenda. It seems all too possible to me they are out to try to prove FS didn't have any scars so AA can't be her since she did have scars. What if I told you I had seen evidence that AA admitted to being FS? What would you think? You would doubt it because of my known position, right? I'm not going to readily accept what anyone says until I see it backed up by at least one credible source and verified as authentic. Not saying anyone 'lied' but could have been misled by someone telling them 'what they wanted to hear' or something like that. Questionable translations have been an issue too. Besides, who would write up a medical report saying 'this person has no scars'. The whole thing just doesn't add up.

To me it seems unrealistic that medical records would suddenly appear NOW claiming this when they were never available during all those years of the trial, when surely her supporters were looking for things like that to help AA. Also, consider that much of Berlin was destroyed by bombs in WWII, meaning the survival of such old records is unlikely. Add to that the fact that most doctors don't keep records that long, because they don't have room. I am unable to locate records I had from the 80's, in a large hospital that wasn't bombed! The staff told me they keep them around 5 years, then move them to a storage shed. Once the storage shed fills up, they eventually get rid of everything from patients that have never returned. If a person stays with one doctor for many years, they may keep their records dating back decades because they are an active patient, but no one keeps records from a person who has been there only once and never came back! Add to this the rather large chance that, after so much time and destruction of war, and the splitting of Berlin during the cold war, the doctor's office and even his practice probably no longer exist, much less any records from 90 years ago!

That's why these 'new' records are very suspect to me. I do doubt they are authentic if they do even exist. Again, a very credible source or two would have to verify these, I'm not taking one person's word for it. Until it can be proven to me otherwise, and not just by one person's post, I will continue to believe FS was injured at the grenade factory as history always told us. You don't stand next to a guy who blows up and get no damage at all, it's not realistic.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Tsarina_Liz on January 09, 2006, 11:40:42 AM
Quote
Medical experts who examined it during the trials confirmed it was the pattern of a Bolshevik bayonet.



And did they conclude that there was NO OTHER WAY the wound could have been created?  I have two WWII era rifles with bayonet attachments that could create a star shaped wound in the foot.  The make of a bayonet is not unique.  Are there any pictures of the wound on her foot?  

Also, do you also rule out the possibility that the wound could have come from a bayonet but not from the Ipatiev house?  Say AA honked off a soldier who stabbed her, took part in a small gathering that became riot in which the police took action, had a rifle dropped on her foot.  Given the political instability of the time and AAs dubious nature, there are other explanations for the wound on her foot.    
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Tsarina_Liz on January 09, 2006, 11:43:21 AM
Quote
There are medical records saved in Berlin that CERTIFIED that Franziska Schanzkowska HAD NOT SCARS after the accident with the grenade explosion. Penny Wilson saw it, and there is no reason to doubt about her info. Besides, all people can look for this record and find it in Berlin....You must speak and read German, however. ;D

RealAnastasia.


That's not a problem.  Where are they located?  I would certainly like to do some research on these doctors given the improbable nature of their conclusions.  And, yes, I say improbable from experience.  I know what a grenade can do - I've seen the evidence.  To think that FS got away without a scratch boggled my mind.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: AGRBear on January 09, 2006, 01:31:50 PM
Picture   this scene.

A factory.

Grenades are being made.

We're at the end of the line.

A young woman accidently's drops a grenade....

Knowing what was to follow, she screams what they were taught, "LIVE GRENADE," and runs away from it.

The poor fellow who was at the wrong spot and the wrong time walks toward it instead of away from it.

The young woman and others have fled more than thirty feet away.... There are tables, equipment between the spot where it was dropped and the young woman and others who had fled....

The one person still near it realizes what's happening but too late.

Maybe the man is a hero and uses his own body to protect the others....

BOOOOOOOM!

One man is dead.

Not three.  Not two....  I've not heard anyone say anyone else was hurt.

The young woman cannot be consoled.  She knows she killed a man whom she knew.

The bloody scene will be forever branded into her memory..... There were the nightmares....  She fought sleep which only brought the nightmares back....

Depression.

Asylum.

FS disapeared in March 1920..... and her landlady reports her missing to the Berlin Police.

AGRBear
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Grand_Duke_Paul on January 09, 2006, 02:01:09 PM
Quote

ONE PERSON'S word alone does not do it for me, ANY one person, but especially when this one person has been known to express her pro AA is AN views. She is working on a claimants book, and is working with the best known AA supporter. I'm afraid this taints it for me due to possible bias because of this agenda.



I personally do not think that Greg King or Penny Wilson will risk their integrity or careers as authors to support an agenda that may or may not be Peter Kurth's. The book that they are writing on the claimants may be one of the most examined books written regarding Russian History.  Do you really think that they would risk failure on this project to back an agenda?  That they would open themselves to the volleys from critics to please Peter Kurth.  Certainly you can not be that misguided to find your personal vendetta over riding what should be common sense?

What then is your agenda?  Since you state that Peter Kurth &  Greg King & Penny Wilson have an obvious agenda, tell us about yours?


Quote
To me it seems unrealistic that medical records would suddenly appear NOW claiming this when they were never available during all those years of the trial, when surely her supporters were looking for things like that to help AA. Also, consider that much of Berlin was destroyed by bombs in WWII, meaning the survival of such old records is unlikely. Add to that the fact that most doctors don't keep records that long, because they don't have room. I am unable to locate records I had from the 80's, in a large hospital that wasn't bombed! The staff told me they keep them around 5 years, then move them to a storage shed. Once the storage shed fills up, they eventually get rid of everything from patients that have never returned. If a person stays with one doctor for many years, they may keep their records dating back decades because they are an active patient, but no one keeps records from a person who has been there only once and never came back! Add to this the rather large chance that, after so much time and destruction of war, and the splitting of Berlin during the cold war, the doctor's office and even his practice probably no longer exist, much less any records from 90 years ago!  


Old medical records do exist, such as old police files, I believe that somewhere there is a post from Penny Wilson talking about early medical records of Anna Anderson being available, and possibly those of Franziska.   Not everything was destroyed in Germany in WW II, and I think that if the records exist and can be proven authentic then they should be used.  Some of these reocrds may be in the court documents also.
Plenty of records managed to survive WW II.  My great uncle was in the military government in Heidelberg after WW II.  He told me the records he saw went back to the 1300's.

Quote
That's why these 'new' records are very suspect to me. I do doubt they are authentic if they do even exist. Again, a very credible source or two would have to verify these, I'm not taking one person's word for it. Until it can be proven to me otherwise, and not just by one person's post, I will continue to believe FS was injured at the grenade factory as history always told us. You don't stand next to a guy who blows up and get no damage at all, it's not realistic.



Everything is very suspect to you unless it fits your schtick.  Again I think that you are so personally opposed to these authors that it has clouded your judgement.  I also believe somewhere there is testimony from her sister stating that Franziska was not injured in the grenade factory.  Do you ever wonder why some people survive unscathed, or survive with injuries when others die?  It is fate, chance.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Grand_Duke_Paul on January 09, 2006, 02:03:58 PM
Quote

That's not a problem.  Where are they located?  I would certainly like to do some research on these doctors given the improbable nature of their conclusions.  And, yes, I say improbable from experience.  I know what a grenade can do - I've seen the evidence.  To think that FS got away without a scratch boggled my mind.


Tsarina Liz, if you have the time look back on some older posts by Penny Wilson, there are some explanations on these records there.  I found some last night when I couldn't sleep.  I didnt copy or bring them forward, I will look again this evening, and if I find them bring them up to this thread.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Annie on January 09, 2006, 02:20:54 PM
I will remain skeptical of these 'records' that somehow never surfaced during 3 decades of trial until I see them not only in writing but verified by credible sources. A lot of things don't pan out. I'm not taking one person's word for it, as I'm sure none of you would take mine, even if I was writing a book.

The scars on FS/AA, and her mental condition, are all consistant with a grenade explosion. The only reason I can see that anyone would try to discount this fact is to say FS couldn't have been AA since she didn't have scars. But you know what, that STILL doesn't prove anything! She still could have been hurt some other way, maybe attacked by Grossman, or being in some other kind of accident. All we know is that AA had many scars, and was proven to be FS to 99.9% accuracy, so it's highly likely FS did sustain the injuries.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: calebGmoney on January 09, 2006, 05:03:08 PM
Quote


And did they conclude that there was NO OTHER WAY the wound could have been created?  I have two WWII era rifles with bayonet attachments that could create a star shaped wound in the foot.  The make of a bayonet is not unique.  Are there any pictures of the wound on her foot?  

Also, do you also rule out the possibility that the wound could have come from a bayonet but not from the Ipatiev house?  Say AA honked off a soldier who stabbed her, took part in a small gathering that became riot in which the police took action, had a rifle dropped on her foot.  Given the political instability of the time and AAs dubious nature, there are other explanations for the wound on her foot.    
Sure, but that is getting very far-fetched in my opinion.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: calebGmoney on January 09, 2006, 05:07:38 PM
Quote
I will remain skeptical of these 'records' that somehow never surfaced during 3 decades of trial until I see them not only in writing but verified by credible sources. A lot of things don't pan out. I'm not taking one person's word for it, as I'm sure none of you would take mine, even if I was writing a book.

The scars on FS/AA, and her mental condition, are all consistant with a grenade explosion. The only reason I can see that anyone would try to discount this fact is to say FS couldn't have been AA since she didn't have scars. But you know what, that STILL doesn't prove anything! She still could have been hurt some other way, maybe attacked by Grossman, or being in some other kind of accident. All we know is that AA had many scars, and was proven to be FS to 99.9% accuracy, so it's highly likely FS did sustain the injuries.

But docters have documented what kind of scars, and these don't seem like scars from a grenade explosion. Don't forget Greg King has seen these documents too and has confirmed that the documents make it clear that there were no injuries. Also, the DNA tests certainly did not prove Anna was Franziska with 99.9999% or whatever. Even if it could be proven this was her tissue, you would have to take into account that mtDNA is not exclusive to families and therefore it dosen't make her Franziska. Also, remember that the scientists always referred to the tissue as the 'putative anna Anderson tissue' and that it did not match the blood slide said to have come from her.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: catt.sydney on January 09, 2006, 07:03:57 PM
Quote
But docters have documented what kind of scars, and these don't seem like scars from a grenade explosion. Don't forget Greg King has seen these documents too and has confirmed that the documents make it clear that there were no injuries. Also, the DNA tests certainly did not prove Anna was Franziska with 99.9999% or whatever. Even if it could be proven this was her tissue, you would have to take into account that mtDNA is not exclusive to families and therefore it dosen't make her Franziska. Also, remember that the scientists always referred to the tissue as the 'putative anna Anderson tissue' and that it did not match the blood slide said to have come from her.


OK ... What 'doctors' are you refering to Caleb... which reports?  
I don't doubt that there were "scars" and I don't doubt that there were medical reports-  I just want to look for them for myself.
Do you know where they are?

   You posted  this comment.
"Also, the DNA tests certainly did not prove Anna was Franziska with 99.9999% or whatever."
Well what percentile of proof would satisfy you Caleb?   200%?
             500%?  
            10000%?

   
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Grand_Duke_Paul on January 10, 2006, 10:04:42 PM
Quote
I will remain skeptical of these 'records' that somehow never surfaced during 3 decades of trial until I see them not only in writing but verified by credible sources. A lot of things don't pan out. I'm not taking one person's word for it, as I'm sure none of you would take mine, even if I was writing a book.

The scars on FS/AA, and her mental condition, are all consistant with a grenade explosion. The only reason I can see that anyone would try to discount this fact is to say FS couldn't have been AA since she didn't have scars. But you know what, that STILL doesn't prove anything! She still could have been hurt some other way, maybe attacked by Grossman, or being in some other kind of accident. All we know is that AA had many scars, and was proven to be FS to 99.9% accuracy, so it's highly likely FS did sustain the injuries.


Did you ever stop to think that these records could prove your case stronger?  You seem to prattle about
these scars, and horrid Penny Wilson who will doctor the records to make her point, and Greg King & Peter Kurth, but really why aren't you doing any research?  

We don't know what is contained in the entirety of the records, and also the medical records of Franziska, they have been located so they should be able to tell us something, this was according to some reading I was doing last night.

Can you tell me how you know, and can you verify it with real sources what type of scars and injuries are consistent with a grenade explosion?  I had no idea we had a munitions expert and one who deals with explosions amongst all the experts on the board..
What mental state is brought about by a grenade explosion?  Are you talking confusion or amnesia? If the explosion happened it was in 1918, if she is indeed Franziska, she didn't jump into the Landwehr Canal until almost 3 years later.  I also remember reading somewhere that Gertrude testified that her sister was never in a grenade explosion.  I need to locate that.


About the original photograph of Franziska, somewhere on these threads Greg tells us that it has been lost, and it evidently got lost in the mountains of material during the trial.  Evidently copies had been made, but none the less the others are retouched versions of the original as Bear points out.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Tsarina_Liz on January 11, 2006, 02:59:41 PM
Quote

Can you tell me how you know, and can you verify it with real sources what type of scars and injuries are consistent with a grenade explosion?  I had no idea we had a munitions expert and one who deals with explosions amongst all the experts on the board..
What mental state is brought about by a grenade explosion?  Are you talking confusion or amnesia? If the explosion happened it was in 1918, if she is indeed Franziska, she didn't jump into the Landwehr Canal until almost 3 years later.  I also remember reading somewhere that Gertrude testified that her sister was never in a grenade explosion.  I need to locate that.



Nothing like a little sarcasm to lighten up my day...  :-*

Munitions expert?  Hardly, but I have been around them all my life.  I grew up on military bases so I passed through more than my share of ranges and had pointed out to me what caused which dent where.  I have also seen people on military bases who have been injured by grenades (and landmines, and friendly fire).  Limbs, eyes, fingers all missing.  And I have seen one or two grenades in action.  But I'll look up the specifics of of grenade and schrapnel injury and I'll include all my sources!  
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Tsarina_Liz on January 11, 2006, 03:01:37 PM
Quote

Tsarina Liz, if you have the time look back on some older posts by Penny Wilson, there are some explanations on these records there.  I found some last night when I couldn't sleep.  I didnt copy or bring them forward, I will look again this evening, and if I find them bring them up to this thread.


I've been through a lot of the older posts by Penny Wilson and have seen nary a medical record or anything of the like.  Point me in the right direction!
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: AGRBear on January 11, 2006, 04:22:26 PM
Quote

She probably deleted it. Penny would take frequent spells of becoming very mad when questioned or challenged, and she'd go delete her old posts. She did this several times. So most likely it's gone. And if it is, perhaps it wasn't something she wanted to leave up for 'proof.' If it's still here and anyone can find it show us a link.


Penny became frustrated because she just  didn't have the time to constantly follow you around on this forum to discuss some of your information which she felt  was not accurate.  And, when she so generously gave us information,  which hasn't yet been published, which proved  you were wrong or indicated some more thought about the subject might have to take place,  you continue with this kind of accusation you just posted.  So,  why should she not pull the information which you and others have fail to appreciate?   I for one miss the data that she had right at her elbow.  Things like the transcipts of the trial,  letters, documents and this doesn't include the conversations she has had with so many interesting and well informed people.

Of course, I realize that  it is Penny's interpretation of the data on the medical records.  Maybe, when we see it,  I'll have an opinion about it just like the rest of you.   I don't always agree on what Penny or Annie or anyone  else tells us.  That is why sources are important.  Even though  Penny said that she was going to give us that data when she could....  Annie demanded instant data....  Penny explained she wasn't free to do so...  There are publishers and lawyers..... contracts....  All those little things Annie wanted Penny  to ignore.  Penny left.  And,  we lost out on some good stuff.  


At the start of this thread,  I explained that there is no known untouched photo of FS.  Is there still anyone who diagrees???

AGRBear
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Annie on January 11, 2006, 07:03:08 PM
Quote

 
At the start of this thread,  I explained that there is no known untouched photo of FS.  Is there still anyone who diagrees???

AGRBear


I don't think there are many who agree. The washed out photo is clearly NOT retouched and you can see it side by side with the retouched ones and there is a huge difference. There is no place the faded one could be retouched, you can barely see the features.

Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: calebGmoney on January 11, 2006, 11:22:33 PM
Quote

She probably deleted it. Penny would take frequent spells of becoming very mad when questioned or challenged, and she'd go delete her old posts. She did this several times. So most likely it's gone. And if it is, perhaps it wasn't something she wanted to leave up for 'proof.' If it's still here and anyone can find it show us a link.
She was probably frustrated because she was trying to discuss a serious issue while you threw remarks at her like, "You believe in green aliens" and "And I'm a magic princess in a fairly land".
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: jeremygaleaz on January 12, 2006, 03:06:05 AM
Quote

I don't think there are many who agree. The washed out photo is clearly NOT retouched and you can see it side by side with the retouched ones and there is a huge difference. There is no place the faded one could be retouched, you can barely see the features.



This is very true, there's just no evidence that it was retouched at all.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Annie on January 12, 2006, 06:53:24 AM
Quote

This is very true, there's just no evidence that it was retouched at all.


Thank you, I get so tired of hearing how retouched that pic is when it's so obvious it's not.

Retouched on right, unretouched on left. Somebody please tell me where and how the one on the left is 'retouched.'

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v152/WuvDaNick/redo2.jpg)
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Rachael89 on January 12, 2006, 11:33:04 AM
Sorry if this has been mentioned before but it's a very long thread  ;D!

Does anyone know where the unretouched photo is sourced from, becasue if it's from a magazine the bad quality could be from the bad quality of printing, I'm guessing that by now the actual original photo is long gone....

Rachael
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Grand_Duke_Paul on January 12, 2006, 04:54:05 PM
Quote

She probably deleted it. Penny would take frequent spells of becoming very mad when questioned or challenged, and she'd go delete her old posts. She did this several times. So most likely it's gone. And if it is, perhaps it wasn't something she wanted to leave up for 'proof.' If it's still here and anyone can find it show us a link.



From what I read if Penny did remove posts it was with just cause & provocation.

That being said, somewhere in this survivor thread is the post, I read it, and unfortunately I did not write it down the link or thread as it was late & I was tired, I will look for it again for those interested parties.

Somewhere on these survivor threads, Greg or Penny, and I think it was Greg does state that the according to either Anderson's lawyer or someone working on the case the original photograph was lost or misplaced during the trial, the only existing photos are copies of the original.  
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Grand_Duke_Paul on January 12, 2006, 05:02:53 PM
Quote

Thank you, I get so tired of hearing how retouched that pic is when it's so obvious it's not.

Retouched on right, unretouched on left. Somebody please tell me where and how the one on the left is 'retouched.'

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v152/WuvDaNick/redo2.jpg)



And yours & Zuckattack's qualifications in photographic research, restoration, and retouching, are what?
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: elfwine on January 12, 2006, 09:19:26 PM
Grand Duke Paul, :-X
  
   Please do realize that Penny Wilson was quite able to compose posts that were as Insightful and as Infantile as you may imagine. I witnessed a number of these post when I just 'read' this site (as a non poster) and many are gone. I don't know if she removed them or the FA did, and I don't care
     Sadly - although she did love to remind everyone again and again that she was a Published Writer she really seems to have failed to develop a very tough skin.


g.d.p. --- hmmm?
      p.w. --- hmmmm?

Ah well.

     Really - this all comes down to a matter of opinion -  I see no similarity at all between Ms Unknown and Anastasia Nicholaevna, but that may just be me...
     The fact that this has all turned into a debate over a person who is no longer welcome at this site [ask the FA] is .... just .... very very CURIOUS to me.... :o
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Grand_Duke_Paul on January 12, 2006, 10:18:25 PM
Quote
Grand Duke Paul, :-X
  
   Please do realize that Penny Wilson was quite able to compose posts that were as Insiteful and as Infantile as you may imagine. I witnessed a number of these post when I just 'read' this site (as a non poster) and many are gone. I don't know if she removed them or the FA did, and I don't care


Elfwine,  Penny's posts were the most educational & informative posts I have seen on these threads, as a published author, she had insight to information & source material that none of the rest of us have, and educational in many cases also.  As a reader of this forum for a long time I can say I have read a great many of her posts, unlike the invective from others, her posts helped open my mind up to other possibilities and seeing the entire story, instead of just DNA.


Quote
    Sadly - although she did love to remind everyone again and again that she was a Published Writer she really seems to have failed to develop a very tough skin.  


I find other authors on this board whose attitude can run much worse than you say Penny's is, and they all let us seem to know they are published authors.  While certain groups of posters have succeeded in running several authors off of here for obvious personal reasons,  I don't see you commenting on that.  As they are a great part of our source material.

Quote
g.d.p. --- hmmm?
      p.w. --- hmmmm?


elfwine----hmmmmm?
annie----hmmmm?


I think we have been through this whole id thing before and FYI, while I am flattered that you along with your twin,  Annie, might think I am Penny, I am not.

Quote
    Really - this all comes down to a matter of opinion -  I see no similarity at all between Ms Unknown and Anastasia Nicholevna, but that may just be me...
     The fact that this has all turned into a debate over a person who is no longer welcome at this site [ask the FA] is .... just .... very very CURIOUS to me.... :o


It is a matter of opinion, on that you are correct, however you seem to be thinking it is about Penny or Greg, it isn't.  It is a shame that they are no longer here, but that can't be helped.  What is a shame is that certain people seem to stick a knife in and twist it deeper to fuel whatever personal vendetta they had with them.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: calebGmoney on January 12, 2006, 10:59:24 PM
Quote

This is very true, there's just no evidence that it was retouched at all.

There's even less evidence of an untouched photo of Franziska. You don't even know the origin of the photograph.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: calebGmoney on January 12, 2006, 11:02:23 PM
Quote

Thank you, I get so tired of hearing how retouched that pic is when it's so obvious it's not.

Retouched on right, unretouched on left. Somebody please tell me where and how the one on the left is 'retouched.'

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v152/WuvDaNick/redo2.jpg)
The one on the right is not "the" touched up photo, it's the second one that appeard, in Pierre Gilliard's book "The False Anastasia".
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Grand_Duke_Paul on January 12, 2006, 11:33:24 PM
Quote
You see, there is no source of the origin of this photograph. I can take this photo, stick in photo shop and fade it out some more and post it here and say "Hey! It's authentic!" Maybe someone would believe me.

That is true, the original photograph was extremely faded from what I have been able to find out and it seems that no has seen the original since the 1940's.
It was the only known existent photo of the actual Franziska, and where it came from I cannot remember.

The problem is that several of the photos look altered to me, and I have a problem with that, not the real copies of the actual original they show a faded photo which was very possible for those days.  
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: LisaDavidson on January 12, 2006, 11:42:03 PM
Quote

As I stated it is obvious a lack of manners or good breeding to discuss the motives of someone who is not here to defend themselves,especially from those that are of a biased opinion in all matters concerning this topic.

Now back to topic.


GD Paul - This is an official warning that you are to stop personally attacking anyone, even if it is with the intention of defending someone else. You may have a day to clean up your posts, or I will do it for you.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: calebGmoney on January 12, 2006, 11:54:29 PM
Quote

GD Paul - This is an official warning that you are to stop personally attacking anyone, even if it is with the intention of defending someone else. You may have a day to clean up your posts, or I will do it for you.

What I would like to know is why those who believe differently from the viewpoint that Anna was Franziska are warned of being banned but those who attack those who believe she was Anastasia are NEVER warned and are in fact, SUPPORTED.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: LisaDavidson on January 13, 2006, 12:36:06 AM
Quote
What I would like to know is why those who believe differently from the viewpoint that Anna was Franziska are warned of being banned but those who attack those who believe she was Anastasia are NEVER warned and are in fact, SUPPORTED.


You are welcome to your opinions. Calling another poster names is what I am holding you fully accountable for - and I meant my warning.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Annie on January 13, 2006, 08:59:36 AM
Quote
What I would like to know is why those who believe differently from the viewpoint that Anna was Franziska are warned of being banned but those who attack those who believe she was Anastasia are NEVER warned and are in fact, SUPPORTED.


Well, I don't believe in AA, and I have been warned, even with suspension, openly on this forum several times. I have also gotten PMs from mods. I have also seen others who don't believe in AA be reprimanded by mods for getting too harsh. You are not being picked on, but when it appears you are doing the picking, something must be done. It appears to me that when some AA supporters can't convince anyone to change their minds, they take it out on the poster personally with rude personal comments, and this is wrong.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Eddie_uk on January 13, 2006, 10:58:08 AM
I still find it absolutely amazing that people still believe that AA was the Grand Duchess Anastasia. She was far to common. IMO just looking at her was enough to tell me she wasn't Royal.

Thank you:)
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Rachael89 on January 13, 2006, 01:54:09 PM
I see your point, I was just pointing out that whilst Helen was accusing Bear of moderating she was doing so herself  ;D!

It's a funny world we live in!

Rachael
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Tsarina_Liz on January 13, 2006, 02:04:36 PM
Heavens!  I didn't mean to start a big fuss here, I just wanted to know where I could find the old posts.   :-[  

Sad to know they are gone, though.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Marie-Liesl on January 14, 2006, 01:45:59 PM
I have one question, what I want to answer (really, I don´t know if anybody knows right answer): If Anna was really Anastasia, what was happened to Franziska after her disappearing?
Exist anybody, who claims that she is Franziska, or she never appear again? Have anybody of you some theories, what happened to her after her disappearing?
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: jeremygaleaz on January 14, 2006, 04:09:22 PM
Quote
There's even less evidence of an untouched photo of Franziska. You don't even know the origin of the photograph.


From what I understand it came directly from the family of FS. And, are you arguing that the photograph is an alteration or  doctored image  or a copy of an original? There's a difference here....

But, if Gertrude, who died in 1995/96 (sorry, I don't have my notes in front of me as I'm working on another project at the moment) had no problem accepting AA as her sister FS, and this issue of an altered photograph, like the "half sister" nonsense, is certainly non existant with the family.

Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: LisaDavidson on January 14, 2006, 05:17:52 PM
Quote


That was not a personal attack, yet those two have continually sniped, and made personal attacks against people who are no longer here to defend themselves.
I now see a complete double standard in this behavior.

As far as your statement, if you had any questions about my motives, don't you think as a moderator threats or statements such as this should be mad by PM?  


Sorry, but we'll have to agree to disagree about this double standard business. I always try to be fair to everyone, and of course, with thousands of members, I cannot expect my actions to be approved by all.

Your motives are not my objection, GDP. I clearly object to anyone making a personal attack, period, end of story. I was only trying to give you credit for trying to defend others, but even so, the personal attacks are not okay.

As to how I choose to communicate, I do in fact use PMs, but I want to make sure anyone who posts or lurks here is assured that personal attacks will not be tolerated.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Grand_Duke_Paul on January 14, 2006, 11:25:21 PM
Quote


But, if Gertrude, who died in 1995/96 (sorry, I don't have my notes in front of me as I'm working on another project at the moment) had no problem accepting AA as her sister FS, and this issue of an altered photograph, like the "half sister" nonsense, is certainly non existant with the family.



Where is the affadavit or deposition that Gertrude swore to in the court cases that Anna Anderson was her sister?  As I recall, none of the Schanzkowska sibling's, Valerian, Marie-Juliana, Gertrude & Felix ever signed or swore to an oath that this woman was their sibling.  In fact none of them ever recognized her, at the first meeting in Wasserburg, or the second forced meeting by the Nazi government in Hannover.  
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Grand_Duke_Paul on January 14, 2006, 11:27:53 PM
Quote
Heavens!  I didn't mean to start a big fuss here, I just wanted to know where I could find the old posts.   :-[  

Sad to know they are gone, though.


Actually I will try to look for some of them tomorrow evening.  Bear has a great many she has obtained from old threads posted around here, and whatever arose out of what you posted was not your fault at all.  I enjoy reading some of the discussions on the subjects previously on here.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Annie on January 14, 2006, 11:48:04 PM
Quote

Where is the affadavit or deposition that Gertrude swore to in the court cases that Anna Anderson was her sister?  As I recall, none of the Schanzkowska sibling's, Valerian, Marie-Juliana, Gertrude & Felix ever signed or swore to an oath that this woman was their sibling.  In fact none of them ever recognized her, at the first meeting in Wasserburg, or the second forced meeting by the Nazi government in Hannover.  


Who'd want to claim a mentally ill sister who was making a false claim? They did her a favor by not exposing her to humiliation and probable legal and financial charges. They did themselves a favor by not having to deal with the burden. I believe they did recognize her, and denied it for these reasons, and this is why they are so secretive about it to this day.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: AGRBear on January 15, 2006, 10:23:33 AM
Quote
I have one question, what I want to answer (really, I don´t know if anybody knows right answer): If Anna was really Anastasia, what was happened to Franziska after her disappearing?
Exist anybody, who claims that she is Franziska, or she never appear again? Have anybody of you some theories, what happened to her after her disappearing?


The following is my quote from the locked down thread of "WHAT ABOUT" , page 21, Post 503:

Quote
9:00 PM, 18 Feb 1920  
     The person who is to be known as Anna Anderson jumped off the Bendler Bridge into the Landwehr Canal, in Berlin.  She was pulled out of the water by Police Serg. Hallman and taken to Elizabeth Hospial in Lutzowstrasse  

  
FS- Date reported missing:  
9 March 1920:  "...Berlin police were duly informed by the Wingenders, on March 9, that she had 'left, leaving no address.'"  
Source:  http://www.peterkurth.com/  
 
13 Aug 1920
>>It is of interrest that Grossmann was indirectly involved in the famous 'Anastasia' case-- the Grand Duchess Anastasia who was believed by many to th the last surviving member of the Tsar's famly.  At one point it was announced that 'Anastasia' was really an impostor named Franziska Schamzkovski, a Polish girl from Buetow in Pomerania.  Franziska's family were told that their daughter had been murdered by Grossmann on 13 August 1920; and entry in his diary on the date fore the name of 'Sasnovski', Anastasia's [Anna Anderson's] enemies insisted that this was not true, that Franziska and Anastasia were the same person.<< pps. 243-4  Encyclopeida of Murder by Wilson and Pitman published in 1962 so this information didn't just pop up, it  has been known since 1921 in Aug. when Grossmann was found with one of is victims (>>..trussed-up carcass of a recently killed girl<<) and a diary in his flat in Berlin.
 
The Berlin police were not Keystone cops, they were the best there were in the world at that time.  They were the first to start files on fingerprints.  They took fingerprints of AA while she was at Dalldorf Asylum which they did with all the patience.  Germans love records and they were/are good at keeping records.  They, also, took  photographs of AA, one of which is on this thread, in the first month, I think it was,  and sent the photograph and the fingerprints to many places including Posen which is the main city in Pomerania.  The Berlin police discovered there were missing girls which fit AA's description.  The police brought a member of these families of the missing girls which fit AA's description and they met with AA.   I assume they sent the same fingerprints and photograph to the asylums in which FS had frequented before she disappeared to see if one of their patients were missing....  
 
As to the name' Sasnovski' found in Grossmann's diary.  Many laugh and say this isn't even close to FS's name.  I have shown with the use of the soundex which I used frequently in my genealogy research that Sasnovski is one of the spellings.  Also, remember, Grossmann was not Polish so he wrote the name down as he heard it.  
 
AA was in a hospital and then in an asylum and didn't go anywhere after the 18th of Feb. .
 
 FS was NOT reported missing until the 9th of March?
 
It was because the Berlin police were not Keystone cops that they knew AA was not FS.  How?   Fingerprints?  Possibily.  Photographs? Possibily.  They had checked other city as well as their own records.
 
If AA's oposition could have proven AA was FS don't you think they would have?  Why couldn't they?  FS was murdered and could not have been AA.  
 
There is the fact of no body of FS's  to bury.  So, ask yourself this:  How many girls were missing in 1920 who had a name similar to Schamzkovski?  None that we know about accept FS and it was her last name which was  written in Grossman's diary. And, it was to FS's family whom the police visited and told that their daughter had been murdered 13 Aug 1920 by Grossmann.
 
When the Winganders were questions,  it is proven that they lied under oath.  The one thing they could not change was the date they had reported FS missing.  Why?  Because the Berlin police kept excellent records.
 
AGRBear
  


Remember:
Although FS's name was brought up in AA's trial,  it was brief and there was no proof which stood up in court which proved AA was FS.

Let me repeat this:   There was no proof in AA's court case  that AA was FS.  

If there had been proof that AA was FS then she couldn't have been GD Anastasia, and, that is what the trial was all about.

There are threads about the differences between FS and AA.

AGRBear
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: AGRBear on January 15, 2006, 10:41:27 AM
Quote

Who'd want to claim a mentally ill sister who was making a false claim? They did her a favor by not exposing her to humiliation and probable legal and financial charges. They did themselves a favor by not having to deal with the burden. I believe they did recognize her, and denied it for these reasons, and this is why they are so secretive about it to this day.


Once, again, you repeat this kind of post about "probable legal and financial charges",  and,  each time you have been informed that  FS family was told that they would not be libel for any of FS's bills, legal or otherwise.  As to humilation suffered by FS's family,  I assume they still are since after all these years the questions continue.

Despite Gertrude's emotional outburst,  once she calmed down,  she did not sign any papers telling the police that AA was FS.  And,  no other member of the FS family signed documents stating that  AA was FS.

I do wish I could remember what Penny told us on these facts.

Since Annie mentioned  in her post  Michael G.,  I do recall him having posted a very good reply to this same kind of post.   When I find them,  I'll be back with posts which show more knowledge than I have on this subect.

This subject, however, has nothing to do with "FS/AA Photographic Comparison".

I quoted Greg's post not go long ago which told us that there were no known photographs of FS that were not retouched.  When I find it,  I'll repeat it, again.

AGRBear
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: AGRBear on January 15, 2006, 10:51:01 AM
Quote
No trouble.  Here is the quote within my quote:


Let be highlight what Greg told us:
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.

AGRBear

Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Annie on January 15, 2006, 10:55:15 AM
Bear, you keep dragging that up, but the fact is never going to change that we DO have one! Do you even have a date on that post? I'm sure it was posted before the faded one showed up here. The faded one may be a 'copy' but it is NOT retouched!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: AGRBear on January 15, 2006, 11:07:44 AM
Quote
Bear, you keep dragging that up, but the fact is never going to change that we DO have one! Do you even have a date on that post? I'm sure it was posted before the faded one showed up here. The faded one may be a 'copy' but it is NOT retouched!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The statement of Greg's would include the faded photograph which you have shown.    I have shown the same one which came from Summers and Mangold's book THE FILE ON THE TSAR.  This book came out in 1976.  Greg and Penny both have read this book and so they, too, have seen this copy of this same photo with the two white dots.  They have seen the copies long before you placed your copy on the forum.   I don't know where you found your copy.   Then, there was the discussions, I don't recall which threads, about untouched photos of FS.   This included the one where I had asked about the two white dots seen in FS's hair.  Someone said it was possible lint... On another thread someone thought is was possible that it was two smudges left on the glass after the use of the old white out  to remove parts on a photograph....  

As far as I know,  Greg has not changed his mind on this subject and so it still stands.

I do not know whom Greg and Penny used as their experts on this subject.

I don't know what experts you have used to prove Greg and others to be wrong.  I believed you were asked this question earlier and you did not tell us one name.  

Helen claimed her experts disagreed with Greg.  I believe she was asked about her experts and no information was given.

RealAnastasia came forth with her experts and their names and their backgrounds.

AGRBear
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Annie on January 15, 2006, 11:26:54 AM
All I can say is that I can SEE the picture is so clearly and obviously not retouched it is silly to even argue it. PLEASE point out to me what has been done to it, the features are so faded. The picture speaks for itself, regardless of what any of us say.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: jeremygaleaz on January 15, 2006, 05:22:32 PM
Quote


Despite Gertrude's emotional outburst,  once she calmed down,  she did not sign any papers telling the police that AA was FS.  And,  no other member of the FS family signed documents stating that  AA was FS.

I do wish I could remember what Penny told us on these facts.


AGRBear



In this, the second half of our special retrospective on Anna Anderson's legacy we have an exclusive interview with Dr. Gunther Von Berenberg-Gossler, the most prominent attorney to oppose Anderson during her marathon legal fights in Germany. Concluding with a special interview with Prince Michael Romanoff, who provides us his thoughts on a case which vexed his family for decades.

Dr. Gunther Von Berenberg-Gossler,

Few cases in the annals of legal history were as long or acrimonious as the petitions made by Anna Anderson in German Courts to gain official recognition as the Grand Duchess Anastasia, daughter of Russia's last Tsar Nicholas II. Starting in 1928 and not concluding until the 1970's, costing the German Government and all involved vast sums of money.

No one living today involved in opposing Anna Anderson is better qualified to discus the case then Dr. Gunther Von Berenberg-Gossler, attorney appointed in 1955 to oppose Anderson's claims on behalf of the Swedish and British royal families with the financial backing of Lord Mountbatten.

Gunther Von Berenberg-Gossler was born 21 February 1911 in Freiburg/Schwarzwald in Germany, studying in Freiburg, Munich and Hamburg he earned a doctorate in law and soon established a reputation as one of Germany's finest jurists. Although his career is marked by achievements which have earned him international respect it's his involvement in the Anna Anderson case which will forever make him famous, a complex legal affair which kept him busy for over 12 years.

"From the very start of my involvement in the case it was clear to me Anna Anderson was Franziska Schanzkowska," says Dr. Von Berenberg-Gossler in his Hamburg home, "her true identity was never in question to me, there was abundant evidence, including blood tests and testimony from her sister Gertrude Schanzkowska. So in 1994 when I received word DNA tests conducted in Britain and the United States had proven this I was pleased but not moved, it was old news to me."

And, once again Bear, you and MichaelG/Grand Duke Paul are suffering from "Selective-itus" ;)



Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: jeremygaleaz on January 15, 2006, 05:25:08 PM
Quote
All I can say is that I can SEE the picture is so clearly and obviously not retouched it is silly to even argue it. PLEASE point out to me what has been done to it, the features are so faded. The picture speaks for itself, regardless of what any of us say.


I'm waiting too....and point out what was done to it using 1920's technology, and not "photo shop" as someone suggested ::)
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: AGRBear on January 15, 2006, 05:33:08 PM
Quote
All I can say is that I can SEE the picture is so clearly and obviously not retouched it is silly to even argue it. PLEASE point out to me what has been done to it, the features are so faded. The picture speaks for itself, regardless of what any of us say.


Annie,  how can I point out the changes if I don't have the original???

And,  if the question was reversed, and I asked:  "How can you show me that the features haven't been changed?"  you'd have to answer the same.  You could NOT because you don't have the original with which to compare.

AGRBear
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Annie on January 15, 2006, 05:37:48 PM
It is plain to see nothing has been done to the picture. You can compare it to the retouched versions and see. But then I've already said this and posted them side by side over and over again. You just don't want to see it. You say you are searching for the truth yet you only appear to support one side of the argument. If you at least posted some to back up the other side I wouldn't think this, but when all I see from you are pro AA posts, what can I think?
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: AGRBear on January 15, 2006, 05:48:24 PM
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v471/AGRBear/FSFaceA.jpg)#One  (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v471/AGRBear/FSBdistorted.jpg)#Two



Since I am, also,  an artist,  I could  make her nose longer or her mouth wider or make her cheek bones look higher or make her eyes farther apart.  #One is what you have presented to be the orginial.  What did I do to change her face in #Two?

AGRBear
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Annie on January 15, 2006, 05:58:07 PM
 I don't think photoshop is what 'retouched' means. I did a photoshop one that came out like this:


(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v152/WuvDaNick/fs2.jpg)

But the features are still not changed like they are in the 'retouched' ones. It is plain to see the one on the right has been drawn over (the only way they could retouch back then)

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v152/WuvDaNick/redo.jpg)


Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: AGRBear on January 15, 2006, 06:04:26 PM
Quote

And this has exactly WHAT to do with the issue of whether or not this photo had been altered in any way back in the 1920's? NOTHING! ZIP!  (Unless you're arguing that YOU actually altered this photograph and are alot older than you claim to be? That's it, isn't it?? You are the guilty party! :o :o :o

Really, this is all very amusing!...  :D


Are you telling me that there were no artists who were capable of changing FS's photo in the 1920s?

As for the one I've shown above,  I am the guilty party, and, if I have lived back then,  yes,  I could have changed it then, also, without using photoshop.  

And,  no,  it's not amusing if someone deliberately altered the original photo to make FS look more like AA or GD Anastasia.

AGRBear
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: jeremygaleaz on January 15, 2006, 06:08:11 PM
Quote
But the features are still not changed like they are in the 'retouched' ones. It is plain to see the one on the right has been drawn over (the only way they could retouch back then)



Exactly, and there's just no reliable evidence that the photograph on the left has been drawn over in anyway.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: AGRBear on January 15, 2006, 06:26:38 PM
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v471/AGRBear/FSFaceA.jpg)#One  (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v471/AGRBear/FSBdistorted.jpg)#Two

So,  what is the difference?  
Are her ears bigger?
Is her nose  longer?  
Is her face rounder?  
Are her eyes farther apart?  

AGRBear
 
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Margarita Markovna on January 15, 2006, 07:24:56 PM
Isn't her face longer? Is that what you changed?
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Forum Admin on January 15, 2006, 07:42:53 PM
actually, all Bear did to the photo was make it narrower, to squeeze the features slightly to make the nose, chin narrower and lenghten the face.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Margarita Markovna on January 15, 2006, 07:51:23 PM
Thanks FA...I can see how that would make a difference, IMHO she looks more like AN in the second one.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Forum Admin on January 15, 2006, 07:54:10 PM
Just for "fun" i took the original photo in question and "restored" it in Photoshop (something I have become quite adept at doing for the archival photos to not alter the original, but bring out as much lost detail as possible WITHOUT adding anything not originally there.) Here is the result.

(http://www.alexanderpalace.org/palace/forumimages/FSredone.jpg)(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v471/AGRBear/FSFaceA.jpg)

To me, there "appears" to be a difference in the restored version, but,that is just an illusion from removing the photoprinting dots. I swear that all I did was restore the photo without adding or removing a thing.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Annie on January 15, 2006, 10:59:38 PM
That's very good, FA, much better than mine! I can tell you just smoothed it and didn't change the features. That's what I did, but it didn't come out as good. It does look like AA!

Bear, OF COURSE there were artists who could retouch photos in the 20's, that's where the real retouched photo came from! I'm saying that no one messed with the dot faced, faded version, in any year. I'm saying there are retouched pics, but that one is not!!
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Grand_Duke_Paul on January 15, 2006, 11:43:39 PM
Quote

Who'd want to claim a mentally ill sister who was making a false claim? They did her a favor by not exposing her to humiliation and probable legal and financial charges. They did themselves a favor by not having to deal with the burden. I believe they did recognize her, and denied it for these reasons, and this is why they are so secretive about it to this day.


This is another reason why I regard your answers with great skepticism they are grounded in an assumption of what you feel events were, not what they actually were.
To give the impression that you have personal knowledge of how this family feels in it's entirety regarding this issue is also misleading.

Clearly during the last trial they were made to understand that would be under no financial, legal, or
criminal charges if she was found to be their sister.


Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Annie on January 16, 2006, 08:10:44 AM
How do you know that? Even if they wouldn't be, surely SHE would be, and if they claimed her who'd be responsible for her?? She was mentally ill with no visible means of support. Being family, they'd feel they should help, and they didn't want to be in that position. I have even heard the family is still afraid to be associated with the story, that even now they are afraid they might have to be held responsible for something! The family doesn't talk, that has to tell you something. But also consider, why have no family members ever come out to say the tests were wrong, she wasn't their sister? Because they KNOW SHE WAS!!

If the woman was openly exposed, she would have to have been charged with filing a false claim. Even now, this happens. There is no way she'd have been able to just walk away. Everyone associated with her could have been sued, or arrested for perjury. What were they going to do, leave her to face that, or drag her home kicking and screaming, hating them for ruining her? They did her a favor by denying her!
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Grand_Duke_Paul on January 16, 2006, 09:25:42 AM
Quote
How do you know that? Even if they wouldn't be, surely SHE would be, and if they claimed her who'd be responsible for her?? She was mentally ill with no visible means of support. Being family, they'd feel they should help, and they didn't want to be in that position. I have even heard the family is still afraid to be associated with the story, that even now they are afraid they might have to be held responsible for something! The family doesn't talk, that has to tell you something. But also consider, why have no family members ever come out to say the tests were wrong, she wasn't their sister? Because they KNOW SHE WAS!!

If the woman was openly exposed, she would have to have been charged with filing a false claim. Even now, this happens. There is no way she'd have been able to just walk away. Everyone associated with her could have been sued, or arrested for perjury. What were they going to do, leave her to face that, or drag her home kicking and screaming, hating them for ruining her? They did her a favor by denying her!


Pure speculation on your part, utter rubbish & nonsense.
The family had been assured by the time of the last trials that there was no liability on their part if she was found their sister.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Annie on January 16, 2006, 09:37:40 AM
 Like I said even if THEY wouldn't face charges, SHE would! And then what are they going to to, expose her and throw her to the wolves? Blow her cover, humiliate her, get her arrested for filing a false claim, then walk away?They spared her by covering for her.

This may be 'speculation' but it makes sense since she really was FS!
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: elfwine on January 16, 2006, 10:25:06 AM
If AA/Anastasia Manahan was clinically insane - could she have been held responsible for her behaviour?

What are the laws about this in Germany, or in America prior to her marriage to Manahan? I am sorry if this is an old and pointless question...

respectfully sent [rs]

elf

Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Grand_Duke_Paul on January 16, 2006, 10:40:41 AM
Quote
Like I said even if THEY wouldn't face charges, SHE would! And then what are they going to to, expose her and throw her to the wolves? Blow her cover, humiliate her, get her arrested for filing a false claim, then walk away?They spared her by covering for her.

This may be 'speculation' but it makes sense since she really was FS!


Again pure speculation, and no basis in fact from the depositions or testimonies of those involved in the case.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Grand_Duke_Paul on January 16, 2006, 10:41:28 AM
Quote
If AA/Anastasia Manahan was clinically insane - could she have been held responsible for her behaviour?

What are the laws about this in Germany, or in America prior to her marriage to Manahan? I am sorry if this is an old and pointless question...

respectfully sent [rs]


elf

 


Good questions.  Anyone know the answers?
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Annie on January 16, 2006, 11:22:21 AM
Quote

Again pure speculation, and no basis in fact from the depositions or testimonies of those involved in the case.


You like to use that, but really, how is there ever going to be anything like that when they were hiding it? Just because no one swore to it doesn't make it not true, just as some people apparently swore to things that turned out to be false (intentionally or accidently, I don't know)

Sometimes you have to read between the lines and make 1 and 1 = 2.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Grand_Duke_Paul on January 16, 2006, 11:38:13 AM
Quote

You like to use that, but really, how is there ever going to be anything like that when they were hiding it? Just because no one swore to it doesn't make it not true, just as some people apparently swore to things that turned out to be false (intentionally or accidently, I don't know)

Sometimes you have to read between the lines and make 1 and 1 = 2.


I don't like to use anything, but I look at certain things as facts and others as assumptions or speculations, and you are basing your statements again on pure speculation on your part.  You have no idea of the motives or thoughts of those involved, and you can't seem to ground or base your reasons on the facts in this case.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Annie on January 16, 2006, 11:41:59 AM
It's interesting how you use speculation when it suits you (such as assuming Olga lied for money, or Ernie was lying to cover up for his mysterious 1916 trip, neither of which can be proven!) yet you are so quick to strike down logical reasoning giving conclusions you choose not to believe. Sounds like 'selective-ism!"

If all you care about are facts, how about these:

1. AA was never proven to be AN in court

2. Science proved that AA was not AN and there was a 99.9% chance she was FS.

There you go.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: AGRBear on January 16, 2006, 12:04:31 PM
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v471/AGRBear/FSManSumBK1.jpg)

I am glad to see it is, now, understood, by most posters,  that an artist could have changed the original to look more like GD Anasasia in the early 1920s.

And,  despite what some think,  we do not have the knowledge of what the original photograph looked like, therefore,  we cannot compare any of the copies with the original to know what changes were made.

AGRBear
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Grand_Duke_Paul on January 16, 2006, 12:36:21 PM
Quote
If all you care about are facts, how about these:

1. AA was never proven to be AN in court

2. Science proved that AA was not AN and there was a 99.9% chance she was FS.

There you go.



Also here a couple of other "facts" for your selective obsessive disorder,   Anna Anderson was also not proven to be Franziska in court, nor was she proven not to be Anastasia, and since you like to change the subject when fact is used, since we were talking about her the siblings of Franziska, we cannot use DNA as a fact, as it wasn't applicable at the time these testimonies or depositions were taken, so for you to say that they felt this way or that way is totally moot.
As it isn't grounded in facts.

While the DNA does support the conclusions you state,
I am not satisfied that she is Franziska, nor will I be until I have read all the available evidence on my own.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: LisaDavidson on January 16, 2006, 12:37:16 PM
Annie and GD Paul, good efforts at not making your disagreements personal - and please be careful both of you about personalizing this discussion any further.

Regards,

Lisa
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Grand_Duke_Paul on January 16, 2006, 12:41:31 PM
Quote
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v471/AGRBear/FSManSumBK1.jpg)

I am glad to see it is, now, understood, by most posters,  that an artist could have changed the original to look more like GD Anasasia in the early 1920s.

And,  despite what some think,  we do not have the knowledge of what the original photograph looked like, therefore,  we cannot compare any of the copies with the original to know what changes were made.

AGRBear


My problem with the photo is that it is so faded that the facial outlines are not very visible or detailed.  

Of course it was possible to alter photos in those days, while it might have been a primitive method compared to our Photo Shop,  even Hollywood had the techniques in the 20's to airbrush, etc.  

While the original photo is no longer available these copies make a real comparison most difficult.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Tsarina_Liz on January 16, 2006, 02:59:26 PM
Quote
which of course could have been tampered with



Oh dear God.  Caleb, are you familiar with statistics?  Do you know how miniscule the odds are that DNA was tampered with, that the DNA is not that of AA or FS or whoever?    

Tampering with is not as easy as it sounds and tampering is NOT the same as contamination.

But, I am sure the FA has gone around the merry-go-round with you a few times about this.  
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Annie on January 16, 2006, 04:16:18 PM
Quote

My problem with the photo is that it is so faded that the facial outlines are not very visible or detailed.  


Which is exactly why I say it's not retouched.

Quote
Of course it was possible to alter photos in those days, while it might have been a primitive method compared to our Photo Shop,  even Hollywood had the techniques in the 20's to airbrush, etc.  


Of course, that's why we see there are 2 retouched copies, one of which I have posted next to the unretouched one.

Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Annie on January 16, 2006, 04:29:08 PM
Quote



While the DNA does support the conclusions you state,
I am not satisfied that she is Franziska, nor will I be until I have read all the available evidence on my own.



But we do have the DNA. What is it about the DNA that makes you not accept it as the final answer?

This is a thread on photographic evidence, which means we are both now OT.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: etonexile on January 16, 2006, 04:51:21 PM
Quote


But we do have the DNA. What is it about the DNA that makes you not accept it as the final answer?

This is a thread on photographic evidence, which means we are both now OT.


Some folk will not accept the DNA evidence because then they know that the game is OVER....AA was NOT AN...and was FS....They must hang on to their small illusion.....yawn
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: stepan on January 16, 2006, 06:19:55 PM
Quote

This is another reason why I regard your answers with great skepticism they are grounded in an assumption of what you feel events were, not what they actually were.
To give the impression that you have personal knowledge of how this family feels in it's entirety regarding this issue is also misleading.

Clearly during the last trial they were made to understand that would be under no financial, legal, or
criminal charges if she was found to be their sister.



There is also the letter seen by Dominique Auclère from Hans Herman Krampf (Berenberg-Gossler´s colleague) to Gertrude Schanzkowski written 11.4.1959 :" .....  At the confrontation in 1938 you were not the only one who recognized her as your sister. Your brothers and sisters also recognized her but refrained to say so in order not to make any obstacles in her career. After  that your sister Maria has died and your brother Valerian lives in Poland. Then only your brother Felix and you remain to be heard at  the trial in Hamburg. I also inform you that you have nothing to fear if you told the truth as there is a prescription now."   Clearly according to this letter this laywer had contact with at least Gertrude and that he somehow got information that they believed AA was their sister.  I may also add that Dominique Auclère was pro AA  and sympathetic to her case even if she tried to be objective. She reported from the trials in Hamburg in the late 1950´s and beginning of the 60´s for her newspaper Le Figaro.  It was said that Berenberg-Gossler was going to publish his memoires but so far I haven´t seen anything of that.  He expressed his respect ot what he called AA´s life achievement. She never gave up in spite of all the difficulties. I believe there is a lot to discover in the archives in Germany if you had the time and possibility to search there.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Annie on January 16, 2006, 06:21:30 PM
Quote

Some folk will not accept the DNA evidence because then they know that the game is OVER....AA was NOT AN...and was FS....They must hang on to their small illusion.....yawn



I was just watching a show on the History Channel that said conspiracy theories are fueled more by emotion than logic. It reminded me of this forum.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Grand_Duke_Paul on January 16, 2006, 06:38:34 PM
Quote

Some folk will not accept the DNA evidence because then they know that the game is OVER....AA was NOT AN...and was FS....They must hang on to their small illusion.....yawn



To me this is no game, and if I chose to wait for the evidence and make my mind up on my own that is my choice.  I don't that she was Franziska anymore than you do.  However there are many things I would like cleared up & for that reason alone I keep my options
open.    I clearly don't believe she was Anastasia, but I do have my doubts regarding the other one.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Grand_Duke_Paul on January 16, 2006, 06:43:26 PM
Quote
There is also the letter seen by Dominique Auclère from Hans Herman Krampf (Berenberg-Gossler´s colleague) to Gertrude Schanzkowski written 11.4.1959 :" .....  At the confrontation in 1938 you were not the only one who recognized her as your sister. Your brothers and sisters also recognized her but refrained to say so in order not to make any obstacles in her career. After  that your sister Maria has died and your brother Valerian lives in Poland. Then only your brother Felix and you remain to be heard at  the trial in Hamburg. I also inform you that you have nothing to fear if you told the truth as there is a prescription now."   Clearly according to this letter this laywer had contact with at least Gertrude and that he somehow got information that they believed AA was their sister.  I may also add that Dominique Auclère was pro AA  and sympathetic to her case even if she tried to be objective. She reported from the trials in Hamburg in the late 1950´s and beginning of the 60´s for her newspaper Le Figaro.  It was said that Berenberg-Gossler was going to publish his memoires but so far I haven´t seen anything of that.  He expressed his respect ot what he called AA´s life achievement. She never gave up in spite of all the difficulties. I believe there is a lot to discover in the archives in Germany if you had the time and possibility to search there.


Exactly my point, there is a great deal to be yet discovered in the archives in Germany.  Even if she was Franziska, I want to know the story, not just some made up group of assumptions, I want to know the who what when where why and how, I am just that curious.
There are two sides to every story, and while I see & hear the DNA side ad nauseum, I most definitely would like to read the other for myself.  However Gertrude did testify that she wasn't her sister at the trial, which makes me look suspiciously at everyone's motives in this case, which is another reason I would like to know the truth, too many liars in this case from royalty to common folk.  Just my opinion.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: jeremygaleaz on January 16, 2006, 07:14:51 PM
Quote


 However Gertrude did testify that she wasn't her sister at the trial, which makes me look suspiciously at everyone's motives in this case, which is another reason I would like to know the truth, too many liars in this case from royalty to common folk.  Just my opinion.



In this, the second half of our special retrospective on Anna Anderson's legacy we have an exclusive interview with Dr. Gunther Von Berenberg-Gossler, the most prominent attorney to oppose Anderson during her marathon legal fights in Germany. Concluding with a special interview with Prince Michael Romanoff, who provides us his thoughts on a case which vexed his family for decades.  

Dr. Gunther Von Berenberg-Gossler,  

Few cases in the annals of legal history were as long or acrimonious as the petitions made by Anna Anderson in German Courts to gain official recognition as the Grand Duchess Anastasia, daughter of Russia's last Tsar Nicholas II. Starting in 1928 and not concluding until the 1970's, costing the German Government and all involved vast sums of money.  

No one living today involved in opposing Anna Anderson is better qualified to discus the case then Dr. Gunther Von Berenberg-Gossler, attorney appointed in 1955 to oppose Anderson's claims on behalf of the Swedish and British royal families with the financial backing of Lord Mountbatten.  

Gunther Von Berenberg-Gossler was born 21 February 1911 in Freiburg/Schwarzwald in Germany, studying in Freiburg, Munich and Hamburg he earned a doctorate in law and soon established a reputation as one of Germany's finest jurists. Although his career is marked by achievements which have earned him international respect it's his involvement in the Anna Anderson case which will forever make him famous, a complex legal affair which kept him busy for over 12 years.  

"From the very start of my involvement in the case it was clear to me Anna Anderson was Franziska Schanzkowska," says Dr. Von Berenberg-Gossler in his Hamburg home, "her true identity was never in question to me, there was abundant evidence, including blood testsand testimony from her sister Gertrude Schanzkowska. So in 1994 when I received word DNA tests conducted in Britain and the United States had proven this I was pleased but not moved, it was old news to me."  

Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Tania+ on January 16, 2006, 07:25:56 PM
Do you have a letter or direct quote about Gertrude accepting AA as her sister FS ?

Sounds like you really know photography and that of alteration or doctored images. Care to give a background if possible ? Just wondering. :) Thanks.

Tatiana


Quote

From what I understand it came directly from the family of FS. And, are you arguing that the photograph is an alteration or  doctored image  or a copy of an original? There's a difference here....

But, if Gertrude, who died in 1995/96 (sorry, I don't have my notes in front of me as I'm working on another project at the moment) had no problem accepting AA as her sister FS, and this issue of an altered photograph, like the "half sister" nonsense, is certainly non existant with the family.


Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Annie on January 16, 2006, 07:32:28 PM
Quote


 In this, the second half of our special retrospective on Anna Anderson's legacy we have an exclusive interview with Dr. Gunther Von Berenberg-Gossler, the most prominent attorney to oppose Anderson during her marathon legal fights in Germany. Concluding with a special interview with Prince Michael Romanoff, who provides us his thoughts on a case which vexed his family for decades.  
 
Dr. Gunther Von Berenberg-Gossler,  
 
Few cases in the annals of legal history were as long or acrimonious as the petitions made by Anna Anderson in German Courts to gain official recognition as the Grand Duchess Anastasia, daughter of Russia's last Tsar Nicholas II. Starting in 1928 and not concluding until the 1970's, costing the German Government and all involved vast sums of money.  
 
No one living today involved in opposing Anna Anderson is better qualified to discus the case then Dr. Gunther Von Berenberg-Gossler, attorney appointed in 1955 to oppose Anderson's claims on behalf of the Swedish and British royal families with the financial backing of Lord Mountbatten.  
 
Gunther Von Berenberg-Gossler was born 21 February 1911 in Freiburg/Schwarzwald in Germany, studying in Freiburg, Munich and Hamburg he earned a doctorate in law and soon established a reputation as one of Germany's finest jurists. Although his career is marked by achievements which have earned him international respect it's his involvement in the Anna Anderson case which will forever make him famous, a complex legal affair which kept him busy for over 12 years.  
 
"From the very start of my involvement in the case it was clear to me Anna Anderson was Franziska Schanzkowska," says Dr. Von Berenberg-Gossler in his Hamburg home, "her true identity was never in question to me, there was abundant evidence, including blood testsand testimony from her sister Gertrude Schanzkowska. So in 1994 when I received word DNA tests conducted in Britain and the United States had proven this I was pleased but not moved, it was old news to me."  
 


Thank you so much for posting this. We don't usually find things like this, because most of the people who are into this here are pro AA and post only things that support that position. I appreciate someone who is active in researching the other position, we need this, since the DNA appears not to satisfy so many. Unfortunately, since this man was not on AA's side, he is only going to get called a liar, or paid off by the Queen.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Grand_Duke_Paul on January 16, 2006, 07:44:50 PM

The testimony I was referring to was in the court case, we weren't discussing what Dr. Berenberg Gossler might or might not have obtained before or after the case, what is important, and what is legal is what she testified to in court at Hamburg.  Not to what may be in his posession, and was not used as evidence in the courtroom.   I also wonder what Herr Doctor's involvement with the Hitler government and the Nazi Party was.  Would be very interesting reading.  Was this taken from the John Godl interview appearing in part in an article "Remembering Anna Anderson"?
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: jeremygaleaz on January 16, 2006, 08:49:04 PM
Quote
Do you have a letter or direct quote about Gertrude accepting AA as her sister FS ?

Sounds like you really know photography and that of alteration or doctored images. Care to give a background if possible ? Just wondering. :) Thanks.

Tatiana



A background that would back up my statements regarding the silly-ness over the idea that the people who  were trying to disprove AA's claim to be AN, and prove she was FS, would alter the only known photograph of FS to look like AN? Or that photoshop didn't exist in the 1920's? Sorry I don't think they offer degrees in those fields. ::)

But you never answered my first post.  What could anyone posting their credits do on a thread like this if one doesn't have the ability to think and reason logically? It's far to easy for any mentally ill person to post what they want. They can claim to be an expert, or know an expert, but that can be meaningless as there are people with P-H-Ds who believe in tarot cards and ouija boards!

As for my other post, someone can come onto a board like this, claim to be an expert in the Russian language, translate UZH GASLI VKOMNATAKH OGNI as "I opened a window" when the actual translation is "The lights dimmed in all the rooms" (and yes, to those that asked, the translator was Penny Wilson- ATLANTIS MAGAZINE-FINAL EDITION-VOLUME 6-PG. 59. And, a very nice gentleman in Florida has sent me other translations of hers, and all I can say is WOW :o) .  ) And, if YOU don't know anything about the Russian language, how do you know what he/she is saying is correct? Or that what I am saying is correct?

But, may I use your post to point out the use of "selective-itus"

Do YOU  have, or have you seen, quotes from Gertrude saying that AA was not her sister?


 Do you have, or have you seen, any evidence that the photograph has been altered in anyway shape or form?

Do you have a background in altered images and can state, proof positive, that the image was altered?

Do you have reason to doubt Dr. Berenberg-Gossler and members of the S family?

Why? Because you want to?  

Do you have evidence that photoshop was around in the 1920s?     

But, in answer to your question, I've shown the photo to several chaps that work with the Los Angeles Police Dept, both city and county, and they've given their opinion that the photograph has not been altered in anyway...

I've tried to get them on this forum, like the people I've been in touch with in Germany who are connected to the AA case and have been kind enough to give me oodles of info....    but they've declined. They are tired of dealing with people who refuse to accept the verdict of science, think they are a wee bit short of a "full deck", and think it's best simply to ignore  them.

(excluding, of course, the people who are simply uninformed  and really would like to learn...which you may well be)

 And neither do I think it would do any good if they did come on! ::) People will simply believe what they want to believe! 

I mean.... do you have proof that they are not agents of Queen Elizabeth???? Or how do you know I'm telling the truth at all????? ::) :o :o :o

Believe it....or not!! :o :o
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: jeremygaleaz on January 16, 2006, 08:59:30 PM
Quote

What conspiracy?  You are the only one who keeps blathering away about a conspiracy. Not I.  I read the article in it's entirety on the site it originally came from.


Grand Duke Paul

Yes, I've read the the entire article too, and it doesn't alter the meaning of the Dr.s statements at all! :D
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Tania+ on January 16, 2006, 10:05:25 PM
Zackattack,

First, lastly, it is neither appreciated, nor at any time encouraged for any poster to be accused of being anyone else, but whom they are. It is more than discourteous to do so, and only allows others to perhaps feel they are justified to follow suit, and I see it is continuing :( . I see no reason for the smile either :( Neither should others jump to conclusions based on unfounded facts. I've not given my final opinion(s) as yet, so no one needs to make fast commentary.

I asked 2 questions, to you, not the forum, and respectively thought to receive only the sameness of kindness in response. I should have expected your response, but did not think anyone would lash out as was offered by you. I'm sorry I did now. :(

Secondly: I never received any post from you, so I apologize, I could not respond as you demanded. I hastily ask you to again, correct any innuendo that I or Penny are related, and ask for your explanation as to a mentally ill person posting ? This type of response to anyone does not encourage sound communication.

As to selective-itis, I merely made an inquiry, nothing else to be interpreted differently. I've not the physical energy, to go through long searching issues. It is why I asked directly, if you would be so kind as to offer me this info. If you can't offer it, that is fine. But, nobody should be distanced on any thread by receiving this kind of response. I don't know you, and you don't know me. Why the attack ? My inquiry was not at all personal.

I'm sorry you feel put upon, but that is for you to sort out with those whom you feel have tested your patience. (No need to go off on the deep end, and make responses as you have to me). You certainly have tested my patience and I've only asked two questions.

I work with our police dept also, and could easily ask for verification. But, I don't think this is what is needed or expressed as for professional standing, imho.

Whether anyone be a newbie, or an old timer, civility is or should be a continuance on these threads.

Everyone is entitled to one's opinion. Some may share, some may not. One need not be maligned in any way because of their opinions, or pressured in giving one.

Tatiana




Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: AGRBear on January 17, 2006, 01:16:02 PM
Quote
There is also the letter seen by Dominique Auclère from Hans Herman Krampf (Berenberg-Gossler´s colleague) to Gertrude Schanzkowski written 11.4.1959 :" .....  At the confrontation in 1938 you were not the only one who recognized her as your sister. Your brothers and sisters also recognized her but refrained to say so in order not to make any obstacles in her career. After  that your sister Maria has died and your brother Valerian lives in Poland. Then only your brother Felix and you remain to be heard at  the trial in Hamburg. I also inform you that you have nothing to fear if you told the truth as there is a prescription now."   Clearly according to this letter this laywer had contact with at least Gertrude and that he somehow got information that they believed AA was their sister.  I may also add that Dominique Auclère was pro AA  and sympathetic to her case even if she tried to be objective. She reported from the trials in Hamburg in the late 1950´s and beginning of the 60´s for her newspaper Le Figaro.  It was said that Berenberg-Gossler was going to publish his memoires but so far I haven´t seen anything of that.  He expressed his respect ot what he called AA´s life achievement. She never gave up in spite of all the difficulties. I believe there is a lot to discover in the archives in Germany if you had the time and possibility to search there.


I fail to see where this letter tells us that Gertrude, Felix or any other members of the FS family has admitted that AA was FS.   Yes, it does tell us this man's opinion:
>> At the confrontation in 1938 you were not the only one who recognized her as your sister. Your brothers and sisters also recognized her but refrained to say so in order not to make any obstacles in her career.<<

The first time I read it,  it sounded more like to me a person is trying to convince members of FS family to admit something publicly at long last.

A person who is trying to tell the family that they will not be libel for any costs acquired by AA.

According to Steven,  this person was pro-AA.  But I have no clue as to who he was/is.  

Did this man  have any written letters from the FS family to him which actually admitted they thought AA was FS?

If he did, I'm sure they would have been published a long time ago.

SO,  I really can't hold much weight on this letter alone.

For all I know,  it was just another attempt to convince the family of FS to admitt AA was FS.

Far as I know,  the family of FS have never admitted in writting AA was FS.

The outburst which Gertrude had toward AA in the police station is the only time there is a hint that one of the family thought she might have been FS.  I'm not sure if this statement isn't just heresay.  Was it actually written down by the police?  If it was,  I'd like to know all the words which surrounded this outburst.  Also, from what I understand,  Gertrude was "emotional" and "highly strung" and often times these emotions lead her into difficulties within her own family.

Can someone give me more information on this meeting that was arranged by the police and if it was recorded or is it all just heresay kind of stuff?

Thanks.

AGRBear


Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: AGRBear on January 17, 2006, 03:30:29 PM
Quote


 In this, the second half of our special retrospective on Anna Anderson's legacy we have an exclusive interview with Dr. Gunther Von Berenberg-Gossler, the most prominent attorney to oppose Anderson during her marathon legal fights in Germany. Concluding with a special interview with Prince Michael Romanoff, who provides us his thoughts on a case which vexed his family for decades.  
 
Dr. Gunther Von Berenberg-Gossler,  
 
Few cases in the annals of legal history were as long or acrimonious as the petitions made by Anna Anderson in German Courts to gain official recognition as the Grand Duchess Anastasia, daughter of Russia's last Tsar Nicholas II. Starting in 1928 and not concluding until the 1970's, costing the German Government and all involved vast sums of money.  
 
No one living today involved in opposing Anna Anderson is better qualified to discus the case then Dr. Gunther Von Berenberg-Gossler, attorney appointed in 1955 to oppose Anderson's claims on behalf of the Swedish and British royal families with the financial backing of Lord Mountbatten.  
 
Gunther Von Berenberg-Gossler was born 21 February 1911 in Freiburg/Schwarzwald in Germany, studying in Freiburg, Munich and Hamburg he earned a doctorate in law and soon established a reputation as one of Germany's finest jurists. Although his career is marked by achievements which have earned him international respect it's his involvement in the Anna Anderson case which will forever make him famous, a complex legal affair which kept him busy for over 12 years.  
 
"From the very start of my involvement in the case it was clear to me Anna Anderson was Franziska Schanzkowska," says Dr. Von Berenberg-Gossler in his Hamburg home, "her true identity was never in question to me, there was abundant evidence, including blood testsand testimony from her sister Gertrude Schanzkowska. So in 1994 when I received word DNA tests conducted in Britain and the United States had proven this I was pleased but not moved, it was old news to me."  
 


>>Dr. Gunther Von Berenberg-Gossler, the most prominent attorney to oppose Anderson during her marathon legal fights in Germany<<

Since he was the opposition,  of course he'd say all of this.

And, of course he knew a great deal about the case.

However, if he had proven AA was FS during the court trial,  then I would look upon this statement differently.  He did not.  Therefore,  I do not.

Gertrude's testimony in the court case???  What is he talking about?  Did she testify?  What did she say, if she did?  Far as I know she never said in court or signed anything that tells us that she thought AA was FS.

As to the blood tests of the DNA / mtDNA,  you already know that I haven't come to any conclusions about AA being FS.

This subject really doesn't belong on this thread.  This is about photgoraphic comparisons.

Speaking of which,  well.... I'm still waiting to see the original or a good copy upon which we can all agree we can use so we can compare all the copies out there in books, here on the forum, etc. etc. etc..

Thankyou Lisa for eliminating the silly accusations that people aren't who they say they are.

AGRBear
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: AGRBear on January 17, 2006, 03:47:41 PM
Setting aside the DNA question and returning to the queston of the photographs.

I have yet to find a photograph to match the one used by the technical person,  forget his name,  for the tv program.  When I asked if anyone knew which one was used,  I was given different examples.  None were the one the tech could have used.

When I asked about the original,  it was discovered no one we know has ever seen the original nor did anyone know of a copy which had NOT been retouched.  At this time, over on another thread,  we are discussing this problem.

It seems to me that if we don't know what the original photo of FS looked like then no one can make a comparision to AA or GD Anastasia or anyone else.

AGRBear
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: AGRBear on January 18, 2006, 10:27:55 AM
Let me highlight what Greg told us:
>>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. <<

No matter how many times posters tell us that they think they have an untouched copy of FS,  it evidently isn't an accurate statement.

Until we know we have an accurate copy of the original photo of FS,  then, and only then,  can we seriously discuss the similarities with the photos of FS to AA.

Until then,  how many more times will I have to repeat Greg's statement after certain posters try to tell us they have an untouched copy of FS???

How many more times will I have to ask for the names of their experts who tell them they have an untouched copy who have seen the original?

It may well be that when we see a certified copy of FS's original photo that it will be exactly like the one found in Summers and Mangold's book THE FILE ON THE TSAR only without the two white dots.  I have no idea.  But then, neither does anyone else, and, that is the problem in a "nut shell".

AGRBear
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: ConstanceMarie on January 18, 2006, 02:07:21 PM
A.G.R. Bear, can you please explain to me where is the proof that the picture of Fransiska has or has not been retouched? It looks like to me that you are only reading just that one post. Maybe this person is wrong. What proof is there? Other posters here are telling us it does not look to be touched and it does not look touched to me. It does look old and fuzzy and maybe Xerox'd but nobody has done anything to change the way the face looks.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: AGRBear on January 18, 2006, 03:35:41 PM
Quote
A.G.R. Bear, can you please explain to me where is the proof that the picture of Fransiska has or has not been retouched? It looks like to me that you are only reading just that one post. Maybe this person is wrong. What proof is there? Other posters here are telling us it does not look to be touched and it does not look touched to me. It does look old and fuzzy and maybe Xerox'd but nobody has done anything to change the way the face looks.


Good questions.

The post I quoted is from Greg King who wrote THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS, and,  Penny Wilson, the co-author of this book,  had confirmed this on her own posts.  This makes two people who have done a great deal of research into the lives of the Romanovs and Anna Anderson.

They have talked to experts.  No, I don't know who their experts were.

When I have asked others, like Annie and Helen, who claimed they had experts which tell us that the photographs they are presenting here on the forum have not been retouched,  they fall silent.  Why?  I can make assuptions but they should be the one who tell us why they have not.  Meanwhile,  Real Anastasia,  who has talked to her own experts whom she has named and given their backgrounds,  makes the same claim as Greg and Penny about the photos having been retouched.

 I've not talked to experts, however, I am an artist and know full well how photographs in the 1920s were retouched.  Perhaps that is why I am so bearish on this subject.

The original photo is owned by some private person who is no longer known after it's last sale.

Without a ceritified copy of the original,  I have no  idea if the changes were nothing more than it being copied off of bad copies  or if it was changed to look like AA.

And,  the reason I continue to repeat this is because some posters continue to tell you and others that they have a untouched copy of FS which is the one with the two white dots which may be from a white goo/paint which may have been used to altered this particular photo.

AGRBear
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Annie on January 18, 2006, 03:43:02 PM
Bear, if you are going to continue to rehash that quote, I will continue to rehash my photos.

OF COURSE pics were retouched in the 20's! The one on the right is retouched. The one on the left is not. Anyone can see nothing has been done to it.


(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v152/WuvDaNick/redo.jpg)

I have been on this forum close to 3 years now. I remember when the post you keep quoting was made. At the time, I believed it, because all I had seen was the pic on the right. But later, I saw the one on the left, and I think it is incorrect to say there are no retouched photos because we can clearly see that there is. Perhaps he had not seen this pic at that time either. The pic may not be an original, it may be in bad shape, but it has not been doctored to alter its appearance, which is what 'retouched' means.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: AGRBear on January 18, 2006, 04:50:03 PM
The one on the right is retouched.  I agree. ;D

See, Annie and I can agree on something  ::)

AGRBear
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Annie on January 18, 2006, 05:09:00 PM
Ha, Bear, at last! :D

Does anyone know who retouched the pic on the right, when, and why? If they were trying to make it look more like AA, it actually makes it look less like her. They were probably just trying to fill in the washed out spots to what they think her features looked like. I would like to know who is responsible for it. Wasn't it in Gilliard's book. "Le Faux Anastasia"? Was that the only version, or were there more?
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Grand_Duke_Paul on January 19, 2006, 10:38:45 AM
Quote
Ha, Bear, at last! :D

Does anyone know who retouched the pic on the right, when, and why? If they were trying to make it look more like AA, it actually makes it look less like her. They were probably just trying to fill in the washed out spots to what they think her features looked like. I would like to know who is responsible for it. Wasn't it in Gilliard's book. "Le Faux Anastasia"? Was that the only version, or were there more?


If the original photo was in existance it probably would have surfaced before now.  The copies as I see them are so faded as to almost obscure her identity, and then the enhanced or altered ones seem to look farcical.
However in those days a technique was used tp give it the look of a charcoal portrait such as the altered versions we see.  I believe they used a white substance to alter the appearance or to make it look more portrait like, which was the desired result.  If they had to use the original photograph, then it is possible it was used for this, and maybe no longer in existence.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Annie on January 19, 2006, 10:47:34 AM
Yes, that charcoal technique existed in the 1800's, I have several pics from that era of my ancestors that have been done that way, even colorized somehow. I see something was done to the pic on the right but the pic on the left looks like an ordinary old picture.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: AGRBear on January 19, 2006, 10:51:57 AM
Quote

If the original photo was in existance it probably would have surfaced before now.  The copies as I see them are so faded as to almost obscure her identity, and then the enhanced or altered ones seem to look farcical.
However in those days a technique was used tp give it the look of a charcoal portrait such as the altered versions we see.  I believe they used a white substance to alter the appearance or to make it look more portrait like, which was the desired result.  If they had to use the original photograph, then it is possible it was used for this, and maybe no longer in existence.




At this time,  no one knows who owns the original which was sold, I believe, in the last few years.

AGRBear
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: RealAnastasia on January 21, 2006, 10:46:47 PM
The statesment about the photos retouching is in the German Trial records (My sources are Alain Decaux, André Castelot -which are against AA claim- Peter Kurth and Dominique Auclères). If we read these records THERE AREN'T any unretouched pics of FS.

The results of the German Trials are clear enough: judges concluded that AA couldn't have been possibility FS. And they were doubters about AA being AN. The German Trials had an open end, but for judges AA was NOT FS. The possibility only came when the DNA results were known.

RealAnastasia.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Annie on January 22, 2006, 09:35:58 AM
Quote
The statesment about the photos retouching is in the German Trial records (My sources are Alain Decaux, André Castelot -which are againts AA claim- Peter Kurth and Dominique Auclères). If we read these records THERE AREN'T any unretouched pics of FS.


I am waiting for somebody to please show me where and how the faded pic is retouched. Just telling me it is doesn't mean a thing, it is obviously not.


Quote
The results of the German Trials are clear enough: judges concluded that AA couldn't have been possibily FS. And they were doubteous about AA being AN. The German Trials had an open end, but for judges AA was NOT FS.
RealAnastasia.


They never said she couldn't possibly be, only that it wasn't proven.

Quote
The possibility only came when the DNA results were known.


But this was no surprise, after all, they did seek out one of FS's relatives for a blood sample so surely they strongly suspected she was FS.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: AGRBear on January 22, 2006, 10:25:32 AM
Quote

...[in part].....

The statesment about the photos retouching is in the German Trial records (My sources are Alain Decaux, André Castelot -which are againts AA claim- Peter Kurth and Dominique Auclères). If we read these records THERE AREN'T any unretouched pics of FS
....
RealAnastasia.


I suggest, Annie,  that you take your next vacation to Germany, look at the German Trial records with a good translator, so,  you can see for yourself  what these records tell you and they do tell us there is no untouched photographs of FS available, so,  this does includes the faded one you keep incorrectly stating is not retouched.

I regret that you can not understand this evidence.  It's not from Greg and Penny.  It's not from FILE ON THE TSAR.  It isn't from Peter Kurth or Lovell but words from the German Court trial.

You can't get DNA / mtDNA from a photograph so this need not be part of this conversation.  And,  even if you could,  you'd not find FS's DNA/mtDNA on any of the retouched versions.  Why?  It would be considered CONTAMINATED.

AGRBear  

 
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: jeremygaleaz on January 23, 2006, 02:39:40 AM
Quote
Yes, that charcoal technique existed in the 1800's, I have several pics from that era of my ancestors that have been done that way, even colorized somehow. I see something was done to the pic on the right but the pic on the left looks like an ordinary old picture.


Not to mention that Gertrude certainly had no problem recognizing the photo on the left as that of her sister. It would be absurd to think that a photograph, having been in the family's posession for years, and not disputed to be anyone else other than FS, would be altered to look more like FS so the family would recognize her as FS, when the picture already was of FS to begin with!

But I'm sure to people like Bear that line of reasoning is perfectly logical ::), and it's best to ignore. ..ignore...ignore

My grandmother too  has several pictures of ancestors from the mid 1800s in fancy evening dress and military outfits with that charcoal technique, so I've seen it before too. But that picture on the left has obviously had nothing done to it.    
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: AGRBear on January 23, 2006, 10:51:33 AM
What do you know that the courts of Germany didn't know about the photograph of FS? It was the German court who accepted the fact that no known untouched photo of FS was known to them.

Just saying you and Annie know it wasn't doesn't make it true and I don't care how many times you say that it is it doesn't change this fact.

Since I have collected thousands of photographs taken between the first photo taken to the early 1900s,  I am well aware of everything from the cheapest photo to the professional.  I am also and artists.  I am well aware of what was accomplished with all kinds of photographs taken around the time FS's photo was taken and what was being accomplished in the 1920s.

Until we see the original,  we have no idea what FS looked out.  

Of course,  we know, that FS must have looked similar but if you read what Felix tells us,  then you can understand the confusion not only by him and his sister Gertrude.

Felix signed this affidavit:

>>There does exist a strong resemblance between her and my sister.  The resemblance is strong when you look from the front, but not when you look from the side...<<

p. 174 ANASTASIA, THE RIDDLE OF ANNA ANDERSON by Peter Kurth.

Logic and knowledge is with me on this.

AGRBear
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Annie on January 23, 2006, 02:13:22 PM
Logic and knowledge? I'm afraid they both go against almost everything you post, since you continually seem to try to prove AA was not FS.

The comment by Felix S. sounds like somebody trying to get out of something. They recognized her at first, then realized blowing her cover was not a good thing, so they backed off and tried to find a legit sounding reason for this. That is logic, especially since we know that she WAS their sister.

I'm still waiting for someone to SHOW me how that pic is retouched. It is not, you can see it is not. It's like if you tried to tell me the sky was green and posted quotes from others who agreed, I would still see it blue until you proved it to me, which you can't.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: AGRBear on January 23, 2006, 02:32:41 PM
Speaking from the point of view of an artist,  the sky is never just blue ;D.

Please,  let us not get into the subject of what color blue if one had to choose just one blue from a crayola super size box.  It would depend if you're looking at a winter, sping, summer, fall, clear, stormy sky, and, added to this it would depend upon if you are viewing it from  Montana or New York City or London or Moscow....

AGRBear
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Forum Admin on January 23, 2006, 03:50:51 PM
Pardon me for injecting some sanity to this discussion ( ;D ) but does not this entire line of these threads drive home specifically the point, to both sides of discussion, that Photographic comparison is virtually useless as probative evidence for anyone? Just look at how subjective this stuff is. People see ONLY what they expect to see, and nothing else. Frankly, I don't think the photos prove anything about anyone.  Heck I've seen a hundred such old photos on ebay and in my grandmother's scrapbooks of fuzzy pics of Polish women during the 1920s that look just like them.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Louis_Charles on January 23, 2006, 04:44:11 PM
Do you know for sure where your grandmother was on the night of July 16, 1918?

Just asking. Because, you know.

;)

Simon
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Forum Admin on January 23, 2006, 05:03:55 PM
Well, I do know, actually. She was at home in Pontiac Illinois, probably taking care of my then infant uncle. My father wasn't born until 1922. BUT, she DID have two sisters still in Poland...whereabouts unknown to me...hmmmmmm...

Tedders, fetch me a martini...This calls for some deep thought.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Margarita Markovna on January 23, 2006, 05:55:42 PM
Quote
BUT, she DID have two sisters still in Poland...whereabouts unknown to me...hmmmmmm...


Uh oh...;)
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: etonexile on January 23, 2006, 06:18:51 PM
Quote
Well, I do know, actually. She was at home in Pontiac Illinois, probably taking care of my then infant uncle. My father wasn't born until 1922. BUT, she DID have two sisters still in Poland...whereabouts unknown to me...hmmmmmm...

Tedders, fetch me a martini...This calls for some deep thought.


That would be a Polish vodka martini then,Sir?...Don't stand near an open flame.....Tedders makes them....BIG
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Forum Admin on January 23, 2006, 08:03:06 PM
No no Tedders, Ketel One (Dutch vodka) OR Belvedere (Polish), a double, very cold,  2 olives...many thanks....No worry about open flames. Tedders is a most obliging bear...
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Annie on January 23, 2006, 08:11:18 PM
Do FS and FA share mtDNA?! :o
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Forum Admin on January 23, 2006, 08:19:01 PM
Doubtful, actually Annie. My Polish grandmother is my PATERNAL grandmother. My maternal grandmother, who's mtDNA I carry was born in Chicago in 1894 to Lithuanian parents who immigrated in 1867. SIGH, there goes the book deal...at least I got the martini.  ;D

But wait, my father is still alive...maybe HE has the FS mtDNA.....call the book agent....
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Margarita Markovna on January 23, 2006, 08:42:23 PM
Quote
But wait, my father is still alive...maybe HE has the FS mtDNA.....call the book agent....


Oooh! Our very own FA!
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Romanov_Fan19 on January 23, 2006, 11:10:08 PM
I Really wanna  belive it i mean the ears look how close  a perfect match     I Watched the nova progame  today  I Really was rooting for a match      is that the Disrespectful to their memory ???
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Lemur on January 24, 2006, 07:41:36 AM
Quote
I Really wanna  belive it i mean the ears look how close  a perfect match     I Watched the nova progame  today  I Really was rooting for a match      is that the Disrespectful to their memory ???


I was rooting for it to be her, too, but it wasn't. Now there is no need to keep pretending and putting things into it that aren't there, or that don't matter anymore after the tests. The only thing disrespectful to their memories now are the conspiracy theories and the fighting over it.  I mean this for both the Romanovs and for Franziska. Let them rest in peace, do not fight over them, they would not want this.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: AGRBear on January 25, 2006, 11:22:19 AM
Quote
Pardon me for injecting some sanity to this discussion ( ;D ) but does not this entire line of these threads drive home specifically the point, to both sides of discussion, that Photographic comparison is virtually useless as probative evidence for anyone? Just look at how subjective this stuff is. People see ONLY what they expect to see, and nothing else. Frankly, I don't think the photos prove anything about anyone.  Heck I've seen a hundred such old photos on ebay and in my grandmother's scrapbooks of fuzzy pics of Polish women during the 1920s that look just like them.


Bear takes a long deep sigh......................

I haven't been able to understand why it is so difficult to understand that you, me, nor can anyone else compare any photographs to that of the one known photo taken before 1920 of FS because we don't know what the original looks like.

Let's use this scenario:  It is a proven fact that the glass slide provided to Dr. Ginther was contaminated and it could not provide any DNA which matched Marg. Ellerick, the daughter of Gertrude.  Therefore,  one cannot use the slide as evidence to prove or disprove DNA or mtDNA matches  of AA  to Marg. or the Queen of Sheba. Unless you can find a glass side of AA's that is not contaminated then there is nothing from Dr. S. [forgotten his name and I'm not near any books] we can use as evidence.

It is the same with the photograph.  It has been contaminated. If you do not have the original photo of FS then you cannot compare it  to anyone else's photograph.

The importance of the original photograph will never be known to the case of AA unless it is found and presented to the public  by the present owner.  

AGRBear
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Forum Admin on January 25, 2006, 11:35:40 AM
Bear,
Why the sigh? You just in so many words said the the photo comparison is worthless..Which was my point....
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: AGRBear on January 25, 2006, 04:26:55 PM
And why is it worthless to compare the original photograph of FS to the retouched copies of FS as well as AA or even GD Anastasia?

We don't know what FS looked like in the original photo.  Until we do, then we just don't know what FS looked like, do we?

For example:  The original could show FS from head to toe.  If it does than we can compare the heights of FS to AA.  If they are the same height than that would eliminate the "four inch difference" between AA and FS as it so stated in their various medical reports.

AGRBear  
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Forum Admin on January 25, 2006, 04:36:51 PM
Quote

We don't know what FS looked like in the original photo.  Until we do, then we just don't know what FS looked like, do we?

AGRBear  


RES IPSA LOQUITOR bear. Since we don't have the "original" photo, photgraphic comparison is pointless now isnt' it?

AND frankly, even with the original. people will only see what they want to see. Photographic comparison is nothing more than a subjective exercise, like a Rorshack inkblot test. There can NEVER be an empirical finite answer from photo comparison,now can there? It will always be one person's opinion and nothing more. Unlike extrinsically verifiable scientific analysis, where ANYONE using the same evidence and same tools will always get the same answer.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: BaronessSophie on January 25, 2006, 05:09:05 PM
Quote
All I can say is that I can SEE the picture is so clearly and obviously not retouched it is silly to even argue it.


Annie, for what its worth, I agree with you.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: AGRBear on January 25, 2006, 05:12:23 PM
Quote

...[in part]....

...Since we don't have the "original" photo...


I thought I'd repeat and highlight FA's words for some posters who don't agree with this fact.

AGRBear


Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: AGRBear on January 25, 2006, 05:22:16 PM
Quote

RES IPSA LOQUITOR bear. Since we don't have the "original" photo, photgraphic comparison is pointless now isnt' it?

AND frankly, even with the original. people will only see what they want to see. Photographic comparison is nothing more than a subjective exercise, like a Rorshack inkblot test. There can NEVER be an empirical finite answer from photo comparison,now can there? It will always be one person's opinion and nothing more. Unlike extrinsically verifiable scientific analysis, where ANYONE using the same evidence and same tools will always get the same answer.


There is some discussion around here about the scientific analysis of photographs.  I'll dig up those and some other data I've found.

Meanwhile,  remember one of the methods the scientists used in Russia was comparing photographs of the vicitms with the skulls found in the mass grave.

In the Anat. Rec. Vol. 256, Pages 15-32 is shown diagrams of how this was done which is interesting.  

Must run.

AGRBear
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Annie on January 25, 2006, 05:50:35 PM
Thanks Sophie:)

Bear, all he said was that we don't have an original, that does NOT mean it's been retouched!! Haven't you ever had copies made of your own pictures from negatives, slides, or prints? They are not the 'original' but they are also not 'retouched.' Nothing could be the original here, since it would only be a scanned digital copy on the internet. I don't think FA was saying the pic looked retouched. It doesn't.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: catt.sydney on January 25, 2006, 07:11:46 PM
Hello all,

  Well, it's true, all photographic comparisons at this point are subjective -I am rather surprised that it took 15 plus pages to point that fact out!
  I look more like Anastasia than do many of these photos -- but  then so does my dear husband - that is  -if you shave off his beard !

Nevertheless, Annie * if one does beat a dead horse - it can make the meat very tender!

catt
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: catt.sydney on January 25, 2006, 07:24:41 PM
Quote

Meanwhile,  remember one of the methods the scientists used in Russia was comparing photographs of the vicitms with the skulls found in the mass grave.

In the Anat. Rec. Vol. 256, Pages 15-32 is shown diagrams of how this was done which is interesting.  

AGRBear

I have read that the attempts to stick the skulls together with gobs of glue, was considered a rather poor job by the American forensic experts when they examined this.

So Agreb please clarify = what  is your arguement here?

  You appear to waffle between faith in a magical survivor/Perm story/"Herr x" and his secret history told to a child...or is this all a clever trick?
I must say that I'm very doubtful of your intentions and rather curious... Are you now the mystical survivor  GD Anastastia?


catt
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Annie on January 25, 2006, 09:57:52 PM
Quote
Hello all,

   Well, it's true, all photographic comparisons at this point are subjective -I am rather surprised that it took 15 plus pages to point that fact out!
   I look more like Anastasia than do many of these photos -- but  then so does my dear husband - that is  -if you shave off his beard !


My second grade picture looks more like AN as a kid than any of AA's pics do. Not saying I look like her, only that AA doesn't either!


Quote
Nevertheless, Annie * if one does beat a dead horse - it can make the meat very tender!

catt



Ssshh! Now they'll never stop beating!  :P ;)
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: jeremygaleaz on January 26, 2006, 02:11:52 AM
 
Quote
Thanks Sophie:)

Bear, all he said was that we don't have an original, that does NOT mean it's been retouched!! Haven't you ever had copies made of your own pictures from negatives, slides, or prints? They are not the 'original' but they are also not 'retouched.' Nothing could be the original here, since it would only be a scanned digital copy on the internet. I don't think FA was saying the pic looked retouched. It doesn't.


I think she failed to notice the quotes around the word orginal....

There is just no evidence that the photograph has been retouched. People may have heard the photograph has been retouched...but of course, second hand gossip can't be taken as fact!

And it stands that Gertrude had no problem recognizing the photo as that of her sister.

Unless Bear is arguing that the photograph really isn't of FS? That's it, isn't it?

Ignore...ignore...ignore.... ::)  

Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Grand_Duke_Paul on January 26, 2006, 04:02:22 AM
Just a few points,  Annie,  any time a photo is made from a negative it is considered an original, since it is from the actual source, if you make duplicates from a photograph itself, then they are considered copies.

Also the issues of someone's 2nd grade pictures or whether or not someone's great auntie or 2nd cousin ended up looking like Frankenstein or Grandma Moses have no place in this debate.  Such comparisons are sophomoric, and designed to the throw the discussion off track.

What we need to remember is that while DNA states that she is clearly not Anastasia, many people thought through photographic reproduction of her photos (NOT the photos of FS) that there was a resemblance between her and the murdered Anastasia.  While I see the resemblence in some cases, in others it is not always prevalent.   Sometimes the lips are too thick or the face is too broad, but yet those same qualities appear in her paternal aunts Olga & Xenia.  I can see where someone could have made the error in saying
she was AN in photographic comparisons, while we know that is impossible.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Annie on January 26, 2006, 07:00:38 AM
Quote
Just a few points,  Annie,  any time a photo is made from a negative it is considered an original, since it is from the actual source, if you make duplicates from a photograph itself, then they are considered copies.


My point is, COPIES are not 'retouched!' I explained in my post that we have all had 'copies' made, and while they are not the 'original', they look exactly like it, and no one has drawn over the features with a pen or charcoal.

Quote
 Sometimes the lips are too thick or the face is too broad, but yet those same qualities appear in her paternal aunts Olga & Xenia.


But not in Anastasia herself. You can't put features from Xenia that she never had onto her for convenince.

Quote
Also the issues of someone's 2nd grade pictures or whether or not someone's great auntie or 2nd cousin ended up looking like Frankenstein or Grandma Moses have no place in this debate.  Such comparisons are sophomoric, and designed to the throw the discussion off track.


No, they are made to make people THINK that if it happened in one situation, it could happen in this too. It's like a parable, or a fable with a lesson, and a point that compares to this story.

Zack, could it be your aunt was Anne Frank, with amnesia, I mean, maybe she escaped, and this guy came up with a cart...oh never mind  :-[

Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Grand_Duke_Paul on January 26, 2006, 07:54:04 AM
Quote

My point is, COPIES are not 'retouched!' I explained in my post that we have all had 'copies' made, and while they are not the 'original', they look exactly like it, and no one has drawn over the features with a pen or charcoal.  


My point is that the original no longer exists, and to have an original one would have to have the negative.


Quote
But not in Anastasia herself. You can't put features from Xenia that she never had onto her for convenince.


I said it was my opinion, that in some photos she resembled Olga or Xenia, but never so much Anastasia.


Quote
No, they are made to make people THINK that if it happened in one situation, it could happen in this too. It's like a parable, or a fable with a lesson, and a point that compares to this story.

Zack, could it be your aunt was Anne Frank, with amnesia, I mean, maybe she escaped, and this guy came up with a cart...oh never mind  :-[


As I stated the stories of your 2nd grade pictures, or auntie are just that stories, they don't compare, they aren't parables or fables, or add to the story, they do detract from the discussion. As I stated, we all know now from DNA and from FOTR that Anastasia did not escape.  End of story. I also think to make fun of or use Anne Frank in this manner is a bit in bad taste.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Annie on January 26, 2006, 08:33:53 AM
Quote

My point is that the original no longer exists, and to have an original one would have to have the negative.


Pictures can be made from other prints, I've had it done myself.

Quote
I also think to make fun of or use Anne Frank in this manner is a bit in bad taste.


Ah, I was waiting for this! I was actually expecting such a comment to make my point. Now I can use this analogy. Anne was a  teenage girl died tragically, so why detract from her memory by making up fake escape stories? Same thing with Anastasia! She was also a teenage girl who died tragically, yet she cannot rest in peace, and her memory is always in turmoil because of ridiculous claimant stories like AA.

Isn't it 'in bad taste' to keep rehashing this story, and all the details, and pics of AN being compared to AA? Anastasia N. Romanov was horribly murdered, just as Anne was, and her memory deserves more respect than to still, even AFTER the DNA proved it wrong, keep dragging up silly stories about her escape.

Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Grand_Duke_Paul on January 26, 2006, 09:34:35 AM
Quote

Pictures can be made from other prints, I've had it done myself.  


No one said they could not.  My point was that when you make one from a negative you are making a print. When you make one from a photo itself it is considered a copy.

Quote
Ah, I was waiting for this! I was actually expecting such a comment to make my point. Now I can use this analogy. Anne was a  teenage girl died tragically, so why detract from her memory by making up fake escape stories? Same thing with Anastasia! She was also a teenage girl who died tragically, yet she cannot rest in peace, and her memory is always in turmoil because of ridiculous claimant stories like AA.

Isn't it 'in bad taste' to keep rehashing this story, and all the details, and pics of AN being compared to AA? Anastasia N. Romanov was horribly murdered, just as Anne was, and her memory deserves more respect than to still, even AFTER the DNA proved it wrong, keep dragging up silly stories about her escape.



No it is in bad taste to use a story as valiant and heart rendering and as tragic as that of Anne Frank's in your constant analogy ridden assumptions and tales of Anna Anderson.   First, I don't believe that Anastasia escaped. While I agree the actual story of Anastasia, or the murder of the Romanovs is every bit as tragic, there is one huge difference.  The tragedy of Anne Frank is that her story is just one of the tens of millions of lost souls that were murdered unjustifiably by a totalitarian and out of control regime, in a planned genocide. That her story has survived to remind us of the loss to humanity should humble us all and not give us lisense to use it in comparisons to other tragedies.   Anastasia's tragedy and that of her siblings is that they unnecessarily suffered the same fate of their parents.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Annie on January 26, 2006, 09:44:22 AM
Quote

No one said they could not.  My point was that when you make one from a negative you are making a print. When you make one from a photo itself it is considered a copy.


My point is, a copy is different from 'retouched.'


Quote
 Anastasia's tragedy and that of her siblings is that they unnecessarily suffered the same fate of their parents.


But were AN and her family the only ones to suffer? No. Millions died in the terror, revolution, civil war, and the purges of the late 20's- early 30's.

Both girls were innocent teenagers who died needlessly and tragically because of out of control politics that had nothing to do with them. They are both dead, and both deserve to rest in peace with no silly claimant stories!
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Grand_Duke_Paul on January 26, 2006, 10:23:56 AM
Quote

My point is, a copy is different from 'retouched.'


Yes a copy is different from retouched, but a copy can be retouched.

Quote
But were AN and her family the only ones to suffer? No. Millions died in the terror, revolution, civil war, and the purges of the late 20's- early 30's.

Both girls were innocent teenagers who died needlessly and tragically because of out of control politics that had nothing to do with them. They are both dead, and both deserve to rest in peace with no silly claimant stories!


You can't be serious can you?  To compare the tragedy of Anne Frank to the execution of the Romanovs.  That is just a bit much, but you are entitled to your opinion.

Now back to topic...

The photos of AA do not look like or resemble the known photo of Franziska other than a similar hair line
in my opinion, nor do they resemble Anastasia.  So in my view it's a toss up.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Annie on January 26, 2006, 11:41:48 AM
Quote

Yes a copy is different from retouched, but a copy can be retouched.


But the copy WASN'T retouched. This can be plainly seen with our own eyes.


Quote
You can't be serious can you?  


Two young girls died tragically and deserve to rest in peace with no silly claimant stories. Their memories should be honored and respected.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: ChatNoir on January 26, 2006, 12:46:13 PM
Maybe Annie is correct, the first picture has not been retouched or tampered with. But why was it necessary to retouch it up to three times before it was used in Gilliard's book "La Fausse Anastasie"? Did he feel that Franzisca did not look enough like Anastsia?
Just wondering.
Kind regards
Chat Noir
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Annie on January 26, 2006, 01:18:23 PM
Quote
Maybe Annie is correct, the first picture has not been retouched or tampered with. But why was it necessary to retouch it up to three times before it was used in Gilliard's book "La Fausse Anastasie"? Did he feel that Franzisca did not look enough like Anastsia?
Just wondering.
Kind regards
Chat Noir


It was probably done to clarify the faded features. This was done a lot in the old days, I have pics of my ancestors that have been 'retouched' for that reason. But in retrospect, it was a bad idea, because now it makes it look like there was a sinister reason for it. Gilliard made a mistake by doing this,  I think.

Bear, I know copies are not originals, and they may be faded or bad copies but it is still not the same thing as retouched.

Here's some pics of old relatives that were RETOUCHED using the charcoal technique. Both are US Civil War era (1860's)

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v152/WuvDaNick/0b.jpg)

Someone even attempted to 'colorize' this one

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v152/WuvDaNick/0a.jpg)

So while the man in the second pic was a deserter who changed his name, there ws no reason to touch up these pics other than that somebody thought they'd look clearer and better. I don't think so, IMO it ruins them. I guess in the old days people liked this look.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: AGRBear on January 26, 2006, 05:46:47 PM
Annie, according what you've just told us,  you've given us two examples of photographs which were retouched.  So, why are you telling me that copies of the original photo of FS couldn't have been retouched?  

I can assume your photographs were copied and remained close to the original image.   We do not know if that is true of FS's photograph copies of copies.


AGRBear
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Annie on January 26, 2006, 05:51:00 PM
Compare my pics, the retouched FS pic with the one I say is not retouched, and you can see the difference. A copy of the ones I posted comes out looking like a drawing. The one of FS still looks like a pic, dots and all. It is a bad copy but it's not retouched, the look of the person's face has not been changed.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: AGRBear on January 26, 2006, 05:58:42 PM
Quote
Maybe Annie is correct, the first picture has not been retouched or tampered with. But why was it necessary to retouch it up to three times before it was used in Gilliard's book "La Fausse Anastasie"? Did he feel that Franzisca did not look enough like Anastsia?
Just wondering.
Kind regards
Chat Noir


Maybe Annie is correct and the copies of the original has not been retouched enough to make any real changes.   We just do not know.

Can someone copy the photo in Gilliard's book.  I'd really like to see it.

Thanks

AGRBear  
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: AGRBear on January 26, 2006, 06:14:08 PM
Quote
Compare my pics, the retouched FS pic with the one I say is not retouched, and you can see the difference. A copy of the ones I posted comes out looking like a drawing. The one of FS still looks like a pic, dots and all. It is a bad copy but it's not retouched, the look of the person's face has not been changed.


Your very old photographs  are marvelous.  Thank you for sharing.

Photography had taken some giant steps by the time FS's photo was taken.  And, so had the people who created forged photos for illegal papers.  

AGRBear
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Grand_Duke_Paul on January 27, 2006, 12:04:18 AM
Quote
Compare my pics, the retouched FS pic with the one I say is not retouched, and you can see the difference. A copy of the ones I posted comes out looking like a drawing. The one of FS still looks like a pic, dots and all. It is a bad copy but it's not retouched, the look of the person's face has not been changed.


The look of the persons face is terribly faded, we could enhance that photo with todays technologies and come out with a clearer sharper view of the face, but really she looks like neither Anderson nor Anastasia to me.

By the way thanks for the tin types, I may have some comparable photos on actual photo to a charcoal drawing of my ancestor whom I was named for and his wife.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Annie on January 27, 2006, 07:27:46 AM
Quote


Can someone copy the photo in Gilliard's book.  I'd really like to see it.

Thanks

AGRBear  


The retouched pic from Gilliard's book is the same one I posted doubled with the faded one that is not retouched.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Eddie_uk on January 27, 2006, 08:18:47 AM
I know some years seperate these two photos but I just can't believe that AA was, the beautiful, HIH Grand Duchess Anastasia Nikolaevna .  ???



(http://p.vtourist.com/1331572-Grand_Duchess_Anastasia-Saint_Petersburg.jpg)

 :) :)

EDIT: P.S. And I think it was jolly rotten of her to pretend she was!!
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: ChatNoir on January 27, 2006, 11:34:42 AM
Don't forget, Eddieboy, that all official photos of members of the Imperial Family were retouched to make them look their very, very best. Check out other pictures of Anastasia, and you will see that she was not particularly beautiful after all.
Kind regards
Chat Noir
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: AGRBear on January 27, 2006, 01:24:58 PM
Quote


I think she failed to notice the quotes around the word orginal....


While you are worried about quote marks,  you failed to understand the words.   Let me repeat,  there is no original photo of FS visible to the public at this time.

Quote
There is just no evidence that the photograph has been retouched. People may have heard the photograph has been retouched...but of course, second hand gossip can't be taken as fact!


I believe the German courts so states there is no known photo which has not been retouched.

Penny and Greg have so stated that there is no known photo available to see at this time.

All photographs are from copies of copies of copies,  all of which are copies of a photo/photos which were retouched.

Do we know to what extent the copies have been retouched.  No.  Why?  Because we do not have a photo upon which we can use because we do not know the degree any of the copies were made from photos that were retouched.

Quote
And it stands that Gertrude had no problem recognizing the photo as that of her sister.


It is thought she believed there was a resemblance of AA to her sister.  But this is the subjective part of the discussion.  For example,  Annie use to see the photos of AA and GD Anastasia as being the same person.  Now,  Annie thinks AA looks like FS.
I don't think AA looks like GD Anastasia or  FS.

Quote
Unless Bear is arguing that the photograph really isn't of FS? That's it, isn't it?

Ignore...ignore...ignore.... ::)  



Hmmmmmmm,  I have never suggested this,  but, now, that you have,  I guess we don't know if the retouched photograph of FS is actually FS.  Why?  I guess we can use the same reasoning,  we don't know, because, we don't have the original photograph or untouched copies presented so we can compare.

Remember,  I didn't come up with this suggestion.

I am assuming that the similiarities of FS and AA are close enough to make a brother ponder but deside AA was not his sister and a highly emotional sister to be in error for a moment or two which created the outburst in the police station.  

Were the changes made to make FS to look more like GD Anastasia or to look more like AA???  That is the real question.  One  which no one knows until some evidence springs out of somewhere and onto this forum.

AGRBear
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Annie on January 27, 2006, 04:04:07 PM
Quote
Don't forget, Eddieboy, that all official photos of members of the Imperial Family were retouched to make them look their very, very best. Check out other pictures of Anastasia, and you will see that she was not particularly beautiful after all.
Kind regards
Chat Noir


They were touched up for  skin blemishes like high school portraits are today, but their features were not changed!
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: ChatNoir on January 27, 2006, 04:15:19 PM
Quote

They were touched up for  skin blemishes like high school portraits are today, but their features were not changed!


And who says anything about changing features??
Kind regards
Chat Noir
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Eddie_uk on January 28, 2006, 08:12:10 AM
Quote
Don't forget, Eddieboy, that all official photos of members of the Imperial Family were retouched to make them look their very, very best. Check out other pictures of Anastasia, and you will see that she was not particularly beautiful after all.
Kind regards
Chat Noir

Thank you but I don't believe every photo of the IF was touched up, I can believe it that Alexandra wanted to have her chin touched up etc.

Also they were a very beautiful family, I can't believe any one thinking they weren't, they were stunning!!  :) :)

Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Annie on January 28, 2006, 09:59:58 AM
Someone else claimed the pics were spiffed up, I've never heard that. All I'm saying is, IF they were, it was only for skin blemishes like a senior portrait gets rid of the zits. No one changed the features. And if the features were not changed, why would it even be a factor to bring up?
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Tsarina_Liz on February 02, 2006, 03:43:50 PM
They certainly are gorgeous pictures.  Makes me hate the Reds even more thinking of what they did to most of the buildings...
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Alice on March 03, 2006, 04:34:18 PM
Sigh, I'm such a glutton for punishment. I'm coming back onto the proverbial court and playing.

How is it that people cannot see the resemblance between FS and AA?

(http://img153.exs.cx/img153/3800/aa31id.png)

(http://img153.exs.cx/img153/961/fsoriginal8wx.png)

I understand that it's subjective but look at the distance between the eyebrows, the distance between the nose and the mouth, the angle of the eyebrows, the position of the part in the hair. The FS photo is of very poor quality but these attributes are visible.

Even if you can't see these similarities, you can surely see that she looks nothing like Anastasia. AN had very fine features, and AA does not. AA has very thick lips while AN had very thin ones, and AFAIK, collagen injections weren't available in the 1920s and 30s.

If you're going to argue with me, I ask that you please address the difference in lips between AN and AA.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: AGRBear on March 05, 2006, 11:21:22 AM
This thread should not be confused with the discussion on AA and GD Anastasia .  This thread is just about FS and AA and their photographic comparisons.

AGRBear
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Alice on March 05, 2006, 04:08:09 PM
Quote
This thread should not be confused with the discussion on AA and GD Anastasia .  This thread is just about FS and AA and their photographic comparisons.

AGRBear


Er, I know AGRBear, I started this thread.

But I feel the FS/AA comparison logically spills over into a AA/AN comparison. The topics are closely related.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: AGRBear on March 06, 2006, 04:46:06 PM
Okay.


AGRBear
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Rachael89 on December 27, 2006, 11:14:02 AM
Hi everyone

I haven't posted here for a long time, but I was thinking about this a while ago and thought it warranted a thread.

I've noticed that even a very short space of time, Anna Anderson's appearance changed radically, for example, in the first photos we have of her, she has very large eyes whereas in others she has very thin eyes and stuff. I have heard that she deliberately tried to change her appearance for the first ID photos, screwing up her eyes and stuff, it's just that she looks so very diffirent in all of them.

Here's some photos so maybe you can see what I mean:

Anna Anderson 1920:

(http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c124/Rachael89/The%20Romanov%20album/th_annaid.jpg) (http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c124/Rachael89/The%20Romanov%20album/annaid.jpg)

Anna Anderson 1922:

(http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c124/Rachael89/The%20Romanov%20album/th_abba1922.jpg) (http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c124/Rachael89/The%20Romanov%20album/abba1922.jpg)

Anna Anderson 1929:

(http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c124/Rachael89/The%20Romanov%20album/th_anastasia1929.jpg) (http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c124/Rachael89/The%20Romanov%20album/anastasia1929.jpg)

Does anyone know any other reasons for why she looks so diffirent in all her photos, especially when comparing those taken at Dalldorf and earlier to those taken afterwards.

I'd appreciate it if people could take the topic seriously, and not suggest things like she was a morphing alien!

Best

Rachael

Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Annie on December 27, 2006, 12:33:02 PM
I really think she tried her best to look more like AN in the later pics, even posing certain ways in certain lighting and biting her thick lips to give that illusion. In the 1920 pics, she was herself, she hadn't started pretending to be Anastasia yet, so she didn't have to fake anything. Also I believe her supporters manipulated her looks in some of the pics to make her look more like AN. But in reality, if she had been AN, she would have looked most like Anastasia in the 1920 pics. There really isn't any resemblance between those and the teenage girl we last saw pictures of in captivity. There would have been only a year of time passed between Anastasia's 'disappearance' and AA's emergence. Those 1920 pics look nothing like her, or any eighteen year old girl (which AN would have been at the time, FS was five years older) for that matter.

Another thing that affected her looks was the TB of the bones that she had. It made her more frail and sickly looking as time went on.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Katherine The O.K. on December 27, 2006, 10:18:39 PM
Anna Anderson had originally claimed to be Tatiana, I think... can't figure out why she didn't stick to it, because they look alot more alike.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Annie on December 28, 2006, 12:31:43 PM
Yes, she did. While some of her avid supporters will cry no she didn't, she technically did, because the other mental patient said she was Tatiana and she never denied it. She let people come to see her thinking she might be Tatiana. Then when they pronounced her a fake she said "I never said I was Tatiana". Then somebody gave her a paper with all of OTMA's names on it and she x'd out all but Anastasia (interestingly enough, the only one of her height, after being called 'too short to be Tatiana' by Baroness Buxhoevedon. Coincidence? I think not.) And you're right, she does look more like Tatiana.

To me the most damning thing about her is that she never even mentioned OTMA or pretended to be anyone until the other mental patient showed her the magazine and gave her the idea. It was a good game for somebody trying to escape their own identity (and what must have been a very miserable life as FS, since she had just attempted suicide.)
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Annie on December 28, 2006, 12:36:04 PM
There would have been only a year of time passed between Anastasia's 'disappearance' and AA's emergence.

This should have read 'year and a half.' (From July 1918 to Feb. 1920) I thought I had typed that, just noticed I didn't.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Penny_Wilson on December 28, 2006, 02:05:23 PM
I'd suggest reading Peter Kurth's book on the subject; he has done the research and laid it out exactly as it happened -- and source notes are provided for you to check.  On the subject of "Anna Anderson," there is no better authority than Peter.  ;D

~Penny
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Holly on December 28, 2006, 02:12:58 PM
Looking at those pictures Rachael posted I just can't believe how anyone would see a resemblance between Anna and Anastasia Nicholaievna. They have completely different features!! Ugh.. :P
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Helen_Azar on December 28, 2006, 04:54:53 PM
(http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c124/Rachael89/The%20Romanov%20album/th_annaid.jpg) (http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c124/Rachael89/The%20Romanov%20album/annaid.jpg)  Anna Anderson 1922:
(http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c124/Rachael89/The%20Romanov%20album/th_abba1922.jpg) (http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c124/Rachael89/The%20Romanov%20album/abba1922.jpg) Anna Anderson 1929: (http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c124/Rachael89/The%20Romanov%20album/th_anastasia1929.jpg) (http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c124/Rachael89/The%20Romanov%20album/anastasia1929.jpg)

Call me crazy, but they all look very much like the same person to me, and not at all like "changing faces"...

Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: imperial angel on December 28, 2006, 05:03:49 PM
I have always noticed that she was a bit of a chameleon, because I think her looks changed much as well, she seems to look like any manner of different people. I doubt it was intentional, maybe it is just how her features were. As well, it seems that she was ill many times and such, and from that, perhaps her appearance changed. At first, she did resemble Tatiana, but later she didn't look remotely like any Romanov. She was under much stress as well, and that might have taken her looks, or changed them. Mentally and physically, she was confusing I think.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Helen_Azar on December 28, 2006, 05:14:04 PM
To me, she looked significantly different only later on in life, when she got much older. Otherwise, she didn't look any more different from one picture to another than anyone else would. Many people look somewhat different in various photos, but you can still tell it's the same person - just like AA... Also, remember, hair can make someone look different, so she may just have changed her hairstyle a little and it would seem like she is a "chameleon".
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Belochka on December 28, 2006, 08:01:02 PM
I'd suggest reading Peter Kurth's book on the subject; he has done the research and laid it out exactly as it happened -- and source notes are provided for you to check.  On the subject of "Anna Anderson," there is no better authority than Peter.  ;D

~Penny


Such a pity that his excellent research skills were wasted to reach a misguided assumption. To conclude this matter perhaps we can look forward to his re-evaluation in view of the conclusive scientific evidence in the future?

Margarita
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Penny_Wilson on December 28, 2006, 08:11:20 PM
Again, on the subject of "Anna Anderson," there is no better authority than Peter Kurth.  Without regard to the results of the 1994 DNA tests, her story remains her story -- and his work stands head and shoulders above any other on the subject.

Will Peter write again on the subject?  I hope so -- there's quite a bit more that needs saying.  And that's all I have to say!  :D

~P.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Belochka on December 28, 2006, 08:23:40 PM
Again, on the subject of "Anna Anderson," there is no better authority than Peter Kurth.  Without regard to the results of the 1994 DNA tests, her story remains her story -- and his work stands head and shoulders above any other on the subject.

Will Peter write again on the subject?  I hope so -- there's quite a bit more that needs saying.  And that's all I have to say!  :D

~P.

Indeed it was just a story in the end wasn't it? Frankly I can't recall too many other authorships who bothered to publish solely on this theme except for pk.  ???
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Annie on December 28, 2006, 09:01:49 PM
Oh well, leave it to a chimera to play the chameleon! :D

I really don't think there's any need for a new book on AA, unless it's to show HOW she pulled off the fraud and who helped her. Nothing anyone can say now will change the DNA evidence that proved her not to be AN.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Belochka on December 28, 2006, 09:31:26 PM
Oh well, leave it to a chimera to play the chameleon! :D

I really don't think there's any need for a new book on AA, unless it's to show HOW she pulled off the fraud and who helped her. Nothing anyone can say now will change the DNA evidence that proved her not to be AN.

It could be titled: "Grand Deception"   :D  ::)
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Annie on December 29, 2006, 11:03:59 AM
Oh well, leave it to a chimera to play the chameleon! :D

I really don't think there's any need for a new book on AA, unless it's to show HOW she pulled off the fraud and who helped her. Nothing anyone can say now will change the DNA evidence that proved her not to be AN.

It could be titled: "Grand Deception"   :D  ::)

 :D That's the only kind of "GD" she'll ever be! :D

Now the song "Grand Illusion" is stuck in my head. Something about wanting someone else's fantasy.... ;)
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: imperial angel on December 30, 2006, 12:50:17 PM
I think beyond a joke about aliens or whatever, when you see photos of Anna Anderson at various stages of her life, she does look like different people.She may have later tried this intentionally, but I think it was just some weird thing, or the strains of her life.I think she actually believed that she was Anastasia, so she would not have tried intentionally to alter her appearance to look like her. I agree in the first photos of her, her resemblance to Tatiana is stunning. But, she never had the exotic looks Tatiana had, so that wasn't going to last. I am not sure why she seems to resemble Tatiana, only that she does in those first photos.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Ra-Ra-Rasputin on December 31, 2006, 07:00:24 AM
Remember that AA lived through a period where fashions changed frequently and photographic technology advanced.  Hairstyles, clothing, make up, etc, can dramatically change your face.  Not to mention the angle you are photographed from and what lighting is used, and the type of camera you're using.  I look completely different in some photographs to the way I look in others; it all depends on how I'm posing, where I am (ie inside, outside, in the dark), what I am wearing, what my hair is styled like, etc. 

AA looks the same facially in most photographs if you look closely enough.  Careful posing later in her 'career' to resemble photographs of AN need to be taken into consideration too- AA started biting her lips, for example, as AN had very thin lips and AA very fleshy ones.

Rachel
xx
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: imperial angel on January 16, 2007, 12:05:28 PM
One thing that is true, is that as she got older the looks of Anna Anderson didn't seem to change much. She looked more the same from year to year. Perhaps this is because once she reached an age beyond which it was really possible to imagine what Anastasia would have looked like, she didn't feel as compelled to look like Anastasia, if your idea is right. I think that could be true indeed, although Anna Anderson still seems curiously like a shape shifter.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: stacey on March 04, 2007, 10:11:57 PM
I agree that in her younger days, AA bore a striking resemblance to Tatiana. If she had only been taller, very likely she would have continued to maintain the myth that she was Grand Duchess Tatiana instead of Anastasia--I wonder, would the world have been as interested in a surviving Tatiana as it was in a surviving Anastasia??

In fact, one of the people who had known the Grand Duchesses well--sorry I've forgotten who  :-[ I'll have to look it up!--said that if only she had claimed to be Tatiana, they might well have believed her!!  ???
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Kurt Steiner on March 05, 2007, 03:50:49 AM
Indeed, she looks as if he kept changing from time to time, but I found it logical. She was caught in her lie, she couldn't step back and to be proved a liar.

Although I find sad her fate -all the failures are sad-, I have no pity for her: she carved her way. Excuse me if I sound a bit heartless here, but I can't help.

Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Kurt Steiner on March 06, 2007, 03:37:55 AM
I think it is so obvious that Anna Anderson atleast thought she was Anastasia, so why is it so many people are so bitter towards her? From the day she was pulled from the canal as a young woman in 1920 until the day she died in 1984 as an old lady in Virginia, all she wanted was what she thought was her identity. I don't know why she must be ridiculed.

It could be due to the fact that she obliged many people to remember past sadness moments, members of their families gone for good and to reopen old injuries.

And, finally, we all must admit that liars are never loved by no one once they're discovered and proved a fraud.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Bob_the_builder on May 18, 2007, 02:07:22 PM
There is nothing wrong with AA being FS. In fact, it makes her MORE interesting in my opinion. How did she fool all of these people who knew Anastasia?
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Bob_the_builder on May 18, 2007, 07:51:31 PM
The ones you posted look like the same person to me. But here's some that don't like quite like those in my opinion.

(http://img299.imageshack.us/img299/4772/vlcsnap87608tn9.png)
(http://img522.imageshack.us/img522/2476/vlcsnap89950hd0.png)
(http://img518.imageshack.us/img518/6052/18hc1.jpg)
(http://img223.imageshack.us/img223/5452/16la5.jpg)
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Alixz on June 03, 2009, 02:05:28 PM
Quote
It has nothing at all to do with FS having been a "Polish peasant" -- which, by the way, is overstating the case -- and everything to do with life experiences between the classes at that time being so far apart.  There was no "pop culture" or "world culture" to even things out and homogenize them.  There would have been oceans of difference between a Katchoubian farm-bred country girl and a Grand Duchess of Russia -- from the way each comported herself to the way each would speak even languages held in common to table manners to work ethic -- things would have been very different.  Far too different for someone to stretch a charade out for sixty years.

Anastasia Manahan was NOT Franziska Schanzkowska.  She MAY have been Grand Duchess Anastasia.  If she wasn't Grand Duchess Anastasia, then she was someone to whom aristocratic manners were first nature.

    No- I really cannot agree with the suggestion that she MAY have been GD Anastasia (what with the mDNA and all). It just makes no sense...
    Although your arguements regarding the cultural differences between a young polish girl and a russian Grand duchess are well put, I still don't see that the AA/FS connection is completely unfounded!
    People are capable of learning charm and numerous social niceties -- even emotionally unstable people!

Rskkiya



However, it may be that anyone is capable of learning manners and comportment how then would you describe that Anna Anderson seemed to "unlearn" them?

She lived in squalor.  She treated people with contempt.  She had no manners and never tried to show that she did!
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: klava1985 on November 22, 2009, 06:59:34 PM
I knew someone who was raised as a sort of old-money Eastern Establishment princess. She died either at her own hand or was shot in the head by her abusive redneck boyfriend in a remote area of Montana. They lived like pigs in a small cabin without water, drank at the local bar, and drove around with guns in four-wheel-drives. This was not how she was raised or educated and if you'd known her even a few years previously you would never have recognized her. Even her voice changed. Just saying.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Maria Romanova on December 14, 2012, 07:26:41 AM
http://pinterest.com/pin/102949541451738151/ (http://pinterest.com/pin/102949541451738151/) This is the original photo of Franziska.  :)
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: TimM on September 23, 2014, 07:34:53 AM
Judging from the photos of Anastasia and FS that I've seen, they looked nothing alike.   I would never have mistaken one for the other. 
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Romafan96 on September 05, 2015, 07:46:47 AM
Judging from the photos of Anastasia and FS that I've seen, they looked nothing alike.   I would never have mistaken one for the other. 

I agree, Tim. I've tried to look at pictures of Franziska (sp?) objectively and I just CANNOT see ANY resemblance to Anastasia or any Romanov. Anastasia looked like the Tsarina and Anna Anderson looked nothing like Alix. Yes, people grow up but people's lips don't get noticeably larger as part of the ageing process. Remember, Anastasia was 17 when she died. Whilst she probably hadn't finished her growth cycle her features, at this point, were probably "set" and wouldn't have changed that much by the time she was in her twenties - the age should would have been when this whole survivor story kicked off. The ear test that supposedly confirms Anna as being Anastasia overlooks the fact they shared no other features, either.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Ally Kumari on September 06, 2015, 10:35:25 AM
So many books are actually using a photo of Maria Nikolaevna, not Anastasia, for the "ear comparism". How can you take them seriously then?
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Romafan96 on September 06, 2015, 10:39:20 AM
So many books are actually using a photo of Maria Nikolaevna, not Anastasia, for the "ear comparism". How can you take them seriously then?


I noticed that too!
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Lochlanach on February 20, 2016, 09:56:14 AM
Judging from the photos of Anastasia and FS that I've seen, they looked nothing alike.   I would never have mistaken one for the other. 

I agree, Tim. I've tried to look at pictures of Franziska (sp?) objectively and I just CANNOT see ANY resemblance to Anastasia or any Romanov. Anastasia looked like the Tsarina and Anna Anderson looked nothing like Alix. Yes, people grow up but people's lips don't get noticeably larger as part of the ageing process. Remember, Anastasia was 17 when she died. Whilst she probably hadn't finished her growth cycle her features, at this point, were probably "set" and wouldn't have changed that much by the time she was in her twenties - the age should would have been when this whole survivor story kicked off. The ear test that supposedly confirms Anna as being Anastasia overlooks the fact they shared no other features, either.
'I would never have mistaken one for the other' ...... neither did anybody else ! Off the top of my head I can't think of any close past associates of Anastasia who recognised her on sight , although maybe someone will correct me. Not in the 1920's , nor in the 1950's. Even AA's most ardent supporters admitted she was 'much changed'.The attempt by supporters to match physical characteristics with Anastasia ,like her eyes and ears , came after the 'recognition' when they sought , unsuccessfully to find facial similarities between AA and Anastasia . This 'recognition' almost always occurred during a verbal exchange (usually tortorous affairs sometimes lasting hours or even days)  when AA 'remembered' a detail from the past which convinced the visitor of her true identity . Put it this way , no past associates, not even those who became her supporters , met her and spluttered out the words ' Grand Duchess - you're alive - its a miracle!' followed by tears and embraces ( you probably know this already). Point this out, and many other things, to AA supporters and you just get the usual  excuses and frustrated tantrums - somewhat  reminiscient of a child that has been permanently deprived of their favourite toy.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Kalafrana on February 20, 2016, 12:27:16 PM
Good point.

I too have never seen any resemblance between the two. While allowing for the fact that Anastasia in her later photographs was slightly chubby-faced, and AA emaciated, the noses and lips in particular were completely different.

Ann
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Lochlanach on February 21, 2016, 06:10:07 AM
Good point.

I too have never seen any resemblance between the two. While allowing for the fact that Anastasia in her later photographs was slightly chubby-faced, and AA emaciated, the noses and lips in particular were completely different.

Ann

Different chin too . AA supporters see similarities that aren't there. I remember showing one of those classic split screen AA/Anastasia comparison photos that you find on the internet to my mother ,who knew nothing of the Romanovs , and asked her - 'do these people look alike , are they the same person ?' Her reply after a swift examination was - 'No , nothing like her , don't be stupid !'.  Good old mum !
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Ally Kumari on February 21, 2016, 12:27:43 PM
These days I have been send several messages on my Czech blog that Anna Andersson was not Anastasia Nikolaevna..... but Maria Nikolaevna!

Here is a whole blog dedicated to photo comparison of the two (often, ironically, using wrong pictures), if you just scroll down http://tschaikovska.blogspot.cz/
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Lochlanach on February 21, 2016, 01:30:25 PM
These days I have been send several messages on my Czech blog that Anna Andersson was not Anastasia Nikolaevna..... but Maria Nikolaevna!

Here is a whole blog dedicated to photo comparison of the two (often, ironically, using wrong pictures), if you just scroll down http://tschaikovska.blogspot.cz/

Maria ? I didn't see that coming ! Some of those photos of AA are new to me , but you do a really good job of emphasising the obvious ... she looked nothing like Anastasia or Maria. Ceska Republika .. great place.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Ally Kumari on February 26, 2016, 11:00:11 AM
I have been swamped by messages and photo comparisons and now I am SO sick and tired of him.... I have presented him with information from various books (notably "Ressurection of the Romanovs" by Greg King, "The Romanovs: The FInal Chapter" by R.K. Massie and also "A Romanov Fantasy" by F. Welch) as well as links on DNA testing, but everything was dismised as made up rubbish and everything that counts are his amateurish photo comparisons. He insists that EVERY information there is on Anna being Francizska is useless because the only photo of Francizska was retouched and made to look like Anna, when in fact she didn´t look like her at all..... Sigh. I am leaving that conversation. Sometimes there is no point.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Yelena Aleksandrovna on February 26, 2016, 01:12:45 PM
These days I have been send several messages on my Czech blog that Anna Andersson was not Anastasia Nikolaevna..... but Maria Nikolaevna!

Here is a whole blog dedicated to photo comparison of the two (often, ironically, using wrong pictures), if you just scroll down http://tschaikovska.blogspot.cz/

O_o I always thought that all AA's supporters were fully convinced that AA was actually AN!! ;-) When checking the blog I was expecting to find some kind of explanation about this "new change of identity" of AA but could not find anything (except the photo comparison), I wonder if among the several messages that you received in your blog this person said something more besides the photo comparison. After all, they are contradicting AA's original claim! :-P Anyways, for what I've been reading in the previous posts I see that it is not the first time that Maria´s photos were used for making photo comparison with AA, I think that some of AA's supporters got tired trying to find some likeness between two women who were totally different.
This  reminds me a lot me the photo comparison done for Maria Martí, at first they start using Maria's photos and at least they make a comparison betwen María Martí, Anastasia and AA!!! Everything is good for them to "prove" their point.

I have been swamped by messages and photo comparisons and now I am SO sick and tired of him.... He insists that EVERY information there is on Anna being Francizska is useless because the only photo of Francizska was retouched and made to look like Anna, when in fact she didn´t look like her at all..... Sigh. I am leaving that conversation. Sometimes there is no point.

Unfortunately, in the majority of the cases happens the same, this is to talk to deaf ears.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Ally Kumari on February 28, 2016, 11:00:04 AM
Now he is saying that Maria had the same foot deformity as Anastasia - and on BOTH feet - which explains why Anna ANderson had it. He says it´s clear in this photo

(http://40.media.tumblr.com/fc0eb0a04ed46e34070169437fe59cd8/tumblr_myiuctqxR51skf7s3o1_1280.jpg)

He also says I am simply determined not to see this or the striking similarity between AA and MN.

I decided not to answer any more......
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: Lochlanach on February 28, 2016, 12:11:50 PM
Now he is saying that Maria had the same foot deformity as Anastasia - and on BOTH feet - which explains why Anna ANderson had it. He says it´s clear in this photo

(http://40.media.tumblr.com/fc0eb0a04ed46e34070169437fe59cd8/tumblr_myiuctqxR51skf7s3o1_1280.jpg)

He also says I am simply determined not to see this or the striking similarity between AA and MN.

I decided not to answer any more......

'Anastasiaists' are the most dogmatic people you will ever debate with . No amount of DNA evidence , historical research or common sense will convince them they are wrong . Read some Amazon reviews of Resurrection of the Romanovs for instance. How they hate that book ! 
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The AA camp don't have such evidence, so they shout very loudly and put their fingers in their ears.
Title: Re: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?
Post by: TimM on March 16, 2016, 05:22:10 AM
I think it was a case of I Want To Believe.  So many wanted the IF to be alive that, when FS turned up, they embraced her and brushed aside their doubts.