Author Topic: Photos of the 1991 bones  (Read 33581 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

helenazar

  • Guest
Re: Photos of the 1991 bones
« Reply #15 on: July 31, 2008, 09:30:11 AM »
If there was enough of the skull left they could do facial reconstruction from a cast which might help a little. This method is often used to ID unkown corpses here in England.

The Russians based their individual id's on their recunstructions, but they used computer imaging and they had to fill in parts of the skulls, since they were missing many parts. I am not sure how accurate this method is... But in any case, I think the girls looked enough alike that it would still have been difficult to say with 100% certainty. Only DNA could have done that, but of course that's not an option.

Offline Michael HR

  • Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 645
  • Imperial Corps Des Pages
    • View Profile
Re: Photos of the 1991 bones
« Reply #16 on: July 31, 2008, 09:35:38 AM »
At least we know they are all accounted for and lay at rest together or will do shortly when the second remains are buried. Thank God for DNA is all I can say.

It would be nice if Michael could be found as well but unlikely now.
Remembering the Imperial Corps Des Pages - The Spirit of Imperial Russia


helenazar

  • Guest
Re: Photos of the 1991 bones
« Reply #17 on: July 31, 2008, 09:55:44 AM »
Thank God for DNA is all I can say.

Amen! :-)

Offline nena

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 2927
  • But every spring smells like you.
    • View Profile
Re: Photos of the 1991 bones
« Reply #18 on: July 31, 2008, 10:31:32 AM »


-Ars longa, vita brevis -
Mathematics, art and history in ♥

Offline Sarushka

  • Moderator
  • Velikye Knyaz
  • *****
  • Posts: 6489
  • May I interest you in a grain of salt?
    • View Profile
Re: Photos of the 1991 bones
« Reply #19 on: July 31, 2008, 10:33:03 AM »
If there was enough of the skull left they could do facial reconstruction from a cast which might help a little. This method is often used to ID unkown corpses here in England.

The Russians based their individual id's on their recunstructions, but they used computer imaging and they had to fill in parts of the skulls, since they were missing many parts. I am not sure how accurate this method is...

That was one of Dr. Maples's criticisms of the Russians' methods: where facial bones were missing, they used glue to bridge the gaps, which he believes renders the results unreliable because there's no way to do that sort of reconstruction without guesswork. One wrongly placed bone throws everything else out of kilter and compounds the potential inaccuracy of everything attached to that join.

That said, it seems to me that the footage I've seen of the computer-generated superimpositions appeared to show the Russian scientists using images of the damaged skulls rather than the reconstructions. (Although it's possible I've grossly underestimated the level of original damage and those are in fact the repaired skulls, in which case -- yikes!)
THE LOST CROWN: A Novel of Romanov Russia -- now in paperback!
"A dramatic, powerful narrative and a masterful grasp of life in this vanished world." ~Greg King

helenazar

  • Guest
Re: Photos of the 1991 bones
« Reply #20 on: July 31, 2008, 10:47:12 AM »
If there was enough of the skull left they could do facial reconstruction from a cast which might help a little. This method is often used to ID unkown corpses here in England.

The Russians based their individual id's on their recunstructions, but they used computer imaging and they had to fill in parts of the skulls, since they were missing many parts. I am not sure how accurate this method is...

That was one of Dr. Maples's criticisms of the Russians' methods: where facial bones were missing, they used glue to bridge the gaps, which he believes renders the results unreliable because there's no way to do that sort of reconstruction without guesswork. One wrongly placed bone throws everything else out of kilter and compounds the potential inaccuracy of everything attached to that join.

I actually agree with Maples about that. However, I don't think that his method is 100% reliable either, i.e. there is some range of error there, which would allow at least 3 of the 4 girls to be included, if not all 4... Which is why I don't agree with either the Russians' or the Americans' opinion of the identities, I say that there is no way - short of DNA - to tell which girl is which with 100% certainty...

Offline nena

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 2927
  • But every spring smells like you.
    • View Profile
Re: Photos of the 1991 bones
« Reply #21 on: July 31, 2008, 10:54:01 AM »
It was always said girl/skull no. 3 is Olga, if I am correct, feel free to correct me!
Empress:

-Ars longa, vita brevis -
Mathematics, art and history in ♥

helenazar

  • Guest
Re: Photos of the 1991 bones
« Reply #22 on: July 31, 2008, 10:58:24 AM »
It was always said girl/skull no. 3 is Olga, if I am correct, feel free to correct me!

Yes, I think that may be the only one that everyone agreed upon... Which makes sense, I suppose, because Olga was the oldest, so there could be something more distinct about it. But that's still not 100% accurate IMO, although based on forensic and biological evidence it is most likely. It is still possible that it could be Tatiana though, since they are so close in age. Tatian's may have developed faster physically than Olga, etc. I'm not saying that's the case, I am trying to explain why I don't think there is any way to be 100% sure about this, except with DNA.

Offline nena

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 2927
  • But every spring smells like you.
    • View Profile
Re: Photos of the 1991 bones
« Reply #23 on: July 31, 2008, 11:07:46 AM »
I always though they tested them on DNA base? Results? Husband of Queen Elisabeth also toke part in, or? I really don't know, and would love someone can explain me....
I always believed no. 3 is Olga, no. 5 Tatiana, and no. 6 Anastasia......I think Russians said same thing....
Any help--appreciated.......
-Ars longa, vita brevis -
Mathematics, art and history in ♥

helenazar

  • Guest
Re: Photos of the 1991 bones
« Reply #24 on: July 31, 2008, 11:11:40 AM »
I always though they tested them on DNA base? Results? Husband of Queen Elisabeth also toke part in, or? I really don't know, and would love someone can explain me....
Yes, of course they did. But they still couldn't tell which girl was which, since they didn't have their individual DNAs to compare to. They could tell that they are all  young females, siblings, children of Nicholas and Alexandra and maternal descendants of Queen Victoria. But... they couldn't tell which girl is which based on these DNA profiles...

mikeycoleman

  • Guest
Re: Photos of the 1991 bones
« Reply #25 on: July 31, 2008, 11:13:56 AM »
The "final" word from the Russians was that body 5 was Tatiana and 6 was Anastasia.

Here are schematics of what bones were found in the 1991 grave.  Other than Kharitonov, the pelvises are pretty much there!






helenazar

  • Guest
Re: Photos of the 1991 bones
« Reply #26 on: July 31, 2008, 11:16:36 AM »
The "final" word from the Russians was that body 5 was Tatiana and 6 was Anastasia... the pelvises are pretty much there!

Yes, but that doesn't mean that it's 100% correct. There simply isn't any way to tell by pelvises with 100% certainty which girl was which...

mikeycoleman

  • Guest
Re: Photos of the 1991 bones
« Reply #27 on: July 31, 2008, 11:18:55 AM »
No, no.  That's not what I meant at all!

I thought Annie was needing to check that all the pelvises (pelvi?) were there to debunk the theory that one of them had been rmoved from a large grave body to salt the smaller grave.

Annie?

Mikey

helenazar

  • Guest
Re: Photos of the 1991 bones
« Reply #28 on: July 31, 2008, 11:21:34 AM »
No, no.  That's not what I meant at all!

I thought Annie was needing to check that all the pelvises (pelvi?) were there to debunk the theory that one of them had been rmoved from a large grave body to salt the smaller grave.

Annie?

Mikey

Oh ok, sorry. That's just a ridiculous conspiracy theory which someone came up with, I am sure that they didn't play the "musical pelvises" either.
« Last Edit: July 31, 2008, 11:26:07 AM by Helen_A »

mikeycoleman

  • Guest
Re: Photos of the 1991 bones
« Reply #29 on: July 31, 2008, 11:24:55 AM »
Musical Pelvises was my favorite childrens game.

Mikey