Author Topic: Re: So who WAS she, then?  (Read 112295 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline AGRBear

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 6611
  • The road to truth is the best one to travel.
    • View Profile
    • Romanov's  Russia
Re: So who WAS she, then?
« Reply #540 on: March 31, 2005, 08:46:50 PM »
You mentioned that word conspiracy  :o  and then you link it to Annie [AA***] ::) .   What fun ;D  BUT do you think she'll [AA***] tell us it ain't so  ??? [via Gypsy medium***] and ruin our out of box experience :-/ .  Oh, oh, I hear the footsteps of Admin.  Forum. Quick.  Back to the topic 8)



AGRBear

***PS:  Bear Humor Explained:  Yes, I knew we were talking about AA=Anna Anderson.  I didn't mention the gypsy who'd help us talk to our dearly departed AA..... Sorry for confusion.  There was to be no ref. to our poster Annie.  
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by AGRBear »
"What is true by lamplight is not always true by sunlight."

Joubert, Pensees, No. 152

Mgmstl

  • Guest
Re: So who WAS she, then?
« Reply #541 on: April 01, 2005, 09:09:32 AM »
Folks, just to put my 2 cents worth in here, which I know you were all breathlessly awaiting ;D

BUT, in the late 1800 early 1900's on tintypes, some pastel portraits, and photos, it was COMMON for people to add: earrings, wedding bands, buttons, paint them on as gold.  I have seen it many times, so it is no indication as to whether or not FS or AA had pierced ears.   It was done sometimes in the photography studio, and others did it at home.  It happened up to about 1920.  

Sometimes people would go to get a photo taken and they would wear clothes provided by the photographer or studio.  It was a big occasion for the common folk like us to go and have our pictures taken.  

Mgmstl

  • Guest
Re: So who WAS she, then?
« Reply #542 on: April 01, 2005, 09:13:33 AM »
We are not discussing conspiracy theories, some of us have an understanding of statistics and genetics, and realize that in all probability AA may end up being FS, but DNA is not the only issue for us, and it doesn't do enough in this case to close the glaring differences between these two women  AA & FS.  Just my opinion.

This is a real issue to us, with some differences that we feel cannot be overlooked, and chalked off to coincidence.  

Offline Forum Admin

  • Administrator
  • Velikye Knyaz
  • *****
  • Posts: 4665
  • www.alexanderpalace.org
    • View Profile
    • Alexander Palace Time Machine
Re: So who WAS she, then?
« Reply #543 on: April 01, 2005, 09:45:17 AM »
I don't really understand why pierced ears or not means anything in this case.  My grandmother from Poland had pierced ears as a child into her teen years. She stopped wearing pierced earrings soon after her marriage to my grandfather....by the time I knew her, the holes had grown closed without even leaving a scar or trace... She told me about it on several occassions.

Offline Elisabeth

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 2131
    • View Profile
Re: So who WAS she, then?
« Reply #544 on: April 01, 2005, 10:27:42 AM »
Quote
I don't really understand why pierced ears or not means anything in this case.  My grandmother from Poland had pierced ears as a child into her teen years. She stopped wearing pierced earrings soon after her marriage to my grandfather....by the time I knew her, the holes had grown closed without even leaving a scar or trace... She told me about it on several occassions.


Thank you, FA. Yet another good reason why, as I said before, this whole issue is a red herring!

But please, folks, let's all be consistent. Many of you had objections to the computer-generated match between photos of AA and FS, because you thought the photo of FS might have been retouched. Well, we know for a fact that this other "photo" showing FS with earrings is not merely retouched, it's an "artist's rendition" of a photo. So can we all agree that it shouldn't even be considered as evidence?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by Elisabeth »
... I love my poor earth
because I have seen no other

-- Osip Mandelshtam

Offline AGRBear

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 6611
  • The road to truth is the best one to travel.
    • View Profile
    • Romanov's  Russia
Re: So who WAS she, then?
« Reply #545 on: April 01, 2005, 10:37:44 AM »
Okay with me, since I was the one trying to discover the original photo in the first place  ;D

Now, does anyone remember the source which tells if FS had pierced ears or not?

It took us five pages to find out about the photographs, I do hope we don't have to go in circles for five more just to find out if FS had or did not have pierced ears.

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

Joubert, Pensees, No. 152

Offline Elisabeth

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 2131
    • View Profile
Re: So who WAS she, then?
« Reply #546 on: April 01, 2005, 11:02:55 AM »
Quote
Okay with me, since I was the one trying to discover the original photo in the first place  ;D

Now, does anyone remember the source which tells if FS had pierced ears or not?

It took us five pages to find out about the photographs, I do hope we don't have to go in circles for five more just to find out if FS had or did not have pierced ears.

AGRBear


Bear, the FA just explained why it doesn't matter whether FS had pierced ears or not.

Let's pretend for a minute that she did. All she had to do was stop wearing earrings, and the holes in her ears would have closed up naturally within a matter of months, leaving no scars, no trace that she had ever had pierced ears.

So FS could have had pierced ears, and AA could have had no trace of pierced ears, but they could have still been the same person. Understand?

We don't have to discuss this for five more pages because it's a complete non-starter, not an issue.
... I love my poor earth
because I have seen no other

-- Osip Mandelshtam

Offline Annie

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4756
    • View Profile
    • Anna Anderson Exposed!
Re: So who WAS she, then?
« Reply #547 on: April 01, 2005, 11:21:10 AM »
Quote
You mentioned that word conspiracy  :o  and then you link it to Annie  ::) .   What fun ;D  BUT do you think she'll tell us it ain't so  ??? and ruin our out of box experience :-/ .  Oh, oh, I hear the footsteps of Admin.  Forum. Quick.  Back to the topic 8)



AGRBear


I hate it when I get brought up in a bad way and I haven't even been on and don't know why  :(

Offline Elisabeth

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 2131
    • View Profile
Re: So who WAS she, then?
« Reply #548 on: April 01, 2005, 01:42:49 PM »
Quote

I hate it when I get brought up in a bad way and I haven't even been on and don't know why  :(


Don't feel bad, Annie. If you read the previous posts you'll see that the Bear is actually confusing you with Anna Anderson. (Anna - Annie, get it?) Lexi4 was talking about a "fun conspiracy" theory involving Anna, not you. Maybe you should feel flattered -?! You're in highly esteemed company. LOL  ;)

BTW, it takes so long to load the pages to reply to this thread, I think it's time someone started a "So Who Was She, Then?, Part 2" thread.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by Elisabeth »
... I love my poor earth
because I have seen no other

-- Osip Mandelshtam

Offline Annie

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4756
    • View Profile
    • Anna Anderson Exposed!
Re: So who WAS she, then?
« Reply #549 on: April 01, 2005, 01:58:20 PM »
Quote

Don't feel bad, Annie. If you read the previous posts you'll see that the Bear is actually confusing you with Anna Anderson. (Anna - Annie, get it?) Lexi4 was talking about a "fun conspiracy" theory involving Anna, not you. Maybe you should feel flattered -?! You're in highly esteemed company. LOL  ;)


Thanks, but I don't think it's AA. Bear said 'do you think she'll link it to us and ruin our fun' and since AA is dead she won't be posting here :-/

Quote
BTW, it takes so long to load the pages to reply to this thread, I think it's time someone started a "So Who Was She, Then?, Part 2" thread.


I agree! I've had this problem for a long time. On another board I'm on, all threads are automatically closed at 500 posts now because of this problem.

Offline Helen_Azar

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 7472
  • Coming up Fall 2015: Tatiana's diaries and letters
    • View Profile
    • War-time diaries of Grand Duchess Olga Nikolaevna Romanov
Re: So who WAS she, then?
« Reply #550 on: April 01, 2005, 02:35:46 PM »
Quote

Thanks, but I don't think it's AA. Bear said 'do you think she'll link it to us and ruin our fun' and since AA is dead she won't be posting here :-/


Annie, Lexi4 meant AA (Anna), it was the Bear who got confused and thought she meant you (Annie).

Quote
Maybe Anna was a former Russian, loyal to the monarchy, who served as a ruse to keep people from finding the real Anastasia.


Quote
You mentioned that word conspiracy  :o  and then you link it to Annie  ::) .  




Offline lexi4

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 1914
  • don't take yourself too seriously
    • View Profile
Re: So who WAS she, then?
« Reply #551 on: April 01, 2005, 02:56:23 PM »
Quote

Annie, Lexi4 meant AA (Anna), it was the Bear who got confused and thought she meant you (Annie).


This is true. I was talking about AA.


Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely, in a pretty and well preserved body; but rather to skid in broadside, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming, "Wow ---- What a ride!!!"

Offline Annie

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4756
    • View Profile
    • Anna Anderson Exposed!
Re: So who WAS she, then?
« Reply #552 on: April 01, 2005, 04:17:21 PM »
Thanks Helen, that clears it up. Lexi is a newbie and would not have known to reference me, I missed that part. I had never heard AA referred to as "Annie"  :P

Offline jaa

  • Boyar
  • **
  • Posts: 104
    • View Profile
Re: So who WAS she, then?
« Reply #553 on: April 02, 2005, 09:46:41 AM »
Quote
Is there a simple and fast way anyone can compare the two images with the new computer technology, or does it have to be done by professionals?

Helen, the more expertise you have in photography and in imaging, the better and more accurate the results from image enhancement. Also, when enhanced images are used in court, there are strict guidelines as to what is admissable, as it is very easy to alter an image into inaccuracy.

NASA's Retinex technology is available under the commercial name PhotoFlair. There are stand-alone and PhotoShop plug-in versions.
http://www.truview.com

However, you would need a high-resolution scan of the original, and it is quite possible that the original does not contain enough data to work with. The negative would contain the most data, since the image could have been improperly focussed or over-esposed in the printing process. It's been maybe 15 years since my days in the darkroom, but I seem to remember negatives being sandwiched between glass, which had to be kept scrupulously clean or they would also blur the image. But since the NOVA documentary didn't even use the original photograph, it's doubtful that they had access to the negative, if it still exists.

Every time a photograph is copied, there is "generational loss" or "generational degradation," due to the random pattern of silver halide crystals that make up photographic film. In one 1950's military study of generational loss, it was determined that by the fourth generation (a copy of a copy of a copy of the original), photos taken by US spy planes were no longer useable; that is, the images had degraded to such a point that they no longer showed tanks, artillery etc.

If you're working from images scanned in from books, you're working with less information than even a fourth-generation copy. In books, images which were originally formed by crystals of silver halide in a random pattern are created by a regular pattern of dots. In an expensive art publication, these dots are relatively close. In books where the text matters more than the illustrations, the dots will be spaced farther apart.

I don't know that much about facial recognition systems, as it is a subset or superset of pattern recognition, and at present, only tangentially related to what I do for a living. All I've read is theory, and I have no knowledge of specific applications.

Here is a list of face recognition vendors:
http://www.biometritech.com/features/roundup051502.htm
http://www.frvt.org/FRVT2002/Participants.asp

MIT has been a pioneer in this area, and might be interested.
http://vismod.media.mit.edu/vismod/demos/facerec/index.html

Quote
the computer-generated match between photos of AA and FS

Elisabeth, this is not a computer-generated match. What the computer generated was a transition commonly used in movies and television. A dissolve: fade-out, fade-in.

A "computer-generated match" would be face recognition technology.

Offline AGRBear

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 6611
  • The road to truth is the best one to travel.
    • View Profile
    • Romanov's  Russia
Re: So who WAS she, then?
« Reply #554 on: April 02, 2005, 10:15:35 AM »
Quote
You mentioned that word conspiracy  :o  and then you link it to Annie [AA***] ::) .   What fun ;D  BUT do you think she'll [AA***] tell us it ain't so  ??? [via Gypsy medium***] and ruin our out of box experience :-/ .  Oh, oh, I hear the footsteps of Admin.  Forum. Quick.  Back to the topic 8)



AGRBear

***PS:  Bear Humor Explained:  Yes, I knew we were talking about AA=Anna Anderson.  I didn't mention the gypsy who'd help us talk to our dearly departed AA..... Sorry for confusion.  There was to be no ref. to our poster Annie.  
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by AGRBear »
"What is true by lamplight is not always true by sunlight."

Joubert, Pensees, No. 152