Author Topic: Re: So who WAS she, then?  (Read 112255 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 #555 on: April 02, 2005, 10:24:28 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.


My question about pierced ears is just a question.  There is really no reason to explain to me about the pierced holes fading or disapearing.  This question doesn't mean anything more than what I'm asking.  It is not unusal for Polish Catholic girls to have ears pierced when young.   Penny already said she thought someone had already proven she hadn't pierced ears.  And, so, I've asked if anyone remembers a source. Does anyone know the source?

I've noticed that Gertrude wasn't wearing earrings in the photo provided to us....

Like I said,  we don't need five pages to debate over an answer to a simple question, PLEASE.

AGRBear
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by AGRBear »
"What is true by lamplight is not always true by sunlight."

Joubert, Pensees, No. 152

Offline 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 #556 on: April 02, 2005, 10:38:14 AM »
Jaa wrote: >>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. <<

In order to do a "fade- out"  and "fade-in", don't you need two faces that are at the same angles? Having faces the same size is a given, although complex.   In order to rotate a face you'd, also,  need the addition of 3D type of software?  If so, would this take more than a enlarged "flatten" photo?

I'm repeating what others have already said, we appreciate your knowledge on this subject.


AGRBear

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

Joubert, Pensees, No. 152

Offline jaa

  • Boyar
  • **
  • Posts: 104
    • View Profile
Re: So who WAS she, then?
« Reply #557 on: April 02, 2005, 02:39:02 PM »
Oh, thank you, AGRBear. I enjoy history and reading the posts on this forum, but rarely post because I don't feel I know enough. It's nice to hear that maybe of bit of this geekspeak could be of use to historians.

Quote
In order to do a "fade- out"  and "fade-in", don't you need two faces that are at the same angles?

You would for film and television, because of the format of the screens.

But in the NOVA documentary, the resolution or graininess of the images didn't matter (except for the identification), so the images were simply re-sized and rotated. The dissolve was zoomed in with the edges of both photos off the screen, so the audience doesn't see the rotation.

However, there is a distortion problem when rotating an image on the computer. Photographic images are made up of polygonal grains in a random pattern. Computer images are a grid system of square pixels. When you rotate an image, the software  interpolates the position of the pixel to a new position, and that's what causes the distortion, which increases with every iteration. Every unsuccessful rotation must be followed by an Undo, or the image will be distorted. The distortion may not be visible until after a number of iterations, depending on the background and training of the viewer.

If all that is needed is to overlay the images, you don't need a computer. All that's needed is an art projector (sometimes called an opaque projector), or an overhead projector and a transparency. Move the projector until the image sizes agree, and rotate and align the transparency. You won't have the emotional impact of graphic dissolves and it won't be computer-generated, but the information is the same.

Quote
In order to rotate a face you'd, also,  need the addition of 3D type of software?  If so, would this take more than a enlarged "flatten" photo?

Creating a 3D model of a geometry as complicated as the human face is much more difficult than rotating a 2D image. We did have the software tools to do this in 1995, but re-creating a face from photographs is time-consuming and costly. In film, television, and games, the fastest and therefore cheapest way is to project a grid on an actor and photograph that to create the 3D geometry.

But you are right about the tilting of the head in the AA and FS photographs; AA's chin is slightly down. There will be a degree of foreshortening because of perspective, which is basically a mathematical description of photography. I don't know if the amount of foreshortening is enough to affect the apparent match shown in the dissolve.

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 #558 on: April 03, 2005, 11:07:44 AM »
I'm not sure how we ended up talking abou the fusion of the faces in the tv show over on this thread.  I carried it back over to the "fusion" thread.
http://hydrogen.pallasweb.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=anastasia;action=display;num=1111365984;start=100#106

Again, thanks for your knowledge, jaa.

AGRBear

PS  This thread is getting l-o-n-g.  Does someone want to start a Part II of "So who WAS she, then?"  ???
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by AGRBear »
"What is true by lamplight is not always true by sunlight."

Joubert, Pensees, No. 152

Offline Kransnoeselo

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 55
    • View Profile
    • HIH Grand Duchess Anastasia
Re: So who WAS she, then?
« Reply #559 on: April 06, 2005, 09:06:25 PM »
Hey,

Just wanted to add that it was Franziska's brother that stated his sister didnt have pierced ears-this was noted as a difference between Anna and his sister.  

Tim  

Offline sokolova

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 6
  • &quot;I only know that I know nothing&quot; - Socrates
    • View Profile
Re: So who WAS she, then?
« Reply #560 on: April 09, 2005, 03:05:10 PM »
Hi,
I'm new here and don't know anything about the politics or the personal clashes, so I can only hope I'm not breaking taboos or whatever, but I think there is a major problem with the FS/AA situation that has been a bit overlooked. I've started a new thread about it which may have been the wrong thing to do!!??, and so I am reposting my thoughts here to try and do it right.

It seems to me that the problem is  - if AA wasn't FS why does her DNA apparently show she was?

Can we dismiss it as coincidence? How likely is it that a daughter of a palace official or anyone else would just happen to end up having  the same DNA as the Polish factory worker who is picked out at random to be her alter ego?

Odds of at least 300-1 against aren't good.

Either AA was FS, or someone has messed with the DNA results. Speaking simply in terms of probability these seem to be the only two really plausible possibilities.

At least so it seems to me, though I admit I could be missing something. If I am please tell me as I am more interested in finding out than being 'right' or winning any fight!


[glb]   Sokolova
            [/glb]

rskkiya

  • Guest
Re: So who WAS she, then?
« Reply #561 on: April 09, 2005, 06:25:25 PM »
NO, Sokolova - I don't think that one can dismiss the DNA evidence as coincidental.

rskkiya

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 #562 on: April 09, 2005, 06:56:15 PM »
Hello Sokolova, welcome.

Quote
It seems to me that the problem is  - if AA wasn't FS why does her DNA apparently show she was? Can we dismiss it as coincidence? How likely is it that a daughter of a palace official or anyone else would just happen to end up having  the same DNA as the Polish factory worker who is picked out at random to be her alter ego?
  


You are absolutely correct, and these points have been brought up numerous times, by a few of us, to those who insist that Anna Anderson could not have been FS. Penny Wilson, who is the leading proponent of the "AA is not FS" theory, had even admitted in one of her posts that this could not have been a coincidence (this post most likely has already been deleted by her along with many others in a fit of anger). Unfortunately PW won't give an alternative explanation for this "coincidence", if she in fact has one.
It seems that those who want to prove that AA could not have been  FS would prefer to ignore the DNA results, or at least leave them out of the discussion. This of course is not possible to do if we are to look at this case critically, but when someone tries to point this out, they are often accused of having an agenda  ???.

This is what makes the discussion on this topic one of the most frustrating experiences for some of us  :P

Helen



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 #563 on: April 13, 2005, 07:26:39 PM »
I don't deny the DNA testing.  

Most of us do not deny the DNA testing.

What we do is question the statement that  AA was the factory worker known as FS.

Why?

The DNA evidence is telling us that  AA is related to Gertrude S..  However, Gertrude and  FS may not have had the same mothers which means their mtDNA would not have been the same.

If this is true, then AA was related just to Gertrude's grandmother, Gertrude, her daughter and then to Karl Maucher.....

This. also, means that AA and Gertrude may have a different mtDNA than FS.

Pretty simple, really.

So, all we can do is wait and see what the genealogy records can show us then go forward from that point.

AGRBear
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by AGRBear »
"What is true by lamplight is not always true by sunlight."

Joubert, Pensees, No. 152

Offline 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 #564 on: April 14, 2005, 10:31:18 AM »
Quote
The DNA evidence is telling us that  AA is related to Gertrude S..  However, Gertrude and  FS may not have had the same mothers which means their mtDNA would not have been the same.

If this is true, then AA was related just to Gertrude's grandmother, Gertrude, her daughter and then to Karl Maucher.....

This. also, means that AA and Gertrude may have a different mtDNA than FS.

Pretty simple, really.

So, all we can do is wait and see what the genealogy records can show us then go forward from that point.

AGRBear


AA's mtDNA matched Gertrude's maternal grandson's. This means that AA was maternally related to Gertrude. The chances of this being a random match are less than 1 in 8000, or less than 0.000125%, which is pretty much none. The fact about them having different mothers at this point is just pure speculation which has no proof. AA looked a lot like FS, AA appeared at the same time as FS dissapeared. What other evidence do we need as to whom AA really was?

If it looks like a duck and it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck, and it has the duck's DNA, believe me - it's a duck.  
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by helenazar »

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 #565 on: April 14, 2005, 11:23:31 AM »
We may have three ducks who walked and looked alike but that doesn't mean they were sisters.  

The mtDNA tells us to this point in time that AA wasn't GD Anastasia.

The mtDNA tells us that Gertrude, Karl Maucher and AA were related.

We do not have a separate sample of FS's mtDNA to match AA's mtDNA tested from hair and intestines.

If Gertrude and FS had the same mothers then we can assume there is a chain of mtDNA that is the same.  If Gertrude and FS did not have the same mothers than all we have is Gertrude and AA's mtDNA.  We do not have FS's if Gertrude and FS did not have the same mothers.

It doesn't make the DNA test wrong, it just means we'd have too look elsewhere for the answers as to who AA was and how was she related to Gertrude.

We'd also have to ask if Gertrude's and FS's mothers were related such as 1st cousins or 10th cousins and maybe as distantly as 25th cousin.

AGRBear
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by AGRBear »
"What is true by lamplight is not always true by sunlight."

Joubert, Pensees, No. 152

Offline 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 #566 on: April 14, 2005, 02:14:33 PM »
Quote
 If Gertrude and FS had the same mothers then we can assume there is a chain of mtDNA that is the same.  If Gertrude and FS did not have the same mothers than all we have is Gertrude and AA's mtDNA.  


There is no reason for us to think that Gertrude and FS had different mothers. There would have been a reason for us to think so if AA's mtDNA and Carl Maucher's mtDNA did not match, but since it did match, why are we questioning that the original assumption was accurate? I'll tell you why: to try to prove that AA was not FS. That's the only reason. Well, that's not a good reason, we need some other compelling evidence of this, but there really is none. Unless it can be proven that their mothers were different, this is a moot point. The burden of proof lies with whomever is saying that they had different mothers, not with someone who is saying they had the same mothers.
Just because Gertrude's baptismal papers are missing, it does not prove anything, in fact, it doesn't even imply anything. Only if the DNA did not match would we have a reason to come up with the "different mothers" theory, but this of course is not the case, and we have no other compelling evidence that this is the case, so why is this even being seriously considered.  

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 #567 on: April 14, 2005, 02:31:37 PM »
In other threads, perhaps, but this thread isn't about to make this "moot" since it is about a speculation that if AA wasn't FS, So who WAS she, then?

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

Joubert, Pensees, No. 152

jeremygaleaz

  • Guest
Re: So who WAS she, then?
« Reply #568 on: April 14, 2005, 02:49:06 PM »
Quote
In other threads, perhaps, but this thread isn't about to make this "moot" since it is about a speculation that if AA wasn't FS, So who WAS she, then?

AGRBear


Bear, scroll back up to the top of the page and see who brought the half sister issue over to this thread.

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 #569 on: April 14, 2005, 03:08:24 PM »
I don't understand, jeremy?

If it's proven that AA wasn't FS because of a birth certificate then the question of this thread takes on a different meaning because it will be talking about new evidence rather than just speculating.

If it proves FS and Gertrude were full sisters then this thread will have a few more posts and we'll all go to other threads and continue other debates.

AGRBear
« 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