AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?

[AGRBear]

Pardon me for injecting some sanity to this discussion ( ) 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

[Forum Admin]

Bear,
Why the sigh? You just in so many words said the the photo comparison is worthless..Which was my point....

[AGRBear]

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  

[Forum Admin]

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.

[BaronessSophie]

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.

[AGRBear]

...[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

[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.

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

[Annie]

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.

[catt.sydney]

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

[catt.sydney]

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

[Annie]

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!

Nevertheless, Annie * if one does beat a dead horse - it can make the meat very tender!

catt

Ssshh! Now they'll never stop beating!  

[jeremygaleaz]

 

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....  

[Grand_Duke_Paul]

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.

[Annie]

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.

 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.

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  

[Grand_Duke_Paul]

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.

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.

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.