Anna Anderson's claim to be Grand Duchess Anastasia

[ChatNoir]

Originally Posted by Elspeth

Since we have nothing but photos to go on, as far as the ears and the hallux valgus are concerned, I don't see why this is so valuable. Do you know the exact angle of Anastasia's hallux valgus? So far all I've seen is some vague reference to "severe."

According to Dr. Rudnev, the hallux valgus was so severe it could only have been congenital. And bilateral congenital hallux valgus is, to my knowledge, a very rare affliction. I don't think impostors in general get that lucky. As far as the ears go, see program on NOVA where a more recent test was undertaken, and the ears came out identical. (I think there is a photo from that test on PeterKurth.com/notes on Franziska Schanzkowska.)

As for the ears, this is sounding like the "identical face" claim you were making - some experts believe they're identical and some apparently don't.

And which experts are disputing that they are identical?

Again, we only have photos, and not very high-resolution ones at that. So I don't think it's in any way appropriate to try and tout these particular avenues of investigation as being more valuable than DNA testing.

As long as the chain of custody for the samples providing the DNA is a bit shady, I think that all the evidence that came before has to be taken into consideration.

In post 401 you referred to Anna Anderson and Anastasia having the same hair colour. Another poster (post 314) has said that someone claimed they didn't have the same hair colour. So these definitive statements from you that this was identical and that was identical seem to be being challenged at every turn, suggesting that there's a fair bit of wiggle room in the "they were identical" statements.

Buxhoeveden said it was a bit lighter, Olga said it was a bit darker, but with the same wave. The Botkins said it was the same color. Franziska was described by her brother Felix to have "dark blonde hair". Also, according to Felix, his sister always wore her hair in a long braid and was a bit curly in front.

[ChatNoir]

Originally Posted by Anna was Franziska

Jo, speaking of Nazi scientists who had odd ideas and played by their own rules, did you ever consider some of them were the 'experts' in the AA trial? Otto Reche for example:

Otto Reche

This is a commentary by someone who did extensive research on Reche and his work. He was discredited by his own peers, the worst thing that can happen to a scientist's credibility:
(I must) point out the scientific fallacies upon which your claims and evidence are based. Otto Reche is a good example of this - here we have a nazi by choice and inclination, whose work was so bad that persons such as Robert Procter, Hermann Graml, Edith Zerbin- Rudin, Stephen Gould and Robert Leakey have discredited it. I explained why in more than one post, as I explained why anthromorphic photo comparison is a subjective science with a narrow degree of scientific certainty, no matter how many graphs, charts and measurements he might have had. It doesn't matter how many graphs and measurements he had, if the foundation has been taken away, does it? Advances in the science of mtdna recovery alone, has proven that his foundational base, his sampling of "long headed Europeans" is false. among other factors such as age, the His photographic "proof" is also false - photo comparison cannot account for the thickness of muscle, fat, skin or bone,among other factors such as age,mechanics of photography and printing and other variables involved in photographic comparison.

There were several of these Nazi anthropologists who were revered at the time, but now criticized. On the history channel they tell of a team of them who traveled to Tibet in the 1930's and 'proved' by facial life masks that the Tibetians were really descendants of aryan Germans from the Rhine Valley. This was one of Hitler's pet theories, however, it is now known to be false. So these Nazis were not as respectable, reliable and accurate as Anderson supporters will have you believe. Therefore, doubt is cast on their 'identification' of Anna Anderson being an 'identical twin' of Anastasia.

You seem to forget that Dr. Gill's findings were also disputed by Dr. Knight and a team of Japanese scientists. Nobody has said that photographic comparison is an exact science. All we know, is that Reche had AA photographed from the same angles and in the same lighting as the older photos of AN. And his conclusion was that AA is AN. AA is not FS.

In 1961, German judges basically threw out Reche's facial identification of AA as AN, and declared her claim to be AN 'unfounded' and her identity as FS 'eminently likely'

The judges did not "throw out" anything, they just decided not to listen to their own appointed experts, Otto Reche and Minna Becker.
We still have the opinions from professors Eyckhardt, Klenke and Furtmayr. Plus the result of the graphological test from Lucy Weizsacker. All in favor of AA being AN.

[Jo of Palatine]

Originally Posted by Warren

I guess you could also question the roundness of the earth since the horizon appears flat.

Oh, but then you never lived at the Norther side of a long lake which leads to the Alps like the Ammersee where I live. here you can see exactly that roundness of the Earth covers a lot of things under the flat horizon while the mountains in the back are clearly to be seen.

But then: how can someone who allegedly lives with his head "down under" have the same view on perspective that we have?

[Anna was Franziska]

Originally Posted by ChatNoir

You seem to forget that Dr. Gill's findings were also disputed by Dr. Knight and a team of Japanese scientists.

Knight was basically working to back up the writer who backs the Alexei claimant who lived in Canada, and his work has been proven inaccurate to say the least. The Japanese used only a bloody rag that had been around for a hundred years, where anything and anyone could have contaminated it. (not like the intestine which was carefully stored in parafin wax)

Nobody has said that photographic comparison is an exact science.All we know, is that Reche had AA photographed from the same angles and in the same lighting as the older photos of AN. And his conclusion was that AA is AN. AA is not FS.

And he was wrong. And his work has been discredited by many scientists. Again PEER REVIEW is what makes or breaks a scientist, and the scientists involved in the Romanov and AA cases had their work approved by their peers, Knight and Reche did not.

The judges did not "throw out" anything, they just decided not to listen to their own appointed experts, Otto Reche and Minna Becker.

Are you saying they did it because of some conspiracy? They did not accept the evidence because they saw it was inaccurate and/or poorly done.

We still have the opinions from professors Eyckhardt, Klenke and Furtmayr. Plus the result of the graphological test from Lucy Weizsacker. All in favor of AA being AN.

Furtmayr, wasn't he the one who used Maria's ear and from the wrong side? The others, weren't they Nazis too?

NONE of this holds up against the DNA.

[TheTruth]

Not to deny any scientific demonstration or any serious study, it's so obvious that Anna Anderson is not Anastasia or any Romanov. The pictures talk by themselves. Just look at the eyes ; much too wide for AA. The ear lobe is thicker than Anastasia's and as the eyes, that can't be changed by "a heavy blow to your face", like I've read in a previous page to justify the difference with the lips.

[ChatNoir]

Originally Posted by Anna was Franziska

Knight was basically working to back up the writer who backs the Alexei claimant who lived in Canada, and his work has been proven inaccurate to say the least. The Japanese used only a bloody rag that had been around for a hundred years, where anything and anyone could have contaminated it. (not like the intestine which was carefully stored in parafin wax)

Knight was WHAT??
And we are not talking about the intestine here.

And he was wrong. And his work has been discredited by many scientists. Again PEER REVIEW is what makes or breaks a scientist, and the scientists involved in the Romanov and AA cases had their work approved by their peers, Knight and Reche did not.

Maybe you could quote some of those who "discredited" his work.

Are you saying they did it because of some conspiracy? They did not accept the evidence because they saw it was inaccurate and/or poorly done.

And what are your sources for this, if I may?

Furtmayr, wasn't he the one who used Maria's ear and from the wrong side? The others, weren't they Nazis too?

No, Furtmayr was the one who used AA's ear to compare against AN's ear.
"The others" did their study in the 1930's.

NONE of this holds up against the DNA.

And you are, of course, the resident expert on this.

[Anna was Franziska]

Originally Posted by ChatNoir

According to Dr. Rudnev, the hallux valgus was so severe it could only have been congenital. And bilateral congenital hallux valgus is, to my knowledge, a very rare affliction. I don't think impostors in general get that lucky.

It happened, because AA was FS. Lots of people have the same disorder, not all of them related!

As far as the ears go, see program on NOVA where a more recent test was undertaken, and the ears came out identical. (I think there is a photo from that test on PeterKurth.com/notes on Franziska Schanzkowska.)

They came out a close match, but they were shadowy black and white pictures so we'll never know for sure what AN's ears really looked like.

And which experts are disputing that they are identical?

I question all of them. Just looking at the photos the bone structure is so far off it makes me think they were either blind or promised money by Grandanor corporation (the company started by Botkin and Fallows that sold shares to be paid when/if AA was awarded her 'inheritance.') Also don't forget that Oxlee, using more modern methods, found an 'identical' match between AA and FS.

As long as the chain of custody for the samples providing the DNA is a bit shady, I think that all the evidence that came before has to be taken into consideration.

WHAT chain of custody questions? You still haven't explained when you think it got switched and with what and by who.

Buxhoeveden said it was a bit lighter, Olga said it was a bit darker, but with the same wave. The Botkins said it was the same color. Franziska was described by her brother Felix to have "dark blonde hair". Also, according to Felix, his sister always wore her hair in a long braid and was a bit curly in front.

Hair color is subjective to the eye of the beholder, and insignifcant because it can be changed so easily. Once he also told me somebody said her hair was 'almost black.' Even easier than changing colors is changing styles. So what if she was reported to have had a braid down her back, it only takes a few seconds to change it to a bun. Britney Spears shaved her entire head in about a minute. So hair really doesn't mean anything.

[ChatNoir]

Originally Posted by TheTruth

Not to deny any scientific demonstration or any serious study, it's so obvious that Anna Anderson is not Anastasia or any Romanov. The pictures talk by themselves.

Yes, they do. They show an uncanny likeness.

Just look at the eyes ; much too wide for AA. The ear lobe is thicker than Anastasia's and as the eyes, that can't be changed by "a heavy blow to your face", like I've read in a previous page to justify the difference with the lips.

Funny, isn't it, that even Gilliard could not deny that AA and AN had the same eyes.

[Anna was Franziska]

Originally Posted by ChatNoir

Yes, they do. They show an uncanny likeness.

They have very different faces.

Funny, isn't it, that even Gilliard could not deny that AA and AN had the same eyes.

You're the one who always calls Gilliard a 'liar!' So he's not a 'liar' when he says something you like? How do you know he wasn't 'lying' when he said that?

[TheTruth]

Originally Posted by ChatNoir

Yes, they do. They show an uncanny likeness.

To which I answer :

Originally Posted by ChatNoir

And you are, of course, the resident expert on this.

How can you deny science in such a way ? Of course there's a margin of error but come on, she disappeared the same year FS did. And DNA is still very reliable.

[Elspeth]

Originally Posted by ChatNoir

According to Dr. Rudnev, the hallux valgus was so severe it could only have been congenital. And bilateral congenital hallux valgus is, to my knowledge, a very rare affliction. I don't think impostors in general get that lucky. As far as the ears go, see program on NOVA where a more recent test was undertaken, and the ears came out identical. (I think there is a photo from that test on PeterKurth.com/notes on Franziska Schanzkowska.)

As far as I can tell from reading about hallux valgus, most cases are congenital; I don't think the degree of severity has to do with the etiology. It also appears that bilateral hallux valgus isn't that rare. However, I've seen allegations on these threads by both you and BorisRom that it's an extremely rare condition, so maybe you could link to the source which is telling you this.

From what I could find on the NOVA programme, not all the experts agreed on the ear analysis. It seems to be an old enough programme that there's no transcript available, unfortunately.

And which experts are disputing that they are identical?

The ones that people on the other side of this issue are referring to.

As long as the chain of custody for the samples providing the DNA is a bit shady, I think that all the evidence that came before has to be taken into consideration.

However, this evidence appears to be both rather subjective and somewhat overstated. If the two of them had hallux valgus but with different angles or with the angles unknown, if there are conflicts among experts on matters of facial or ear matches, if there are disagreements between friends and acquaintances on hair and eye colour, then all this evidence starts looking distinctly shaky.

On the other hand, the chain-of-custody arguments regarding the DNA still don't explain how two different samples, from different sources and analysed in different labs, ended up giving the same results.

Buxhoeveden said it was a bit lighter, Olga said it was a bit darker, but with the same wave. The Botkins said it was the same color. Franziska was described by her brother Felix to have "dark blonde hair". Also, according to Felix, his sister always wore her hair in a long braid and was a bit curly in front.

And this is the basis for the flat-out "same hair colour" assertions? Blimey...

[Elspeth]

Originally Posted by Anna was Franziska

They have very different faces.

Actually I think some of the photos of Anastasia show a remarkable likeness to some of the photos of Anna Anderson. However, I wouldn't want to draw any major conclusions from that, since some of the photos don't seem to show much of a likeness.

[Elspeth]

Originally Posted by ChatNoir

You seem to forget that Dr. Gill's findings were also disputed by Dr. Knight and a team of Japanese scientists. Nobody has said that photographic comparison is an exact science. All we know, is that Reche had AA photographed from the same angles and in the same lighting as the older photos of AN. And his conclusion was that AA is AN. AA is not FS.

Dr Gill's findings on Anastasia were not disputed by Dr Knight, at least as far as I've been able to find out, although I'm sure you'll be able to point us to the relevant information if it exists. Dr Knight was disputing the findings in the case of the remains purported to be those of the imperial family, not the findings in the Anderson case.

[ChatNoir]

Originally Posted by Anna was Franziska

It happened, because AA was FS. Lots of people have the same disorder, not all of them related!

I am talking bilateral congenital Hallux Valgus here, not your garden variety bunions. CONGENITAL BILATERAL HALLUX VALGUS

They came out a close match, but they were shadowy black and white pictures so we'll never know for sure what AN's ears really looked like.

They came out with a perfect match, 5 out of 5.

I question all of them. Just looking at the photos the bone structure is so far off it makes me think they were either blind or promised money by Grandanor corporation (the company started by Botkin and Fallows that sold shares to be paid when/if AA was awarded her 'inheritance.') Also don't forget that Oxlee, using more modern methods, found an 'identical' match between AA and FS.

Somehow, I don't think you are an expert on bone structure. And Botkin had absolutely nothing to do with "Grandanor", he and AA were not on speaking terms by the time Fallows instigated the corporation, and he would not see AA again for 10 years.

WHAT chain of custody questions? You still haven't explained when you think it got switched and with what and by who.

It could have been as simple as mislabeling, but I refuse to speculate here.

Hair color is subjective to the eye of the beholder, and insignifcant because it can be changed so easily. Once he also told me somebody said her hair was 'almost black.'

It was Franzisca's hair that was described as dark, almost black.

Even easier than changing colors is changing styles. So what if she was reported to have had a braid down her back, it only takes a few seconds to change it to a bun. Britney Spears shaved her entire head in about a minute. So hair really doesn't mean anything.

Right. And the curls in front were probably straightened out in the beauty parlor at Dalldorf.

[ChatNoir]

Originally Posted by Elspeth

Dr Gill's findings on Anastasia were not disputed by Dr Knight, at least as far as I've been able to find out, although I'm sure you'll be able to point us to the relevant information if it exists. Dr Knight was disputing the findings in the case of the remains purported to be those of the imperial family, not the findings in the Anderson case.

Correct. All I wanted, was to show F is A that many scientists findings are disputed by others.

[ChatNoir]

Originally Posted by Anna was Franziska

They have very different faces.

That's only your opinion.

You're the one who always calls Gilliard a 'liar!' So he's not a 'liar' when he says something you like? How do you know he wasn't 'lying' when he said that?

Why on earth would he admit any likeness after having established himself as AA's public enemy number one?

[ChatNoir]

Originally Posted by Elspeth

As far as I can tell from reading about hallux valgus, most cases are congenital; I don't think the degree of severity has to do with the etiology. It also appears that bilateral hallux valgus isn't that rare. However, I've seen allegations on these threads by both you and BorisRom that it's an extremely rare condition, so maybe you could link to the source which is telling you this.

CONGENITAL BILATERAL HALLUX VALGUS

From what I could find on the NOVA programme, not all the experts agreed on the ear analysis. It seems to be an old enough programme that there's no transcript available, unfortunately.
The ones that people on the other side of this issue are referring to.

Names, please.

However, this evidence appears to be both rather subjective and somewhat overstated. If the two of them had hallux valgus but with different angles or with the angles unknown, if there are conflicts among experts on matters of facial or ear matches, if there are disagreements between friends and acquaintances on hair and eye colour, then all this evidence starts looking distinctly shaky.

There is no conflicts about her eye color, the only one who said that she had grey eyes, was Gibbes, who also described Maria's blue eyes as "nice grey".
And there are really no disagreement of the haircolor, Olga just thought it looked a little darker.

On the other hand, the chain-of-custody arguments regarding the DNA still don't explain how two different samples, from different sources and analysed in different labs, ended up giving the same results.

I actually agree with you there, believe it or not.

[Anna was Franziska]

Originally Posted by ChatNoir

I am talking bilateral congenital Hallux Valgus here, not your garden variety bunions. CONGENITAL BILATERAL HALLUX VALGUS

How do you know the Dr. was right or honest? She may have gotten the bunions standing up at the munitions factory.

They came out with a perfect match, 5 out of 5.

Blurry pictures. She sure didn't get 5 points on that DNA test.

Somehow, I don't think you are an expert on bone structure.

Then I defer to Oxlee.

And Botkin had absolutely nothing to do with "Grandanor", he and AA were not on speaking terms by the time Fallows instigated the corporation, and he would not see AA again for 10 years.

Oh yes he did, it's well documented he was in on starting it, even helped pick the name. He's the one who enlisted Fallows.

It could have been as simple as mislabeling, but I refuse to speculate here.

Because you have NO answers other than you want AA to be AN.

Right. And the curls in front were probably straightened out in the beauty parlor at Dalldorf.

Or they could have been curled with a curling iron and she stopped. Or it could have been a lie. Either way it doesn't matter, hair is too easy to change. You can see in the pic of FS her hair was parted on the side exactly like AA's.

[Russophile]

Originally Posted by Anna was Franziska

His name was Dave and his last initial was K. That's more of a real name than "Ferrymansdaughter" or "Anna was Franziska." If he chose not to reveal his entire identity and his place of employment on a message board and set himself up for possible harassment, who can blame him?

Indeed! I have been on the receiving end of somebody not happy with my posts about Anna Anderson/Anastasia/others involved and have had that person post my personal information on the Internet. So I don't fault DaveK or FerrymansDaughter or Anna was Franziska for wanting a degree of anonyminity on this volatile subject!

[Jo of Palatine]

Just wanted to say that I've been caught up by my family who demand time with me and so can't answer right now. But that I found Elspeth's post very interesting!