Something I don't get about Georgia Rudolph

[leafygreens]

First I will say that I love this segment - I think it has the most beautiful cinematography of any episode. However some things do not add up.

Georgia says that Sandra Jean Jenkins was born in 1895. The mysterious family photo was dated 1908. That would make the girl in the photo 13 years old. But the girl in the photo has her hair up. Around the turn of the century, girls didn't start wearing their hair up until they were 17. That means one of three things: 1) the date on the photo was wrong; 2) the girl broke tradition and wore her hair up earlier than usual; 3) Or Georgia was wrong about the birth date.

Then there is the date on the headstone. Sandra Jean's supposed grandmother, Mary Bevan Greene, was born in 1862. If Sandra Jean was born in 1895, that means Mary Bevan Greene became a grandmother at age 33. Anything is possible, but it seems unlikely that Sandra's grandmother and mother each had babies at around 16 and a half, but Sandra gets pregnant at around 18 and kills herself.

What does everyone think about this?

[PracTz]

I think you make some excellent points but, then again, I consider that whole segment to have been pure hooey that the UM producers should have given Georgia,etc. the bum rush when initially pitched.

[Necco]

Originally Posted by leafygreens

First I will say that I love this segment - I think it has the most beautiful cinematography of any episode. However some things do not add up.

Georgia says that Sandra Jean Jenkins was born in 1895. The mysterious family photo was dated 1908. That would make the girl in the photo 13 years old. But the girl in the photo has her hair up. Around the turn of the century, girls didn't start wearing their hair up until they were 17. That means one of three things: 1) the date on the photo was wrong; 2) the girl broke tradition and wore her hair up earlier than usual; 3) Or Georgia was wrong about the birth date.

Then there is the date on the headstone. Sandra Jean's supposed grandmother, Mary Bevan Greene, was born in 1862. If Sandra Jean was born in 1895, that means Mary Bevan Greene became a grandmother at age 33. Anything is possible, but it seems unlikely that Sandra's grandmother and mother each had babies at around 16 and a half, but Sandra gets pregnant at around 18 and kills herself.

What does everyone think about this?

Well, pregnant and married at 16 would not have been a big deal. Pregnant at 18 and UNmarried would have been. Also, it is my understanding that a woman started wearing her hair up when she "debuted", basically when she started to look for a spouse, which could have been younger than 17, depending on where a girl lived, her maturity and possibly her socio-economic status.

That being said, I think the whole segment was hogwash.

[Cori aka ChrisSCrush]

As you aptly say, a load of hooey hogwash beautifully filmed.

What got me is Georgia describes repeatedly dreaming of, in the person of Sandra, visiting her grandmother's grave as a little girl. If you look at the date on the grave, obviously the grandmother died years after Sandra did.

Is there any independent confirmation on how Sandra actually died and whether Tommy Hix/Hicks ever even existed, or is it all invented?

[leafygreens]

Originally Posted by Cori aka ChrisSCrush

As you aptly say, a load of hooey hogwash beautifully filmed.

What got me is Georgia describes repeatedly dreaming of, in the person of Sandra, visiting her grandmother's grave as a little girl. If you look at the date on the grave, obviously the grandmother died years after Sandra did.

Is there any independent confirmation on how Sandra actually died and whether Tommy Hix/Hicks ever even existed, or is it all invented?

Not only is there no proof of how Sandra died, but there's no proof she existed! Or Tommy. The segment claims this is because record keeping back in the day was hit or miss. How convenient!

[Cori aka ChrisSCrush]

Originally Posted by leafygreens

Not only is there no proof of how Sandra died, but there's no proof she existed! Or Tommy. The segment claims this is because record keeping back in the day was hit or miss. How convenient!

So a family has a reunion and whoever IDs the group picture either skips or doesn't know a name. Years later a stranger finds the picture and spins a story to make the family look bad to draw attention to herself. NICE.

[leafygreens]

She also claims that she talked to the family about the photo, and they said "I don't know that girl's name, but she drowned out back."

Why weren't these people interviewed in the segment?

[Necco]

Originally Posted by leafygreens

She also claims that she talked to the family about the photo, and they said "I don't know that girl's name, but she drowned out back."

Why weren't these people interviewed in the segment?

Even if they had been, family stories are notoriously inaccurate as I have learned through several years of amateur family research. Usually there's a grain of truth in the story, but like most oral tradition (or a good game of telephone) the story gets distorted as it comes through the years.

As for sketchy recording keeping, unless there was a fire that destroyed records, there should be birth, death and possibly even baptismal records (depending on their faith, obviously) for people at that time. There could even be an obituary in the newspaper archives and possibly mentions in the paper for community activities. I've done research on people in small towns during this time period. All of these things existed and I was not researching a family of much means.

[TracyLynnS]

Originally Posted by leafygreens

Not only is there no proof of how Sandra died, but there's no proof she existed! Or Tommy. The segment claims this is because record keeping back in the day was hit or miss. How convenient!

And along with what Necco said, what about census records? In the 1700s and 1800s, the census records were often detailed enough to list all household members (and before it was abolished) the number of slaves owned, if the homeowner happened to own slaves.

I've read old census records that are very detailed and some that are informal. Some just count the population by stating, "Mr. John Smith and wife, 12 children."

So we are to believe that only 100 years ago, all records, census, real estate ownership, tax records, employment records, death certificates, birth certificates (and these were even issued when babies were born at home, which happened a lot back then), are all lost?

I've only heard of all such records being lost when fires or floods in the old records storage rooms caused them to be destroyed.

I can't believe how people try to pawn these frauds on us, thinking that we're too stupid to do a little research to find the truth, or even understand how the processes work.

BTW, the genealogical society of Utah has pedigrees on just about everyone. Back in 1965, my grandma got tons of them on several of her ancestors, and all of the info was correct. IMO, those folks will know if these "dream people" ever existed.

[EWfilm]

Originally Posted by leafygreens

I think it has the most beautiful cinematography of any episode.

I fully agree. I felt the segment had a certain artistic beauty that later episodes seem to lack. The surreal images are enhanced by the eerie score. This most definitely was one of UM's greatest efforts in creating a mood.

Does anyone know if Georgia Rudolph gave any additional interviews or television appearances? There's seems to be limited information on the web.

[leafygreens]

Originally Posted by Necco

Even if they had been, family stories are notoriously inaccurate as I have learned through several years of amateur family research. Usually there's a grain of truth in the story, but like most oral tradition (or a good game of telephone) the story gets distorted as it comes through the years.

As for sketchy recording keeping, unless there was a fire that destroyed records, there should be birth, death and possibly even baptismal records (depending on their faith, obviously) for people at that time. There could even be an obituary in the newspaper archives and possibly mentions in the paper for community activities. I've done research on people in small towns during this time period. All of these things existed and I was not researching a family of much means.

If there was a fire that destroyed records, then wouldnt there be a record of the fire?

Also, even if there were no birth records, certainly there would be a news story about a drowning. That seems like something big for a small town.

[Cori aka ChrisSCrush]

Originally Posted by leafygreens

Also, even if there were no birth records, certainly there would be a news story about a drowning. That seems like something big for a small town.

Unless the family were so prominent and influential as to be able to suppress the details, you'd think so. In some cases, news stories of gruesome events were a lot more graphic and detailed back then than often happens today.

[Cori aka ChrisSCrush]

Since I posted this on two other threads dealing with Georgia Rudolph, it may as well go here, too. http://www.starlightinnerprizes.com/Rudolph-Medical.htm It's a website explaining how she is a 100% phony fraud!

[gaf]

Count me in as someone who loves this segment because of the cinematography. The music was also really great. The subject matter itself was a tad unbelievable, and I could have done without seeing Rudolph in her nightgown, but I find myself watching this segment every now and again. It's very well done.

I did a search, and Rudolph is also apparently now a psychic in addition to being reincarnated. She was a guest on Geraldo's show years ago and was a star attraction at a metaphysical bookstore in 2004 in California. I'm really sorry I missed that because for only $80 I could have had an hourlong psychic reading from her.

[gaf]

Originally Posted by Cori aka ChrisSCrush

Since I posted this on two other threads dealing with Georgia Rudolph, it may as well go here, too. http://www.starlightinnerprizes.com/Rudolph-Medical.htm It's a website explaining how she is a 100% phony fraud!

What an interesting life she's leading this time. A reincarnated psychic who can diagnose disease in people from their auras is certainly better than what she went through in her last life that was chronicled on "Unsolved Mysteries" as Sandra Jean Jenkins. I don't see how she'll top all this in her next life. I'm sure Ms. Rudolph has utilized her psychic powers to see what her next life has in store for her, however.