Alexander Palace Forum

Discussions about the Imperial Family and European Royalty => The Myth and Legends of Survivors => Topic started by: ordino on March 26, 2006, 04:09:54 PM

Title: Why we must believe the official history?
Post by: ordino on March 26, 2006, 04:09:54 PM
Always I had the impression that the official history, that is the all the family dead, was a very well done screeenplay. Everything match: Nicholas a bad tsar ( I think he was the first patriot, he abdicated because he did not want a  civil  war... and more), the Tsarina a terrible woman, Rasputin the monster, and the revolution. And in the end, 80 or 90 years after surpraise we have the bodies, thanks God we have de bodies, but all the bodies?, no, there are two bodies missing, Alexei and Anastasia or Maria. Sorry for my tone, but I don´t believe de official history, I think that the soviets lied then and now. Just two questions and thanks in advance for the answers.
Why there are no photos of the bodies, several no just one of the group?
and
What happen whit the two boddies missing?
Ordino :)
Title: Re: Why we must believe the official history?
Post by: Belochka on March 26, 2006, 09:19:06 PM
Quote
Sorry for my tone, but I don´t believe de official history, I think that the soviets lied then and now.  

Hi Ordino,

What do you believe was the real story? Agreeably, the soviets were masters of creating their version of what the "truth" should be, however the White movement at the time was not entirely immune from stirring the pot of "truth".

Today the practice of inventing "historic truths" continues and thrives, but with different faces and with very different agendas.

Quote
Just two questions and thanks in advance for the answers.
Why there are no photos of the bodies, several no just one of the group?
and
What happen whit the two boddies missing?
Ordino :)

1. It is not known whether there were photographs taken on that or on subsequent nights. If they exist at all they remain unavailable to this day.  
  
It has been suggested that the gruesome group image, (which I have as part of special folder that was issued in Europe decades ago), represents victims of civil war, rather than the I.F. It is visually distorted and does not allow any detailed identification.  
  
2. Please click on the [size=14]SEARCH Foundation [/size]link below, in my posting. That site may offer you the information you may be seeking.  
 
Margarita [/color]
Title: Re: Why we must believe the official history?
Post by: Forum Admin on March 27, 2006, 08:07:40 AM
Please also don't forget that Yurovsky et al were going to GREAT lengths to [highlight]hide the murders[/highlight].  Why would then want photographs for pete's sake?! They didn't want anyone to know what happened, so photos would be the last thing they wanted lying around.
Title: Re: Why we must believe the official history?
Post by: Ra-Ra-Rasputin on March 27, 2006, 08:09:33 AM
There's a photo reportedly of the IF's bodies? Where can I find this?

Ordino, you're entitled to believe what you want.  If you don't want to believe the 'official' history, then don't.  Always question, is my motto. Yes, a lot of what happened to the IF doesn't add up, and yes, we know that the 'official' story about Nicholas the tyrant and Alexandra the German wh*re was propaganda to blacken the name of the Imperial Family by the Soviets.  So much of history is unreliable, because so many people in history have twisted the truth for their own ends.

As for what happened to the bodies and whether they were 'really' murdered, some people are just never going to be satisfied.  I believe Yurovsky's statement that two bodies, that of Alexei and one of the GDs, were burned separately and that is why they haven't been found.  I also believe that the ENTIRE IF were killed on the night of July 18th in the cellar of the Ipatiev house.  I have seen no evidence that has really made me believe otherwise. The bodies of the IF and their servants have been found and identified with DNA.  Alexei, and I believe Anastasia, are missing, but they didn't escape, they are in the forest somewhere and I believe they will be found at some point in the not too distant future, putting to an end this Anna Anderson and other survivors nonsense once and for all.

In the meantime, yes, do question the 'official' story.  Read everything you can and come to your own conclusions.  Don't be satisfied just with what other people tell you.  Other people aren't always right.  And that includes what I've just written.  I may be wrong.  This is just what I believe.

Rachel
xx
Title: Re: Why we must believe the official history?
Post by: Sarushka on March 27, 2006, 08:22:44 AM
Quote
There's a photo reportedly of the IF's bodies? Where can I find this?

There are *no* known photos of the execution. Edvard Radzinsky speculated on the idea in Last Tsar, based on the fact that Yurovsky had been a photographer, which seems to have fueled rumors that he did photograph the exectuion. There's also a drawing of the bodies in the cellar room that's sometimes mistaken for a photo...
 ::)
Title: Re: Why we must believe the official history?
Post by: Ra-Ra-Rasputin on March 27, 2006, 08:40:01 AM
Oh right, thanks Sarushka! :)

Talk about misleading!

Rachel
xx
Title: Re: Why we must believe the official history?
Post by: Ivan Komarov on March 27, 2006, 10:12:01 AM
Quote
Quote
There's a photo reportedly of the IF's bodies? Where can I find this?

There are *no* known photos of the execution. Edvard Radzinsky speculated on the idea in Last Tsar, based on the fact that Yurovsky had been a photographer, which seems to have fueled rumors that he did photograph the exectuion. There's also a drawing of the bodies in the cellar room that's sometimes mistaken for a photo...
 ::)

Umm...that drawing...was that the one by the French artist Sarmat?  I can sort of see how his images could be mistaken for photographs, more or less; I do, however, doubt their significance because the artist wasn't actually there; and I found a site that has two such images on it (both are slightly differently discouloured):

http://www.romanov-memorial.com/Drama.htm
Title: Re: Why we must believe the official history?
Post by: Annie on March 27, 2006, 10:59:35 AM
The most ironic thing about some of the misconstrued history is that lies told to cover up the fact that the family was dead ended up fueling rumors of their escape! For example, the Perm stories. These stories were totally false and most likely planted by Bolsheviks to cover the fact that Alexandra and the girls had been killed, since they had just made peace with Germany, and the Germans had demanded the 'princesses of German blood' (Alix and her daughters) to be handed over safely to them. So, this was not very good for relations to find out they had been brutally killed, was it? No one immediately knew the entire family had perished. Even the respectable NY Times printed a story it believed to be true, saying only the Tsar had been shot, and Alix and the children had been moved to an undisclosed location. So there were lies told, but it wasn't because they were alive, it was because they were dead!

 In Felix Yussoupov's memoirs, he tells how he, his family, the Dowager Empress and many other royals and nobles had been holed up in the Crimea in the summer of 1918, hearing rumors and rumors of rumors that the family was dead, alive, and back and forth until they didn't believe any of it. Also, there is a precedence for this lying to cover murders: the main executioner of GD Ella, the KR sons, Prince Paley and Sergei Mikhailovich the day after the IF wrote in his memoirs that after tossing them down the mine shaft, he and his men returned to the town, rang a bell and announced the prisoners had been taken away by 'unknown persons.' This diverted the blame from them, but gave false hope to family members, who believed they were still alive. However, no one had to wait long to learn the truth. In little over a week, the White army took the town and the bodies were found in the pit, so all rumors of survival and escape were put to rest. Sadly, since the Romanov bones were not found for many decades, lots of rumors, tall tales, speculation and incorrect information was allowed to spread, perpetuate and manifest in ways it never should have. Some people believe some of it to this day, because the mystery is more fun and exciting than the truth- that they all died horribly that night in 1918.

It's true that two bodies remain missing, and until we find them, there will always be wondering about what happened to them and if they were alive. Considering the brutality of the murders and the condition of the bodies, their survival is most unlikely. There are reports that two of the bodies were burned along the way, and this would account for the missing ones. Sadly, we may never find these remains to prove it, so the guessing game will go on. We do know that none of the claimants were who they said they were, not even Anna Anderson, whose claim was proven false by DNA testing. It would be nice to believe that Anastasia and Alexei got away and lived long lives in obscurity, but it's just not realistic.
Title: Re: Why we must believe the official history?
Post by: Margarita Markovna on March 27, 2006, 07:20:36 PM
There is however a picture of Ella's body. It's somewhere on the Ella board I think.
Title: Re: Why we must believe the official history?
Post by: Annie on March 27, 2006, 07:44:16 PM
There are pictures of the bodies of all those who died with her too :'(
Title: Re: Why we must believe the official history?
Post by: AGRBear on March 27, 2006, 09:11:39 PM
Why must we believe the official history?

Great question!

Napoleon  said: >>What is history but a fable agreed upon?<<  And, he ought to have known since he did a great job of rewriting history to suit his own needs.

Napoleon was and is not alone in twisting the truths.  Most victors are guilty of this twisting of the truth as are the defeated.

The Bolsheviks, CHEKA,  GPU, communists, KGB were brillant at twisting  fable with the truth.  For example:  For years and years they made the world believe only a few million Russians perished during the Bolshevik Revolution, the Civil War and another few million died during the years of famine [1917-1930].  It turns out that maybe 20 million Russian died.  So,  if the communists can hide the truth about 15 million deaths from the public eye, surly they can hide the truth about two missing children of Nicholas II and Alexandra.

Yep,  you guessed it.  My anwer is:  One can't always believe official history.

AGRBear
Title: Re: Why we must believe the official history?
Post by: Forum Admin on March 28, 2006, 09:13:45 AM
[size=12]I still hold true to "Occam's Razor" (The simplest explanation is almost always the correct one), or as a Superior Court judge once said during a trial...."If it doesn't make sense, it just can't be true!".  I've been questioned about why I take such a hard line about no one surviving. This is the answer.  When the situation is assessed logically, not emotionally, and the known facts examined, and the ONLY possiblilties of anyone surviving given some real evidentiary weight, the sheer volume of speculation, "divine intervention" and multiplicity of steps of illogic and tiny probabilites involved to make the survivor story plausible seem to me to run totally contrary to logic and genuine realistic "making sense".

Sorry if that annoys you, but I just don't see some "hero Bolshevik" risking his life to snatch even ONE badly wounded grand duchess (not to even discuss Alexei) off the truck in the forest, and go the the impossible steps of treating, healing, caring for, clothing, feeding, sheltering, hiding, transporting, rescuing, etc etc etc ad nauseum as being remotely making sense. It's just TOO complicated and relies on TOO many tenuous assumptions. period.[/size]
[/font]
Title: Re: Why we must believe the official history?
Post by: AGRBear on March 28, 2006, 10:18:52 AM
Quote
[size=12]I still hold true to "Occam's Razor" (The simplest explanation is almost always the correct one), or as a Superior Court judge once said during a trial...."If it doesn't make sense, it just can't be true!".  I've been questioned about why I take such a hard line about no one surviving. This is the answer.  When the situation is assessed logically, not emotionally, and the known facts examined, and the ONLY possiblilties of anyone surviving given some real evidentiary weight, the sheer volume of speculation, "divine intervention" and multiplicity of steps of illogic and tiny probabilites involved to make the survivor story plausible seem to me to run totally contrary to logic and genuine realistic "making sense".

Sorry if that annoys you, but I just don't see some "hero Bolshevik" risking his life to snatch even ONE badly wounded grand duchess (not to even discuss Alexei) off the truck in the forest, and go the the impossible steps of treating, healing, caring for, clothing, feeding, sheltering, hiding, transporting, rescuing, etc etc etc ad nauseum as being remotely making sense. It's just TOO complicated and relies on TOO many tenuous assumptions. period.[/size]
[/font]

Why would you think that your opinions would annoy Bear?  This would be a pretty dull world if everyone agreed with each other.  

I think my comments and your question about escape belongs in the thread someone has provided.  

My comment  was about the topic:  Why we must believe the official history?  History from time to time needs clean it's house once in order to free history of the old dusty data which is no longer accurate  if we wish to keep history as close to the truth as humaningly possible.

Let me repeat what Cervantes said in Don Quixote, Pt. i, ch. 9.:
>>Historians ought to be precise, faithful, and unprejudice; and neither interest nor fear, hatred nor affection, should make them swerve from the way of the truth.<<

Since humans have the tendency to be wordy, unfaithful, full of prejudices,  being fearful, having hatreds and falling into moments of affection,  it is rare to find an historian without one or all of these tendencies.  Therefore, I think we can assume that all history is tainted to some degree (slightly to full blown fabrications) in the past, yesterday, today and tomorrow.

AGRBear

PS  URL for the threaad "Realisticaly was excape possible:
http://forum.alexanderpalace.org/YaBB.cgi?num=1139234760/0#0
Title: Re: Why we must believe the official history?
Post by: Forum Admin on March 28, 2006, 12:37:48 PM
[size=12]Bear,
First, my comment was not directed at you specifically, though I can see why you would think I may have been replying to the post immediately prior to mine.  It was a rhetorical, general "you", not AGRBear.

Second, if you read the very first post starting this disucssion, the very notion of "escape" is EXACTLY the Official History being questioned (ie: that no one escaped to survive).[/size]
Title: Re: Why we must believe the official history?
Post by: AGRBear on March 28, 2006, 04:56:54 PM
Quote
Always I had the impression that the official history, that is the all the family dead, was a very well done screeenplay. Everything match: Nicholas a bad tsar ( I think he was the first patriot, he abdicated because he did not want a  civil  war... and more), the Tsarina a terrible woman, Rasputin the monster, and the revolution. And in the end, 80 or 90 years after surpraise we have the bodies, thanks God we have de bodies, but all the bodies?, no, there are two bodies missing, Alexei and Anastasia or Maria. Sorry for my tone, but I don´t believe de official history, I think that the soviets lied then and now. Just two questions and thanks in advance for the answers.
Why there are no photos of the bodies, several no just one of the group?
and
What happen whit the two boddies missing?
Ordino :)


orodino: >>Why there are no photos of the bodies, several no just one of the group?<<
BEAR: Ordinarily,  there would have been photos taken of this group of executioners but no one kowns for sure if one was taken of this group of executioners. If done were taken, it was probably because buriel and reburiel  took far to long to take place and the Whites hadn't been about to pounce into Ekaterinburg.  And, too,  Yurovsky was off to Moscow with his story and boxes of stuff.  By the time the Reds took control of Ekaterinburg area over a year later,  people had vanished, died or were somewhere else.  

----
and
orodino: >>What happen whit the two boddies missing?<<
BEAR:

Yurovsky claimed the two bodies were buried "near" the mass grave.

No one has found the remains of a Grand Duchess and Alexis.

So,  my question has been:  Why would Yurovsky tell the truth about the mass grave which held nine bodies and not tell the truth about the two missing bodies?


AGRBear
Title: Re: Why we must believe the official history?
Post by: Yseult on March 28, 2006, 05:36:23 PM
I always wondered why there are a lot of people who wants or need to believe that some of them survived. I can understand that in the 1920´s decade a lot of people wanted or needed to believe this, because they were so attached to all of them and it is not easy to carry on with the knowledge of the dreadful end of their loved ones. But times go by, and, now, I think that we can assume Nicky, Alicky, the children and a few loyal servants found death in the cellar of Ipatiev.
Title: Re: Why we must believe the official history?
Post by: Forum Admin on March 28, 2006, 05:41:22 PM
Quote
Yurovsky claimed the two bodies were buried "near" the mass grave.

No one has found the remains of a Grand Duchess and Alexis.

So,  my question has been:  Why would Yurovsky tell the truth about the mass grave which held nine bodies and not tell the truth about the two missing bodies?


AGRBear

PROVE that he did not tell the truth about the two missing bodies.
Title: Re: Why we must believe the official history?
Post by: elfwine on March 28, 2006, 07:34:00 PM
Quote
Quote
Yurovsky claimed the two bodies were buried "near" the mass grave.

No one has found the remains of a Grand Duchess and Alexis.

So,  my question has been:  Why would Yurovsky tell the truth about the mass grave which held nine bodies and not tell the truth about the two missing bodies?


AGRBear

PROVE that he did not tell the truth about the two missing bodies.

Oh --- My lack of G#d!
I agree with the FA!

Brilliant!


Title: Re: Why we must believe the official history?
Post by: Belochka on March 28, 2006, 11:23:38 PM
Quote
[size=12]
Sorry if that annoys you, but I just don't see some "hero Bolshevik" risking his life to snatch even ONE badly wounded grand duchess (not to even discuss Alexei) off the truck in the forest, and go the the impossible steps of treating, healing, caring for, clothing, feeding, sheltering, hiding, transporting, rescuing, etc etc etc ad nauseum as being remotely making sense. It's just TOO complicated and relies on TOO many tenuous assumptions. period.[/size]
[/font]

Comrade lenin was informed that the deed was committed. That single factor must be considered to be the truth that ALL the I. F. were murdered. Lenin within moments moved on to other issues after he was duly advised. This issue was concluded. Nothing more was left to consider.

I wholeheartedly agree with FA's assessment. The logistics for long-term care, and safely hiding any person from further harm, especially one considered to be an "enemy of the soviets" would have hindered such an eventuality from occuring.

Equally, the alleged survivor's capability to divulge the truth as to what transpired that night, and importantly, to be able to identify any of the murders would have been critical considerations in ensuring that ALL were silenced forever.

Furthermore, sympathy for any alleged child "survivor" would have aroused dissent against soviet authority.

Why were no alleged imperial survivors brought to the attention of Kolchak's White Army to ensure their safety and survivability?

Silence, lies, tales of escape or the claim of Nikolai II regicide alone; each served their political purpose in order to gain time. Why? This disinformation assisted in obscuring the real truth as to how ruthless the soviet masters were, and also ensured the survivability of the murderers and their associates who assisted in disposing all the bodies.

Rather than proclaim they had committed such an act for the "cause", instead, they had not just buried, but they attempted to burn and destroy their corpses in order to destroy the forensic evidence of their criminality. That lengthy process was to ensure that no one would learn at the time what they did.  

Those in the Ipatiev House were cold blooded murders ... they were hired to kill for rubles. Shooting was not enough, so out came the bayonets to ensure finality.  

To believe that any one of them would compromise himself among his comrades and superiors proximate to the crime scene can not be supported by "what ifs" and "may by" ...  That is the stuff of legends and myths that refuse to fade with the passage of time and logic.

Those who prefer to believe otherwise continue to proffer stale legends. It is time to close those nauseous books and examine more scholastic contributions to Russian history.

[size=14][ch1041][ch1077][ch1083][ch1086][ch1095][ch1082][ch1072][/size]
Title: Re: Why we must believe the official history?
Post by: AGRBear on March 29, 2006, 10:10:56 AM
 So, where are the two bodies, if Yurovsky is telling us the truth and nothing but the truth?  

AGRBear
Title: Re: Why we must believe the official history?
Post by: Louis_Charles on March 29, 2006, 10:20:43 AM
Not found yet? He apparently was telling the truth about other events that night, but the forensic evidence didn't appear for over sixty years. If we are to judge his "truthfulness" in this matter, the fact is that the bodies of the Imperial Family did turn up, bearing bullet wounds. So it is perfectly legitimate to conclude that the two missing bodies have simply not been discovered yet.
Title: Re: Why we must believe the official history?
Post by: Ra-Ra-Rasputin on March 29, 2006, 10:30:37 AM
Quote
Not found yet? He apparently was telling the truth about other events that night, but the forensic evidence didn't appear for over sixty years. If we are to judge his "truthfulness" in this matter, the fact is that the bodies of the Imperial Family did turn up, bearing bullet wounds. So it is perfectly legitimate to conclude that the two missing bodies have simply not been discovered yet.


Exactly.

But some people just have to have their conspiracy theories.

Rachel
xx
Title: Re: Why we must believe the official history?
Post by: AGRBear on March 29, 2006, 11:23:58 AM
Quote


...[[in part]....

Not found yet?

True.

Why do you think they haven't been found?

The entire area of Pig's Meadow has been dug up.

New devices have been invented which helps grave searchers  find new and old human remains and  this device has been used over the entire surface of Pig's Meadow, even though the area has already been dug up and dug up again and again and again..... Nothing found.

Distances around Pig's Meadow have been searched and dug up, again and again... Nothing found.

They haven't been found for the lack of trying.

Without going into "conspiracies",  "escapes" or debates as to Yurovskys truthfullness or forgetfullness or lack of sleep,  just explain to me why you think the two bodies haven't been found.

AGRBear
 
Title: Re: Why we must believe the official history?
Post by: Louis_Charles on March 29, 2006, 11:35:20 AM
Sure. They haven't looked in the right place.

Look, the bodies --- all of the other bodies --- weren't "found" officially until the late 1970s. We have no way of knowing whether people had discovered them before this and kept quiet about it; after all, the men who dug up and removed the skulls in the 1970s kept quiet about it for a long time. Given the haphazard approach to the grave taken in the early days, we may never know if they were, in  fact, the first to discover it.

I can imagine that the two missing bodies could have been removed at any point before excavations in the Pig's Meadow began. They could have been removed very soon after the night of July 16-17. An analogy: the tombs of the Pharoahs in the Valley of Kings were usually empty when discovered. No one seriously suggests that the tombs were always empty. The bodies were removed. It seems to me perfectly possible that the bodies of the Grand Duchess and Tsaresevitch were removed --- they were, after all, separated from the others from the beginning. And to continue with the Valley of the Kings analogy, despite the fact that this is probably the most worked-over archeological site extant, there are still fresh, major discoveries being made. The woods around the Pig's Meadow grave have been searched for, what, fifteen or so years?

So they could still be there. Belochka has a fascinating link on her profile to the SEARCH project, and I question your statement that the area has been thoroughly excavated.

No need for conspiracies.
Title: Re: Why we must believe the official history?
Post by: Robert_Hall on March 29, 2006, 11:44:04 AM
The remains, after being burned, could also have simply been smashed up and scattered "to winds".  Someday, someone  may find a fragment or 2. Who knows, some may already been found and just either not indentified yet or even mis-identified.
Title: Re: Why we must believe the official history?
Post by: AGRBear on March 29, 2006, 12:01:32 PM
Quote
Sure. They haven't looked in the right place.

Look, the bodies --- all of the other bodies --- weren't "found" officially until the late 1970s. We have no way of knowing whether people had discovered them before this and kept quiet about it; after all, the men who dug up and removed the skulls in the 1970s kept quiet about it for a long time. Given the haphazard approach to the grave taken in the early days, we may never know if they were, in  fact, the first to discover it.

I can imagine that the two missing bodies could have been removed at any point before excavations in the Pig's Meadow began. They could have been removed very soon after the night of July 16-17. An analogy: the tombs of the Pharoahs in the Valley of Kings were usually empty when discovered. No one seriously suggests that the tombs were always empty. The bodies were removed. It seems to me perfectly possible that the bodies of the Grand Duchess and Tsaresevitch were removed --- they were, after all, separated from the others from the beginning. And to continue with the Valley of the Kings analogy, despite the fact that this is probably the most worked-over archeological site extant, there are still fresh, major discoveries being made. The woods around the Pig's Meadow grave have been searched for, what, fifteen or so years?

So they could still be there. Belochka has a fascinating link on her profile to the SEARCH project, and I question your statement that the area has been thoroughly excavated.

No need for conspiracies.

One of your speculation might well be true.

What is Belochka's link about the excavation?  I'm always interested in the latest news.  

Anyone else have any thoughts on any other reasons the two bodies haven't been found?

AGRBear
Title: Re: Why we must believe the official history?
Post by: Ra-Ra-Rasputin on March 29, 2006, 12:15:17 PM
My own opinion is that the bones were probably dug up by animals.

If they weren't laid over with logs like the other bodies, they would have been much more vulnerable to being disturbed, whether by animals, humans or simply mother nature.

I doubt that the remains will ever be found in any complete, identifiable cluster.  It is likely that the remains, if they do still remain in the forest, have been severely fragmented, and so while small fragments may be found, it will be almost impossible to tell if they come from a human or animal, and I would imagine also impossible to defintively say they belong to a member of the Imperial Family that has not already been found.

Rachel
xx
Title: Re: Why we must believe the official history?
Post by: AGRBear on March 29, 2006, 12:21:28 PM
Quote
The remains, after being burned, could also have simply been smashed up and scattered "to winds".  Someday, someone  may find a fragment or 2. Who knows, some may already been found and just either not indentified yet or even mis-identified.

Warning:  You may not want to read this post because it's very gory in descriptions.

Have you ever seen or smelled a burnt human body?

I can only imagine what horror the young guards on buriel duty must have felt about the two bodies which they were to bury.

The smell probably turned their stomach.

Burning bodies with what Yurovsky had provided as fuel for burning wasn't enough to do anything more that place a black crust around the corpse which still would be intact and there would have been no easy pile of ashes to push into the open grave dug.

This blacken mass of two bodies would have to be rolled or pushed into the grave since it's musles, tendions, bones were still all attached.

I hardly think the bodies as they were that night would have been "smashed" by any of those men and yes, that's just my opinion.

AGRBear

Title: Re: Why we must believe the official history?
Post by: Louis_Charles on March 29, 2006, 12:40:30 PM
Hmm. You may want to PM Belochka for the link; the site is really interesting, and there are pictures of the forest and gravesite that will interest you, I think.

I didn't get the impression that Robert meant handfuls of ashes being flung to the wind, I thought he meant that the bodies may have been prised apart and the limbs scattered. I find it unconvincing that young men who could gun down helpless women and children at close quarters would have been affected by the scene you graphically describe, but that's just my opinion.

The most likely explanation, though of course not the only, is that the bodies have simply yet to be found.
Title: Re: Why we must believe the official history?
Post by: AGRBear on March 29, 2006, 12:42:38 PM
Quote
My own opinion is that the bones were probably dug up by animals.

If they weren't laid over with logs like the other bodies, they would have been much more vulnerable to being disturbed, whether by animals, humans or simply mother nature.

I doubt that the remains will ever be found in any complete, identifiable cluster.  It is likely that the remains, if they do still remain in the forest, have been severely fragmented, and so while small fragments may be found, it will be almost impossible to tell if they come from a human or animal, and I would imagine also impossible to defintively say they belong to a member of the Imperial Family that has not already been found.

Rachel
xx

The bodies were buried on the 18th and a few days later the Whites arrived and started looking around immediately with the help of the White officer Sheremeyevsky, who had been in the village of Koptyaki.  And, Whites were mulling around the area for the next year.  One would think they would have noticed a hole being dug by animals....

Animals large enough to dig up ground do not usually go after burnt humans because of the smell.... and if they were starving and had no other choice, they would not have pulled up the entire body or bodies....   And, if they had, this would have been noticed by all the Whites mulling around and going back and forth to the Four Brothers Mine.

Four male Latvians bodies were not buried and were found near the Four Brothers Mine by the Whites in those early days of investigation.

Other bodies have been found who may have been buried the same length of time as the two missing bodies.   I have not heard or read the details and would be greatly interested in their condition.

Anyone else have any thoughts or knowledge about animals raiding graves?

AGRBear
Title: Re: Why we must believe the official history?
Post by: Robert_Hall on March 29, 2006, 01:00:54 PM
Just because  the scenario offends someone's modern day senses, does not mean it was not humanly endurable a task. After all, the Nazis did much worse on a much larger scale. And they, for the most part, were even sober.
 If the "smashing & scatering" theory is viable, and animals could well come in to play, all that would be left would be charred bones, the flesh & fat having been burned away and the smell dissipated. Since  this would have involved only 2 bodies, it is entirely possible to have  done a pretty good job of it. The point is, these various theories are far more plausible than  a severly wounded girl & boy escaping off into to forest and survivng with or without assistance.
Title: Re: Why we must believe the official history?
Post by: Ra-Ra-Rasputin on March 29, 2006, 01:02:34 PM
Oh, Bear, I wasn't talking about straight away.  I was talking years and years later, after decomposition, hence why I said the bones rather than the bodies.

Rachel
xx
Title: Re: Why we must believe the official history?
Post by: Forum Admin on March 29, 2006, 01:30:52 PM
[size=12]Let me remind you also of something I posted on the subject last year.  National Geographic did a great special about a US bomber plane that crashed in Siberia, less than 100 miles from Ekaterinburg, but was not re-discovered for almost 60 years.  The remains of only one of SEVEN crew members on board were found in the plane itself.  The local guides were asked if they thought that they should start to look near the plane, digging, for other remains of the other six.  They both said, No, the local bears and wolves would have easily made it impossible to find anything very soon afterward, and there was no reason to look.  I never heard stories about miraculous US airmen living secret lives in Soviet Russian Siberia after the Second World War. Does this mean we can't prove those six men actually died?[/size]
Title: Re: Why we must believe the official history?
Post by: Phil_tomaselli on March 29, 2006, 02:09:32 PM
Sorry to be unable to provide chapter and verse save that it was probably in Channel 4 (in the UK) news about 10 years ago, that a Japanese soldier, captured by the Russians in 1945 and long presumed dead, was discovered alive and well and living in Vladivistok after having served a huge amount of time in a Gulag.  Older members may also recall multitudinous allegations of US servicemen held as secret POW's by the Russians during the Cold War (though I don't remember any of these being proved).  In other words there COULD be grounds for wondering if the aircraft crew were not killed in the crash or eaten by wolves and bears.  The simplest answer is usually the best, but alas not always.

As far as I can see the "standard" story of Rasputin's murder has gone pretty much unchallenged since 1918 but if you check out the threads you'll see there is huge scope for doubt whether the standard story is the correct one.  Not, of course, that anyone is arguing that the killing didn't take place, just that the details in the various stories are inconsistent with the hard facts.

Phil Tomaselli
Title: Re: Why we must believe the official history?
Post by: Belochka on March 29, 2006, 06:22:58 PM
Quote
Quote
Sure. They haven't looked in the right place.

So they could still be there. Belochka has a fascinating link on her profile to the SEARCH project, and I question your statement that the area has been thoroughly excavated.

No need for conspiracies.

What is Belochka's link about the excavation?  I'm always interested in the latest news.  

AGRBear

Bear immediately below the yellow logo in my signature, there is a clickable link to the [size=14]SEARCH Foundation [/size]site, of which I am a member.

I hope that it will provide you with the answers your seek.

Regards,

Margarita   :)
Title: Re: Why we must believe the official history?
Post by: AGRBear on March 29, 2006, 07:02:46 PM
Search Foundation for the Two Missing Bodies Web Site: http://www.searchfoundationinc.org/

The web site was interesting.   Thank you.

Unfortuntely,  the site was jumbled in sime parts where text wrap which should occur around the photographs but it wasn't.   This means people can not see some of the written word which are covered by the photographs.

Will the thumbnail photographs be linked to larger photographs?

I do hope that when the two bodies are found that great care will be given them which the other nine in the mass grave did not.

AGRBear
Title: Re: Why we must believe the official history?
Post by: hellokitty2121 on March 29, 2006, 07:07:08 PM
Quote
My own opinion is that the bones were probably dug up by animals.

If they weren't laid over with logs like the other bodies, they would have been much more vulnerable to being disturbed, whether by animals, humans or simply mother nature.

I doubt that the remains will ever be found in any complete, identifiable cluster.  It is likely that the remains, if they do still remain in the forest, have been severely fragmented, and so while small fragments may be found, it will be almost impossible to tell if they come from a human or animal, and I would imagine also impossible to defintively say they belong to a member of the Imperial Family that has not already been found.

Rachel
xx


 This theory seems very logical to me.
Title: Re: Why we must believe the official history?
Post by: hellokitty2121 on March 29, 2006, 07:09:37 PM
AGbear why do you think that Yurofski was lying?
Title: Re: Why we must believe the official history?
Post by: Belochka on March 29, 2006, 07:34:19 PM
Quote
Just because  the scenario offends someone's modern day senses, does not mean it was not humanly endurable a task. After all, the Nazis did much worse on a much larger scale. And they, for the most part, were even sober.
 If the "smashing & scatering" theory is viable, and animals could well come in to play, all that would be left would be charred bones, the flesh & fat having been burned away and the smell dissipated. Since  this would have involved only 2 bodies, it is entirely possible to have  done a pretty good job of it. The point is, these various theories are far more plausible than  a severly wounded girl & boy escaping off into to forest and survivng with or without assistance.

The nazis used furnces that were capable of attaining extremely high temperature in an enclosed defined space under controlled conditions. A bonfire in an open space will never reach the required temperature to convert bone to ash. Charring yes, but not complete destruction of the integrity of the bone tissue.

Thus the very idea of 'scattering the ashes to the winds' was an implausible event.

We do not know whether Halliburton received an accurate translation of what was being claimed by Yermakov, nor do we know under what conditions that interview was conducted. The NKVD controlled all interviews conducted on behalf of foreigners. In this case the interpreter would be the most suitable candidate. The NKVD's presence would dictate that what was described may not reflect the real conversation word for word. The elderly sick Yermakov would not know, and the reliant Halliburton would also be no wiser.  It was 1935, and the stalinist purges were threatening all who spoke or stepped beyond the invisible political line.

Let us not forget that Alexei lost the ability to walk. There is no way that he would have "escaped" The further complication of suffering Hemophilia, would not have permitted his survivability for any significant time. If he did not succumb to shock and lapse into a coma at the time, he would never have survived, because he would never have overcome his internal bleeding from the invasion of bullets piercing through his soft tissues.

To take this matter one further step, "if" his unconscious body was "removed" ... what then? No one knew he suffered from hemophilia outside the Family and Court associates in Ekaterinburg. How could a complete stranger understand how to alleviate his internal hemorrhaging AND ensure that he received the appropriate longterm specialist medical attention in the rural back blocks? He survived to the age of thirteen because of the expert care he received daily. But once that care was compromised (the shooting) so was his survivability.
Title: Re: Why we must believe the official history?
Post by: Belochka on March 29, 2006, 07:41:06 PM
Quote
Search Foundation for the Two Missing Bodies Web Site: http://www.searchfoundationinc.org/

The web site was interesting.   Thank you.

Will the thumbnail photographs be linked to larger photographs?

AGRBear

Thanks for this suggestion Bear!

Margarita
Title: Re: Why we must believe the official history?
Post by: Belochka on March 29, 2006, 07:51:31 PM
Quote
Quote
My own opinion is that the bones were probably dug up by animals.
... I doubt that the remains will ever be found in any complete, identifiable cluster.  It is likely that the remains, if they do still remain in the forest, have been severely fragmented, and so while small fragments may be found ...

Rachel
xx


 One human bone fragment is all that is needed to conduct an mtDNA profile assay.
Title: Re: Why we must believe the official history?
Post by: Robert_Hall on March 29, 2006, 09:58:43 PM
Belochka, dear,
 I was not referring to the crematoria  that the Nazis  used. I was referring to the earlier mass executions with  "bonfires & burials". These proved unsatisfactory and eventually more industrial methods were employed.
 My point remains, a couple of bodies, young and fairly fragile, would be easily disposed of through the means I have brought up in this discussion. Whether or not that is what actually happened, and there are several  scenarios possible here, is not really important. What remains is the fact that a mass execution took place and the bodies were disposed of.
 They all died.
Title: Re: Why we must believe the official history?
Post by: Belochka on March 29, 2006, 11:04:51 PM
Quote
Belochka, dear,
 I was not referring to the crematoria  that the Nazis  used. I was referring to the earlier mass executions with  "bonfires & burials". These proved unsatisfactory and eventually more industrial methods were employed.
 
... What remains is the fact that a mass execution took place and the bodies were disposed of.
 They all died.

Ok Robert thanks for clarifying that point.  :)

You make a very significant point here in that the disposal technique which the nazis employed before the use of crematoria - proved inefficient.

This is exactly why "Yermakov's" assertion fails.  The bolshevik murderers attempted to accomplish a similar outcome, but that task failed because it proved to be ineffective. Clearly, what "Yermakov" was claimed to have stated was a figment of either his or his interpreter's imagination.

Why does no one consider that Yermakov might never have actually said that he "pitched the ashes into the air - and the wind caught them like dust and carried them across the woods and fields...", but this entire revelation may have been fabricated by the soviet "approved" interpreter?

There might have been a wind but there were no ashes.

Somehow I doubt that Yermakov would countenance the possibility of Romanov remnants to be embedded over himself, purposefully picking the "ashes" with his bare hands, with the wind blowing, in order to scatter those ashes far and wide.  The scenario portrayed is a nonsense.

Such imagery created after the fact, smells of soviet propaganda to simply affirm that the Imperial Family was no more.

Margarita
Title: Re: Why we must believe the official history?
Post by: Belochka on March 29, 2006, 11:24:13 PM
Quote
What remains is the fact that a mass execution took place and the bodies were disposed of.
 They all died.

[size=14]Absolutely correct Robert!  [/size]
Title: Re: Why we must believe the official history?
Post by: Ra-Ra-Rasputin on March 30, 2006, 01:57:45 AM
Quote
Quote
Quote
My own opinion is that the bones were probably dug up by animals.
... I doubt that the remains will ever be found in any complete, identifiable cluster.  It is likely that the remains, if they do still remain in the forest, have been severely fragmented, and so while small fragments may be found ...

Rachel
xx


 One human bone fragment is all that is needed to conduct an mtDNA profile assay.

Oh, yes, I know that.  But what I was pointing out is that there could be no definitive proof that if any bone fragments were found, that they could be said to be those of the missing GD or Alexei.  Because there are so many bones missing from the bodies in the mass grave, any fragments found could also feasibly belong to one of the bodies in the mass grave.  Because the bones of the GD and Alexei are in all likelihood completely scattered to the winds, it would be nigh on impossible, I think, to state categorically 'We have found the missing children' because there simply wouldn't be the volume of bone found all together to constitute having found two other bodies.

I hope that makes sense? Obviously this is just my conjecture anyway, but I just wanted to make that more clear.

Rachel
xx
Title: Re: Why we must believe the official history?
Post by: AGRBear on March 30, 2006, 04:24:26 PM
Yurovsky - 1920 testimony

Quote
(continued)

>>Finally, having returned to town around 8 o'clock in the evening on the 17th, everything necessary began to be gathered; the kerosene, the sulfuric acid.  Horse-drawn carts without drivers were taken from the prison.  It had been planned to leave a 11 o'clock at night, but the incident with the Chekist held things up, and we left for the mine, together with ropes to drag out the corpses and soon on, only around 12:30 on the night of the 17th to the 18th.  In order to isolate the mine  (the first prospector's mine) for the duration of the operation, it was announced to the village of Koptiaki that Czechs were hiding in the forest, tht the forest would be searched, and that on no account should anyone from the village go anywhere.  It was ordered to shoot on the spot anyone who happened to break into the cordoned--off area.

Meanwhile, dawn came (this was already the third day, the 18th).  The thought was to bury some of the corpses right then and there by the mine.  We began to dig a pit and almost finished digging it out.  But just then a peasant acquaintance of Yermakov's drove up, and it turned out he had been able to see the pit.  That effort had to be abandoned.  It was decided to take the corpses to the deep mines.  Because the carts were flimsy and falling apart, the comm. left for town to get motor vehicles (a truck and two motorcars, one for the Chekists).  The carts had broken down earlier and the vehicles were needed for transport to the deep mines, but in fact the vehicles could not make it to the place of temporary burial and that was why the carts still had to be used.  When the vehicles arrived, the carts were already moving--the vehicles met them a  quarter mile closer to Koptaiaki  .  We could not begin the trip until 9 o'clock at night.  We crossed the railroad tracks and, a quarter of a mile later, we moved the corpses onto the truck.  We drove with difficulty, paving the hazardous places with railway ties, but we still got stuck a few times.  Around 4:40 in the morning of the 19th, one of the vehicles got completely stuck.  Since we had not reached the mine, it was necessary to either bury or burn the corpses.  One comrade, whose last name the comm. has forgotten, promised to take the latter upon himself but left without carrying out his promise.
 
We wanted to burn A. [Aleksei] and A.F., but by mistake the lady-in-waiting [he maid Demidova] ws burnt with A. instead.  We then immediately buried the remains under the fire and lit the fire again, which comletely covered up traces of the digging.  Meanwhile, we dug a common grave for the rest.  A pit around 6 feet deep and 8 feet square was ready by around 7 o'clock in the morning.  We piled the corpses in the pit, poured sulfuric acid onto their faces and generally over their whole bodies to prevent them both from being recognized and from stinking as a results of decomposition (the pit was not deep).  Having thrown dirt and brushwood on top, we put down railroad ties and drove over them a few times--no traces of the pit wer left.  The secret was completely safe;  the Whites didn't find this burial place.
 
Koptiaki is 12 miles from Yekaterinburg.  The R.R. crosses mile 6 between Koptiaki and the Upper Isetsk factory to the northwest [of town].  The burial place is 700 feet closer to the U. Isetsk factory from te point of intersection.<<
 
Note: The authors stated that the Russian measurement in the document had been converted to U. S. Measurements.

(1) A comrade, who was suppose to have  burned the bodies, hadn't accomplished this task.  The comrade had left.

(2) Two bodies were burned and buried.  Yurovsky's  order had been for  Alexis and Alexandra to have been buried or burned....  For some reason Yurovsky thought one of the bodies was Demidova.   It was not Demidova or Alexandra since their bodies were among the nine found in the mass grave.

(3)  Please note,  there is no mention of smashing faces with rifle butts before the bodies were placed in the mass grave; Yurovsky mentions acid was used to erase their identities....

(4)  Yurovsky tells us exactly where all eleven bodies can be found at this "buriel place" and even mentions 700 feet of distance ...

AGRBear
Title: Re: Why we must believe the official history?
Post by: AGRBear on March 30, 2006, 04:34:15 PM
Yurovsky - 1934 Testimony:

>>Then I decided that we should do the burying somewhere around there, because at that late hour nobody actually could see us. Only the watchman of the passing track saw several men, because I sent for ties to cover the place where the corpses would be put. The explanation for needing ties was: The ties had to be laid for a truck to pass over. I forgot to say that we got stuck twice that evening or, to be precise, that night. About two months ago, I was looking through the book by Sokolov, the preliminary investigator of the extremely important cases under Kolchak, when I saw a photo of those stacked ties. It was mentioned that the ties had been laid there to let a truck pass. So, having dug up the entire area, they did not think to look under the ties. It is necessary to say that all our men were so tired. They did not want to dig a new grave. But as it always happens in such cases, two or three men started working, then the others began. A fire was made and while the graves where being prepared we burned two corpses: Alexei and Demidova. The pit was dug near the fire. The bones were buried, the land was leveled. A big fire was made again and all the traces were covered with ashes. Before putting the other corpses into the pit we poured sulpheric acid over them. The pit was filled up and covered with the ties. The empty truck drove over the ties several times and rolled them flat. At 5 - 6 o'clock in the morning, I assembled everybody and stated the importance of the work completed. I warned everybody to forget the things they saw and never speak about them with anybody. Then we went back to the town. <<

AGRBear
Title: Re: Why we must believe the official history?
Post by: AGRBear on March 30, 2006, 04:49:35 PM
THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS by King and Wilson p. 330 used the 1920 and 1934 testimonies of Yurovsky as well as his unpublished memoirs of 1922:

Let me see if I can pick out the 1922 information:

>>The horse were unhitched, the bodies unloaded and the barrels of gasoline were opened, " he recalled.  "I ordered that we begin with Alexei.  We laid his body down , and soaked it with gasoline just to see if it would work, since no one knew how to go about this.<<

There is the incert from Kudrin's testimony:

>>According to Kudrin, the bodies, "which were frozen, smoked and hissed"<<

Added to his is Isai Rodzinsky's testimony:

>>...the smell..was terrible.<<

>>According to Yurovsky, this cremation began at 4:40 A.M. and was finished within an hour.<<

AGRBear
Title: Re: Why we must believe the official history?
Post by: AGRBear on March 30, 2006, 04:56:08 PM
Robert Massie's book THE ROMANOVS, THE FINAL CHAPTER p. 8  doesn't take the bodies from the Four Brothers Mine and goes only this far:

>>Once the bodies were stripped, the jewels collected, and  the clothing burned, Yurovsky was almost finished.  He ordered the bodies thrown down the smaller, deeper mine shaft.  then attempting to collapse the pit, he dropped in several hand grenades.  By ten in the morning his work was done.  He returned to Ekaterinburg to report to the Ural Regional Soviets.<<

AGRBear
Title: Re: Why we must believe the official history?
Post by: AGRBear on March 30, 2006, 05:08:05 PM
Edvard Radzinsky's book THE LAST TSAR tells us what Ermakov said happened p. 398:

>>...On July 16, 1918, I carried out the Regional Executive Committee's resolution to execute the former Romanov tsar, so the tsar himself as well as his family were executed  by me.  The bodies, too, were burned by me personally.<<

AGRBear
Title: Re: Why we must believe the official history?
Post by: Ivan Komarov on March 31, 2006, 12:29:23 AM
Wow, Bear!

Where do you find these things?  Seriously now!

I am truly amazed.  Thank you for posting these, it really sheds some new light on the issue.  Or on the...ah, whatever.

 :)
Title: Re: Why we must believe the official history?
Post by: AGRBear on March 31, 2006, 11:34:02 AM
We have to thank all the good people here who post and have given you and I  sources so you and I can find this information if we take the time and make the effort.

I continue to look for more testimony by eyewitnesses who tell us about the  buriel of the two bodies in the one grave and the nine in the mass grave in Pig's Meadow.

AGRBear

Title: Re: Why we must believe the official history?
Post by: ordino on April 02, 2006, 04:52:14 PM
Hello AGRBear, I think the two bodies have not been found because they are not there. I don´t believe the official story because since the beginning there are several versions and differents ends and ups. I ask, why the nine bodies were found first in 1970 and then in 1991, who many people where involved in these  works. Yakov Y. did not say the thrue, the investigation of Sokolov was a neutra one, was he objetive in his opinions- I have read The File on the Tsart , Summers and Mangold they said  a very interenting thinks, No I can not believe the official story because there are a lot of differents versions and several questions without answers.
By the way, AGRBear your point of view in general is very interensting.
Ordino :)
Title: Re: Why we must believe the official history?
Post by: Ra-Ra-Rasputin on April 02, 2006, 05:31:46 PM
Thanks for the sources, Bear, which always do make fascinating reading. :)

I agree with everyone who has stated that Yurovksy is a liar, and that there is a lot of stuff unexplained here.  However, as far as I'm concerned, there is no 'mystery' per se because the family and the servants have been found, bar Alexei, who was specifically stated as being burned and buried separately by Yurovsky, and an as yet unidentified GD, who could easily have been mistaken for Demidova considering the circumstances.

So, Yurovsky said the family were murdered and buried in the forest.  Lo and behold, the family are found murdered and buried in the forest, where he said they would be.  Two are missing, like he said they would be.  I honestly don't see where the mystery is myself.  Even so, I admit, there are anomalies, and until the missing bodies are found, we will never know for sure what happened.  There is no doubt in my mind what did happen, but I am open to hearing other people's informed opinions.  That is why I am glad Bear posts sources, because not everyone has access to these and it is necessary to read statements from the horse's mouths in order to come to an informed opinion.  Saying Yurovsky lied is all very well and good, because it is true, but Yurovsky's statements aren't the only sources available on the subject.  Bear has chosen to quote Yurovsky, but if someone has some other sources from other people, please post them so we can all have access to versions of what happened that night and see how widely they do differ.

Rachel
xx
Title: Re: Why we must believe the official history?
Post by: Ivan Komarov on April 03, 2006, 11:42:58 AM
Yes, I think it wise not to question - in this discussion, at least - the end, but rather the means by which that end was achieved.  If Yurovsky lied about the way in which the murder, (and somewhat without reason) the burial and possible burning occured, it does not change the fact that the Romanovs are dead.  It is more by historical intrigue and interest that we wish to discuss the details...

However, discuss onwards - for this is truly entertaining.

 :D

I hope I made sense.
Title: Re: Why we must believe the official history?
Post by: ordino on April 03, 2006, 12:47:03 PM
From "The File on the Tsar" 2002 edition, chapter  26 "A solution at last"
 "It was to be with his personal approval(Boris Yelstein), the very day after his inaguration as President in 1991, that a search party would set out into Koptiaki Woods-and in short order recover hundreds of bones and a box containing three skulls.  Two years later, the world would be told that these were almost certaninly the remains of the murdered Romanov family." page351
"the credit for solving the mystery of the century has been claimed by a colourful character called Ghely Ryabov. He first became interested, he has said, as long ago as 1952 when he was a Moscow law student. While visiting a friend, he claimed, he just happened upon Judge Sokolov´s book-a three-decades-old monarchist publication distributed only in the west.
According to Ryabov, he soon became a Romanov aficionado and collector of imperial memorabilia, a perilus hobby in Soviet times. He served, meanwhile, as a detective for Moscow´s Criminal Investigation Departament before becoming an author-of whodunnits and film scripts. The year our book was published (1976?), he has asserted, his work took him to Ekaterimburg. "I still don´t know," Ryabov recalled of his arrival there, "what inspired mi to ask the people meeting me at the station to take me to the Ipatiev House". His Communist hosts readily obliged, he said, and he spent an entire night walking around the mansion. The sometime investigator was consumed by "strange, astonishing thoughts", and resolved then and there that "it was my duty to discover the truth about the execution and burial of the Romanovs"
"Ryabov made contact on that first trip with a local geologist who shared his curiosity about the Romanovs fate. This was Alexander Avdonin, who has been using his professional expertise to hunt for a gravesite in the nearby Koptiaki woods. He had also traked down the son of Yankel Yurovsky, the man who allegedly directed the massacre in the cellar. Contacted in turn by Ryabov, the son produced his father´s journal-which turned out to contain a detailed account of the murders, the disposal of the bodies, and even clues as to where the remains were buried. In May 1979, Ryabov and Avdonin made a spectacular breakthrough. Working covertly, they claim, they unearthed a mass grace in the woods. "We made the first (bones) find" Ryabov said of their dig, after unearthing some old railway sleepers at a spot throught likely to yield results. "The very first one was blackgreen....It was the pelvic bone of Nicholas II." Ryabov has variously been quoted as saying that  they "touched at least eight or nine skeletons" or, on another occasion, that he would stake his life on having found eleven, the full number required to account for the Tsar´s family and their servants. Ryabov and his companion decided to call themselves the First Finders, got out the vodka and drank a toast to Tsar Nicholas. They then removed three skulls from the site, one of them replete with "gold-capped dentures", and Ryabov took them back to Moscow. He reportedly kept one of them under his bed. The following year, the two men returned the skulls to the grave-enclosed now in a box along with a crucifix inscribed with a verse from the Gospel of St Matthew:"He that endureth to the end shall be saved". The remains would not be disturbed again for twelve years"
"While Ryabov was at work, a Moscow history student called Edvard Radzinsky had apparently also been pursuing the truth about the Romanovs. He was inspired to do so, he has said, after hearing old Bolshevik´s stories of how the Romanovs died passed on by his aged landlady. Later, as an archivist, Radzinsky heard rumours of a Yurovsky note said to exist somewhere in official records, a supposedly authoritative account on the killings by the commander of the death squad. Only in 1989, though, was he allowed to see a file held at the Central State Archive of the October Revolution. And there was the Note itself-supposedly Yurovsky´s own lurid account of the whole bloody episode" pages 352-353
Title: Re: Why we must believe the official history?
Post by: TheAce1918 on July 09, 2006, 03:46:46 PM
These stories always confuse me greatly.  Ever since I began studying the Romanovs I went by the 'official' story that the IF was murdered in Siberia.  When I checked with these books by Richards, Occleshaw, Summers and Mangold...everything went crosseyed.  Granted these authors never proved what really happened to the IF, but rather covered on many mysteries surrounding the case.  From the locked files in UK to recovered German documents to the obvious Russian archives full of possible dummy diaries and papers.  I always hoped that the IF never did suffer the fate that history gives them, but God forbid if these statements from Yurovsky and the investigators are true :'(  

My favorite quote regarding this great mystery is from Michael Occleshaw-

TE Lawrence once wrote to Lionel Curtis that
One of the omnious signs of the time is that the public can no longer read history.  The historian is retired into a shell to study the whole truth; which means that he learns to attachinsensate importance to documents.  The documents are liars.
Title: Re: Why we must believe the official history?
Post by: Alixz on September 06, 2006, 09:36:22 AM
Remember also Lenin saying "The revolution doesn't need historians."

In the US the biggest lies told about any war were about the American Civil War.  Going through school I, of course, believed what I was taught, but my father always cautioned me to dig beneath the accepted dogma.  Now we all know more about the Civil War war and that what we were taught in school was "spun" even though that word had not yet entered our lanugage with that usage at that time.

My opinon on any historical event is that official history is written by the victors of what ever conflict or event they are recording.
So naturally, they would again"spin" it to show themselves in the best light.

In past ages when information could not be reproduced or saved or distributed the way it can be today, it was simple for the writers of history to slant it anyway they wanted to.  Most people didn't read and education for education's sake was far from the minds of those trying to subsist on what they had.  Libraries were sometime difficult to get to and if one didn't live near a college or university, the access was quite limited.  I remember that during summers when I was off school and wanted to read and research our local library was only open from 9-5 Monday-Friday.  I had no way to get to it during those times unless I walked three miles each way.  When I was older I did, but when I was younger, I couldn't.

The offical version of any event was fine with the general public, and any investigation of other conclusions was beyond their ability to care.

It is only recently (with in the last 60 to 75 years) that research for the sake of research into historical events has become a full time job for scholars and researchers.  That is why we now question everything and see conspiracies everywhere.

Ordinary people actually have the time and resources to do what we are doing by reading and researching and travelling and in the end questioning the generally approved written accounts.  Walking to my computer sure beats walking six miles round trip carrying large and heavy books to and from the local library.  (Although I am sure that the physical health benefit was greater for me.)

So should we question the accepted accounts?  I say YES emphatically. (and I am talking about any historical event, not just the execution of the Romanovs)

Even autobiographies are filled with clouded memories and a desire to present one's life in the best possible light for future generations to read about and ponder.

To her death, Empress Marie, did not ever admit that her son and his wife and grandchildren were dead.  Did she secretly mourn?  Who knows.  Was she simply detaching herself from reality?  Who knows.  But if you believe her account, then no one was executed.

She chose to question the official reports.  And in the end, If she could do that, why can't we?
Title: Re: Why we must believe the official history?
Post by: Annie on September 06, 2006, 12:12:23 PM
Quote
In the US the biggest lies told about any war were about the American Civil War.  Going through school I, of course, believed what I was taught, but my father always cautioned me to dig beneath the accepted dogma.  Now we all know more about the Civil War war and that what we were taught in school was "spun" even though that word had not yet entered our lanugage with that usage at that time.

Oh yes, this is true! But growing up literally in the shadows of several Civil War battlefields, everyone knew more than the books told and even the teachers would set it straight. I saw an article on this  years ago, and it had a quote by someone famous saying 'history is the propaganda of the victorious.' I"d love to have it now but I loaned it to someone and she lost it.

One thing that really bothers me is that now in retrospect the 'heroes' of the US Civil War are being  labeled as some kind of champions of justice while the confederates are being likened to Nazis. This is not true at all. While slavery was very wrong, (I personally feel it would have died out natrually in the late 19th century when farm machinery became common, so it was all uneccesary and caused way more pain than it solved for ALL in the long run) it wasn't the only issue of the war, and the southerners had no death camps killing anyone. Inequality, yes, even a bit of the old Eurpean class system,(true some slaves were abused, but so were many women and chldren at that time by the same rotten cads and no one stopped that either) but not genocide.

Genocide, leave that to your conquering heroes (the same guys who torched the homes of southerners, raped, pillaged and plundered private homes, and were the first in modern civilization to turn the war on civilians) Yankee Generals Grant (who became president) Sherman and Sheridan (who went west) were responsible for the shameless and evil genocide of countless Native Americans, not only men but women and children. Many were killed on land they had been promised as safe. Sheridan was once quotes as saying 'the only good Indian is a dead Indan' and their philosophy was that children grow up and women breed so they all had to go. This was of course not in the history books in my day, and I was devastated to learn years later the US government had condoned this. I had always assumed all "Indians" had moved to town and blended in with society. I didn't know they had been deliberately killed. Even peaceful tribes who had been friendly to the settlers like the Nez Perce were driven from their land and eventually hunted down. The atrociites committed by the US military in the latter 19th century is a DISGRACE on US history, and all humanity.

One more thing I found wrong was when I read the description in my children's fourth grade VA history book telling them Nat Turner was a 'slave who tried to fight for his freedom, but was captured and hanged.' This was verbatim the wording. There was a question on the test for that chapter where children had to match Turner with 'freedom fighter' to get the answer counted correct! In reality, Turner led a rampage and revolt in which 57 men, women and children were kiled brutally, mostly with garden tools and axes, because he had recieved a 'vision' it was time to rise up and kill the 'masters' and their families. In one account, the fleeing band actually went back to kill a baby they had missed when they heard it crying. Regardless of who you are or what you are fighting for, mass murder is a crime, nothing to be honored for.NO mention of the killings, the vision or the rampage was mentioned in the book, it made Turner out to be some kind of innocent victim. That's just one example of 'revisonist history' that serves NO ONE properly.
Title: Re: Why we must believe the official history?
Post by: Penny_Wilson on September 06, 2006, 01:43:33 PM
While slavery was very wrong, (I personally feel it would have died out natrually in the late 19th century when farm machinery became common, so it was all uneccesary and caused way more pain than it solved for ALL in the long run)

Wait a second.  Are you really saying that another 30-40 years -- another generation -- of slavery would have been acceptable in some way?  Not to re-fight the Civil War here, but I would like clarification on this point, because this seems to be what you're saying.

... and the southerners had no death camps killing anyone.

Perhaps there was no sign over the gate reading "death camp"  -- but what about Andersonville?  http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USACWandersonville.htm

This is not to say that the Union did not have places like Elmira, but it is Andersonville that leaps to mind when thinking of American Civil War atrocities.  And it did belong to the Confederacy.

...true some slaves were abused...

All slavery is abuse, in my opinion.

One more thing I found wrong was when I read the description in my children's fourth grade VA history book telling them Nat Turner was a 'slave who tried to fight for his freedom, but was captured and hanged.' This was verbatim the wording. There was a question on the test for that chapter where children had to match Turner with 'freedom fighter' to get the answer counted correct! In reality, Turner led a rampage and revolt in which 57 men, women and children were kiled brutally, mostly with garden tools and axes, because he had recieved a 'vision' it was time to rise up and kill the 'masters' and their families. In one account, the fleeing band actually went back to kill a baby they had missed when they heard it crying. Regardless of who you are or what you are fighting for, mass murder is a crime, nothing to be honored for.NO mention of the killings, the vision or the rampage was mentioned in the book, it made Turner out to be some kind of innocent victim. That's just one example of 'revisonist history' that serves NO ONE properly.

For a really good examination of the Nat Turner story:

http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/natturner/
Title: Re: Why we must believe the official history?
Post by: Penny_Wilson on September 06, 2006, 01:45:19 PM
Sorry -- double post...
Title: Re: Why we must believe the official history?
Post by: grandduchessella on September 06, 2006, 01:53:05 PM
I also think that those massacred by the pro-Confederate Quantrill Raiders (led by a psychopath responsible for hundreds of people masscred) might disagree as well.

There is a huge amount of propaganda on both sides--having been born in the North (and the proud descendant of those who fought on the Union side) but in a border state (Delaware) that was greatly conflicted about which side to enter and having lived in the Deep South (Biloxi where Beauvoir, the home of Jefferson Davis is) and seen all the Confederate days, etc...I feel comfortable saying this. Propaganda isn't always written by the victorious.

As someone whose degree is in history, I agree that there should always be 'digging around' past just accepting what is handed over though.
Title: Re: Why we must believe the official history?
Post by: Penny_Wilson on September 06, 2006, 04:29:22 PM

There is a huge amount of propaganda on both sides--having been born in the North (and the proud descendant of those who fought on the Union side) but in a border state (Delaware) that was greatly conflicted about which side to enter and having lived in the Deep South (Biloxi where Beauvoir, the home of Jefferson Davis is) and seen all the Confederate days, etc...I feel comfortable saying this. Propaganda isn't always written by the victorious.

My family's Civil War was the English one, I'm afraid.  ;D  By the 1860s, my immediate ancestry was almost completely Anglo-Indian, and although there were relatives here in the US (my two most famous American relatives are Texas Guinan and Virginia O'Hanlon -- "Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus!"  :D ), I have no idea what participation these relatives had in the US Civil War.  So -- having no family tradition or personal stake in its history, I am endlessly fascinated by modern American "takes" on the Civil War --  and I have to agree that I find that propaganda exists on both sides, and sometimes seems remarkably fresh for such an old war.

As someone whose degree is in history, I agree that there should always be 'digging around' past just accepting what is handed over though.

Agreed -- though I would never want to have a part in revising the idea that fighting to end slavery was a good thing.

Title: Re: Why we must believe the official history?
Post by: Annie on September 06, 2006, 05:27:31 PM

Wait a second.  Are you really saying that another 30-40 years -- another generation --
of slavery would have been acceptable in some way?  Not to re-fight the Civil War here, but I would like clarification on this point, because this seems to be what you're saying.

GOOD OLE PENNY! :D Always got to find something to jump on me for! Last time it was the Anne Frank/Anastasia thing! I see you didn't dare touch me on the Native American genocide thing, you only wanted to attack me on something you think can make me look bad and non PC. Well I was born and raised around this stuff, so don't act like I don't know it. I didn't get it off some biased internet site written after the fact, either. I grew up with it. I heard the old follks talking.

I NEVER EVER said it would have become acceptable- I said it would have become GONE as in EXTINCT as it should have been many years before! AND as it was slowly phased out, (if that had happened in the 1880's when the farm machinery came around) we would not have had the hard feeliings on both sides, or the impoverisment of the  poor blacks who were basically put out with nothing but the clothes on their backs. They would have had more of a chance to assimiliate into society over time, finding jobs. There wouldn't have been the resentment among the old guard of the south becasuse it would have been of their own free will. But of course, there are many if's in history, they mean nothing because they didn't happen.



Quote
Perhaps there was no sign over the gate reading "death camp"  -- but what about Andersonville?  http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USACWandersonville.htm

This is not to say that the Union did not have places like Elmira, but it is Andersonville that leaps to mind when thinking of American Civil War atrocities.  And it did belong to the Confederacy.

Weeeell now, you have to consider that Andersonville was in an area that had been marched through by Sherman. Farms were destroyed, houses burned around innocent women and children, supplies stolen and carried off on the backs of Yankee horses. Crops in the field were burned, as were barns.  People didn't have enough food for their children and livestock, much   less a herd of enemy soldiers. WHERE were the southerners supposed to get the food to feed these guys when, thanks to the Yank army, they coudln't even feed their own families? Thanks to the naval blockade, and destroyed railroads, there was no way to get supplies from anywhere else. Add to that the fact that the confederate money was by now worthless, and again, please explain how they were supposed to feed them, and with what? Really it was Lincoln's fault, the south realized they couldn't house  large numbers of prisoners, but Lincoln refused any prisoner exchanges, believing the more men were out of action, the faster the war would end.

However, there was NO such suffering in Elmira, NY. Though it was not a war torn area and there were plenty of supplies available, the rebel soldiers were also starved and given poor medical care. So what's the excuse for that?


Quote

For a really good examination of the Nat Turner story:

http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/natturner/

I haven't read your link yet, but I'll find and post some of my own after my daughter gets her turn on the computer (She's bugging me) I also lived for several years within 20 miles of where this took place, I drove past the historical marker all the time, and I know this story too, not the way it's been twisted after the fact, and made politically correct over time. Yes, it was bad he was a slave. But it was also bad to kill all those people.

Any comments on the atrocities caused by Grant, Sherman and Sheridan against Native Americans? Or what about Lincoln's true feelings on the African Americans? (not honorable at all)
Title: Re: Why we must believe the official history?
Post by: Annie on September 06, 2006, 05:35:03 PM
I also think that those massacred by the pro-Confederate Quantrill Raiders (led by a psychopath responsible for hundreds of people masscred) might disagree as well.




They were terrible, but don't forget that John Brown and his sons also murdered people who disagreed with them. Brown is regarded as a hero by many too. Just because someone is on the 'right' side of an issue doesn't justify the wrong they do.

It's really shocking to think what people got away with in those days. With all the technology we have now, they'd be found out before it ever happened, like the terrorists and the London plane.
Title: Re: Why we must believe the official history?
Post by: Penny_Wilson on September 06, 2006, 05:52:53 PM

GOOD OLE PENNY! :D Always got to find something to jump on me for! Last time it was the Anne Frank/Anastasia thing! I see you didn't dare touch me on the Native American genocide thing, you only wanted to attack me on something you think can make me look bad and non PC.


I didn't "jump on you."  I asked you to clarify the meaning of a rather confusing statement.  I asked you about a Civil War-related opinion because -- as I explained in a later post -- I have an interest in the Civil War.  If I have to go on record as having addressed every subject you raised, then I suppose I will say here that I am against the "Native American genocide."  Obviously.  I don't think too many people are for it, just like I don't think many people are for the idea of slavery having lasted any longer than it did  -- which is why I asked you to explain your statement.  Now we've come full-circle with my thoughts on your post, I think it's time to end this discussion.  There's no point in trying to converse with someone who responds with such hostility.

And in any event, this subject is way off-topic for this board.
Title: Re: Why we must believe the official history?
Post by: Alixz on September 06, 2006, 06:24:56 PM
Give a good "Rebel yell" anywhere south of the Mason Dixon Line and you will find that the American Civil War is still going on.  It may have officially ended over 140 years ago, but in the hearts of many and through the traditions passed down through generations, it is still going on.

And, although, if you read many American History texts used in schools across the US, you will still find that the "cause" of the war was slavery and its related problems. That was not truly the caase.  Again, south of the Mason Dixon, you would find that the reason was "states rights"  The right of any state who vountarily joined the Union to just as voluntarily leave it.

And Liberia was bought and set up in Africa by the Lincoln administration to send the freed slaves back to Africa.  Lincoln did not plan to have them stay here.

And also, when the Emancipation Proclaimation was issued, it freed only those slaves in states that "were currently in rebellion" and did nothing for the slaves in pro-union states or those territories that had not yet joined as states.  The reason was to destroy more of the South's crumbling economy, not to ease the pain of the slaves.  Because now that they were free, they had no where to live and no way to feed their families and they ended up in "ghettos" all around Washington, DC. Did Lincoln provide any transition from slavery to freedom?  Nope, he just wanted the war to end and if destroying the South's ecomony by freeing the slaves helped to do that, then he did it.

And I agree with those who mention Sherman's "March to the Sea".  It was an abomination and the worst treatment of US citizens by the US government at that time.

The states he invaded had left the union and so were technically no longer US citizens, but that doesn't excuse what he did to the women and children who were left behind by their fighting husbands, sons and brothers.

OK.  I am off my soap box about the American Civil War.  But believe me, what I just posted was not what we were taught in history class.  Although it is now known to be the truth.

So always dig and always question.  This is not revisionist history.  This is the truth uncovered when the "spin" has stopped.

And also, way way off topic for this board.
Title: Re: Why we must believe the official history?
Post by: Annie on September 06, 2006, 06:31:55 PM
Quote
I asked you to clarify the meaning of a rather confusing statement.

I am glad I got to clear up that misunderstanding. I did mean that it was my theory that slavery would have died out on its own in another 20 years without the war because of advances in farm machinery making it even more obsolete, and not financially realstic to the rich land owners.I never meant to imply in any way that it would have become acceptable. I know all those people lived a different life and had different values than us, but for me it is still hard to believe the US  still had slaves so late into history! Russia had only beaten then in freeing the serfs by a few years. I also really wanted to explain the other side of Andersonville/Elmira, too. It's something most people don't conisider when just looking at things face value. So 'digging' is good!

One thing that is both sad and fascinating about all history is that no one is ever as totally good or evil as they are presented to be, in any country, any war, any time. Also, as George Lucas said in an interview discussing the 'good' and 'dark' sides, no one who is evil sees himself as evil- they always feel they are the one doing the right thing ('good is a point of view' 'from a certain point of view.') People will do anything to justify their positions and rationalize it away if they want to do it anyway and not feel guilty. It may be unbelieveable to us looking back, but everyone on every side of everything always thought they were the good guy :P

And while this is technically off topic, the name of the thread doesn't specify 'official history' of what ;)
Title: Re: Why we must believe the official history?
Post by: Annie on September 06, 2006, 06:50:01 PM
Give a good "Rebel yell" anywhere south of the Mason Dixon Line and you will find that the American Civil War is still going on.  It may have officially ended over 140 years ago, but in the hearts of many and through the traditions passed down through generations, it is still going on.

True, though it has been slowly fading a little over the last 20 or so years. When I was a kid it was stilll very strong. Now the only ones who are really gung ho (at least around here) are the ones who put the flag on their truck and don't even know what it means, and use it the wrong way. The resentment of the war was very bitter for southerners, and the deep rooted feelings lasted a long, long time, passed down through the generations, as you say.

Quote
And, although, if you read many American History texts used in schools across the US, you will still find that the "cause" of the war was slavery and its related problems. That was not truly the caase.  Again, south of the Mason Dixon, you would find that the reason was "states rights"  The right of any state who vountarily joined the Union to just as voluntarily leave it.

And these days, it's become non PC to suggest it was anything else but slavery. In those days, the North and South were two very distinct regions who were really more like different countries. The South saw itself as wanting its freedom and independance much as the US did from England in 1776. Jefferson Davis even likened himself to George Washington, his hero. The fact is, only about a quarter of all southerners owned slaves, and less than ten percent were the wealthy plantation owners people usually think of when they think of the South.

It's also true that the 10th admendment techically left the door open for secession- so technically Lincoln was WRONG and unconstitutional to call for troops to put down the 'insurrection.' Many southerners feared being part of one big gpvernment back in the 1780's, and if you look, southern states were among the last to ratify the constitution. They never would have joined if they didn't think they couldn't have gotten out if they wanted to.

Quote
And Liberia was bought and set up in Africa by the Lincoln administration to send the freed slaves back to Africa.  Lincoln did not plan to have them stay here.

True, Many people don't realize this. He didn't believe that blacks and whites should live together as one society, that's why he wanted them shipped back to Africa. It bothers me that Lincoln, Sherman, Grant and Sheridan are reverered as some kind of heroes of racial justice when they were actually bigots themselves.

Quote
And also, when the Emancipation Proclaimation was issued, it freed only those slaves in states that "were currently in rebellion" and did nothing for the slaves in pro-union states or those territories that had not yet joined as states.  The reason was to destroy more of the South's crumbling economy, not to ease the pain of the slaves.  Because now that they were free, they had no where to live and no way to feed their families and they ended up in "ghettos" all around Washington, DC. Did Lincoln provide any transition from slavery to freedom?  Nope, he just wanted the war to end and if destroying the South's ecomony by freeing the slaves helped to do that, then he did it.

Good point, though I never understood how he had any say over what happened in a place that considered itself a separate nation. Also excellent point about how the poor blacks ended up in 'ghettos'. I touched on that in my last post too. They went from at least being fed and housed to being homeless. Some stayed on as sharecroppers, others went north where they found the workers there resented them trying to take their jobs. This led to mass poverty that would not have happened if slavery had phased out on its own. So while they were declared 'free', no provisions were made for their actual lives! The proclaimation was only to look good on paper politically, and to stop England from joining the Confederates, as they had been considering doing because their textile mills needed southern cotton. With the mighty British Empire on their side, the south likely could have prevailed. So Lincoln had to get shifty and think quick about something to stop this- THAT is when, for the first time, slavery was made THE issue. And he used it for his own political devices, not to help the slaves!

Quote
And I agree with those who mention Sherman's "March to the Sea".  It was an abomination and the worst treatment of US citizens by the US government at that time.

The states he invaded had left the union and so were technically no longer US citizens, but that doesn't excuse what he did to the women and children who were left behind by their fighting husbands, sons and brothers.

OK.  I am off my soap box about the American Civil War.  But believe me, what I just posted was not what we were taught in history class.  Although it is now known to be the truth.

So always dig and always question.  This is not revisionist history.  This is the truth uncovered when the "spin" has stopped.




Excellent post, you are absolutely right!
Title: Re: Why we must believe the official history?
Post by: Penny_Wilson on September 06, 2006, 09:45:18 PM

I am glad I got to clear up that misunderstanding.

Great!  Me too -- I'm glad it's all cleared up.  :D

I also really wanted to explain the other side of Andersonville/Elmira, too. It's something most people don't conisider when just looking at things face value. So 'digging' is good!

I do take your point about Andersonville -- but for how long after Sherman's army marched through were those men still imprisoned?

You're very lucky to live near so much Civil War history.  Greg and I drove through many of those states in the summer of 2000, but we were on a tight schedule and hadn't time to stop.  One day, though...  ;D
Title: Re: Why we must believe the official history?
Post by: Annie on September 06, 2006, 10:07:45 PM
Quote
I do take your point about Andersonville -- but for how long after Sherman's army marched through were those men still imprisoned?

Until the end of the war, because they weren't allowed to release them because of the ban on prisoner exchanges. They were stuck there because of Lincoln's own law. Same with the ones in Elmira.

Which brings up another topic- the fact that many mothers and wives in the North hated Lincoln and called Grant a  'butcher' because he thought nothing of losing 3 men to the Rebels' 1 if it would help them gain a victory. Many in the North did not give a damn if the South had its independance or not, and just wanted the slaughter to stop. Lincoln came very close to losing the 1864 election to ex Union general George McClellan who had  promised to end the war if elected. There were also anti-draft protests in the North (the most famous one in NYC was acted out in "Gangs of New York") A man could buy his or his son's way out of the draft for $300, which really wasn't fair to the poor of any ethnicity. Also, black soldiers were often treated unfairly by the Union army, putting them in more dangerous situations in which larger numbers were likely to be killed (same with the Irish)

Title: Re: Why we must believe the official history?
Post by: Belochka on September 06, 2006, 10:56:56 PM
Remember also Lenin saying "The revolution doesn't need historians."

With respect, lenin's verbalization is taken out of its intended context. Perhaps this is a fine example how exerpts from "official" history can be easily redirected to accomodate discussion?

To her death, Empress Marie, did not ever admit that her son and his wife and grandchildren were dead.  Did she secretly mourn?  Who knows.  Was she simply detaching herself from reality?  Who knows.  But if you believe her account, then no one was executed.

She chose to question the official reports.  And in the end, If she could do that, why can't we?


The Dowager did not "choose" to "question" the official reports. As a mother, traumatized by the course of events that she experienced, her reaction was probably one of denial. Not an unusual clinical scenario. She herself was a survivor, who in all likelihood used that denial as a defensive mechanism, to minimize her grief. The preponderance of forensic evidence before her, however was overwhelmingly correct.   

Certainly if we all too decide to collectivelly deny the massacre, then surely it would only promote the eruption of survivalist hypotheses?   
Title: Re: Why we must believe the official history?
Post by: Annie on September 07, 2006, 11:06:11 AM
I can understand how the elderly dowager Empress chose to deny the tragic reports of their deaths because it was too heartbreaking and devastating for her. But for most people there's no such emotional connection so I can't understand why there is so much denial, even after most of the bodies were found. It has no bearing on their lives one way or the other. But, I guess that's why we're here, to talk about it.
Title: Re: Why we must believe the official history?
Post by: Belochka on September 07, 2006, 09:32:57 PM
I can understand how the elderly dowager Empress chose to deny the tragic reports of their deaths because it was too heartbreaking and devastating for her. But for most people there's no such emotional connection so I can't understand why there is so much denial, even after most of the bodies were found. It has no bearing on their lives one way or the other. But, I guess that's why we're here, to talk about it.

Wonderful point Annie!

The Dowager had a personal direct emotional connection when she received that tragic news. We do not.

Margarita
Title: Re: Why we must believe the official history?
Post by: Annie on September 08, 2006, 07:39:58 AM
I can understand how the elderly dowager Empress chose to deny the tragic reports of their deaths because it was too heartbreaking and devastating for her. But for most people there's no such emotional connection so I can't understand why there is so much denial, even after most of the bodies were found. It has no bearing on their lives one way or the other. But, I guess that's why we're here, to talk about it.

Wonderful point Annie!

The Dowager had a personal direct emotional connection when she received that tragic news. We do not.

Margarita

Thanks! I could never understand why some people get so upset over being told AA wasn't AN, even to the point of becoming personally insulting over it (like Michael G and bigbee) to those who don't believe in AA. What makes a difference to them if it was her or not? She's not their family, they will get no fortune. So why so vehemently agressive over it? Why keep pushing it with outrageous conpsiracy theories of intestine switches? I don't get it!

I know people personally whose lives have been directly affected by DNA tests, such as a guy who now must pay child support for a child he didn't think was his, but the DNA proved was. But  you don't catch him screaming that the tests were rigged, the other possible father switched the blood vials, etc. This is HIS LIFE and HIS MONEY we're talking about here, and he doesn't argue the results. The court accepts DNA as the final word, and everyone else must too, like it or not.
Title: Re: Why we must believe the official history?
Post by: Annie on September 08, 2006, 09:27:20 PM
.I feel comfortable saying this. Propaganda isn't always written by the victorious.



Just wanted to clear this up, the quote never meant that only the winning sides used propaganda. Of course everyone does in some form, even today. What it meant was that the winners usually get to tell the story 'their' way, making the losers look as bad as possible, and everyone will believe it. Writers after the fact in most cases tend to lean toward the victorious side of anything, and villianize the losers instead of being honest and fair to all sides. I have noticed this more since the internet has come about. People always tell things a particular way until it becomes so well known and accepted everyone goes along with it and perpetuates it, even making things worse, until the real truth is buried somewhere between and will never be believed.

It happens with lots of things. For example, VH1 did a lot of music documentaries claiming that 'blue jeans and rock and roll' killed communism in Europe because the younger generations wouldn't accept the anti materialistic dogma. While this may have been a factor in its failure, it was hardly what destroyed it alone. There were many factors. Yet this gets spread around and people believe it! On other boards, I have actually seeen people posting 'rock and roll killed communism!' and I think, oh, they got that from those VH1 docimentaries. But that's how it becomes spread around and believed, and no one bothers to search any deeper until over time the true story is lost or changed.
Title: Re: Why we must believe the official history?
Post by: zackattack on September 09, 2006, 02:53:40 AM
Quote
I do take your point about Andersonville -- but for how long after Sherman's army marched through were those men still imprisoned?

Until the end of the war, because they weren't allowed to release them because of the ban on prisoner exchanges. They were stuck there because of Lincoln's own law. Same with the ones in Elmira.

Which brings up another topic- the fact that many mothers and wives in the North hated Lincoln and called Grant a  'butcher' because he thought nothing of losing 3 men to the Rebels' 1 if it would help them gain a victory. Many in the North did not give a damn if the South had its independance or not, and just wanted the slaughter to stop. Lincoln came very close to losing the 1864 election to ex Union general George McClellan who had  promised to end the war if elected. There were also anti-draft protests in the North (the most famous one in NYC was acted out in "Gangs of New York") A man could buy his or his son's way out of the draft for $300, which really wasn't fair to the poor of any ethnicity. Also, black soldiers were often treated unfairly by the Union army, putting them in more dangerous situations in which larger numbers were likely to be killed (same with the Irish)



Just another pont, though this is off topic: isn't it a point of arguement that America had a Civil War in the first place? If you accept the definition that a Civil War is a fight to control a central government then it was certainly a civil war from the north's point of view, but from the south's point of view it would have been a war of independence. Or am I wrong? 
Title: Re: Why we must believe the official history?
Post by: Annie on September 09, 2006, 09:27:11 AM


Just another pont, though this is off topic: isn't it a point of arguement that America had a Civil War in the first place? If you accept the definition that a Civil War is a fight to control a central government then it was certainly a civil war from the north's point of view, but from the south's point of view it would have been a war of independence. Or am I wrong? 

Techically you are correct, and many southerners have pointed this out as more 'Yankee' propaganda.  I know one guy who is an avid relics collector, and when he takes his stuff to shows, he always labels his collection as relics from "The War for Southern Indepedence."  That's correct, because as you point out, it wasn't really a civil war, because the south never wanted to take over the north or the main government, they only wanted to break off and become a new country, just like the colonies in the Revolutionary war- which brings up another problem- that wasn't really a 'revolution', either, because no one was overthrowing the British gobernment.That too was just a war of independance.
Title: Re: Why we must believe the official history?
Post by: Alixz on September 09, 2006, 10:51:35 AM
And from the British point of view the Revolution was a "Rebellion" and would have remained so had the colonies lost.

The South looked at the "Civil" was as a war of secession.  The right to "un join" what they had previously joined.

Up until a few years ago, I taught basic US income tax law and I had one student who was adamant about the South and its right to leave the Union.  And I live in New England.  That is why I said that the war is still being fought in one way or another today. (One of the first income taxes was levied during the Civil War, if anyone wonders why the topic would come up in an income tax class.)

Look at the southern states who now want to remove the Confederate Battle Flag from their state flags because they no longer find it PC to have it there.  Whole communities and states are trying to rewrite history by removing all presence and mention of what was and will always be a part of the heritage of the US.  For good or bad.

Changing the words we use or removing the Battle Flag from the  public view, does not in any way change what was.  One side of my family came to Canada right around the time of the Mayflower coming to America.  All sides of my family lived in the north during the Civil War and not one of them were slave holders.

I have an ancester who fought in the Revolution from Rhode Island ( he also had a daughter Elizabeth born in 1776) and this particular ancestor was related to Francis Lewis who signed the Declaration of Independence from the colony of New York.

So my ancestors and my family were not "personally" involved in slavery.  But it makes me angry when Anglo-Saxon Americans or WASPS as we were called in the 1960s (White Anglo-Saxon Protestents) are blamed historically for the roots and spread of slavery in the US.  Some were to blame and some were not.

Again, history was written in such a way that is requies a great deal of digging to get to the truth.  And so we must not always believe the official story.

As to my mention of Empress Marie, I acknowledged that she was a grieving widow and an exile herself.  I also stated that her denial was probably from her inability to deal with the horrible truth.  I only mentioned her view to say that if hers was the only view that someone read about, then that someone would be also convinced that everyone survived.

So again, digging is necessary.  (not so much with the Romanovs as their are now countless books, but in other history topics, the need for digging is primary.)
Title: Re: Why we must believe the official history?
Post by: Alixz on September 09, 2006, 10:59:38 AM
And one more thing, knowing even in grammar school that the Civil War information that we were taught was rubbish, did not put me in good stead with my teachers who were so very sure that what they were teaching was the truth and the only truth.

I spent a lot of time being told that I was wrong.

I suppose a lot of my teachers are deceasd now, but I hope that some of them lived to see that what they "knew" to be the truth was in fact a lie.  I wonder if any of them remember that one student who questioned everything in history class and drove them to distraction.    ;)
Title: Re: Why we must believe the official history?
Post by: LondonGirl on September 13, 2011, 02:58:32 PM
[size=12]I still hold true to "Occam's Razor" (The simplest explanation is almost always the correct one), or as a Superior Court judge once said during a trial...."If it doesn't make sense, it just can't be true!".  I've been questioned about why I take such a hard line about no one surviving. This is the answer.  When the situation is assessed logically, not emotionally, and the known facts examined, and the ONLY possiblilties of anyone surviving given some real evidentiary weight, the sheer volume of speculation, "divine intervention" and multiplicity of steps of illogic and tiny probabilites involved to make the survivor story plausible seem to me to run totally contrary to logic and genuine realistic "making sense".

Sorry if that annoys you, but I just don't see some "hero Bolshevik" risking his life to snatch even ONE badly wounded grand duchess (not to even discuss Alexei) off the truck in the forest, and go the the impossible steps of treating, healing, caring for, clothing, feeding, sheltering, hiding, transporting, rescuing, etc etc etc ad nauseum as being remotely making sense. It's just TOO complicated and relies on TOO many tenuous assumptions. period.[/size]
[/font]


Occam's razor is too frequently used as a blunt instrument, lol. I am a physics student, and the history of science has been a progression towards the more complex, rather than the more simple. Occam's razor actually requires speculations are not multiplied unnecessarily - not that the simple answer must always be right.

Given the identity of the Imperial family, their political importance and their relation to most of the monarchies of Europe including maybe most significantly and intimately King George V, then ideas involving potential survival become immediately less esoteric.

We know that the Imperial family wished for exile in Britain, and we know an initial offer was made. History conventionally and maybe superficially records that the offer was subtly withdrawn due to risks inherent in the political climate in wartime Britain regarding potential socialist uprising. We know George V (who would have been acting in concert with his government without question) feared such potential anarchy at a time when it would have been disastrous. Clearly an open assistance would have been undesirable - but that does not preclude the feasibility of a private assistance. And what better way to make people vanish than for the world to presume they are dead?
Title: Re: Why we must believe the official history?
Post by: Romafan96 on August 20, 2012, 10:50:20 AM
Yurovsky's main concern was getting rid of the bodies as fast as possible as the White Army was nearing Yekaterinburg, so I don't think he would have considered having a photo shoot with the bodies. Not to mention, the photo would have probably fallen into the hands of the White Army and Russia wanted to cover up the murders of Nicholas's family as it would have not gone down well with the Germans if they knew they had killed the entire family.
Title: Re: Why we must believe the official history?
Post by: TimM on August 20, 2012, 12:57:11 PM
Like the murderers they were, the Bolsheviks covered up their crime.  It remained covered up for more than 70 years.
Title: Re: Why we must believe the official history?
Post by: Kalafrana on August 21, 2012, 09:05:04 AM
'Yurovsky's main concern was getting rid of the bodies as fast as possible as the White Army was nearing Yekaterinburg, so I don't think he would have considered having a photo shoot with the bodies.'

Agree entirely. Having carried out the massacre, Yurovsky and his men were in a prolonged state of panic and desperate to cover up what they had done. The only logical reason for photographing the corpses would be as proof that they were all dead. The Bolshevik leadership seems happy to accept Yurovsky's word that the job had been done, so no need for photographs.

As to why it took so long to find the last two bodies, we can perhaps draw a parallel with the Moors Murders, which are once again in the news here. For non-British readers, these were five murders committed by Ian Brady and Myra Hindley in 1963-65 in the Manchester area. Bradley was originally convicted of three of the murders, and Hindley of two (and being an accessory to the third), and they would both been hanged had the death penalty not been abolished while they were on remand. There was suspicion that they were responsible for the other two, but there was no solid evidence until they admitted them in the 1980s, and said that the bodies were on Saddleworth Moor to the east of Manchester. 5 square miles of the moor was searched over a period of weeks, and one body was found, but the second, that of Keith Bennett, aged 12, is still missing. The whole business continues to exert a peculiar fascination over the British press, if not the public.

There is no question that Keith Bennett is dead - no trace of him was ever found after he disappeared on the way to his grandmother's house, on a route which would take him past the house where Bradley and Hindley were living. The killers confessed to the murder, and gave some indications to the police on where they buried the body (I go carefully here on how strong the indications were, as I don't know). A large area has been searched very thoroughly, not only by digging but by the most advanced scientific techniques available in the 1980s, but Keith's remains still haven't been found. The latest twist to the case is that Brady (Hindley died in 2002) has allegedly written a letter to opened after his death, stating where the body is, and just as all this was across the newspapers from the end of last week, Keith Bennett's mother died.

Title: Re: Why we must believe the official history?
Post by: Kalafrana on August 21, 2012, 09:12:10 AM
To continue:

As far as I'm aware, Brady and Hindley made no attempt to destroy or disguise Keith Bennett's body, though over a period of 20 years, up to 1985, a lot of natural processes will have been at work (Saddleworth Moor is mostly covered in peat). But still, over a long period and determined attempts, nothing has been found.

Ann
Title: Re: Why we must believe the official history?
Post by: TimM on August 21, 2012, 12:05:51 PM
Yeah, if they can't find a body even though the killer told them where it was, one can imagine how hard it would be to find bodies of a murder that have been covered up for decades.