Something just occured to me, which I, imho, found interesting.
Forever since we started the forum, and the first discussions about AA, all we ever heard about was ALL the "overwhelming" evidence that AA was ANR OTHER than the DNA. There was "ear shape analysis", Language similarities, "regal behavior" etc etc. We kept hearing that same stuff over and over and over. "The NON DNA evidence is important. Don't exclude it." Plus, we kept hearing "DNA isn't the final answer. DNA is flawed. DNA is fallible."
WELL, now all it seems these EXACT SAME PEOPLE are saying : Well, the non-DNA evidence means NOTHING. Its premature to even consider it. All the following are meaningless to them,
1. Two bodies have been found. Two bodies were missing.
2. A male of the correct age and female of the correct age were found.
3. These two bodies were found 70 metres from the mass burial site.
4. Yurovsky accurately described the exact location where the bodies were found.
5. Nagant bullets were found with the remains, which EXACTLY match the same Nagant bullets from the mass burial site.
6. Pieces of japanese jars containing japanese made sulfuric acid were found which EXACTLY match the pieces of similar jars found in the mass burial site
7. Yurovsky et al all describe the procuring and use of this acid during the attempted burning and burial process.
8. Large amounts of burnt material and ash were found at the same layer as the remains. This is further consistent with all known accounts.
9. A piece of clothing (called a dress fragment) was found. From "Last Act of a Tragedy":
"G.I. Sukhorukov, who was assigned to go help dispose of the corpses of the Royal Family the next morning. On April 3, 1928 his memoir:... "It was necessary to begin digging up the corpses (after the attempt to burn them the previous night)...the first thing we came across was the leg of the last Nicholas. He was removed successfully, and then all the others. To be precise, it can be said that everybody was naked, except for the heir, who had on a sailor shirt but no trousers."
They say: "Its premature to say anything. We have to have DNA testing before we will believe these remains are Alexei and his sister ONLY when the DNA comes back will be consider it proof"...
Well, I just find it interesting that those people pick and choose their point of view. To support AA being ANR, it was ok to ignore or discount the DNA evidence, yet NOW, DNA is indeed the 100% answer. Shoe's on the other foot....
curiouso??