Reactions from those who believe(d) in Survivors

[lexi4]

I have a question. How long will a discussion about those who do not believe continue? What is the point?
Lexi

[Robert_Hall]

Probably until Hades freezes over. There never was much of a point to begin with, omo.

[lexi4]

Probably until Hades freezes over. There never was much of a point to begin with, omo.

 

Agreed. There really are interesting things to discuss, but people's reactions is not one of them imho.
Lexi

[Valmont]

I agree.. what  else do they need?

[CorisCapnSkip]

So, where has Peter Kurth responded, and what is his response?  Is he still to be addressed as "Pope Peter"?

[Belochka]

a very good point indeed .. there's no ends some will go to in their attempts to deny history

When a story offers false expectations then why should the truth get in the way?

[dmitri]

precisely

[Olishka~ Pincess]

Exactly, that is the bottom line the truth should never be deny or disbelieved therefore becuase it is the correct and accurate knowledge to understand and believe something that is right. History is what keeps the truth of things up. Therfore History could never be changed.

[imperial angel]

Well, these reactions as they are called in title of this thread, are predictable, and do not perhaps need to be discussed therefore. But, I still find it interesting to see what explanations believers in imposters (or those who just want to believe someone survived, even if they are more misguided than that they actually believe in it) have. I thought it was a good idea for a thread, and I enjoyed reading it.

[Forum Admin]

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??

[Helen_Azar]

  Is he still to be addressed as "Pope Peter"?

As in "his word is gospel"??

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??

You just realized that? I thought this was obvious all along...

[Belochka]

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":

... 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"...

Adding to FA's list, we can also add:

The Senior Moscow Procurator (criminalistics), Vladimir Soloviev, has recently affirmed that information received from the Russian Federation Security Bureau:

... that there were no political or other shootings or disposal of bodies at this site during the 1920's to 1950's,

then any reasonable person may realize that:

... with all these pieces of physical and including the historic evidence provided by the FSB there is a strong probability that the remains may indeed be authentic.

Anthropologic assessment and molecular analyses will help provide an informed conclusion.

Thus the assessment of the remains relies on a combination of many considerations.

It must also be recognized that the Russian investigations are being conducted with full and open transparency.

Margarita

[Annie]

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.

Oh and don't forget the shoes! Yes we've heard it all over and over, but if you really examine each piece of 'evidence' it falls lke a house of cards. There is no 'language similarity', quite the opposite, and the 'regal behavior' is certainly a question mark as well. If she ever had it, which I haven't seen in videos of her, it was learned like any other actress. (shamelessly inviting everyone to check out my website for rebuttals to all the 'overwhelming evidence in AA's favor' which really wasn't even there. Other than the luck of similar ears, everything else wasn't at all what she and her supporters wanted people to see.) Sorry but after arguing this actively for 3 years now I cannot see that there is much of anything to stand on as far as AA's case is concerned if you really look deeply into it and are not led astray by remarks tring to make it sound more real than it ever was. This is why I made the site, to clear some of this up.

"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."

Ho ho ho, that is ironic, but it goes to show they will say anything that suits them at the moment regardless of hypocrisy or accuracy.

[PrincessSophie]

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??

Yes, I agree.  It does seem hypocritical.  But on the other hand, if (and I should add, when) the DNA confirms the new bodies are their imperial highnesses, the proponents of Anna Anderson or Fransciska or whoever cannot then argue that the DNA is not conclusive.  You cannot have it both ways.  They have dug a hole for themselves, my friends.  One which you cannot climb out of!

Sophie

[Robert_Hall]

Well, some of those AA supporters are simply accusing the Russian authorities of  downright lieing and mis-information.  That is their blanket response.
 They are not about to accept any results of any tests, no matter what the outcome.  They did not accept the previous results, even though Dr. Maples said it was Anastasia who was missing, and the Russians said it was Maria.  Ultimately, it does not matter which GD was buried in which grave, as they both will be accounted for as suffering the same fate, no matter what any doubters may proclaim nor how loudly they proclaim it.