"Grabbing at Straws"

It seems impossible to come to any good conclusions about the fate of the Romanov family, whether anyone at all survived, partly because so much time has passed, and partly because  of the lies that could have been created to keep the Tsar and his family off of the throne for good. I feel like I'm grabbing at straws whenever I come upon any conclusion, and partly wonder if I just want to live in Lala land, thinking that some of the IF could have survived. All I know, it seems, is that this could have happened, that there is a possibility...Why are so many entranced by the tragic story of the Last Tsar of Russia? Is there some kind of hope in humanity by believeing that they weren't cruelly murdered, some dillusional belief that everything turned out all right? Not trying to dash anyones opinions, but I'm trying to logically think this out. Who can we trust to tell the true story? I don't think we can trust anyone who claimed to be a survivor 100%, because so much has been published about the Romanovs, anyone can pretend to be one of the missing children, and there are so many crazy, depressed, psychotic people out there, it isn't unreasonable to disregard such claims. Until I see the truth with my own eyes, DNA test, scour the "burial site", squash all survivor claims, and am content with my conclusions (which will most likely never happen) I'm just grabbing at straws along with everyone else. Thoughts?

I don't see any reason why anything would still be coverered up at this point. Everyone from back then is dead, Communism even fell in Russia. There is no secret fortune. So why would anyone cover up any survivors now? I don't believe there were any, but until we find evidence of the 2 missing bodies we will always wonder about them. But I don't believe any of the claimants were for real, and if anyone did survive I think they'd have lived in obscurity, not flaunting themselves all over trying to get attention. And after 30 years I have seen and read more than enough on AA to totally discount her claim. I would be interested in any NEW theories, not AA, not Summers and Mangold, but new things we didn't know before, and not just ideas, but real proof. Other than that, we can only look back with love and sadness at these people and how they ended up.

I don't know why they might want to keep it covered up, if they have. I'm not them. But I think they should tell us the truth, if they know it. Somebody has to know.

I think they already have, that the IF were killed the night of July 16, 1918.  For whatever reason some choose not to believe that but I see no reason not to other than I just don't want it to be true. At the time they lied about it because they didn't want anyone to know they'd killed the entire family. The NY Times even reported only the Tsar was killed. But now we know better. It's very sad, but that's what happened. In all this time there is no evidence anything else happened, and everyone from back then is dead now.

I guess you'll have to explain what you mean by 'evidence'. The fact that two bodies have not been found is evidence. Why wouldn't they be with their family? Where are they? That the bolshevik lied in the first place is evidence. Could they not lie again? That the Romanovs were not "buried" in the intented place is evidence. Were the Bolsheviks lax in their attention in getting rid of the bodies? Evidence that there is a flaw in the story, something we have not been told, or evidence to prompt questions as to whether we have been told the truth.

I guess you'll have to explain what you mean by 'evidence'. The fact that two bodies have not been found is evidence. Why wouldn't they be with their family? Where are they? That the bolshevik lied in the first place is evidence. Could they not lie again? That the Romanovs were not "buried" in the intented place is evidence. Were the Bolsheviks lax in their attention in getting rid of the bodies? Evidence that there is a flaw in the story, something we have not been told, or evidence to prompt questions as to whether we have been told the truth.

It would seem likely that if the Bolsheviks wanted to continue to lie about this case, they would have stuck with their original lie: that Nicholas was killed but not the rest of the family. You have to remember that the Yurovsky note that tells us about what happened to the two missing bodies wasn't meant for anyone to see, and only came to light recently  - when there was no longer any reason for anyone to lie about this case. Some people of course continue to believe that the Yurovsky note was a forgery, but unless it is proven a forgery we have to assume that it is authentic and that the two bodies were burned separately as stated in the note.

Of course the note could also mean that two bodies were lost somehow other than in the way it was described, but remember, this note was written before anyone knew that the bodies would be discovered and investigated, so why would bring this up at all if you want to cover something up?

Very often in life the most simple things, and not the most complicated, are the "right" explanations... In this case, it seems likely that the most simple answer - that is that they indeed tried to burn two bodies, hence separating them from the rest, seems to be what really happened, unless there is some compelling evidence (not just speculation) to tell us otherwise, which frankly I don't see as being the case.

Perhaps the question of the two missing bodies can finally be put to rest if the two children's remains are discovered by the team currently searching for them in Ekaterinburg...  I hope so, although based on the "Romanov remains" record I doubt it will be, even if these remains are found :-/.

Until I see the truth with my own eyes, DNA test, scour the "burial site", squash all survivor claims, and am content with my conclusions (which will most likely never happen) I'm just grabbing at straws along with everyone else.  

I stand by what I have said before^^^I wasn't looking a solution. I was looking for a theory, because I know I'm probably never going to know the definate truth, no matter how many people here think they know it, and can perhaps try to persuade everyone else. Not trying to be limited in thought, or downright stubborn. Has anyone thought that maybe the Bolsheviks aren't even sure of what has happened to the bodies? I mean, why would they want to destroy those two bodies in particular? They might have lost them and didn't want to admit their horrendous mistake. I mean, come on, they were in a truck, for crying out loud. Anything could have happened. Maybe the bodies rolled out, and one of the Whites found them, and gave them a proper burial. It's far-fetched, but isn't impossible.

Nobody knows the complete truth except for those who were there, but who are no longer in a position to ever tell. We can only go by the most realistic and sensible theories based on some physical evidence and some eyewitness accounts, while filling in the gaps and putting all the pieces of the puzzle together, much like a detective who is investigating a homocide....

Has anyone thought that maybe the Bolsheviks aren't even sure of what has happened to the bodies? I mean, why would they want to destroy those two bodies in particular? They might have lost them and didn't want to admit their horrendous mistake.  

If you re-read my first post carefully, you will see that I also adressed that possiblity...  

Sorry, Sometimes I skip over words, and I skipped over 'lost', and thought 'gotten rid of'. My mistake.

Nobody knows the complete truth except for those who were there, but who are no longer in a position to ever tell. We can only go by the most realistic and sensible theories based on some physical evidence and some eyewitness accounts, while filling in the gaps and putting all the pieces of the puzzle together, much like a detective who is investigating a homocide....

This I agree with, for the most part.

Sorry, Sometimes I skip over words, and I skipped over 'lost', and thought 'gotten rid of'. My mistake.

No problem.

This is why I said before that the best thing would be if they found some sort of remains of the missing children, at least then we would have some physical evidence to go by. It would be easy enough to identify these remains via DNA tests (at least for those of us who will accept the results  ) which will tell us for sure what happened to the children, i.e. that they died along with the rest of the family but were buried somewhere else. If the remains are never found, then it becomes tougher, but still doesn't mean these children survived. Chances are, they didn't. It is not completely impossible that they did, but very unlikely, considering the circumstances we know of. Just like with any other murder victims, if there is no body, it is hard to figure out exactly what happened, although realistic (and less realistic) conjectures can be made...  

From what we've seen here, even DNA tests will never convince some.

From what we've seen here, even DNA tests will never convince some.

Yes, that's right, this is why I said "It would be easy enough to identify these remains via DNA tests (at least for those of us who will accept the results". I don't really care whether anyone else accepts them that much, as long as I have the answers that I know to be accurate...

If the remains of the two missing bodies are ever found and DNA testing is done that proves they belong to the missing children,that will be all I need to hear on the matter.I don't see any reason or feel any need not to accept the results of dna testing.To me,it's the only concrete proof I need.