Reactions from those who believe(d) in Survivors

[Temperance]

I didn't think there was anyone left who still believed that Anna Anderson was Anastasia until I found this forum. Granted the people who still believed the myth that the Tsar's youngest daughter survived are few and far between because most people are smart enough to understand that Anna Anderson was ruled out as Anastasia through DNA. I suspect there will always be a few crazies who won't accept the fact that the entire family died together almost 90 years ago. Maybe I am wrong though and the few remaining believers will finally accept the facts.

[Robert_Hall]

Oh, indeed there still are "believers" and some of you who they are and where you can find their reactuions.  Ranging from out right denial to  merely "wait and see" for the definitive proof [dna I am assuming]. Much like folks here.  As FA as so well illustrated, the evidence presented so far is pretty convincing already.

[dmitri]

I agree with you 100% Robert. They are curious creatures to say the least.

[Alexander_IV]

Oh, indeed there still are "believers" and some of you who they are and where you can find their reactuions.  Ranging from out right denial to  merely "wait and see" for the definitive proof [dna I am assuming]. Much like folks here.  As FA as so well illustrated, the evidence presented so far is pretty convincing already.

I'm a "non-believer" and I'd also like to see the DNA results first though before being 100% sure they've been found.
Although with the evidence provided so far, there's little doubt left in my mind that they have indeed been found

Some of those believers will probably never be able to accept the truth. Some of them have been "believing" and even actively advertising claimants for decades so it would be really surprising if they stopped believing now imo.
I have no doubt that certain people, which I won't name, will keep persisting in their beliefs.
Anyway, that's their problem, not mine. When the DNA results confirm what seems extremely likely, a big part of the less fanatic "believers" will probably no longer be interested in what they have to say and then they can discuss their conspiracy stories and fairy tales amongst each other all they want for all I care.
People can believe in whatever they want to if it makes them feel better. As long as they don't bother me with it.

So live and let live I'd say

[PrincessSophie]

Like Rachel, I have been afraid to say that I held up hope that there were survivors from that terrible day because it is a human thing to hope for. Who on earth would wish them all dead?  The response has been, at worse, one of abuse and recrimminations, and at best, pity.  In my view that is not a good way to win people over to your way of thinking.  The most reasonable people on this site have argued that the facts are compelling and that the reasonable man would conclude that Anastasia and her brother Alexie were murdered with their family and that this has been proven and that this would hold up in a court of law.  For me, that's a fine argument but this forum is not a court of law - at least, I don't think it is.  What is the point of a discussion board where people simply discuss what they understand as the facts in a self-congratulatory way?  In any case, the facts are never 100 per cent which opens up possibilities.  What's wrong with discussing these in a reasonable, non-abusive way?

Having said that, I think the Forum Administrator on this site has handled the differences of opinions in a very reasonable way and has made some very good points about the latest findings.  Of these, I find the first four points the most interesting.

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.

My question is (and accepting 1 and 2, based on logic) :  Knowing 4 and 3, why weren't the bodies found earlier?  70 metres isn't far.  Yurovsky made the location clear.  This doesn't make sense!

Sophie

[RichC]

For those interested in what line the new conspiracy theory might take I'd refer them to Russian exile reaction to news of the arrests for the murder of Anna Politkovskaya - a friend (alas I did not get his name but he was based in London) said on the BBC last night something to the effect that it was all very convenient for the Russian Government who were experts at forging and fixing evidence. 

Phil Tomaselli

This statement is very unfair.  Dmitri A. Muratov, editor-in-chief of Novaya Gazeta is NOT a Russian exile living in the UK.  He was Anna Politkovakaya's editor; she worked for him.  It is Mr. Muratov who has denounced the news of the arrests as a "whitewash intended to deflect blame from those who had ordered the journalist’s death."

“Political interference is hindering the investigation,” Mr. Muratov told the New York Times. “The prosecutor general is acting not like a prosecutor general, but a politician who works at the instructions of the president.”

Your statement (and Belochka's follow-up) make it sound as if suspicion of the Russian government's motives in conducting the investigation was beneath contempt.  That's not fair.

[CorisCapnSkip]

Rachael89, I absolutely agree with everything you said except for there being cruelty and ridicule on the forums.  I found the members here to be most helpful in debunking possibilities I raised without attacking me personally, which sadly cannot be said of all forums on any subject.  I do feel a little silly now to have believed in survivors--on some level did even at the time--but I wanted to believe in that possibility or at least see it soundly disproven, not just attacked by people who didn't want to believe, and it's obvious many converts have been made here.  On the other hand, certainly it would be cruel for anyone to have survived such treatment and terrible memories, and then have their identity disputed.  May they all rest in peace together.

[Ra-Ra-Rasputin]

I was directing this post at high profile supporters of survivor theories, those that put their theories out into the public domain. Not those individuals who have expressed doubts or wished for there to have been survivors. I used to be one of those myself, after all.

I won't be 100% satisfied with these latest findings until we get the DNA results, but circumstantially, it all adds up as far as I'm concerned. I can understand where those who have believed in survivors are coming from - before there were no bodies, there was a genuine possibility that an escape could have happened. An unlikely possibility, sure, but a possibility all the same.

In my experience, the younger the Romanov fan, the more likely they are to believe that there were survivors, simply for the romance factor. When I first came to find out about the Romanovs, I was around 10, and I believed because I couldn't handle the thought that innocent children had been killed. As I got older, that sentimental side didn't come into it as much.

I'm seriously interested in finding out how high profile supporters are going to back their way out of the hole they have made for themselves, if they agree that they need to back out, that is.

Rachel
xx

[PrincessSophie]

Bravo, Rachel.  You are a good soul!  I hope we have a peaceful resolution to this and that the beautiful, gracious Anastasia and his imperial highness Alexei are finally allowed to rest in peace with their family.

Sophie

[Forum Admin]

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.

My question is (and accepting 1 and 2, based on logic) :  Knowing 4 and 3, why weren't the bodies found earlier?  70 metres isn't far.  Yurovsky made the location clear.  This doesn't make sense!

Sophie

While 70 metres isn't "far" when one is undertaking a proper archaeological excavation it is a huge distance.  One doesn't go "poking around" with shovels or picks.  The soil is carefully removed under controlled circumstances a few centimetres at a time.  In fact, there has been a schedule of the areas of the site to be excavated, and this specific section has been on the 2007 dig calendar for about three years now.  So, it wasn't exactly a random stab in the dark nor overlooked.  The description by Yurovsky isn't "clear as a bell" in its language.  While I have not seen the original Russian text, certain words are left open to interpretation and the discovery site is now "clear" once we know where it was so can finally see what Yurovsky actually meant.

Allow an example.  "We went 100 paces away, by some birch trees and a big rock."   Well, the entire area is nothing but birch trees and big rocks.  Does this make sense?  I'm trying to keep things simple, so please don't everyone attack me about this detail, I made it up and its NOT what the Yurovsky statement said.

[Lemur]

Rachael89, I absolutely agree with everything you said except for there being cruelty and ridicule on the forums.  I found the members here to be most helpful in debunking possibilities I raised without attacking me personally, which sadly cannot be said of all forums on any subject. 

You are right, Capt, and the problem I'm afraid has been that people here have been debunking possibilities without attacking anyone personally, but unfortunately some of the people were defensive.  They took it as 'cruelty' to be told that their position was incorrect, and as a 'personal attack' to be told that there were valid reasons why what they were saying and and believing wasn't true. I don't believe anyone has ever been 'attacked for their views', though views have been attacked, this is necessary to explain why they aren't true.  A lot of people incorrectly took it the wrong way when all the members were trying to was help them understand- just as you said. This is a discussion forum about history. When a new poster comes here asking if Anna Anderson was really Anastasia, they had to hear the answer, no. For some, that was some kind of 'attack', but for others, like you, it was useful and interesting information, which was the way it was intended.

[Rachael89]

Rachael89, I absolutely agree with everything you said except for there being cruelty and ridicule on the forums.  I found the members here to be most helpful in debunking possibilities I raised without attacking me personally, which sadly cannot be said of all forums on any subject.  I do feel a little silly now to have believed in survivors--on some level did even at the time--but I wanted to believe in that possibility or at least see it soundly disproven, not just attacked by people who didn't want to believe, and it's obvious many converts have been made here.  On the other hand, certainly it would be cruel for anyone to have survived such treatment and terrible memories, and then have their identity disputed.  May they all rest in peace together.

My experiences came quite a while ago, around a year or two  so I am sure things changed since but I haven't really checked to see I don't know. I think I just hated the fact that my views were ridiculed mercilessly, it was really a very childish, impulsive response but I remember feeling very hurt by how no one ever seemed to take what I said seriously. I understand why people dismissed my views so easily now, and I don't feel hurt about it anymore.

Rachael

[TampaBay]

I was directing this post at high profile supporters of survivor theories, those that put their theories out into the public domain. Not those individuals who have expressed doubts or wished for there to have been survivors. I used to be one of those myself, after all.

I won't be 100% satisfied with these latest findings until we get the DNA results, but circumstantially, it all adds up as far as I'm concerned. I can understand where those who have believed in survivors are coming from - before there were no bodies, there was a genuine possibility that an escape could have happened. An unlikely possibility, sure, but a possibility all the same.

In my experience, the younger the Romanov fan, the more likely they are to believe that there were survivors, simply for the romance factor. When I first came to find out about the Romanovs, I was around 10, and I believed because I couldn't handle the thought that innocent children had been killed. As I got older, that sentimental side didn't come into it as much.

I'm seriously interested in finding out how high profile supporters are going to back their way out of the hole they have made for themselves, if they agree that they need to back out, that is.

Rachel
xx

I suggest all Ally Pally Posters just throw them a rope and pull them up out of the hole if they want to come.  No need to say "I told you so".

TampaBay

[Phil_tomaselli]

I owe an apology to Dmitri A. Muratov and to RichC and to forum members for suggesting that Dmitri A. Muratov was a Russian exile in London - I can only plead that it was only the reference to the duplicity of the Russian Government that caused me to give the item my full attention.

Having said that, the fact that the Russian Government can be accused of such gross duplicity without it being obviously ridiculous suggests to me that they will all too easily be accused of rigging these findings by those keen to suggest a fraud.

Do not forget that there are people who post on this board who think that MI5 murdered Princess Diana.........people who can barely spell MI5 let alone understand their history & function.

I await with interest the first attempts to rubbish the results of future DNA tests etc in advance.

Phil Tomaselli 

[Helen_Azar]

I would love for someone of that postion to please demonstrate some logic or reason WHY these remains could be somebody ELSE than Alexei and the missing Grand Duchess.

Lets put it this way, I would be very surprised if, based on what's been presented, these remains turn out to be someone other than the two imperial children, but... the scientist in me tells me we must wait for the DNA results before we definitively state that the two missing children have been found. Considering all the controversies, or rather the three ring circus, that has surrounded this case for the past 10+ years, I don't think that's an unreasonable approach.