Hi Alice,
In some ways I feel like you do, except I feel more like being frustrated than being sarcastic. Some people deal with frustration by becoming sarcastic, others just get frustrated.
I got interested in the whole Anastasia thing in a kind of unconventional way. When I was little one of my favorite books to read were the "Anastasia Krupnik" series and in one of them it is mentioned that the main character was named by her parents after the Anastasia of Russia, and then it told a little bit of the story. So after I read that, I decided to read up on it some more and that's how I got hooked on the Romanovs and became curious about AA. To be perfectly honest, I never really was convinced that AA was AN, even though I kind of wanted to believe it. I just never saw the resemblence between the two, no matter how hard I looked she just had such a totally different look. But then, of course the DNA tests came out, this was still before I began to study molecular biology myself, but still in my mind the case was put to rest because I like definitive evidence as opposed to stuff like pictures and testimonies.
Some years later, now armed with solid knowledge of DNA intricacies, I came across this case again on this forum. I started reading what people were saying about AA here and also what they were saying about DNA. I thought, wait a minute, what are they talking about? And so I jumped into the discussion, thinking, well if only the DNA part is clearly explained to these people, then they will understand that what is being said is not possible, so everyone will learn what the facts are and everyone will be happy to get their factul answer.
Well, as we all know - nothing could be farther from the truth. For some reason, many people here are very resistant to accept certain facts, I don't really understand why that is, but it seems that they would rather choose to expand on some obscure theories that make very little scientific sense, rather than accept scientific facts that make all the sense in the world. I don't know if it's because they just really want to believe something (a serious case of denial), and will use any miniscule possibility that something happened somewhere and made some very unlikely thing to occur (I mean we're talking really unlikely) or they truly do not understand the science and see things in a distorted way.
No matter what, to me it just seems that some people are not really seeking the true evidence, but are only looking for evidence that will fit their own "truths". The reason this evokes strong feelings in me is because throughout history scientists have been put into the position of having to defend ideas that they knew themselves to be facts, and could prove it if only people would understand these ideas and be open to accept them. Think about it, how long did it take for the “earth is not flat and it revolves around the sun” theory to get accepted? How many people have been burned as 'heretics' over stuff like that? But when you understand why this is so, you know that there can be no other way and it can no longer be questioned. Or do some of you still question the fact that the earth is round?
The reason scientists accept things as proof and fight for it, is because traditionally any new scieintific theory is questioned to death. Sceintists have to repeat and repeat again their results and others have to be able to repeat them too many times over until it is accepted. If you think that people on this forum are skeptical, they are nothing compared to the scientific community! Sceintists are the most skeptical bunch in the world, and rightly so. But when a theory is finally substantiated, then you can be sure it is accurate. At least this is how it works these days.
But when people do not understand the basic concepts behind something like this, how do you prove it? You really can’t and that's when you get labeled a "heretic".
Same with DNA. Basically those of us who are trying to say that in this particular case, everything does come down to DNA evidence, we are being labeled “heretics”, for all intents and purposes, by those who refuse to accept DNA evidence. Yes, there may be evidence out there that may show that AA had some similar physical aspects as AN or may have been privy to some information that only AN may have known. But so far, all the evidence I have seen is on the subjective side and in each case can be open to interpretation. The only evidence that isn’t subjective and not open to individual interpretation is the DNA evidence. People don’t seem to understand that because they feel that we still don’t know enough about DNA to be able to say this. But we do! We know enough about DNA science at this point to be able to state certain things without any doubt, just like we can state with no doubt that the planet earth is round is not flat. It can be proven, but how many people will understand the proof? Many people obviously don't have the capability of abstract thinking, and they will only believe what they see or something that their mind can grasp. This is the case here. Unfortunately to understand DNA evidence, there is a need for some abstract understanding of scientific concepts, and apparently some people just refuse to see that this is the case, so they just outright reject it.
It is true, we are learning more and more about DNA every year, but that doesn’t mean that we are changing our minds about What we have already learned. We're most certainly not! We are just getting more and more precise with it, which doesn’t mean that what was thought previously is now wrong…
Anyway, I am sure that none of what I just wrote will really matter to those who choose to believe otherwise. They will still say that the “DNA proponents" (and this is how I see myself, as opposed to an “AA opponent” – I am not “anti-AA” I am just “pro-DNA” and the two just happen to be mutually exclusivein this case) are ignoring other evidence, being close minded, etc., etc., etc But what they fail to understand is that if you don’t disregard the other evidence, this means that you are also rejecting the DNA evidence, and I am not prepared to do that because I know it to be accurate. So if you accept one you must reject the other and this has absolutely nothing to do with being close minded. Obviously whoever thinks that it does, completely misundertands all of this.
So this is why I have to reject all the other evidence about AA - because I believe the DNA evidence to be accurate and once you believe that, all bets are off for everything else, there is just no other way.
Having said that, I also have never stated that I believe that AA was definitely FS if she wasn't AN. The two matters are mutually exclusive. What I believe is this: based on the DNA evidence, chances are about 25 to 1 that she could be FS, and chances are 1 to 25 that she may not be. In this case, this is where additional evidence becomes important. If there is compelling evidence that can make a good case against AA being FS, then by all means I will accept it. If not, I will go with the DNA evidence and say that it is likely she was FS. It’s like being the jury in criminal court, if something has been proven to you beyond a reasonable doubt, then it will be accepted, but if a reasonable doubt still exists then it probably won’t be… So I hope I made it clear in this long and rambling post why I get so frustrated by all this.
