3 REASONS WHY TSARFAN IS WRONG.
Unfortunately, no one provided a new information to help to understand the "Sisu" account which Lexi4 posted here first. However, as I promised, I will refute some arguments made by Tsarfan.
#####1 Tsarfan says "Also, at the time this report was written, only Y-STR testing was available. This would indicate whether any two males were related paternally, but it would not indicate who the males were. (X-STR testing, which tests for paternal relationships between a male and a female, has only become available since 1994.)"
This is not true. The 1994 study used to analyze the Amelogenin gene, which exists on BOTH X and Y chromosome. Indeed, anyone who took Biology 101 knows that there is no such thing as "Y-STR testing", as this sex-type-PCR never works with either only X or only Y, it only works when you amplify BOTH, as each works as a control for another. It is such a mystery to me why Tsarfan has to fabricates such kind of funny testing.
(I quote from the original 1994 paper: "p131, The sex of the bones was determined by amplification of a portion of the X-Y homologous gene, amelogenin, which provide a robust method for typing samples of a very degraded nature: X and Y-specific products of 106 and 112 basepairs, respectively were generated....)
#####2. Tsar fans says "The conclusion that Alexei's body is missing is based on forensic physical examination of the skeletal remains in the grave, not on DNA evidence."
Again, This is not true. It is based on BOTH forensic and DNA evidence. There was no skeleton of a boy (Alexei), this was very obvious and simple, which Tsarfan understands. But there was also no DNA which matched Alexei, this part is what many people don't understand. Alexei's DNA should have had BOTH Y chromosome from nucleus, AND Hesse mtDNA type (i.e., 16111C/16357T). There were 4 individuals' DNA in the grave which had Hesse mtDNA, but all had only X chromosomes. None had Y Chromosome. Therefore, Alexei's DNA was missing.
#####3. Tsarfans keeps attacking the use of the word "supports". In academic circle, we use "supports" and "is consistent with" interchangeably on many occasions. "Evidence A supports B", does not necessary means "Because of Evidence A, the fact B is 100% certain." For example, if blood left on a crime scheme is Type A and the suspect’s Blood Type is also A, a prosecutor can say “the blood evidence supports the accusation that the defendant is a murderer”. If you read #1 and #2 above, you see the DNA evidence “supports” (or “is consistent with”) the Alexei's survival theory.
#####4. I do not think Alexei survived after multiple shots, IF he was indeed shot. As Yeltzin destroyed the Iptiev house, there is no physical evidence to support Yurovsky’s account. As many people thought that Alexei will die sooner or later, it might be possible that he was removed from target thinking that it would be easy to kill him later. This is my conjecture, but I have some indirect evidence to support this, which I will post here later, when Lexi4 is able to post the page of "Sisu".
P.S.
And Ra-Ra-Rasputin, how many times should I tell you not to attack the motive or personality of the person who presents an argument ("Poisoning the Well"). The motive nothing to do with his/her argument. Indeed I never attacks the Tsarfan's agenda or motive, because I don't care.
And also, please don't confuse the argument unnecessarily. Please do not bring the Anastasia issue and say "Look all the crazy stuff AA said". That's absolutely irreverent here.