Bree's Dad NOT Dead?

sagerbee · Post by **sagerbee** » Sun Feb 25, 2007 8:09 pm

They wouldn't post upward of three videos about the fact of his death if it wasn't absolutely true to the story. Also, Bree's Dad was a minor character, appearing in few videos and having next to no dialogue. In no possible, nor probable, universe would he be alive. Not to say that there is irrefutable evidence otherwise, only that it would be ridiculous to any story line, from Twilight Zone to Sixty Minutes.

longlostposter · Post by **longlostposter** » Sun Feb 25, 2007 8:15 pm

cosmicdancer wrote:I think we have more important and relevant things to theorize about now than whether or not Bree's father is dead. There is more proof that he is dead than that he isn't. Therefore I think we should just leave it at that until the Creators decide to give us reason to believe otherwise.

Here, here, Cosmic.

reputationforte · Post by **reputationforte** » Sun Feb 25, 2007 9:15 pm

longlostposter wrote:
cosmicdancer wrote:I think we have more important and relevant things to theorize about now than whether or not Bree's father is dead. There is more proof that he is dead than that he isn't. Therefore I think we should just leave it at that until the Creators decide to give us reason to believe otherwise.
Here, here, Cosmic.

Im with both of you. I think this thread is officialy closing soon...

platypusrex256 · Post by **platypusrex256** » Mon Feb 26, 2007 1:03 am

longlostposter wrote:My dad said my cat was dead, but I don't believe him because I didn't see the body.

i am hereby convinced you have never read nor understood anything i've said. i give up.

Danielle · Post by **Danielle** » Mon Feb 26, 2007 1:08 am

i agree with the no body no nothing clause.

also, i totally don't wanna serve time.

longlostposter · Post by **longlostposter** » Mon Feb 26, 2007 1:12 am

platypusrex256 wrote:
longlostposter wrote:My dad said my cat was dead, but I don't believe him because I didn't see the body.
i am hereby convinced you have never read nor understood anything i've said. i give up.

I guess you missed the humor in that.

trainer101 · Post by **trainer101** » Tue Feb 27, 2007 2:16 am

Waaaaayyy back in November, Langorous Lass wrote:

"The ancients believed this symbol of indestructibility would assist in rebirth." Which goes right along with my theory that the ceremony involves a man (either Daniel or Bree's father) being sacrificed and immediately reborn.

She was referring to the eye symbolism when Gemma revealed the Watcher. This is from the original Illuminati thread HERE.

Since then another thread focusing on the fictional Illuminati but containing many of the same LG15 references was added HERE. As you can see, the Illuminati, errr... I mean, the Order are not above faking someone's death.

I point these out because I think someone may find some useful info to create a theory or two with.

platypusrex256 · Post by **platypusrex256** » Tue Feb 27, 2007 5:16 pm

trainer101 wrote:Waaaaayyy back in November, Langorous Lass wrote:
"The ancients believed this symbol of indestructibility would assist in rebirth." Which goes right along with my theory that the ceremony involves a man (either Daniel or Bree's father) being sacrificed and immediately reborn.
She was referring to the eye symbolism when Gemma revealed the Watcher. This is from the original Illuminati thread HERE.

Since then another thread focusing on the fictional Illuminati but containing many of the same LG15 references was added HERE. As you can see, the Illuminati, errr... I mean, the Order are not above faking someone's death.

I point these out because I think someone may find some useful info to create a theory or two with.

crap thats a lot of info. it took me a while to see what you were getting at but thats for the tip.

so basicly you're saying that im not crazy? =)

trainer101 · Post by **trainer101** » Tue Feb 27, 2007 6:49 pm

platypusrex256 wrote:crap thats a lot of info. it took me a while to see what you were getting at but thats for the tip.

so basicly you're saying that im not crazy? =)

When you read through the threads you can see a lot of similarities to the LG15 story. So, I guess what I'm saying is - You're no crazier than I am!

longlostposter · Post by **longlostposter** » Tue Feb 27, 2007 7:24 pm

luzdzus wrote:I have a theory about theories, which I guess would make it a metatheory.

Humans are time- and causality-oriented creatures. Our main means of survival is understanding how and why things happen so that we can cause them to happen when we want them to and prevent them from happening when we don't. As such, we are driven to try to understand anything and everything that crosses our path, to the point that we perceive patterns where they don't really exist. We hear music in raindrops hitting the ground, and see faces in clouds. We're most comfortable when we believe that we understand our environment and have a self-consistent set of explanations for what our senses are telling us. To steal a line from someone's sig here - "It's an anomaly, anomalies bug me". Being right or wrong are not as important as being consistent. Ultimately, this is what all philosophy boils down to - a search for a conceptual framework that includes the available facts.

Lg15 is a sort of Rorschach test writ in video. Everyone has to put together an interpretation which satisfies him- or herself, and find ways to make the facts fit into the theory. There are so many facts and so many loose ends which may be read ambiguously that no one will ever be able to tie up every line and camera shot into one grand unified theory that explains everything, so some of the information must be left pending, and this is where each person's individuality comes into play. Someone who believes the Illuminati, for instance, are behind everything will seize on anything that could conceivably point to them as vindication for his theory and leave the rest in abeyance until some other piece of information allows each piece to be explained as Illuminati-related. Ditto for aliens, rosicrucians, or any other explanation the individual may hold dear. In the end, each person's private interpretation of the experience is a reflection of the person rather than the experience itself. This, of course, is the very definition of gnosis.

Jumpin' Jezuz, that is not what I sat down to write. Oh, well. STET

Well, I don't necessarily think this is true of everyone. Many people change their theories once evidence comes forht that proves it unworkable, rather than try to force it to fit into their previous theories.

longlostposter · Post by **longlostposter** » Tue Feb 27, 2007 7:33 pm

Why was this thread resurrected at this particular point in time?

xAccordianGuyx · Post by **xAccordianGuyx** » Sun Mar 04, 2007 8:01 pm

longlostposter wrote:Why was this thread resurrected at this particular point in time?

It's just been bugging me for a long time lol, so I finally decided to post it.

I just think it's really odd that Bree's dad turned his head and obviously saw the car, yet did nothing until it came up in front of them.