Lonelygirl15

i think one of these has to be true about gemma:

a. gemma was caught by the follower after she posted "scared to go home" and forced to make a video as if everything were actually fine and suggest they get home, where there is some sort of trap waiting for them. this would explain the huge difference in attitude in the two video and would also explain why she seems to act a little hostile/maybe afriad and the lack of reasoning behind what she says in "daniel is right."

b. gemma's first post ever was right after bree's post responding to daniel breaking into lucy's appartment. gemma may have been one of the "bad guys" all along and intended to use youtube to gain bree's trust and observe daniel. she could also be relaying where they are to whoever is following them based on what they post. this would also explain why she's being irrational about getting them to go home in "daniel is right."

c. if gemma has been against bree and daniel from the begining, it's possible that the followers are good (possibly hired by bree's parents?) and gemma is trying to scare them away from their friends. she might be trying to distort reality so that they're running from the good guys and fleeing to the bad guys (the followers will get you on the road but it's safe at home). this seems the least likely to me, though, since even if good people are following them, bad people have to be following them too.

funny thing is, all of these scenarios mean her latest video is unreliable... which means she would be telling bree not to trust jonas because he actually should be trusted.

you know i was thinking a long the same lines as (A) just because look at all the Gemma videos...she looks...healthy and happy.
In this video she looks like she has been bawling her eyes out, sick and jsut covering it up with make up.

alex wrote:gemma was caught by the follower after she posted "scared to go home" and forced to make a video as if everything were actually fine and suggest they get home, where there is some sort of trap waiting for them.

But they could have caught them at any time if they really wanted to. They've had endless opportunities between when the two of them go to sleep or when one of them left their motel room without the other.

I don't think capturing them is something the Order has needed help with.

alex wrote:funny thing is, all of these scenarios mean her latest video is unreliable... which means she would be telling bree not to trust jonas because he actually should be trusted.

I think Jonas is untrustworthy on his own merits, without Gemma saying anything about him. He's trying too hard to get Bree to trust him, and with no obvious reason for him to care to the extent that he won't let it go and insists that he can be trusted. If he wanted to help, he could do that by sending money and without trying to convince Bree to come to his house.

Possibility A hadn't occurred to me, maybe because I've fallen a bit behind on keeping up on the forums (bad classes! taking up my brain power!) but I think it's really intriguing. Her appearance and everything could also be explained by the stress she went through just not being in her own flat for a while, and having to stay with others. I know I always look (more) like crap when I'm not sleeping in my own bed at night.

Interesting ideas. Scenario B would make sense since I don't think Gemma ever really explained how she separated from the order or that commune she lived on. Even if the order doesn't need her help tracking B and D, it doesn't hurt to have Bree trust someone that's really the voice of the religion.

Those aren't the only three theories, they're not definite.

It's just as possible and plausible that Gemma was being over paranoid, went home, made a video to assure us that nothing had happened her, and decided that it would be best for Bree to listen to Daniel. Her parents did tell Bree to stay with Daniel, so it's logical to conclude that Bree should listen to her parents and stay with Daniel.

This possibility doesn't make the Gemma the Big Bad Wolf, nor does it make her video unreliable.

i think that jonas definitely got to gemma. she's listening to the same band (very large array) in her latest video that he is in "bored at home"... i don't know if that means anything, but i was like

yeah i'm gonna agree with letter b. and c sounds good too. gemma really has something against these watchers, who don't really do much but stand around and smoke cigarettes, and get turned into 3 pixels and pointed at. i don't trust her, but i also dont trust jonas. i think they are both bad in some way, and they are competing for her trust. i think that bree should stay with daniel f'show.

if the watchers are good, then why did they break into her room??

We don't know that it was a Watcher that broke in.

EliCash wrote:We don't know that it was a Watcher that broke in.

I was thinking the same thing except that OpAphid video "Adventures in Babysitting" which shows the actual break in, begins and ends with the Watchers eye.
This one:

trainer101 wrote:

EliCash wrote:We don't know that it was a Watcher that broke in.

I was thinking the same thing except that OpAphid video "Adventures in Babysitting" which shows the actual break in, begins and ends with the Watchers eye.
This one:

Which could mean that it was the Watchers that broke in, that it was OpAphid that broke in, that OpAphid thinks it's the Watchers that broke in, or that OpAphid wants Bree/Daniel/us/whoever to believe that it's the Watchers that broke in.

Um, yeah. Still leaves a lot of options open. Plus, there are probably other logical conclusions, too, that I didn't think of.

dreamerose wrote:

trainer101 wrote:

EliCash wrote:We don't know that it was a Watcher that broke in.

I was thinking the same thing except that OpAphid video "Adventures in Babysitting" which shows the actual break in, begins and ends with the Watchers eye.
This one:

Which could mean that it was the Watchers that broke in, that it was OpAphid that broke in, that OpAphid thinks it's the Watchers that broke in, or that OpAphid wants Bree/Daniel/us/whoever to believe that it's the Watchers that broke in.

Um, yeah. Still leaves a lot of options open. Plus, there are probably other logical conclusions, too, that I didn't think of.

There are still way too many loose ends to come to a definitive conclusion.

Your last statement is correct, Trainer. Still, I want to address your original remarks anyway, since it addresses something that may come up in the future:

I was thinking the same thing except that OpAphid video "Adventures in Babysitting" which shows the actual break in, begins and ends with the Watchers eye.

Let's assume, just to experiment, that Watchers are good and therefore didn't break in and steal the money. That would mean:

1. They'd be on the opposite side of OpAphid.
2. OpAphid would have incentive to make B&D afraid of Watchers.

You can't rely on the enemy (OpAphid) to be honest. Now, he might be telling the truth in this particular case. We don't know. Clearly, though, OpAphid is partially responsible and that means I don't trust him when he claims Watchers did it.

I think the odds of Watchers being good are about 50-50.

I agree.

I have to say that when I saw that OpAphid video for the first time, it honestly popped into my mind that OpAphid put the watcher symbol in the beginning and end of the video to perhaps mock the idea of a watcher breaking in, and that OpAphid and the watchers are totally different parties. Maybe even to mock Gemma, and make her scared that it was the watchers, which she obiously is scared to death of, or at least trying really hard to get B&D really scared of.