[EVA] lots of questions
nanashi96 at hotmail.com
Wed Feb 23 17:56:00 EST 2000
>>Why should I accept any theory about the Lance's composition and origins
if it is based on unreliable information?<<
Why did you think I was trying to prove a theory about the Lance's
composition? I never claimed to know the lances composition. In fact, my
original statement was:
>>Really? How would you know?<<
>I wouldn't, buy hey, it'd make sense, right?<
You asked me for evidence of the FI's relevance to EVA. I gave some.
>>"Giant", not "Great".<<
Noted. The translation has an error in it.
>>If you want to put a cover up about a similarly heavy disaster, you pair
them up an blame it to the skies.<<
The capatalized text was originally in English. That which was not was in
Japanese. If it seems obvious to you that "thing" means "thing," it's only
because the translation doesn't state it as "mono."
>>The only relevant pieces where the ones that cleared that you were talking
about the White Moon, and the fact that the caption you reported about it is
of a shot dated a day before SI (not conclusive anyway).<<
Was it meant to be conclusive? No. Is the intent for us to connect the
concepts there? Yes. Is there any way to fully prove the relationship? No.
So what was irrelevant?
[Second Impact] (mention of FI)
[BLACK MOON] (notes relationship with White Moon)
[WHITE MOON] (under Antarctica)
Notes about the White Moon:
[SUBTERRANEAN SCAN OF ANTARCTICA] (visual display of White Moon)
[SURFACE STRUCTURE CLEARLY ARTIFICIAL] (referring to White Moon)
[POSSIBLY CREATED AT THE TIME OF THE GREAT IMPACT] (FI reference)
Not relevent? Hmm . . .
More information about the oldeva