[EVA] lots of questions
e.barone at flashnet.it
Wed Feb 23 15:48:30 EST 2000
> And yet, it was understood that the statement was a idle comment I never
> intended to prove. Or am I wrong about that as well.
You were answering to a question about what the lance was made of. You
didn't say "I think", "It might be" or anything. You said "Same thing as the
angels". This doesn't look like an idle comment to me.
I asked you how would you know and you provided 5 points, a) was not proven,
b) was inaccurate, c) irrelevant, d) non pertinent to the case, e) based on
unsafe assumptions. These didn't look idle if not in the content to me.
> Circumstancial evidence is evidence too. I was proving, quote:
But not proving evidence.
> And hence, the theory was "might be."
And I do not say that you don't have the right to think so, I have written
somewhere that I agree it might be, I just don't think so, and explained
why. If it looked like an ipse dixit, I apologize, it wasn't meant to.
> Error. I mentioned specifically the following.
> >Note the mention of the term "Great Impact."<
> Proves that the First Impact happened.
No, it does not. Whatever different theory was present until sept 13th 2000
about the disaster that had haapend millions years before was not likely to
hold against a renewed occurrence of a meteor impact. However that new
occurrence is a cover up by itself, so the FI might have become just the
most likely case in the minds of anybody with few enough problems at that
time to worry about it. Technically, there is not enough data to decide on
either of the two versions, but the very fact that debate can raise on the
subject proves that FI is not a given fact. When the subject of the
discussion is a fact which is supposed to be given and there's discussion on
it being given without sound proof on either part its being given is
> Noted relationship: First Impact happens before the Second Impact.
> Notes that any connection between the causes of the First and Second
> isn't stated in EVA canon.
Right, also First Impact is never mentioned as a given fact in any place
where it might be relkevant to Eva, eg near explanation about Adam or Lilith
(the White Moon line does not make it given, only possible).
> Notes that the EVA canon annotates the White Moon as being a "counterpart"
> to the Black Moon. Notes that EVA canon specifically states the
> between Lilith and the Black Moon, and hence an indirect relationship
> between Lilith and the White Moon (even though no mention of Adam has yet
> been seen).
The Black Moon is Lilith's egg, Adam is in the White Moon, the White Moon is
Adam's egg. What does Lilith have to do with the White Moon? If you mean to
hypotesize a relationship of origin in timeline for both moons, it is
possible, although not required nor safe. And I still doubt that Adam is a
complete counterpart to Lilith, although as far as the opposition
Angels/Lilim goes he is.
> It's a "possibly" in a picture Fuyutsuki viewed while he was in
> The director's cut has him describing it to be a mystery to him:
Exactly because it's young(er) Fuyutsuki viewing them they cannot be held
safe. He's not entitled to know what he will later at that time.
> That Fuyutsuki connects them in such a manner suggests some sort of
Let's see. At the beginning of the show (but 15 years later in the timeline)
we are shown a large cavern in Japan. Later we are shown a being on that
cavern, which seems to be important. Also, we've been trated to hints and
shots abou events in Antarctica more than once. If Fuyutsuki is there to
provide a relationship, it is that which pairs the two caverns in Japan, and
the one which pairs the angels and the Giant of Light, but I see very little
relevance for FI left.
Emanuele Barone - e.barone at flashnet.it Jobs | |¯ the Mac
-- www.macstep.com -- is at | _ |_ with
More information about the oldeva