AnimeSuki Forums

Register Forum Rules FAQ Members List Social Groups Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Go Back   AnimeSuki Forum > Anime Discussion > Older Series > Retired > Umineko

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2010-01-13, 03:26   Link #5381
Judoh
Mystery buff
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Gone Fishin!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Klashikari View Post
If you are going as far as doubting the word "dead" and "corpse" from the red, what can you actually trust then?
The red was always literal to the first degree, it is actually because of this that we could find out the loopholes of the absolute truth statements.
If you think someone can be declared dead, then being alive afterwards, I think the red truth is then basically garbage.
I think it's better to follow it like this. When exactly did the person die? In episode 5 it's made pretty clear that the time of death is very important and in earlier episodes the detectives authority isn't really taken advantage of. Here is the question then. Is it possible for at least one person ( the culprit) in the twilight's to be alive until the very end of the game (hour 0:00 2nd day). If you follow it like that then culprit can still be dead during the game , but not be dead when we think they are. This could tie in with Taiwan theory that says that everybody dies from a bomb at the end. And even beginning at the end credits of episode 1 it's said that the only body part that's been identified is Maria's jaw ,which is one of the rare cases where dental records have identified a person. This suggests that at least some of the victims in Umineko died in a fire. So there are no contradictions in them being "dead" if you follow the bomb theory then.
Judoh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-01-13, 03:28   Link #5382
Smeckledorf
Intellectual Rapist
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: 3 12151805142615
Literal? Red is literal sometimes and sometimes it is not. And I did not come up with the corpse loophole bring your complaints about that to our dear friend Ryu. I do not think red truth is necessarily garbage but you seem to think ways of interpreting it are limited to what you think is right. If you think red truth is literal then Nanjo's death in episode 3 becomes literally impossible. Unless you consider that the game master would be so nasty as to not use a literal meaning or try to use time as a factor?

Edit: In which language does the word "Taiwan" translate into the word "troll"? Battler, George, and Jessica could not be found and it was not stated to be the same for the other dead people. This is one really inconsistent bomb.
Smeckledorf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-01-13, 03:33   Link #5383
Klashikari
Swords•Maidens Maniac
*Graphic Designer
*Moderator
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Europe, Belgium, Brussels
Age: 27
Send a message via Skype™ to Klashikari
Quote:
Originally Posted by Judoh View Post
I think it's better to follow it like this. When exactly did the person die? In episode 5 it's made pretty clear that the time of death is very important and in earlier episodes the detectives authority isn't really taken advantage of. Here is the question then. Is it possible for at least one person ( the culprit) in the twilight's to be alive until the very end of the game (hour 0:00 2nd day). If you follow it like that then culprit can still be dead during the game , but not be dead when we think they are. This could tie in with Taiwan theory that says that everybody dies from a bomb at the end. And even beginning at the end credits of episode 1 it's said that the only body part that's been identified is Maria's jaw ,which is one of the rare cases where dental records have identified a person. So there are no contradictions if you follow the bomb theory then.
...the problem isn't the time of death at all. We all know that the moment it is declared is important ever since Episode 3.
The argument right now is how the red declaration can be dodged, saying that the "definition" of "dead" is basically not what it appears to be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smeckledorf View Post
Literal? Red is literal sometimes and sometimes it is not. And I did not come up with the corpse loophole bring your complaints about that to our dear friend Ryu. I do not think red truth is necessarily garbage but you seem to think ways of interpreting it are limited to what you think is right. If you think red truth is literal then Nanjo's death in episode 3 becomes literally impossible. Unless you consider that the game master would be so nasty as to not use a literal meaning or try to use time as a factor?
Complain? I never complained about the corpse loophole. Actually, the very fact that the red truth is so stoic is a giant clue for Battler (and for us), as the lack of details of certain red statements allow us to realize what Beato couldn't declare in red.

And if the red truth was literal, there is no problem with Nanjo's death at all, since pretty much everyone figured out that the time of the red declaration is important.

What I do not consider logical at all is that, after a death is declared in red, it doesn't apply anymore afterwards.
Meaning: when I see "X is dead" I really cannot expect him to be "alive" after such declaration. Again, the context of the red declaration has nothing to do with "I declared so, but in fact that's not what I meant".

That being said, that certainly doesn't mean crap if we are talking about Nanjo's autopsy alone. Except when we are involving the autopsies that were confirmed in red (context alone, obviously). Aside of these autopsies, all other ones aren't subject to the red, so Nanjo doesn't even need any medecine, but can plainly lie like anyone else.
Klashikari is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-01-13, 03:36   Link #5384
Smeckledorf
Intellectual Rapist
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: 3 12151805142615
Quote:
Originally Posted by Klashikari View Post
Meaning: when I see "X is dead" I really cannot expect him to be "alive" after such declaration. Again, the context of the red declaration has nothing to do with "I declared so, but in fact that's not what I meant".
Uh... I do not know how to put this but that is exactly what the corpse loophole was...
Smeckledorf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-01-13, 03:42   Link #5385
Klashikari
Swords•Maidens Maniac
*Graphic Designer
*Moderator
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Europe, Belgium, Brussels
Age: 27
Send a message via Skype™ to Klashikari
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smeckledorf View Post
Uh... I do not know how to put this but that is exactly what the corpse loophole was...
Mind if you explain this?
Because I refer "corpse loophole" as the following: Beato declared the corpses were genuine and their identity is guaranteed. The loopehole is that: the corpses weren't named. That means if there were to be "living people" in the storage shed in Episode 1, that means they aren't subject to the red, since they aren't corpse.

That doesn't deal any contradiction at all, and it does follow the "literal" aspect of the red: since the red states clearly "the corpses identity is guaranteed! No double body trick exists!", you can have a much easier conclusion since it doesn't start describing whom it is applied to. By this definition, anyone that isn't dead would be naturally excluded of the red definition.

Meanwhile, when the red statement says, for example, "Nanjo is dead", I really can't see how you can suddenly see him roaming around, after the death declaration.
If Nanjo was said to be "dead" in-game without red, that means there is a chance it is a lie/mistake and he is alive until a witch declares in red he is dead. During this time lapse, he might be kicking and well, but after that, hell no.
That is the very basis of "kyrie/hideyoshi was the one who killed Nanjo in Episode 3 before dying of their wounds. And only at this point, Eva Beatrice could declare all of them dead" theory.
Klashikari is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-01-13, 03:48   Link #5386
Smeckledorf
Intellectual Rapist
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: 3 12151805142615
Spoiler for episode 5:
Smeckledorf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-01-13, 03:51   Link #5387
Klashikari
Swords•Maidens Maniac
*Graphic Designer
*Moderator
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Europe, Belgium, Brussels
Age: 27
Send a message via Skype™ to Klashikari
... No, you mistook completely the sentence here.
Ronove himself defined that a corpse is indeed someone who is dead, and that they are NOT subject to wrong autopsy.

Quote:
Ronove: When this court was opened, Lady Lambdadelta made a proclamation. She said this was a 24:00 answer session!
...... The death proclamation was made at 24:00 on the second day, in other words, at the end of the game. That does not deny the possibility that the murder occurred after the morning of the second day, after the so-called 'discovery of the crime'...!

Erika: Then, you are saying...... that the victims were alive at that time?! Even though their necks were sliced open?!

Ronove: Did you see that yourself, Miss Detective...? It may be true that all corpses, no matter whose, would not lead to a mistaken autopsy, ......but it has never been said that there was a rule against something other than a corpse being called a corpse.
However, what Ronove said in blue is that: what prevents people to call something a "corpse" despite they aren't?
There is no obligation for the living to say the truth all the time. Therefore, it means that people pretended that George & co were dead, despite they weren't.

The basic idea of this scene was that, even if Erika heard about the murders, she didn't see the corpses herself, so she couldn't have her detective privilege. Her assumption that they were dead as because of Lambda and Bern red, despite the timing was off.
Thus, Ronove confirmed they ARE dead, but not at the presumed time.
Erika claimed that it is wrong because they had their throat sliced, but since she didn't see that, it means there is no confirmation at that given time. Because of this, even though their death was confirmed, we also know that they are "not" dead because their deaths are declared MUCH later.
But Battler and the rest were in panic... even though the red stated clearly that "no one would mistake their deaths". Basically, it means Battler and his family lied to Erika.

That is the reason why Ronove said "who said you can't call something not a corpse, a corpse?".

Last edited by Klashikari; 2010-01-13 at 04:02.
Klashikari is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-01-13, 04:01   Link #5388
Smeckledorf
Intellectual Rapist
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: 3 12151805142615
Quote:
Originally Posted by Klashikari View Post
... No, you mistook completely the sentence here.
Ronove himself defined that a corpse is indeed someone who is dead, and that they are NOT subject to wrong autopsy.

However, what Ronove said in blue is that: what prevents people to call something a "corpse" despite they aren't?
There is no obligation for the living to say the truth all the time. Therefore, it means that people pretended that George & co were dead, despite they weren't.
I didn't recall Ronove saying that in red and I cannot find any red to match that claim. I see that Erika or Knox has said that once but that was pertaining to a particular set of corpses.
Smeckledorf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-01-13, 04:07   Link #5389
Klashikari
Swords•Maidens Maniac
*Graphic Designer
*Moderator
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Europe, Belgium, Brussels
Age: 27
Send a message via Skype™ to Klashikari
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smeckledorf View Post
I didn't recall Ronove saying that in red and I cannot find any red to match that claim. I see that Erika has said that once but that was pertaining to a particular set of corpses.
The red sentences were acknowledged in Ronove's blue reasoning.
There are red that prevent any leeway of "dead being alive", because:

1) no wrong autopsy
2) no one would mistake their deaths by sight (done by virgilia).

Because of this, since it is impossible to mistake George & co's deaths (which are also confirmed in red), it means Battler and co lied.
By this definition, it confirms Ronove's claim: that there is nothing against people claiming someone is a corpse despite they weren't.

By no mean Ronove put doubt on the red. Ronove implied clearly that he casted doubt on Battler and his family's claim that George and the rest were dead at that time.
That does not contradict the red that "no one would mistake their deaths".
Klashikari is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-01-13, 04:10   Link #5390
Smeckledorf
Intellectual Rapist
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: 3 12151805142615
Quote:
Originally Posted by Klashikari View Post
The red sentences were acknowledged in Ronove's blue reasoning.
There are red that prevent any leeway of "dead being alive", because:

1) no wrong autopsy
2) no one would mistake their deaths by sight (done by virgilia).

Because of this, since it is impossible to mistake George & co's deaths (which are also confirmed in red), it means Battler and co lied.
By this definition, it confirms Ronove's claim: that there is nothing against people claiming someone is a corpse despite they weren't.

By no mean Ronove put doubt on the red. Ronove stated clearly that he casted doubt on Battler and his family's claim that George and the rest were dead at that time.
That does not contradict the red that "no one would mistake their deaths".
1) no wrong autopsy <--- Who said that and when
2) no one would mistake their deaths by sight (done by virgilia). <--- when was this said.

I can't find either of those in red, though I do believe the first one was said and again if that second one was said then "their" would probably mean a specific killing.
Smeckledorf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-01-13, 04:19   Link #5391
Klashikari
Swords•Maidens Maniac
*Graphic Designer
*Moderator
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Europe, Belgium, Brussels
Age: 27
Send a message via Skype™ to Klashikari
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smeckledorf View Post
1) no wrong autopsy <--- Who said that and when
2) no one would mistake their deaths by sight (done by virgilia). <--- when was this said.

I can't find either of those in red, though I do believe the first one was said and again if that second one was said then "their" would probably mean a specific killing.
1)
Quote:
Chapter 14:

Cornelia: Know that none of the corpses would ever lead to a mistaken autopsy!
Quote:
Tea Party:

Erika: Fool!! How often do I have to say it?!! The deaths of the four people in the cousins' room have been proclaimed with the red truth!! Furthermore, those corpses were witnessed by a large number of people!! Furthermore, it's already been proclaimed in red that an autopsy would not be mistaken for any of those corpses...!!
2)
Quote:
Chapter 13:

Virgilia: At a glance, anyone could confirm that these corpses are dead, so it is absolutely impossible that they are just people playing dead.

Context: referring to george's group corpses.
That's plenty enough to conclude they were dead without any doubt. Just that Bern and Lambda confirmed way after (which is the only way, because of the sisters of purgatory) and that there has to be a lie somewhere regarding the morning scene, since these corpses cannot be mistaken once they are dead.

Therefore, George and co were still alive at this point (it has to be that way because of the "after their death, their corpses were never moved!" red), but Battler and his family pretended they are dead, thus "calling corpses while they aren't".
Only later, after they hide themselves, they were killed hence the red proclamation that they are:
1) dead
2) that no one would mistake by glance
3) that no autopsy could be mistaken with any of the corpses.

Here is the basis of why Ronove could claim that "who said you can't call things corpses even if they aren'?".
Klashikari is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-01-13, 04:30   Link #5392
Smeckledorf
Intellectual Rapist
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: 3 12151805142615
Again, those refer to specific cases. It was not said that no corpses would ever lead to a mistaken autopsy it was said that none of THE corpses... Then it's THOSE corpses... Then it's THESE corpses. They are specific and not general rules.
Anyways, we will get no where arguing this point. We clearly are not going to drop any of our beliefs on this subject right now, so I am done with this debate.
I will just leave you with something to think about when you think of literal.
All of those who met at the family conference recognized the existence of Kinzo!
4th episode and we all know Kinzo really did not exist. That is not literal, my child when I die will not be called [insert my name here], I am not actually going to reveal my name, and Kinzo does not translate over to head of the family. If you consider that red truth literal then that is your opinion and I am sure I will not be able to persuade you to believe otherwise. Again do not mistake this as a feeling of superiority or arrogance on my part. I am apparently just as stubborn.
Smeckledorf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-01-13, 04:37   Link #5393
Klashikari
Swords•Maidens Maniac
*Graphic Designer
*Moderator
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Europe, Belgium, Brussels
Age: 27
Send a message via Skype™ to Klashikari
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smeckledorf View Post
Again, those refer to specific cases. It was not said that no corpses would ever lead to a mistaken autopsy it was said that none of THE corpses... Then it's THOSE corpses... Then it's THESE corpses. They are specific and not general rules.
I didn't say anything about "in general" either. I was stating this part, as the basis of your assumption is that "even called a corpse in red doesn't mean you are dead" with Ronove's EP5 comment, despite it is totally irrelevant.
Therefore, what I proved here is only that characters can lie and claim someone is dead despite it wasn't (which was the whole idea of Episode 5 and 6). I only went against your assumption that "someone called a corpse in red can be alive".

Quote:
Anyways, we will get no where arguing this point. We clearly are not going to drop any of our beliefs on this subject right now, so I am done with this debate.
I will just leave you with something to think about when you think of literal.
All of those who met at the family conference recognized the existence of Kinzo!
4th episode and we all know Kinzo really did not exist. That is not literal, my child when I die will not be called [insert my name here], I am not actually going to reveal my name, and Kinzo does not translate over to head of the family. If you consider that red truth literal then that is your opinion and I am sure I will not be able to persuade you to believe otherwise. Again do not mistake this as a feeling of superiority or arrogance on my part. I am apparently just as stubborn.
I personally cannot buy "kinzo's title" theory, but again there is no contradiction even if someone has to inherit kinzo's name. If you consider something that "exist", you don't exactly have to be physically there. By no means the red truth states that "kinzo's alive and physically there". Despite being literal, a term can still be vague in its definition (and this is worse if we consider that as a translation). Actually, it could be also his corpse being thrown in the dining room, freaking out the ushiromiya.

I personally don't feel superior either, but I certainly can't consider seriously the red should we can start doubting the very straightfoward terms used there.
Klashikari is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-01-13, 05:36   Link #5394
Geekodot
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by musouka View Post
I don't think she's been shown to care about Kinzo at all. She tosses "him" aside like a used doll in EP4 when she gets upset, pities him in EP2, says she had no interest in him romantically in EP3...and the reason she was protecting him in EP5 was because of Natsuhi.
"Kinzo, your love and madness are the real thing, I will not forget my time spent with you?"

She says this when Battler "destroys" him in the Ep 4 tea party. Seems like she did care about him alittle bit.

In Ep 2, she does pity him, but that is because he can't find the right words to say to her. She knocks on the door when he finally says "I love you".
Geekodot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-01-13, 06:00   Link #5395
ijriims
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: HK, China
Quote:
Originally Posted by Klashikari View Post
I didn't say anything about "in general" either. I was stating this part, as the basis of your assumption is that "even called a corpse in red doesn't mean you are dead" with Ronove's EP5 comment, despite it is totally irrelevant.
Therefore, what I proved here is only that characters can lie and claim someone is dead despite it wasn't (which was the whole idea of Episode 5 and 6). I only went against your assumption that "someone called a corpse in red can be alive".
THen, according to this logic, Jessica must be dead at the time her corpse was discovered by the people in EP2.

Talking about the red texts for body-double trick in EP1, would you agree that a non-corpse object would pass without contradicting the red-texts, e.g. a real living people lying there with make-up, a plastic mannequin, a wax dummy, etc?
__________________
Kýrie, eléison

Battler, you have already known it, right?

Without Love, it cannot be seen.
ijriims is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-01-13, 10:52   Link #5396
Kit
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Canada
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smeckledorf View Post
Again, those refer to specific cases. It was not said that no corpses would ever lead to a mistaken autopsy it was said that none of THE corpses... Then it's THOSE corpses... Then it's THESE corpses. They are specific and not general rules.
Anyways, we will get no where arguing this point. We clearly are not going to drop any of our beliefs on this subject right now, so I am done with this debate.
I will just leave you with something to think about when you think of literal.
All of those who met at the family conference recognized the existence of Kinzo!
4th episode and we all know Kinzo really did not exist. That is not literal, my child when I die will not be called [insert my name here], I am not actually going to reveal my name, and Kinzo does not translate over to head of the family. If you consider that red truth literal then that is your opinion and I am sure I will not be able to persuade you to believe otherwise. Again do not mistake this as a feeling of superiority or arrogance on my part. I am apparently just as stubborn.
There's no contradiction if you take that red literally. Everyone there recognized the "existence" of Kinzo. It's a silly kind of Devil's Proof. "They recognized the "existence" of Kinzo" does NOT necessarily mean they saw Kinzo there - they simply recognized that, somewhere in this world, Kinzo "exists," be it on Rokkenjima or anywhere else. And as demonstrated by Episode 5's "Escape from Kinzo's Study" scene, this is not a contradiction whatsoever, for everyone in the study (aside from Erica) could recognize the existence of Kinzo despite him not being in the room. You absolutely do not need to pass your name on to someone else for that red text to work. It is as literal as it is vague - that is the nature of language :T

EDIT: To take this another step further - "Everyone there recognized the existence of Kinzo," did NOT include Battler (the detective) so for all we know, they could have recognized the existence of Kinzo because they could all be loonies and out of their minds (exageration here, but the point stands). Without reliable testimony, and in something as crazy and out there as Episode 4, a red like "everyone there recognized the existence of Kinzo becomes much harder to take literally without considering the many possible interpretations of the word.

TL;DR Version:

No contradiction in "recognizing existence" via Devil's Proof as demonstrated in Episode 5's out the window sequence.
"All of those who met at the family conference" may or may not include Battler, and hence could possibly mean jack all, and be simply a red herring.
Kit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-01-13, 11:13   Link #5397
Kaiba
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Houston
Quote:
THen, according to this logic, Jessica must be dead at the time her corpse was discovered by the people in EP2.
...Are you suggesting that Jessica wasn't dead? That's a new idea.
Kaiba is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-01-13, 11:35   Link #5398
ijriims
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: HK, China
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaiba View Post
...Are you suggesting that Jessica wasn't dead? That's a new idea.
Well, I once heard from some people that because of "死体の朱志香ももちろん含む。" where the corpse part was not in red, Jessica was not dead. Or it was just her "personality" of Jessica being dead.

And even Kanon was "killed" in that room, he was not dead at that time. Again, it was the personality being killed here.

Now I think about it, why don't those people just support the solution that all characters were just Battler's alternative personalities?
__________________
Kýrie, eléison

Battler, you have already known it, right?

Without Love, it cannot be seen.
ijriims is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-01-13, 13:19   Link #5399
Geekodot
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by ijriims View Post
Well, I once heard from some people that because of "死体の朱志香ももちろん含む。" where the corpse part was not in red, Jessica was not dead. Or it was just her "personality" of Jessica being dead.

And even Kanon was "killed" in that room, he was not dead at that time. Again, it was the personality being killed here.

Now I think about it, why don't those people just support the solution that all characters were just Battler's alternative personalities?
I must say that I would rather believe in your Kyrie theory, than that it would work to say that "personalities died" in red.

Some things that are just stupid and would be dirty by Ryukishi to use as a final solution:

Shkannon: Without very solid foreshadowing, this would just be really crappy. It wouldn't make sense at all that 15 people manages to not see through the disguise, and in some cases, the disguise would have to be changed in very few minutes... it would seriously just be dumb.

Questioning definition of words in red:
Like the word "dead", "killed" and so on. By saying "Haha, i didn't mean dead when I said they died" at the last moment, everything would be screwed. Seriously, when did we ever before have to question definition of words? and when was it hinted that we had to question definitions? As far as I can see, Ryukishi saw how people were fooling around with definitions of red, as he had Lambdadelta clearly define what a "knock" meant. To me, that seemed like a parody of people questioning definition of every word.

Personalities "dying": If characters can "die" by discarding personalities, then a character can NEVER EVER BE PROVED DEAD because they can just have another unknown personality X...

Blaming everything on misobservation:
If this were to happen, then nothing can ever be certain, thereby breaking down the mystery element. Like for example saying that even though a corpse is horribly mutilated and shows no signs of life, it can just be mistaken autopsy and just write it off like that. Or by not paying any heed to what is actually happening and only focusing on the red.
Geekodot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-01-13, 13:23   Link #5400
Marion
The Great Dine
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Personalities cannot be killed. Names cannot be killed. A name and a personality are not living things!

How do you kill a personality or a name. Do you know ridiculous that sounds. Jessica had a stake lodged in her back. The back has the spine which is very vulnerable. Even if Jessica lived there would be no way for her to move around without being in shocking pain.

Using loopholes like "Kanon dropped his name" is stupid, because Kanon is still Kanon despite names. You cannot kill off a name or a personality. I know people use the idea of killing personalities for Shkannontrice, but you cannot kill your personality or an alternative persona.
__________________

Sig by nocco
Marion is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 22:13.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
We use Silk.