[witchfan]

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

Yasu's pretty crazy, isn't she?

The degree to which she's crazy is not canon.

He's forcing her to do something that's impossible. The blame would call on him because he's basically moving her piece, meaning he's making an illegal move.

This is if you assume Spectator Authority forces someone to act how you want him to, regardless of whether it is logically possible. This may be necessary for Shkannon to work, but it isn't necessary for my theory (I don't find it particularly plausible, either).

One-Winged Servants serve Kinzo directly. That's what it means. And, again, how can Shannon know this before he shows up? The One-Winged Eagle is a badge you must earn.

You're confusing two things here: real Kanon, and fictional Kanon. Furthermore, are you sure you understand what I'm saying here? My claim is that the timeline of Yasu's story versus what really happened doesn't have to be linear.

The two are with Genji, who gives the hint. Neither Shannon or Kanon really say anything that is specific to them as a character, and if you ignored the sprites it seems like one person is talking with Genji. After Genji (and they) leave, Beatrice immediately shows up, having been easedropping on them in spirit form.

Doesn't look like there's a problem, then. As for Genji speaking with one person: I don't see a problem here, if we were trying to find an interpretation based on the motive I gave, but I also don't think we have enough evidence to conclude whether he was talking to one person, or just being, you know, Genji.

But so do Genji and Kumasawa. How come they don't have magical Beatrice-seeing powers?

Don't they? And besides, they are nowhere near as close to Shannon as Kanon.

So how did Kanon die in the boiler? Why did he die? Occam's Razor is sharpening it's blade.

Occam's razor is only applicable when the system discussed is philosophically simple enough to determine the base amount of assumptions (Classically, William of Occam talks of "entities", Newton talks about causes) it makes, as well as their weight and plausibility. It most certainly does not mean "the simplest explanation is more correct", if that's what you're getting at, and the classical definition (which, to use, we must presuppose many things about the "entities" William of Occam was talking about) absolutely does not apply here.

With that said, I never stated I had all the details of the theory down to the smallest point. This may very well be implied somewhere in the story. There's no need for me to be the only person doing the thinking here - from what I've seen, you remember the story better than I do. What do you think? Is there a part of the story you think we can find some answers in?

What's important is that the Red Truth is only valid when it's accepted as valid. Erika can state she's the 18th person even though she's not, for example. Battler can be stated to be dead even though he's not. Battler is alone on the island but someone is right there, right now, going to kill him.

I simply don't agree with this. Again, it may be necessary for Shkannon but it isn't the case for my theory. Both Erika's red (I explained this in the post where I introduced my theory) and that "going to kill you now" reds are simple cases of ambiguity. As for the last one - I'm inclined to believe if I planted a fucking bomb, died, and then the bomb exploded and blew Battler up to gold dust, I would be able to say I am here and I killed him.

It's not objective. The Red Truth is subject to the personal viewpoints of the speaker and the listener. Really, the only rule we do have for it is that the speaker can't LIE in it, and it has to be "true" (but the context of "true" is never defined).

I know Ryukishi talks about multiple truths and that stuff, but the assumption that two people can believe in two contradictory things and say them in red sounds ridiculous to me. For example, what are we supposed to make of scenes where a person chokes while trying to say some red text? I don't think this is what you meant, so perhaps you can explain. The only thing that comes close to this is when red is ambiguous and context-dependent - a la EP6 final reds.

With that said, even if we assume this, I still don't understand why it's particularly problematic for my theory.

Well, she's probably the culprit of the games, and that's what "matters."

As for the culprit? I don't know. For an example, let's say it's George for the sake of argument. She loves George. George is capable of familicide. He could threaten Yasu into cooperating. And she has motive to take the fall for him...unless Battler can understand her in time.

I would like to mention that this is my exact argument about the circumstances of Kanon's death.