[Klashikari]

Originally Posted by Renall

The stories about the epitaph, gold location, chapel construction, Rosa's meeting with Beatrice-2, and Natsuhi's baby are all just sort of mishmashed together and handwaved when the dates do not seem to necessarily sync in the slightest. Will essentially forces Rosa to confirm 1967 when she isn't really all that sure. In order for the entire story to make sense, a series of assumptions must all be true. Some of them perhaps are true. Others cannot be proven true. We're being asked to assume that because they appear to "fit," that those parts which are true lend absolute credence to those parts which are purely speculative.

And why can you assume we are "asked" to assume things are true?
I dunno what you exactly read, but from the very start, it was only Willard's investigation, not a "let me show you what is the truth without any subjective point". It is all about Willard trying to piece everything out from his point of view and knowledge. Why do you assume "we have to assume" it is true?
The fact they are core arcs showing clues and answers doesn't mean everything is shown at face value. I really see no damn reason to think this way: being presented characters speculations and their supposed theories doesn't mean you have to blindly follow them. As far as I see, the game is unfolding points that can be accepted or not. That's the same as a majority of people raving about a popular theory: it doesn't mean you have to follow them.

I really see no fault from the game/narration side regarding that matter. The game is trying to go back to its root, and the lakc of red and blue allow to have a moderate take on things and facts, instead of cherrypicking specific portions because of special features.

And given what we heard Bernkastel say outright at the end of ep6, I'm not sure why we aren't to take this as at least partially speculative itself.

What part? That "everything is the truth"? The fact the sentence isn't finished doesn't mean anything.
The fact the clues were all presented? That surely is the same as Beato pouring clues with some overdrive witch festival.

Sorry that asking uncomfortable questions that challenge the purity of the narrative presented is a "tantrum," but I think questions need to be asked, because parts of the narrative require leaps of faith I see no justification to make.

Except that it is borderline impossible to figure your intention when you just hotbloody jump on details that are arguably not even how you describe them.
No one has ever claimed the narrative is perfect. It "makes" sense as per its content and its purpose. That doesn't mean it is the holy grail or the "golden truth".