Bagheera wrote:Anno doesn't do boring, trite shit

Have we been watching the same movies?

Azathoth wrote:Have we been watching the same movies?

Heh. Well, it's a relative thing.

http://forum.evageeks.org/thread/9701/Rebuild-is-not-your-daily-two-minute-hate/

Sequel haters keep saying that all of the speculation regarding possible pro-sequel clues has been resolved (save for Kaworu's cryptic lines), but I don't remember ever being told what the giant chalk outline from 1.11 was all about...

Merkaba wrote:Sequel haters keep saying that all of the speculation regarding possible pro-sequel clues has been resolved (save for Kaworu's cryptic lines), but I don't remember ever being told what the giant chalk outline from 1.11 was all about...

Supplemental materials say it's a burned out angel.

The Entry File 1 book (a book for 1.0) states the chalk outline "something is from the remains of Second Impact". Maybe another supplemental material states it was a burnt out Angel. (Not bad to assume it's a brunt-out Adam, but that's speculating territory.)

Sailor Star Dust wrote:The Entry File 1 book (a book for 1.0) states the chalk outline "something is from the remains of Second Impact". Maybe another supplemental material states it was a burnt out Angel. (Not bad to assume it's a brunt-out Adam, but that's speculating territory.)

I remember the chalk outline being brought up in the previous sequel thread where someone brought up the supplemental materials explaining them as a remains of second impact. I just went with burnt out angel because I was too lazy to skim. Thanks, SSD for clearing up that point again.

Sailor Star Dust wrote:The Entry File 1 book (a book for 1.0) states the chalk outline "something is from the remains of Second Impact". Maybe another supplemental material states it was a burnt out Angel. (Not bad to assume it's a brunt-out Adam, but that's speculating territory.)

I'm not sure what else it could be, though; it's clearly humanoid, and all the Angels are accounted for, so . . .

Still the same question again and again and again.

How would one angel/whatever come from point A (EoE) zu point B (1.11)?

Use: logic

So what does logic tell you it is, then?

Oh, you don't know either? Crazy.

Merkaba wrote:So what does logic tell you it is, then?

An Adam.

Sure, but that's also speculation, too. (I'm not saying it's wrong; in fact, it's plausible and I can see it being the case, yet at the same time, it's no more viable or fact than the ideas some have put forward regarding Sequel Theory.)

Merkaba wrote:So what does logic tell you it is, then?

Oh, you don't know either? Crazy.

That doesnt make the direct sequel logical...

Merkaba wrote:Sure, but that's also speculation, too. (I'm not saying it's wrong; in fact, it's plausible and I can see it being the case, yet at the same time, it's no more viable or fact than the ideas some have put forward regarding Sequel Theory.)

It's much more viable since it doesn't require jumping through any of the hoops a sequel theory does. There's absolutely nothing to explain/resolve here -- we know there were Adams around during 2I, and this is one of them. That's it. Occam's Razor favors the simplest explanation for the facts presented, and "oh hey, there were these things referenced earlier in the story, and this could easily be one of them" is simpler by far than "this is something from another continuity with a completely different metaphysics from what we've seen in the story at hand."

If one option requires tortured reasoning to make it work and the other doesn't they aren't equally viable. Claiming otherwise doesn't make it so.

Except for Occam's Razor is easily rebutted. For instance, it's far easier to say that storks bring babies and drop them off at people's doors, as opposed to the insanely complex nature of life coming to fruition through reproduction.

Oh, and it's easier to say "God made everything" than to go through every detail of why evolution is correct and how it lead to this exact moment in space and time.

Anyone who went beyond Philosophy 101 can tell you that OR is child's play.

And your "claiming otherwise doesn't make it so" runs both ways.

Logic, still not used.

Snide remarks, still your only argument.

Come on, you dont even try...

Merkaba wrote:Except for Occam's Razor is easily rebutted. For instance, it's far easier to say that storks bring babies and drop them off at people's doors, as opposed to the insanely complex nature of life coming to fruition through reproduction.

Yeah, no. It's easy to watch babies being born and note that there are no storks involved (note no one said it was infallible; it only claims that the theory that makes the fewest assumptions is more likely to be correct). If we get actual evidence that a sequel might be in play it will be time to revisit the theory, but until then there's no reason to consider it valid.

And your "claiming otherwise doesn't make it so" runs both ways.

That's right. You have to make your case and let everyone else judge it on its merits. Care to give it a shot?

Merkaba wrote:Snide remarks, still your only argument.

He doesn't have too. The argument that the chalk outlines are a point toward the sequel theory has been rebuttled. Supplemental materials point to them being the remains from second impact, which is notably different in this continuity. And, we even see Misato's perspective of what occurred at ground zero.