Return to Unfiction unforum
 a.r.g.b.b 
FAQ FAQ   Search Search 
 
Welcome!
New users, PLEASE read these forum guidelines. New posters, SEARCH before posting and read these rules before posting your killer new campaign. New players may also wish to peruse the ARG Player Tutorial.

All users must abide by the Terms of Service.
Website Restoration Project
This archiving project is a collaboration between Unfiction and Sean Stacey (SpaceBass), Brian Enigma (BrianEnigma), and Laura E. Hall (lehall) with
the Center for Immersive Arts.
Announcements
This is a static snapshot of the
Unfiction forums, as of
July 23, 2017.
This site is intended as an archive to chronicle the history of Alternate Reality Games.
  

The time now is Fri Nov 15, 2024 5:32 am
All times are UTC - 4 (DST in action)		 View posts in this forum since last visit
View unanswered posts in this forum
Calendar
 Forum index » Chaotic Fiction » Marble Hornets
Sarah is totheark and this is why. (long.)
Moderators: Giskard, JKatkina, Zarggg
View previous topicView next topic
Page 3 of 17 [242 Posts]   Goto page: Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, ..., 15, 16, 17  Next
Author Message
Foood
Unfettered


Joined: 22 Apr 2011
Posts: 478
The Percolator wrote:


We're talking about this right? I just interpreted it as Alex looking unaware and just goofing off, although I'm sure I could be wrong. Alex and Tim are getting along just fine with zero hostility, Tim doesn't have the coughs, and Entry 55 seems to occur not long after. Alex acts like a completely different person altogether in between 55 and 56, AND you can kind of tell some of the hostility from Entry 9 is still there by the way of arguing whether to check out the Annex or not.


Well, a lot of us are pretty sure that Alex acts "monotone" in the presence of the Operator, and he looks kinda like that here. Still, I do think this takes place where you say it does. Alex becomes "monotone" here, but this is shortly after the big important encounter in Entry #12 and he has yet to become aware of the Operator.

The Percolator wrote:
With Alex, Brian, and Sarah as the only three that seem to be present at the shoot


While I'm at it, can I ask if Seth was in Entry #12 as well? At the beginning, a blonde-haired guy in a green shirt walks in front of the camera. Then we later see Alex in a blue shirt and Brian in black shirt walk by. Did Brian change shirts or did the distortion make his green shirt look black, or was that Seth at the beginning?

PostPosted: Sat May 05, 2012 9:55 pm
 View user's profile
 Back to top 
The Percolator
Boot


Joined: 07 Sep 2011
Posts: 50
pravado wrote:
the one eye thing refers to being taken over by the operator. it's extremely obvious


I cannot wait for you to be extremely wrong. Smile

As for the recoil theory, it's feasible, but I just don't see a character who doesn't have any shown reason for owning a gun be the shooter when we are explicitly shown who the only character it is that has one.



Foood, I get where you're coming from now, my only qualm being that I feel like SlenderAlex is actually irritable, angry, or an overall terrible mood and possibly prone to hallucinations, and he doesn't seem to be in the paranoid record-himself-at-all-times mode either. Just my pov! (sorry I can't go into more detail, I'm writing on my iPhone right now waiting for a party beeper to pick us up)

PostPosted: Sat May 05, 2012 10:25 pm
 View user's profile
 Back to top 
MrKnowID
Boot

Joined: 04 Apr 2012
Posts: 16

 		Well I would imagine (pure speculation) that the gun may not have been her's to start with, or she got one because she was paranoid and/or being stalked. I mean, how many of us expected Alex to pull a gun on Jay in the building in the woods? So one character unexpectedly had a firearm, who says that another character cannot have one, or that it is the same one. xD Again just speculation.

PostPosted: Sun May 06, 2012 12:02 am
 View user's profile
 Back to top 
elkapo
Unfettered


Joined: 25 Sep 2011
Posts: 367

 		The theory of one-eyed character seems a little extreme, it may refer to other things ...

One eye...



We also have an eye on "Decay" and something similar in "# 22"

Or you can talk about the third eye, you know, in the esoteric sense, not eschatological ...

PostPosted: Sun May 06, 2012 6:08 am
 View user's profile
 Back to top 
Foood
Unfettered


Joined: 22 Apr 2011
Posts: 478

 		Without the one-eyed part, the rest of the theory still works well.

PostPosted: Sun May 06, 2012 9:29 am
 View user's profile
 Back to top 
MrKnowID
Boot

Joined: 04 Apr 2012
Posts: 16

 		I don't really think the one-eye part it relevant (at least as a major detail) but it's still fun to speculate about :3

PostPosted: Sun May 06, 2012 12:16 pm
 View user's profile
 Back to top 
Necronoxide
Boot


Joined: 05 May 2012
Posts: 21
Location: Miami, FL

 		First post woo!

In reference to the whole One-Eye theory, you CAN get shot in the eye and have it be non-fatal. Perfect example is in that western game, GUN. Magruder (sp?) gets shot in the eye from an angle and it essentially takes the outermost layer of the eye off while it may have barely skimmed the bone at the edge of the eye socket. So yeah, in theory it IS possible to be one eyed from a gunshot.

On another note, this entire theory has a surprising amount of evidence and I'm diggin' it.

PostPosted: Sun May 06, 2012 1:59 pm
 View user's profile
 Back to top 
pravado
Unfictologist

Joined: 22 Apr 2011
Posts: 1833

 		When we have totheark entries like inquiry, that basically flat out show the symbol over the guys eye implying he's being controlled, there's no reason to think sarah got shot in the eye and is now walking around like a pirate

You have to realize that this would never be a situation presented in MH

PostPosted: Sun May 06, 2012 5:06 pm
 View user's profile
 Back to top 
sweetgums
Decorated


Joined: 24 Jul 2011
Posts: 240
pravado wrote:
You have to realize that this would never be a situation presented in MH

I personally think that this bit is a little far-fetched, but can we be 100% sure that this is a situation that would never occur? We ain't Troseph, we can't say for sure what can or cannot happen.

For this theory, there are some details that make me unsure of it but most of the arguments actually sound kind of plausible, given that practically everything about this series is about speculation; there are few things that we can actually take as "certain". After this, I wouldn't be surprised it TTA is actually Sarah. This theory has partially converted me from a "Seth-is-TTA" to "Sarah-is-TTA".

PostPosted: Sun May 06, 2012 6:06 pm
 View user's profile
 Back to top 
Jamocha101
Unfettered


Joined: 01 Apr 2012
Posts: 465
Location: Pennsylvania
sweetgums wrote:

I personally think that this bit is a little far-fetched, but can we be 100% sure that this is a situation that would never occur? We ain't Troseph, we can't say for sure what can or cannot happen.


No, but some things are just very inevitably implied. I'm with Pravado on this.

PostPosted: Sun May 06, 2012 7:07 pm
 View user's profile
 Back to top 
pravado
Unfictologist

Joined: 22 Apr 2011
Posts: 1833

 		well for one, if alex shot sarah in the face and took out her eye, she'd probably be dead or at the least handicapped and unable to make totheark videos. even if she lived, there would still be blood all over the carpet where jay found the bullet casing (unless you want to tell me someone planted the casing there in which case i think you're nutso)

they make it very clear that the operator symbol over the eye is supposed to insinuate that they have caught the slender sickness and lost their memory (seen by inquiry)

The operator symbol appears over seth or brians eye in inquiry, are you gonna tell me alex shot one of them in the eye too? is alex just goin around shooting peoples eyes out on purpose

i'm all for the whole "nothing is fact, everything is speculation" but some things are just entirely too far fetched to be possible. WHY would they even make it a plot device? it doesn't fit in with the story. if alex didn't want to kill tim in 35, he sure as hell wouldn't have shot sarah in the face

isn't it more likely that someone shot at slendy in an attempt to prevent themselves from being stalked further only to find out bullets dont work against him

PostPosted: Sun May 06, 2012 7:11 pm
 View user's profile
 Back to top 
The Percolator
Boot


Joined: 07 Sep 2011
Posts: 50
sweetgums wrote:
pravado wrote:
You have to realize that this would never be a situation presented in MH

I personally think that this bit is a little far-fetched, but can we be 100% sure that this is a situation that would never occur? We ain't Troseph, we can't say for sure what can or cannot happen.

For this theory, there are some details that make me unsure of it but most of the arguments actually sound kind of plausible, given that practically everything about this series is about speculation; there are few things that we can actually take as "certain". After this, I wouldn't be surprised it TTA is actually Sarah. This theory has partially converted me from a "Seth-is-TTA" to "Sarah-is-TTA".


Glad to have you on board, and like I said, I'm 95% sure that for the unveil, it'll be Sarah. How or why, might not be exactly in line, but I'm trying to rig a particular reason for the bullet shell at all.

pravado wrote:
well for one, if alex shot sarah in the face and took out her eye, she'd probably be dead or at the least handicapped and unable to make totheark videos. even if she lived, there would still be blood all over the carpet where jay found the bullet casing (unless you want to tell me someone planted the casing there in which case i think you're nutso)

they make it very clear that the operator symbol over the eye is supposed to insinuate that they have caught the slender sickness and lost their memory (seen by inquiry)

The operator symbol appears over seth or brians eye in inquiry, are you gonna tell me alex shot one of them in the eye too? is alex just goin around shooting peoples eyes out on purpose

i'm all for the whole "nothing is fact, everything is speculation" but some things are just entirely too far fetched to be possible. WHY would they even make it a plot device? it doesn't fit in with the story. if alex didn't want to kill tim in 35, he sure as hell wouldn't have shot sarah in the face

isn't it more likely that someone shot at slendy in an attempt to prevent themselves from being stalked further only to find out bullets dont work against him


Pravado, I want to point out that I stated numerous times that the bullet shell COULD be unrelated to Sarah being totheark (and I was just trying to find reason for the bullet shell and odd eye references). That being said, let me present my counter argument on why it's definitely possible

Well for one, if Alex shot Sarah in the eye, she would probably be dead or at least handicapped. Pravado, thank you for educating me and the rest of the board about that, I would be a really shitty pre-med student if I was just learning this now. Which is why I reasoned before that if she survived, there more than likely WAS some kind of mental deterioration resulting in the bizarre style of totheark's videos. Alternatively, as I also stated previous, there could of been an Operator negotiation/intervention on her part, and she is living through supernatural means, and as I said, I theorized that the ark was something that would lead her to liberation through a peaceful death (as in, a vessel that lead to greater things) or death itself.

They make it very clear that The Operator symbol (over the eye) implies slender sickness. That's cool man, I never said that it didn't. The only reference I've made was to "Indicator", where the baby doll's right eye is MISSING and the baby's left eye has the appearance of a 0 dial key on a phone, accompanied by the OPER. The Operator symbol isn't even present in Indicator, making your argument about the "Operator symbol in front of the eye" null in the first place.

But, sure, let's use Inquiry in this argument. In fact, 29 seconds into Inquiry...



Look like a bleeding eye to anyone else?

I'm not arguing that The Operator symbol appearing on someone marks some degree or control or association. enttry 37 makes that pretty clear. But, considering we don't even know the purpose for the Operator Symbol OR who that even is that appears on it, your counterargument loses more and more ground. You're pretty damn sure that it's Seth or Brian. Let's break that down:

- The 1st You Are You picture is the one you're speaking of. The Operator Symbol does appear over where the eye would be, but with all the distortion it's impossible to tell who it is. Sure, Seth is a viable candidate. I think Brian is unlikely because I believe him to be the last Who Are You? photo. But what if it's not Seth, and it's Jay? What if his eye being marked is tta's way of saying "You're the camera guy", recording all these Operator events and posting the entries up. Or even if it is Seth, what if Seth is Hoody and that's Sarah's way of saying she trusts him? I will repeat again, my previous arguments didn't even make any point of The Operator Symbol over the eye meaning the eye was shot. The lost eye argument was made from the lack of any eye to begin with in Indicator. And all, in all, what all the distortion in that first photo, I would have a good laugh if it turned out to be Sarah.

"I could of done worse and I probably should of" are Alex's exact words from Entry 36. Alex probably wanted to kill Tim, and probably didn't do it because Jay was around. Alex needed Jay to trust him, because as we've seen before, Alex has a penchant for sacrificing people to The Operator and possibly plans to do it (again?) to Jay at some point. Alex could also need Tim alive for some purpose too (to make it look like Jay has more enemies than friends, to put Alex in a better light, and maybe even for sacrificial purposes).

The bullet shell could be planted. It's definitely not the first thing we've seen planted before. Addition tells us that Masky (or another part of tta) was in that house. Masky has planted his own mask, a safe code, and possibly even the bullet shell. In fact, a plant makes an INCREDIBLE amount of sense. Sure, the bullet shell could of been the remnant from a firing in the house, and Alex's drawings could of fallen on them after. BUT, remember what drawings Jay takes from the house, and remember that the bullet shell was UNDER drawings. One of the drawings that Jay gets is the "Sees me.. at the tower" leading him to The Red Tower. "Version" makes it clear that tta was more than likely the one that left that tape for Jay and not Alex (waiting for you). Maybe Masky planted that specific drawing and bullet shell together so Jay would find it. More curiously, we know why Masky would steal the pills, but why steal the bullet shell if it was just something that someone blindly attempted to use against The Operator?

Now, pravado, please don't tl;dr this. You doing so as frequently as you seem to do is making for some holes in your arguments. Wink

PostPosted: Mon May 07, 2012 1:39 am
 View user's profile
 Back to top 
Owlish
Veteran


Joined: 05 Sep 2011
Posts: 78
MrKnowID wrote:
At least I cannot think of a way that being shot which results in blindness/ loss of eye can not be fatal.


It's possible, if the bullet grazed her deep enough to do damage to the eye and eye socket but not the brain. Depends on the angle. (I want to reference Michelle Rodriguez in Machete, but it is a rather silly movie.) Though your theory about kickback is absolutely valid as well.

I'm very interested in this theory. Unfortunately real life has thus far prevented me from going back through the series, so I don't feel I can really contribute anything right now. Although I have to say that I always thought Hoody, from the first time we saw Hoody, was female.

I also have to say, there's something unintentionally funny about a group of people banding together to torment their bitchy director via cryptic videos.

PostPosted: Mon May 07, 2012 2:39 am
 View user's profile
 Back to top 
Blank_Zero
Unfettered


Joined: 07 Sep 2011
Posts: 537

 		So....Sarah was phone?


On a more serious note, I'd like to congratulate Pravado on an excellent use of trolling. Unfortunately, there's a lot of really cool circumstantial evidence that points at Sarah, the most damning being the Feminine figure in the window and (in my humble opinion) the character in the woods where Alex is attacked by Tim. That figure is slim and lithe. Definitely looking to be a female. Also, that figure looks NOTHING like hoodie. 3rd player?

PostPosted: Mon May 07, 2012 3:44 am
 View user's profile
 Back to top 
Deimos
Unfettered


Joined: 22 Mar 2010
Posts: 432
Location: Wherever I may roam
Blank_Zero wrote:
So....Sarah was phone?


On a more serious note, I'd like to congratulate Pravado on an excellent use of trolling. Unfortunately, there's a lot of really cool circumstantial evidence that points at Sarah, the most damning being the Feminine figure in the window and (in my humble opinion) the character in the woods where Alex is attacked by Tim. That figure is slim and lithe. Definitely looking to be a female. Also, that figure looks NOTHING like hoodie. 3rd player?


Spoiler (Rollover to View):
OOG: Troy said not to base speculation on actor builds. For example, the lithe feminine person in the woods was played by Troy himself.

_________________
Lost to Insanity

Interplosionary

PostPosted: Mon May 07, 2012 3:54 am
 View user's profile
 Back to top 
Display posts from previous:   Sort by:   
Page 3 of 17 [242 Posts]   Goto page: Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, ..., 15, 16, 17  Next
View previous topicView next topic
 Forum index » Chaotic Fiction » Marble Hornets
Jump to:  


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
You cannot post calendar events in this forum



Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group