A very important subtle poll

[Future Esthar]

Because Edea is Ulti and she is still possessed by X.
Why can´t you see my theory has internal consistency even if it goes against the script almost entirely?
Not only that but it was backed up by many graphical details and events.That is lack of intuition.
X can time travel,can send his consciousness to the past and future and has no real magical power.
Whatever happens on the game that sugests the opposite is manipulated by X.

[Christmas]

everyone knows that Seifer isn't dead...

ok, now I participated to this VERY IMPORTANT POLL

But this poll has turn out to be something more than meet the eyes now, thanks for participating anyway(on behalf of Esthar that is).

Because Edea is Ulti and she is still possessed by X.
Why can´t you see my theory has internal consistency even if it goes against the script almost entirely?
Not only that but it was backed up by many graphical details and events.That is lack of intuition.
X can time travel,can send his consciousness to the past and future and has no real magical power.
Whatever happens on the game that sugests the opposite is manipulated by X.

Now every events, script are all lie since everything is manipulated by "X". I can't see the "internal consistency" because you are saying all this by your own basis all along. It is like:

"Xaven, you stole ZuZu's candy."
"But I didn't"
"Look, I say you stole it after much investigation and deduction which I cannot explain to you but can't you see through it yourself? So just plead guility"
"But this doesn't fit in with what the law say"
"Ya, but from my point of view of reading the law book, it fit perfectly fine"
"What the smuf...."

(Sorry if I offended anyone by using their names in this example...)

And I still dun see any of the graphical details you are talking about...
Also the major part in the game is Ellone can send someone consious back to the past and only she can do that which make her play a rather vital role in the game plot and should I say the main evil scheme.

But if someone else can do it and the someone else is the real villian, I still dun see any point of he villian going after Ellone to perform time compression.

[Future Esthar]

That´s why I don´t rely just on the script but also on graphical minor details and events.
You know I don´t just say X is manipulating events to made my theories right.

An example:

Someone stoles a jar.
We asks Joseph(let´s call him this) if he stole the jar.
He says:No,it was Anna.Don´t you see?She is running from you.
However Joseph created an invinsible soldier to go after Anna(it can happen) and he adviced her that the soldier will go after her (and she feels it through radiation or some other thing and started running).

However we can see that Joseph was lying because we see his digital fingerprints on the vase.
(We had already recovered the vase somehow and are just looking for the culprit).

[Christmas]

That´s why I don´t rely just on the script but also on graphical minor details and events.
You know I don´t just say X is manipulating events to made my theories right.

An example:

Someone stoles a jar.
We asks Joseph(let´s call him this) if he stole the jar.
He says:No,it was Anna.Don´t you see?She is running from you.
However Joseph created an invinsible soldier to go after Anna(it can happen) and he adviced her that the soldier will go after her (and she feels it through radiation or some other thing and started running).

However we can see that Joseph was lying because we see his digital fingerprints on the vase.
(We had already recovered the vase somehow and are just looking for the culprit).

Anna will only be branded as a SUSPECT but not a CULPRIT.
Your statement willl not be valid until Anna is caught because she could have just touched the vase and left the fingerprints behind and also other factors.

Look: A person is innocent until proven guilty. (I dun know that if it apply in other countries though)

So you can't just base on graphics to do all the job ignore the other facts.

[Future Esthar]

The example was not the best but you understood the meaning,don´t you?

[Christmas]

The example was not the best but you understood the meaning,don´t you?

Ya, so? You still can't reply on graphics and ignore the other facts.

Example:

A farmer grow a tomato.
The tomato LOOK like a tomato.
But the tomato doesn't TASTE like a tomato.

[Xaven]

Could you give us an example of "graphical details" from the game that supports your theories, please. Thanks.

[Future Esthar]

The Ellone=Rinoa theory was backed up by two pictures,don´t you remember?

[Xaven]

The Ellone=Rinoa theory was backed up by two pictures,don´t you remember?

Are you talking about that whole thing about Rinoa looking like she has shorter hair for a moment? Funny, I still call those mistakes or bad camera angles.

[Christmas]

Are you talking about that whole thing about Rinoa looking like she has shorter hair for a moment? Funny, I still call those mistakes or bad camera angles.

And I will still say even a kid could tell those are just doubling images of Rinoa.

[Del Murder]

This just seems to have become a duplicate discussion of your other thread.