LGPedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Down The Rabbit Hole: The Hunt For Bree

2009-08-29T13:35:10Z

JaredThaJa:

jayhenry did an awesome job on this one. --[[User:Milowent|Milowent]] 12:02, 15 November 2006 (PST)

==In The Eye of The Media Storm==
In this section there is a line that says<br>
*On September 1, poster scdgoofy uncovered that '''Kenneth Goodfried''', an attorney in Encino, California, had filed to register lonelygirl15 as a trademark on August 21, 2006.<br>
Was that supposed to read ''Greg'' Goodfried? If not, who is Kenneth? Just wonderin'<br>
[[User:OwenIsCool|OwenIsCool]] 14:03, 14 January 2007 (CST)

==Feature Nomination==

I think this is a great article to read for newcomers and fans alike. Everyone is at least somewhat interested in how lonelygirl15 was outed, and this article is detailed enough for longtime fans while not being confusing to newbies. [[User:OwenIsCool|OwenIsCool]] 16:13, 14 February 2007 (CST)

I agree, but i really want to see Lonelygirl15.com, recaps on the front. --[[User:Iris2009|TJ Marsh]] 16:16, 14 February 2007 (CST)

:As a feature? Then you should nominate them on their page. [[User:OwenIsCool|OwenIsCool]] 16:29, 14 February 2007 (CST)

I should. Thanks OIC! --[[User:Iris2009|TJ Marsh]] 16:31, 14 February 2007 (CST)

== I remember this ==

I remember when this made national news that a girl going by "lonelygirl15" was a hoax, and then later I heard on the news when she died. But I forgot about it until 2 years later when I found it on youtube again. And I was like, "Woah, I've seen this girl before."

== inaccurately linking Crowley to Satanism and Adolf Hitler==

I feel the need to address this, the Link is Inaccurate only if you have an Inaccurate view of what Satanism is.

People who don't Study religion seem to assume a Satanist would be someone who believes the Judeo-Christian view of the History of the Universe, but knowing choose to side with the Villain. In fact no one is that Stupid.

Anton Levy's Satanism as laid out in The Satanic Bible is really At theist in it's Theology (Like most forms of Buddhism), they simply use the figure of Satan as symbol for Rebelling against Societal norms.

Others simply are Occultist or Neo-Pagan who choose to associate the Biblical figure of Satan/The Devil with whatever Pagan deities their worshiping, cause in Polytheistic belief system it is common to associate deities from other pantheons with equivalent or similar deities in your own. Zeus-Amon being a major example, and of course the Romans inevitably Turing all their gods into alternate names for the Greek Olympians. Some ancient Greek writer did try associate the God of The Jews with Saturn, as documented by Tacitus.

I'm pretty sure Crowley intended for his Belief system to have some affinity with the negative figure of the Bible, since he called himself "The Beast 666".-JaredThaJa

Talk:1943 abduction

2009-08-29T10:07:30Z

JaredThaJa:

== meta-discussion and sketchy details ==

I wanted to discuss something about the videos as a whole, but wasn't sure where to put it. Then I realized that this incident embodies exactly the sort of thing I want to talk about.

Daniel mentions this article, but gives very few details about it. (Did the ''article'' say she was abducted, or just that she had disappeared? Was the girl ever found? Why was Crowley mentioned in the article if he was never linked to the incident?) That in itself is a bit troubling, but more troubling to me is the fact that nobody can find information on this anywhere but Daniel.

In some videos, when something odd happens, you can see that it's clearly a clue, for instance, when [[Purple Monkey]] holds up the numbers in [[Bree The Cookie Monster]]. In other videos, there are odd things that happen, and it's hard to tell what to make of it, like Bree's claim about sacrificing monkeys in [[A Peace Offering (and P. Monkey Boogies)]]. Is it something randomly made up to be funny, something purposefully made up to be a clue, or something that is a real-life fact that was included for one of the above reasons?

What are we really meant to make of the info in this video? There are many possibilities. The event may have really happened in 1943 in the real world, or maybe it's something that only happened in 1943 in the [[Breeniverse]]. If it was made up by the writers--regardless of whether it happened in the Breeniverse or not--was it put in Daniel's video to be a clue, or just to add a bit of spookiness to the story? While it seems a bit of stretch, it's a possibility that Daniel is lying, and the article doesn't exist, even in the Breeniverse.

So the main question on this video (and other matters like the [[Yield sign]] and the way some videos appear to have things edited into or out of them) for me is, is the vagueness of Daniel's reporting of this incident a case of Daniel being sloppy in conveying details, Daniel telling a clumsy lie, intentional vagueness on the part of the writers, or poor writing on the part of the writers? Or is it something else entirely? --[[User:Brucker|Brucker]] 09:49, 20 October 2006 (PDT)

The abuduction has me baffled. I have looked for information and there are some links between Crowley and AZ but nothing about an abduction...........I think its is probably importand and relevant given that one of Lucys locations is in AZ- [[User:modelmotion|modelmotion]]

:Really interesting thoughts Brucker. I think the abduction should definitely be included in the Breeniverse timeline. My guess is that this particular bit of information, about Crowley, was created for the story. Not only can people find no evidence of an abduction, nobody has even been able to find evidence that Crowley spent time in Arizona.--[[User:JayHenry|JayHenry]] 11:31, 20 October 2006 (PDT)

Okay, let me add more to this, because the revelations of the weekend highlight a little more of this issue, I believe. In [[Bree The Cookie Monster]], when Purple Monkey shows the numbers, as has been noted, this is the most clear and blatant clue in the whole series. The blatantness of the clue always seemed to me to be a case of sloppiness on the part of the creators, since it seems from what I read in the CassieIsWatching stuff, there are a lot of people who can dig out clues that are far more subtle, so why be so blatant about it?

Now it would seem that it was ''Bree'' who was being blatant. She put the clue in the video in such an obvious fashion that nobody could miss it, because she was planting a red herring for Daniel. The clumsiness of the clue was, in a sense, a part of the overall plotline.

So I think it once again brings a lot of things into question. I forgot to mention it above, apparently, but in many of the videos, with all this excess of editing, there are times when the lighting in the room seems to show that the video we are watching is edited out of order (I'm having a hard time finding a blatant example, but I'm pretty sure there was one). Is that bad editing, or a clue?--[[User:Brucker|Brucker]] 11:02, 23 October 2006 (PDT)

:Great points, Brucker. Do you ever post at [[The Children of Anchor Cove|the cove]]? Lots of this sort of analysis. In the Breeniverse, Bree did the Cookie Monster video before she was even told about the ceremony. Doesn't seem likely that they were planting a trap for Daniel that early, or that she would have gone along with it. I think 10-12-06 is an example of the creators trying to be too clever.--[[User:JayHenry|JayHenry]] 11:18, 23 October 2006 (PDT)

::Hmm, you're right, that clue does seem to come out of sequence, doesn't it. I keep thinking whenever I read people theorizing that Bree is actually setting up a trap for Daniel that they've just seen that movie from the 1980's too many times (if you don't know the movie I'm talking about, forget it; that's a huge spoiler) and it doesn't seem likely to me. Now I've got to wonder. All of this is either going to turn out to be really stupid or really brilliant in the end when all the pieces come together.--[[User:208.144.234.2|208.144.234.2]] 13:28, 23 October 2006 (PDT)

:I agree with JayHenry, I don't think The idea was that bree was doing it, i think it was an out-of-the-storyline thing that the creators did as a hint.

==My Two Cents==

This Specific event is made up for the story, but in the story I don't think Daniel was lying, it lacked details cause this was early on and Daniel didn't know what to make of it.

In the Real World however Crowley is suspected to have been a Pedophile Serial Killer.-JaredThaJa

Talk:1943 abduction

2009-08-29T10:06:36Z

JaredThaJa:

== meta-discussion and sketchy details ==

I wanted to discuss something about the videos as a whole, but wasn't sure where to put it. Then I realized that this incident embodies exactly the sort of thing I want to talk about.

Daniel mentions this article, but gives very few details about it. (Did the ''article'' say she was abducted, or just that she had disappeared? Was the girl ever found? Why was Crowley mentioned in the article if he was never linked to the incident?) That in itself is a bit troubling, but more troubling to me is the fact that nobody can find information on this anywhere but Daniel.

In some videos, when something odd happens, you can see that it's clearly a clue, for instance, when [[Purple Monkey]] holds up the numbers in [[Bree The Cookie Monster]]. In other videos, there are odd things that happen, and it's hard to tell what to make of it, like Bree's claim about sacrificing monkeys in [[A Peace Offering (and P. Monkey Boogies)]]. Is it something randomly made up to be funny, something purposefully made up to be a clue, or something that is a real-life fact that was included for one of the above reasons?

What are we really meant to make of the info in this video? There are many possibilities. The event may have really happened in 1943 in the real world, or maybe it's something that only happened in 1943 in the [[Breeniverse]]. If it was made up by the writers--regardless of whether it happened in the Breeniverse or not--was it put in Daniel's video to be a clue, or just to add a bit of spookiness to the story? While it seems a bit of stretch, it's a possibility that Daniel is lying, and the article doesn't exist, even in the Breeniverse.

So the main question on this video (and other matters like the [[Yield sign]] and the way some videos appear to have things edited into or out of them) for me is, is the vagueness of Daniel's reporting of this incident a case of Daniel being sloppy in conveying details, Daniel telling a clumsy lie, intentional vagueness on the part of the writers, or poor writing on the part of the writers? Or is it something else entirely? --[[User:Brucker|Brucker]] 09:49, 20 October 2006 (PDT)

The abuduction has me baffled. I have looked for information and there are some links between Crowley and AZ but nothing about an abduction...........I think its is probably importand and relevant given that one of Lucys locations is in AZ- [[User:modelmotion|modelmotion]]

:Really interesting thoughts Brucker. I think the abduction should definitely be included in the Breeniverse timeline. My guess is that this particular bit of information, about Crowley, was created for the story. Not only can people find no evidence of an abduction, nobody has even been able to find evidence that Crowley spent time in Arizona.--[[User:JayHenry|JayHenry]] 11:31, 20 October 2006 (PDT)

Okay, let me add more to this, because the revelations of the weekend highlight a little more of this issue, I believe. In [[Bree The Cookie Monster]], when Purple Monkey shows the numbers, as has been noted, this is the most clear and blatant clue in the whole series. The blatantness of the clue always seemed to me to be a case of sloppiness on the part of the creators, since it seems from what I read in the CassieIsWatching stuff, there are a lot of people who can dig out clues that are far more subtle, so why be so blatant about it?

Now it would seem that it was ''Bree'' who was being blatant. She put the clue in the video in such an obvious fashion that nobody could miss it, because she was planting a red herring for Daniel. The clumsiness of the clue was, in a sense, a part of the overall plotline.

So I think it once again brings a lot of things into question. I forgot to mention it above, apparently, but in many of the videos, with all this excess of editing, there are times when the lighting in the room seems to show that the video we are watching is edited out of order (I'm having a hard time finding a blatant example, but I'm pretty sure there was one). Is that bad editing, or a clue?--[[User:Brucker|Brucker]] 11:02, 23 October 2006 (PDT)

:Great points, Brucker. Do you ever post at [[The Children of Anchor Cove|the cove]]? Lots of this sort of analysis. In the Breeniverse, Bree did the Cookie Monster video before she was even told about the ceremony. Doesn't seem likely that they were planting a trap for Daniel that early, or that she would have gone along with it. I think 10-12-06 is an example of the creators trying to be too clever.--[[User:JayHenry|JayHenry]] 11:18, 23 October 2006 (PDT)

::Hmm, you're right, that clue does seem to come out of sequence, doesn't it. I keep thinking whenever I read people theorizing that Bree is actually setting up a trap for Daniel that they've just seen that movie from the 1980's too many times (if you don't know the movie I'm talking about, forget it; that's a huge spoiler) and it doesn't seem likely to me. Now I've got to wonder. All of this is either going to turn out to be really stupid or really brilliant in the end when all the pieces come together.--[[User:208.144.234.2|208.144.234.2]] 13:28, 23 October 2006 (PDT)

:I agree with JayHenry, I don't think The idea was that bree was doing it, i think it was an out-of-the-storyline thing that the creators did as a hint.

This Specific event is made up for the story, but in the story I don't think Daniel was lying, it lacked details cause this was early on and Daniel didn't know what to make of it.

In the Real World however Crowley is suspected to have been a Pedophile Serial Killer.