Forums Loading, stand by... HOME

[ View Thread ] [ Post Response ] [ Return to Index ] [ Read Prev Msg ] [ Read Next Msg ]

And the head is(i think)..(a tad long)

Posted By: Smasher (c1282351-a.smateo1.sfba.home.com)
Date: 2/23/2001 at 12:01 a.m.

In Response To: My post-happiness preceded wisdom... (David Bricker)

After reading through this extensive thread, and referring to fear, other threads, and the encyclopedia, i have a theory on who the head is. And, unlike bitner or forrest, I don't know the truth for sure, and am therefore not obligated to keep it a secret. Look this one over, and tell me what I'm missing (and what forrest won't reveal).

Theory: The head is the faceless man.

First off, if a man is faceless, why not be headless as well? Second, we never see anything about the faceless man, and he doesn't seem to have an army. This fits, since the head has been buried(right?) for some period of time, and any army he might have had would have long since disbanded or been incorperated into the other fallens' armies. Third, since forrest now knows the identity of the head, I think he can be used as evidence (unless he's explicitly lied as opposed to merely mislead, which i don't believe). In another post in this thread, he quoted: "He(the head) claimed to be an avatara or lieutenant of Connacht's." He later said:

"Until recently I had come to the conclusion that whatever else be thought about the Head, he was telling the truth (or very close to it) on both occasions. And now, after The Revelation, I stand by that belief."

The faceless one could indeed be considered to be a lieutenant of Connacht's. Although we don't know whether or not he actually served him when he was Connacht, Balor is still technically Connacht, and so that claim is still technically true, if not literally true. As for the avatara, the definition of avatara is a bit ambiguous, so it basically means either "an archmage not with the fallen" or "one of the nine." We can be pretty sure that he was never one of the nine, but for all we know he could have been good before, thus qualifying under "an archmage not with the fallen". I'll admit that that part is a little shaky, but i don't think it can be disproven.

I think there was more evidence that I was going to give, but I've forgotten it(I have four windows open, trying to keep track of everything). I might add more to this later, or maybe one of you could help.

Messages In This Thread

[ View Thread ] [ Post Response ] [ Return to Index ] [ Read Prev Msg ] [ Read Next Msg ]

For your own future enjoyment, please report any major forum abusers or cgi errors so we can remedy the problem. If you have any questions email us.

The Asylum

The Asylum is maintained by Myth Admin with WebBBS 5.12.