Is Val Important

[Wolf of the Steppes]

1 hour ago, The Weirwoods Eyes said:

Dear gods what is this nonsense? That is two video's by this order of the greenhand i've seen posted today and both seem absurd. Is this the new PJ? are they in competition to see who can make up the most unlikely "theory" and get the general public to swallow it? 

Yes, or it sure seems so.  At this point that the waters are so muddy because:

3 hours ago, The Doctor's Consort said:

Their only answer was "conspiracy", which is a *smart* way to say "I have no idea what really is going on. I just try to be original and made things up."

Even though I don't have many posts, I have read this forum for about 8 years.  As time goes on, it is evident that the overall discussion in general has deteriorated because more people are misinformed.  Whether it is the show (I do not watch), or videos like this.

3 hours ago, The Fattest Leech said:

it is just this video does not paint a whole, or accurate, picture because they quote things incorrectly and leave out other important bits of info- like Val's age. 

I think you can only really flesh out theories in a general discussion with other people, that is why I enjoy this forum--others being able to remind you of FACTS that you have forgotten. Just putting together a video is like making an OP without the discussion. Then there are thousands of people that "agree" with it and have their minds made up without others being able to poke holes in it (like the size of moby dick's dick  )

[Coolbeard the Exile]

28 minutes ago, The Weirwoods Eyes said:

All of them. Like seriously every single one I have ever seen of PJ's and the two thus far I have seen by this OotGH. feel free to explain how I am wrong if you like. But when there are holes in it the size of moby dicks dick, yeah I call nonsense. 

I think all his hypotheses are following a clear red logical line and are well grounded in quotes and the books.

You should bring up what you don't like since you brought up that all his stuff is bs.

 

QUESTION: You only like r+l=j right?

[Damon_Tor]

4 hours ago, Coolbeard the Exile said:

Obviously not everyone knows what it means but 99% of people know what someone is talking about when they say theory.

The problem is when people say theory and mean "peer reviewed and tested and backed up by hard data and academic concurrences" and people hear it and think "some idea some guy has". It's not of any consequence whether people hear about the "Varys is a merman theory" and know nobody is talking about anything with any validity, but when people hear something like "climate change theory" and assume that because a theory is just an idea (because the word has been so thoroughly misused) that there's no cause for any alarm. They respond with "well it's just a theory" forgetting that "theory" is basically the highest level of scientific knowledge available to us.

That's an example. I'm not taking a side on climate change nor do I want this to become a discussion about climate change.

By propagating the misuse of that word, you are contributing to a serious deficit in our ability to have intelligent discussion about science, which has a real impact on policy that matters.

[Coolbeard the Exile]

3 minutes ago, Damon_Tor said:

The problem is when people say theory and mean "peer reviewed and tested and backed up by hard data and academic concurrences" and people hear it and think "some idea some guy has". It's not of any consequence whether people hear about the "Varys is a merman theory" and know nobody is talking about anything with any validity, but when people hear something like "climate change theory" and assume that because a theory is just an idea (because the word has been so thoroughly misused) that there's no cause for any alarm. They respond with "well it's just a theory" forgetting that "theory" is basically the highest level of scientific knowledge available to us.

That's an example. I'm not taking a side on climate change nor do I want this to become a discussion about climate change.

By propagating the misuse of that word, you are contributing to a serious deficit in our ability to have intelligent discussion about science, which has a real impact on policy that matters.

Im sorry, im sorry, im sorry i shall henceforth use the word hypothesis so you can understand.

[crowcrow]

Val has always seemed a bit suspicious to me

Like she knows how to act around the southern lords and she knows about courtesies and we have tons of theories about her being a priestess or nymeria reborn and yada yada

I'm left with an impression that Val is 10009921833893% enigma cloaked in mysteries

[GhostNymeria]

 

13 hours ago, Coolbeard the Exile said:

They make hypotheses based on the books and use textual evidence from the books. They don't consider the tv series and neither do i. You'r example is ridicolous i bet you couldn't make an actual example.

Why are you on this forum if you only drink the r+l=j cool aid in that narrow minded endless circlejerk?

Yet you never give examples why they are nonsense how about you do that.

I'm sorry, but what exactly is narrow minded about R+L=J? And circlejerk, really? Because we find that theory much more likely and logical than the others?

Instead of getting mad at everyone that disagree with you about the Val video, post some textual proof here why you think it's convincing. You keep tellig people to point out what they got wrong. Post the qoutes that could count as evidence instead, then we can have a discussion about them. Simply posting a video is not going to start a deep discussion. We need physical book qoutes to work with.

[Coolbeard the Exile]

15 hours ago, The Doctor's Consort said:

I am here to talk about theories that have to do with a book series and not discussing about someone’s wishful thinking on youtube. I am more than happy to discuss theories, not videos.

You mean how Ned's eyes haven't changed color, how Val is older than Jon, how it doesn't make sense Val to be Beyond the Wall if she was Ashara's daughter? We have already done it two pages ago.

Jesus Christ...

The hypotheses are just made into video and audio form seirously omg for easiest and clearest  and best way off understanding!!!.

George has said that Eddard's dream did not go down literlally. The whole dream seems to be bs. Why would the most honourable dudes in all off asoiaf start killing eachother without having a conversation??? George has said that Eddard had a fever dream at that point in time. There is no reason for them to kill eachother since Eddard is not a threat to Rheagar's girl or his baby. There is no logical way that leads to everyone killing eachother. And the Kingsguard's objective was to protect Lyanna and little "Aegon" why would they stand out in the open and not in the narrow tower where they could more easily defend?

It is said that Eddard's eyes seemed to change based on his mood and i believe the same was said about Val. I asked for evidence for Val being older than Jon and you dissed me. I explained that she was in Dorne for most of her life as Allyria Dayne and very recently she went North for some purpose. Why would the raven scream blood when Jon was talking about Mance and Val?

 

[Ralphis Baratheon]

5 minutes ago, Coolbeard the Exile said:

Jesus Christ...

The hypotheses are just made into video and audio form seirously omg for easiest and clearest  and best way off understanding!!!.

George has said that Eddard's dream did not go down literlally. The whole dream seems to be bs. Why would the most honourable dudes in all off asoiaf start killing eachother without having a conversation??? George has said that Eddard had a fever dream at that point in time. There is no reason for them to kill eachother since Eddard is not a threat to Rheagar's girl or his baby. There is no logical way that leads to everyone killing eachother. And the Kingsguard's objective was to protect Lyanna and little "Aegon" why would they stand out in the open and not in the narrow tower where they could more easily defend?

It is said that Eddard's eyes seemed to change based on his mood and i believe the same was said about Val. I asked for evidence for Val being older than Jon and you dissed me. I explained that she was in Dorne for most of her life as Allyria Dayne and very recently she went North for some purpose. Why would the raven scream blood when Jon was talking about Mance and Val?

 

I'm really not trying to be rude or anything but are you involved with making the videos for the order of the green hand?

Every time I see you in a thread about Jon/Val/Mance/Arthur/ect. you come in and post something that comes from the order of the green hand. Then when someone asks why you think that you post a link to their videos.  

[Jon's Queen Consort]

13 minutes ago, Coolbeard the Exile said:

Jesus Christ...

The hypotheses are just made into video and audio form seirously omg for easiest and clearest  and best way off understanding!!!.

George has said that Eddard's dream did not go down literlally. The whole dream seems to be bs. Why would the most honourable dudes in all off asoiaf start killing eachother without having a conversation??? George has said that Eddard had a fever dream at that point in time. There is no reason for them to kill eachother since Eddard is not a threat to Rheagar's girl or his baby. There is no logical way that leads to everyone killing eachother. And the Kingsguard's objective was to protect Lyanna and little "Aegon" why would they stand out in the open and not in the narrow tower where they could more easily defend?

It is said that Eddard's eyes seemed to change based on his mood and i believe the same was said about Val. I asked for evidence for Val being older than Jon and you dissed me. I explained that she was in Dorne for most of her life as Allyria Dayne and very recently she went North for some purpose. Why would the raven scream blood when Jon was talking about Mance and Val?

Again, here we discuss the book series not the youtube videos. If you want for someone to have a serious discussion with you then you should do the same. Find quotes that support your claims and then people will do the same. You cannot post a vid and expect for people to actually care enough to discuss seriously with you.

[Coolbeard the Exile]

11 minutes ago, Ralphis Baratheon said:

I'm really not trying to be rude or anything but are you involved with making the videos for the order of the green hand?

Every time I see you in a thread about Jon/Val/Mance/Arthur/ect. you come in and post something that comes from the order of the green hand. Then when someone asks why you think that you post a link to their videos.  

Im not.

I often lay out in a related thread that i believe dadadda and lay out some reasoning and when people are ask more i advice them to watch the video since it is a better way of understanding the hypothesis.

[chrisdaw]

Val is important simply to teach us that Jon still loves Ygritte and that's not looking like changing the whole series. Val is tempting flesh, but Ygritte owns his heart. Jon is coming back Ice. Hard and cold, all warmth fled. Armoured in ice. The boy dead, the man born. There's not going to be any new loves.

Once Jon gets going (there might be an initial 'fuck all this' period like the show is doing) he's going to be ruthless calculation. The new Stannis. Absolutely single minded in saving the realm and doing justice, and brutal in his execution. Merciless. Loveless.

The manifestation will be a very bloody and successful campaign south to bend by pure force the IT and all of Westeros to his will. So that they will unite and fight against the Others. Which will include marrying Arya off against her will to the IT to forge his peace.

That's not to say he will not marry Val. If it makes political sense, if it brings him more swords, then he will. But he will not love Val. He will not love a person like that ever again.

Lady Stoneheart is actually the lead in for Jon. Arya will recognise that her mother reborn is incapable of love and mercy, and put her down. Then she's going to come across the new reborn Jon, and begin to wonder if she's looking at the same thing. If Jon has become like her mother, if Jon has become what Arya was on the path to becoming.

It's all being set up for the question. Has he truly gone off the deep end? Will he shatter like Stannis? Is Jon truly without mercy now? Is he truly loveless?

The answer is obviously no, but before we get there he has to be brought to brink. What will bring this about is his bastard child swelling away in Dany's belly. She will wish to sacrifice the child to wake the dragon and save the realm. He will have to decide whether he will sit by and allow the sacrifice of the bastard child, his own flesh and blood that he never wanted and was seduced into creating when doing so might save Westeros. Or if the old Jon is still there, the Jon who was disgusted by Craster's sacrifice, who defied his king to swap children to save them from being sacrificed, the Jon who couldn't imagine what kind of monster would sacrifice a living babe to the flame.

He will have to choose if he is Rhaegar's son. A fire and blood Targaryen, their ways like their house words the sacrifice of blood for fire. Or if he is Ned's son, Ned who at every turn chose to save the innocent child(ren) above all else, even his precious honour.

It's a question foreshadowed repeatedly. Has Jon gone completely dark? Fully cold? Total ice? Has he lost all feeling? All fire? All warmth? All sun? Most straight-forward and all encompassing is probably this one.

Quote

In the Jade Compendium, Colloquo Votar recounts a curious legend from Yi Ti, which states that the sun hid its face from the earth for a lifetime, ashamed at something none could discover, and that disaster was averted only by the deeds of a woman with a monkey's tail.

The sun is Jon's capacity for love, the shame impregnating Dany, the woman who wakes him up for question. It will not be a woman but a baby, his. When Dany births their little girl, the result of his shame, he will feel it no longer and back will come his love. And he will not allow her to burn.

[GhostNymeria]

1 hour ago, Coolbeard the Exile said:

Jesus Christ...

The hypotheses are just made into video and audio form seirously omg for easiest and clearest  and best way off understanding!!!.

George has said that Eddard's dream did not go down literlally. The whole dream seems to be bs. Why would the most honourable dudes in all off asoiaf start killing eachother without having a conversation??? George has said that Eddard had a fever dream at that point in time. There is no reason for them to kill eachother since Eddard is not a threat to Rheagar's girl or his baby. There is no logical way that leads to everyone killing eachother. And the Kingsguard's objective was to protect Lyanna and little "Aegon" why would they stand out in the open and not in the narrow tower where they could more easily defend?

Because they were following orders. If Rhaegar ordered them to not let anyone in, then they wouldn't let anyone in. The kingsguard might have known Ned wasn't a threat, but they still didn't know him personally. There was no guarantee. Imagine what someone like Tywin or Randyll Tarly would have done in Ned's place. And let's say they did know Ned wouldn't hurt the baby and would keep the secret. What about Ned's 6 companions then? There's no way the Kingsguard would let 6 men they did not know or trusted come close to the baby. That's why they fought, because of Ned's companions. That is logical.

And why they would stand in the open: Becasuse that's how they have learned to fight all their lifes. Why would the choose to fight where they can't swing their sword properly? What proof is there even that fighting in a narrow tower would be an easier way to defeit your opponents? Even if there was, you already answered your own question. They were "the most honourable dudes in all off asoiaf"  as you put it. It would be illogical if they didn't fight honourably then.

[GhostNymeria]

1 hour ago, Coolbeard the Exile said:

Why would the raven scream blood when Jon was talking about Mance and Val?

Forgot to add this in my last respons. This is the quote:

Quote

"My lord, if I might ask … I saw Gilly leaving. She was almost crying." "Val sent her to plead for Mance again," Jon lied, and they talked for a while of Mance and Stannis and Melisandre of Asshai, until the raven ate the last corn kernel and screamed, "Blood." "I am sending Gilly away," Jon said. "Her and the boy. We will need to find another wet nurse for his milk brother." Jon, ADWD

They also talk about Stannis and Melisandre. Doesn't OotGH also think Melisandre is Shiera Seastar?  Then the "blood" comment would make just as much sense if BR is skinchanging the Raven. It could also refer to the baby swap Jon does with Gilly. 

[The Fattest Leech]

16 minutes ago, GhostNymeria said:

Forgot to add this in my last respons. This is the quote:

They also talk about Stannis and Melisandre. Doesn't OotGH also think Melisandre is Shiera Seastar?  Then the "blood" comment would make just as much sense if BR is skinchanging the Raven. It could also refer to the baby swap Jon does with Gilly. 

True. This whole scene is not as cut and dry as the video makes it seem. I watched the video again last night to be sure. There are just too many possibilities to say that is definitely means Jon and Val are twins. 

[GhostNymeria]

10 minutes ago, The Fattest Leech said:

True. This whole scene is not as cut and dry as the video makes it seem. I watched the video again last night to be sure. There are just too many possibilities to say that is definitely means Jon and Val are twins. 

Yeah. And in order for this theory to even work, we have go on the assumption that Dayne, Whent, Hightower = Qorin, Mance, Tormund. Thats a huge leap to take to make a theory believable.

[syrinx]

The OotGH videos are entertaining enough, but the supposed theories are based on zero, zero, evidence. Quotes from  the books taken out of context are the weakest possible element to base a theory on because they can literally be interpreted in a 1000 different ways and that's all they do.

[The Fattest Leech]

1 minute ago, GhostNymeria said:

Yeah. And in order for this theory to even work, we have go on the assumption that Dayne, Whent, Hightower = Qorin, Mance, Tormund. Thats a huge leap to take to make a theory believable.

And that is part of the issue I have against videos like this one. You have to assume no one is who they say they are, or are really dead people in hiding, which means the entire series consists of only about 5 people in reality. 

[Jon's Queen Consort]

4 minutes ago, GhostNymeria said:

Yeah. And in order for this theory to even work, we have go on the assumption that Dayne, Whent, Hightower = Qorin, Mance, Tormund. Thats a huge leap to take to make a theory believable.

That is the proble. The majority of those hypothesis are based on other hypothesis which are based on their turn are based on other hypothesis and not at the text. They have distorted the meaning of the text in order to serve their claims. As I have said before they could say that Robb will be the next Sword of the Morning just because he said "Good morning.".

[Jon's Queen Consort]

2 minutes ago, The Fattest Leech said:

And that is part of the issue I have against videos like this one. You have to assume no one is who they say they are, or are really dead people in hiding, which means the entire series consists of only about 5 people in reality. 

Well five is a a lot of people. Most likely they are all BloodRaven.

[The Fattest Leech]

1 minute ago, The Doctor's Consort said:

Well five is a a lot of people. Most likely they are all BloodRaven.

In that case, Hodor should just finish the series