Do you believe Preston Jacobs' explanation for dragon riding?

[Sensenmenn]

2 minutes ago, 40 Thousand Skeletons said:

Not necessarily. Could just be telepathy and telekinesis. GRRM even did an interview where he points out that his dragons (unlike most fantasy dragons) only have 2 legs and wings because that's more "scientific". Doesn't sound very magical to me.

Then how do you explain water magic, shadow babys, and fire magic? Mell lit six skins eagle on fire while it was flying over the wall.

[40 Thousand Skeletons]

11 hours ago, Gertrude said:

OK, how about his assertion right at the beginning about what is needed to hatch dragon eggs.

"We know that Dany hatched dragons, so it seems to involve, at minimum, a special person being around the eggs for a while."

That is a straight up leap in logic. We don't know that at all. You can assume it was Dany being special, or maybe she fondled the eggs in the right way or stimulated them just enough. Or it could just be magic. GRRM has said " The birth of Dany's dragons was unique, magical, wonderous, a miracle." It was said in the context of her being fireproof, but what he actually says is the birth of the dragons was a miracle.

Looking at just two possibilities here, that it is the XX gene, or that greater magic is at work, I think magic is the more obvious conclusion. Dany's story is interwoven with the sorceress Mirri Maz and implies, to me, that the funeral was more akin to a ritual sacrifice whether Dany knew it or not. It happens just as the world needs dragons (an assumption I am making to combat the WW) and just as the red comet passes overhead. A possible coincidence, but it also fits the magical prophecy of Azor Ahai. I am not arguing who AA is, just noting that it does fit.

Obviously, I am not refuting his theory because it is impossible to. There isn't enough solid information to solidly refute it. However, there are other, more compelling reasons to prefer magic over X. And that's kind of my point.

It is not a "leap in logic". It would be if we didn't have hundreds of years of history and dragon hatching to look at, but we do. Clearly hatching dragon eggs, at least typically, does not take a crazy blood sacrifice. You just need to put an egg in a cradle with a Targ baby, and for some reason this works sometimes. PJ's theory provides a reasonable explanation for this.

EDIT: Yes, that sentence you quoted on its own is a leap. But taken in context with the other dragon hatchings we know about and the rest of the theory, it is not much of a leap. Maybe he could have articulated it better, but his videos are already pretty long and complicated. I think he is just trying to be concise when he can.

GRRM obviously does not give a fuck if readers "prefer" magic over sci-fi. It is his story, and I am sure he decided that before writing it. So if that's kind of your point, it is pretty weak. Maybe I'm reading too much into your word choice. If you really meant there are more compelling reasons to believe magic over X, then I disagree but OK, fair enough.

I don't want to totally derail the topic into a big picture thread, but you have really touched on the heart of the issue here. A lot of fans, like yourself, think that the birth of Dany's dragons was a miracle, that it happened just when the world needed dragons to fight the EVIL OTHERS, that the comet is prophetic, the the prophecy of Azor Ahai is true, and that you generally prefer magic over sci-fi as an explanation. Maybe you are right and I'm wrong, but I personally don't think so.

Well here we go. Melisandre is a religious zealot who is so disgusting that she burns people alive for worshiping devil gods who are thralls to the "Great Other" according to her. If you look at who GRRM is as an author and a person (basically an atheist hippie), this is exactly what he sees as evil. Mankind uniting behind a zombie (Jon) because he fulfills an ancient prophecy in order to commit genocide on the Evil Others is evil. Uniting behind Dany because she appears to fulfill that same prophecy, and she has giant weapons that can burn thousands of people alive (like nuclear weapons) is at least misguided.

Here's my alternative theory, super abridged: The COTF are the puppet masters. Prophecy is a lie. They created the prophecy of AA to manipulate the actions of humans into doing what they want. The only reason Dany's dragons seem so significant is because they are the only dragons. And this happened first (and primarily) because of the Doom, which was caused by the COTF, then all the events in Westeros over the past 400 years, primarily the events surrounding the Dance of the Dragons, also caused by the COTF. My best theory for what is going on is that the COTF are trying to create a new dynasty of rulers with super genes, powerful enough to rule over mankind, and that they will try to use Bran/his powers to enslave those rulers. I think the COTF caused the Long Night by destroying one of the 2 moons with the comet.

More directly relevant to the events in the main story, I think the COTF were behind the crippling of Bran, the "assassination attempt" on Bran (kind of obvious honestly, since the attempt was clearly fake as indicated by the fancy dagger, and the only one who could know the attempt would fail was the wolf who tore out the assassin's throat, aka the COTF/BR), the "assassination attempt" on Commander Mormont, the assassination of King Robert, and generally the actions of many characters by sending them dreams, including Jojen, Lord Darry, LF, Ramsay, Euron, and Bran. I subscribe to the PJ theory (lol duh) that the COTF/BR lured Ramsay, Jojen, and Theon to WF and altogether caused the events that crippled Bran, destroyed his home, and left him stranded with a crazy guy telling him to foolishly venture north into uber-danger, leading Bran to take actions that people would normally not take and must be manipulated into.

If they stayed here, hidden down beneath Tumbledown Tower, no one would find them. He would stay alive. And crippled.

Bran realized he was crying. Stupid baby, he thought at himself. No matter where he went, to Karhold or White Harbor or Greywater Watch, he'd be a cripple when he got there. He balled his hands into fists. "I want to fly," he told them. "Please. Take me to the crow."

There it is, folks. GRRM described the hatching of Dany's dragons as "magical, wonderous, a miracle" because that's what the COTF want humans to think, and that's what GRRM wants you to think. He wants you right there mentally and morally with the POV characters when they realize they are wrong or have been tricked about things. Melisandre even says to Davos:

If half an onion is black with rot, it is a rotten onion. A man is good, or he is evil.

But we know this is wrong. The entire story is about how no character is fully good or fully evil. There is no black and white, only gray. GRRM talks about how the only thing worth writing about is the human heart. Melisandre's line about the onion is completely contrary to George's beliefs. And in the same story, we get this line from Sam:

When Craster's wives brought onions, he seized one eagerly. One side was black with rot, but he cut that part off with his dagger and ate the good half raw.

People, like onions, can have parts both good and bad. So stop listening to Mel and the AA prophecy people. It is a bunch of boloney.

[40 Thousand Skeletons]

39 minutes ago, Sensenmenn said:

Then how do you explain water magic, shadow babys, and fire magic? Mell lit six skins eagle on fire while it was flying over the wall.

All telekinesis, manipulating water and fire and light, and possibly the air. Faceless Men seem to use telekinesis to change their faces (at least the real skilled ones like Jaqen and Arya). Glamours seem to be a weaker form of telekinesis that just bend the light, or they could be telepathy and people only think you look different. Dragons breathing fire seems to be pyrokinesis, as does Dany walking into the funeral pyre. You would also probably need pyrokinesis to blow the horn "dragon binder" without dying. I think the COTF used telekinesis to do all their crazy big scale stuff, like bringing down the Hammer of the Waters. Yeah, it's pretty similar to fantasy in that dragons breathing fire out of nowhere has no basis in real science, but it seems there are limits and rules to what people can do, making it more sci-fi.

Mel took credit for the eagle, but we don't know it was her (she does take the credit). That could likely have been what happens when a skinchanger attempts to cross the Wall, dividing their blended consciousness between the 2 sides of the Wall. That is probably no bueno, as we know Jon could not sense Ghost when the Wall separated them.

[devilish]

5 hours ago, Isobel Harper said:

My impression of dragon bonding is that genes help A LOT.  It's damn near impossible to bond with a dragon without have the right genes...  but ultimately not impossible. 

If genes played an important role then Aegon and his sisters could swap each other dragons, since they all have the right genes.Also all wild dragons could be tamed by people with the right genes and people like Nettles would not be able to tame a dragon

We know a couple of things about dragons

a- Dragons are extremely intelligent and all have an individual character. Sheepstealer was crazy about eating sheep. Ghost was shy and lived on eating fish, Cannibal was savage and loved eating dragon carcasses, Vermithor on the other hand was quite tolerant of men. That means that they would probably be attracted with people who can appease them (ex Nettles fed Sheepstealer sheep). Some might not even be attracted to people at all.

b- they seem to have some form of imprinting. That would explain why all 3 dragons grew attached to Danny and why its tradition for Targs to put a dragon egg in a baby Targ cradle.

c- Dragons build a strong bond with people. They accept just 1 dragon rider at a time and some will only accept a dragon rider throughout all their life

Targ dragons would be close to the Targs because they are born. Once born, the first thing they will probably see is a Targ/Valeryon who will probably feed it and take care of it until he's at an age to take care of itself. That contributes great to develop a strong bond with them, which in turn should allow the Targ to ride them. The dragon rider would live closely to other Targs, he'll probably marry another Targ/Valeryon (a sister or a cousin), he'll have Targ children and all will be in close contact with their pet. Is it that scandalous to believe that the dragon would develop a close bond with them too?

[40 Thousand Skeletons]

31 minutes ago, devilish said:

If genes played an important role then Aegon and his sisters could swap each other dragons, since they all have the right genes.Also all wild dragons could be tamed by people with the right genes and people like Nettles would not be able to tame a dragon

 

I don't know if you read all my other posts, but I pointed out that according to this theory, dragons and riders are telepathically bonded, and that bond is what limits them to 1 rider = 1 dragon. And Nettles probably did not have a telepathic bond. Instead of the right genes, Nettles had a clever plan and huge balls. Besides, even if you have the right genes to tame a wild dragon, that doesn't mean you know you have the right genes, and it certainly doesn't mean you are going to try, considering how many people get burned to death by dragons.

 

32 minutes ago, devilish said:

Targ dragons would be close to the Targs because they are born. Once born, the first thing they will probably see is a Targ/Valeryon who will probably feed it and take care of it until he's at an age to take care of itself. That contributes great to develop a strong bond with them, which in turn should allow the Targ to ride them. The dragon rider would live closely to other Targs, he'll probably marry another Targ/Valeryon (a sister or a cousin), he'll have Targ children and all will be in close contact with their pet. Is it that scandalous to believe that the dragon would develop a close bond with them too?

OK. Care to explain to me how dragons have more than one rider over time? Why do some people succeed in riding a dragon and others get burned to death? Is it random? Is is because of magic? Does it have to do with having the right blood? Does it have to do with having the right blood but not the right genes?

[Minstral]

.... Here is the thing 40 Thousand Skeletons, I remember a reaction that an author had about her book in relation to someone who reviewed it. Not sure if the event I am about to cite actually happened, in fact it could be completely allegorical,  but it certainly is relevant.

The book is Purple Hibiscus and the author Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie, if anyone was wondering. The reviewer mentioned in the article that she loved the book, and made a bullet point list on how the meaning of the name was so relevant to the story. The conclusions that she made were numerous, like the meaning behind purple in relation to themes and characters as well as the flower (a truly long list of details that went into particulars of botany). More and more was covered by the reviewer, and it eventually reached the eyes and ears of the author. Her reaction, supposedly , was to appreciate the analysis of her work, but admitted that there was nowhere near as much thought or intention behind the title that the reviewer was trying to assign. Obviously there would be meaning behind the title, but probably not the botanical analysis the reviewer thought.

The audience will constantly try to make sense to a plot, and in doing so they may get things wrong. Preston Jacobs engages in a thought process that so many before him have also gone through. In some cases blanks are being filled, in others he might actually hit the nail on the head (from what I have seen I don't think so). Nevertheless, it is a process that requires an ever expanding mass of ideas that generate a consensus of the stories themselves. Of course his theories make sense to him and others, they have spent all this time going over all these details so that it does make sense. In fact every member of the audience does it, it just that there are degrees that one can analyze.

 

[40 Thousand Skeletons]

2 minutes ago, Minstral said:

.... Here is the thing 40 Thousand Skeletons, I remember a reaction that an author had about her book in relation to someone who reviewed it. Not sure if the event I am about to cite actually happened, in fact it could be completely allegorical,  but it certainly is relevant.

The book is Purple Hibiscus and the author Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie, if anyone was wondering. The reviewer mentioned in the article that she loved the book, and made a bullet point list on how the meaning of the name was so relevant to the story. The conclusions that she made were numerous, like the meaning behind purple in relation to themes and characters as well as the flower (a truly long list of details that went into particulars of botany). More and more was covered by the reviewer, and it eventually reached the eyes and ears of the author. Her reaction, supposedly , was to appreciate the analysis of her work, but admitted that there was nowhere near as much thought or intention behind the title that the reviewer was trying to assign. Obviously there would be meaning behind the title, but probably not the botanical analysis the reviewer thought.

The audience will constantly try to make sense to a plot, and in doing so they may get things wrong. Preston Jacobs engages in a thought process that so many before him have also gone through. In some cases blanks are being filled, in others he might actually hit the nail on the head (from what I have seen I don't think so). Nevertheless, it is a process that requires an ever expanding mass of ideas that generate a consensus of the stories themselves. Of course his theories make sense to him and others, they have spent all this time going over all these details so that it does make sense. In fact every member of the audience does it, it just that there are degrees that one can analyze.

 

........................ Here is the thing Minstral, that's some straight-up false equivalency. We are having this argument right now on this forum because these books are fuckin nuts like no other. They are filled with mysteries and puzzles, some of which have been revealed already, some of which we have enough info to solve or make educated guesses, and some that we don't have enough info for yet and will have to wait until TWOW. If you want to completely generalize PJ and equivocate him to some random other person who reviewed a book, fine. But if you want to give me specifics on why a particular argument of his is wrong, I will probably defend it.

[Gertrude]

2 hours ago, 40 Thousand Skeletons said:

EDIT: Yes, that sentence you quoted on its own is a leap. But taken in context with the other dragon hatchings we know about and the rest of the theory, it is not much of a leap. Maybe he could have articulated it better, but his videos are already pretty long and complicated. I think he is just trying to be concise when he can.

GRRM obviously does not give a fuck if readers "prefer" magic over sci-fi. It is his story, and I am sure he decided that before writing it. So if that's kind of your point, it is pretty weak. Maybe I'm reading too much into your word choice. If you really meant there are more compelling reasons to believe magic over X, then I disagree but OK, fair enough.

I just pulled that one sentence as an example. One of the next things he talks about the lack of XX in the Dragonstone Targs. There was a quick succession of Lords who died. Preston theorizes that they died trying to ride a dragon without the X gene. It's based on nothing other than that it fits the theory he wants to put forth. It's another assumption - granted it's a bit tangential because he isn't using at as proof of his theory, but he does use it as a sort of supporting argument. He talks authoratatively and it adds to the general sense of 'hey yeah, this all fits'. That's how the whole theory feels to me - like spin rather than a true argument.

It's not that i prefer magic over sci-fi, it's that I believe the reasons to believe the magical explanation are more convincing here. So yeah, we're really just at the point of agreeing to disagree.

As for the Others and AA, neither of those are simple. Let's just say I don't believe either of those are as they seem right now. A kernel of truth in what we've been presented, but completely different that what we expect. But that's a tangent and not really for this thread.

[Minstral]

26 minutes ago, 40 Thousand Skeletons said:

........................ Here is the thing Minstral, that's some straight-up false equivalency. We are having this argument right now on this forum because these books are fuckin nuts like no other. They are filled with mysteries and puzzles, some of which have been revealed already, some of which we have enough info to solve or make educated guesses, and some that we don't have enough info for yet and will have to wait until TWOW. If you want to completely generalize PJ and equivocate him to some random other person who reviewed a book, fine. But if you want to give me specifics on why a particular argument of his is wrong, I will probably defend it.

Then defend it as you want, that it what discussion is for and there is nothing wrong with it. My own opinion is just this: To factify and dissect the supposed metaphysical (including the genetics aspect here which PJ and you assign to the discussion) is a double edged sword. Go so far and anything can be made to fit the narrative. It's something I feel that Preston Jacobs has done in the past and continues to do so, so no I don't buy into his theories outright, I consider them to an extent. It really is not a false equivalency when so much has been built up in the narrative of these theories, he himself reviews these books because of the interest he has in the series as well to the fact that he has a financial stake (his youtube channel garners income as well as his patreon), while the other reviewer was likewise doing their job.

[Gertrude]

24 minutes ago, 40 Thousand Skeletons said:

We are having this argument right now on this forum because these books are fuckin nuts like no other. They are filled with mysteries and puzzles, some of which have been revealed already, some of which we have enough info to solve or make educated guesses, and some that we don't have enough info for yet and will have to wait until TWOW.

I think that the books are great, no mistake, but I do think that their reputation is overstated a bit. He doesn't kill as many main characters as people like to make out, not does he have as many complex mysteries as people like to think. There are some beautiful plot twists, but when it comes down to it, they are pretty simple and the beauty of them is the human motivations and emotion, not because it's a masterful puzzle to unravel, IMO. Baelish and Varys are the exceptions, but they are set up to be the masterminds. If we look for and find puppet-masters under every rock, it loses the punch. In other words, if everyone is a secret Targ, then being a Targ is not interesting anymore.

[AdesteFideles]

Ok, lets try again. Here we have direct quotes from David Benioff and D.B. Weiss.

From this Variety article.

Quote

I think with us, he understood that we didn’t have to fake anything. We had become instantly and genuinely obsessed with his books to the point where we knew lots and lots about the minutia of them — and then he asked us the question about Jon Snow’s parentage. Maybe if we had gotten it wrong, he would have let us do it anyway. It was still obvious that we love this, and that we wanted to do it more than anything in the world, and that we would respect it and honor it. I think getting (the answer) right probably helped. It’s crazy to think about how long ago that was, and that I can still see who was sitting where.

Oh, and just in case you don't believe that, here's a video on the same story being recounted by GRRM, Benioff and Weiss. I've even time stamped it for you. Note that when he says "we did get it right" GRRM doesn't contradict him. Of course, with GRRM being a liar in your opinion, maybe even this isn't enough.

Now, if even after all this you still believe PJ, you are obviously beyond any help (and are indeed a very, very silly person).

Or just a troll.

[Ferocious Veldt Roarer]

33 minutes ago, AdesteFideles said:

Ok, lets try again. Here we have direct quotes from David Benioff and D.B. Weiss.

From this Variety article.

Oh, and just in case you don't believe that, here's a video on the same story being recounted by GRRM, Benioff and Weiss. I've even time stamped it for you. Note that when he says "we did get it right" GRRM doesn't contradict him. Of course, with GRRM being a liar in your opinion, maybe even this isn't enough.

Probably isn't. I mean, if GRRM is writing a SF story and deliberately lying to everyone, then why wouldn't D&D, and GRRM with D&D together, be lying also?

As a mental exercise, I'm trying to imagine evidence that could possibly disprove this faith. I'm afraid it simply can't be done.

[black_hart]

I enjoy his videos, though there is this with the genetic explanation for dragon riding: there is a lot of wiggling room because he has both a theory and exceptions (and a completely different mode for them). Between two alternating theories you may account for everything, but predict very little. (It scares me a little when I think about his daytime job.)

Riding: he has telepathic dragon riding and nettles type riding (and only a limited amount of dragons to explain anyway)

Hatching: he has genetic hatching for targ kids and a looser mechanism of hatcher proximity. This hatcher proximity is still somewhat rigid when used for same age siblings, but mom hatched my dragon style proximity hatching is based on loads of assumptions (Still fancy how he explains crippled dragonlets that way.) --- and there is another type of sacrifice hatching (what Daenerys did and Euron supposedly tried).

[Jon's Queen Consort]

8 hours ago, 40 Thousand Skeletons said:

"His *theories* are based on nothing more than what he wants to prove, ignoring the text and logic" -- I disagree.

You may agree or disagree with whatever you want. That doesn't make you right and me wrong or the other way around. My opinion about his fan fictions are a lot of distorted nonsense with no logical or text proof. It isn’t logic that Robb would have named Cat, a person who has no blood connection with the North and has committed high treason as the heir. It isn’t logical to think that Dany was either much older that people say that she is or that she was born from a mother who was dead for 8 or 9 months before her birth. It’s not logical to claim that Cat wouldn’t had noticed the difference between a newborn and a 9 months old or even one year old.

8 hours ago, 40 Thousand Skeletons said:

I'm not sure what exactly your argument against PJ's timeline for Jon and Dany is, considering he does not say that Ned tried to pass off a newborn as 8 to 9 months old or that Lyanna gave birth 8 to 9 months after dying. He says that Jon would be 3 months older than Robb.

A mother would had noticed the difference between a 6 months old and a 10 moths old. Also in order for Dany to be Lyanna's daughter she needs either to be born 9 months after Lyanna's death or a 9 months old Dany to pass off  as a newborn. People would had noticed how big Dany was and we would had learnt about it.

[devilish]

7 hours ago, 40 Thousand Skeletons said:

I don't know if you read all my other posts, but I pointed out that according to this theory, dragons and riders are telepathically bonded, and that bond is what limits them to 1 rider = 1 dragon. And Nettles probably did not have a telepathic bond. Instead of the right genes, Nettles had a clever plan and huge balls. Besides, even if you have the right genes to tame a wild dragon, that doesn't mean you know you have the right genes, and it certainly doesn't mean you are going to try, considering how many people get burned to death by dragons.

 

OK. Care to explain to me how dragons have more than one rider over time? Why do some people succeed in riding a dragon and others get burned to death? Is it random? Is is because of magic? Does it have to do with having the right blood? Does it have to do with having the right blood but not the right genes?

So how would that work? If lets say Balerion is in dragonstone, Aegon and Maegor are there, how would Balerion know to let the former ride him and not the latter? Would Maegor's telepathic prowess somehow obstruct that of his own father? Also why skinchangers, who are the best in the mind control business can't control dragons? Why the Targs can't control other animals as well? How would Nettles be able to tame a dragon without that telephatic power?

I've already explained how, according to me, this whole thing works and seriously its explained in part by behaviours done by common animals and by evidence in the book

a- We know that Targs tend to put eggs and we also know that the love between Danny and her dragons was almost instant. That is called imprinting. The dragons tend to build a bond with the first person they meet. It also explains why Targs prefer to keep sex within the family. Same genetic pool, same appearance, little variations ie fewer issues caused during transition from one dragon rider to another.

b- Dragons are highly sensitive animals and their character vary greatly. Cannibal was an asshole, Sheepstealer was gluttonous, Grey Ghost was shy and Meleys grew lazy. One dragon may tolerate a person while another would probably rip him into pieces. Which is exactly what happened to the Martell boy (although TBF, firing bolts to a dragon while the brother is watching is rarely wise) 

b- Dragons show little affection towards their partners but they do show great affection towards their dragonriders. Maybe they see their dragonriders as some sort of mate? That explains why they are fiercely protective towards their dragonriders, they grieve when they die and they seem to have a connection to them. It also explain why they have only one dragonrider at a time (there are many animals in the animal kingdom whose got 1 mate at a time, some even prefer living in solitude after their partner die) and why Sheepstealer didn't rip Nettles apart the day she stopped bringing him sheep.

Unlike the Targ dragons sheepstealer was a wild dragon and was therefore not conditioned to the Albino's syndrome. That + food, Sheepstealer was gluttonous, allowed Nettles to fall into his graces. Would that trick work with Grey Ghost. I doubt it. 

c- Finally the dragons are pretty

 

[Jon's Queen Consort]

4 hours ago, AdesteFideles said:

Now, if even after all this you still believe PJ, you are obviously beyond any help (and are indeed a very, very silly person).

That is a personal attack and by definition not cool. If you disagree with the poster you can say that but you cannot attack him.  You should correct it and apologize.

[Jon Fossoway]

7 hours ago, Minstral said:

 

The book is Purple Hibiscus and the author Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie, if anyone was wondering. The reviewer mentioned in the article that she loved the book, and made a bullet point list on how the meaning of the name was so relevant to the story. The conclusions that she made were numerous, like the meaning behind purple in relation to themes and characters as well as the flower (a truly long list of details that went into particulars of botany). More and more was covered by the reviewer, and it eventually reached the eyes and ears of the author. Her reaction, supposedly , was to appreciate the analysis of her work, but admitted that there was nowhere near as much thought or intention behind the title that the reviewer was trying to assign. Obviously there would be meaning behind the title, but probably not the botanical analysis the reviewer thought.

 

My same thoughts. I sometimes speculate that George is actually overwhelmed by the reception and analysis of his works and that same thing is tampering his progress. I've seen few interviews of him (usually post 2010) and he's usually elusive and seems uncomfortable when answering questions. For me, Jacobs videos are fun to watch because he twists the narrative and finds coherent explanations but to make that a witch hunt or a quest of the holy grail about what REALLY is going to happen... err, at least I don't watch his videos to find answers but to have a nice time. Even a good structured crackpot theory (not saying Jacobs is a crackpot theorist tho) is fun to read when you are a fan. Well, saying this on a forum like this where that is a common trend of discussion is kinda stupid, but hey. At least that author you mention is right on.

[Zoo_Dane]

Well I'll leave it at this. You can't use text to definitively refute the theory. But you also don't have text to definitively prove it. 

I'm not saying it's impossible for this to be true. I'm just not buying it. 

Just like you can't seriously believe without a doubt this is true. 

In my opinion there isn't enough text to support it and referring to a character as "unlikely" could be an egg for literally anything, in this case you can say it's for Dany and her inheriting both genes. 

I've read all the Dunk and Egg and I don't recall anyone hatching eggs. Admittedly I haven't had time to read the world of ice and fire so I guess I'll have to pay attention to the circumstances surrounding the hatching of eggs when I finally get around to reading it. 

[kimim]

On 10/12/2016 at 11:54 AM, 40 Thousand Skeletons said:

You need 1 "dragon-X" gene to ride a dragon, and 2 "Dragon-X" genes to hatch dragons (so only females can hatch dragons)

Targs might not have access to our genetic science, but "only females can hatch dragons," is simple, obvious, crucial to survival--ie., it's something Valyrians, then Targs, would know and pass on to their children.

Yet they don't. You might be able to argue that the knowledge was forgotten, if there had been a change in dynasty thousands of years ago, but that's not the situation.

[Ferocious Veldt Roarer]

16 minutes ago, kimim said:

Targs might not have access to our genetic science, but "only females can hatch dragons," is simple, obvious, crucial to survival--ie., it's something Valyrians, then Targs, would know and pass on to their children.

Yet they don't. You might be able to argue that the knowledge was forgotten, if there had been a change in dynasty thousands of years ago, but that's not the situation.

Jacaerys' egg hatched, and Lucerys', and Joffrey's, and Aegon III's. Grey Ghost, Sheepstealer and Cannibal hatched in the wild. There's also Morning, Rhaena's dragon, and, of course, Drogon, Rhaegal and Viserion. So we got: four dragons hatched by/in company of four boys, four dragons hatched by/in company of two girls, three dragons hatched in the wild and the whole crapload of dragons of undisclosed birth.