Board Thread:WARNING ALL USERS False Info\Spoilers/@comment-209.141.131.212-20130709011039/@comment-11533671-20130804194056

Paul.rea wrote: This is assumption stacked upon assumption. That's not theory. That's wishful thinking.

There was no effort by the production to create a "time period" for the flashback - the posters on the wall in the music room and in the the vet clinic were exactly the same as they are"now". Clothing and other vintage elements don't match a single time period. They are a mismash of decades... kinda like actual fashion "now".

Derek being in high school has nothing to do with Kate's age. She could've been 40 and he could've been in high school.

You've built a house of cards.

Your comments have no bearing on the topic at all especially when you've proven that you don't even understand the definition of theory. Here let me help you: Theories are analytical tools for understanding, explaining, and making predictions about a given subject matter. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory). You don't trust the wiki definition? No problem, here is the Merriam-Webster one:( http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theory)

Definition of THEORY 1: the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another 2: abstract thought : speculation 3: the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art 4a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action  b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances —often used in the phrase in theory  5: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena  6a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption : conjecturec : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject YOUR hypocrisy doesn't even allow you to see that you are using subjective speculation yourself in diputing my theory. You are assuming that they didn't use any styles to set a time period and yet I have shown you at least two examples of them doing that. Where do you base your idea that these are just a mismatch of different decades?

Even by today's so called "mismatching of decades", I have yet to meet or know of ONE single black person that would wear the High-Top Fade today. It was a fad, sort of like how we view the Mullet. It is definately definable in an era that is NOT recreated today. In fact, by today's standards this hairstyle is considered to be apart of the Hall of Shame. It is called the High-Top Fade Aka : The flat’fro, the MC, the Nib, the Freshy, Kid ‘n Play, and the Eraserhead (mistakenly)

Era : 1980s-early 90s

Victims : Hip-hop artists, and everyone else who thought that MC’ing was a viable career choice.

This was THE haircut of the early rap and hip-hop generation, and everyone from Jay-Z to Heavy D, Kid ‘n Play, and the Fresh Prince of Bel Air had one, no matter how much they may deny it now

It simply is NOT done today. It was a popular hair style during the late '80s and early '90s PERIOD. That is fact. Watch this, I'll include my source: http://www.nostalgiaholic.com/wp/353/the-haircut-hall-o-shame/

As for the posters in a music room or vet office? How often do posters in those rooms get changed in real life? Hell, my school still has posters from the '70s in the music room! My vet's office has diagram posters from the 80s and 90s! Posters do NOT prove or disprove one damn thing.

Your fallacy lies in your complete disregard of things that are not canon or haven't yet been proven beyond all doubt by the show. This is beyond hypocritical of you to do. You have absolutely NO factual evidence to contradict mine other than your own opinion of, "You're just assuming!" Again, my theory IS supported by the show. Your argument is only supported by YOUR own egotistical view and opinion.

I have shown throughout the forums that I can handle criticism and have even reevaluated my ideas based on conversations here with others. Using the show as the primary source of information I have had other theories disputed and proven wrong. I have no problem with that. This theory however has yet to have one single person give an argument against it using the show as the source for the theory being wrong.

Finally you claim that Derek's being in high school has no bearing on Kate's age? That is so infantile and couldn't be further from the truth. You claim "...she could've been 40 and Derek still in high school." How? How could she be? Go ahead and PROVE that. OR is that your assumption? Your speculation? You are now ignoring what the SHOW has told us is true. I already stated this but here we go again: Kate's tombstone shows us her age from birth to death 1983-2011. Please try and keep up this time. Derek's wikia page states: "While still in high school, Derek entered into a relationship with Kate Argent. He was unaware that Kate was only using him to get close to his family." (http://teenwolf.wikia.com/wiki/Derek_Hale.

Are you keeping up? Now we have a timeline based on the show. YAY!!! We did it! Now let's look at it again Dora! Kate died when she was how old? (HINT; take her date of death and subtract her date of birth) Did you come to 28? Good job! So if she died at the age of 28, how in the hell could she have dated him at 40 since, as you say, it "could" have happened? It is simply impossible. Whose the one speculating now?

You have nothing to add and nothing you can disprove using the show as your source. The only argument anyone can give at this point is that it hasn't been proven yet. So unless the writers ignore logic completely then my theory holds more than enough to go beyond a "house of cards".

Your arguments are the ones that have no substance. Your comments have no basis, no proof, nothing but your own personal opinion. You are debating things that I have PROVEN come from the show. Since I have used the show and this very site to cite my sources then in essence you are arguing with Jeff Davis and the shows producers. IF my theory doesn't pan out it won't be because of the logic. It won't be because the show doesn't support the theory. It will be because the writers aren't paying attention to these details in a show where they have proven that they are aware of the details.

Why don't you think about it before you dismiss it so casually? The show itself supports my theory as I have PROVEN by citing show sources. How about you do as you ask others to do and give actual factual information that supports why you think it is wrong? Where is your proof? You have none. Your comments are nothing but noise, a temper tantrum because you simply cannot answer these things yourself.