Board Thread:WARNING ALL USERS False Info\Spoilers/@comment-209.141.131.212-20130709011039/@comment-14168656-20130805210511

Nw0ng wrote: 2) She wasn't gone before the fire, she was gone afterwards. Derek said in Chaos Rising, that he hadn't seen her since the fire and presumed she died IN the fire. Therefore, she couldn't have been in South America before the fire, if Derek thought she died.

3) This was a toss-up in my head. I strongly wanted to believe this is Derek's story. But the narration coming from Peter, makes it a little sketchy to me. This, to me, is a huge possibility.

4) I disagree. It's in Paul's recap.
 * Q. Here's a question for Jeff: during visionary, the audience could see the truth of what happened in the flashbacks versus the lies that peter and Gerard were telling the teenagers. Should we then assume that we know everything about the stories that there is to know, or should we be suspicious that there are more details to the memories that were left out and have yet to be revealed?
 * A. I wouldn't assume that you actually saw all of the truth.

Therefore, we don't actually know what really happened, or what details were left out. We have to see if they ask Derek.

6) Not necessarily more problems, just an insight into Peter's head.

That's just my opinion though. Thanks for the response. I definitely get your point on a some of these. Here's some additional thoughts though.

2. I'll have to go back and rewatch that. I missed that part. Good catch.

3. This is actually my main point that I think people are missing. The Flashback does NOT follow Peter's naration. His naration is allowed to contradict what we see in the Flashback. His naration is supposed to be sketchy. Davis wanted us to know that Peter changed the story to Syles & Cora. But we got to see parts of what really happpend. That's why Davis made a point to show the Flashback to point out the parts where Peter changed the story. I gave the examples of this in my opening paragraph take another look and let me know what you think.

4. I'm actually basing my comments on Pauls recap. As you point out Davis' comment was:

A. I wouldn't assume that you actually saw all of the truth.

Depending on how you read that it can mean 2 different things. I saw it to read 'I wouldn't assume that you actually saw ALL of the truth. Meaning that there was quite a bit left out. I think if he meant some of it was wrong he would have said I wouldn't assume that ALL you saw was the truth.' Unfortunately this is just my interpratation, so I could be wrong.

6. I said more problems in the sense that if the story was about Peter, and like I mentioned the Flashback didn't match the story that Peter told, then the problem becomes, what was the Flashback? From what perspective was it? I don't know what purpose it served. If it was supposed to have been Peter's story then it should have lined up with his naration, and it didn't. Then I would totally be able to buy the theory. But since it doesn't match Peter's story I can't see how it could be anything but true.