PoA: an explanation of the time/patronus paradox

[stlcole]

No: HPFGUIDX 67952

<sevenhundredandthirteen at y...> wrote:
> Firstly- I *don't* support the 'second gunman' theory. I support 
the 
> theory that there is only one plane of time, and when you go back 
in 
> time you are not transported to another parallel dimension, but 
> actually go back in time to the actual events....
> Back to your theory-
> If the 'second gunman' theory *is* true- is it also true that 
> someone else saved Buckbeak???


wait .. suppose that buckbeak gets axed and suppose that the 
noise is something other than harry+hermione ducking into the 
close .. further, suppose that harry+sirius are about to die at the 
hands of the Dementors and, for the sake of arguement, Dumbledore 
casts a patronus .. then

1) noise is noise (although I do need to reflect on this point)
2) buckbeak did die, then was saved as a consequence of the time 
travel, and
3) a new patronus was cast, with Dumbledore stepping aside to let 
Harry cast his patronus

So, I think it is possible that the key sign-posts of the FIRST time 
stream (the hallway noise, the noise of the axe, etc., the patronus 
saving Harry+Sirius) must remain the same, but the meaning of those 
sign-posts during the LOOPED stream chances. I need to dig further, 
but I would speculate that the appearance that the FIRST time steam 
matches the LOOPED stream is on the one hand, necessary, but on the 
other hand, merely coincidence.

> Anyway, back to what you were saying. What I first want to know 
> is, why do you think that Patronus Harry saw whilst the Dementors were 
> closing in on him was a unicorn? 

Ambiguity creates literary license, so calling out places of 
ambigiuty highlights potential opportunities for plot revelations. 
So I am arguing my point more on reader's instinct (mine) -- the 
current explanation is unsatisfactory (to me) and the ambiguity is 
clear (to me), so I am arguing intuitively, rather than 
analytically. I find that the second gunman argument is more 
satisfying that the one that concludes PoA. I also find the second 
gunman argument logically as satisfying as any potentially 
overwrought piece of time-travel metaphysics.


> Another point, when Dumbledore and Lupin fight the Dementors what 
> they produce is described as 'silver stuff.' This to me seems to 
> be an indistinct Patronus, not a corporeal Patronus (as Madam Bones 
> would say :-D ). So, I don't think that there is any evidence that 
> either of them can actually produce a proper Patronus.

Come on .. Dumbledore certainly can produce a coporeal patronus. 
Lupid, a DADA teacher and a werewolf, is highly likely to be able to 
produce a coporeal patronus .. and i don't think it can be assumed 
that 'silver stuff' will chase away dementors when it couldn't chase 
away bogarts.


> And, why do you think it could be outright likely that Dumbledore's Patronus 
> could be a unicorn??? I'm not contesting that assumption, I'm just 
> curious as to why you think it could be, as whenever anyone 
> theorises on Dumbledore's theoretical Animagus form unicorn never seem to 
> come up.

Dumbledore's familiar is a phoenix .. so logically, his patronus 
could be out of the same pantheon of magical creates, rather than a 
stag or a dog or something rather muggleish.

"stlcole"