Why is everyone so convinced the prophecy is correct?

[arrowsmithbt]

No: HPFGUIDX 82257

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "kneazle255" <kneazle255 at y...> wrote:
> 
> Kneazle:
> 
> In the Dept of Mysteries the prophecy is labelled "Voldemort and 
> Harry Potter(?)" It may not refer to Harry at all, but that doesn't 
> make it wrong. DD seems convinced the prophecy refers to Harry, but 
> DD has been wrong before. Or DD could be lying.
> 
> I wonder if someone (Kneasy? Talisman?) has considered the truly 
> horror-inspiring possibility that Dumbledore has been using HP as a 
> decoy for sixteen years to protect Neville Longbottom. 
> 
> I think I just gave myself nightmares.


Of course I have!
I'd be a pretty poor conspiracy theorist if I hadn't.

Right, settle down;  this could call for a bit of mental nimbleness
on both sides of the screen; it could turn out to be a long one, too.

I  know it's slightly infra dig to refer to your own posts, but I'm afraid 
I'm going to have to - no alternative, unfortunately. Very few seem to
share my Machiavellian turn of mind coupled with a suspicion of just
what JKR is capable of. (But keep your eye on Talisman!)

Firstly DD and 'Neville may be the one".

I first started posting in  June, just before OoP arrived. Being a 
comparative newbie, I was shy and tentative for my first posts,
(oh, yes I was!) and so to avoid the scorn and disgust of the
establishment I posted my thoughts as an amusing (I hope)
piece - FLOOZY No.I - The Dumbledore Papers, (65696).
This points out that if DDs function is to look after and protect 
Harry, then he's made a bloody poor job of it. The conclusion
of the piece wonders if Harry hasn't been set up as a  decoy.
(It didn't go down well with those that equated DD with Gandalf,
which was  part of it's function; he's *not* Gandalf.)

I'm not so certain now, but it is still a possibility that cannot be
totally discarded. (Poppy Promfrey going on about mental wounds
being worse than physical ones makes me wonder.)

Next, the prophecy; I had a bash at interpretation with post 75035.
That's already been resurrected over the past  few days. If I'm right
(collective mutter; "Big if, mate"), then significant implications can 
be drawn that fill some gaps noticed by other posters. More  below.

In post 79180 (Prophets  without honour), I burble on about Trelawney,
prophecies, The Dept of Mysteries and why prophecies are stored, plus 
a few extraneous things (Nostradamus, for one).

To precis the whole thing:
1. A prophecy can only be considered accurate *after  the events it
foretells have happened*. 

2.Even then it  may depend on the interpretation or imagination of 
the reader or viewer (this is where old  Nosty came in). 

3.The prophecy storage at DoM may be a sort of Quality Assurance
programme; store and protect so that no-one can read or interfere
with them until events involving the named persons actually 
happen. Then check events against prophecy. Grade the seer for
reliability by  their track record. 

4.Anyone who reports a possible prophecy must take care not to
perform any action that may affect the course of events the
prophecy deals with. Foreknowledge by too many people may 
influence events as they may act as if the 'prophecy' *must* happen.

5.This is Dumbledore's situation and dilemma.

If in fact my reading of the prophecy is right and  DD understood it,
then he knew, or at least suspected that the Potters (or the Long-
bottoms) would die. Before the event. And he could do nothing
about it. To do anything could invalidate the prophecy and prevent
the appearance of "the one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord."
(post 75081)

I've mentioned in passing in a number of posts that DD allowed Lily 
to die, but got no response. (That Kneasy. He's paranoid!) Maybe,
but it's fun having an active imagination and a suspicious mind.

What would be Harry's reaction when this sinks in? That DD may 
have been able to prevent his parents deaths and didn't? 
Plot line par excellance for the next book!

Maybe it's a bit too convoluted for everyone's tastes.
No, I don't expect everyone to  accept it as a front runner in the
interpretation stakes.
But Kneazle asked a  question of me that had been answered long 
since. 
Posters often forget what's been said before; there have been so 
many posts after all. We can't remember them all.

What else that we are trying to understand has already been 
answered in some past post? 
It's a depressing thought that we may be re-inventing the wheel 
every few months when we don't need to.

Kneasy