Dumbledore Does Lie

[esmith222002]

No: HPFGUIDX 159335

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" <bboyminn at ...> wrote:
 
> By 'third set of details' I mean that neither Dumbledore
> or Trelawney are giving a /complete/ minute-by-minute
> historical account of the event. They are both summarizing
> what they think is relavant. Consequently there is a third
> set of detail which are simply the unspoken details that
> they feel at the moment aren't relative to the discussion
> at hand.
> 
> For example, ...the eavesdropper was discovered "only a
> short way into the prophesy and thrown from the building".
> All that is true but details are left out. In this 
> example, Aberforth discovered Snape a short way into the
> Prophecy (fact), Snape was thrown from the building 
> (fact), that is all Harry needs to know at that point. In
> fact, given the animosity between them it is probably 
> critical that Harry NOT know it was Snape, so Dumbledore
> leaves out the middle part, the part that was related to
> us by Trelawney in which, after a struggle, Snape is 
> brought into the room, and Dumbledore suggests 
> (supposition) to Aberforth that Snape be thrown out. 
> 
> Those two versions mesh if you assume they are partial 
> tellings of the same story. So, Snape was discovered part
> way through the Prophecy and thrown from the building, but
> those do not have to be chronologically consecutive 
> events. Something could have occurred between those 
> suggested events as Trelawney clearly relates to us in 
> her version. 
> 
> So, again, neither person is giving a full and complete
> account of events, both are leaving details out because,
> at that moment, in that conversation, they either don't
> think those details are relevant, or in the case of 
> Dumbledore naming Snape, they are consciously NOT telling.
> 
> Both are leaving out details, those detail represent a
> third set of unspoken facts about the event. Until those
> unspoken facts are revealed and contradict what we 
> already know, I am going to continue to say that both
> Trelawney and Dumbledore's accounts are accurate but
> incomplete.
> 
> For what it's worth.
> 
> Steve/bboyminn
>


Is it not possible that DD realised at some time during the prophecy 
that they were being overheard? He then uses a spell (Muffliato??) to 
prevent the intruder from hearing anything further, and also warns 
Aberforth of the intruder. By the time Aberforth apprehends Snape, 
Sybil is out of her trance and witnesses the whole thing. I therefore 
agree with bboymin that the discovery of the intruder and their 
ejection from the building do not have to be chronologically 
consecutive events.

Brothergib