Confusion about the god (spoilers)

[clips]

Good grief this is all confusing.....folks saying that official material wasn't translated correctly or that this was vague kinda gives a bit more ammo for Tillerman's argument. I still say at the end of the day the events of SH3 was tacked on at the end...even tho the creators are saying something completely different for the sake of the storyline. I'm sure they weren't looking that far into SH's future to know what they were going to write for SH3.

I like to keep things nice and simple...again i'm sure if anybody on their first playthrough received the good ending (because good+ is virtually impossible unless unless you know what to do) I think everybody would assume it was Alessa giving the baby to Harry...the way she says "daddy" at the end and the way she protects Harry gives the impression that it was alessa protecting them.

Now i know some have already stated "why would alessa care about harry and all of that?"..the thing is that the game gives you the impression that it was indeed alessa doing all of this to make sure harry got out of that place alive. Then you have people saying that the official material even contradicts itself on certain plot points and you have even more reason to believe that some adjustments were made to accomodate the storyline.

[Tillerman]

No, it's still not 100% verified. At least not for me. Seeing as how the Translated Memories ending page isn't a direct translation, and actually adds in Alessa when Alessa is clearly not mentioned, I'm less inclined to take notice of anything unless I manage to figure it out myself. I suggest you take the same approach.

On the creature commentary page, it says "Alessa/Incubator" in english, so no translation necessary there. Since that fits neatly with my theory about what happens, and clears up all contradictions for me, why would I not believe it?

FYI, Alessa in Katakana is "アレッサ".

Interesting... but I've looked at other pages and I don't see Alessa's name appear anywhere in Katakana. Maybe it's in Hiragana, or Kanji?

According to Silent Hill Chronicle, the rest of that text says "In the case of the bad ending, Alessa/incubator appears instead of incubus. Alessa's mental image is projected." Now, assuming that's correct, then why would Alessa's mental image be of herself as God?

Well, we already know from this page that the white woman was Alessa's mental image of god, so that's been confirmed. We also know that Incubator is a form of god. What I think is happening is that when god is "born," it possesses someone's body. This is implied also in SH3, (by Heather starting to transform, and Dahlia's clothes lying on the ground.)

Also, it then explains why you use Aglaophotis, a substance that is shown to purge evil from the body. One of the contradictions with the "god's plan theory" is Aglaophotis. The theory states that Alessa disappears the moment god is born, and that god changes forms from the woman in white to Incubus of it's own free will. It states that Aglaophotis is damaging it. It makes no sense that this substance would have a different use than every other time in the series. But if we realize that Alessa's body is taken over by god, suddenly the use of Aglaophotis makes sense. Furthermore, the contradictions in the Silent Hill Chronicle disappear, because Incubator is both god and Alessa during the boss fight.

This also explains why you only get a baby in the good endings; in the "god's plan theory" there is no logical reason why god shouldn't use the same plan to try to trick you. The reason you don't get a baby is because you killed Alessa. In the good endings, you separated Alessa using Aglaophotis, so she is able to use the last of her strength to reincarnate herself.

There's so much in there that contradicts things it has already said numerous times.

I actually don't think so. The way I see it, there are no contradictions with the "god possesses Alessa's body theory." Even Alessa's motivation in giving the baby to Harry can be explained in several ways. If there's a way to interpret something that takes away the contradiction, then it can't be called a contradiction.

We know for a fact "Alessa/Incubator" is mentioned *once* in the book because it's in English. Therefore, I have no reason to doubt the other occurrences of Alessa's name as well. If you want to say it's "a mistake," I can't go along with that because it seems too deliberate. If you want to say it's "a contradiction," I can't go along with that because I see no contradiction. So I have to stick to my guns... the Incubator is Alessa's body possessed by god.

Good grief this is all confusing.....folks saying that official material wasn't translated correctly or that this was vague kinda gives a bit more ammo for Tillerman's argument. I still say at the end of the day the events of SH3 was tacked on at the end...even tho the creators are saying something completely different for the sake of the storyline. I'm sure they weren't looking that far into SH's future to know what they were going to write for SH3.

I hear ya. But the way I see it, there's no contradiction with SH3. What a lot of people are forgetting is that Chronicles also states that god itself is a delusion, manifested by the cult. Therefore, if the cult is finished off, there should be no baby god inside baby Heather, so there's no problem giving her to Harry. It's not until Claudia comes back years later when a baby god suddenly manifests itself inside her. (And Claudia was obviously an invented character for SH3)

I like to keep things nice and simple...again i'm sure if anybody on their first playthrough received the good ending (because good+ is virtually impossible unless unless you know what to do) I think everybody would assume it was Alessa giving the baby to Harry...the way she says "daddy" at the end and the way she protects Harry gives the impression that it was alessa protecting them.

Yes, same here! So it made sense to me to read in the guidebook that it actually was Alessa protecting them! And the way she says "Daddy" makes it pretty clear that Cheryl is still in there, which would lead me to believe that she might have been in control... which explains why you get the baby, because there's no longer a contradiction with Alessa's motivations.

There's also the fact that the ending descriptions are so short, with no mention of trickery at all. It's almost as if those endings were meant to be straight-forward. Notice how they went out of their way to explain the whole "Mark of Samael/Seal of Metatron" thing? And yet they don't even mention the "god's plan theory," and in fact contradict it. I think our original impression that Alessa was saving Harry in SH1 was right!

[alone in the town]

So Alone in the Dark, why do you continue to insist that your god theory is correct? Why are you ignoring what Silent's Hill's creators wrote in their own guidebook? Could you answer that question, please?

I seem to miss the part where, in the description of the Good ending, upon which Silent Hill 3 was based, there is any mention of Alessa being in control, or being God, etc.

If this stuff happens in the other endings, then great. None of them lead into the sequel, so who cares?

There's also the unaddressed issue about Heather being a reincarnation of Alessa. For Heather to be Alessa, reincarnated, Alessa must be dead before Heather exists. Otherwise, she's not a reincarnation. If Heather was the same as Cheryl, she would not be a reincarnation, she would be a copy or a clone as Cheryl was, regardless of whether or not Alessa's soul was transferred in part or in whole. The phrase "reincarnation" is used multiple times in Silent Hill Chronicle. Your theory contradicts this completely. Also, when Alessa and Cheryl become one, there's a big, flashy merger involved in which two physically become one. Nothing like this ever happens with Heather. If that's Alessa sitting there on the floor at the end, she's left behind and clearly separate. We know Alessa can split her soul into pieces, but where does it say she can make complete copies of herself? Where is this power ever attributed to her?

Unaddressed also is how Silent Hill 3 clearly depicts the birth of god destroying the host body--as it also clearly does in the first game when Incubus pops out. Or, how, when Incubus...does whatever you seem to think it does after being defeated, becomes Incubator again showing no sign of the blatantly extreme disfigurement caused by Incubus' advent. Or, how Incubus disappears and Incubator appears in that same spot, despite Incubator very obviously not being there when Incubus comes down.

This book does have its share of contradictory information, and this is not the only example of it. The book clearly states that Good is the ending which leads into Silent Hill 3, yet one of the creators later leaves a statement which causes some people to question whether or not this is true. Alessa and God are both mentioned in considerable detail, individually, and in most cases are not equated to be the same being. Many references are made to Heather birthing God, none of them suggesting that Heather will survive as an independent part of that being. Certainly, nobody ever puts forth the opinion the Claudia still exists within the God we defeat at the end of 3.

The logical approach to this is to see which information fits what we see in the game. A suddenly benevolent Alessa doesn't fit.

[Tillerman]

I seem to miss the part where, in the description of the Good ending, upon which Silent Hill 3 was based, there is any mention of Alessa being in control, or being God, etc.

It's in the Good+ and Bad+ ending descriptions that the lady in white is referred to as Alessa. It's the same characters in all 4 descriptions, right?

There's also the unaddressed issue about Heather being a reincarnation of Alessa. For Heather to be Alessa, reincarnated, Alessa must be dead before Heather exists.

You're hanging on that word "reincarnation" too much. Explain how you know exactly what the developers meant by it, without using a definition of the word "reincarnation" which is irrelevant, since we can't be sure they were using a strict definition.

Personally, I think the word "reincarnation" is simply being stretched a bit by the developers, in this case. I think what Alessa (or to be accurate Cheryl, who was in control of Alessa at this point) did was to basically just split her soul again, and that this time the soul had all of her memories. If you want to, you could say that when the lady in white dies, Alessa's full soul then enters the body of Heather, although I find this not necessary.

We know Alessa can split her soul into pieces, but where does it say she can make complete copies of herself? Where is this power ever attributed to her?

Since god was in her body, and she still retains that "god" form even after being seperated, it's logical to assume she still has some of it's power, if that's even necessary as an explanation. Besides which, what does "making a complete copy of herself" even mean? What makes a copy "complete"? Is it just having all of Alessa's memories? If there's something else that makes a copy "complete," would you please quantify it for me?

Unaddressed also is how Silent Hill 3 clearly depicts the birth of god destroying the host body--as it also clearly does in the first game when Incubus pops out.

"Destroying" is the wrong word. Here's how it looks in the game:



You can clearly see the Incubus rising out of her body, and there is blood. But to say that her body is "destroyed" is simply wrong.

By the way, if that image isn't good enough for you, how about this quote from Silent Hill Chronicles:

However, incubus is born from the girl.

Notice that it says Incubus is born FROM the girl. It does not say the girl changes INTO incubus.

Or, how, when Incubus...does whatever you seem to think it does after being defeated, becomes Incubator again

This is a confusing scene no matter how you look at it. On the one hand, you can clearly see the Incubus emerging from the Incubator, indicating that they are separate entities. On the other, when Incubus dies it disappears in a flash of light, you hear "daddy," and the lady in white reappears in the same spot. I can see how you might look at the latter and say it seems like the Incubus is transforming back into the lady in white, but the former supports indicates they are two separate entities. It's a contradiction for either theory.

Maybe what's happening here is that in order for Alessa/Cheryl's soul to be "free," you need to kill the Incubus. That's why you hear "Daddy", the game is indicating that her soul is free, (and also that you are about to finally see your daughter. After all, the game does treat this like the payoff scene in which you finally meet your daughter, in terms of music and presentation.)

This book does have its share of contradictory information, and this is not the only example of it. The book clearly states that Good is the ending which leads into Silent Hill 3, yet one of the creators later leaves a statement which causes some people to question whether or not this is true.

Sort of. I believe he said the original ending is meant to be ambiguous. You're right, but that's a pretty small contradiction. Besides, both could be true... in the original game, I'm sure it was meant to be ambiguous, but obviously when they decided to make SH3 they would have to choose one of those endings. So I don't really see it as a contradiction.

Alessa and God are both mentioned in considerable detail, individually, and in most cases are not equated to be the same being.

That's because they're not the same being. They simply share the same body up until the point at which you use Aglaophotis.

Many references are made to Heather birthing God, none of them suggesting that Heather will survive as an independent part of that being.

Why would Heather survive as an "independant" part? Her body would have become *possessed* by god. Again, that's why you use Aglaophotis, to purge evil from the body. It's the same situation as with Cybil and Alessa.

The logical approach to this is to see which information fits what we see in the game. A suddenly benevolent Alessa doesn't fit.

I agree. But if you interpret the game in a certain way, a suddenly benevolent Alessa *does* fit. Or to be accurate, a suddenly benevolent Cheryl. The way I interpret it, Cheryl is in control after you kill Incubus. A strong clue to this is hearing Cheryl say "Daddy" immediately after you kill Incubus, plus the music and the presentation makes this feel like it's supposed to be the payoff of the good ending, like you are finally seeing your daughter. If you put all these things together, it's reasonable to have the view that the "Cheryl" part of Alessa is in control after you kill god, is who hands you the baby, and is who protects you.

I understand your point of view of trying to come up with the best theory that fits all available information. But you have to recognize that both the guidebook and SH3 calls the lady in white "Alessa." If you're trying to come up with a theory that fits all available information, then the theory that god possesses Alessa's body, and that the lady in white is controlled by Cheryl's will is the best available theory. It's not contradicted by anything. Not even the play novel! (Joke)

Here's the problems and contradictions with your "god's plan theory", as I see it:

1. It is directly contradicted in at least 3 places in the Silent Hill Chronicles, which refers to both the lady in white and Incubator as "Alessa."

2. It makes no sense that the developers would be so hell bent on keeping this secret that they would deliberately omit this information it from both the guidebook and SH3. (And contradict it!) After all they were jumping all over themselves to reveal info about the Seal of Metatron, and other such inconsequential stuff.

3. Heather refers to the lady in white as Alessa. Sure, she might have read that from Harry's journal and Harry might have been wrong, but in the same scene she says "I'm trying to remember," indicating that this information is coming from her memories as Alessa, and of course making it canonical fact. And again, why would the developers continue to obscure the facts on their own clever theory?

4. If the lady in white is also god, then the use of Aglaophotis makes no sense in context with it's other uses. If you accept that Alessa is being possessed by god, then suddenly it's usage makes sense.

5. You can visually see Incubus emerging from Incubator.

6. The game presents these events as a good ending and an emotional payoff from the player's perspective, both with the music and how it sets the scene. Harry's quest has been to find Cheryl all along, and in the good ending he does in a sense find her. If this scene is indeed meant to be a trick, it is incredibly devious considering the sincerity in which they portray this scene.

7. This is a big one. If god can switch forms at will, and the baby is god's trick, why on earth does it not try the same trick in the bad endings? If it can change forms at will, all it needs to do is change into a form that looks like the ghost of Alessa or Cheryl and hand Harry a baby, and the dumbass (sorry Harry) would obviously take it! At the very least, the god should be *trying* to fool Harry, even if it doesn't succeed. It makes no logical sense for the god to only use this trick in the good endings.

8. Even the play novel calls the lady in white Alessa! (Just kidding! The play novel isn't considered "canon." But Silent Hill Chronicles is.) Do you still consider SHC canon? And if not, how do you determine which parts are wrong? Because it seems to me like you're simply choosing the parts which fit your pre-conceived theory. Am I wrong?

[Soulless-Shadow]

On the creature commentary page, it says "Alessa/Incubator" in english, so no translation necessary there. Since that fits neatly with my theory about what happens, and clears up all contradictions for me, why would I not believe it?

So you're happy to be ignorant of everything else in the God monster section simply because Alessa/Incubator is written in English? Can't say I'm surprised really. You've been ignoring all the evidence already presented to you already.

FYI, Alessa in Katakana is "アレッサ".

Interesting... but I've looked at other pages and I don't see Alessa's name appear anywhere in Katakana. Maybe it's in Hiragana, or Kanji?

Alessa's name wouldn't be written in anything other than Katakana. Hiragana is used for Japanese names and words, whereas Katakana is used for non-Japanese names, and words that were derived from non-Japanese languages. If アレッサ isn't there, then it's not talking about Alessa.

According to Silent Hill Chronicle, the rest of that text says "In the case of the bad ending, Alessa/incubator appears instead of incubus. Alessa's mental image is projected." Now, assuming that's correct, then why would Alessa's mental image be of herself as God?

Well, we already know from this page that the white woman was Alessa's mental image of god, so that's been confirmed. We also know that Incubator is a form of god. What I think is happening is that when god is "born," it possesses someone's body. This is implied also in SH3, (by Heather starting to transform, and Dahlia's clothes lying on the ground.)

To me it looks more like Claudia's body was destroyed rather than "possessed". The only thing left of Claudia are her clothes. There's nothing (that I recall seeing) that shows she's become a part of the God or anything. If anything I'd say her physical form was broken down and absorbed, or broken down and...I guess reconfigured to give the God its form.

Also, it then explains why you use Aglaophotis, a substance that is shown to purge evil from the body. One of the contradictions with the "god's plan theory" is Aglaophotis. The theory states that Alessa disappears the moment god is born, and that god changes forms from the woman in white to Incubus of it's own free will. It states that Aglaophotis is damaging it. It makes no sense that this substance would have a different use than every other time in the series. But if we realize that Alessa's body is taken over by god, suddenly the use of Aglaophotis makes sense. Furthermore, the contradictions in the Silent Hill Chronicle disappear, because Incubator is both god and Alessa during the boss fight.

This also explains why you only get a baby in the good endings; in the "god's plan theory" there is no logical reason why god shouldn't use the same plan to try to trick you. The reason you don't get a baby is because you killed Alessa. In the good endings, you separated Alessa using Aglaophotis, so she is able to use the last of her strength to reincarnate herself.

I haven't the time to go over this, but it has all been explained in other threads.

There's so much in there that contradicts things it has already said numerous times.

I actually don't think so. The way I see it, there are no contradictions with the "god possesses Alessa's body theory." Even Alessa's motivation in giving the baby to Harry can be explained in several ways. If there's a way to interpret something that takes away the contradiction, then it can't be called a contradiction.

I'm not going over Alessa's motivation in giving Harry the baby again. You ignored it all before, you're ignoring it all now, and you'll continue to ignore it.

We know for a fact "Alessa/Incubator" is mentioned *once* in the book because it's in English. Therefore, I have no reason to doubt the other occurrences of Alessa's name as well. If you want to say it's "a mistake," I can't go along with that because it seems too deliberate. If you want to say it's "a contradiction," I can't go along with that because I see no contradiction. So I have to stick to my guns... the Incubator is Alessa's body possessed by god.

And yet you don't know exactly what the rest of the text says. You simply know what other people have translated. In fact, you seem more than happy to not find out exactly what the rest of the text says so long as the little bit of English supports your theory. Fyi, I've never said that God didn't take control or whatever Alessa's body, just that it's against canon and Dahlia's own lines for God to be Alessa. Being someone is different to "possessing" their body. "Being" implies she is the same person. "Possession" says someone else is in control.

I hear ya. But the way I see it, there's no contradiction with SH3. What a lot of people are forgetting is that Chronicles also states that god itself is a delusion, manifested by the cult. Therefore, if the cult is finished off, there should be no baby god inside baby Heather, so there's no problem giving her to Harry. It's not until Claudia comes back years later when a baby god suddenly manifests itself inside her. (And Claudia was obviously an invented character for SH3)

No-one has denied or forgot the whole God-is-a-powerful-delusion thing. In fact I have already mentioned it. Nothing in the games or Book of Lost Memories contradicts that.

I like to keep things nice and simple...again i'm sure if anybody on their first playthrough received the good ending (because good+ is virtually impossible unless unless you know what to do) I think everybody would assume it was Alessa giving the baby to Harry...the way she says "daddy" at the end and the way she protects Harry gives the impression that it was alessa protecting them.

Originally I thought the same thing. I've stated it before, but I believe we were supposed to think that. Basically, just like poor, little Harry, we were all tricked.

Yes, same here! So it made sense to me to read in the guidebook that it actually was Alessa protecting them! And the way she says "Daddy" makes it pretty clear that Cheryl is still in there, which would lead me to believe that she might have been in control... which explains why you get the baby, because there's no longer a contradiction with Alessa's motivations.

Except there is, and I've already explained them. Continue to ignore, if you will (and you will).

There's also the fact that the ending descriptions are so short, with no mention of trickery at all. It's almost as if those endings were meant to be straight-forward. Notice how they went out of their way to explain the whole "Mark of Samael/Seal of Metatron" thing? And yet they don't even mention the "god's plan theory," and in fact contradict it. I think our original impression that Alessa was saving Harry in SH1 was right!

I'm pretty sure I already mentioned this, but continue to ignore it if you will (and you will). Anyway, Alessa is only mentioned, by name, when she (both the wheelchair bound Alessa and her astral projection) disappears, only to be replaced with the Woman in White. As soon as the Woman in White appears she is either referred to as "Incubator" or simply "woman". Even after the boss fight, when the Woman in White reappears, she's still not referred to as Alessa. If Alessa and the Woman in White were one and the same, then wouldn't she be referred to, at all times, as Alessa? That's why there are contradictions in Book of Lost Memories. If she's going to be referred to as this in one instance, then why isn't she referred to as this in every other instance? Why go through the trouble of referring to her in a different manner? But, feel free to ignore me.

It's in the Good+ and Bad+ ending descriptions that the lady in white is referred to as Alessa. It's the same characters in all 4 descriptions, right?

No, she's not. In the original text Alessa is only mentioned when she disappears, only to be replaced with the Woman in White, and then referred to simply as "Woman", if not "Incubator".

I've already pointed out that the translations should be taken with a grain of salt (especially the Ending Analysis from Translated Memories), so I'm done, again.

[Tillerman]

So you're happy to be ignorant of everything else in the God monster section simply because Alessa/Incubator is written in English? Can't say I'm surprised really. You've been ignoring all the evidence already presented to you already.

I would appreciate if you would not throw around declarations like that without backing them up. I've tried to answer every question that has been asked of me. If you think otherwise, point out something I've ignored. If you think one of my answers is unsatisfactory, then please explain why. But don't just accuse me of "ignoring evidence" without backing it up, because that is neither polite nor fair.

Alessa's name wouldn't be written in anything other than Katakana. Hiragana is used for Japanese names and words, whereas Katakana is used for non-Japanese names, and words that were derived from non-Japanese languages. If アレッサ isn't there, then it's not talking about Alessa.

I see. Seems as though you're right. I apologize.

I'm looking over various scans. If you'll look closely at the scan of the creature commentery, you'll find that Alessa's name is written in katakana twice, besides the place where it is mentioned in English.

I was having trouble seeing it before, (I'm not good at symbol hunting!) but I was able to find the occurrences of Alessa's name in both the Good+ ending and the Bad+ ending, just as translated. I'm gonna go ahead and take the liberty of posting some pictures for you to prove it:



So, I take it this clears up concerns with the translation?

To me it looks more like Claudia's body was destroyed rather than "possessed". The only thing left of Claudia are her clothes. There's nothing (that I recall seeing) that shows she's become a part of the God or anything. If anything I'd say her physical form was broken down and absorbed, or broken down and...I guess reconfigured to give the God its form.

You *could* say that... however, no offense, but that's all speculation. But her clothes are there... why? What's the significance? I would say it's meant to be a clue that her body transformed into god. Of course, I'm also speculating, but the fact remains that those clothes being there seems to have some significance, right?

I'm not going over Alessa's motivation in giving Harry the baby again. You ignored it all before, you're ignoring it all now, and you'll continue to ignore it.

What am I ignoring? Where in the guidebook does it spell out Alessa's motivations in giving Harry the baby? It doesn't. Your theories about "Alessa's motivations" are all based on extrapolation. Granted, it's a logical assumption, but it's still an assumption on your part.

Furthermore, I agree that I don't think "Alessa" would give the baby to Harry either. As I've said a few times already, I think that the "Cheryl" part of Alessa is in control for that scene. And I'm not just pulling that out of thin air... this is signified by the fact that you hear Cheryl's voice saying "Daddy."

As soon as the Woman in White appears she is either referred to as "Incubator" or simply "woman". Even after the boss fight, when the Woman in White reappears, she's still not referred to as Alessa.

Now that I've proven this wrong, should I turn things around and say "continue to ignore this if you will"? No, that would be a bit rude of me, wouldn't it? How about if I politely ask you to reconsider your view and listen to what I have to say?

[Bill_Idjerint]

I think that it's not only valid, but probably the best choice, to abide by the canon stuff like the book, but I, for one, can't stop thinking that it's all a bit misleading. I thought it was confusing at first, but basically, the debate here has basically been 'mother and daughter yes, but God itself: yes or no?' if I understood it correctly, and I really think everyone has valid points, but I've never seen any evidence other than the book saying that Alessa is God itself, despite what has been said here, so it's a nay for me.

[Tillerman]

but I've never seen any evidence other than the book saying that Alessa is God itself, despite what has been said here, so it's a nay for me.

That's not exactly it... Alessa is possessed by god, she's not god herself. When you fight her as Incubator, you are fighting the god who possesses Alessa's body. When you use Aglaophotis, god is forced out and you fight it as the Incubus. After you kill it, the Alessa that's left over is probably still in her "god" form because her body was already changed by god. But it is just Alessa (or arguably Cheryl.)

Note that not the guidebook, or anyplace else in any of the games ever refers to this version of the lady in white as "god." Even the painting in SH3 which states that Heather is a "child of god" can be taken to have a symoblic meaning. But whenever the creators refer specifically to the lady in white that gave Harry the baby, they either call her "the girl," or Alessa. Never god. Heather herself states that Alessa gave Harry the baby in SH3. There is a lot of other speculative and logical evidence that the Lady in White has to be Alessa, in addition to the direct evidence of the guidebook stating it. The god theory, while clever, has no direct evidence to support it; it's all based on speculation.

[Bill_Idjerint]

Ohh I get it now. But possessed? That's a stretch. Good points though.

[The Adversary]

>they either call her "the girl," or Alessa. Never god.<
It is called Incubator, and Incubator is called god. Therefore . . .

[Tillerman]

It is called Incubator, and Incubator is called god. Therefore . . .

Incorrect. I said "this version of the lady in white," referring specifically to the one who gives Harry the baby. They are not the same thing. There is no place in the guidebook, the games, or anywhere that ever refers to the lady who gives Harry the baby as "The Incubator." Only the entity in the Boss Fight is referred to as such, (because it incubates the god.) You'll notice that if you look at the forms of god page, you'll see that the version of the lady in white shown is the one before you use Aglaophotis. I want to call your attention to the ending translations... notice how they only refer to the lady in white as the "Incubator" when you're fighting it, and never after it reappears to give Harry the baby, instead only referring to her as as either "the dying woman," or "Alessa."

Ohh I get it now. But possessed? That's a stretch. Good points though.

If you think about how Aglaophotis is used to cure possession (Cybil), and that Heather seems to "change" when you don't use Aglaophotis, and the fact that SH3 has a "possession" ending(!), it makes a lot of sense. It also explains why the guidebook appears to contradict itself by referring to the Incubator as both Alessa and "a form of god." That's why I like this explanation, it's the only one that makes all the contradictions go away.

But of course, you're welcome to interpret it however you like; the nice thing about Silent Hill is that it's vague enough to support multiple interpretations... especially if you ignore the guidebook, which some people don't like because it spells out so much. Anyway, this theory has more to do with what I believe was the original creator's intent, which is why I like to focus on what the guidebook says. You are free to have your own personal interpretation.

ETA: By the way, since I brought up the possession ending of SH3, I did a little search for "possession" ending and couldn't find any discussion about it. Odd. Let me ask all of you a question... what do you think is happening in the possession ending? Because it seems pretty obvious to me that Heather has been possessed by god. It's not like she could've been possessed by anyone else... so, any thoughts? This would seem to back up the fact that god possesses people.

[Soulless-Shadow]

^No-one is denying that the God hasn't possessed Alessa. I'm pretty sure I've already mentioned that. We're only arguing that Alessa or Cheryl don't take control and hand over the baby at the end of SH1. As I said before, there's a difference to "possessing" and "being" someone. There's nothing in the possessed ending of SH3 that contradicts the whole Alessa isn't God thing.

I'm curious, does Heather use the pendent in the same play through as the possessed ending? I don't recall.

[alone in the town]

In the Possessed Ending of Silent Hill 3, the possessed Heather looks exactly like Heather always does. There's no transformation of any kind. We don't see precisely what God does to Heather, but Claudia's experience was definitely nothing like possession. Since the Possession ending is brought into play, however, it may very well be that "Alessa" is possessed by the dying God in the same way Heather is, which would explain why both women are doing things, be Alessa discovering magical cloning powers or Heather killing her friend, that they would never do in their right minds.

The Incubator certainly does not resemble the real Alessa, whose natural appearance is that of an extra-crispy piece of unhealing, bandaged meat. A transformation took place, less hideous than that which Claudia suffers, but as in her case, the resulting form is fundamentally different from the original host body, and no trace of her original persona remains.

What matters is that we see Alessa's real body, wheelchair-bound and covered in third-degree burns become something that is neither wheelchair-bound nor covered in third-degree burns, a form which is torn apart by Incubus when it is brought to the fore. Then, when defeated, we see Incubus fall to the ground and transform into Incubator once again, an Incubator which suspiciously lacks any sign of the gruesome disfigurement which we see it suffer moments earlier.

It seems plain to me that the only reason any connection is made to Incubator and Alessa is because Incubator resembles what Alessa would look like if she wasn't toasted by her mother. That, and its imitation of Cheryl, are plenty enough to fool a guy like Harry.

Heather mistakenly states that Alessa is that woman, but she could only know this because Harry made the same mistake. She couldn't have remembered it happening, because Alessa was dead already and Heather was just being born.

The alternative to this is that we have to assume that not only has Alessa survived the transformation, but that Cheryl survived fusing with Alessa--neither of which has any basis in reality. Then, we have to create a new definition for the word "reincarnation", a concept of death and rebirth, and make "cloning" a synonym for that, as well as invent Alessa's ability to create full-on copies of herself--which also has no basis in reality. We have to ignore the concept of motherhood and daughterhood. We have to invent the idea that there are multiple Incubators. And, all that props it up is a questionable use of her name in endings that don't tie into the sequel, and a boatload of assumptions and outright inventions.

[Tillerman]

^No-one is denying that the God hasn't possessed Alessa. I'm pretty sure I've already mentioned that. We're only arguing that Alessa or Cheryl don't take control and hand over the baby at the end of SH1. As I said before, there's a difference to "possessing" and "being" someone.

Let's go back and look at what the guidebook says again... in the creature commentary page, under Incubator, it says: "Fusing with God, Alessa awakens." I honestly didn't process this before, so I'm going to have to adjust my theory a little bit, I don't think I can continue to say that the Incubator is "god possessing Alessa." In fact it is the god fused with Alessa. Although it's still sort of "possessing" Alessa in the sense that god obviously is at the driver's wheel... at least until you use Aglaophotis. This doesn't really change my theory though, since I still believe that Aglaophotis forces god out of Alessa's body, and that the lady in white who remains is just Cheryl/Alessa in that form.

Anyway, let me ask you a question. Are you saying that you believe god isn't forced out of Alessa's body by Aglaophotis? Because it would seem to me based on how we've always seen Aglaophotis work that the evil would be purged from Alessa. What's your explanation for why it works differently in Alessa's case?

In the Possessed Ending of Silent Hill 3, the possessed Heather looks exactly like Heather always does. There's no transformation of any kind.

True, however that actually makes sense. The form god takes is based on a particular person's idea of what god looks like. In Alessa's case, that was the lady in white. When it was forced out of Alessa by Aglaophotis, it took Dahlia's form. In Claudia's case, it took the idea of Alessa that Claudia had. So what form would it take when it possesses Heather? Since Heather probably had no idea what god should look like, it makes sense that it would just take Heather's form.

Since the Possession ending is brought into play, however, it may very well be that "Alessa" is possessed by the dying God in the same way Heather is, which would explain why both women are doing things, be Alessa discovering magical cloning powers or Heather killing her friend, that they would never do in their right minds.

I think that would've been a reasonable explanation if it didn't directly contradict the guidebook. However, the guidebook spells out that Alessa is in control when she's in the form of the lady in white, after god is dead. (Not before.) After all, "Alessa uses the last of her power to stop the falling sparks." If it's the last of her power, this implies that she just used her power to do something else... something like say giving a certain someone a baby reincarnation of herself.

Then, when defeated, we see Incubus fall to the ground and transform into Incubator once again, an Incubator which suspiciously lacks any sign of the gruesome disfigurement which we see it suffer moments earlier.

I just thought of an alternative explanation that explains that scene perfectly. Let's say the lady in white is pretty badly disfigured when Incubus rises out of her. Keeping that in mind, when you kill Incubus you cause it to fall to the ground, and in a flash it disappears and the lady in white returns. So did Incubus transform back into the lady in white? No... it healed it! When Incubus died, the power that was released in that flash of light healed the Lady in White to a certain extent, allowing her just enough strength to give Harry the baby and then help Harry escape. This awesome thing about this explanation is that it eliminates both of your alleged contradictions: it no longer matters that the lady in white was disfigured, and it now makes sense why the lady in white appears in the flash of light.

Now, I'm sure you will say "that's nothing but baseless speculation!" and of course you'd be right. However, your "god theory" is primarily based on speculation as well, where as mine is directly supported by the guidebook. And my speculation does something which your "god theory" doesn't accomplish... it eliminates contradictions. If we accept your theory that god gave Harry the baby, then we have to live with blatant contradictions of the guidebook calling the lady in white "Alessa" multiple times. If we accept my theory that god was separated out of Alessa by Aglaophotis, killed by Harry, and that it was Alessa who gave Harry that baby, then we can also use my explanation above to get rid of your alleged contradictions as well.

Since we're looking for the theory that makes the most logical sense based on all the information available, and my theory has less contradictions (I believe it has none), doesn't it just make more sense to go with mine?

It seems plain to me that the only reason any connection is made to Incubator and Alessa is because Incubator resembles what Alessa would look like if she wasn't toasted by her mother.

Incorrect. Under the description of Incubator, the guidebook says: "Fusing with God, Alessa awakens." So Incubator is god fused with Alessa. It takes that form because that is "a manifestation of the mental image of god that Alessa herself had," which is only natural since it is fused with Alessa.

Heather mistakenly states that Alessa is that woman, but she could only know this because Harry made the same mistake. She couldn't have remembered it happening, because Alessa was dead already and Heather was just being born.

Circular logic. You're stating that my theory is wrong using your own speculation that "Alessa was already dead." In fact Alessa was still alive and gave that baby to Harry; that's why Heather can remember that detail. Also, SH3 makes it pretty clear that Heather is trying to recall things from Alessa's memory because she says "I'm trying to remember" and that she has a headache just before revealing that information. That's a pretty strong indication that those are Alessa's memories.

The alternative to this is that we have to assume that not only has Alessa survived the transformation, but that Cheryl survived fusing with Alessa--neither of which has any basis in reality.

There's also no basis to say that Cheryl doesn't exist after fusing with Alessa. The game strongly implies that she does with that final "daddy." (Although of course that could be "god's trick," but that doesn't entirely make sense... why would god say "daddy" in Cheryl's voice, and then choose Alessa's form again?)

Furthermore, please explain this quote by Dahlia: "What are you talking about? You’ve seen her many times, restored to her former self." and "Don’t you see? She’s right there." Dahlia is calling Alessa Cheryl. If we take what Dahlia says literally, we have to concede that Cheryl still exists inside Alessa.

Then, we have to create a new definition for the word "reincarnation",

Easily done. After all, we're talking about the creators of Silent Hill. The definition of a word isn't gonna stop them from having Alessa reincarnate herself if that's what they want her to do.

as well as invent Alessa's ability to create full-on copies of herself--which also has no basis in reality.

Even though that's exactly what "splitting a soul" is.

We have to invent the idea that there are multiple Incubators.

There's only one Incubator... the lady in white *before* you use Aglaophotis. The lady in white who gives Harry the baby is not the Incubator. The Incubator is literally god fused with Alessa, as it says in the creature commentary page. After you "defuse" them with Aglaophotis, she simply becomes Alessa again. If I'm wrong, please find one place anywhere in the guidebook which specifically refers to the lady in white who gives Harry the baby as "The Incubator." I think you'll find that you can't. The ending summaries only refer to that version of the lady in white as "the dying woman" or "Alessa." Never the Incubator. There's an extremely good reason for that.

And, all that props it up is a questionable use of her name in endings that don't tie into the sequel, and a boatload of assumptions and outright inventions.

My "inventions" only serve the purpose of eliminating contradictions. Your "god theory" is not mentioned anywhere in the guidebook, it is all based on interpreting a few vague facts to support a purely invented theory. And this invented theory is directly contradicted by the guidebook. You can't explain that away. My theory, on the other hand, has only one very minor contradiction: the word "reincarnation" isn't used quite right. If we're looking for the theory which best fits all the available information, the one with less contradictions is the obvious choice.

[Soulless-Shadow]

Anyway, let me ask you a question. Are you saying that you believe god isn't forced out of Alessa's body by Aglaophotis?

I don't recall saying anything like that at all. Now you're just putting words in my mouth. But no, I don't. That's because it wasn't Alessa who was hit with the aglaophotis.

What's your explanation for why it works differently in Alessa's case?

It works differently because the Woman in White is God. If you'll notice, Kaufmann wasn't expecting what happened. He knew exactly what the aglaophotis is and does and he was shocked by the appearance of Incubus. If the Woman in White was simply Alessa, then wouldn't the God have popped out similar to Heather's God-Foetus?

[alone in the town]

True, however that actually makes sense. The form god takes is based on a particular person's idea of what god looks like. In Alessa's case, that was the lady in white. When it was forced out of Alessa by Aglaophotis, it took Dahlia's form. In Claudia's case, it took the idea of Alessa that Claudia had. So what form would it take when it possesses Heather? Since Heather probably had no idea what god should look like, it makes sense that it would just take Heather's form.

Heather should have every idea of what God is supposed to look like. She has Alessa's memories, she's seen all kinds of religious paraphernalia in the Church, and she just got done defeating God itself. The idea that she has not formed any physical concept of God by this point, or that her physical concept of God is her own exact image, is absolute nonsense.

I think that would've been a reasonable explanation if it didn't directly contradict the guidebook. However, the guidebook spells out that Alessa is in control when she's in the form of the lady in white, after god is dead. (Not before.) After all, "Alessa uses the last of her power to stop the falling sparks." If it's the last of her power, this implies that she just used her power to do something else... something like say giving a certain someone a baby reincarnation of herself.

You missed the point. It would be Alessa doing these things, with God in control. Nothing in your quote contradicts this. The fact that Incubator is a form of God, in fact, strongly suggests that this is the truth of it. The only thing about Incubator that has anything to do with the dead Alessa Gillespie is that it once resided in that body and now takes on a form which superficially resembles it.

Also, make your own reincarnation? While you're still alive?

I just thought of an alternative explanation that explains that scene perfectly. Let's say the lady in white is pretty badly disfigured when Incubus rises out of her. Keeping that in mind, when you kill Incubus you cause it to fall to the ground, and in a flash it disappears and the lady in white returns. So did Incubus transform back into the lady in white? No... it healed it! When Incubus died, the power that was released in that flash of light healed the Lady in White to a certain extent, allowing her just enough strength to give Harry the baby and then help Harry escape. This awesome thing about this explanation is that it eliminates both of your alleged contradictions: it no longer matters that the lady in white was disfigured, and it now makes sense why the lady in white appears in the flash of light.

The not-so-awesome thing about this explanation is that it eliminates both contradictions at the expense of not making one shred of sense.

Now, I'm sure you will say "that's nothing but baseless speculation!" and of course you'd be right. However, your "god theory" is primarily based on speculation as well, where as mine is directly supported by the guidebook.

The guidebook states that Incubus healed Alessa? Did I miss that part? Or, how about the part where Cheryl appears during that final scene... in any ending? I might have overlooked that one, too.

And my speculation does something which your "god theory" doesn't accomplish... it eliminates contradictions. If we accept your theory that god gave Harry the baby, then we have to live with blatant contradictions of the guidebook calling the lady in white "Alessa" multiple times. If we accept my theory that god was separated out of Alessa by Aglaophotis, killed by Harry, and that it was Alessa who gave Harry that baby, then we can also use my explanation above to get rid of your alleged contradictions as well.

I'm not so desperate to eliminate contradictions that I'm going to ignore what the word "reincarnation" means, completely make up events to suit my purpose, and ignore everything that doesn't go along with it.

Since we're looking for the theory that makes the most logical sense based on all the information available, and my theory has less contradictions (I believe it has none), doesn't it just make more sense to go with mine?

I'm going with the theory that doesn't rest on a foundation of fanfiction and a single semantic argument.

Incorrect. Under the description of Incubator, the guidebook says: "Fusing with God, Alessa awakens." So Incubator is god fused with Alessa. It takes that form because that is "a manifestation of the mental image of god that Alessa herself had," which is only natural since it is fused with Alessa.

So, when Incubus dies, it transforms into Alessa? Even though it is made separate from Incubator in the beginning? Neither Incubator nor Alessa was in the spot where Incubus falls until after it does fall. I love how you're dead-set on ignoring this.

Circular logic. You're stating that my theory is wrong using your own speculation that "Alessa was already dead." In fact Alessa was still alive and gave that baby to Harry; that's why Heather can remember that detail. Also, SH3 makes it pretty clear that Heather is trying to recall things from Alessa's memory because she says "I'm trying to remember" and that she has a headache just before revealing that information. That's a pretty strong indication that those are Alessa's memories.

Or, that she's inserting part of Harry's narrative into a spot she can't come up with on her own, because she can't remember something she didn't witness.

There's also no basis to say that Cheryl doesn't exist after fusing with Alessa.

Except when Dahlia says, outright, that Cheryl doesn't exist anymore, but you pretty well handwaved that contradiction the first time it was presented to you.

The game strongly implies that she does with that final "daddy." (Although of course that could be "god's trick," but that doesn't entirely make sense... why would god say "daddy" in Cheryl's voice, and then choose Alessa's form again?)

Because it's already clear to Harry, and the player, that Alessa and Cheryl were two parts of the same whole and were once again made to be the same person. Besides, my theory doesn't require God to assume any other form than its own.

How would Alessa be able to retain the appearance of God, as she herself envisions God, if God is supposed to be dead already? Alessa's real appearance has a lot more in the way of third-degree burns.

Furthermore, please explain this quote by Dahlia: "What are you talking about? You’ve seen her many times, restored to her former self." and "Don’t you see? She’s right there." Dahlia is calling Alessa Cheryl. If we take what Dahlia says literally, we have to concede that Cheryl still exists inside Alessa.

No, she isn't. She's pointing out what seems obvious to everybody but yourself: Cheryl was a vestige of Alessa, a piece of her soul. They are made one again, thus, 'restored to her former self'. Cheryl is reabsorbed. There is no indication, outside of your own inventions, that Cheryl's persona continues to exist after this happens.

Easily done. After all, we're talking about the creators of Silent Hill. The definition of a word isn't gonna stop them from having Alessa reincarnate herself if that's what they want her to do.

Given the complete lack of evidence suggesting that this was their intent, I'm going with a big no on that one.

Even though that's exactly what "splitting a soul" is.

Incorrect. Cheryl was never a full-on copy of Alessa--that was the whole point of the process. Even Harry refers to her, later, as 'half-a-girl'. If she was a full replica, she could be used to birth God. Heather has no such issues, unfortunately for her, because she's a reincarnation.

There's only one Incubator... the lady in white *before* you use Aglaophotis. The lady in white who gives Harry the baby is not the Incubator. The Incubator is literally god fused with Alessa, as it says in the creature commentary page. After you "defuse" them with Aglaophotis, she simply becomes Alessa again. If I'm wrong, please find one place anywhere in the guidebook which specifically refers to the lady in white who gives Harry the baby as "The Incubator." I think you'll find that you can't. The ending summaries only refer to that version of the lady in white as "the dying woman" or "Alessa." Never the Incubator. There's an extremely good reason for that.

Yeah, I'm sure there's also a perfectly good reason the Bad+ ending implies that Alessa is attacking Harry.

Besides, who thinks of 14 year old girls as women, since we enjoy semantics so much?

My "inventions" only serve the purpose of eliminating contradictions. Your "god theory" is not mentioned anywhere in the guidebook, it is all based on interpreting a few vague facts to support a purely invented theory. And this invented theory is directly contradicted by the guidebook. You can't explain that away. My theory, on the other hand, has only one very minor contradiction: the word "reincarnation" isn't used quite right. If we're looking for the theory which best fits all the available information, the one with less contradictions is the obvious choice.

Yeah, okay. I've pointed out other contradictions already. You're dead-set on ignoring every one of them or inventing baseless workarounds. Mine is contradicted by an inconsistent use of Alessa's name, and your inventive interpretation of what that means. My theory fits in perfectly with all of the Mother-Daughter concepts of the third game, and doesn't even require me to invent new scenarios every time someone argues a point. Nor does it require me to invent new definitions for words.

If you really want to drag this on forever, be my guest, but I don't see any point in repeating myself over and over again. If you want congratulations for making the Alessa theory not look completely bullshit, you have it. There are still far too many holes in it for anyone to take it seriously, unless they're doing it just to get a rise out of other people.

[Tillerman]

But no, I don't. That's because it wasn't Alessa who was hit with the aglaophotis.

The guidebook says that Incubator is Alessa fused with god. Do you dismiss that? If so, why?

You said: "No-one is denying that the God hasn't possessed Alessa." What did you mean by that, if not that the Incubator is Alessa possessed by god? (Because that's the way I took it, maybe I misunderstood.)

You missed the point. It would be Alessa doing these things, with God in control. Nothing in your quote contradicts this. The fact that Incubator is a form of God, in fact, strongly suggests that this is the truth of it. The only thing about Incubator that has anything to do with the dead Alessa Gillespie is that it once resided in that body and now takes on a form which superficially resembles it.

Okay, I see what you're saying. Basically, the guidebook refers to the lady in white as "Alessa" only because it looks like Alessa, even though it is in fact god. Is that your point? However, the guidebook describes the Incubator as: "Fusing with god, Alessa awakens." If Alessa and god are "fused," it doesn't really make sense to say she's "dead." If you want to back up this point with hard evidence, could you point me as to where in the guidebook it say Alessa "dies" when god fuses with her?

Also, doesn't the "Alessa awakens" part suggests that Alessa is a conscious part of this entity, even if not in control?

Also, if the lady in white who gives Harry the baby is the "Incbuator," please explain why it is never once referred to as the Incubator, only as "the dying woman" or "Alessa"?

Or, that she's inserting part of Harry's narrative into a spot she can't come up with on her own, because she can't remember something she didn't witness.

That's a big stretch. She doesn't say "I'm foggy on this one part, but I think..." she just asserts it as fact, the same as all her other statements that "she is trying to remember." You're bending hard to interpret this in a way that is friendly to your theory, and it just doesn't look good no matter how you slice it. Putting aside what's actually happening in this scene, why would the creators even have Heather contradict what (according to you) *really happens* in the first place, in a game that was meant to clear up confusion about the first game? What's your explanation for that?

There is no indication, outside of your own inventions, that Cheryl's persona continues to exist after this happens.

I would call Cheryl's voice saying "Daddy" as you kill Incubus a pretty strong indication.

Incorrect. Cheryl was never a full-on copy of Alessa--that was the whole point of the process. Even Harry refers to her, later, as 'half-a-girl'. If she was a full replica, she could be used to birth God. Heather has no such issues, unfortunately for her, because she's a reincarnation.

Very true. But Cheryl being "not a full-on copy" is only an arbitrary explanation decided by the creators to explain how Alessa is able to hold off god from being born. There is no tangible way in which Cheryl is "half a girl," at least not one that is explained in the game. If you think about what a "soul" does, conventional wisdom is that it allows someone to be conscious. So by definition, if someone is conscious, they have a "soul." So it's not really possible to have "half a soul." So in fact, the real contradiction is the game saying that Alessa "split her soul," since that doesn't fit with the definition of "soul." (And I could say the same thing for Lord Voldemort, by the way.) Given that that's the case, you think they also wouldn't have stretched the term "reincarnation"?

Yeah, okay. I've pointed out other contradictions already. You're dead-set on ignoring every one of them or inventing baseless workarounds.

If I can invent a workaround, then it's not truly a contradiction. Here's the thing... all of the contradictions you raised are based on your own interpretation. Let me show you what I mean:

1. You say that the Incubus "transforms" back into Incubator when it dies... when in fact, that's not clear from the visuals at all. It's your interpretation that Incubus is transforming into Incubator. So it's not a "contradiction" I need to answer, I merely need to explain to you my own interpretation that fits with what is shown, and does not contradict anything. And I have done so.

2. You say that the word "reincarnation" does not fit with my explanation for events. However, it's not clear if the creators are adhering to a strict definition of "reincarnation." You are assuming they are because it fits your theory. So it's not a "contradiction" for me to simply assume differently.

3. You say that Cheryl can't exist anymore because Dahlia says "that person no longer exists." When in fact, Dahlia also says "What are you talking about? You’ve seen her many times, restored to her former self." and "Don’t you see? She’s right there." You are assuming that the former statement is meant to be taken literally, and the latter statements are not, simply because it fits your theory. It is not a contradiction for me to assume the opposite.

Mine is contradicted by an inconsistent use of Alessa's name,

"inconsistent"? First of all, "inconsistent" is the wrong word to use... the use of Alessa's name in the guidebook directly contradicts your theory. The guidebook literally says that Incubator is Alessa fused with god, and calls the lady in white who gives Harry the baby "Alessa." That's pretty damning if you're going to keep insisting that god gives Harry that baby, and no interpretation on my part is required. It's obvious that if "Alessa" is giving the baby to Harry, god is not.

Secondly, it's only "inconsistent" with your theory. It's completely consistent with mine. That's why I think my theory is right, and yours is wrong.

If you really want to drag this on forever, be my guest, but I don't see any point in repeating myself over and over again. If you want congratulations for making the Alessa theory not look completely bullshit, you have it. There are still far too many holes in it for anyone to take it seriously, unless they're doing it just to get a rise out of other people.

Hey... it's not my intention to drag this on forever, but at the same time I'm not the sort of person who backs down when they think they're right. I'm not trying to be a contrarian, I simply can't believe in a theory which is directly contradicted by the guidebook. If you'd like to drop the subject, please feel free. I have nothing against you personally, and I respect the tenacity to which you hold onto your theory... but we very strongly disagree on this particular issue, and I suspect that this little verbal exchange will not be the last of it.

[Soulless-Shadow]

But no, I don't. That's because it wasn't Alessa who was hit with the aglaophotis.

The guidebook says that Incubator is Alessa fused with god. Do you dismiss that? If so, why?

I haven't dismissed anything. All of your assumptions about what you think I think are starting to get annoying.

You said: "No-one is denying that the God hasn't possessed Alessa." What did you mean by that, if not that the Incubator is Alessa possessed by god? (Because that's the way I took it, maybe I misunderstood.)

If God has possessed Alessa body, then the aglaophotis works differently because Alessa's body has undertaken an important and major change. AITT has already pointed it out; Alessa was covered in 3rd degree burns, but the Woman in White is perfectly fine. Not even a scorch mark. If the aglaophotis was thrown at crispy-Alessa prior to the transformation/birth, then it would most likely do the same as it did for Cybil and Heather. Seeing as Kaufmann was shocked about the result, and Dahlia was happy...well, clearly it didn't work the way it was suppose to work. Why? Because the Woman in White was God.

I'm not going to bother with this moronic circular discussion any more - again again again. Not unless there's something major or ground-breaking, that doesn't involve using someone else's crappy interpretations of Book of Lost Memories. We've already exhausted that avenue of discussion. Let's just leave this thread to stagnate unless something major is found. Also, Tillerman, please don't PM me again to try to get me back in the discussion. That was annoying and intrusive.

[Tillerman]

The guidebook says that Incubator is Alessa fused with god. Do you dismiss that? If so, why?

I haven't dismissed anything. All of your assumptions about what you think I think are starting to get annoying.

I'm going to have to beg your pardon, but if you'll reread what I said, I asked "do you dismiss that"? This is a question. I'm asking because I don't know if you dismiss that. I'm not assuming anything, I'm asking because I want to know what you think. To be totally honest with you, I'm not clear at all on where you stand on a lot of points.

If God has possessed Alessa body, then the aglaophotis works differently because Alessa's body has undertaken an important and major change.

We agree that Alessa's body has undergone a major change, that's for sure. I still don't see why that means aglaophotis would work differently, especially considering that the creators go out of their way to show us aglaophotis doing what we'd expect... causing god to separate from Alessa.

AITT has already pointed it out; Alessa was covered in 3rd degree burns, but the Woman in White is perfectly fine. Not even a scorch mark.

Of course. The lady in white is Alessa fused with god. We know for a fact it's appearance is based on Alessa's mental image of god. So it's only natural that the scorch marks are gone.

If the aglaophotis was thrown at crispy-Alessa prior to the transformation/birth, then it would most likely do the same as it did for Cybil and Heather. Seeing as Kaufmann was shocked about the result, and Dahlia was happy...well, clearly it didn't work the way it was suppose to work. Why? Because the Woman in White was God.

It seems like we mostly agree. I'm basically saying that the Incubator is god as well... or to be accurate, god fused with Alessa, as the book states. What happens after aglaophotis hits her is where we seem to disagree (I'm guessing... please don't accuse me of "assuming things") I say that at this point god serarates, and you kill it, as evidenced by the fact that when the lady in returns, she is referenced only as "woman" or "Alessa." Therefore, the person who gives Harry the baby is Alessa, as both the guidebook and SH3 states.

I have no idea what you think happens after aglaophotis hits the Incubator. I won't dare to even guess.

I'm not going to bother with this moronic circular discussion any more - again again again. Not unless there's something major or ground-breaking, that doesn't involve using someone else's crappy interpretations of Book of Lost Memories.

"Crappy interpretations"? So me pointing out what the creators say in their own guidebook, that Alessa gives Harry the baby is a "crappy interpretation?" As Mr Clinton once said, that dog won't hunt!

[clips]

Y'know i liked this discussion and still do, but now we're really talking in circles and everybody is explaining the same exact views they had on this issue a few pages back, but only differently. Let's just respectively agree to disagree mmmkay?......