If Cassie can be Bree's alternate personality,
does that make Nikki B Daniels alternate personality?

Moderator: Moderators
I agree with the "drugged up" theory. I just don't think it was either LSD or MDMA. Other drugs however... very big possibility. And editing was definitely done.Ziola wrote:Um, just to put my 2 cents in about the drug/no drug issue.
When my dad had his gall bladder out a few weeks ago, he was on morphine and some other painkiller (it starts with a D). Well, he got lost on the way to the bathroom, got lost on the way back to his bed in the emergency room, and after the surgery he told people (for hours) that he had his CABBAGE taken out. So, I think that it is quite realistic for Daniel to have been drugged up, asked a whole bunch of questions and then had his answers edited together.
In her trial, which commenced on January 15, 1976, Hearst's attorney claimed that she had been blindfolded, imprisoned in a narrow closet, and physically and sexually abused. The claim that her actions were the result of a concerted brainwashing program was central to her defense. (Hearst's actions have also been attributed to "Stockholm syndrome," in which hostages sympathize with the aims of their captors.)
I still think this theory doesn't really make sense. Or maybe not so much that it doesn't make sense as it doesn't seem like it would matter even if it's true.SharpI wrote:Here's a concept: I think maybe that at the time Daniel was filmed for this video, he didn't know he was being held by the Order. I think he thought he was talking to the police or other authority, and trying to explain to them about the Order, ceremony, Cassie etc. He was probably high as a kite from drugs that Cowboy gave him. That's how they got him talking so freely for parts of the video.
But Daniel might have suspected that something wasn't right, especially if the "police" or whoever got more obvious in trying to get him to say certain things, such as the greeting to Bree. And so, as people have noted, he's "not himself" in these segments.
When I watched the video the first time, I came away thinking "ZOMG he's totally brainwashed." The second time, however, I paid more attention to the cuts and the sound, and came away thinking that it's all a clever edit job and Daniel isn't brainwashed at all. The cuts create meaning by juxtaposing possibly unrelated sentences (example: "your dad" and "he meant for that to happen.") I don't think it's a coincidence that some of his more WTF statements are also ones where the sound is attenuated so much you can hardly tell who's speaking, ahem.
I'm not so sure the clothing is relevant. What the actors wear is, I think, just what the actors wear, and really has nothing to do with their characters. For instance, Bree has somehow managed to wear a different outfit everytime we see her, though that's obviously not reasonable.iamcool wrote:he is wearing the same shirt as he was like over 2 month ago, and seeing as he wouldnt have chance to change was it filmed within the last few days or a long time ago?watching_watchers wrote:Whys that? Since all of the cuts and what not? I'm pretty sure they have him. In my opinion. *shrug*itsreallyreal wrote:I wonder if they even really have Daniel at all!
"She'd"/"she would" doesn't imply past tense, actually. It's a present/future tense in hypothetical terms. One can say "She would do [blank]" about a living person the same as they can a dead person. It probably doesn't suggest whether she's there or not, though (I'm thinking no anyway).EEVEE wrote:I think Daniel was brainwashed and maybe they just made him say that thing about cassie to get Bree's attention, because it could mean something more.oh and yeah either cassie is dead/gone/not there, one of those because of the past tense used.