Twin Peaks Usenet Archive


Subject: Re: another Andy theory
From: horny@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (Michael Kaye)
Date: 1990-10-12, 15:26
Newsgroups: alt.tv.twin-peaks

In article <1990Oct12.182538.11573@morrow.stanford.edu> andy@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Andy Michael USGS Guest) writes:
> >In article <1990Oct12.163940.14501@cs.umn.edu> wsmith@cs.umn.edu (Warren Smith [Randy]) writes:
>> >>[andy theory]
> >
> >The problem with the Andy theories is that every possible clue about
> >Andy can (or has been) explained away with much easier explanations.

This is true with all of the TP evidence implicating someone.
Things start pointing more and more in a certain direction after 
awhile though.  It gets harder and harder to explain some things, 
and more and more pieces imply something, if only through symbolism.
The scenes with Leland begging for someone to dance with him,
breaking a picture with blood on his hands could be symbolic
and imply something, or he could just be a grieving father.

I just posted a long article on why I think spirits are
involved in TP.  I can see ways all the evidence that made 
me arrive at that conclusion could be explained away by more 
mundane things.  It just has become progressively harder to 
explain away as the show has progressed.  (it still is possible...)
This goes for everything in the diary too.  It's all implication
and feelings.  We don't know if BOB is real, Laura herself
questions it.  Besides the diary all we have is visions and dreams.
(I do believe BOB exists, if only in spirit form)
I could ramble on, but I'll spare yall.  You have alot of fascinating
postings on Mairzy Doats, what that kid said, why does he look like lynch,
and that type of thing to catch up on.  You've only heard the answers
and questions a few dozen times yet.

Michael Kaye    horny@ucscb.ucsc.edu


Return