Well, the photo was in Amy's home, and we already know that proximity to the crack over several years affected Amy so I'd assume the house was also affected by it, allowing for certain inconsistencies.
Thing is we don't know how long Amy has been living with the crack....as we know the Doctor closed it, and he says good as new....(annoyingly they don't show the wall so we can't see whther its gone for good or not), so an assumption can be made that the crack has closed and is gone.....then later when Amy sees the crack again in Flesh and Stone, she says that is the same crack in my wall when I was a little girl...again suggesting when it was there then....not now. The Doctor then says she grew up (or as the Doctor says grow up with a time crack in her wall) with a carck in her wall.....the universe poring through her dreams every night.....so its either shut, or it never did shut properly.....
But in the end the photos stuff is explained away as the Doctor says that some things remian....in the same way the duck pond remianed, and so did the name, but the ducks had gone.....technically you could even question whether River would get her pardon, as all the clerics hse was with had seized to exist, yet they still knew she was there, hence why they came to pick her up.....so despite some things never existing, things surrounding them, their family, friends, workplace (even if they started it) would remian.....logically it doesn't make sense.....but that is what seemed to happen within the rules of the crack erasing rules...whatever was needed for the story/plot basically
From the point of view of someone on Earth in 102 AD what happened was the stars went out. The "Sun" continued to shine (they didn't know it was the Tardis).
Now that would inevitably change the social development of the whole world. How would they navigate, for one thing. Would the Roman Empire continue in it's merry way, or would the peasants, inspired by fear, revolt? Etc etc.
From the point of view from everyone, everywhere, the stars went out. In fact there were no stars at any point in time.
Same principle as before - the elements of the timeline are eaten away piece by piece, leaving everything else behind. It may not make any sense to us that navigation is possible, but it seems perfectly normal to everyone else.
Remember, as the Doctor said to Amy, "Does it ever bother you, Amy? That your life makes no sense?"
From the point of view from everyone, everywhere, the stars went out. In fact there were no stars at any point in time.
Same principle as before - the elements of the timeline are eaten away piece by piece, leaving everything else behind. It may not make any sense to us that navigation is possible, but it seems perfectly normal to everyone else.
Remember, as the Doctor said to Amy, "Does it ever bother you, Amy? That your life makes no sense?"
I'm not entirely sure that can be used in the larger context of people thinking there is no such thing as stars.....on a personal level that works...becuase it was about how Amy never questioned what happend to her parents, or why she then lived in a big house.....but stars themselves are quite influential on history itself....because its not only stars, but planets as well.....hence why animals were evolving in the wrong places (again its questionable if that is possible)....so people would question it...and in fact they were doing so...like Dawkins;) so it wasn't normal to everyone else...in fact it wasn't even normal to Amy...ad yes you can say its becuase of the crack in her wall...but then again.....she can't have been in that house for long, as if she moved there very young, then she would have lost her accent much quicker....but she hasn't suggesting that it hasn't been that long.....as she is old enough to want some sort of identity and not lose it because she has moved.....
I think the stars not existing is very much like the cracks erasing anything really....leaving something behind...in this case samll memories within some people...like Amy and Dawkins.....
So that doesn't bother me.....however, what my head doesn't seem to get is why the time line is different as in involving the Doctor and meeting Amelia.....because the Doctor hasn't been taken out of time, his self that has met Amelia is the one that is trapped, not the verison which hasn't met him...so the Eleventh Hour, at least in terms of the Doctor crashing...still should have happend.....other things change, like the animals because the stars don't exist anymore....but the Doctor still should have met amelia....just like Amy dying then didn't change the fact her parents are still gone in the crack, and she still is is praying to Santa about her crack in the wall.....
Unless ofcourse the Doctor doesn't exist because Gallifrey doesn't...that well could be it......though the three different timelines, thinking logically about them ie the scene in Flesh and Stone....at the same time the Crack is opening, and then at the same time the Crack is closing hence the other/future Doctor talking to Amy while the other one walks off.....you know its best not to think...becuase in the end, its a drama that is just plain fun.....:D
Right, addressing the photo: the honeymoon in Christmas Carol was clearly inferred as being dress up because of what had gone on before, so cannot be where the picture was from (judging by what we know of the dates and causality). Taking that into account with the fact that we also saw more than enough evidence to suggest that the TARDIS had no effect on the erasure of the past. This is evidenced by Amy forgetting Rory. Of the TARDIS had the effect of keeping the ring because of it being out of time, then Amy would not have forgotten Rory. That is a given.
The photo would not have existed either if that were the case. Therefore we have to go with the established facts, and despite what a few people on here think, there were some. One of which was that those erased by the crack left their physical effects in place. This is evidenced by Amy existing, after her parents were erased. There can be no debate about that really. That is just how it was.
The ring survived, not because of anything to do with the TARDIS, but because it was bought before Rory was erased, and wasn't on him when he was erased. The internal logic dictates that quite simply.
.....but stars themselves are quite influential on history itself....because its not only stars, but planets as well.....
Yes, and now they're not. The timeline exists, the things that would make them make sense, don't.
So that doesn't bother me.....however, what my head doesn't seem to get is why the time line is different as in involving the Doctor and meeting Amelia.....
Because it is illustrative of how events are all screwed up.
The photo would not have existed either if that were the case. Therefore we have to go with the established facts, and despite what a few people on here think, there were some. One of which was that those erased by the crack left their physical effects in place. This is evidenced by Amy existing, after her parents were erased. There can be no debate about that really. That is just how it was.
The ring survived, not because of anything to do with the TARDIS, but because it was bought before Rory was erased, and wasn't on him when he was erased. The internal logic dictates that quite simply.
If that's the way you want to think of things, that's fine. But they're not 'facts'.
Yes, and now they're not. The timeline exists, the things that would make them make sense, don't..
and that is what I concluded with with the idea that it is a bit like the crack situation...ie it still eixts, despite with some things not existing..:p
Because it is illustrative of how events are all screwed up.
I think none eixstance Gallifrey makes more sense, because as the Doctor says he and what is left off Earth (after he gets out of the Pandorica) are the last light to go out.....because the Universe never happend.....
So in the end things were slowly (by Amy's time) coming to a complete non-existance, so not so much time screw-up, but things never happening.....the animals were th only thing that seemed to be screwed up by the lack of stars/planets
Right, addressing the photo: the honeymoon in Christmas Carol was clearly inferred as being dress up because of what had gone on before, so cannot be where the picture was from (judging by what we know of the dates and causality). Taking that into account with the fact that we also saw more than enough evidence to suggest that the TARDIS had no effect on the erasure of the past. This is evidenced by Amy forgetting Rory. Of the TARDIS had the effect of keeping the ring because of it being out of time, then Amy would not have forgotten Rory. That is a given.
The photo would not have existed either if that were the case. Therefore we have to go with the established facts, and despite what a few people on here think, there were some. One of which was that those erased by the crack left their physical effects in place. This is evidenced by Amy existing, after her parents were erased. There can be no debate about that really. That is just how it was.
The ring survived, not because of anything to do with the TARDIS, but because it was bought before Rory was erased, and wasn't on him when he was erased. The internal logic dictates that quite simply.
No, they were simply the only things illustrated by the museum exhibits. They weren't the exception that proves the rule.
Hence the "seemed"...because nothing else in that museum seemed to be messed up....Human history, surrounding the events of the Pandorica seemed the same...ie the world wars....and people's cultural lifestyle seemed unaffected ...what with 1996 seeming like 1996...or the middle eastern/african fez wearing mannequin....
so yeah there could have been other screw ups....but what I meant was what was shown, it seems, on a larger scale of history/evolution change, it was the animals, according to what we saw in the museum...and maybe a belief in the stars that didn't exist in this world...instead of a God/s....
So basically I am not arguing against you..my conclusion was agreeing with you:D
One of which was that those erased by the crack left their physical effects in place. This is evidenced by Amy existing, after her parents were erased. There can be no debate about that really. That is just how it was.
The ring survived, not because of anything to do with the TARDIS, but because it was bought before Rory was erased, and wasn't on him when he was erased. The internal logic dictates that quite simply.
The Doctor implied that some things are left behind, but he declared no hard and fast rules over what stays and what is changed. There are no facts other than what is shown on the screen. And the Doctor lies.
The Doctor implied that some things are left behind, but he declared no hard and fast rules over what stays and what is changed. There are no facts other than what is shown on the screen. And the Doctor lies.
He does....but when he does he usually has a reason.....for example when he lied about the dying bit of his future self, it was to gain more time, when he lied to Amy about why he got her to travel, we found out his true intentions soon enough.....but the question is why would he lie to Amy about some things get left behind....considering he seemed to edge her on to remember that stranger in the photograph, or anything that she felt she couldn't put her finger on.....indicating that nothing is ever forgotten...as he didn't seem to find it odd that the ring was left behind, or indeed that there was a photo of Rory in Amy's room still which Rover informed him off...what he found an alert/warning was that he was dressed as a roman in that photo too...which can't be a coincident....
so yes the Doctor does lie....but when taking in the context...it usually is for a reason.....even if that reason is a mere joke/witty line excuse to lie...but that comment, seemed to be very truthful and heartfelt....
But I won't agrue that this answer is the be all and end all...because even if it is right now.....Moff can easily change it if he feel he wants to.....or that he already had another explanation...and what the Doctor said was his opinion of what was going on......rather than a hard fact....
The Doctor implied that some things are left behind, but he declared no hard and fast rules over what stays and what is changed. There are no facts other than what is shown on the screen. And the Doctor lies.
True, he does.
But the evidence doesn't. And the evidence (as was seen throughout the series) backed up what the Doctor was saying. So the only two hypotheses you can get from that is that either he was planting stuff to make his lies seem true, or this might have been a case where he wasn't lying.
I came to the conclusion I did through the evidence on screen. What the Doctor said only backed up what I had already seen, my conclusion wasn't dependent upon what he said.
However, I will concede that as only half the story has been told, at best, that there might be other facts yet to appear that may occlude my conclusions - I will welcome them, in fact, as I like shows that challenge the viewers' perceptions.
Comments
Thing is we don't know how long Amy has been living with the crack....as we know the Doctor closed it, and he says good as new....(annoyingly they don't show the wall so we can't see whther its gone for good or not), so an assumption can be made that the crack has closed and is gone.....then later when Amy sees the crack again in Flesh and Stone, she says that is the same crack in my wall when I was a little girl...again suggesting when it was there then....not now. The Doctor then says she grew up (or as the Doctor says grow up with a time crack in her wall) with a carck in her wall.....the universe poring through her dreams every night.....so its either shut, or it never did shut properly.....
But in the end the photos stuff is explained away as the Doctor says that some things remian....in the same way the duck pond remianed, and so did the name, but the ducks had gone.....technically you could even question whether River would get her pardon, as all the clerics hse was with had seized to exist, yet they still knew she was there, hence why they came to pick her up.....so despite some things never existing, things surrounding them, their family, friends, workplace (even if they started it) would remian.....logically it doesn't make sense.....but that is what seemed to happen within the rules of the crack erasing rules...whatever was needed for the story/plot basically
And with dash of Amy...voila!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2vwmDAUHq2o&feature=related
ha ha, love that clip...:D
From the point of view from everyone, everywhere, the stars went out. In fact there were no stars at any point in time.
Same principle as before - the elements of the timeline are eaten away piece by piece, leaving everything else behind. It may not make any sense to us that navigation is possible, but it seems perfectly normal to everyone else.
Remember, as the Doctor said to Amy, "Does it ever bother you, Amy? That your life makes no sense?"
I'm not entirely sure that can be used in the larger context of people thinking there is no such thing as stars.....on a personal level that works...becuase it was about how Amy never questioned what happend to her parents, or why she then lived in a big house.....but stars themselves are quite influential on history itself....because its not only stars, but planets as well.....hence why animals were evolving in the wrong places (again its questionable if that is possible)....so people would question it...and in fact they were doing so...like Dawkins;) so it wasn't normal to everyone else...in fact it wasn't even normal to Amy...ad yes you can say its becuase of the crack in her wall...but then again.....she can't have been in that house for long, as if she moved there very young, then she would have lost her accent much quicker....but she hasn't suggesting that it hasn't been that long.....as she is old enough to want some sort of identity and not lose it because she has moved.....
I think the stars not existing is very much like the cracks erasing anything really....leaving something behind...in this case samll memories within some people...like Amy and Dawkins.....
So that doesn't bother me.....however, what my head doesn't seem to get is why the time line is different as in involving the Doctor and meeting Amelia.....because the Doctor hasn't been taken out of time, his self that has met Amelia is the one that is trapped, not the verison which hasn't met him...so the Eleventh Hour, at least in terms of the Doctor crashing...still should have happend.....other things change, like the animals because the stars don't exist anymore....but the Doctor still should have met amelia....just like Amy dying then didn't change the fact her parents are still gone in the crack, and she still is is praying to Santa about her crack in the wall.....
Unless ofcourse the Doctor doesn't exist because Gallifrey doesn't...that well could be it......though the three different timelines, thinking logically about them ie the scene in Flesh and Stone....at the same time the Crack is opening, and then at the same time the Crack is closing hence the other/future Doctor talking to Amy while the other one walks off.....you know its best not to think...becuase in the end, its a drama that is just plain fun.....:D
The photo would not have existed either if that were the case. Therefore we have to go with the established facts, and despite what a few people on here think, there were some. One of which was that those erased by the crack left their physical effects in place. This is evidenced by Amy existing, after her parents were erased. There can be no debate about that really. That is just how it was.
The ring survived, not because of anything to do with the TARDIS, but because it was bought before Rory was erased, and wasn't on him when he was erased. The internal logic dictates that quite simply.
If that's the way you want to think of things, that's fine. But they're not 'facts'.
and that is what I concluded with with the idea that it is a bit like the crack situation...ie it still eixts, despite with some things not existing..:p
I think none eixstance Gallifrey makes more sense, because as the Doctor says he and what is left off Earth (after he gets out of the Pandorica) are the last light to go out.....because the Universe never happend.....
So in the end things were slowly (by Amy's time) coming to a complete non-existance, so not so much time screw-up, but things never happening.....the animals were th only thing that seemed to be screwed up by the lack of stars/planets
I think I preferred littlemisslotz.
But the thing is that they are. It was what was on the show itself. And it was stated by the Doctor.
Hence the "seemed"...because nothing else in that museum seemed to be messed up....Human history, surrounding the events of the Pandorica seemed the same...ie the world wars....and people's cultural lifestyle seemed unaffected ...what with 1996 seeming like 1996...or the middle eastern/african fez wearing mannequin....
so yeah there could have been other screw ups....but what I meant was what was shown, it seems, on a larger scale of history/evolution change, it was the animals, according to what we saw in the museum...and maybe a belief in the stars that didn't exist in this world...instead of a God/s....
So basically I am not arguing against you..my conclusion was agreeing with you:D
He does....but when he does he usually has a reason.....for example when he lied about the dying bit of his future self, it was to gain more time, when he lied to Amy about why he got her to travel, we found out his true intentions soon enough.....but the question is why would he lie to Amy about some things get left behind....considering he seemed to edge her on to remember that stranger in the photograph, or anything that she felt she couldn't put her finger on.....indicating that nothing is ever forgotten...as he didn't seem to find it odd that the ring was left behind, or indeed that there was a photo of Rory in Amy's room still which Rover informed him off...what he found an alert/warning was that he was dressed as a roman in that photo too...which can't be a coincident....
so yes the Doctor does lie....but when taking in the context...it usually is for a reason.....even if that reason is a mere joke/witty line excuse to lie...but that comment, seemed to be very truthful and heartfelt....
But I won't agrue that this answer is the be all and end all...because even if it is right now.....Moff can easily change it if he feel he wants to.....or that he already had another explanation...and what the Doctor said was his opinion of what was going on......rather than a hard fact....
True, he does.
But the evidence doesn't. And the evidence (as was seen throughout the series) backed up what the Doctor was saying. So the only two hypotheses you can get from that is that either he was planting stuff to make his lies seem true, or this might have been a case where he wasn't lying.
I came to the conclusion I did through the evidence on screen. What the Doctor said only backed up what I had already seen, my conclusion wasn't dependent upon what he said.
However, I will concede that as only half the story has been told, at best, that there might be other facts yet to appear that may occlude my conclusions - I will welcome them, in fact, as I like shows that challenge the viewers' perceptions.