View source for Talk:Year Zero Numbers

I made this page because the bible references are only a theory, so the numbers shouldn't be automatically called "bible references"

I have no problem with the bible references being merged into this article.  I envisioned this article having more bulk - more explanations about where the numbers were found, but it turns out that there is really no need. [[User:Nympholept|Nympholept]] 10:07, 16 February 2007 (PST)

Rearranging all the letters from the clues I have found that:

God given not in US war

can be found, does this mean anything?  -velvolver

UPDATE: God given nation can be spelled out with WR U S left over...and with the new clue Y is there also.

--------

The clue for 24.15.8 is a little iffy.  How can we determine that's a clue just by counting the beats?  We could do that for any song.  Further more, the number 8 falls out of sequence with the numbers before it, and a good amount of these numbers are sequencial.  I don't think 24.15.8 is a clue without further evidence to prove it. --[[User:Velvolver|Velvolver]] 11:13, 1 March 2007 (PST)

----------

With the new clues, the track number theory would bump year zero into having 19 tracks.  I think this completely disproves that the numbers are referring to track numbers now.  We need to look elsewhere than the year zero track listing and the Bible, as neither have been fruitful. --[[User:Velvolver|Velvolver]] 11:13, 1 March 2007 (PST)

----------

The Track Number + Letter Offset theory seems weak, unless it's meant to be an anagram.  The "God Given" in the text doesn't seem to surprising since (a) "God Given" is the track title of track 10, and (b) nearly all the number sequences are sequential.  So the fact that "godgiven" is clearly seen in the string of "corresponding characters" shouldn't be given too much weight.--[[User:Mr z|Mr z]] 17:30, 28 February 2007 (PST)

----------

The clue for 24.19.1 is weak, too. I don't see how that works. A screenshot would be nice backup for that one. --[[User:Tsguitar|Tsguitar]] 21:18, 28 February 2007 (PST)

----------


(Kept for historic purposes I guess, but now I believe 19.1 is a clue, read below)
I agree Tsguitar, the clue says that the >'s count as the number 19.  Yet I don't see enough > to equate a 24, or an extra > left over for the 1.  This isn't like the auto response e-mail on an earlier clue with the dashes between the 24 underscores and the other numbers.

Further more, are there clues in the HD-DVD version of BYIT?

addon: My mistake, don't add the Brackets all together, add line per line.  Example: >> 2, >>>> 4 > 1 etc...

:I see it now. Thanks for the clarification. --[[User:Tsguitar|Tsguitar]] 22:36, 1 March 2007 (PST)

== Federal Orderly Conduct Act ==

How about the fact that one of the numbers, 24.13.1, directly references a section of the Federal Orderly Conduct Act? 

I'll be speaking within the context of the Year Zero universe after this sentence - just saying this to avoid confusion.

Unless the raid of Art Is Resistance was a hoax, those who have been spreading the numbers have a lot of explaining to do. All of the numbers have been in the form 24.{3-19}.{1-8}, just like the section of the Act. So, everyone who has posted a number in this form, both government sanctioned and resistance, has been directly referencing a law that should be publicly documented.

I think this is a strong clue to the numbers' significance. A copy of the Federal Orderly Conduct Act would be helpful (guess we'll just have to wait for them to write that one in).

By the way, I honestly didn't know that someone on echoing the sound already made this connection. Still worth brining it up here.

----

That's an excellent idea...you should have signed that post.  Perhaps each number is a part of the Act that was violated by the website.  Are the websites scrambled due to being attacked by the Feds or by distortion from time travel (part of another theory).--[[User:Velvolver|Velvolver]] 11:39, 2 March 2007 (PST)

----

Thanks. Not sure if there's anyway to prove it now, but the last post was mine. But anyway, assuming that the Church Of Plano is government sanctioned, why would the Feds attack it? --[[User:Augmatic|Augmatic]] 11:52, 2 March 2007 (PST)

----

You can nearly sig anything, I've left about half the sigs on my posts.  But the feds attacked the church of plano?

----

It seems more likely to me that the Federal Orderly Conduct Act warning was just a convenient way to give us another number.  Citing specific sections of the act doesn't seem particularly interesting by itself, even with the act in hand. --[[User:Mr z|Mr z]] 22:19, 3 March 2007 (PST)