Harry has often felt that he had nothing to fall back on, and rightfully so. Harry has been lucky, very lucky, and he needs all the help he can get. He has been saved by an assortment of things. By Dobby from Mr. Malfoy; by the Ford Anglia from the spiders; by Fawkes; by a time turner which allowed him to see he could do something he did not think he could do; by Mr. Alivander's wands which just happen to be of the same core and therefore create Priori Incantatem which allowed the various spirits to help him against LV; etc. Harry has a lot of special and important gifts, but he needs DD's help, and I think he will get it. Dumbledore lives.

UnknownLocket - by the way you spelled my name in lower case and added the "u" I wonder if you don't know me from my travels with those arcane casters on the American west coast.

As to the uses of DoLD - I would surmise that it is one of the main parts of creating an inferi, which there seemed to be plenty of guarding that locket. I don't think there is anything nice about DoLD and one would not want to be under it's effects.

Now Albus I really am starting to worry about you ever so slightly. It is one thing to admire that man Dumbledore was, but I wonder what you will do when you are forced to realize that Dumbledore is dead. I think it is your high regard for Dumbledore that clouds your overall view as to what is really happening.

DD died on that tower so that Harry could have the pieces in place that would allow him to go on to victory over Voldermort.

One last morsel for you to chew upon. If it was Draco's task to kill Dumbledore as set upon him by Voldermort, and Snape made the UV with Narcissa to fulfill the orders of Voldermort is Draco could not, and Dumbledore is not truly dead, then how is Snape still alive? The magic of an UV would not be so easily duped by the fact that there are two men who have the last name Dumbledore. Nor do I think that Voldermort would refer to Dumbldore simply as Dumbledore when giving the order.

Mod Edit: I don't like your tone. No one but yourself finds your condescending little personal quips funny, so stop worrying about other members too much and rather make sure you are respectful.

I dont think so. I often play the role of Devil's Advocate and I know full well what is really going on. While I can cling fast to a hope/desire/theory of mine, I do not let them inhibit my vision of the HP landscape, trust me, I have gotten around in regards to posts and I am perfectly capable of seeing past Dumbledore and his death in order to write about the "overall view"... and am fully prepared to take on the possible fact that Dumbledore is gone for good. So I would say your worrying isnt in order.



I have two quotes, both of posts made by myself, to portray my views on the topic I quoted you on:





Enjoy.

~Albus

Ya, I know but it just always seems in the books, and it's said too, that where ever Dumbledore is, it is safe. Dumbledore is being suspended from the school, now all the mudbloods don't stand a chance. Dumbledore enters in the Department of Mysteries, now everything is going to be okay, we're saved. He's our comfort zone, Harry's and ours as well. But now, the point in the series has reached an all time low, and Voldemort no longer has anyone in his way to fear (besides Harry, but he probably doesn't think that yet). Harry has to think and realize that Dumbledore isn't here any more. Whether to him he was by himslef or not, Dumbledore was always there.

Harry may need all the help he can get, but not from Dumbledore, not anymore. Afterall, you have to fall before you can stand up.



Lol. Whoops. I was in "the zone" and I wasn't really thinking. Also, I was doing my geometry homework too and we are on the section of triangles so..anyways.

IIRC, the vow was worded with the understanding that if Draco should fail in his task then Snape would take it up for him and complete it as well as help him in any way he could. Draco's task was to kill Dumbledore. With somethingas unfeeling as an UV, I doubt one could "loophole" a way out of it.

And that is where we disagree again. Everything seems set in stone for you the way it is written in the books. If it says Unbreakable, its Unbreakable to you, correct? Whereas I see Unbreakable, and I think Breakable. We know that saying something is unbreakable, or unsinkable is foolish... we saw that when a certain White Star Liner left Liverpool in 1912. When we are dealing someone as skilled as Severus Snape, I do not think it would be wise to doubt his abilities. If anyone were to find a loophole for such a Dark Contract, then I believe that it would be Severus Snape.

~Albus

albus. we are buddies and all so dont take any of this personally but you are being so difficult. unbreakable vow. key word.....unbreakable. its just that. unbreakable. there are no loop holes, no exceptions, no getting around it. i have to agree with anglar here. your wrong tom. saying that the unbreakable vow can be broken is like saying that a squib can learn magic.

lets just refresh everyones memory here.

"Narcissa spoke.
"Will you,Severus,watch over my son Draco as he attempts to fufill the Dark Lord's wishes?"
"I will,"said Snape.
A thin tongue of brilliant flame issued from the wand and wound its way around their hands like a red hot wire.
"And will you,to the best of your ability,protect him from harm?"
"I will,"said Snape.
A second tongue of flame shot out of the wand and interlinked with the first,making a fine,glowing chain.
"And,should it prove neccisary...if it seems Draco will fail..."whispered Narcissa(Snape's hand twitched within her's,but did not draw away),"will you carry out the deed that the Dark Lord has ordered Draco to perform?"
There was a moments silence.Bellatrix watched,her wand upon their clapsed hands,her eyes wide.
"I will,"said Snape."

there you have it albus in black and white. draco was going to fail. or at least it seemed like he was going to fail, which is all that snape had to see. he seemed like he was going to fail. exactly what narcissa said. so snape had to kill dumbledore. that was dracos task, to kill dumbledore. and i know what you are going to say. how do we know that voldemort said draco had to kill albus dumbledore and not just dumbledore. i would bet my lif e on the fact that voldmort said albus. you said that you wouldnt put it past snape to find a loop hole in a dark contract.
well first off, the unbreakable vow is not a dark contract in my opinion. the vow can be to buy a piece of gum. its just like making a deal with someone or shaking on a bet. its just that the consequence for not fulfilling your end of this bet happens to be death. second off voldemort is a million times more gifted in the dark arts than snape can even dream of being. voldemore would have known about any loopholes, and i can almost gaurantee that he specifically stated, and very carefully worded dracos responsibilities . voldemort isnt stupid, just evil.

i think that you read way to deep into things. some things are as they are written in the books. and there is no way around it. it is what it is and thats it. you get so far off what the book says that its like you are talking about a whole other series. somethings just have to be accepted.
........... like the fact that albus dumbledore is dead ..............

ok lets put it in the simplest terms i know possible. if albus dumbledore is still alive then snape is dead because snape broke the unbreakable vow. the time came to kill dumbledore and draco didnt do it.
here, is a prime example of "it is as it is written" you cant argue that point. now refer back to the bold print in the copy of the unbreakable vow provided above. there you go.

i love you tom<3

This book is the first time we are introduced to the Unbreakable Vow, and we know very little about it, so neither of us can say that there are or arent loopholes to the Vow. The entire wizarding world was taught all their lives that the Avada Kedavra is unstoppable, and there is no block, but lo and behold, what happened to Harry Potter, he survived the attack head on. That's the beauty of magic, the uncertainty of it all.



Funny you should say that... Isnt there a quote by JKR that says that someone will learn magic late in life... So lets break this down. A person who cant do magic is a squib right, so if someone who never knew they could do magic, suddenly could, wouldnt that make them a "squib who learned to do magic"? Yes, it would. So by using your own words against you, I must come to the conclusion that the Unbreakable Vow can be broken.



well be it a dark contract or not, it can be broken, and it seems some wonderful people over at Lexicon agree with me.



that pretty much negates all of your comments on my part anyway!

And now, something else I have found! It wasnt the last night of Dumbledore!



I am never going to stop this, and if that means I am being difficult... Im sorry

Dumbledore Prevails!

~Albus

no you couldnt be more wrong

a person who never knew they could do magic is just that, a person who doesnt know. not a squib. a squib Cant. there is no way ever that they can. if i am to take what yo usaid to heart then harry is a squib. harry is a squib, how silly does that sound. yeah...you are wrong.



ok inbetween all that, all i get was that what is snapes deffinition necessary. which we dont know. but besides that anyone who was there could say without a doubt that it didnt seem like draco was going to do it. so it was necessary for snape to kill dumbledore. or else he would have been breaking the vow.

Im not sure where you have mistaken me. A person who cant do magic is a squib, and no where in the book does it say a squib cannot gain magical powers miraculously. And as for the thing about Harry, that was a misconception of my post, sorry you interpreted it that way, but that is not what I meant. But all this is irrevelant, for it has nothing to do with the Last Night of Dumbledore.

~Albus

once again ......you are wrong. jk herself has said that a squib cannot learn magic, or gain powers just to cover all aspects here. let me see if i can find the direct quote on jk.com...

ok so i just spent the last 40 min looking for the quote and i cant find it. you are so lucky tom;) but the quote goes something like this.
a question was asked as to whether or not filches kwikspell course worked and she responded like....... no sadly it did not, no squib can be tought magic.
i wish i had the actual quote. but still nonetheless...take that tom....

well it seems i have found a quote by JKR, on JKRowling.com, though Im not sure if it is what you were looking for... Im not sure if anyone has ever said squibs cannot learn magic ever... I also have a quote from Lexicon with their thoughts in the topic.





How does this pertain to the Last Night of Dumbledore... well it was sort of a domino effect. It was said that Snape didnt kill Dumbledore because he found a loophole in the Vow, and another person said A loophole is as likely as a squib learning magic... which led us to this convo. shotty, I know

~Albus

Point conceded, but it hurts you as much as it helps you. You must prove that a loophole out exists while those of use who contend that none exists can use the fact that nothing has yet to be introduced which says it can. Therefore, until it can be loopholed, it can't.



The bolding is my doing. Since you don't know the definition of a squib, how can we take any part of your argument seriously? A squib is a person born of at least one wizarding parent who can't perform magic, otherwise you're just a muggle. So, by using your own argument against you, I've proven you don't really know what you are talking about.



Those who agree with you are wonderful and those who do not are not?



Am I correct in guessing that the italics quote is not your own words?

The only thing you have proven to me is that you are unwilling to look at what is presented to you and accept it. You are not sorry for being difficult otherwise you would stop. I find it slightly disturbing that you would rather a 17 year old boy die than a 150 year old man.

I'll make a wager with you. I contend that Albus Dumbledore is dead, Snape made an Unbreakable Vow with Albus those many years ago whih is why Albus trusted him completely, and that Harry is not a horcrux. Three points upon which I believe we differ. If we do differ, I say let us let JKR determine which of us is better at reading into her clues. When book 7 comes out, we'll know which of us is right and since there is an odd number one of use would be more right than the other. Should you prove to be correct, I'll place in my sig "The poster known as Albus Dumbledore is wiser than I when it comes to determining what will happen in all things Harry Potter related." If I'm right, then you'd place a similar quote is your sig, only naming myself as the wiser. Agree?

Is there a quote that says someone will learn how to do magic, or will, under extreme cicumstances perform magic once? And as for what Lexion put about having such a low level of magical power that they can't do magic. Well this means nothing, as the Lexion are not JKR, and she said that 'you are either magical or not'. But i agree, its besides the point, as the question was, 'Is the Unbreakable Vow breakable?' The vow, in my opinion, is not breakable, but i agree the wording is very important and that it is the wording that is the weak point of the charm. For example, if Narcissa just said will you help Draco? Then this could leave loads of options open. And i think there is only one 'loophole' in this respect, and that is no time scale was mentioned, unless Voldermort has given Draco one, as this would be involed with 'Draco's orders'. And, inrelation to that, in the scene were Draco is crying, and Harry over hears, isn't Draco saying how Voldermort is becoming inpatient? Because, i guess he probably was given some timescale (ish).

As for this, what did you actually find? Your own thoughts from a year ago? It sounded as though you were saying you found some evidence.

And as for the content, the bit in bold highlights that you went into the book looking for what you wanted on your first time of reading, is this right? Because, if you seak, you shall find! Look hard enough and you can find almost anything (and it seems that you were looking very hard). And the rest doesn't show anything except what you think JKR is writing about and that you think she is following the themes of these styles of writing. To me, she write what she wants, and what she thinks she'll like, and that may include going against past norms, such as a childrens book (although debateable) with 700+ pages and deaths of major characters.

I'd also like some examples of this please. In "A Tale of Two Cities" the crucial characrter does die so his beloved can be happiest. Can't remember anybody faking a death in Shakespeare, but I admit I haven't read a lot of it. If I had some examples, I could at least see what you're saying.

Mod Edit: You are peudo-mod'ing, which definitely isn't allowed, and much less in the thread that is likely to get tempers flaring. You have no right to call anyone else snippy and rude, and especially not when the person in question wasn't being rude. We are watching this thread closely, so we'll pick up any rudeness ourselves.

But if he wants to make arguments than the least he can do is make sure that what he puts in his arguments is correct. His statement was "a person who can't do magic is a squib right," and I pointed out that his statement was false. He has made errors like this before. I am pointing out that if he makes errors on such simple things, like the true definition of a squib, then is it not plausible to think that he makes even bigger errors on more important or larger scale subjects?

I did not read it wrong. I simply am not letting him get away with a "you know what I meant."

And I intentionally tread that fine edge of the double-bladed sword that is rude versus correct.

And to what JK said, it was that someone would perform magic late in life. My guess it is either Petunia or even Dudley, neither of which would be considered a squib.

Tom, I have to disagree with almost everything you're saying. I'm sorry, but nothing you've said about Dumbledore has me convinced, and perhaps it's because you use unsupported conjectures more than anything else. I have no problem with making conjectures when evidence is lacking, because we don't have all the evidence yet, but they have to be supported by something else too, especially if they are to contend with supported arguments. If you cite literary techniques, show us examples of where they've been used, so that their true merit can be examined.

To put it bluntly, you're using conjectures based on literary themes, but you're not citing any examples, so at this stage, it's your opinion against some reasonably substantial evidence. Like Anglar said, all we know about the Unbreakable Vow is that it is, supposedly, unbreakable. Pedantically, yes, we can't be certain, but as far as probability goes, you haven't really got anything to go on.

When I say evidence, I don't necessarily mean hard evidence. Something from the books, supported by an example in literature that aids in interpreting it in a certain way is enough, but you haven't given us that. I'm specifically talking about the mentor figure who didn't die. I know you're thinking of Gandalf (I know what JK Rowling said, and I know you know! ) as an example of it being done in literature, but Tolkien is the only author I know of who brought the mentor back, and only in such a way that he couldn't be of any help to the hero in the final stage, which means that he too conformed to the traditional role of this archetype. If there aren't any examples of a mentor coming back to help the hero, JK Rowling must be the first author in the history of known (and quality) literature over thousands of years to do that, and you must admit, the odds against that are huge. Odds so big, in fact, that in this day and age of reason and logic, no one would consider that a chance at all.

Why, speaking in terms of literary devices, would Albus Dumbledore have to return? So everyone can take hands for the curtain call, like in a comedy? Sorry, Tom, that's too weak. The only thing required for something to qualify as a comedy is a happy ending, and since the ending is the one thing we don't know, you can hardly cite that as a reason.

The humorous style isn't evidence for a comedy, because there are humorous passages in Macbeth too. In essence, a comedy is a story of the rise in fortune of a sympathetic central character, directly opposed to tragedy, which is about the deterioration of a great character. I see very little of the comic hero in Harry Potter. He's not rising in fortune at all. The story could rather be a tragedy - definitely worth a look.

On the squib topic, just because it's fun, if a squib is someone who can't do magic, and a there is someone who will do magic later on, they wouldn't be a squib, but rather, they would be wrongfully thought of as a squib. Or wrongfully thought of as a muggle, in Aunt Petunia's case. It's not a squib doing magic, it's someone thought to be a squib doing magic. But ok, yep, that's off topic.

Can I just ask (sorry, the logic of the argument escaped me over several pages), what does it prove if Snape had managed to break the Unbreakable Vow? That he killed Aberforth instead of Albus, because Voldemort specifically meant Albus?

Hmm, forgive me, but Snape breaking the Unbreakable Vow is merely a secondary plot device then, so why invent an Unbreakable Vow in the penultimate book, which isn't really unbreakable, just to pass a plot point that is secondary anyway. Why raise the stakes so high by making death the punishment, just to let it fizzle out in a feeble sort of way when we find out it wasn't so dire after all? It's a little far-fetched, and has to contend with the simple and weightily supported idea that Albus Dumbledore really did die, and in so doing, stepped out of the final stretch for the hero, like many mentor figures before him. That is supported in literature.

Can you see the odds tottering precariously to one side?

my_erised- I have been told many times by many different people about this thread... Im sorry but I am stubborn, and will not let go... No offense Laurette!

In all seriousness I really have no good arguement for this at all, merely alot of quick, crappy theories for me to cling to my hopes. Im sorry I cant be more productive in here, but the evidence just isnt there! Ill will admit, but never, for any person will I accept that Dumbledore cant return in any way possible... until book seven! Sorry!



Im sorry, but I felt that was rude.... the last sentence especially.



no... not at all... Lexicon owns the rights to that essay, and I was giving them credi for it... its called manners



No, im not really sorryy for being difficult, Im sorry for the way you feel about my being difficult.




no thank you.

~Albus

Ok, guys - let's call it quits now, ok. I want to ask everyone here to look carefully at how they word their posts. Be careful of emotive language. Provoking intense feelings over the internet is very easy, and there are different ways of achieving that. Just be careful of making this personal in any way - it isn't personal, it's a story, and an internet discussion.



In my mind it is simple. There was no way that Snape could have let it go, because of the presence of the other Death Eaters who saw that he had the chance. Voldemort wouldn't have thought, 'Ah, foiled! Better luck next time, boys.' Snape had to do it at that moment, because Draco had to do it at that moment. The time frame Voldemort gave him was one chance. To protect Draco from getting killed, Snape had no choice but to do it then.

Adding another Mod into this happy little topic, I suggest you guys cool it. There is no need to start throwing insults about over the internet...especially over something as petty as Harry Potter. Harry Potter is important, but not to the extent as some have stretched it.

I am afraid I will not be able to accept tht Dumbledore will ever come back to life simply because Jo said he wouldn't. If I may, I would like to share a lovely quote...Not going to pull a Gandalf, eh? And in response to another question... Straight from the horse's mouth. There isn't really anything that can argue against that. There is also quotes from the book such as: Dead.

It would be illogical for Dumbledore to come back at this point because it has been reitterated that Harry must do this job on his own. Dumbledore may have been his mentor but people don't last forever, and that includes wizards. The whole basis of the book seems to be that Harry is destined to be alone, and things just don't always end up happy.

And I'm also pretty sure the Unbreakable Vow is unbreakable. Jo would not have named it that for the fun of it. And Squibs do not have loopholes. A person who seemingly can't do magic is simply labeled a squib. Once they develop, they can finally do magic and they are a wizard. They were enver really a Squib in the first place in my view. Just a late bloomer.

Yes, JKR said on her site that Petunia has and never will be able to do magic. It really pays off to take a trip to her site once in a while. Though it must stink to have to stomp on theories with hard core evidence...
Dudley could produce magic. He would be just like Hermione. Muggle-born. Both of his parents could be Muggles and he could still produce magic. Plus, he's got to have some chance because Petunia's parents managed to birth Lily, who had the powers. Dudley is related to Lily...put the pieces together and I think Dudley has a good shot at being the one to crack out some magic. Not real sure what any of this has to do with the last night of Dumbledore, but I thought I would correct that.

What? I can totally see Voldemort saying that... I do agree with what you have said however. Perhaps Snape did not want to do it, but I still believe he had talked to Dumbledore about it, and Dumbledore would have much preferred being killed by Snape than Draco. Plus, the Unbreakable Vow would have brought bad things upon both Snape and Draco if Snape would not have done it. Also, Snape has to keep up his image of "I'm a bad dude!!!" because he was in front of the other Death Eaters. But I have all faith in him coming back to us in the end...

I am going to concede in a feeble attempt to save the little dignity I have left. I am going to straight out admit that I have been...er... less than responsible. I have begun to get lazy with my theories for this thread, perhaps due to the overwhelming evidence against it, and in all reality, this evidence leads to the probably conclusion. Im sorry. I let my own desires take over my constructive theory-making and that has alerted some to be annoyed with me. I apologize. In all sincerity, I hope we can become good mates on VTM, which I must say happens quite often between people who disagree... believe me I know! Thank you all.

~Tom/Albus

P.S.: I will make sure to work out my thoughts before posting them so as to provide for good discussion from now on in here.

Oh, now I hate being the post right over yours. I must admit, before JKR came out with those quotes I presented, I still believed that Dumbledore may have had a chance. All the theories about the Draught of Living Death seemed relatively plausible, and I figured there was a way it could be worked out. But her press reading sort of squished that one.

Do not feel bad for what you want to believe or theorize in. Not everyone is going to believe what you believe, and that's all right. Sometimes it is just better though to still keep an open mind and read everyone else's thoughts. You are brave enough to come in and stand for what you thought and even kinder to present an apology. I don't think it was necessary, but whatever you like...

And I just realized the irony of your name/screen name. You sign Tom/Albus...and that is Voldemort/Dumbledore right there. I find that very amusing.

hehe, I was devastated on August 2nd, you have no idea! I had spent over a year creating theories that could work for Dumbledore to return, and JKR destroyed them in one fell swoop. It suprised me that she would do that, it seems that anticipation for a possible return was a huge factor for Book Seven.



Thanks for the kind words! I understand that others arent going to agree with me, and I used to be able to convert some people over to my side of the debate, but like I said, I had gotten lazy in this thread and havent been putting much effort forth for it. Its wierd though, this is what I want the most to happen, and I seem to be working harder on my theories for the "Is Harry a Horcrux" thread... odd I would say



Ahh, Im glad someone finally took notice. Many may have made the connection, but you are the first to bring it up to me. When I first realized that Dumbledore was my favorite character, I looked at the irony of my name versus my favorite character. To be honest, when I signed my name as "Tom/Albus" I wondered if anyone would comment... and you did!




Sorry Lara, I only post using names when it is someone I know has been addressed by their real name before in a thread. I didnt know you if you wanted the masses to know you were Lara. Aplogies!


~Albus

I'm working on something for this, but I need help. The HP Lexicom website bio for Albus Dumbledore says that his skills include: "can cast spells without a wand." It does not give a book and chapter source or JKR quote for this information. Can anyone point me to the source of this information?

If he doesn't need a wand to cast spells, it has a huge impact on what happened on the tower. Thanks if you can help.
Mrs Figgy

That thread gives me headaches!! Half the time it seems to be going in circles...I usually just read it and hang out in the background watching everyone else post their own thoughts. Oh well.

Do I get a gold star??

Oh there's plenty to talk about...the last night of Dumbledore includes the cave scene all the way up until Snape's flight from the grounds, so that would include all talk about:
How did Dumbledore find the exact location of the cave?
-What does he murmur to the walls to find the entrance?
-Exactly how big is that great black lake?
-What sort of traces does magic leave?
-Where did Voldemort get all those Inferi?
-What kind of magic does it take to turn a person into an Inferius?
-What was the emerald green liquid in the basin?
-Why is Dumbledore so sure the horcrux is in that basin?
-What is all the rubbish Dumbledore is speaking during the potion-drinking?
-Why does Harry say "Rennervate" instead of "Ennervate?"
-Why does Dumbledore ask for Snape?
-Why does Dumbledore get personal and ask for "Severus" rather than "Professor?"
-Was there anything fishy going on with Madam Rosmerta?
-What sort of mutterings did Dumbledore do to take off the school enchantments?
-Did Draco really have it in him to kill Dumbledore?
-Snape's loyalty is an entirely different topic
-What sort of hiding was Dumbledore speaking of?
-"Mouth shut and mind closed"---what's that about?
-Dumbledore was so sure about that locket, but it's a fake. Could there have been a switch during the fighting?

There you have it! Pick a topic and we'll get started!!

There is another thing about Dumbledore's last night (and last year) that I've been wondering about, and that is where was he getting his 'new' info on Voldermort?

All the memories that he showed Harry were old ones (or thats how it seemed to me) that he collected a whle ago. So how did he get his new info or was he just searching places he thought likely?

On the night he died, he called Harry so he could go to the cave with him because he had found the cave that he'd been looking for and says:

How could Dumbledore have suspicions about what was in the cave without having being there before? And if it was from someone, or somewhere, then who and where? Because it might be helpful for the trio when they go looking for the rest of the Horcruxes.

P.S. Sorry if I don't make much sense, Its early here and I woke up early for training somehow.

Didn't DD say that he had been to the cave but not IN the cave before? I don't remember and may be completely wrong about tthis, but I think that's what I remember reading.

After going back and rereading HBP, I'm forced to give up my Draught of the Living Dead theory. It could not possibly have been DotLD in the basin inside the cave (Although I'm still stubbornly holding out hope that maybe DD drank it sometime after?). When Slughorn had the class make that potion in his first class, it clearly stated that the color was supossed to go from lilac to black. The basin was glowing with a greenish tint. Sigh....

Well, there's still the horcrux theory.....

wow i havent posted in a long time... But back on track here



It is my belief that DD just (for lack of a better word) knows, or thinks he knows LV style, and think back in the cave when DD was explaining to harry how LV thought no one would want to sccarifice part of themself to open the archway in the cave.

I think DD knew exactly what he was doing that night. He had complete faith in Harry that he would do the right thing, which he did. I also think that DD knew that the Horcrux was not there. With that said DD meant Harry to find what RAB left behind, but i have no idea why.

i agree with what Snuffalupagous said, i think that dumbledore just knew, and that he had complete faith in harry. But, im a bit curious about what dumbledore is saying when Harry is giving him the potion. and as i was reading that part over today, it dawned on me that jkr does not write that much dialouge, so i was wondering, what was the 'horrible dream' that dd was having as he was drinking the potion?

it says n i quote:





kinda weird duncha think?? a bad experience dd had wen he was younger?? did dd do something bad??



and then, he continues:







what could this mean??

a few ideas to a few things. for one i dont think that dumbledore knew that there wasnt a horcrux in the potion, yes he's smart and the greatest wizard, but i wonder if we, as readers, give him too much credit..i have read plenty of interviews where jk says that yes, dumbledore at times is a little naive or wrong, so that being said..i was also thinking about what barby posted, and when i read that i thought that at first he was reliving what the little kids had lived when tom had tortured them or scared them or whatever he did to them so long ago, but this could also be a suppressed memory or something..i highly doubt the latter, but i do think that he was reliving some event, whether this be rab's memory, his own, or voldemorts

it's obvious where his suspicions came from..he could have easily, though he said it took a while, figured out what cave voldemort had taken those kids to..obviously knowing that that was the cave was enough to spark some interest that voldemort might have hidden something within there...and i think he might have been there before because to apparate dont you have to know what you're picturing to get there??

barby

It all hit me at once when i read your post (hit's self in the head*) i cant believe i never thought about this. I wonder if Jo' is putting that in there for a back reference to somthing that is going to happen in book seven? We all are dieing to know more about DD and his past, possibly we learn about this and it has somthing to do with these horrible images DD saw while under the power of the potion. Or maybe the potion just makes you see factitious horrors.

I also wonder, what if LV didnt put the potion there? What if it was R.A.B. hopeing that LV would drink it so he would see the horrors of his past and what he has done to people?

Hi All. I hope you are all good

I think everything planned by Dumbledore about last night.. I have got some theories about that:

1) We know Dumbledore killed a dark wizard who called Grindelwald in 1945. So he can make a horcruxe!

2) If that is true we must think about he make horcruxe from what?.. What about Fawkes? We know Fawkes always loyal to Dumbledore and he cant find a superb thing like Fawkes for make a horcruxe! Because Fawkes is IMMORTAL as u know too. So that means Dumbledore is IMMORTAL too..

Based on my theories, i can say Snape didnt killl Dumbledore the last night and all of these things only a game and thats all planned i think..

I want to hear your comments.
MeRt

As i have said countless times we do not know that DD killed Grindelwald. We know that in 1945 Dumbledore defeated the Dark Wizard Grindelwald. But it says nothing about killed ( there are other ways to defeat a wizard besides killing them). I do not think DD is a killer. I would go so far to say that unless he absolutely had to i think DD would try and capture LV and not kill him. That and i believe DD has too much love in him to use a unforgivable curse and especially not Avada Kedavra.




Hypothetically, lets say DD did kill someone, he would NEVER make a horcrux. Horcruxes are some of the worst of all dark magic. Slughorn was very hesitant about giving that information to riddle, and only gave it to him because riddle charmed/lied it out of him. And slughorns shame of giving that information to riddle was immense! There are no books in the library a hogwarts on the subject of horcruxes because they are so horrible. I canot stress how bad horcruxes are. I meen come on you are ripping your sole in two. DD has said he is not affrade of death, its just the next adventure or somthing like that he said.

hello and thank you Snuffalupagous i was actually thinking somehting similar myself, only a bit different. If it wasn't DD who made fawkes a horcrux, then what id LV made fawkes a horcrux? think about it. Fawkes is to play an important part in the new book as Harry's pet, and what if Fawkes is the 'thing from gryffindor?' LV and Harry's feather for their wands came from Fawkes, so what if thats why Fawkes is so significant?



Just a theory... it could be a good for nothing useless theory... let me know...

barby

Humm i dont know about that one. Im sitting here thinking and cant see when LV would have been able to get fawkes and make him a horcrux. butu then again i dont know how you put part of your sole into somthing (im thinking along the lines of a complex spell. im picturing in my mind taking thoughts and putting them in a pensieve). That and i dont think fawkes is connected to gryffindor ( correct me if im wrong ).

actually, i was thinking of were in the world i got the thought that it was connected to gryffindor from, a while ago talking to my friend. but any ways...

i think that when dumbledore was flying up to the tower he knew he would die. the enchantment thing was just to fly through, no more. but as soon as he froze harry he didnt have a chance. right when they were in hogsmeade he still had a chance because he was asking for snape to save him. once he saw the mark, i think he knew he was out of time anyway

yea i think i agree with that jooles..i think he knew he was going to die..although i think i read an interview where jk said he didn't know that was coming..but he knew that malfoy was going after him i just don't understand why he didn't stop it?? was snape supposed to stand up for him and not kill him? that whole part is a mystery to me for sure...and when he freezed harry, i get that was to protect him, but why couldn't harry of done an unspoken spell..he still had his wand on him didn't he...wouldn't that have worked?? also i know the potion was a bad thing, but why was he not strong enough to freeze harry and block stupid malfoy's expelliarmus i mean isn't he the greatest wizard ever???

I dont agree with you. Please tell me about: "defating a wizard without killing him". Please tell me this my friend. What is the meaning of: Dumbledore defeated Grindelwald? It is certainly means Dumbledore destroy him so: He killed him!



If my first theory is true the second one will be true too. Because i think, he thought about the future, the possibility of badness in future and then he decided to make a horcruxe for stand against powerful dark wizards like Lord Voldemort.

Theory that Dumbledore created a Horcrux:

Absolutely not. As I have contested before, Dumbledore would not do such a heinous act to his soul, he knows full well the consequences of such an act, and I would shudder to think he would do so. We have been lectured all through book 6 that a horcrux is dark magic, and to think that Dumbledore would stoop so low would be insulting to his name.

Now do not get me wrong, I am all for any chance for Dumbledore to still be alive, but the Horcrux theory would not suit the recent evidence we have toward his death. A proper theory, post-August 2nd needs to include the fact that Dumbledore actually died, and he will not "pull a gandalf". The use of a Horcrux doesnt allow you to die, so this would contradict what JK Rowling said in New York.

The idea of a Horcrux, if it werent so evil and dark, would be appealing to me for Dumbledore. If there was a way to acheive the same results, an external anchor for yourself to survive death, I would be all for it. Think of the possibilitie... Fawkes would be the perfect good-horcrux... he is loyal, and cant be destroyed. He would make the perfect Horcrux... if they were good natured. But that theory was squashed as well on August 2nd because, as I said before, Horcruxes do not allow death.

As for the topic of Grindelwald. I do not know what Dumbledore did to defeat him, I have an idea o fhow it may have happened, while still preserving Dumbledore's soul from the damage of Murder. You can see my "idea" in my fanfiction, the third Installment, called "As Only It should Be".

~Albus

Voldemort uses significant objects to hold his horcruxes. Fawkes is a significant creature, but it is Dumbledore's pet(couldn't think of a better word). It wouldn't be very wise to place a bit of your soul in that bird. Don't you think? Especially if you fear its owner.



When did Fawkes all of a sudden become Hary's pet?



Let's face it, Harry's not that good of a wizard. He's brilliant, yes, but he hasn't learned nonverbal spells yet. Though he had his wand, I doubt that he could have produced a curse to help Dumbledore in any way.



Well, I know that this really has no comparison to Harry Potter, but in some fairy tales, when a person is defeated, they are captured and stripped of their power and authority. So maybe that's how he was defeated....



Exactly what he(Albus) ^^ said.

Remember that Dumbledore says that there are things much worse than death. I would say his idea of "destroy" and someone like Voldemort's idea of "destroy" are two different things. Dumbledore's idea is probably a lot more like stripping of powers or something like UnknownLocket mentioned. I can't imagine Dumbledore ever stooping to kill anyone, or going so far as to create a horcrux. Plus, he's dead. That means no horcrux. No Gandalf...

And I highly doubt Fawkes is a horcrux. How would Voldemort even get a hold of Fawkes? Fawkes still dies, he just gets to regenerate. I don't think it would be a good idea to have a soul piece inside of something that bursts into flames either.

Thank you Albus, UnknownLocket, and Just the Droobles Im glad im not the only one that thinks this. I thought i might be alone here in a world where everyone thinks DD is a killing, horcrux making person.

I acctualy thought about another reson of why i could say DD has no problem confronting death. As we know DD is famous as an alchemist who has worked with the late Nicolas Flamel, the only known maker of the Philosopher's Stone. If DD was worried about dieing then he would have used the Philosopher's Stone as Flamel did.

I will agree that I think DD at least had something to do with the death of Grindewlad if he did not kill him himself. But note, that in my opinion, killing is not necessarily murder.



I have to agree with Albus Dumbledore here. It is entirely out of character for DD to have made a horcrux. DD did not fear death.

Point of information about a phoenix. While a phoenix will not die of old age, it can be killed like any other creature. What makes it difficult is that a phoenix is a very intelligent creature.