Board Thread:Speculation House/@comment-27143816-20160216033644/@comment-14909251-20160615225211

Lord Jaric wrote: Well trained/experienced or not, even an experienced huntsman wouldn't survive up against that many Grimm. And they wouldn't be able to hide forever, they would eventually be spotted at some point. And Amber is no longer a Maiden so that's a no go as well.

MiniDaggers wrote: Also dislike Amber Pyrrha fusion not nescessarily as to whether it could work or not but the amount of unclarified assumptions needed for it to work. The amount of attention needed to clarify and satisfy the audience to any extent with such a far out theory would detract a significant amount of screen time away from the apparent main focus of the show. All this for at best a secondary character in the form of Pyrrha makes the theory nigh-impossible in my eyes due to the question of why should it happen?

Don't pay mind to the argumentative nitpicking by certain people in this thread. Most of their "logic" for disputing the Ambyrrha theory is built on so many assumptions and requires ignoring so many facts that at the end they have little more than simply not liking the theory. I was composing a very long response addressing some of what you two said, but the site ate my post and I am not even remotely interested in doing it over.

However, fundamentally, all the Ambyrrha theory requires is that the equipment keeping Amber alive is also capable of reviving her, that if a person's soul is not in a body it returns to their original body upon said body being revived, that two Auras in one body creates enough healing power to undo the damager Cinder caused to Amber's body and that a person with the Auras of two skilled and experienced fighters is capable enough to escape Beacon alive.

Most of the arguments thrown in the way of this make assumptions about the number of Grimm, concentration of Grimm, ability of Grimm, skill of Amber, mental state of Amber, available means of escape, and so many other things that they just have no real basis for assuming. Even more audacious is their insistence on certain things being fact or canon that are not in any way fact or canon. Should either of you have an interest in discussing the theory for reason other than desperately attempting to find some sort of hole to poke in it, then that would be nice.