Board Thread:News and Announcements/@comment-25285156-20150130030202/@comment-25094659-20150303230428

AnonymousDuckLover wrote:

Dawnstar&#039;s Account wrote:

AnonymousDuckLover wrote: I am not a supporter of the "Stan's Secret Twin" theory,      (It's about as credible as the "Lebam" theory, which has next to no evidence, which half of the theory has other plausible explanations, such as the Llama being Pacifica, and that's about half the evidence)  </small    but I do agree that everyone on the wheel is only represented once.

Dawnstar Wrote: Not trying to be mean, but everyone who doesn't follow the Secret Twin Theory claims that the theory has no evidence, and gives no evidence themselves. Can you give evidence that the theory isn't true? :| A negative proof shouldn't have to be done, as if a theory is sound, there should be evidence to prove it's true, and not the other way around. If you want a counter argument, you should give sufficient evidence for your theory. Currently, the theory has no sufficient evidence to prove it except a pair of glasses on a wheel that could be owned by anyone, who owns a pair of glasses. And the evidence of Stan having similar glasses in flashbacks is also refutable, because these flashbacks are clearly from Stanford's point of view. Also, if someone called Stanford had a brother called Stanley, why would either of them think it would be a good idea to go by the nickname Stan? I was going to also refute this evidence with the fact that twins are rare, but then I did some research, and there's a thing called hyper-ovulation which makes fraternal twins, the kind of twins Dipper and Mabel are, more common. If this were the case, and this theory were for some reason true, it would be proof towards Stan being the Mystery Twin's maternal grunkle, as hyper-ovulation would only occur in mothers, for reasons that if you can't understand, you're probably not old enough to know.

Also, every few years, people will replace there glasses due to them breaking, scratching, or just plain needing a new prescription. It is almost completely certain that Stan owns a different pair of glasses than when he was younger.

Towards negative proofs: I'm a little confused to what you're trying to prove, but there is a logical fallacy of assuming something is right just because there is not negative proof.

Towards evidence for the theory: There is no evidence for the Stanley theory, and that's why it's a theory. There are things that suggest that Stanley has a twin brother, but not enough to where people have to believe.

Towards twins: Firstly, yes, twin-ness can be passed down through genetics. I am a second hand witness as my cousins are both twins and have a grandfather who is a twin. Secondly, this being a show, it can be expected that rare things may happen more often than in real life, like double, skip-generation, twins.

Towards the glasses: True, but the glasses aren't the base of the theory, they just help support the theory, as the theory is a better explanation to the two pairs of glasses.

Towards the Stanley, Stanford, Stan thing: Very good point, but Stanley doesn't need to be named Stanley for the rest of the theory to be true. We just call him that for lack of a better name.

Towards Lebam: The Stanley theory actually has a lot more support than the Lebam theory :P