Changes

 ---------- :(Kept for historic purposes I guess, but now I believe 19.1 is a clue, read below)

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

---- :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::Thanks. Not sure if there's anyway to prove it now, I've left about half but the sigs on my postslast post was mine. But anyway, assuming that the feds attacked Church Of Plano is government sanctioned, why would the church of planoFeds attack it?--[[User:Augmatic|Augmatic]] 11:52, 2 March 2007 (PST)

::::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)

----:I'm not sure if anyone has noticed this, but i just discovered that in the teaser trailer for year zero on the year zero website if you slow the frame rate down and look at the "presence"- during one single frame of the digital glitches in the film the numbers "/0024" appear off to the left hand side of the screen in a black bar.

:I believe that the numbers could just be a way of dating the events of year zero, giving us a time line. Currently starting with mailstrom and so far ending with the operationswamp site.--[[User:Velvolver|Velvolver]] 07:37, 12 March 2007 (PDT)

:Now wouldn't that just suck for all of us people that have looked ''oh'' so hard for them? :) Although I doubt Trent would go through so much trouble without going the extra mile on something that is already going to be on the page... [[User:Jgrizzy89|Jgrizzy89]] 17:59, 12 April 2007 (PDT)

--unsigned comment from [[User:S3an|S3an]] 06:56, 23 March 2007----With the new clues, the track number theory would bump year zero into having 19 tracksUPDATE: God given nation can be spelled out with WR U S left over.. 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 with the Bible, as neither have been fruitfulnew clue Y is there also. --unsigned comment from [[User:Velvolver|Velvolver]] 1101:1321, 1 March 25 February 2007 (PST)

Rearranging all With the letters from new clues, the clues track number theory would bump year zero into having 19 tracks. I have found think this completely disproves that: God given not in US war can be foundthe numbers are referring to track numbers now. We need to look elsewhere than the year zero track listing and the Bible, does this mean anything? -velvolveras neither have been fruitful. --unsigned comment from [[User:Velvolver|Velvolver]] 1611:2613, 26 February 1 March 2007 (PST)

UPDATE: God given nation can be spelled out with WR U S left over...and with the new clue Y is there also.--unsigned comment from [[User:Velvolver|Velvolver]] 01:21, 25 February 2007----I'm removing it. As there are far less than 20 tracks on Halo 24 I think we can rule it out. Sorry for anyone who got their hopes up [[User:BurnHavoc|BurnHavoc]] 02:21, 15 April 2007 (PDT)

::No offense, but I don't think you should remove it ''AT ALL'' - especially because it is just that - a theory... Also, who's to say that Trent won't have the next album's tracks correspond with the letters? Or if the next album's tracks will begin at the number 17? I myself don't believe this theory, but it does not mean that it shouldn't be left up for interpretation...) [[User:Jgrizzy89|Jgrizzy89]] 17:45, 16 April 2007 (PDT)

:::That's an interesting idea about starting at 17, perhaps the theory belongs on the "weak leads" page now. I don't like that it has been completely removed, there was already a note that the theory was unlikely due to the numbers greater than 24.16 [[User:Nympholept|Nympholept]] 18:26, 16 April 2007 (PDT)