Clarke is the Thief

[Guest Hayden]

@ Hayden...

You say this is an interesting argument,

but you seem to totally have ignored the most important points already discussed.

I'll correct them for you.

-Clarke's brain was damaged due to headshot.

Zombies can function without brains. They're fictional, deal with it.

-The Thiefs brain functionality seems far more advanced than that of a normal zombie.

So what is George Romero?

-As we can see, regular zombies cannot function without a brain.

Yes they can. The Thief is CLEARLY a zombie. His eyes glow, and his belt says "Living dead".

-The Thiefs hairstyle is different to Clarkes.

No it's not. They're almost identical. Stubble in Clarke's bearded areas.

-Clarke would've likely broken ALOT of bones from the impact of the fall due to the height he was dropped from...

I KNOW. I MENTIONED this in the OP. Guess you didn't read too well. The Thief is stooped over.

Notice how much emphasis the Campagin showed of Clarke hitting is back on the sign?

... he would have suffered electrical burns.

No he wouldn't. You fail. We saw electricityfrom the sign, no evidence it went through him,

and even if it didn't, definetly not long enough to burn.

-The Thief seems extremely able to sprint at a much faster speed than most zombies.

As does George Romero.

-The Thief has a numbers after image/aura that he emnates, which could lead one to believe that he could've been brainwashed using the same method in Vorkuta?

Clarke says "THE NUMBERS" before he dies.

Also mentioned in the OP

For:

-They have quite similar appearance.

-If bone regeneration are part of the zombification process, then the fact that his spine would be damaged and The Thief is always hunched could be an explanation.

(Please feel free to add anything i've missed as i've merely skimmed the thread.)

This is EXACTLY what I said in the OP?

But thanks for recycling the idea.

I'm not entirely sure about it myself. Treyarch tend to not include characters from the main campaign in the Zombies campaign (Apart from McNamara and JFK in this instance.

McNamara and JFKs feature pretty much affirms Clarkes.

It shows that it's not a super important plot element.

It's just a cool reference to the campaign.

I said let's review, so I capped what you were saying to prove it. You can't use the fact that this is fictional as an argument. You shoot a zombies head off, it does very quickly afterwards. George A. Romero clearly isn't a normal zombie either, in which case I don't see what you're trying to prove. I would doubt his hair would've changed at all from his death, as we can clearly see Zombies are bald. (Apart from George, who was just zombified before the map begins.) Electrical burns can happen extremely quickly, much like regular burns, don't be so quick to use the panicky 'you fail' line on me. The Thief is stooped over yes, but Clarke would've probably broken alot more than his back from the fall. And there's no definitive proof that the thiefs eyes glow apart from the one screenshot, but even then it's got counter-evidence; it could very well be just his goggles glowing. I was only making points; you don't have to be so butthurt if someone points out something you don't agree with or pokes a hole in your theory, jeez.

[Guest Anti Earth]

None of what you just said rebukes my counter arguments?

The glowing HAS been proven, don't be so stubborn.

It's NOT his goggles?

Are you suggesting his goggles glow inward?

You're an idiot.

:facepalm:

[Guest Hayden]

Jesus, why the hell are you so hostile? Why do you have to make it personal, are you that defensive of your theory? And are you suggesting he just happens to have normal eyes when you crawl through his goggles when he's dead? Zombies have white eyes when they're dead with no noticeable pupils/irises, the thief clearly has blue eyes. Stop getting so anal at nothing. And I wasn't saying what I said rebukes your counter arguments, but what alot of people HAVE said does. I'm not being stubborn, I did say more than once I skimmed the the thread, and it's ironic you're calling me stubborn, because as soon as someone brings up an idea that can contradict your theory, you jump on the 'Oh, he runs all the time, why would Treyarch both with this/that/the other, it's not important, you fail, you're an idiot' etc etc.

No need to get so defensive, you're entitled to believe what you want, but before you try to call me an idiot, remember you can't decide what's important and what's not, and what facts count, or whether this is a fictional piece of work. I could easily call you moron for saying that zombies can live without a brain, but alas, I kept it civil. Many people have poked holes in your theory, it needs to be alot more airtight before alot of people will believe in your theory.

[Guest Anti Earth]

Why am I being so hostile?

Because I have to keep putting up with idiots like you.

First,

you list off a bunch of information that has not only been discussed,

but adequately reasoned to be irrelevent.

Then,

you make claims which are just RIDICULOUS in an attempt to prove I am wrong.

God knows why you'd feel such an insentive, but you do.

"Goggles glowing inward"?

Take a step back and look what you've suggested.

:facepalm:

[Guest nayrc]

I could easily call you moron for saying that zombies can live without a brain,.

sorry to but in here but it is sort of widely accepted that zombies can function with out a brain, its been discussed before.

[Guest football5699]

Anti...listen..I know you have been putting up with many arguments...I have kept track since the one in the Five Forum.

Goggles glowing inward is rediculous but calling the person an idiot is not necessary. Just say it can't be possible without beating the person into the ground. I don't want to see your rep slowly fall because you are arguing...if the person flames you that's different..(although you don't have to flame back)

I just wanted to say this...I hope you take this request into consideration.

Thank You :D

[Guest Zombieofthedead]

I could easily call you moron for saying that zombies can live without a brain,.

sorry to but in here but it is sort of widely accepted that zombies can function with out a brain, its been discussed before.

Sorry, but where has this been accepted? In nearly EVERY zombie movie, game, etc zombies NEED a brain to function. The reason why they can survive without a brain when their head is off in our zombies might be similar to how a chicken could run while its head is cut off.

Does it even matter who the thief is? No, he hasn't been on any map since Five. He probably isn't important at all, this wouldn't be the kind of thread to get hostile in.

[Guest nayrc]

I could easily call you moron for saying that zombies can live without a brain,.

sorry to but in here but it is sort of widely accepted that zombies can function with out a brain, its been discussed before.

Sorry, but where has this been accepted? In nearly EVERY zombie movie, game, etc zombies NEED a brain to function. The reason why they can survive without a brain when their head is off in our zombies might be similar to how a chicken could run while its head is cut off.

Does it even matter who the thief is? No, he hasn't been on any map since Five. He probably isn't important at all, this wouldn't be the kind of thread to get hostile in.

sorry if i seemed hostile i was just mentioning it,

but personaly i think zombies can still move about ect. with out a head because in the zombie story they are kinda being controlled by Samantha right?,

on another note what about that poem john wrote,

"I once knew a soldier named Smokey

He slapped me on the head and awoke me

Turns out he was dead

I cut off his head

Yet but headless he still tried to choke me."

"smokey" could still attack john even with out a head?

[Guest Zombieofthedead]

sorry if i seemed hostile i was just mentioning it,

but personaly i think zombies can still move about ect. with out a head because in the zombie story they are kinda being controlled by Samantha right?,

on another note what about that poem john wrote,

"I once knew a soldier named Smokey

He slapped me on the head and awoke me

Turns out he was dead

I cut off his head

Yet but headless he still tried to choke me."

"smokey" could still attack john even with out a head?

Ah I see what you mean. I still think its more like the chicken with its head cut off personally, but at least you explained this. It could be either way for all we know.

Also, I meant about Anti being hostile, not you, I just forgot to write Anti's name I guess.

[Guest Anti Earth]

Anti...listen..I know you have been putting up with many arguments...I have kept track since the one in the Five Forum.

Goggles glowing inward is rediculous but calling the person an idiot is not necessary. Just say it can't be possible without beating the person into the ground. I don't want to see your rep slowly fall because you are arguing...if the person flames you that's different..(although you don't have to flame back)

I just wanted to say this...I hope you take this request into consideration.

Thank You

[brains]

Sorry.

NOW BACK TO RAGING.

Zombies DO NOT NEED a brain to function.

EVIDENCE:

When a body dies, the cells in the brain IMMEDIATELY begin to die, and they all die quite rapidly.

Being dead for several hours will render your brain beyond all use.

Leave a brain rotting for a single day, and it won't be a brain any longer.

Infact,

depriving a brain of oxygen for several minutes begins to cause severe harm.

Brain cells DO NOT GROW BACK.

Once they're dead, they're dead.

There's no making more, repairing, etc.

Now,

The zombies in Nachte Untoten, Der Riese, Shi No Numa, Shangri La, etc, have all been dead FOR A LONG TIME.

Their brains are COMPLETELY GONE.

These bodies have been buried for what is supposed to be years.

Their brain isn't even in their heads anymore. It has been gone for years.

These zombies OBVIOUSLY don't need a brain, because it's not possible they even have one.

Their brains are in a FAR WORSE STATE, than a brain that has a bullet in it.

That's a fact.

Only those who have no scientific knowledge whatsoever could ever be mistaken to think otherwise.

[Guest Zombieofthedead]

Makes sense.... but it's possible that they stopped decaying after being exposed to 115, right? I'd doubt it tbh... many of the zombies look like skeletons.

Could be that their brain remains intact while the rest of their body decomposes, but very very slowly. I still think they only need a part of their brain, but idk. Even if that is the case, clarke COULD be a zombie even if he got shot in the head.

I'm still going to doubt he's the thief, I see no resemblance in any way. I don't even care who he is, he hasn't really served a purpose in the story, most likely isn't important.

[Guest Anti Earth]

I don't even care who he is, he hasn't really served a purpose in the story, most likely isn't important.

You keep saying this,

and I keep agreeing with you.

It was just a cool element to the map FIVE.

(Kind of like how the 4 characters included JFK, Castro and Macnamara.

Their involvement didn't correlate with the storyline).

[Guest strange-bow7]

Okay, everybody needs to calm down for a second and just take a look at what we have.

In Anti Earth's defense, you have clearly done a lot of research on this and done your best to find the links here by making a very good thread BUT there are some holes in this and you have to be willing to except that if you want to get anywhere with this topic. You can't go out, find all the evidence, compile it into a thread with the title 'Clarke is the Thief' and then hit back at everybody who tries to prove you wrong, even if they are trying to do it out of spite. This gets you nowhere and turns what could have potentially been a good discussion that may have uncovered who the thief is, into a heated battle of words.

So, with that being said, let's take a look at your OP...

Clarke was a scientist - Thief is a scientist (evidant from labcoat)

Now it may well be classed as evidence but I don't know if I can accept it as such. I know you have loads of other evidence supporting your claim but I personally wouldn't have used this. Dr. Maxis probably wore a labcoat, half of the Zombies I slay in Ascension and "Five" have labcoats, Yuri and Gersh probably wore a labcoat. Hypothetically, could I use this as evidence on a seperate thread to convince you Yuri is the thief?

Clarke is covered in equations - Thief has identical equations

(It was suggested the equations were a re-used texture. Not true, because the Thief has

unique equations on his labcoat, which Clarke is not seen wearing during the campaign.

Thus, it's not a re-use. It's an original - use)

This can't be denied, they both the EXACT same equations on their face. I will come back to this...

Clarke and the Thief share the same hairline, and hair colour.

Clarke and the Thief have hair in nearly the exact same places, except the Clarke's is trimmed

at the high sides.

(However, this is just a hair style. If you grew Clarke's hair, you get the Thiefs. SPOT on)

Clarke has a mustache and goatee combination. Thief has visible stubble in the exact same spots.

While the equations on the face can't be denied, the hair-line, facial structure and such aren't the same...

... there are some noticeable differences.

Look at the shape of the faces, I know they are different angles but that doesn't distort the fact that the Pentagon Thief clearly has a bonier face that seems a lot more drawn than Clarke's rounder, chubbier face.

They share different noses too. You could argue that the Pentagon thief looks boney because he has 'died' but if that were the case he wouldn't get a fatter nose! The thief's is clearly wider and the nostrils are more exaggerated.

The hairline is different. The thief's hair recedes a lot further back than Clarke's.

I don't know what it is but the thief just looks different to Clarke, yet they look the same! :S

Clarke has a hidden collection of stashed guns. The Thief steals your guns, and runs away with them.

True, you can also get the Thunder Gun here. Saying that though, the Thunder Gun was never on "Five', the map where the pentagon thief is.

Clarke died. The Thief is a re-animation

-- He has glowing, yellow eyes

-- His sash says 'Living Dead' in illuminati cypher

-- He re-spawns after you kill him. Think about it.

Clarke's corpse fell a long way, the spine would have damaged. The Thief is always buckled over.

I always thought that the buckle/sash that he has is for the bag that he puts the stolen guns in?! I'm not sure if this is true but if it is then I highly doubt a man, alive or dead/reanimated, would be able haul a sack of guns around, let alone run around after the players in the first place, after causing damage to his spine. This just goes back to the whole 'If his brain is damaged he can't live' thing but it can't be argued that sever spinal injury pretty much guarantees you are never walking again. Why would it be different when you're dead/reanimated?

Clarke helped developed Nova6. Thief appears in FIVE at the same trigger as the Nova6 zombies.

Another true point. Though if you are suggesting that the Crawlers are there because of him you could say that he should be in Kino/Moon as well, which he isn't. Also there are people in the story who had a much bigger connection with Nova 6 gas than Daniel Clarke despite him being a Nova 6 'Mastermind'. After he defected to help work on Nova 6 the project has already been in existence for 21 years.

Clarke is featured in the Mission 'Numbers', which also featured floating red numbers.

Clarke knew the secret of the numbers.

QUOTE = "Oh yes, the numbers... They're the key too" HEADSHOT

The Thief is followed by a trail of red numbers.

Were the numbers the key to re-animation?

This is also the ONLY mission he is in. Clarke did know the secret to the numbers, we presume, but they weren't the key to re-animation! Have you completed Black Ops? If so then you will know what the numbers do, if not I won't spoil it so get and do it!!!

Clarke was shot in the side of the head, straight into her.

Hence, the Theif's hair covers the wound.

Hair doesn't grow when you die, and no other Zombies have a full head of hair the way that the pentagon thief does. Now, I'm not saying he isn't a Zombie, because he is, it's just even if hair did grow when you died, there would be a patch missing as the scar tissue that would later replace the wound wouldn't allow for hair to grow.

Clarke mentions escaping the Ural Mountains with "Lazarus".

Lazarus was a friend of Jesus' whom was brought back to Life.

This biblical reference ties in with the Thief's resurrection.

Overall it's a solid post with some nice bits of evidence and while I'm not sure what to believe yet there is still work to be done if you do want to find out who he is.

[Guest digit]

You may want to fix one thing. The thief doesn't have glowing yellow eyes. Their completely normal and blue.

The thief is actually wearing goggles that make it hard to see the colour in his eyes.

[Guest Tac]

True, but if I remember correctly we have the PC Files of the inside of his goggles. I don't remember what they were but I remember that we did have a photo. It kind of goes back and forth tbh. I've seen images of the blue eyes and I've seen normal eyes, so idk what to believe lol

[Guest MixMasterNut]

This thread is so epic!

[Guest Shoreyo]

115 replies at this moment

I joke, but seriously I agreed with you before, I agree now. A lot more popular ideas are based on a fraction of this. Good Work!

[Guest strange-bow7]

Clarke isn't the thief!

[Guest Shoreyo]

Honestly you're all missing one point. The zombies plot is seperate to the campaign, so it doen't matter if Clarke died in a certain way, it's not going to affect him if he is the theif.

Second point; Dempsey was a redoing of Polonsky's model, this is confirmed, and I assume Nick was based on Chernov in the same way (edit: this is proven, source: Call of Duty Wiki:

?Nikolai Belinski shares the same character model as Private Chernov from the Russian campaign in Call of Duty: World at War. However, upon entering the train at the climax of "Blood and Iron" in Call of Duty: World at War, the player can see another soldier who looks exactly like Private Chernov on the train whilst Sergeant Viktor Reznov is speaking to the player's character, Private Dimitri Petrenko.

this implies that he is a recycled character model) In short, lots of character models are recycled by Treyarch. Hense Richtoffen also looking like the multiplayer German officer on WaW.

So it is obvious Clarke is the theif, as in he's the model it is based on! You can see the reasonin gwhy, he was a popular character and he is the only named scientist par Steiner, who was German so shouldn't really be a base model for a character in Five.

But what we want to discuss now is; is he actually the theif? I would say no, as it is not important who the theif was in a past life, 1 it is not important to the story arc, and 2 it is not mentioned by Treyarch, therefore the theif is Clarke's model, but he isn't Clarke, and the Theif is no one from the story.

[Guest Rissole25]

So it is obvious Clarke is the theif, as in he's the model it is based on! You can see the reasonin gwhy, he was a popular character and he is the only named scientist par Steiner, who was German so shouldn't really be a base model for a character in Five.

Clarke must be be popular. George is based off him too! :P

[Guest Tac]

I agree with that 100%. The Thief is proven to be Clarke's model, a member of Treyach (carbonfibah <3) confirmed that for us. But as for who it actually is, I don't believe it to be Clarke. I think it's either Porter or an unknown.

[Guest strange-bow7]

Honestly you're all missing one point. The zombies plot is seperate to the campaign, so it doen't matter if Clarke died in a certain way, it's not going to affect him if he is the theif.

Second point; Dempsey was a redoing of Polonsky's model, this is confirmed, and I assume Nick was based on Chernov in the same way (edit: this is proven, source: Call of Duty Wiki:

?Nikolai Belinski shares the same character model as Private Chernov from the Russian campaign in Call of Duty: World at War. However, upon entering the train at the climax of "Blood and Iron" in Call of Duty: World at War, the player can see another soldier who looks exactly like Private Chernov on the train whilst Sergeant Viktor Reznov is speaking to the player's character, Private Dimitri Petrenko.

this implies that he is a recycled character model) In short, lots of character models are recycled by Treyarch. Hense Richtoffen also looking like the multiplayer German officer on WaW.

So it is obvious Clarke is the theif, as in he's the model it is based on! You can see the reasonin gwhy, he was a popular character and he is the only named scientist par Steiner, who was German so shouldn't really be a base model for a character in Five.

But what we want to discuss now is; is he actually the theif? I would say no, as it is not important who the theif was in a past life, 1 it is not important to the story arc, and 2 it is not mentioned by Treyarch, therefore the theif is Clarke's model, but he isn't Clarke, and the Theif is no one from the story.

Yeah Kudos to this guy, I think he's hit the nail on the head.

It has always been a well known fact that Treyarch show no shame in recycling models/texture/maps from campaign/multiplayer and use them in Zombies, we see it all the time and it is very convenient for Treyarch who are tied down by time constraints; if they had infinite time to work then we would probably see a lot more variation when it comes to characters and maps but that's not the case.

Like Shoreyo said, If you argue that the thief is Clarke because of how he looks then you could argue that Tank is actually Polonsky, Nikolai is actually Chernov and so on...

I do have to disagree with you saying that the Pentagon Thief's identity is irrelevant though. Sure, it's not Clarke nor is it ever mentioned who he actually is but I still think that his identity is a plot point we are missing. After all, most of the other 'special' enemies we face are explained in some way throughout the story.

We find out that the Hell hounds are actually fluffy's puppies, the space Monkey's are explained, I believe, as the Monkeys Yuri was working on that encountered 115 whilst in space.

It's only the Cosmic Silverback, Pentagon Thief, Nova Crawlers and Cosmonaught that are never really given any background details. For all of which I believe the answer is out there.

[Guest Zombieofthedead]

There's still a problem: He looks NOTHING like clarke in any way. I don't care what anti earth says, there is zero resembalance aside from the writing on his face. Even if he did, they aren't the same model, that much is very obvious, unlike Dempsey and Polonsky who are exactly alike.

[Guest Tac]

Yeah I agree. I think he has about an equal amount of probability of being Clarke as George A. Romero does. They just don't look alike. Besides the numbers on his face, they have no resemblance in any fashion.

[Guest digit]

Clarke isn't the thief!

Just look at the pictures, the exact same everything! Same hair line, same eye colour, same facial features, same number writen on his face, everything.