There are way too many "what-ifs" and "maybes" in this thread, both from the TS and from others.
Quite a lot of evidence has been provided showing that it doesn't make sense for the Poe collector to be the graveyard boy. There have also been threads dedicated to this subject, from which I gathered the same conclusion. This can't be countered by what-ifs and maybes.
Yes, Dampe lives and works around Poes. Evidence inside Dampe's shack indicates that he's very interested in the Shadow Temple. The Poes may or may not be relevant (they may as well just be there because it's a graveyard), but it's a valid point to bring up. However, it's worth noting that the poes come out at night, while the graveyard boy can only be seen during the day. Tying the boy to the poes is too much of a leap, imo.
I do like that you've supplied several factual points to support your conclusion, but your presentation betrays a fault in your process. It is evident that the theory was formed first, and then evidence was sought to support it. This invariably leads to facts being twisted to support theories, rather than the other way around as it should be. I don't see any facts that can be used to twist a theory into one that involves the graveyard boy resurrecting Dampe.
Quite a lot of evidence has been provided showing that it doesn't make sense for the Poe collector to be the graveyard boy. There have also been threads dedicated to this subject, from which I gathered the same conclusion. This can't be countered by what-ifs and maybes.
Yes, Dampe lives and works around Poes. Evidence inside Dampe's shack indicates that he's very interested in the Shadow Temple. The Poes may or may not be relevant (they may as well just be there because it's a graveyard), but it's a valid point to bring up. However, it's worth noting that the poes come out at night, while the graveyard boy can only be seen during the day. Tying the boy to the poes is too much of a leap, imo.
I do like that you've supplied several factual points to support your conclusion, but your presentation betrays a fault in your process. It is evident that the theory was formed first, and then evidence was sought to support it. This invariably leads to facts being twisted to support theories, rather than the other way around as it should be. I don't see any facts that can be used to twist a theory into one that involves the graveyard boy resurrecting Dampe.