One of the most powerful wizards in the world can see through the perfect invisibility cloak. The cloak that is one of the three objects which make the user master of death. Yet he can't see through a fucking turban which contains a dark lord? Seriously I just reread Sorcerers Stone and this made me cry.

Plot hole more J.K? I guess it can be chalked up to the fact that she didn't really plan on having the hallows until later on in the series but still...

 

It's fucking magic dude. More importantly it's JKR magic.

Using logic...what the fuck were you thinking?

 

Being able to see the invisible - plausible use of magic for a great wizard.

Being able to see through clothes - more like a goal Filch would aspire to than Dumbledore.

 

What CareOtters said basically applies. Seeing through an invisibility cloak is something he could see as being useful, whereas seeing through clothes is not readily apparent as a necessity. Even if you consider the threat of Voldemort, IIRC, possession can also be a little less obvious than the way it was in PS (the way Voldemort possesses Harry in the Department of Mysteries comes to mind), so Dumbledore would probably not focus on seeing through a turban on the off chance Voldemort had manifested there.

EDIT: Also, not sure how others saw this, but I always interpreted Dumbledore seeing through the cloak as not really seeing through the cloak, but rather piercing the invisibility magic on it i.e. he saw the cloak, and the person wearing it too, as opposed to both being invisible. Thus, what he was doing was not seeing through the cloak so much as countering the magic of the cloak - obviously not a parallel to Quirrell's turban.

 

Didn't Dumbledore already know Voldemort was on the back of Quirrell's head? From Snape's flashback in DH he either knew or had a pretty good idea.

 

Rowling has said that Dumbledore simply uses the Homenum revelio spell and that Dumbledore cannot in fact see through the cloak.

 

So he doesn't know who is hiding, just that someone is hiding?

Edit: Wiki says that the target would feel a "swooping" sensation as the spell is cast upon them and that Dumbledore can cast it nonverbally. HP Lexicon only mentions when Hermione uses it in Number 13.

 

Yes, basically. Also, given the rarity of invisibility cloaks and that the disillusionment charm only makes you hard to see, not completely invisible - chances are that if he finds someone "hiding in plain sight" but cannot be seen, it's probably Harry.

 

Also taking into account that it was him who gave him the cloak in the first place then it seems reasonable that he would know that if he senses a person he can't see, but can hear his footsteps and breath, then it's probably Harry.

That also begs the question, hoe exactly was the cloak,you know, THE cloak, so better than any else, other than lasting longer?

 

It still doesn't make much sense. The Cloak is supposed to hide someone from Death - if it can hide someone that deeply, then surely magic shouldn't reveal their presence?

Or maybe, the myth over-glorified the Cloak which is basically as useful as a regular invisibility cloak, while leaving the Elder Wand overpowered.

 

Wasn't it also said that the cloak doesn't get destroyed by spells or rip or whatever? Although I think if it got blasted by an AK or Fiendfyre it might go the way of the dinos.

 

One is lead to believe that, being a tool that supposedly protects the wearer from death, it would be able to stop an AK.
However, in the books the cloak is rendered to nothing more than a simple Invisibility Cloak. I think it was even summoned at one point.

 

The Invisibilty Cloak's invisibilty is not affected by spells. However the fabric itself is not invincible. It could easily burn or rip.

However that is just speculation as the cloak has never been tested, if my memory serves me right.

Also, I doubt someone would use a Killing Curse [or an AK, as you so eloquently put it] to get rid off a cloak.

 

Nope, it can't be Summoned. It was in DH where someone first got the idea to try, and nothing happened despite Harry reflexively clamping down on the Cloak.

As for Dumbledore not noticing Voldemort, he did - but I doubt he told Snape what the whole deal was. He probably just said "Quirrel's gotten greedy and wants the Stone for himself," and kept it at that. I imagine Snape would've approached Quirrel a lot differently if he knew his old master was riding shotgun.

 

As for the lack of power the cloak has, it can be rather easily explained away. The stone requires three turns to activate it, and the wand must be won in order to use it to the fullest...so what makes the cloak any different. I always viewed it like the wand. It still functions like an average invisibility cloak when you wear it, but it's full power can only be activated by someone who puts it on knowing that it is no normal cloak.

That's the only way I've been able to explain away the obvious flaws in the cloak. It would explain how Dumbledore could see through it...Of course, it could also be that a bunch of kids were wearing the cloak and they didn't take the proper steps to make sure they are 100% covered by the cloak.

 

JKR already made Dumbledore gay, no need to make him a pedophile as well.

 

Dumbledore notes that the actual story of the three brothers was a wizarding myth, and really it's more likely that the three brothers made the Hallows themselves.

It's unsurprising that the cloak doesn't do as it says in the myth - the wand and stone don't either (the wand isn't unbeatable, just very powerful and the stone only brings back shades, not the full person).

 

Of course, the fact that Dumbledore is using a Hallow could have something to do with being able to detect the presence of the cloak and/or whoever is under it.

He had plenty of time to study it and see what worked and what didn't. Perhaps detection spells cast using the other Hallow cancel any advantage the cloak would have over spells from normal wands.

[/desperately trying to make sense of JKR's muddle]

 

It's not muddle; it's wizards advancing enough to surpass a thousand-year old relic. The only reason the wand hadn't been replicated is because wandcraft is portrayed as highly, highly guarded.