- Dream053
- |
- Fabled Legendary Member
- gamertag: [none]
- user homepage:
I do not appreciate B.Net Group solicitation. If you ignore this and send me an invitation anyway, I will block communications with you.
What happened earlier in the book does not directly correlate with what happened at the end of the book. It was a new, interlinked pattern specifically because they now held the sole duty of protecting the micro-Dyson Sphere in the center.Yes it does. No matter what alignment they are in, one Sentinel alone cannot break the crust of a planet. As earlier in the book, the Sentinels would combine to fire a stronger beam. Every Sentinel in the structure firing on its own could not break the surface, hence pattern.First of all, the sentinels combined fire. They didn't combine structurally. If they combined structurally to create a single, more powerful beam, it would have been described as such, rather than saying they simply "combined fire". This is made evident by the quote I already made clear to you:
Ghosts of Onyx, Page 377
"The view on-screen blinked and stepped closer--past boilingg air, clouds, tumbling mountains--zooming to ground level, revealing a lattice of three-meter-long rods and half-meter blazing red spheres that hovered between them, forming a crystalline structure."It states nothing about the sentinels being combined. In fact, it states very clearly that it is a lattice of individual sentinels, as it describes their individual characteristics in the text I bolded. Furthermore, a "lattice", in case you didn't know (since we both know your vocabulary is less than adequate), is an interlinked arrangement or pattern, not a structural combination, such as chain-link fences, polymer bonds strains, etc. etc. The lattice shape itself is what made it form a crystalline structure.
However, you ignored the first part of my quote. They noticed the patterns before they even used magnification, which means that it was visible to the naked eye at a distance safe from the surface's explosion.I did not. As I keep saying, and you keep ignoring, the pattern of the structure is not visible to the naked eye from that distance. The only reason the a pattern was visible was because not every Sentinel was firing individually, but combining beams. I'll say it again: a diamond is a crystalline structure too; a diamond can be cut into a sphere, but do you see the crystalline structure or a curved edge? What does the horizon of a planet look like? A curved edge. Nowhere from page 376 to 378 does it say they saw the Sentinels themselves with the naked eye. "'We've seen that before,' Lash said. "Combined drone fire.'" Combined "a blazing pattern emerged beneath: crosses and lines and dots." Sentinels themselves do not blaze, their beams do. You are suggesting that the crew saw three-meter-long rods from the moon with the naked eye? Redundant question! You're nuts!I never once said or suggested that the crew saw three-meter-long rods with the naked eye. I said that they saw the pattern with the naked eye, which is what is explained in the quote, as I've said I don't know how many times already. Also, it is not a pattern of blazing beams, it is a pattern of the sentinels themselves. Here is yet another quote for you unattentive mind to digest:
Ghosts of Onyx, Page 377
"--a lattice of three-meter-long rods and half-meter blazing red spheres that hovered bettween them, forming a crystalline structure. There you have it. Blazing pattern = the blazing red spheres of the individual sentinels. The crosses and lines are the descriptions of the lattice, while the dots are the clusters of sentinels that gather into a group intermittently to combine fire. Also not so coincidentally, a lattice also consists of crosses, lines, and dots. To add to this, the sentinels do not even fire a second time until the next page, from which I quote:
Ghosts of Onyx, Page 377
Clusters of drones heated; culminated beams shot forth again, targeting more distance Covenant vessels and vaporizing them.Nowhere is it stated that the sentinels fired another time after the surface was destroyed and the beams caught a few Covenant ships, until after they have noticed the "blazing pattern", which means, Oh My, that the beams don't even play a part here in the pattern we are discussing. Nice try, though.
Mars aside, as well as your ill-advised, against-the-grain assumption that they did not make it into/through the portalYour interpretation of the voice acting is no more valid than mine, so cut the ill-advised crap. The purple cloud behind the Ark is seen in a bunch of cutscenes and levels, but the problem is that the player never clearly sees what's in the direction the Ark is facing. Sure, you can see the Milky Way, but half the sky is obscured by cliffs and clouds in every level and that's all you can see. I didn't see a sun during the arrival cutscene, but The Ark is played in daylight.So you now admit that your "blue magellanic cloud in both locations" theory was completely false and based on no facts since we do not ever see such a thing near The Ark, yes? Also, I provided much more than just an argument about her voice acting, but you've already tried and failed to argue my other points (different cloud, context of speech and unchangeable mechanics of the English language, the beacon, Mendicant Bias' promise to atone (though this could be argued easily), and a slew of evident opposition to all of your claims), so I don't blaim you for mentioning just this one. My other points aside, however, voiceover performances mean a lot... not just for the emotional experience, but for psychological and subconscious musing. She wouldn't sound confident if she wasn't confident. She wouldn't sound lamenting if she wasn't lamenting. Speaking from experience, as I myself am a voiceover talent, productions as in-depth as the world of Halo do not leave anything to chance. If there is something to interpret, it was meant to be interpreted, especially a performance of all things. It's not hard evidence, but it was anecdotal, which helps fortify my other evidence. In response to The Ark being in daylight despite no sun: So was Halo. The Forerunner have the ability to create artificial atmospheres and natural lighting, apparently without having a natural or artificial sun. Don't ask me how it works, since I have no clue, but Delta and Alpha Halos were both lit with no bright star nearby to do so. Before you say Threshold, that was a gaseous planet.
I never said they put it in his hands.By hard-linked, I really mean hard-linked. As in, MB is not going to be able to access the portal through software or build a connection to it so he can. I'd offer an explanation, but you'd attack it, and then I'd have to spend more time and character count defending it. I won't address anything you say on this, since we'd be going in circles.So be it. For the record, I know what you meant. Be advised though, that I only "attack" things that are attackable. I think if something is discreditable, it should be discredited (including my own evidences that I've brought forth here), because attaining the truth is more important than being correct.
They may not have had time to ensure such security measures.So the portal can be tampered with because the Ark was a rush job… and my argument doesn't make sense? (It's a race to see how many rhetorical questions I can sensibly fit in a post now.)It is a plausible theory. The Librarian had the portal constructed days before the Halos were fired. Additionally, who is to say that they would have created such security measures against their own AI constructs to begin with? Librarian didn't know at the time that Mendicant Bias would betray them. It is just as plausible as any of the crackpot suggestions you've brought up (Foldspace, blue magellanic cloud in both locations, helmet recording of constellations, lattice blazing pattern being the beams rather than the sentinels themselves, etc.). The only difference is that I'm not asserting it to be true.
Once more, speculation.Did I say it was fact? I said I didn't care. I don't know how I can spell it out more obviously that it isn't I point I'm arguing. I swear I could argue that the Ark and Earth are linked by a piece of spaghetti and you'd waste five minutes attacking it.If you're not arguing it, why bring it up?Also, I've removed and ignored a lot of your pointless, excess dribble that had nothing to do with our discussion and will continue to do so.
The difference here, however, is that I am considering both sides, as you should. You are not.No, the difference is I considered both sides a long time ago, and chose the one that made sense, and was therefore true. And you're just coming up with things on the fly.I'm not, but even if I was, I still back them up with evidence and sources, so regardless of how fast I come up with a rebuttal, as long as it is supported, you shouldn't be against it. Also, even if something makes sense to you doesn't mean it is true. Facts depict truth. Not your personal idea of what constitutes ideas as sensible. This is clearly your hugest drawback here. I am ignoring what is sensible, because I was presented with an arrangement of facts from the novels, the game, IRIS, and other mediums that make all of these things possible. I am being as objective as possible, and as such, am defending theories that haven't been proven false. I would not defend a spaghetti theory, because that is plain ridiculous. I'll admit that this theory is slightly ridiculous as well, but it really isn't that ridiculous.