New Glyph Discovery
Moderator: Moderators
Re: New Glyph Discovery
Why can't we just see this one as a "possible" Gylph and keep looking?
Re: New Glyph Discovery
Screw all that. The fact remains that this image existed BARG. (Before ARG)
- Sir Topham Hat
- Moderator [Designated]
- Posts: 537
- Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2007 12:51 am
- Location: Pennsylvania
- Contact:
Re: New Glyph Discovery
So did the ones on the Halo main page where we found the first glyph. They were altered.
Re: New Glyph Discovery
So this one is 100% NOT an "official" gylph?
- Sir Topham Hat
- Moderator [Designated]
- Posts: 537
- Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2007 12:51 am
- Location: Pennsylvania
- Contact:
Re: New Glyph Discovery
It is up to the viewers interpretation. The outcome of that interpretation isn't particularly important, so view it how you will.
Re: New Glyph Discovery
It will become official when something else goes down. It's like the broken glyph that we found originally on halo3.com: What's its purpose? So far, nothing. It didn't do anything for us. Everything changed when we found the comic, and even then that first glyph isn't doing anything for us.
This glyph may be a real glyph, or it may not, but again it may have a purpose to be reclaimed later.
This glyph may be a real glyph, or it may not, but again it may have a purpose to be reclaimed later.
Re: New Glyph Discovery
That's what i meant. Let's just keep this one as a possible one, that won't hurt anyone, right?
- Sir Topham Hat
- Moderator [Designated]
- Posts: 537
- Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2007 12:51 am
- Location: Pennsylvania
- Contact:
Re: New Glyph Discovery
Sir Topham Hat wrote:It is up to the viewers interpretation. The outcome of that interpretation isn't particularly important, so view it how you will.
Re: New Glyph Discovery
If you think you found a glyph, but you have to blow it up in photoshop, rescale it, warp it, and draw the glyph yourself from memory... odds are it isn't really there.
You just had to, didn't you?
You just had to, didn't you?
Re: New Glyph Discovery
It should not be included because it is not confirmed. Every image in the official list is 100% confirmed to be a glyph. There is no disputing whether or not they exist.Avateur wrote:So it should technically just be included with the other glyphs for consideration and individual interpretation.
Right now, the argument is simple: I have presented logical explanations of how the lines appear, and how they are manipulations of the original artwork, as well as clearly shown you that the image has been there since Halo3.com launched (And because the other image was altered later, we have only this to assume: All glyphs on Halo3.com were added after the ARG started. This is the only assumption we can logically make, because it is the only thing we have to base and beliefs on). Your entire argument is based solely on the assumption and belief that you see it. There is no evidence to show that it is a glyph and not a result of a poor resolution and manipulation. On the other hand, as I've said many times, I have evidence to show it is not a glyph. Right now, it is evidence vs. assumptions.
Last edited by Tural on Sun Jun 17, 2007 9:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.