[quote]If you read instead of skim, you'll understand the meaning of "if assumptions are to be made". In this case they aren't, cause I never said they should. I based my conclusion on the evidence I found. [/quote] Like I said, you're going to bunk an assumption with an assumption? Yes you have come to a conclusion based on what evidence you can scrounge, but ultimately your conclusion is merely an assumption as there is still nothing definitive to prove the point you're trying to make. We'd be going around in circles here. [quote]That is not what the narrator said. What he did say was that the topography, buildings, soldiers, Covenant, vehicles, etc, were created as accurate as possible. He did not say that the diorama depicted an actual situation; that the records--for example--showed that a marine was dragged away from this particular point by a Jackal, and a Hunter did this and that exactly here. They based the diorama on anecdotes which parallels would have been evident if you actually had watched the fly-through and read and watched the interviews. Drawing that conclusion, seeing the similarities between what the marines recalled and what was shown, is as much of an assumption that is acceptable to make, but even so, I won't rely on it. What I do rely on is that out of the information provided, nothing was significant enough to change the plot/story. I repeat: [b]"ONI hardly knew what was happening in the heart of the action, since they're still investigating and cross-referencing." and may I add: fifty years after the event (still!).[/b][/quote] On the topic of assumptions, where did the bold statement come from. As you state as accurate as possible. So a consensus was clearly made that it is rather accurate to consider the Chief present at New Mombasa arming a grenade and suddenly turning the tide of the land battle at New Mombasa vs the events of the game. As Uprising, Halo 3, and ODST would go on to demonstrate, the Chief never returned to New Mombasa after Halo 2. Also, read the bonus chapter Petra at the end of the First Strike reissue. The events surrounding the final battle were rather clear for a civilian reporter on the anniversary of the battle. The main character Petra was fully aware of the battle of Voi the Chief participated in, the arrival of the Flood on Earth, and part of Forward Unto Dawn's voyage into the Portal with an understanding that something referred to as the Ark lay beyond it. She knew word for word what Cortana's message was to the Chief. So your assumption that ONI didn't know how to reconstruct the events of the battle, "fifty years after the event (still!)" as you say, is rather weak. [quote]You might be correct on this, but since you don't provide any evidence of it, I will have to disregard this part. I've done my best to find every piece of the ad campaign and go though all information I could find as thoroughly as possible, but I have not seen such notes. [/quote] I don't even think I need to explain how this train of 'I did not see therefore it does not exist' logic is wrong. [quote]You do realise that these are production errors due to poor planing and bad communication? Is Halo 2 not canon cause ODST reimagined New Mombasa, is Landfall not canon cause Halo 3 took place during the night, is Cryptum not canon cause there only is place for seven holographic representations of the installations in the control room of the Ark, are none of the games canon just cause none of them represent the what effects of a plasma pistol are canonically? I can go on..On top of that, none of the diorama discrepancies chance the meaning of the diorama, nor do they alter the plot. I despise redesigning, but I would go as far as to say that it breaks canon. Every Brute being of the Stalker class is the equivalent of a type-o, a bug, a misunderstanding, it doesn't break canon, probably due to some sort of limitation.[/quote] Of course production errors will come up in ad campaigns, given what you're citing as production errors you don't seem to be able to differentiate how things come off as canon and how aesthetics alone are not what makes or breaks canon. To break it further piece by piece... [quote]Is Halo 2 not canon cause ODST reimagined New Mombasa[/quote] How was New Mombasa reimagined to the point that it invalidated the events of Halo 2? Both games took place in different parts of the city. Aside from geographical oversight there is nothing to contradict the canon established in both games (sure there are moments that caused suspension of disbelief on how quickly the Brutes were able to dispatch every single Elite in the areas the ODSTs operated in, but that isn't a canon issue). [quote]is Landfall not canon cause Halo 3 took place during the night[/quote] The part of Landfall that took place during the ODSTs operation to track the Chief occurred in another part of the world. Different time zone. [quote]is Cryptum not canon cause there only is place for seven holographic representations of the installations in the control room of the Ark[/quote] Cryptum comes after Halo 3, so obviously there is no way for Bungie to magically account for more than seven spaces during Halo 3's development several years in the past. Regardless, the fact that the extra rings were destroyed or rendered inoperable by the events of Halo 3 changes nothing when it comes to what transpired. Canon still remains intact. [quote]are none of the games canon just cause none of them represent the what effects of a plasma pistol are canonically[/quote] Now you're just straying off from the main point that this is a discussion about story details. Gameplay mechanics itself never has nor ever will be canonical for the sake of the enjoyment of [i]playing[/i] the game. It's something that need not be stated. [quote]On top of that, none of the diorama discrepancies chance the meaning of the diorama, nor do they [b]alter the plot[/b].[/quote] And herein lies the problem. The diorama as a whole, regardless of the minor discrepancies that come off as a result of actual production errors, represents something that did [u]not[/u] occur in the plot of the Halo storyline. Yes you can go about and argue from a meta standpoint a position of propaganda or senility on the parts of every human still alive and contributing to the "accuracy" of the diorama when compared to the knowledge of a character like Petra who was also on the ground during most of the fighting in Africa who had a far clearer understanding of what unfolded in relation to the events of Halo 3. But again, it's a weak position built upon the assumption that it was either propaganda or user error. And before one goes to cite Halo:Reach as a counter example keep in mind that the diorama did not come packaged to consumers of the limited and legendary edition as a reconstructed record of events recovered by ONI as to what transpired on Reach from the perspective of Noble Team. [quote]I despise redesigning, but I would go as far as to say that it breaks canon. Every Brute being of the Stalker class is the equivalent of a type-o, a bug, a misunderstanding, it doesn't break canon, probably due to some sort of limitation.[/quote] Hardly arguing a point that aesthetics means canon error. What I am arguing is that all the errors in the [i]entire[/i] ad campaign add up a to a picture where there is a lack of credibility to the production studio in representing an [i]actual[/i] story in the Halo universe vs feeding consumers superficial or completely unrelated information of a product for the sake of attracting consumer interest to said product rather than representing the product itself. Typos happen all the time in other Halo media. Look no further than early versions of the reissues of the original three novels where 750 Covenant vessels bore down at Reach, or that the battle itself occurred in 2542. It's obvious those are typos and are promptly ignored by the community at large whenever they spring up. The focus is still on the core chunk of whatever story is being conveyed. As I said earlier Staten had a clear cut way for fans to interpret canon. Content featured in ads were to be disregarded by events in games and the novels unless otherwise rectoned by Bungie themselves. The Believe campaign fell under those rules. While 343i could choose to recton the Believe campaign to be an actual fact in the Halo Universe as they had with the line about the 800+ colonies of humanity, the fact remains that to date they have not. And no, just because 343i hasn't said anything about it since taking the reigns from Bungie does not magically mean that Believe (and every single other ad campaign during prior to Halo 3) is suddenly canon. [quote]It is the [i]exact same terain as the one on Tsavo Highway[/i]. There are even parts of the fallen space tether there (although in another scale). It is the [i]same landscape as Landfall[/i] and High Grounds too, they just looks a bit different cause they're different media, the diorama is made out of, you know, plastic and cardboard or whatever.[/quote] Terrain is [i]similar[/i] but hardly "exact" as you say, and hardly indicative as being a representation of the battle that took place along Tsavo Highway. Furthermore again Landfall takes place in another country so that connection doesn't even exist. [quote]You have yet to provide evidence of something that directly states that it isn't canon.[/quote] Not everything has a direct statement that says this is not canon. If that were the rule then every announcement trailer for every game would be canon because no official went "This is not canon" for them. Read [url=http://www.bungie.net/Forums/posts.aspx?postID=33630397&postRepeater1-p=1]this[/url] to better discern for yourself what [i]is[/i] canon vs assuming it [i]could[/i] be canon and thus be considered canon in arguments until otherwise stated which is what you're doing.