“There are elements of the design that are purely for looks and nothing else. Hardly a tech schematic.”

If you can conclude there are elements of the design that serve no function, you must be the architect!

Since you are the architect and can tell which parts of an alien schematic are real and which parts are just “for looks”, that means you can decypher them!

This is incredible! Please: tell us more, you seem to be “in the know”!

In fact, you should bring your findings to CNN!

/sarcasm

My point is this: we have no way of verifying his claims. But if we’re going to excercise judgement of our own, lets not make erroneous conclusions based on a false premise: that these drawings are understandable by us.

Thanks for the info. I agree that the case against a marketing campaign is pretty good. You might be interested in another post on this regarding the symbols.

Also, the style of the ships and language don’t match what we’ve previously seen in Halo, which have always been more rounded and purple. Changing the style for the sake of a marketing campaign just doesn’t make sense.

However, this is a very cool story, but I have serious doubts about it being real, a lot of the information seems a little dubious. The close up shots of the markings on the ship just seem far too unusual for me.

It might not be. See the post on Colin Bennett’s essay. Perhaps Microsoft latched onto it.

I don’t quite understand what you’re trying to say, but I agree, I think.

Alas, I still think the whole thing is a big fake, even though I do have a strong suspicion that anti-gravity tech was discovered in the mid-20th century.

I looked at your article. At the end you say “if this turns out to be correct.” “If” is not “is.” To turn things around a bit, Microsoft may have appropriated some of the imagery for their campaign.

If so, they had a good idea in any case.

Jess