Thanos with heart of universe vs darkseid with ALE

Originally posted by leonidas
but, clear factual evidence is still lacking -- across universes doesn't mean 616 was ONE of those universes. there is no mention of 616 OR 4321 in the series so there is no way for you to prove in any way aside from speculation that those are the universes in question.

I'll agree with this, there is no actual number included.

On the other hand,

the End's Continuity timeline connects with Thanos' series to Annihilation to FF and other comics,

all Canon to 616.

Thanos during the End recalled his moment with the CCU, with the IG, his relationship to Death, these are historical events that CAN'T be the same for an Alternate Thanos (a Thanos from the 4321 Reality would be an Alternate version) It's not a diverged Universe either (which would share 616's History) because there is NO mention of it, on panel or in the bios.

And as we know, every Diverged storyline is announced at the begining of the issue, by the Watcher usualy. (even in other Titles that diverged besides What Ifs, like at the begining of Adventures of the X-Men)

The Bios state the Eternity in the "End" saga is the SAME one Genis killed.
We both know Genis & Entropy killed the Multiverse. (Totality of Eternity)

The Officially Marvel sponsored Marvunapp Bio of THOTI
states Thanos re-created the Multiverse. (616 is part of the multiverse)

I atleast conclusively proved that Horus came from where Akhenaten is from Ancient Egypt (the PAST of 616) and according to Zeus, those are Other Universes) is it a stretch to place the 4321 Reality there?

Not IMO.

After all, Akhenaten is from the Past, the Past was stated to be a separate Reality/Universe on panel in the End arc itself, and Thanos clearly differentiates the Two separate Universes.

"Tis also THIER Universe (like 4321, imo) that be imperiled"

And Thanos says,

"meanwhile Doctor Doom was also having HIS Universe (616, imo) badly shaken"

This at the very least tells us, we're dealing with more than just 616 or 4321.

It also tells that Horus came from Akhenaten's Reality (whatever it may be)
But more importantly, it separates Doom's Reality (where the End is taking place)
with Horus' (where Akhenaten is from) conclusively telling us if the End is not happening on 616, it surely ain't happening on 4321 either.

Originally posted by nvrbeenwthagirl
Even the multiverse is WRONG. The story said universe. And him saying something being shaken somehow turns into thanos absorbing the multiverse is stretching things a wee bit.

Originally posted by leonidas
akhen's bio says the series started in 4321 and the heart was there.

The Heart was there because the Celestial Order carried it around in their travels across Space and Time into different Timelines like 4321, but Ak's bio doesn't place the THOTI's origins in Reality 4321.

In fact, AK's bio states he was from a Previous Timeline:

http://www.marvunapp.com/Appendix/akhenaton.htm
(paragraph above Comments)
"Thanos, had to contend with the Cosmically powered Akhenaten from a Previous Timeline"

In fact, THOTI Bio doesn't mention 4321 anywhere:

http://www.marvunapp.com/Appendix3/celestialorderthanos.htm

In fact,

Thanos had already discovered the existence of THOTI during "Infinity Abyss" (Canon to 616)

Originally posted by leonidas
did it cross timelines? sure, i guess. but no clear evidence says it was ever in 616, only that it's powers crossed some realities. there are . . . a lot of realities out there.

There's also a lot of evidence that points to it being 616.

Like what is Atleza doing in this Arc, if it does not involve 616?

Atleza is the Anchor of the 616 Reality

http://www.marvunapp.com/Appendix/atleza.htm

Why is she involved in the End saga?

"You & Gamora were OUTSIDE THIS REALITY, tending Atleza,

this ACTUALITY'S Cosmic Anchor"

This "Actuality's Cosmic Anchor?" hm

But Atleza is the 616 Anchor.

Originally posted by leonidas
like i said -- marvel's not a democracy, nor do they need to make a bold announcement about something as trivial as this subject would be to them.

They need to make some sort of hint at the very least,

imo they haven't, and all the evidence imo, tells me the End is Canon.

Originally posted by leonidas
as for eternity's bio -- we both know that is a tricky one. there is no mention of a multi-eternity bio either, or no mention of him in eternity's bio. does that mean there is no such entity?

Multi-Eternity has never had a bio, because Multi-Eternity is Eternity.

Eternity is the Totality of the Multiverse,

Eternity's Aspects are his fragments or Single Universes.

Here is Reed calling Multi-Eternity ... Eternity:

"What was revealed to me through the Cosmic Entity known as ETERNITY"

i'll end the discussion here, only because we're going in circles. your scans are all well and good, but meaningless to the argument. why? because you are taking them from a source that has been denounced by marvel.

i'm not questioning why you feel the series is canon. i KNOW about the references, i understand the implications you laid out. no amount of 'evidence' from the series is sufficient though because the series ITSELF has been said to be non-canon. by marvel.

it's clear you'll not believe it because you are demanding some sort of 'formal' recognition by marvel 'officially' denouncing it.

in all likelihood, that will never happen. nor can we as readers really expect it. for one thing, there is no context for such an announcment, seeing as how it happened a few years back. brevoort spoke on it, it is a minor thing for them, so that's really all he needs to do.

you seem to have a problem with HOW they handled this retcon. i can't do anything about that. i'm just relaying what the head guy said. it you choose not to believe or accept it, that's fine. as you wish. 🙂

this is something interesting from brevoort's blog i thought i'd throw out there:

Hey, look! Somebody said something in a reply thread that rubbed me the wrong way a little bit! So now I get to reply right here in public--an absolute godsend when you're trying to fill up a blog.

Okay, here's the post in question, in response to the Continuity thread:

>... But I gave you MONEY!
My approach to continuity is simple: if I've paid good money for an issue, I don't want to be told 10 years later that the events I read in the comic I *paid* for should be ignored.

That would be a big waste of my money, would it not?

Posted by Adrian J. Watts on 2006-06-22 01:29:15>

Adrian, I think you have the wrong idea as to what you're buying from us.

The transaction is pretty simple: you put down your $2.99, and in return we try to entertain you for 22 pages. But that's really all you're entitled to. There's absolutely no guarantee of permanence, any more than there is when you watch a television show ("Bobby Ewing's still alive in the shower?"😉 or go to a movie ("You mean Superman III and Superman IV don't count now?"😉

You're not buying permanence. You're not buying a guarantee that nothing will ever change. And you're buying the physical object--which WON'T ever change.

It's entirely your personal choice whether you feel the reading experience is a waste of your money. That's the choice that every read has to grapple with every day--and why we work so hard to make sure that it is. Same as with every other entertainment possibility available to you ("You mean TOMB RAIDER III isn't cutting edge anymore?"😉 And if you read the comic and liked the comic, then you got what was promised you. And even if you read the comic and didn't like the comic, if you got the experience of reading the comic, you got what was promised to you--it just means that you're much less likely to buy another one thereafter.

Tom B

in a later blog he admits to hating 616 and guarantees no one writing really keeps it in mind.

small wonder continuity errors creep up.

Never have i seen someone claim conclusive proof over and over and over again,only to show their opinion over and over and over again

This trend is a bit tiresome,conclusive proof is not an OPINION of one person, i really hope this is not misleading people with scans,i really dont want to go there again

I have not decided what the deal is on this being canon but..
Is the only real proof the item in anhiliation where it says-thanos one time reality ender- if thats the case my opinion will be that it is not canon

Originally posted by leonidas
i'll end the discussion here, only because we're going in circles. your scans are all well and good, but meaningless to the argument. why? because you are taking them from a source that has been denounced by marvel.

i'm not questioning why you feel the series is canon. i KNOW about the references, i understand the implications you laid out. no amount of 'evidence' from the series is sufficient though because the series ITSELF has been said to be non-canon. by marvel.

it's clear you'll not believe it because you are demanding some sort of 'formal' recognition by marvel 'officially' denouncing it.

in all likelihood, that will never happen. nor can we as readers really expect it. for one thing, there is no context for such an announcment, seeing as how it happened a few years back. brevoort spoke on it, it is a minor thing for them, so that's really all he needs to do.

you seem to have a problem with HOW they handled this retcon. i can't do anything about that. i'm just relaying what the head guy said. it you choose not to believe or accept it, that's fine. as you wish. 🙂

this is something interesting from brevoort's blog i thought i'd throw out there:

in a later blog he admits to hating 616 and guarantees no one writing really keeps it in mind.

small wonder continuity errors creep up.

ale or beer

Originally posted by leonidas
i'll end the discussion here, only because we're going in circles. your scans are all well and good, but meaningless to the argument. why?

As you wish.

Originally posted by leonidas
because you are taking them from a source that has been denounced by marvel.

Never by Marvel.

By a screen name at CBR.

But like you said,

let's just end this, if evidence on top of evidence doesn't do it, nothing will.

As for me, you know I'm not going to overwirte all the proof,
with a single sentence at cbr.

As usual we had an enchanting debate. 🙂

Originally posted by starlock
Never have i seen someone claim conclusive proof over and over and over again,

only to show their opinion over and over and over again

This trend is a bit tiresome,conclusive proof is not an OPINION of one person,

So this is my opinion?

Originally posted by Mr Master
Like what is Atleza doing in this Arc, if it does not involve 616?

Atleza is the Anchor of the 616 Reality

http://www.marvunapp.com/Appendix/atleza.htm

Why is she involved in the End saga?

"You & Gamora were OUTSIDE THIS REALITY, tending Atleza,

this ACTUALITY'S Cosmic Anchor"

This "Actuality's Cosmic Anchor?" hm

But Atleza is the 616 Anchor.

Hmm ...

You think I drew those pictures?

You think I typed in the text in Atleza's bio?

Perhaps you're right,

and the On Panel evidence from the END depicting Atleza the 616 Anchor,

and Atleza's Bio that states she is the 616 Anchor is wrong.

One of the Realities Thanos absorbed was the Actuality Atleza Anchors,

Atleza Anchors the 616 Reality.

hum

Originally posted by starlock
i really hope this is not misleading people with scans,

You mean like others misleading people with clueless, and proofless opinions?

I hope not too..

Originally posted by starlock
Is the only real proof the item in anhiliation where it says-thanos one time reality ender-

if thats the case my opinion will be that it is not canon

Yea, that's the only proof. 😆

Have you been sleeping through the last 10 pages friend?

Originally posted by Mr Master
As you wish.

Never by Marvel.

By a screen name at CBR.

But like you said,

let's just end this, if evidence on top of evidence doesn't do it, nothing will.

As for me, you know I'm not going to overwirte all the proof,
with a single sentence at cbr.

As usual we had an enchanting debate. 🙂

enchanting? 😆

anyway, i'm sure we'll pick it up again at some other time. like usual. 😉

Mr Master when you claimed to have conclusive proof you showed 6 scans with no conclusive proof at all,thats where you fall short so many times,its not conclusive, its your opinion period

Conclusive
(a.) Belonging to a close or termination; decisive; convincing; putting an end to debate or question; leading to, or involving, a conclusion or decision

Now you might have convincing(not to me) evidence,but where the definition of -ending a debate- is concerned(which this is),you have no conclusive proof

Originally posted by quanchi112
to me i dont know how u can argue with on panel stuff. believe what u want but to belive some edtior from some post without it being officail is funny to me. to say that on panel stuff doesnt count is ludicrous. u feel ur way i feel mine it is pointless to continue to argue becuz its silly anyways.

agreed. but to clarify -- i'm not discounting the evidence -- i'm saying that the evidence has been 'overruled' by the powers-that-be at marvel.

you choose to believe that either the editors were . . . imposters ( 😕 ) or to believe that they should have done MORE to make it known that THE END has been retconned.

i believe it WAS schmidt and brevoort who denounced it, and don't think they needed to do anything more than they have. i don't LIKE the way they did it, and feel they made an even BIGGER mess by the stance they've taken, but i also don't feel as though i am simply ENTITLED to anything more from them.

Originally posted by starlock
Mr Master when you claimed to have conclusive proof you showed 6 scans with no conclusive proof at all,thats where you fall short so many times,its not conclusive, its your opinion period
Conclusive
(a.) Belonging to a close or termination; decisive; convincing; putting an end to debate or question; leading to, or involving, a conclusion or decision
Now you might have convincing(not to me) evidence,but where the definition of -ending a debate- is concerned(which this is),you have no conclusive proof

Ahh, whatever.

There's also a lot of evidence that points to it being 616.

Like what is Atleza doing in this Arc, if it does not involve 616?

Atleza is the Anchor of the 616 Reality

http://www.marvunapp.com/Appendix/atleza.htm

Why is she involved in the End saga?

"You & Gamora were OUTSIDE THIS REALITY, tending Atleza,

this ACTUALITY'S Cosmic Anchor"

This "Actuality's Cosmic Anchor?" hm

But Atleza is the 616 Anchor.

swank

Originally posted by Mr Master
Ahh, whatever.

😂

one of your best responses to date. 😄

and no scans! 😱

%$#@! edits . . .

*grumblegrumble*

Originally posted by leonidas
😂

one of your best responses to date. 😄

and no scans! 😱

Originally posted by leonidas
%$#@! edits . . .

*grumblegrumble*

Originally posted by leonidas
%$#@! edits . . .

*grumblegrumble*

😆

I had to throw that in again.

This guy is telling me it's my opinion and not the Proof that conclusively put the END in 616.

You may believe it's been retconned by Schmidt, and that's possible (I guess)

But I know as a true debator, you can't deny there is conclusive proof that the End took place in 616 as well as other Realitiies.

Those Atleza scans are undebatable.

Whether the story was retconned or not is another story,

will you agree with this atleast?

Originally posted by Mr Master
😆

I had to throw that in again.

This guy is telling me it's my opinion and not the Proof that conclusively put the END in 616.

You may believe it's been retconned by Schmidt, and that's possible (I guess)

But I know as a true debator, you can't deny there is conclusive proof that the End took place in 616 as well as other Realitiies.

[B]Those Atleza scans are undebatable.

Whether the story was retconned or not is another story,

will you agree with this atleast? [/B]

The entire point was that I said it wasn't in 616 continuity and some people acted as if I was stretchign the truth. As long as we know it's up for debate, i'm all for taking what you say as having value. And alot of it. But the moment you act as if people have to take what you think as fact, it gets very very annoying.

what issue ar they fiting in?