Talk:97,445 BCE

7448 BCE?

 * Who wrote this? This is no fanfic guys! Speaking of wich...Get on it Dragonclaws! -- 70.149.247.247 00:34, 20 October 2006

Actual Date
The actual quote is 100,000 years ago:

'':when did the Forerunner take their "Great Journey," that would be about 100,000 years ago - around the time our Homo Sapien ancestors decided to migrate out of Africa. Mind you, that's a hotly debated paleontological theory.''

Taken literally would mean the Halos were fired on 97,994 B.C.E. (This year 2006-100,000 years). But I believe that Staten was just giving an approximate date so the 100,000 B.C.E. date should be used. -- Esemono 00:36, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

For now I will include the date 97,448 BC simply because it cited in other wiki articles here. If we made this different than it would conflict with other articles. (that is unless we should change all of the other articles.)LemonDragon 15:30, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Time Anomaly
I am very sure that the time in Earth years the Halos were fired in, it was not more or less 100,000 BCE but but infact much earlier than that. I say this because humans evolved from something else, during that time, and there was no recorded mass extinction in which all sentient life was eradicated. Besides I don't think that when 'they' said that the Halos detroys all sentient life, I would think that they meant anything with neurogical tissue, how else could a weapon be so selective, that it only destroys life that can think complicated things ie. being conscious of self-existence, in stead of life that can only think instinctively. According to my research, the correct time could be anytime earlier than 635,000,000 BCE +/- 0.007874 %

Any Reply? 06.21.12.1640 (NZ)


 * The rings were desiged to kill 'any sentient being within three radia of the galactic centre'. Humans are said to have become sentient at around 100,000 BCE (You can't use BC, its offencive to anyone not christian), then they would have been killed when the rings were activated. Howether, if it was say, approximately 1000 years further, then humans may have been able to continue to evolve sentient. I am  hoping u get wat i am saying, as this makes a great deal --  21:34 19 jan 2007 (UTC).

though yours does sound good.

Or... they could end up going through that portal thingy seen in the E3 trailer...

Massive revisions
A lot of stuff in this timeline is either out of date or has been contradicted/retcon'd by newer information. Lord Hierarch (talk) 17:48, 8 April 2013 (EDT) Lord Hierarch.

97,445 BCE
As seen in the new Cannon Fodder, the Halo Array was apparently fired exactly in 97,445 BCE. Obviously, we knew that the events described in this article take place over a number of years. But now that we have the actual year the rings were fired, how should we go about this? Should we create a new article for the year and list all the events that we know happened at the same time as the Halo firing? And I don't think we really need to change around the dates on most articles since, again, the "around 100,000 BCE" estimate seen on most articles should be fine. This also solves the Didact birth year issue, if I'm not mistaken. - NightHammer (talk) 19:33, 30 January 2015 (EST)


 * We could always keep the other year articles as they are and simply note on this page that the actual year is 97,445 BCE—that would be much simpler and more convenient—but what makes the whole thing more complicated is the Didact's year of birth; since that particular year is derived from the 97,445 BCE date, this leaves the rest of our dates out of sync. Unless we ignore this detail I think we may have to move this article to 97,445 BCE and adjust all our other Forerunner-era dates going about 20,000 years back (since further back the rougher approximation won't matter as much). It's not ideal, I know, since it's clear most statements in the Forerunner Saga are approximate at best, but I don't see a better way to reconcile our timeline pages with the Didact's birth year. That is, until 343i comes up with a proper timeline for these events. To make the other affected dates more palatable to look at, however, maybe we could derive them from the slightly rounded-up 97,450 BCE figure, as none of them are 100% accurate anyway. --Jugus (Talk  | Contribs ) 10:11, 1 February 2015 (EST)