My [ FINAL ] Look at the Split Timeline Theory and it’s Designs

WARNING - CALLING ALL FORMER AND CURRENT SPLIT TIMELINE THEORIST -WARNING

Please note that explanations for the mechanics of how the events may be perceived in order for the Split Timeline to occur in the series is NOT valid in-game reference and further more is not implied by the game itself so therefore the arguments on these points are mere assumption. All info of “REAL” implied in-game references and other Official Word from the producers of Zelda are considered valid arguments.

Thank you.


Note to all that this is the LAST time I am going to go all out and try to reason with this blasted theory. There are valid points that the Split Timeline Theorist stand behind and they have there own perspective on things as they are presented from the ending of OoT. However some of these facts are doubled edged and can be considered debatable and there is no real conclusion to whether Nintendo is incorporating a Split Timeline as their official timeline. SO, I have posted the points for how the Split Timeline is supported from these perspectives NOT allowing ANY assumed mathematics and explanations for the mechanics of how the Split Timeline works behind the scenes. Therefore ANYTHING explained behind the scenes and is not presented to the visable eye is considered invalid and mere speculation. Therefore we should all look at the hard core facts.

Most of the points were discussed on how the producers have guided the chronology of Zelda in my Words from Above Thread here:

The Word From Above Counts Today...

You can see here how the timeline has undergone with little to no direction until Anouma stepped into the picture. This will be clearly visible once you get further into reading this article.


So without Further ado lets take a look at the main facts that back up this theory:


The Split Timeline’s Legacy:

Fact 1:

The Infamous Interview With Miyamoto that Started it All


Nintendo Interview Article Issue 2002 ( Q3 )

(GameSpot)

"Q: Where does The Wind Waker fit into the overall Zelda series timeline?

Aonuma: You can think of this game as taking place over a hundred years after Ocarina of Time. You can tell this from the opening story, and there are references to things from Ocarina located throughout the game as well.

Miyamoto: Well, wait, which point does the hundred years start from?

Aonuma: From the end.

Miyamoto: No, I mean, as a child or as a...

Aonuma: Oh, right, let me elaborate on that. Ocarina of Time basically has two endings of sorts; one has Link as a child and the other has him as an adult. This game, The Wind Waker, takes place a hundred years* after the adult Link defeats Ganon at the end of Ocarina.

Miyamoto: This is pretty confusing for us, too. (laughs) So be careful."

___________________________________________

Here you can see that Split Timeline Theorist derives the point of OoT having two ending. To the theorist it implies two different separate timelines. However the fact here is doubled edged and can also be assumed by Linear Timeline Theorist that where the producers talk about the hundred years branching off of the adult timeline we see it only branching from that point in OoT’s position in one chronological state.

Fact 2:

The Confusion of In-Game References:

There are two main things derived by both theorist and both in-game references have been proven to have a double edge due to the main interview facts being double edged:

OoT (Ending) – Princess Zelda:

Thank you. Link... Thanks to you, Ganondorf has been sealed inside the Evil Realm! Thus, peace will once again reign in this world...for a time. All the tragedy that has befallen Hyrule was my doing... I was so young...I could not comprehend the consequences of trying to control the Sacred Realm. I dragged you into it, too. Now it is time for me to make up for my mistakes... You must lay the Master Sword to rest and close the Door of Time... However, by doing this, the road between time will be closed... Link, give the Ocarina to me... As a Sage, I can return you to your original time with it.
___________________

Here you can clearly see that Zelda says that the road between time travel shall be closed from this point on. Split Timeline Theorist believe that the word “closed” implies that time itself is closed off at this point along with its current and following events. Although it can be argued that the road has been closed right after Ganon's defeat and that is why Zelda has to use the OoT to send Link back. The Linear Timeline Theorist believe this and that time travel is simply being halted at this particular time frame in OoT's future whereas in the past time travel would still be open to travel through, just not to the point of when Hyrule has obtained true peace – as to why halting time travel would prevent evil ones from tempering with the outcome of Hyrules bright new future after Ganon’s defeat.

So both ways are debatable because the mechanics behind time travel are undefined/inconsistent by if things are altered or divided up because of changes such as these presented in the time traveling of OoT. There is not simply a one sided debate hear. EVER.

WW – King of Red Lions:

Link, do you know the legend of the Hero of Time? Once, long ago, he defeated Ganon and brought peace to the Kingdom of Hyrule... A piece of the Triforce was given to the Hero of Time and he kept it safe, much as Zelda kept hers. That sacred piece is known as the Triforce of Courage. When the Hero of Time was called to embark on another journey and left the land of Hyrule, he was separated from the elements that made him a hero. It is said that at that time, the Triforce of Courage was split into eight shards and hidden throughout the land. Even I do not know where they rest, but this much I do know: they lie hidden somewhere in this Great Sea. The Triforce of Courage is the only key that will once again open the doorway to Hyrule. You must search for it.
__________________

Here the King of Red Lions speaks of the Hero of Time partaking on a journey away from Hyrule. Split Timeline Theorist have made this functionally double-edged by saying that the journey implies a journey back through time away from the future Hyrule timeline. The Linear Timeline Theorist believe that this proves that MM co exists on the same timeline because it implies that the journey is the personal journey the Hero of Time was called on to find his friend after the OoT child ending. Unfortunately this fact is double edged too because of the infamous interview with Miyamoto.

Conclusion to the Split Timeline Theroy’s Stands Here:

Looking at the debates over the years since MM’s development up until now, the Split Timeline Theory and its theorist have had it made with their own little division amongst the timeline debating party. Neither theory can dilute one another or cancel each other out. That is why the mechanics/mathematics of how it happens for either timeline theory to work is resorted to continuous bickering over how the universe works once you have traveled through it by time.

It is a lost battle for both sides….


Until now.


The Ignored Facts that May Kill the Alternate Theory:


Fact 1:

The Restated and Redefined Article

Nintendo Interview Article Issue 2002 December ( Q4 )

(Nintendo Power) http://www.nintendo.com/gamedev?gameid=m-Game-0000-823

Where does The Wind Waker fit into the overall timeline of the Legend of Zelda?

Mr. Aonuma: In terms of the storyline, we've decided that this takes place 100 years after the events in The Ocarina of Time. We think that as you play through the game, you'll notice that in the beginning the storyline explains some of the events in The Ocarina of Time. You'll also find hints of things from The Ocarina of Time that exists in The Wind Waker.

There's also a more complicated explanation. If you think back to the end of The Ocarina of Time, there were two endings to that game in different time periods. First Link defeated Ganon as an adult, and then he actually went back to being a child. You could say that The Wind Waker takes place 100 years after the ending in which Link was an adult.

___________________________

Nintedo Power Magazines took this interview some time after the one in 2002 Q3. Anouma redefined some things that were not accurately explained in the first interview as you can see from Miyamoto’s confusion over the matter. Anouma says here that OoT had two endings, yes, but he defined the ending as periods. Periods in A time. Period is defined as a sole interval point on a line, if I am not mistaken. I believe that if there was clearly a Spit timeline in the making it would be defined that MM took place in a different time DIVISION. But nonetheless it says PERIODS – Two plotted points on A single line. This is a major point made in this interview that CANNOT be defined from two different perspectives unless you don’t understand english. This is a true hard core FACT that is presented in a clearly one-way defined form.

This interview has been ignored by the Split Timeline Theorist and it is up for debate. It was claimed by a Nintendo source and therefore since it is an updated version for the latter one in 2002, discussions should be logically looked off of this one.

Split Timeline Theorist have yet to defend their grounds here and I want answers.


Fact 2:

Links Memories and Zelda’s Prophesy


MM – Zelda’s Quote:


You are already leaving this land of Hyrule, aren't you? Even though it was only a short time, I feel like I've known you forever. I'll never forget the days we spent together in Hyrule... And I believe in my heart that a day will come when I shall meet you again... Until that day comes, please... Take this... I am praying... I am praying that your journey be a safe one. If something should happen to you, remember this song... The Goddess of Time is protecting you. If you play the Song of Time, she will aid you...


Ah ha… Here is a genuine in-game quote that no one have ever looked into with any depth. Here Zelda proclaims that she feels that she has known him forever. Since Zelda is a girl of prophesies it is no mere coincidence that she is experiencing disavow. But why would she experience this if the future of OoT has been disconnected and has its own timeline now? Also there is the point where Zelda feels that she will meet Link again. What a coincidence for here to predict that he comes back to Hyrule to give her back the OoT. So this all has to have a one sided view of things. This is a solid fact and I doubt anyone can assume that Zelda is having disavow for some other purpose.

This all needs to be explained by Split Timeline Theorist… NOW.

Conclusion Over the New Evidence:

Until further notice, the evidence seems promising enough that Nintendo is not going to officially adopt the Split Timeline ideal as there own. I have made a conclusion that this evidence stands on solid grounds and any other double-sided views to them is speculation nonetheless.

Note to Opponents and Viewers With Belief in both Timeline Theories:

I am making this thread to get a clean debate against those that still believe that the Split Timeline is a valid view in today’s timeline debates. I would hope that anyone should speak up if ANY of the new-presented discoveries are not valid in some way. As for now I see the Spit Timeline Theory very weak and not that confirmable to any degree at what the Linear Timeline Theory stands here at ZU and possibly other sites as well.

So… I am waiting for a contradiction my fellow adversaries. How can you make these two evidences be double edged like from the other latter outdated interview?

~ LOZ H ~

Former Splitter's opinion:

After I had accepted that tWW likely references MM, had accepted that the Aonuma quote didn't mean much, had accepted that OOT's method's of time travel were logically flawed and undecipherable, had decided that the epestemology that spawned the DT was disgusting, had pretty much given any hope on a proof for the DT existing at all, I still beleived in the theory.

Stupid of me? Of course, but it was an emotional thing. I did not beleive that OOT's ending could stand for anything besides absolute victory. And I see the exact same thing in many, many, many timeline newbs. Link must completely defeat ganon at the end of OOT, nothing less is possible, nothing else make sence. Before knowing anything about the Timeline # argument, they will invent crazy, unsportable theories do defend this stance; even when there is nothing to back it in the first place.

IMO, to destroy the Double Timeline, one would have to destory the feeling of accomplishment found at OOT's end. No other logical argument matters, because, at the heart of this, this is not a logical thing.

Congrats, LOZHistorian on finding evidence that Aonouma supports the single timeline. Yet why do I feel that the evidence is in itself a double-edged sword? We know that Aonouma supports a single timeline, yet he has created inconsistencies that make such a series of events impossible.

1) After walking away from the Master Sword in OoT's ending, Link then meets Zelda in Hyrule Castle. Zelda does not appear to possess the Triforce mark on her hand, which tells us that this event takes place before Ganondorf gained access to the Sacred Realm. Likewise, Ganondorf could not have taken the Triforce of Power if Link had returned to the point in time where he was at the point of opening the Sacred Realm, which confirms Link must have been sent back to a time before those events took place. However, no reference to her meeting with Link is given within the game, which should have occurred considering the importance of that event.

2) We know from MM that Zelda hands Link the Ocarina of Time to protect him on his departure from Hyrule (which could confirm that he didn't have it when Zelda sent him back in time). But how did Zelda have the Ocarina to throw to Link partway through Child OoT if she was also able to give it to Link's future self?

NEW IDEA: Is it possible that the final scene with Zelda in OoT's ending is simply a representation of the huge accomplishment that Link has saved Hyrule from darkness (in order to give the player that feeling of enormous satisfaction), rather than a literal meeting between them? The memory of Zelda's words to Link in MM could be the continuation of this representation; of their friendship.

I always saw the OoT scene as a sort of "full circle" conclusion--Link has done his deeds and saved the land, and now, given the opportunity to do it all over again, he has chosen to befriend the Princess, which would have been likely to happen had he not been sealed in the Sacred Realm. Now, while his "other self" is saving Hyrule, while he can live with the security that, in seven years, things will be set right, he goes about what he should have done after stopping Ganondorf as originally planned. This scene seems to be designed to represent this, and I always thought that it had been introduced without much foresight, along with the Ocarina of Time being introduced into MM. I always thought that these scenes and items were introduced for a sort of legacy feeling from OoT.

The way NoA tackles the game somewhat supports this idea--in the Japanese version of the game, the starting sword is called the "Hero's Sword." NoA changes the name to the Kokiri Sword--a legacy item from the last game. This is not accurate. Given the inconsistencies within the NoA version of MM, and the original intent of the developers to use the Fairy Ocarina instead of the Ocarina of Time, I propose that the inclusion of the Ocarina of Time serves only to add to this list of legacy items, to invoke nostalgia in those who played OoT. The purposes of MM could have been served without the Ocarina of Time, as the early versions of the game reveal; the developers may have been too eager to introduce these legacy terms (and to strengthen the Link-Zelda connection) to contemplate the "inconsistencies" they carried with them.

EDIT: Also, LOZ, I've mentioned this already, but it appears my projections of when the NP interview took place were off. The interview was actually conducted in Q3 as well, as noted by Miyamoto's citing it as coming "about two-and-a-half years" after the release of MM. Still, I'm fairly certain this was, if not after, then around the same time as the GameSpot interview, and helps to clarify what was meant when the developers said which "point" each ending takes place at.

Originally Posted by mmmmm_PIE

After I had accepted that tWW likely references MM, had accepted that the Aonuma quote didn't mean much, had accepted that OOT's method's of time travel were logically flawed and undecipherable, had decided that the epestemology that spawned the DT was disgusting, had pretty much given any hope on a proof for the DT existing at all, I still beleived in the theory.

You are a fool then. Right where the eviedence is pointing at your face, you still emotionaly feel attached to it. This is being irrational.

Originally Posted by mmmmm_PIE

Stupid of me? Of course, but it was an emotional thing. I did not beleive that OOT's ending could stand for anything besides absolute victory. And I see the exact same thing in many, many, many timeline newbs. Link must completely defeat ganon at the end of OOT, nothing less is possible, nothing else make sence. Before knowing anything about the Timeline # argument, they will invent crazy, unsportable theories do defend this stance; even when there is nothing to back it in the first place.

And it is the reason that the child timeline has to exist because of pointless arguements over the physics of how time travel works behind the scene. Ganon cannot be defeated in the child timeline because no further LoZ eveidence procves theres a point that he does. Nintendo NEVER intended such mechaniccs to be taken into serious consideration that some Splitist do. The child timeline has no limbs attached to it by clear definition of MM make alone. And therefore until proven otherwise it is co existing on the same timeline. No one from the Big N is countradicitng anyhting in the game or by recent word on the direction of the timeline since OoT, MM, and WW.

Originally Posted by mmmmm_PIE

IMO, to destroy the Double Timeline, one would have to destory the feeling of accomplishment found at OOT's end. No other logical argument matters, because, at the heart of this, this is not a logical thing.

You know how irritating this sounds to logical people here. Where talking about a THEORY. I hardly doubt it has that much of a deep sentimental tie to where people cannot accept bluntly facts such as these. It is because of others theories and facts such as these where people like yourself have come to believing in the Linear Timeline.

And as for the facts presented as being interpreted doubled edged....

I will smite you jhurvid.

Originally Posted by jhurvid

Congrats, LOZHistorian on finding evidence that Aonouma supports the single timeline. Yet why do I feel that the evidence is in itself a double-edged sword? We know that Aonouma supports a single timeline, yet he has created inconsistencies that make such a series of events impossible.

Congrats to me for then you are about to double edge my facts??? Heh... This is rediculously ironic. We shall see who is "logical" in the end Chief Hylian Knight.

Originally Posted by jhurvid

1) After walking away from the Master Sword in OoT's ending, Link then meets Zelda in Hyrule Castle. Zelda does not appear to possess the Triforce mark on her hand, which tells us that this event takes place before Ganondorf gained access to the Sacred Realm. Likewise, Ganondorf could not have taken the Triforce of Power if Link had returned to the point in time where he was at the point of opening the Sacred Realm, which confirms Link must have been sent back to a time before those events took place. However, no reference to her meeting with Link is given within the game, which should have occurred considering the importance of that event.

Trying to explian the mechanics of how things all work out behind the scenes, that Nintendo has no intrest in explaining, is pure speculation. However I will call your bluff. But beware that this is a thread to NOT discuss these matters. Only the new evedence presented.

So I see your point. Perhaps vacumgod was correct about something in the past. You remembe in WW in the last battle between Zelda, Ganondorf, and Link? Well you can see that on there hands that the Triforce mark is still glowing on there hands even whe the Triforces have left them. Maybe the Trifrce of Courage is just a mark to show that he most represents that elelment of the Triforce. Of course that is just an assumption just like how you are explaining the mechanic s here. Another option is what you said. That he is returned to a time before he met Zelda. Who really knows because noe of this is made clear or intentialy explained by Nintendo. PERIOD.

Originally Posted by jhurvid

2) We know from MM that Zelda hands Link the Ocarina of Time to protect him on his departure from Hyrule (which could confirm that he didn't have it when Zelda sent him back in time). But how did Zelda have the Ocarina to throw to Link partway through Child OoT if she was also able to give it to Link's future self?

Again I have provided a quote in which Link may meet Zelda agian AFTER MM. You still don't know how it plays out and you have to leave it to the blunt facts to stand out and say to you that "It just works out this way somehow because Nintendo said [THIS]". That is it. You can pounder and punder on these little things but once you think you've found the perfect solution to make since of the eveindenc of the Linear Timeline, you find one flaw in your theory and you immediatly take 10 steps backward. Again, believe me, this is a loosing battle if you want to try to get this detailed about the mathmatics behind it all. I should know from past experience.

Originally Posted by jhurvid

NEW IDEA: Is it possible that the final scene with Zelda in OoT's ending is simply a representation of the huge accomplishment that Link has saved Hyrule from darkness (in order to give the player that feeling of enormous satisfaction), rather than a literal meeting between them? The memory of Zelda's words to Link in MM could be the continuation of this representation; of their friendship.

NO. That was a direct scene that DID HAPPEN BEFORE LINK LEFT HYRULE. It was NOT a symbolization that Nintedo may have provided at the end of OoT. That is not a fair counter theroy because it shows how Link gets the OoT from Zelda to use in MM. Otherwise the memory scene would not be so important in MM.

So what logicaly sounds simple to you? What Nintendo says or what "YOU" said.

Originally Posted by LionHarted

EDIT: Also, LOZ, I've mentioned this already, but it appears my projections of when the NP interview took place were off. The interview was actually conducted in Q3 as well, as noted by Miyamoto's citing it as coming "about two-and-a-half years" after the release of MM. Still, I'm fairly certain this was, if not after, then around the same time as the GameSpot interview, and helps to clarify what was meant when the developers said which "point" each ending takes place at.

Well yeah. This isn't a problem anyway. The main thing that matters is that this interview was after the one the Splitist use and it was a different interview at that. Plus Anouma is speaking for Miyamoto on his behalf because of the last time he got confused over the matter. So you could say that the Split Timeline Theroy was given birth off of Moyamoto's confusion.

Here is a artical of mine that has analysed the views that Nintendo has directed the tmeline series today. It explains the incositancies of what was then and how Nitendo is fixing them up until now.

The Word From Above Counts Today:

The Word From Above Counts Today...

To jhurvid: if inconsistencies really matter, there wouldn't be so many inexplicable ones within the Oracle games (we see that time travel in that game is both mutable and immutable).
To PIE: I'm confused as to how a single timeline detracts from the complete sense of victory.

Originally Posted by LOZ Historian

That was a direct scene that DID HAPPEN BEFORE LINK LEFT HYRULE. It was NOT a symbolization that Nintedo may have provided at the end of OoT. That is not a fair counter theroy because it shows how Link gets the OoT from Zelda to use in MM.

I think jhurvid is arguing more for the case that the fact that the scene is in the castle is unimportant--the connection between OoT and MM would not have been established yet; the fact that Link is meeting Zelda again, without Navi, and with the Triforce in his hand, is the signficant part. Also, the ending scene where Zelda gives him the Ocarina is fairly obviously not at the castle.

Originally Posted by LOZ Historian

Again I have provided a quote in which Link may meet Zelda agian AFTER MM.

This is true; Link will either meet Zelda to return the Ocarina after MM, or he will meet Zelda in the Adult future to return the Ocarina. Either way, this sets up for OoT.

Originally Posted by LionHarted

To jhurvid: if inconsistencies really matter, there wouldn't be so many inexplicable ones within the Oracle games (we see that time travel in that game is both mutable and immutable).

Exactly. The mechanics and physics behind time travel and how it affects the universe from a one way perspective is undetermined and Nintendo has made it evedent that they do not wish to explain the terms, only say what they have said in the ost recent interview.

Originally Posted by LionHarted

To PIE: I'm confused as to how a single timeline detracts from the complete sense of victory.

It delflects his hope of a theory that is no longer plausible until further notice.

Originally Posted by LionHarted

I think jhurvid is arguing more for the case that the fact that the scene is in the castle is unimportant--the connection between OoT and MM would not have been established yet; the fact that Link is meeting Zelda again, without Navi, and with the Triforce in his hand, is the signficant part. Also, the ending scene where Zelda gives him the Ocarina is fairly obviously not at the castle.

Well, if that is the case I am implied to dismiss the Triforce on Links hand if that ending does not matter in OoT?

Originally Posted by LOZ Historian

Well, if that is the case I am implied to dismiss the Triforce on Links hand if that ending does not matter in OoT?

It's entirely possible that the Triforce is only on his hand in the "gold version" of the game.

Originally Posted by LionHarted

It's entirely possible that the Triforce is only on his hand in the "gold version" of the game.

No. It is there on other versions including the GC versions. And jhurvids quote on this matter is raising a question that should not even be one.

LOZ Historian, please stop ranting at me because I find the evidence illogical. I am not arguing against the single timeline, I am trying to work out how the events continue over time. Stop being paranoid.

If Zelda met Link on his journey to MM, she would not need to ask how Link got through the guards, she would not need to recite her dreams or ask to see the Spiritual Stone of Forest. Link's first encounter with Zelda is in all evidence, a first meeting. This is what I find so frustrating about the second meeting in OoT's ending. If it occurs before Link's first meeting in OoT, then Zelda would not need to enquire about Link. If it occurs after Link's first meeting, Zelda would not have thrown the Ocarina to Link, knowing that he would open the Sacred Realm for Ganondorf and let him conquer Hyrule for seven years.

For the second meeting to actually work in the context of OoT, it would have to be a meeting where nothing is actually said, where Link doesn't reveal information to Zelda. They just spend time together in each other's company, as friends. This is why I am arguing that the meeting is an important metaphorical event, not an important meeting in the timeline. Since the first meeting obviously occurred earlier in OoT, I think this second meeting takes place after Zelda has already met Link for the first time.

As for MM, the events that take place/are quoted simply don't connect in any logical way to OoT. The Ocarina of Time and Epona, like LionHarted said, were probably not meant to impact on the timeline at all, they are included as nostalgia of what was seen in OoT (although the Fairy Ocarina point doesn't make much sense because the Fairy Ocarina could not manipulate time travel) and as gameplay devices.

This is my current conclusion of events. If anyone has any better ideas...

Originally Posted by jhurvid

LOZ Historian, please stop ranting at me because I find the evidence illogical. I am not arguing against the single timeline, I am trying to work out how the events continue over time. Stop being paranoid.

I am not being paranoid. What explanation you have provided may be valid but keep in mind that these explanations are educated guesses off of the main point that Anouma is directing the course of Zelda on ONE timeline.

But for the second point of Zelda's quote from MM, there is room for debate as you have posted just now. Still, it only proves that MM had to happen on the same timeline as everything else does.