VH-2 invalidated

[ManofTheAtom]

What I said was that Alpha & Omega took place on the real Earth with the only fictional elements being the people that worked at the Edgewater reactor and the accident that turned Phil and Erica into energy beings.

That should be self-explanatory. It means that there are NO other fictional elements present on that world.

It isn't until Phil goes back in time that he changes the composition of the universe, resulting in the creation of immortals, Harbingers, Spider-Aliens, etc.

That is, partly, what crawls up Erica's *SQUEE* and what she wants to undo in Unity with her own wish machine.

It has nothing to do with a multiverse.

Valiant is an alternate comic book sci-fi universe, not the real Earth. Wish machines are not hard science.

The wish machine would fit Clarke's third law...

Clarke's Third Law is not a physical law. You are appealing to laws of fiction, not laws of science.

Or, how about, science fiction?

As a genre within fiction, yes. Clarke's Third Law is not a scientific law and never will be. You could argue that it is a catechism in the religion of humanism more easily than a scientific law.

You are pretty well informed on science fiction. What is so frustrating is that you cite these science fiction rules as scientific facts when they don't correspond to how cosmology and physics really work. Like the first law of thermodynamics ruling out branching universes - it works well for sciency sounding word salad in some kind of hard sci fi story but that is a gross misapplication of thermodynamics in the real world.

Continuing to argue about this with you, I run afoul of Einstein's definition of insanity. After some point, you just have to get unserious and ridiculous with the replies. Pretty much everyone who has engaged with you in the last couple of threads have been doing that.

Ah, but Einstein didn't actually say that. That was an Internet claim.

https://www.history.com/news/here-are-6 ... never-said

At the end of the day it is not my arguments you're finding fault in as much as it is their application to comic books. Unfortunately, that is a narrative field that will never get the same respect as books, film, or even TV.

[ManofTheAtom]

Here's the million dollar question, answer this one and we may just unlock the secrets to the non-multiverse.

Gold Key Doctor Solar is established multiple times as a fictional comic book in the Vh1 universe, while the events of Gold Key Magnus Robot Fighter are established as having actually happened in the Valiant universe. So in Vh1, what exactly is on the bottom of this cover?

Doctor Solar Man of the Atom 29.cbr-DrSolar029-001.jpg

Maybe U2K and the whole 'magic ink' thing isn't looking as ridiculous anymore.

Faith's reference to Jack Kirby's artwork when she first saw Erica's Rainbow Tower instead of referencing Russ Manning shows that Manning's Magnus comic did not exist in VH-1.

[Ryan]

Clarke's third law states that any sufficiently advanced form of technology is indistinguishable from magic.

That just becomes a 'get out of jail free' card to hand wave explain anything, it's not hard science. Time travel? Clarkes third law. FTL travel? Clarkes third law. Wish machines? Lazer guns? Psionic powers? Immortals? Multiverses? Clarkes third law. It's a meaningless explanation.

What Alpha & Omega did was posit a scenario in which an individual obsessed with comic books accomplishes just that and creates a machine that grants him his wish to become his favorite comic book superhero.

In any medium other than comic books this would be a perfectly acceptable science fiction scenario, but because comic books have to deal with decades of DC and Marvel *SQUEE* getting people to accept that becomes an uphill battle.

Just like 'power creep', I think there's also a phenomenon that happens in ongoing fictional universes called 'fantasy creep'. If you take DC at the beginning it just has Superman who has a scientifically plausible explanation as to why he is super powerful and Batman is just a normal vigilante guy. Just one real fantasy element (Supes), like hard sci-fi.

But as the years and decades go by more and more writers need to keep churning out material and come up with new ideas and new characters to sell more copies and keep the readers interested. More and more fantastic and implausible scenarios creep into the stories and at a certain point there's no way it can be explained by science or one set of sci-fi rules. Happens to all of them.

[Ryan]

Here's the million dollar question, answer this one and we may just unlock the secrets to the non-multiverse.

Gold Key Doctor Solar is established multiple times as a fictional comic book in the Vh1 universe, while the events of Gold Key Magnus Robot Fighter are established as having actually happened in the Valiant universe. So in Vh1, what exactly is on the bottom of this cover?

Doctor Solar Man of the Atom 29.cbr-DrSolar029-001.jpg

Maybe U2K and the whole 'magic ink' thing isn't looking as ridiculous anymore.

Faith's reference to Jack Kirby's artwork when she first saw Erica's Rainbow Tower instead of referencing Russ Manning shows that Manning's Magnus comic did not exist in VH-1.

That doesn't prove anything. Kirby has always been much more prominent and well known than Russ Manning. By 1991 Manning had been dead 10 years and was an obscure figure in comics.

Kirby has always been well known for creating fantastic sci-fi machinery and settings. Manning was not known for that.

[ManofTheAtom]

Clarke's third law states that any sufficiently advanced form of technology is indistinguishable from magic.

That just becomes a 'get out of jail free' card to hand wave explain anything, it's not hard science. Time travel? Clarkes third law. FTL travel? Clarkes third law. Wish machines? Lazer guns? Psionic powers? Immortals? Multiverses? Clarkes third law. It's a meaningless explanation.

What Alpha & Omega did was posit a scenario in which an individual obsessed with comic books accomplishes just that and creates a machine that grants him his wish to become his favorite comic book superhero.

In any medium other than comic books this would be a perfectly acceptable science fiction scenario, but because comic books have to deal with decades of DC and Marvel *SQUEE* getting people to accept that becomes an uphill battle.

Just like 'power creep', I think there's also a phenomenon that happens in ongoing fictional universes called 'fantasy creep'. If you take DC at the beginning it just has Superman who has a scientifically plausible explanation as to why he is super powerful and Batman is just a normal vigilante guy. Just one real fantasy element (Supes), like hard sci-fi.

But as the years and decades go by more and more writers need to keep churning out material and come up with new ideas and new characters to sell more copies and keep the readers interested. More and more fantastic and implausible scenarios creep into the stories and at a certain point there's no way it can be explained by science or one set of sci-fi rules. Happens to all of them.

And therein lies the rub. You're not judging VALIANT for what VALIANT did, but through the lens of what comic books as a whole have done.

"Since Superman shot rainbows out of fingers, then Phil Seleski couldn't have created a wish machine using actual science, it must be fantasy".

[ManofTheAtom]

Here's the million dollar question, answer this one and we may just unlock the secrets to the non-multiverse.

Gold Key Doctor Solar is established multiple times as a fictional comic book in the Vh1 universe, while the events of Gold Key Magnus Robot Fighter are established as having actually happened in the Valiant universe. So in Vh1, what exactly is on the bottom of this cover?

Doctor Solar Man of the Atom 29.cbr-DrSolar029-001.jpg

Maybe U2K and the whole 'magic ink' thing isn't looking as ridiculous anymore.

Faith's reference to Jack Kirby's artwork when she first saw Erica's Rainbow Tower instead of referencing Russ Manning shows that Manning's Magnus comic did not exist in VH-1.

That doesn't prove anything. Kirby has always been much more prominent and well known than Russ Manning. By 1991 Manning had been dead 10 years and was an obscure figure in comics.

Kirby has always been well known for creating fantastic sci-fi machinery and settings. Manning was not known for that.

You forget that when Faith met Solar she made it a point to identity him as the one from the Gold Key comics.

Why would she be able to so easily recognize Doctor Solar as a fictional character from Gold Key's comics but not North Am architecture from Russ Manning's Magnus comics?

Because they didn't exist, that's why.

[Ryan]

As a genre within fiction, yes. Clarke's Third Law is not a scientific law and never will be. You could argue that it is a catechism in the religion of humanism more easily than a scientific law.

You are pretty well informed on science fiction. What is so frustrating is that you cite these science fiction rules as scientific facts when they don't correspond to how cosmology and physics really work. Like the first law of thermodynamics ruling out branching universes - it works well for sciency sounding word salad in some kind of hard sci fi story but that is a gross misapplication of thermodynamics in the real world.

Continuing to argue about this with you, I run afoul of Einstein's definition of insanity. After some point, you just have to get unserious and ridiculous with the replies. Pretty much everyone who has engaged with you in the last couple of threads have been doing that.

Ah, but Einstein didn't actually say that. That was an Internet claim.

https://www.history.com/news/here-are-6 ... never-said

At the end of the day it is not my arguments you're finding fault in as much as it is their application to comic books. Unfortunately, that is a narrative field that will never get the same respect as books, film, or even TV.

I enjoy the debate, I think you have some cool ideas but for me it's all very 'not seeing the forest for the trees'.

What they were trying to achieve in Vh1 (pre-Unity) wasn't meant to be 'the real world' that must rigidly adhere to all had science (except when it doesn't).

It was just Shooter's attempt to take what Stan did at Marvel to the next logical step. Create an even more plausible, credible, and logical superhero universe. Because for him that made for better stories, better immersion for the sophisticated reader. Less suspension of disbelief to appeal to the older readers who were growing out of the silliness that would happen in the bigger comic universes.

That was it, just a way to tell better stories. It couldn't be sustained and now Valiant has the same problems that other comic book universes have after multiple decades of stories, relaunches, and reboots. A mess that doesn't fit together.

I think the most important thing is just to get back to making the world building more plausible and bringing back the more popular versions of characters. Having the people who make the comics at Valiant actually revere the old comics just like the fans used to. VEI has never had that (save for one person).

[ManofTheAtom]

As a genre within fiction, yes. Clarke's Third Law is not a scientific law and never will be. You could argue that it is a catechism in the religion of humanism more easily than a scientific law.

You are pretty well informed on science fiction. What is so frustrating is that you cite these science fiction rules as scientific facts when they don't correspond to how cosmology and physics really work. Like the first law of thermodynamics ruling out branching universes - it works well for sciency sounding word salad in some kind of hard sci fi story but that is a gross misapplication of thermodynamics in the real world.

Continuing to argue about this with you, I run afoul of Einstein's definition of insanity. After some point, you just have to get unserious and ridiculous with the replies. Pretty much everyone who has engaged with you in the last couple of threads have been doing that.

Ah, but Einstein didn't actually say that. That was an Internet claim.

https://www.history.com/news/here-are-6 ... never-said

At the end of the day it is not my arguments you're finding fault in as much as it is their application to comic books. Unfortunately, that is a narrative field that will never get the same respect as books, film, or even TV.

I enjoy the debate, I think you have some cool ideas but for me it's all very 'not seeing the forest for the trees'.

What they were trying to achieve in Vh1 (pre-Unity) wasn't meant to be 'the real world' that must rigidly adhere to all had science (except when it doesn't).

It was just Shooter's attempt to take what Stan did at Marvel to the next logical step. Create an even more plausible, credible, and logical superhero universe. Because for him that made for better stories, better immersion for the sophisticated reader. Less suspension of disbelief to appeal to the older readers who were growing out of the silliness that would happen in the bigger comic universes.

That was it, just a way to tell better stories. It couldn't be sustained and now Valiant has the same problems that other comic book universes have after multiple decades of stories, relaunches, and reboots. A mess that doesn't fit together.

I think the most important thing is just to get back to making the world building more plausible and bringing back the more popular versions of characters. Having the people who make the comics at Valiant actually revere the old comics just like the fans used to. VEI has never had that (save for one person).

One piece of the equation that tends to be ignored is that after Phil changed the nature of the universe he changed how physics work, which is what allowed for all the fictional elements like immortals, Geomancers, Harbingers, etc.Some which adhered to the hard sciences of the real worlds and others that didn't.

Again, that is what crawled up Erica's *SQUEE*.

[Ryan]

One piece of the equation that tends to be ignored is that after Phil changed the nature of the universe he changed how physics work, which is what allowed for all the fictional elements like immortals, Geomancers, Harbingers, etc.Some which adhered to the hard sciences of the real worlds and others that didn't.

Again, that is what crawled up Erica's *SQUEE*.

And there it is. So no real science or physics has to be applied unless we want to. When we don't want to (immortals, harbingers, time travel, multiple dimensions, etc.) we can just say Phil changed the world to use comic booky physics sometimes. Easy out for everything.

[ManofTheAtom]

One piece of the equation that tends to be ignored is that after Phil changed the nature of the universe he changed how physics work, which is what allowed for all the fictional elements like immortals, Geomancers, Harbingers, etc.Some which adhered to the hard sciences of the real worlds and others that didn't.

Again, that is what crawled up Erica's *SQUEE*.

And there it is. So no real science or physics has to be applied unless we want to. When we don't want to (immortals, harbingers, time travel, multiple dimensions, etc.) we can just say Phil changed the world to use comic booky physics sometimes. Easy out for everything.

It's relative to what is stated on the page.

[Ryan]

One piece of the equation that tends to be ignored is that after Phil changed the nature of the universe he changed how physics work, which is what allowed for all the fictional elements like immortals, Geomancers, Harbingers, etc.Some which adhered to the hard sciences of the real worlds and others that didn't.

Again, that is what crawled up Erica's *SQUEE*.

And there it is. So no real science or physics has to be applied unless we want to. When we don't want to (immortals, harbingers, time travel, multiple dimensions, etc.) we can just say Phil changed the world to use comic booky physics sometimes. Easy out for everything.

It's relative to what is stated on the page.

So which comics 'count' and which don't?

Once the established baseline for 'hard science' within the fictional universe is:

1) Phil changed the nature of the universe and how physics work to become more 'comic booky' in some instances, with no rhyme or reason behind when real physics are used and when 'comic booky' physics are applied. (other than the needs of the writer and the current story being told.)

2) Aliens are real and have visited Earth for centuries with highly advanced technology.

3) Time travel is not only possible but really quite easy.

4) Travel to alternate dimensions (e.g. Lost Land) is really quite easy when we want it to be.

Then any fantasy element you come up with can be easily explained away with 'it's comic booky physics due to Phil', 'it's Clarke's third law due to alien technology', 'it's Clarke's third law due to time travel'.

That's not even getting into Necromantic energy, magic nanomachines, or some of the wild things that took place post-Chaos Effect.

[Ryan]

The frustrating thing about this argument is that I think most of the Valiant fans who became fans from reading the 90s comics agree with the general premise. Valiant should be more plausible, more detailed, more credible, and much less fantasy than DC/Marvel etc.

Even the many people who started reading after Unity and prefer the art or whatever from post-Unity mostly agreed that things got worse the farther it got away from Unity or a year or so after Unity.

We used to have the discussion of what's the essential collection of Vh1, if you could only keep 300 or so comics. The answer would always be everything up through Unity, X-O 0, Archer & Armstrong 0-12, and then whatever your favorite post-Unity runs were. I would go with Shadowman the whole way and Bloodshot up till 17 at least, etc.

The point is most people agree in the broad sense of what good Valiant was and what made it good. A rigid adherence to a few arbitrary rules while ignoring tons of contradictions and common sense is not going to get us back to good Valiant again.

[ManofTheAtom]

The frustrating thing about this argument is that I think most of the Valiant fans who became fans from reading the 90s comics agree with the general premise. Valiant should be more plausible, more detailed, more credible, and much less fantasy than DC/Marvel etc.

Even the many people who started reading after Unity and prefer the art or whatever from post-Unity mostly agreed that things got worse the farther it got away from Unity or a year or so after Unity.

We used to have the discussion of what's the essential collection of Vh1, if you could only keep 300 or so comics. The answer would always be everything up through Unity, X-O 0, Archer & Armstrong 0-12, and then whatever your favorite post-Unity runs were. I would go with Shadowman the whole way and Bloodshot up till 17 at least, etc.

The point is most people agree in the broad sense of what good Valiant was and what made it good. A rigid adherence to a few arbitrary rules while ignoring tons of contradictions and common sense is not going to get us back to good Valiant again.

It was those rules that made VALIANT different from DC and Marvel, while it was deviating from them that ultimately ruined what VALIANT/VH-1 was.

[ManofTheAtom]

One piece of the equation that tends to be ignored is that after Phil changed the nature of the universe he changed how physics work, which is what allowed for all the fictional elements like immortals, Geomancers, Harbingers, etc.Some which adhered to the hard sciences of the real worlds and others that didn't.

Again, that is what crawled up Erica's *SQUEE*.

And there it is. So no real science or physics has to be applied unless we want to. When we don't want to (immortals, harbingers, time travel, multiple dimensions, etc.) we can just say Phil changed the world to use comic booky physics sometimes. Easy out for everything.

It's relative to what is stated on the page.

So which comics 'count' and which don't?

Once the established baseline for 'hard science' within the fictional universe is:

1) Phil changed the nature of the universe and how physics work to become more 'comic booky' in some instances, with no rhyme or reason behind when real physics are used and when 'comic booky' physics are applied. (other than the needs of the writer and the current story being told.)

2) Aliens are real and have visited Earth for centuries with highly advanced technology.

3) Time travel is not only possible but really quite easy.

4) Travel to alternate dimensions (e.g. Lost Land) is really quite easy when we want it to be.

Then any fantasy element you come up with can be easily explained away with 'it's comic booky physics due to Phil', 'it's Clarke's third law due to alien technology', 'it's Clarke's third law due to time travel'.

That's not even getting into Necromantic energy, magic nanomachines, or some of the wild things that took place post-Chaos Effect.

They all "count". It's a matter of interpretation.

Is it really "magic" or is it something that can be quantified?

Through effort, most of it can be.

[Chiclo]

One piece of the equation that tends to be ignored is that after Phil changed the nature of the universe he changed how physics work, which is what allowed for all the fictional elements like immortals, Geomancers, Harbingers, etc.Some which adhered to the hard sciences of the real worlds and others that didn't.

Again, that is what crawled up Erica's *SQUEE*.

And there it is. So no real science or physics has to be applied unless we want to. When we don't want to (immortals, harbingers, time travel, multiple dimensions, etc.) we can just say Phil changed the world to use comic booky physics sometimes. Easy out for everything.

It's relative to what is stated on the page.

So which comics 'count' and which don't?

Once the established baseline for 'hard science' within the fictional universe is:

1) Phil changed the nature of the universe and how physics work to become more 'comic booky' in some instances, with no rhyme or reason behind when real physics are used and when 'comic booky' physics are applied. (other than the needs of the writer and the current story being told.)

2) Aliens are real and have visited Earth for centuries with highly advanced technology.

3) Time travel is not only possible but really quite easy.

4) Travel to alternate dimensions (e.g. Lost Land) is really quite easy when we want it to be.

Then any fantasy element you come up with can be easily explained away with 'it's comic booky physics due to Phil', 'it's Clarke's third law due to alien technology', 'it's Clarke's third law due to time travel'.

That's not even getting into Necromantic energy, magic nanomachines, or some of the wild things that took place post-Chaos Effect.

They all "count". It's a matter of interpretation.

Is it really "magic" or is it something that can be quantified?

Through effort, most of it can be.

If something can be quantified, is it therefor not magic? Can magic not be quantified?

[ManofTheAtom]

When Faith -- VALIANT's resident comic book geek -- first met Solar in Harbinger #5 she instantly recognized him as the fictional character from the old Gold Key comics.

When she met Magnus in Harbinger #8 a mere three month later, however, she had no clue who he was. Though she remarked that he looked familiar it was NOT because she recognized him from the comics, but rather because he looked like Torque, his father.

In that same issue she remarked that Mothergod's Rainbow Tower looked like Jack Kirby designed it even though the architecture is based on Russ Manning's artwork from the Magnus comics.

The logical conclusion would be that while Gold Key's Doctor Solar comics existed in the VALIANT Universe, the Magnus comics did not because the latter was a real person.

The question would be, why? Was it something Phil did when he changed the fabric of the universe?

[ManofTheAtom]

One piece of the equation that tends to be ignored is that after Phil changed the nature of the universe he changed how physics work, which is what allowed for all the fictional elements like immortals, Geomancers, Harbingers, etc.Some which adhered to the hard sciences of the real worlds and others that didn't.

Again, that is what crawled up Erica's *SQUEE*.

And there it is. So no real science or physics has to be applied unless we want to. When we don't want to (immortals, harbingers, time travel, multiple dimensions, etc.) we can just say Phil changed the world to use comic booky physics sometimes. Easy out for everything.

It's relative to what is stated on the page.

So which comics 'count' and which don't?

Once the established baseline for 'hard science' within the fictional universe is:

1) Phil changed the nature of the universe and how physics work to become more 'comic booky' in some instances, with no rhyme or reason behind when real physics are used and when 'comic booky' physics are applied. (other than the needs of the writer and the current story being told.)

2) Aliens are real and have visited Earth for centuries with highly advanced technology.

3) Time travel is not only possible but really quite easy.

4) Travel to alternate dimensions (e.g. Lost Land) is really quite easy when we want it to be.

Then any fantasy element you come up with can be easily explained away with 'it's comic booky physics due to Phil', 'it's Clarke's third law due to alien technology', 'it's Clarke's third law due to time travel'.

That's not even getting into Necromantic energy, magic nanomachines, or some of the wild things that took place post-Chaos Effect.

They all "count". It's a matter of interpretation.

Is it really "magic" or is it something that can be quantified?

Through effort, most of it can be.

If something can be quantified, is it therefor not magic? Can magic not be quantified?

The first step is recognizing that there is no such thing as magic, just advanced technology that is indistinguishable from it.

Ryan deemed Bloodshot's nanites "magic", but there is nothing magical about nanotechnology.

[Ryan]

The first step is recognizing that there is no such thing as magic, just advanced technology that is indistinguishable from it.

Ryan deemed Bloodshot's nanites "magic", but there is nothing magical about nanotechnology.

Dude come on, you just like to argue is that it? It becomes trollish very quickly.

Obviously I'm not saying that nanotechnology itself is magic. The 'magic' I'm referring to is how it's applied in the comic. How is it exactly that tiny computers placed in his blood give him mental control of all machines? That's the magic part. It's a real technology applied in a magical (aka non-scientific) way.

[ManofTheAtom]

The first step is recognizing that there is no such thing as magic, just advanced technology that is indistinguishable from it.

Ryan deemed Bloodshot's nanites "magic", but there is nothing magical about nanotechnology.

Dude come on, you just like to argue is that it? It becomes trollish very quickly.

Obviously I'm not saying that nanotechnology itself is magic. The 'magic' I'm referring to is how it's applied in the comic. How is it exactly that tiny computers placed in his blood give him mental control of all machines? That's the magic part. It's a real technology applied in a magical (aka non-scientific) way.

It wasn't the nanites that gave him mental control over all machines. That was his Harbinger ability. It was the reason why he survived the nanite infusion process while others died.

You might be thinking of the last two Rais, who inherited Bloodshot's Harbinger ability after Takao was infused with the Blood of Heroes.

Had Shooter remained at VALIANT, he might have come up with more grounded and scientifically-based explanations for Harbinger abilities and immortality. We may never know.

[Ryan]

It was those rules that made VALIANT different from DC and Marvel, while it was deviating from them that ultimately ruined what VALIANT/VH-1 was.

No one is arguing against that. You keep shifting the goal posts.

They all "count". It's a matter of interpretation.

Is it really "magic" or is it something that can be quantified?

Through effort, most of it can be.

That's exactly what I'm saying. With the parameters of Vh1 'science' laid out as you have, anything can be hand wavey explained through pseudo-science (BS). Phil changed physics, alien tech, time travel, etc.

That extends for everything in VH2 and VEI as well.

[ManofTheAtom]

It was those rules that made VALIANT different from DC and Marvel, while it was deviating from them that ultimately ruined what VALIANT/VH-1 was.

No one is arguing against that. You keep shifting the goal posts.

They all "count". It's a matter of interpretation.

Is it really "magic" or is it something that can be quantified?

Through effort, most of it can be.

That's exactly what I'm saying. With the parameters of Vh1 'science' laid out as you have, anything can be hand wavey explained through pseudo-science (BS). Phil changed physics, alien tech, time travel, etc.

That extends for everything in VH2 and VEI as well.

No, because when we get to VH 2 we have to deal with Marvel crap that doesn't fit with VALIANT's tone and style.

For starters, prior to VH 2 it had already been established that the Marvel Universe is entirely fictional in the VALIANT Universe.

Phil read Thor comics, Faith read X-Men comics, and a kid in the 41st Century read a Thing vs Superman comic.

[Ryan]

It wasn't the nanites that gave him mental control over all machines. That was his Harbinger ability.

Harbinger ability aka unexplained non-scientific science aka magic.

[ManofTheAtom]

It wasn't the nanites that gave him mental control over all machines. That was his Harbinger ability.

Harbinger ability aka unexplained non-scientific science aka magic.

Just because it wasn't explained it does not mean it's magic.

[Ryan]

It wasn't the nanites that gave him mental control over all machines. That was his Harbinger ability.

Harbinger ability aka unexplained non-scientific science aka magic.

Just because it wasn't explained it does not mean it's magic.

I thought we were just talking about what's in the comics? So now its what's in the comics plus whatever hand wavey explanation fans can come up with 30 years later? K its hard to keep up

[ManofTheAtom]

It wasn't the nanites that gave him mental control over all machines. That was his Harbinger ability.

Harbinger ability aka unexplained non-scientific science aka magic.

Just because it wasn't explained it does not mean it's magic.

I thought we were just talking about what's in the comics? So now its what's in the comics plus whatever hand wavey explanation fans can come up with 30 years later? K its hard to keep up

Who said anything about fans?

I just said that had Shooter stayed he might have provided an explanation for how Harbinger abilities work. Just because no one else did after he left does not mean that no one in the future ever will.