Lostpedia
Don't have an account?
Register
Register
Lostpedia
Lostpedia
7,494
pages

Talk: The Lie

Back to page
Sign in to edit

Dharma Special Access anounced that this is a hurley centric episode.--Dan the Other 21:54, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone know[]

where i can watch this episode and episodes up to 14 online? All the other options suck (like mega video or some weird chinese hosting site) please help! --Tehfrog 22:00, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

The Oxygen Meter's Maximum[]

When Sayid is being treated by Jack he gives him Oxygen and I am sure that the meter went up in 2 or 4s then it just goes to 15, which obviously is not a multiple of 2 or 4. If anyone has the chance to re-watch the episode look out for this, please as I am not sure. Is this important enough to go in the article.--Metalvolt 18:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

The standard flow rate for administering oxygen through a non-rebreather mask is 15 L/Min. - BL108

Hurley's mother doesn't recognise Sayid?[]

How is it that Hurley's mother doesn't recognise Sayid and exclaims "Why there's a dead Pakistani on my couch?", later on asking who he is? Wouldn't she have met him on several occasions since the Oceanic 6 returned? (e.g. at the airfield, when the 6 were first brought back, and also at Hurley's surprise party, at which both Sayid and Nadia were present?)--Jkipstar 13:41, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

  • She does recognise him, she asks Hurley "I thought Sayid was your friend" or something .. she just doesn't recognise on first glance. Integrated (User / Talk) 14:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
    • She might not have seen Sayid in three years (since Hurley's birthday in There's No Place Like Home, Part 1, so she may not have recognized him. Like Integrated said, though, she did recognize his name. Crash815 15:06, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Beach camp raid[]

Does anyone know exactly how many survivors were killed in the raid? I counted at least three. -- CTS  Talk   Contribs 04:07, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

  • woops I just asked that at the talk page for the attack. But I saw 3 redshirts and Neil as well. Gotta wait for the lost media screenshots to come out. And poor Craig. Saw new survivors too.--Mistertrouble189 04:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

If you're still going off the random names said by Bernard back in season 2 ... stop. There are no names offically attatched to any of the background extras. Can we please end this "Richard Craig Jerome" obsession? He said three names at three people, no indication as to which was which. The point is: A few left-behinders are dead. --Jeff 06:58, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

  • ...for consistency's sake, Jeff, it's not at all unreasonable to try and associate and ID recurring extras. A fool's errand? Sure, but look at where we are. Look anywhere else on this site. --Overworkedirish 10:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't think Craig was killed. It looked like it was three background extras that were hired for that episode as stunt people. -- LostCloverfield42  Talk  12:39, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I counted 4 bodies (Neil makes 5). Two I saw were lying on the ground dead, one man was shot and we see him fall, then there's the man that Juliet tries to help. He has a similar plaid shirt as Craig but I believe it is bg survivor played by John Ludwig. They both (the body & John) have a plaid shirt and jeans. See his pics on the mss bg page. The rest are prob stuntmen since I didn't see them earlier. Any thoughts?--Mistertrouble189 22:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
  • During one brief shot a guy goes running off screen to the left with his head on fire. Not sure if that is counted above. --Jackdavinci 23:27, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
I checked, its not John Ludwig. All casualties seem to be stunt people, but further confirmation will come in later episodes hopefully.-- LostCloverfield42  Talk  17:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
You're right I only thought it was JL due to the screenshot. But after watching the episode it's some random guy with a plaid shirt.--Mistertrouble189 01:40, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
      • I re-watched the episode closely. It's really hard to count, since the camera keeps changing from one point to another. But here is my count:1)Frogurt is hit by an arrow, falls on the sand and dies.2)In a shot when everybody is running to the jungle, a guy with his head on fire runs off screen(he appears to wear the same shirt as Frogurt, but he can't be him since Neil has already fallen) 3)Not sure about this one, several seconds after #2, a shot of what resembles a burning body appears for a second. Could be Frogurt or #2 4)In a shot when Juliett is carrying a survivor(After Sawyer shouts to run for the creek) a body is seen burning in the background.5)A guy gets hit by an arrow and slams into the tree.6)After Sawyer hides behind the tree, something like a body is seen burning in the background.(It's far behind, barely seen for a couple of seconds,)Seen again after Sawyer rushes to Juliett. Again seen to the left when Sawyer escapes with Juliett in a last shot of the battle. 7)Another guy gets hit in the chest.8)While Juliett runs to help #7, another body in a white shirt can be seen (Can't be same as #4 since it is laying between the trees, while #4 lays in the opening and in different pose, can't be #6 either, since it is before Sawyer, while #6 is behind, can't be #4, since he wears a white shirt, while #4 is dressed in dark clothes )The same body is seen again after Sawyer tells Juliett to run.

Judging by the position of the bodies and that the survivors were running in one direction(so they couldn't see the same body more than once)we have 7 confirmed dead (#1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8) or 8 if we count #3. QuiGonJinnBe mindful of the Living Force... 17:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

    • After re-re-watching this scene again, this time in high quality, I can definetely say that #3 is a body too. He is not Frogurt or the "Flame Head", he wears different clothes. He is not #4, since he lays in a different pose than him. So we have 8 dead people then. QuiGonJinnBe mindful of the Living Force... 20:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I think that #2 in QuiGonJinn's analysis is actually Neil, it looks like him and the reason we see him standing after he had fallen could just be a different shot from a different camera. I'm sure the survivors didn't start running after Neil was on the ground. It could have just been a different camera that had Neil shot in the background.--Mistertrouble189 20:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Ben at the Butcher's[]

  • What does Ben say to Jill? Something about Gabriel being ready? It went too fast for me, but should be noted here.

Ben: Have Gabriel and Geoffrey checked-in yet? Jill: Yeah, everything is moving as scheduled. How's it going with Shepherd?--Andymccullough27 18:30, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Is Ben a cannibal?

Ben at Hurley's[]

  • Jack didn't say anything about Hurley's, did he? How did Ben know to show up there? Or are we meant to assume that the conversation was continued and Jack explained how Sayid ended up in his possession?--Overworkedirish 04:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Jack called Ben and said that "you'll never believe who showed up at my door" or something to that affect. I figured he probably told Ben about Hurley, since he and Ben are trying to find everyone. Skgrey 05:36, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Jack went on to say "Sayid" in that phone call... Though we didn't see the rest of the conversation and he might have told him about Hurley too. Especially since Hurley's father told Jack to stay away.--     c      blacxthornE      t     12:30, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Jack did mention Hurley's father bringing Sayid to Jack so Ben had a clue where Hurley is.--Anni-k

The guys Locke killed[]

  • ...who were holding Juliet and Sawyer for a bit. Accent origin? Were they Dharma? They had jumpsuits with names (I saw "John"), but no Dharma logos that I saw.--Overworkedirish 04:21, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

They weren't jumpsuits but military uniforms. --LOST-The Cartographer 04:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

  • But no logo. Could be brit soldiers. Saw the name tag Jones on the main guy.--Mistertrouble189 04:27, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Widmore said the Island was once his, and these British soldiers said it was "their" island. Therefore, I think it's safe to say that this is a journey to the time when it was "Widmore's Island," before DHARMA got there. Perhaps Charles Widmore was the commanding officer of the British regiment? Bookhouse88 04:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Definitely not Dharma. There were no logos on their clothes. Also, Dharma people would not have asked "What are you doing on our island?" Dharma people would have assumed they were "hostiles," and would not have been surprised to find others on the Island.--Emissary23 06:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
        • Widmore asked Desmond in Flashes Before Your Eyes if he had any military experience... could have been the writers foreshadowing a forth coming General Widmore storyline.
  • Looked like military uniforms to me, circa 1950-1960 maybe. We've seen enough Dharma uniforms by now to be able to recognize them. But what's with the flaming arrows? Her Majesty's Flaming Archers brigade? Doesn't seem likely. Jacob's Lather 08:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Something of a theory, but if you're (hypothetically) stranded on a deserted island without any ammunition, you might just get creative.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  08:03, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
      • True. Or perhaps we saw the first conflict between the Natives and the apparently-military group. That is, the arrows were being shot by the Natives at the other group--who obviously had guns--and the other group captured Sawyer and Juliet thinking they were part of the Natives. "What are you doing on our island" might have been directed not only at the two captives, but at the entire group of Natives, of whom it was presumed Sawyer and Juliet were a part. Jacob's Lather 08:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
  • It's logical that before the Dharma Initiative came to the Island, it was necessary that a military force would be required to initially begin the colonization of the Island. That's just a historical pattern. The soldiers come to a foreign land, claim it on behalf of a nation or group, act violently towards the natives, and stake a physical claim through force on the land. Only once a military presence is inserted and holding the natives at bay can civilians settle to colonize. It would theoretically take years at minimum, perhaps decades given the circumstances, for a military force to establish its presence strongly enough on the Island for the Dharma Initiative to bring in civilians and scientists and begin construction to get to the level of settlement where the D.I. is at in the beginning of "Because You Left".--Japhy Ryder 10:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
  • If I remember correctly, the closed captions stated that the soldier was speaking in a "British Accent" (whether it actually was or not is up to someone from Britain, not me). If so, I assume that would be the official doctrine on where he is from. Clamshell 15:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
  • These people are the Others, pre-DI. their equipment suggests that this is at least 40 years in the past, and I don't think dharma was that old. Also, these people seem to be acting as if they are being invaded (perhaps by dharma), not the invaders. Byrnison86 21:11, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Rousseau's Team? Anyone agree? --conoreff 21:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
  • It is not possible that those man were Dharma, because their clothes wasn't similar to the 'initiative' uniform. They might be Hostiles... why? Because if they were Original Dharma or Rousseau's Team... Why is the beechcraft on the island? I suppoused that the nigerians arrived after 2000... in that year there wasn't DHARMA or Rousseau's Team.
    • The beechcraft crashed during the 1st "flash" (for lack of a better word) and the British-Accent-Soldier-Guys that captured Sawyer and Juliet were on the Island during the 4th "flash". Therefore, the Beechcraft may not be on the Island anymore... or rather... it's not there YET. Crash815 01:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
      • No dude, remember... Alpert talked to Locke, and then the Island moved again. Locke looked up and the beechcraft was at the tree. Then we have a cut to the others survivors (Sawyer, Juliet, etc...) living the same flash that Locke lived after his conversation with Richard. So the beechcraft was already on the island when the survivors where attacked.

NIGHT: Locke's flash toward the end of 5x01, after Alpert gives him the compass. DAY: He looks up and the Beechcraft is in the tree.

NIGHT: Losties examine the hatch which is still blown up. Flash, then DAY: Hatch is intact and covered, putting it sometime before Locke and Boone discovered it on Day 17 after the crash, and likely after Inman died, as Desmond asks Faraday if he's replacement. Inman died the day of the crash of 815. Therefore, this flash likely occurs between Day 1 and Day 17 of the crash. But then as Faraday talks to Desmond, there is another flash (though it is unclear whether this is Desmond's dream-vision or not).

Following onto 5x02, DAY, and no flash is shown, so it is unclear whether this takes place in the flash between 1-17, or the flash following Desmond and Faraday's chat. I would say it would be the latter, and that would explain why these new people are on the island. The later flash following Faraday's talk with Desmond sent them further back shrodes 04:53, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

  • That's definitely the most likely explanation. At the end of episode 1 Faraday flashes and then the whole episode 2 is in this new time period (50s or whatever) Integrated (User / Talk) 12:28, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Initial Set-up[]

Added the ABC Medianet summary and set up some of the article structure (headings etc.) Still needs headings for the various storylines but I think people can add them as needed as writing progresses.--TWVogels 04:35, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Trivia[]

Should it be included in trivia that this episode aired at the same time that the FOX show "Lie to Me" aired? Similar titles... -- Sam McPherson  T  C  E  05:09, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Personally, I don't think so. "Should it be included that the word lie was said 10 time during the Burn Notice rerun airing at the same time? --User:GrumpySpyGuy

Jin[]

There seems to be some dispute about Jin in the episode, as the production note section of this article keeps changing from "All credited main cast members appeared" to "all credited main cast members appeared except Jin, who appeared in flashback." Uhhh .... if Jin appeared in a flashback in this episode, that means he appeared in this episode. He was on screen during the allotted 60 minutes. And since everyone else appeared as well ... all credited main cast members appeared in this episode. DDK is credited in his usual spot. Darlton have said in interviews that alive or dead, we will continue to see Jin and DDK is still a regular cast member ... don't understand the problem.--Jeff 07:03, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe it means that DDK appears in the episode only in previously filmed footage. "Only in flashback" has a very different meaning in the Lost universe. Makiwolf 07:40, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Gas station girl magazine[]

When Hurley goes into the gas station to buy the shirt, the girl at the counter is reading a magazine. The face on the page appears to be either Locke or Widmore.

You could be onto something there. Snapshot shrodes 10:40, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't think it has any relevance. To me the picture looks more like Marvin Candle, whatever his actual name was.--     c      blacxthornE      t     12:30, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
It's Eminem - the article headline is legible! --Sfoskett 05:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Ana Lucia's Ghost[]

In the production notes section, it says that we see Ana Lucia's ghost. We've seen a lot of dead people on Lost, and it's never been explained exactly. It could be her ghost, but it could be a manifestation of the Island, or Jacob, or something else altogether. Can we change this line to reflect the uncertainty?--Emissary23 08:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

  • I agree. How does manifestation sound? Or if it can be worded properly, something along the lines of "Hurley's vision of Ana Lucia"? Until someone can come up with a better phrase, I'm going with corporeal manifestation.--Japhy Ryder 08:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • How about "hallucination?" It didn't look to me as if the front end of Hurley's vehicle had any damage.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 03:08, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Hallucination implies that it was a psychiatric issue within Hurley's mind, so that does not really work. It was however a physical manifestation of her body. Therefore, "corporeal manifestation" works for now. (Corporeal just means: 1. Of, relating to, or characteristic of the body. OR 2. Of a material nature; tangible.) This is the best definition out there until any concrete evidence is revealed as to the true nature of the appearances.--Japhy Ryder 09:09, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I vote for just writing Ana Lucia.--Mc peko 13:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Hurley flashback?[]

This episode is labeled as a Hurley flashback for some reason. While the title refers to the central conflict of Hurley in some sense, aside from the scene on the boat none of the scenes could be considered flashbacks any more than the previous episode. If you count the boat scene, then the previous episode would have to be a Marvin Candle flashback episode, and it's listed as none. Where did the idea that this is a Hurley flashback episode come from? --Jackdavinci 09:24, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

  • I'm not sure where you're getting that it's labeled as a flashback, but it is definitely Hurley centric because 1. Damon and Carlton said this is a Hurley centric episode, and 2. A very large portion of the episode revolves around Hurley.--HaloOfTheSun 09:42, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Yes, the terminology for this season needs to be changed. "Flashback" no longer applies. Just like last season had "flash forwards," this season is using an entirely different technique. There is the on-going story of what is happening on the Island with the Oceanic survivors immediately after the Island "moves", and there is the on-going story of the O6 three years after the Island moves. I'm too new here to attempt to change the format of the page lay-outs here, but someone ideally more senior ought to change "flashback" to something along the lines of "character-centric" as recommended by HaloOfTheSun. It's really just a format problem; no one is arguing that Hurley is not the focus of this episode.--Japhy Ryder 10:41, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
      • I agree that we shouldn't use the "flash" terms from this season on. Darlton themselves said that they refrain from using these terms.--     c      blacxthornE      t     12:30, 22 January 2009 (UTC) --
  • I just edited Template:Infobox Episode so now in addition to "Flashback" and "Flashforward" as options, "Centric" is also an option.--Overworkedirish 14:42, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Agreed with this change. A centric around Hurley seems appropriate regarding this episode.
      • Is it actually "Hurley Centric" or is it just Hurley focused? And did they comment on the centricity of the first episode? I'm hoping for an in-show rationale for consistency, and so we don't have to rely on the producers announcing it. --Jackdavinci 17:40, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
      • It didn't really occur to me originally because the episodes were aired together, but I went back and checked - each episode starts off with a flashback - there's even the characteristic focusing on the centric character at the end, and then a whooshing sound. The first episode's flashback ends on Daniel's face, and the second on Hurley's face. I would argue then that ep 1 is Daniel centric and ep 2 Hurley centric. I would further say that although there's only one flashback each, they both technically qualify as standard flashback episodes (I suppose Daniel's counts as a flashforward from his perspective), and we don't yet need to resort to creating a new "centric" category. --Jackdavinci 22:56, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
    • I think we should do the change, cause now the flashbacks seems to be "on island", I noticed that before some island scenes, there was the "whoosh" and at the beginning of both episode, it was written "Three Years Earlier" and "Three Years Ago" so this is not flashbacks. The flashbacks were originally memories from the character. Like the "one week later" on 4x14, it isn't a flashforward. But I agree to say that it's a Hurley-centric, and at the limit a Hurley & Sayid-centric --The mE 00:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks for changing the template! Well done.--Japhy Ryder 09:11, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
  • In Hurley's flashback we see a lot of the other survivors of Oceanic 815. What's the purpose of the flashback? Does it mean we'll see more of these people in future episodes? Or does this count as a last tribute to the people we'll never hear about anymore in the rest of the seasons?

Ji Yeon[]

Why does Sun only show a baby picture of Ji Yeon to Kate? Wouldn't she be about 2 1/2 years old? Wouldn't she have a more current picture? Or maybe the producers are just worried about continuity? If they show a picture of an older kid, may not be able to get the same kid for a later episode. Makiwolf 09:41, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

It was my assumption they hadn't cast a 2 1/2 year old Asian child at the time yet, or won't need to at all for this season. LOST-Merick 15:40, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Yea agreed, that's why Sun said "baby picture" instead of "picture" so we know that the child is older now..

Changing the Past[]

There's considerable talk, especially from Daniel Faraday, about the fact that it is impossible to change the past. But when Locke & co. kill the three paramilitaries, would that not have some impact on the past?--paulski 12:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

  • No - the point is that even in the past that existed before John did that, even though he didn't know it, he had already done it.--Overworkedirish 14:26, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Exactly. For example, it is implied that we will see in an upcoming episode when they shift again to an earlier time where Locke meets Richard, shows him the compass, and tells him he'll get shot by Ethan after the drug smuggler's plane crashes. Also, Faraday was not completely truthful with Sawyer, since he did talk to Desmond after telling Sawyer it would be pointless. --Makiwolf 20:09, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I am so happy that they seem to be handling the whoel "time" travel thing appropriatly. Anomymage 20:17, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I think the reason that Desmond didn't recognise Faraday when he met him in season 4 (as the weird guy who turned up at the hatch for no reason and talked about his mother) is because.. Desmond is the only exception to the rule that you can't change the past. Because of his unique unstuck in time status, while everyone else's past is set in stone and unchangeable, Desmond's memories can be altered by the time travellers as Faraday appeared to do. Integrated (User / Talk) 12:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Notice, however, that Desmond doesn't "remember" the changes until the present time (when the O6 are off the Island). It seems like it is too late for him to change anything that we've already seen. Perhaps Faraday is simply planning a rescue, or is hoping that his mother will be able to stop the time skipping. Andrew1976 03:52, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
      • True, Daniel was probably hoping that as soon as Desmond left he would go to Oxford, but because of the chaotic nature of time the memory didn't appear until 3 years afterwards - so you're right it's probably a failed plan and they'll need a new way to stop the time shifts. Integrated (User / Talk) 05:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Neil being shot with fire arrows[]

Does anyone think that "Frogurt" getting burned is a notable irony?--     c      blacxthornE      t     12:30, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Due to the fact that he had just been yelling at survivors at their inability to make fire? Yes. -- Sam McPherson  T  C  E  12:36, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
  • LOL, that is really ironic and funny. I wasn't really thinking about it.--Overworkedirish 14:28, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
No; just that he's nicknamed after frozen yogurt. :) I didn't think it is, so I didn't add it, but wanted to mention it here anyway cause that was the first thing that came to my mind when he got shot.--     c      blacxthornE      t     12:58, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

How is it possible that Neil, or any of the other Oceanic survivors were killed by the flaming arrows, if they are all in the past? If they die, then they can never board on the plane to get to the island in the first place.

Uh, because they exist in the past in their future body? They are not any younger in the past, therefore it's still after the plane crash in their lifetime.--Baker1000 09:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Exactly, look at Back to the Future Part III (not the most pristine example of time travel, I know, but still illustrative enough for this purpose) Marty found the Doc's gravestone in 1955, from when the Doc died in 1885. This death occurred AFTER the Doc's time travel, so it did not affect future "calendar" events. Sithboy 19:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Hurley Centric?[]

Since when was this episode Hurley centric? In the same time frame as Hurley we saw all of the Oceanic Six doing their thing! --Plkrtn 15:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

As pointed out by a couple people on this page and elsewhere, Damon and Carlton confirmed in a Dharma Special Access email that the second hour of the premiere was Hurley centric. --Fig newton 15:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
In addition to most of the episode focusing on him, he did technically have a flashback right at the beginning. --Pyramidhead 00:28, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this episode is Hurley-centric. Sayid and Jack are more along the lines of side characters for this episode. However, let's make one thing perfectly clear: the main focus of this series is the linear story arc of the Oceanic survivors on the Island. Since the Oceanic survivors are shifting throughout time in this part of the story arc, starting from the year 2004, and most of the Hurley story shown in this episode is happening in 2007, then this episode should actually be considered a Hurley flash-forward, not a flashback.--Killermike2178 07:34, April 13, 2012 (UTC)Killermike2178

This point covers several episodes. Let's cover it in one place. --- Balk Of Fame ♪ talk 08:47, April 13, 2012 (UTC)

Foucault Pendulum?[]

In the crypt of the Church, where Mrs. Hawking was making calculations and plotting locations on a map, the swinging thing was a Foucault Pendulum, a device originally invented in the 1800s to prove the earth's rotation. It also figured prominently in the Umberto Eco conspiracy novel Foucault's Pendulum. The central plot point of the novel involves a secret group intending to harness something called Telluric Currents, massive electrical currents running through the earth, to take over the world. I think this is worth noting in the main article. There is more info here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foucault_pendulum --ScottinOttawa 16:28, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

We measure Time by the rotation of the earth, right? If the Pendulum measures the rotation of the earth, and the rotation of the earth is what we use to measure time, is Mrs. Hawking trying to find the time that the Island is in or something? dposse 00:09, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Good point! Perhaps Ms. Hawking is able to detect disturbances in the flow of time that would signal what times the island is "arriving" and "departing." Perhaps these movements are following a predictble pattern, and Ms. Hawking is able to estimate how long it will be before the Island jumps again. Andrew1976 04:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
No. We do not measure time using the rotation of the Earth. We measure the passage of time with clocks. The rotation of the Earth is not constant enough to act as a reliable clock. Also the phrase "disturbances in the flow of time" is meaningless. What do you mean? The easiest way to measure the rotation of the Earth with any accuracy is with a telescope. The pendulum makes a great prop and could be used to measure the gravitational disturbances or waves that could be theoretically associated with something that could bend or distort space-time. --Cpt.Forrest 10:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Not constant enough? The earth isn't just haphazardly spinning around! While our system of measuring time (seconds, minutes, hours, etc., etc.) is a human construct, and clocks are obviously a human invention, our measuring system is 100% based on the Earth's rotation. 1 full rotation if the earth = 24 hours. Think about a sun dial-- what humans used to tell time before clocks. sundials only work because the earth rotates constantlly and consistantly. Also, the Foucault Pendulum is a real apparatus that exists in the real world, which really does demonstrate the rotation of the earth. It's not just something invented by the Lost writers or Umberto Eco. The way the Foucault Pendulum is being implemented in the church's crypt perhaps alludes to, or at least resembles, the way the Foucault Pendulum is implemented in Umberto Eco's novel, Foucault's Pendulum. As described above, the pendulum in Eco's novel is used in conjunction with a map to determine a secret location called the "Umbilicus Mundi", Latin for "navel of the world"-- this is essentially the location where one can control the world by harnessing the power of Telluric currents; not unlike the hidden chamber in the Orchid station with the wheel. A Foucault pendulum won't help us locate secret locations in the real world... but the pendulum itself really does demonstrate earth's rotation. Telluric currents are also real, incidentally. Littlecitadel 07:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

"Our measuring system is 100% based on the Earth's rotation." This hasn't been true since 1967, when the second was defined in terms of oscillations of cesium. The Earth is slowing down, so every few years, by convention, a leap second is added at the New Year. I realize that we still essentially define time by the Earth's rotation for all practical purposes, and that the rotation of the Earth is certainly not unsteady enough to affect a Foucault's pendulum, but I can't ever resist the urge to correct a statement that is technically incorrect. :-) Robert K S (talk) 08:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Point taken! Though I was attempting to keep things as "7th grade Earth Science" as possible. Littlecitadel 19:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Michelle Rodriguez joke[]

Just wanted to say I thought the line from Ana Lucia to Hurley about "Don't get arrested, Hurley!" was funny, since I saw it as a joke about Michelle Rodriguez getting arrested for a DUI previously. Anybody else think that? Bird1234 17:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't get that joke but did see the irony that Hurley followed her advice to change his shirt and go to someone he trusted. But the one warning she emphasized, he didn't do.--Andymccullough27 18:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

  • I removed the note of that from the main part of the article...mainly because it said Ana Lucia was killed off due to her DUI, when that isn't true. --Golden Monkey 21:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it's just because I'm new on here, but...how is it not true? The 1:1 correlation between actors-with-DUI-charges and characters-who-were killed seems to be rather convincing. My apologies for relying on correlation to determine causation, but really? Anyhow, the comment can still stand as true if we edit out the "killed off because of the DUI."Punkassjim 21:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

  • I believe the producers said at a panel with Jimmy Kimmel once that Michelle Rodriguez was only intended to be a series regular for one season from the start, and that the DUI thing was a coincidence. --Fig newton 22:42, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Hawking's Computer[]

the dharma symbol looks NOTHING like the Lighthouse. look http://www.imagebam.com/image/e575fd24397418/ Four4elements 04:12, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that. I would say though, that it's not clearly identifiable. It's possible it's the lighthouse, but it could just as easily be the main generic logo. We really need to stop with trying to identify tiny or super blurry logos. Or we'll have another 'line logo' debacle. --Jackdavinci 04:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't think the article should say "possibly the lighthouse" as that's a theory until it can be proven and until the "lighthouse" is revealed on the show. --LOSTinDC 15:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Actually, it does look a lot like the lighthouse. Here's a 2x, higher contrast image I made from the one you gave:

http://i154.photobucket.com/albums/s245/blacxthornE/dl.jpg Lamp-Post

Note that the cap is too dark and blurry, so you can't see much white in it. But the one white area visible does seem like the "light" of the lighthouse logo. I wouldn't say it looks "nothing" like the lighthouse either. Also, it's probably not the generic logo: the white are of the bagua is almost completely blurred "out", and so would the Dharma name in that instance. It's more appropriate to say "unidentifiable".--     c      blacxthornE      t     17:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Why was Ms. Hawking using a computer with a Dharma logo in the first place? It doesn't add up. Information revealed in the enhanced episode of "The Lie" is very suggestive that Ms. Hawking is the Other we meet in 1954 named Ellie (non-canon!), and her dialog with Ben in "The Lie" is also suggestive that she is part of the Others' extended family. The Others utilize Dharma food and technology on the island (which makes sense), but why would an Other who is off-island be using Dharma technology? Is there something I've missed relating to Others/Dharma relations? Or is this something that will be revealed this season?Littlecitadel 08:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Stephanie Conching[]

Stephanie Conching was credited in the press release as playing a nurse in The Lie. However, she is not credited in the actual episode. Anyone spotted any nurse? She seems to be a rookie, not IMDb nor TV.com credit her with anything but her supposed appearance in The Lie... --Pierre 16:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

  • I believe that there was a nurse in the background when Jack went to the hospital, but you don't normally credit non-speaking, non-interacting rolls.--SDSpivey 17:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Yeah, I know... She might however have had lines (or supposed lines) at an early stage of the production... Anyhow, I don't think we should create Stephanie Conching nor Nurse (The Lie) until we sort this out. --Pierre 18:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Transcript?[]

Has anyone come up with a transcript for this episode, or can you refer me to a site that I can get a transcript for this episode from? --DanielFaradayLover 22:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Recurring Themes[]

On the page there is "Mattingly is a reference to Don Mattingly, a player for the New York Yankees, who's number, 23, was retired. (The Numbers)". ...Really? This is ridiculous. You can't make anything a reference just because you want it to be. This is really a stretch here. It doesn't even fit as a recurring theme, really. By this logic, we could say that "Jill is a reference to the nursery rhyme Jack & Jill (went up a hill to fetch a pail of water) and so Jill is really Jack's half sister on the show. (Relationships)". Should be removed.--HaloOfTheSun 22:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Another good one − Kate and Aaron meet Sun on floor 31 of the hotel. 15 + 16 = 31. What about 8 + 23 and 42 + 4 - 15? --Makiwolf 00:19, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Looking for occurrences of the numbers is nearly a vocation for some of us. (See Apophenia for details.) My working theory is that any combination of the numbers qualifies as long as no number is used more than once. So, 108 (the sum) and 7418880 (the product) are valid. The combination of 15 + 16 is valid, as is 8 + 23; 42 + 4 - 15 is slightly less valid because you have to use more numbers to get your result. (Occam's razor)--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 01:23, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
However, that's not really a solution. 108 and 7418880 are valid because they're obvious. But the six numbers themselves already have a close arithmetic relationship, which means you can find almost any number by using a couple of Numbers and simple arithmetics. 1 is 16 - 15. It's as simple as your examples. Do we really want to call 1 a reference to the Numbers? 8 / 4 = 2... 23 - 16 = 7... Can we leave some numbers alone? Six numbers, their sum and their many, many combinations (like 815) is more than enough. We know very well that if the writers want to reference 15 and 16, they don't shy from just putting 1516 somewhere. They don't feel the need to disguise them as 31. So let's not look too hard.--     c      blacxthornE      t     12:08, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
I wasn't trying to suggest that the 31st floor actually meant anything, only that the producers and writers take advantage of the availability of the numbers when they need to present something. Ben takes number 342 at the butcher shop. He didn't need to take any number; there was no line. Was he trying to conceal the occurrence of the number 42? (One thousand words, double-spaced and don't forget to call your favorite conspiracy theorist.) In passing, I've never seen a number dispenser in a store that went over one hundred. In a highrise hotel, the premier suites would not be on floor fifteen or sixteen. If TPTB made it too easy, it wouldn't be fun. After all is said and done, the show is for entertainment.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 15:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
I was talking about you saying the combination of 15 + 16 being valid, and I maintain that it is not, and shouldn't be. About the suite not being on floor 15 or 16; that's exactly what I'm saying: Sometimes people go up to floor 31 because that's just where the premier suite is. They don't have to use the numbers every time a number has to be used. Just because a suite wouldn't be on floor 15 or 16 doesn't mean that they couldn't use these numbers on something other than a floor number if they really want to. TPTB have been making it too easy, using those numbers very obviously, like 815, 842, 1516, etc, including many occurrences where the numbers are together in the right order, like the vaccine that said "4-8151623-42". In fact, that's the whole point. It's not a puzzle that says "how can you reach XX by using only two numbers and one arithmetic operation?" The point is that there's something weird with these numbers and they do appear, a lot, and not simply by being added or subtracted, but just by being there. There are hundreds of opportunities for TPTB to use the numbers in Lost. That doesn't mean they really need to use them every time. Sometimes a number is just a regular number, with no particular significance in the story. I didn't oppose to 342 possibly having significance, especially considering that the 3 was hollow/outlined and the 42 was black. I'm just saying the arithmetic is too much, and as I said, would make number 2 just as suspect as all other numbers, which would make the whole thing ridiculously out of control. Oh, and seeing 842 is way more "fun" than trying to figure out what possible combination 50 might be just because someone's dad is 50 years old.--     c      blacxthornE      t     01:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
4 + 8 + 16 + 42 = 70 (the number of hours Ben has left); that's pushing it. 15 + 16 is not. Let's just agree to disagree.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 02:11, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

That's all well and good, but back to what I was originally saying, I highly doubt that the character named Mattingly is a reference to the football player, thus referencing the number 23. There is no indication - anywhere - that the writers are referencing anything with his name.--HaloOfTheSun 03:49, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Blooper and Continuity Removal[]

Need a consensus on deleting the first bullet about the match repeat (overlap edit). It doesn't qualify as a Blooper or as Continuity error. A blooper would be if Ben burnt his fingers or set the drapes on fire. A continuity error would be if he were at one set of candles in one shot, then at a different set in the reverse shot (or was using a different hand). This is neither - it is an edit overlap (usually intentional). You see it all the time with explosion, and fight/action scenes. AGREE/DISAGREE below plz. –DocH– my edits 05:15, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

  • AGREE - so what he blows the match twice? Probably didn't go out the first time! Integrated (User / Talk) 05:28, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Please don't remark on a continuity error without reviewing the scene. It's a clear continuity error because there are actually two actions going on simultaneously, and they could not be matched in editing. The editor had to choose whether to match Ms. Hawking's action (setting the cloth down on the altar) or Ben's action (blowing out the votive candle match). The editor opted to cut for Ms. Hawking, and Ben's action became incongruous. Robert K S (talk) 09:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree that it's clearly an error where he blows the lighting stick out twice. The first segment, Ben is fully turned around with the stick downward in front of him after he blew it out; the second segment is before he turns and he is only looking toward Eloise while the stick still burns. It's a shame too, because a very small cut at the beginning of the second bit, picking up where Ben is reaching to put the stick away would have made the scene work without the error. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 12:07, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Literary Techniques[]

  • Sun presents the same moral dilemma to Kate as Ben did to Michael. What would you do for your son? (Juxtaposition)
That's not juxtaposition. It is a good point, but can someone think of where it might go? I can't think of anything better than an episode reference.--     c      blacxthornE      t     12:14, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Continuity Error[]

I'm pretty sure there is a continuity error with the background shot when Hurley buckles his seat belt in this episode, after he has changed clothes. [[1]] Tflavin 19:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Jones/Widmore - should that be indicated[]

I'm new here, so I'm not sure on policy for this - in the plot description, Jones is now explicitly named as being Widmore, even though that's not revealed until the next episode. Should this sort of thing be put in, or should only info available up to that episode be given?

If someone could clarify that would be great. Radagastwiz 13:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The current policy would be to continue to call him Jones in this article and the portion of the next episode until he is revealed to be Widmore, however, any links *will* go to the Widmore article, or to the Jones article which will redirect to Widmore anyway. We do the same thing with characters before they are identified, by say, referring to them as "woman" but linking them to the article of whoever they turn out to be. --Jackdavinci 02:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

  • This makes sense, or we'd find ourselves editing old episode articles each time new clarification was found, making those watching them for the first time along with reading LP confused. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 11:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Special version[]

Where do we put the link to the extended version info? --Jackdavinci 03:06, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Enhanced episodes.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  04:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Kate & Aaron - Elevator Hatch allusion[]

On their way to see Sun, Kate and Aaron take an elevator to her hotel room. There is a brief scene where Aaron demands, "I wanna push the button!" to which Kate motherly acquiesces and picks him up so he can push it (I believe it was high up, like 31). Afterwards, they have a mini-celebration exclaiming, "you did it! you pushed the button!" Nominate this to be included in 'Episode Allusions' as it is clearly a nod at pushing the button in the Hatch. -Flashesb4ur8s (talk) 20:25, July 7, 2016 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC BY-NC-ND unless otherwise noted.
More Fandoms