*Please do not discuss anything regarding the Looking Glass on this page, we have have spoilers page, Season 3/spoilers or the forums if you wish to discuss this, however we do not post or discuss spoiler material except in the few areas i have linked to, thanks. -Mr.Leaf 13:15, 16 May 2007 (PDT)

Re-Create page

we saw plenty of the station, we could put it back,, funny thing is that it had a rabbit logo,, hmm --mo-- (Talk | Saa ) 19:23, 16 May 2007 (PDT)

  • Why would this be deleted? It seems to me that LostPedia wouldn't want to be on top of this one as it pretty much is as big as the Swan discovery (if not bigger). - Gries818
  • It's time to unprotect this article. And I think the rabbit logo was a reference to Alice in Wonderland, in which the rabbit always carries around a looking glass. Evil-pineapples 20:07, 16 May 2007 (PDT)

  • I didnt see the rabbit logo, where was it?--Presariocompaq 20:09, 16 May 2007 (PDT)
  • it wasnt a rabbit it was the "unidentified pschology logo"--Funkad3lic
  • It's unprotected now. Fix up the page up to standards. --Marik7772003 20:13, 16 May 2007 (PDT)

it was a rabbit --d4thking

Rabbit logo seen here:


Steven Andrew Miller (☎) 20:52, 16 May 2007 (PDT)

LG4 okay.. so I got a little bored, its close, and right now Im using it as a placeholder in a thread until I can make a better one, if anyone needs it though, go ahead and use it. One thing I noticed is that The Pearl, That Psychology symbol, and This new Looking Glass symbol are all inverted colourwise from the other Dharma symbols. Also Mark Wickmond appears in the Pearl video, while Marvin Candle appears in the videos for the other stations (non inverted). --mac_ad 21:37, 16 May 2007 (PDT)

This is nearly perfect, we need this in high resolution!
The other thing is that the all the DHARMA stations except for the Pearl and now this one have Greek god Apollo themed names. The Pearl never fit that scheme and neither does Looking glass. Dharmatel4 22:14, 16 May 2007 (PDT)

hatch terminology

The hatch terminology on the document should be considered a mistake. "hatch" is a Lostie term. The proper DHARMA term should have been station. Dharmatel4 20:56, 16 May 2007 (PDT)

I don't think this is necessarily true. Although the Losties referred to the Swan's exterior as the "Hatch", a Hatch is also defined as an opening or a doorway for a ship or airplane. Given some of the speculation that the Looking Glass is the means by which people travel to the island, then the term "Hatch" could be entirely appropriate and deliberate. --LOSTinDC 06:19, 17 May 2007 (PDT)

I've never heard anyone call a buliding or a structure a "hatch". The word is simply not used in that way by normal people. Hatch in the sense that your trying to use it would imply the Looking Glass is a way to the Island. But it isn't. Its an isolated station under the water that can only be reached by divers or submarine. Dharmatel4 13:56, 17 May 2007 (PDT)
I agree that this is an error. -Sloths 17:31, 17 May 2007 (PDT)
  • At this point, there is no proof that it's an error. And it would be a huge "production" error if it was, given how big the word appears on the paper. --LOSTinDC 21:56, 17 May 2007 (PDT)
    • Its not a huge production error. People involved with the production have used the word "hatch" interchangably with "station" for a long time. Other than the document. there was no emphisis on the word "hatch" in the episode. They said station. The reason it seems like an error is that there is no plausible explanation why an underwater station or any other sort of building would be called a "hatch" by the people who built it. If it were underground, it might be plausable to say that its a hatch to access something. But a station standing in the water doesn't seem like its going to have doors leading anywhere. Dharmatel4 22:11, 17 May 2007 (PDT)

  • As for the use of "hatch" on the schematic, I'd like to point out that they're looking at one page from what must be a larger set, the page certainly isn't a complete schematic of the whole station obviously.


The Looking Glass


and not The Looking Glass Hatch.

The title and subtitle refer to the sub's access point which is the focus of the diagram. My 2 cents

Cmdr Spock 12:06, 18 May 2007 (PDT)

I agree that it was not a production error. That part of The Looking Glass is most likely referred to as the hatch. Hatch is an extremely usual word in terms of ocean technology. This was not a production error. --Dorritjo 21:47, 18 May 2007 (PDT)

  • According to Gregg Nations it was a production error see here Nations: "I'd say it was the props/set design department forgetting it's a station and not a hatch. If I had seen that before it was filmed, I would've had it changed. It should've read station."--Kivipat

Made Dharma Station template for it

I put the right hand info on a Dharma station template because as of next week, tons more is going to develop about it clearly so I think it's appropriate because at this point, it's not really an island location, it is in fact a station. Hope no one minds, if so, please change back.

Notations on the Map

Can we get some of those gigantic screencaps of the notations on the map of the station? There's a signal equation there that I'd love to get a look at... plus, there are other notations on the station that could not be seen on non-HD TV..

Not to mention rought schematics for the Submarine :) --Sauron18 21:29, 16 May 2007 (PDT)

On the blast door map it states a few things -Why a DHARMATEL Intranet presence past this border? -Intranet support for Carcharodon carcharias(Shark) selective breeding facility? -Possible offshore data dump? Any chance there is a connection with those notations and this new hatch? .--mac_ad 22:02, 16 May 2007 (PDT)

That Hole

I think the symbol used is a actually a pictogram - i.e. a rabbit and a 'hole' - representing a "rabbit hole" - that which Alice fell down --Kivipat

Rabbit screencap

  • The hole could just be a spot on the rabbit, but for the analogy of the stations name, a rabbit hole would make a lot of sense. There seems to be a white piece of the symbol inside the hole.. any clue to what that might be?--mac_ad 16:05, 17 May 2007 (PDT)
  • Best theory I've heard so far is that it's not a hole but a clockface with the hands at 8:15. Didn't Alice in Wonderland feature some dude running around with a clock? --Kivipat
  • Yes - the white rabbit, whose watch was running slow... --Kivipat
  • I love the watch hands at 8:15--that's gotta be it.--XR15 12:04, 18 May 2007 (PDT)

Trigonometric equations!

3x21 looking glass equation1

$ H_t(t)\ =\ a\ \cos \left ( \frac{2 \pi t}{T} \right )\ +\ Z\ =\ a\ \cos \left ( \frac{360t}{T} \right )\ +\ Z $

And lots of them on the schematic for the Looking Glass. Cannot get a really clear view of them or if they are even meaningful in realworld applications. I see something rife with cosines like maybe: H(t) a cos (2st/T) cos (300t/T + Z, but again, I cannot get a clear view. Thoughts? --Frenkmelk 00:47, 17 May 2007 (PDT)

I have no thoughts yet, but I cleared up that piece of the screen, maybe this will help someone.. I'm going to try and google pieces of it and see if anything comes up.--mac_ad 02:25, 17 May 2007 (PDT)

It looks like an equation for magnetic field strength variability as a function of time.--Qrsqrt 06:37, 17 May 2007 (PDT)

Wow, lol! --Nickb123 (Talk) 06:42, 17 May 2007 (PDT)
I grabbed a better screenshot. I'll see about working out the syntax to use the math tag for usage in the article.    Jabberwock    talk    contribs    email   - 08:20, 17 May 2007 (PDT)
The fresh screenshot is a lot clearer, the constants needed for a mag field eqn aren't there and the second term is actually an equality. This is what happens when there are only so many letters to assign to functions.--Qrsqrt 09:16, 17 May 2007 (PDT)

GOT IT! Here may be a deciphering of those variables.

Simple Tidal Constituent Equation: A location with a semidiurnal or diurnal tide

may be approximated using the simple cosine relationship. For cosine functions using radians or degrees the relationship is:

$ Ht= a cos(2\pi t/T)+Z = a cos(360t/T) + Z $
Ht(t) = Astronomical tide at time t (ft, m)
a = Tidal amplitude (ft, m)
t = Time (hr)
T = Tidal period (hr)
Z = Vertical offset or datum adjustment (ft, m)
The tidal period, T, will be approximately 12.5 or 25 hours depending upon whether

the tide is semidiurnal or diurnal. The amplitude can be selected as half the range between mean high and mean low with or between mean higher high and mean lower low water. The values of the mean tide range and mean spring tide range are available in the NOAA tide tables. Because tide levels can vary so much from one tidal cycle to the next, it is often desirable to use this simple relationship based on mean tide amplitude (or, more conservatively, the spring tide amplitude) when developing a numerical model. Sections 2.10 and 2.11 include worked examples of determining the constants in the simple tidal constituent equation.

BUT you can read the whole thing here at this .pdf research paper. [ Tidal Hydrology, Hydraulics and Scour at Bridges] --Frenkmelk 08:44, 17 May 2007 (PDT)

The second equation, Complex Tidal Constituents Equation, is also seen on that diagram in the top center.    Jabberwock    talk    contribs    email   - 09:20, 17 May 2007 (PDT)

Oh my, I read on even further in that research paper, and a lot of the diagrams are VERY similar to those shown in the WHITE RABBIT Blueprints. All of which show something along the lines of tidal levels and the like. --Frenkmelk 08:54, 17 May 2007 (PDT)
Wow, fantastic stuff!!! I'll add info to the blog. --Nickb123 (Talk) 08:57, 17 May 2007 (PDT)
Equations like this would be needed in an underwater station with a moon pool that was in shallow water in a location with tides, to regulate the internal pressure of the stations moon pool room in order to prevent flooding. ge0  Talk  contribs  13:08, 17 May 2007 (PDT)
I also have to wonder if the station uses tidal power. Hard to see how else they could keep the lights on for so long. --Zicsoft 18:13, 17 May 2007 (PDT)
I would bet on the station being powered by the same Geothermal power plant the rest of the island supposedly uses, it has at least one hardline to the main island, no reason for their not to be a power conduit also.  ge0  Talk  contribs  19:06, 17 May 2007 (PDT)
It doesn't look like a power conduit. The cable isn't big enough or well protected enough to be power. Dharmatel4 21:59, 17 May 2007 (PDT)
How about a ground wire, though? --ConspiracyofDetails 08:22, 18 May 2007 (PDT)
  • Or a tube? --Amberjet11 08:36, 18 May 2007 (PDT)
I pulled enough power cables in the Marines to be able to say that the cable going to the beach is big enough to be a power cable. It is actually wider than most power cables I used. As for being protected for underwater use - it is encased in rubber. So, it is waterproof. What they didn't show is that the cables are normally coated in a slime (to keep rodents and insects from biting into them). We called it monkey snot. Kainaw 20:19, 18 May 2007 (PDT)

Equations like this can mean pretty much anything. Since the parameter names are generic and the formula is simple enough, it can model all sorts of different things, not necessarily tide behavior. 'T' is usually used for period, 'a' is amplitude, 't' is time, 'w' (little omega) is frequency and phi is phase. 'Z' can be a little more specific, as 'Z' is usually Gaussian noise, but again, it can mean anything in this context.

Excuse the nitpick, but that's not an equation, it's a function.--Zicsoft 18:04, 17 May 2007 (PDT)

It's in actuality both an Equation and a Function. ge0  Talk  contribs  19:03, 17 May 2007 (PDT)
No, it's a function definition. ∇ϕ 03:03, 18 May 2007 (PDT)

I read it as H(t) = acos(2Pi()t/T) + Z = acos(360t/T) + Z. The H(t) at the start actually has a subscript t after it, but I can't write that here. Nor can I write the symbol for Pi. The first equation is for performing the cos function in radians, the second one for degrees, since 2*Pi radians = 360 degrees. Most probably T is the period of an oscillation, so that t/T is the fraction of the oscillation that has completed at time t. a would be the amplitude, and Z an offset in the vertical axis. In other words the equation produces a cos wave of amplitude a, offset Z and period T. That means that at the start, when t = 0, H(t) = Z + a. This decreases until t=T/2 (half the period), when H(t) = Z - a. This then increases until at t = T, H(t) = Z + a again. This then repeats for every integer multiple of T. I suspect this equation means nothing to the plot, and is just there to look scientific. It is not likely to be the jamming signal.

Room 23 Image

Does anyone have a screenshot of the Looking Glass image from the Room 23 video? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by LostinDC (talkcontribs) .

The only thing similar I could see is this, but it doesn't look at all conclusive:

Frame44 --Nickb123 (Talk) 06:26, 17 May 2007 (PDT)


  • I was looking at it all wrong I just realized, now that ive twisted it, I actually see a room :D But it doesnt look like the Station imo, but maybe we just havent seen enough of it to compare. It looks more like a movie set though than an underground station, also the concrete.. there didnt seem to be concrete in the new hatch, mostly rails and metal, I dont know about seeing the station in room 23. --mac_ad 06:58, 17 May 2007 (PDT)
    • The only thing similar IMO is the roof, and even if that is a true comparison, its more production room than actual connection --Nickb123 (Talk) 07:05, 17 May 2007 (PDT)
The image from the Room 23 presentation is not a shot of The Looking Glass. If you look on the left of the rotated Room 23 image, you can see a regular old doorway. A traditional doorway would not be employed in an underwater hatch because in the event that there was a flood, it could not be pressurized. Granite 07:30, 17 May 2007 (PDT)
Having worked several years in such places, I'd be willing to bet a considerable sum that this is a snapshot backstage, probably in a film soundstage. A lot of that equipment is used in theatre, but is used all the time in film. If you ask my opinion, I'd say they needed filler for the Room 23 film and borrowed a production member's photo album. (Plus, the roof looks too low to be Looking Glass, and the door at the end seems to be an exterior door.) But this is just my opinion, of course.
After a second look, something struck me: look at the relative sizes of the set in the background of the photo to equipment in the same floor area. That enclosure set could well be the Pearl set.

--ConspiracyofDetails 08:17, 17 May 2007 (PDT)

  • Good work everyone. I was just curious, was there ever an image of the Looking Glass from Ben's monitoring station? -- Contrib¯ _Santa_ ¯  Talk  02:36, 18 May 2007 (PDT)

The bunny hole doesn't seem to appear on the outside of the station, just a whole bunny head. Perhaps the hole on Sayid's map is just a binder punch hole? --Jackdavinci 09:48, 17 May 2007 (PDT)

  • You're right, I'm going to fix it. If you look at the screen cap, you can actually see the shadow of the hole-punch. Smeagol 13:23, 17 May 2007 (PDT)
    • I don't think it's a hole punch. For one, it's too far in from the edge of the paper to be a hole punch, and why would there be only one at the top? There are no other hole punches going down the edge of the page. --LOSTinDC 13:38, 17 May 2007 (PDT)
      • I figured it was one of those books where there is a hole punch in the corner and one ring - this is often the case with larger diagrams like this. I've altered the Jpeg version [here] but I'll leave it up to others whether or not this should be displayed. Just look at the image though - it is clear that the hole is casting a shadow on the background behind it, and the hole is not visible in the version on the station's ceiling from outside. Smeagol 13:45, 17 May 2007 (PDT)
        • My only problem with this is the location of the "hole punch." Since the "hole" is in the upper left corner while reading it with the long side facing the reader, the only logical way it could be a hole punch is if there was something on the back, which we have no proof of. Otherwise, when the page was turned to, all the reader would see is a blank page with the Looking Glass schematics on the back.--Theslate 15:21, 17 May 2007 (PDT)
        • Addtionally, looking at the hi-def pics below, it's more clear that it's not a hole punch, as the schematics are kept in a clear plastic holder in the binder, not connected by a hole punch. It still begs the question why the underwater shot is different. --LOSTinDC 15:23, 17 May 2007 (PDT)
        • Looking at the underwater photos again, the color scheme is different for the exterior logo than the one on the paper, i.e. the schematic logo has the inverted color scheme (white lines imposed on a black background) while the exterior logo is the opposite. --LOSTinDC 16:10, 17 May 2007 (PDT)Schematic v Exterior Looking Glass Logos
          • Look at this link[1], it shows two symbols one up left and one bottom right, both have the hole. The outside symbol doesnt have the hole for some reason, and although most of the symbol is inverted, the bunny is not. But something I find interesting, is that the schematics have a picture of the sub docked within it. Perhaps the symbol with dot accounts for the station as a whole with the sub, and without the spot it shows that it is the station alone.--mac_ad 16:34, 17 May 2007 (PDT)

Sayid's Diagram of Looking Glass

Can anyone read the notations around the circular diagram of the Looking Glass? Looking at the first shot, I can make out "Control Room Sonar and Observation Room" in a box. There is also "windows", "sonar" (?), and within the structure, "air lock". The second shot is more blurry, but there is writing to the right and beneath the diagram that might be interesting... --LOSTinDC 11:11, 17 May 2007 (PDT)

  • These are the notations I could make out from the overhead elevation:

-Upper Box(Left)-

Control Room "Sonar and Observation Room"

-Bottom Left-

Int=Sonar & Observation Station with Submarine Dock

-Upper Box(Right)-

Submarine docks to structure from below


  • The station is divided by bulkheads each one with a door in its center.
  • Entry to the Control Room from the moon pool is through an Airlock.

--Mr Tibbs 14:13, 18 May 2007 (PDT)


  • On the Wiki it says "what is the cable", this shows it as an anchor. We know the structure has legs, so perhaps this is a guideline, or a ground to land as opposed to a literal anchor.

  • Why would Sayid's official Dharma schematic give the title "The Looking Glass Hatch"? The term 'hatch' is only used by the losties, and only because it was the only protruding part of the Swan station. I doubt if the designers of the stations would call these bases 'hatches'. Griffin147 13:03, 17 May 2007 (PDT)
    • See the discussions above, but why couldn't it be a Hatch? A Hatch refers to an opening or a doorway by definition. Maybe that's a reference to it's purpose? --LOSTinDC 13:07, 17 May 2007 (PDT)
      • The best way to write it off other than a mistake is to say that the diagram used hatch to refer to the submarine access point which is clearly shown in the diagram. Nobody would call an underwater station a "hatch". Dharmatel4 13:53, 17 May 2007 (PDT)
        • Unless it's part of it's full name, "The Looking Glass Hatch"
          • As I've said before, why would anyone call an underwater station a "hatch". The Losties call things hatches because thats how they found them. But I've never heard anyone call any sort of built structure a "hatch". Is almost certainly a production error. Dharmatel4 19:46, 17 May 2007 (PDT)
            • It could be that what is shown in the diagram, and what we've seen on the show, is a small portion - an entrance hatch - of a much larger underwater structure. --Doc 07:01, 18 May 2007 (PDT)
            • The word "hatch" is also on DHARMA's own schematic, isn't it? --ConspiracyofDetails 07:47, 18 May 2007 (PDT)
              • I'm going to conjecture here, and say that the reason why the diagram looks so different, and the word "Hatch" is in the title, is because this was a mockup made by the Lost design team. For whatever reason they got sloppy and didn't take the word "Hatch" out nor change the design of the station to mirror (no pun intended) what the special effects team ended up building for Charlie's swimming scene. Same goes for the logo, although the logo on the actual hatch could have just been simplified due to the size.

Hi Def Pics & Bunny Hole Text

  • Check out the hi-def promo pics posted at the Lost Media. On the full fold out pic there looks like some text in the black bunny hole!.--Kivipat
  • You can also see it if you neg the other schematic pic (the non-foldout one) - its not straight, looks kind of 'bowed' - maybe 5 letters? -- Kivipat
  • I think what looks like text to you is actually reflected light - you could see this next to the rabbit figure's nose too.--Stan 15:37, 17 May 2007 (PDT)
  • mmmmmmm looks too defined to me, compared to the nose reflection - anyway thats all I can see - perhaps someone with better imaging software can see more? -- Kivipat
  • Definitely looks like text to me. Terryjb 16:20, 17 May 2007 (PDT)
  • Its likely to be DHARMA --Lewis-Talk-Contribs 16:36, 17 May 2007 (PDT)
  • How about this, I'm looking at the possible tie ins the line could be, and the shark came to mind. Truly as a design guy, I wouldnt put text where that white appears, it wouldnt look right, and DHARMA is already branded under the bunny, so this seems logical. Check out the comparison, and the reason I came to this was the quote from the blast door map that says Intranet support for Carcharodon carcharias(Shark) selective breeding facility which is on a completely different part of the map than the reference to Ursus maritimus(polar bear, which I would figure meansthe shark came from a different station than the hydra.

Linerabb--mac_ad 16:02, 18 May 2007 (PDT)

  • I'm with Kiwipat in another part of this thread. The line is actually two lines. The 'hole' is a clock/watch face with hands at 8:15.--XR15 13:46, 18 May 2007 (PDT)
  • Log2That 8:15 theory rules and makes so much sense, something like this symbol then you mean?--mac_ad 16:02, 18 May 2007 (PDT)
  • Yes! It's great. If I were going to pick nits, here's what they'd be: drop the weight on the hands by a hair (hare?); shave the length of the hour hand by a couple of percent; and, (unrelated to the watch) rotate the rabbit's eye by 180 degrees. Like I said, it's great as is, though.--XR15 17:52, 18 May 2007 (PDT)
  • (new one is uploaded above) I redrew the eye, and changed the size/length of the hands, on an overlay it looks pretty close to the real one.. I could really see this being the clock!!! I hope the station ends up being a portal, because the clock plus that would equal our "time and space".--mac_ad 19:53, 18 May 2007 (PDT)
  • Yes, looks good. (Although the original is not as clear.) The 8:15 arms are more than a theory now. If you look at mega-high resolution pictures posted elsewhere on the net, besides the arms you can even see 12 small white dots just inside the watch's circumference, marking the hours. -- Cheers (talk) 20:14, 18 May 2007 (PDT)
    • Link?--mac_ad 20:52, 18 May 2007 (PDT)
Not sure if this was a picture I remembered from yesterday, hmm, need to look at it with strong light, I guess I imagined the dots from over-enthusiam. Looking at it closely now, I only see a blur along the circumference [2], it looks much the same as on your captures. Sorry about that, nothing to see there, afer all. -- Cheers (talk) 21:39, 18 May 2007 (PDT)
  • Good to know, I thought I missed something lol. there is some discussion on the wiki about all this too here[3]--mac_ad 22:34, 18 May 2007 (PDT)

Please Clarify this

Please clarify what "An image of the Looking glass is visible when Ben is watching Jack on the TV monitors. It is on one of the other screens and appears to be of the room where Charlie swam in." means. Digger3000 15:13, 17 May 2007 (PDT)

Its been removed. It should not come back until someone provides a reference and a picture. Dharmatel4 19:41, 17 May 2007 (PDT)

"The" Looking Glass

Someone correct me if I misheard, but I thought Juliet and Sayid both called the station "Looking Glass" not "The Looking Glass". Using "the" makes the name consistent with the other station names, but so what? Also, not the reference to the military command post "Looking Glass" that I added to Trivia.--Zicsoft 18:00, 17 May 2007 (PDT)

  • The schematics that Sayid had stated "The Looking Glass Hatch". --Marik7772003 19:14, 17 May 2007 (PDT)

cable views on the diagrams

The cable as shown on the diagrams doesn't seem to be in the same configuration as the cable on the beach. The diagrams present a top and a side view of the cable. The top view has the notation "Anchor to land". The actual anchor point can be seen in the side view. The diagram indicates that originally there was an anchor point near the beach for the cable. An anchor point for the cable makes much more sense in terms of design than the current cable which runs loose on the surface in the water, on the beach and far into the jungle. The current cable looks like a replacement for the original cable. It always seemed unlikely given the over-design of the DHARMA structures that they would have just run a cable across the ground. Dharmatel4 21:54, 17 May 2007 (PDT)

-- quick cable question -- 

I think this is being over-analyzed. The ONLY cable on the schematics is the anchor to land, and the ONLY cable the losties have found is the cable they followed into the jungle and out to sea.

Though the cable they follow looks different than the schematics cable (perhaps a replacement cable as suggested above is likely as the anchor point doesn't seem to exist anymore), I think it is safe to say that the function is the same and the article should be updated to change the function of the cable from "unknown". It's safe to say it's at least some form of the anchor referenced in the schematics. Novaman5000 14:51, 13 June 2007 (PDT)

Scale on the Diagram

Looking at the hi-res pictures linked earlier, there appears to be a scale on the bottom of the diagram (most visible on the folded view of the diagrams)... that leads me to believe the main schematic (the full top down view) may be up to 5 or 6 miles across. [Visible Here]  ge0  Talk  contribs  22:04, 17 May 2007 (PDT)

Either the scale is for something else or it's a prop error, otherwise the sub would be almost half a mile across. --Doc 06:54, 18 May 2007 (PDT)
Looks like a prop error to me. (I'm also in the "hatch" should be "station" camp--so a couple of prop errors as far as I'm concerned). Another possibility to rescue this prop as canon is that this is a proposed design of a much larger station than. The actual station, when built, had numerous differences from the proposal:
- It wasn't round, but rectangular
- It was hundreds of meters across, not miles
- The anchor point ended up being different
- The proposed logo (with the hole/watch face) was not used on the exterior
--XR15 13:26, 18 May 2007 (PDT)
Assuming drawing "A" is the horizontal section and drawing "B" is the vertical section of the same station, then the scale that applies is the one that is next to those drawings. This makes the structure roughly 25 metres across. The scale in miles at the bottom of the page would be for something else. Don't know why they put metric and imperial measures of length on the same page, though. Must have been an European-American project. -- Cheers (talk) 14:22, 18 May 2007 (PDT)

So, which one's the fake?

According to the two orientation videos we've seen, there are 6 Dharma stations. The looking glass is now the 7th that we've been introduced to (not including the Door). So far we've seen:

1. The Swan 2. The Arrow 3. The Staff 4. The Pearl 5. The Hydra 6. The Flame 7. The Looking Glass

So is it possible that one of these stations above is NOT actually a Dharma station, but perhaps was created by the Others to look like a Dharma station? And if so, which one?

The Swan is almost certainly a legit Dharma station. It has the orientation film, and appears to be created by an initiative with lots of funding. The Arrow's questionable. It doesn't really seem to have much of a purpose, and is very crudely built. The Staff is probably a legit Dharma station. It seems to make sense that Dharma would want a medical facility on the island, and I think it has the appearance of a place that was legit, but ransacked by the Others. The Pearl seems like a legit Dharma station. It has the orientation film, and is filled with the Dharma-era technology. The Hydra is probably a legit Dharma station. It's safe to say Dharma would need some kind of research facility, especially for animals. The wildcard in this is that it's not on the island itself, but that was probably done to keep any animals that escape off the main island. The Flame is questionable. It seems different from the other stations in its appearance and more "homey" feel. It's also strange that the Others seem to be able to operate the equipment so well. But the appearance of Dr. Candle in the computer seems to scream Dharma to me. The Looking Glass, from what we can tell, seems like a legitimate Dharma station. Again, it seems like the kind of thing built with the unlimited funds of Dharma. My guess is the Arrow is some kind of fraudulent Dharma station (similar to the Door). This might explain the glass eye, if it actually did belong to Mikhail. AmarilloLostFan 05:24, 18 May 2007 (PDT)

What we know is that there was a series of six orientations films made in 1980. We do not know if the number of films in the series equals the number of stations. I've always thought that the conclusion that there are only six stations was really speculative and not based on much.
About the arrow. The evidence now is that the arrow changed from its original purpose. In the early days of the initiative it seems to have had some research purpose requiring a mathamatician (Horrace) to be assigned to it. But later on (from the contents and the blast door map) it seems to have been converted into a supply base for something. Dharmatel4 06:46, 18 May 2007 (PDT)
I had assumed that the Arrow was just a staging location for newly arrived DHARMA people. --Doc 06:56, 18 May 2007 (PDT)
That was the old view until "man behind the curtain" and it comes from the blast door map. The inconsistancy from man behind the curtain is why a mathamatician (on the jumpsuit) would be working at a DHARMA supply station. Dharmatel4 09:30, 18 May 2007 (PDT)

I don't think The Flame can be considered questionable since Ben's father claimed to have just come back from there when the earliest battle we saw with the hostiles took place. --Bastion 07:03, 18 May 2007 (PDT)
It's also worthy to consider that the numbers were deliberately misreported. Perhaps DHARMA, like the Others, wished to conceal the existence of The Looking Glass, and so reported to their subjects that only six stations existed - the number that could be verified by people who didn't know to look for another. --ConspiracyofDetails 07:42, 18 May 2007 (PDT)
Again, we have no facts from the show to confirm that there were only six stations. People jumped to that conclusion based on the number of films. Dharmatel4 09:30, 18 May 2007 (PDT)
And even if the assumption is true, it doesn't mean that a seventh station was constructed after the other orientation videos were made. There also the possibility that one station was secret, not fake.    Jabberwock    talk    contribs    email   - 09:43, 18 May 2007 (PDT)

it says in the film this is station _ of 6--Connor401 11:31, 18 May 2007 (PDT)

What the films say is "__ of 6" and then "station __ ". Nothing in the films ever says that there are exactly six stations. Dharmatel4
There are 9 observation TVs in the Pearl, so I don't see why there couldn't be 9 stations altogether (unless of course some stations had more than one camera.) Blackannis 14:42, 19 May 2007 (PDT)
It's reasonable to assume that there are only 6 stations that *needed* to have orientation films. The Arrow, Flame, and Looking Glass hatches could ostensibly be considered support hatches. They wouldn't need orientation films if they weren't purposed for specific research.

Dicussion - Logo incorrect?

Check out ABC's press release shot - there's something on the black circle in the middle: [4]. --Nickb123 (Talk) 05:34, 18 May 2007 (PDT)

Looking glass promotional
Definately something there. I inverted the colors of the logo, it looks like it's just a line across the circle? --LOSTinDC 05:49, 18 May 2007 (PDT)
Looking glass logo colors inverted
See Kiwipat's comment above. It looks like a clockface with hands at 8:15. Cool, huh? ----XR15 12:07, 18 May 2007 (PDT)
'Only fools are enslaved by time and space.' --XR15 12:26, 18 May 2007 (PDT)
  • We probably should wait for confirmation from an official source, but I do believe its a clockface showing 8:15 and will need to be updated accordingly. Also, I'm beginning to suspect that the logo as depicted on the schematic is there to be viewed purely for its Easter Egg value, and the real logo is the one on the outside of the station. Therefore, at some stage, the logo in the infobox will probably need to be changed to the one on the outside of the station, and this Easter Egg one have its own section.--Kivipat

Greta logo

  • Greta's logo is the same as the outside of the hatch, perhaps this is the logo we should have on Lostpedia..?--mac_ad 22:47, 24 May 2007 (PDT)

TLG promo

  • This was in one of the recent promo pic packages for TLG, no circle/clock, so its anyones guess why its there on the schematic and nowhere else.--mac_ad 10:27, 3 December 2007 (PST)

Gas Canisters in Background

3x21 moonpool tanks

Has anyone noticed the gas canisters behind Greta? at first I thought they were Acetylene because safety standards require compressed acetylene to be painted completely yellow usually, but I just noticed the black mark across half of them. If those are DOT Hazard Placards below the canisters, we can safely say that the canisters with the black mark are an organic peroxide, but I have no idea what the black or near black labels could be. Also, what is it that they are hooked up to which appears to mix the two gases? is this for refueling purposes?--SpaceRibs 06:47, 18 May 2007 (PDT)

It's difficult to tell from the shot, but I think the two placards involved are a Non-Flammable Gas placard and an Oxidizing Agent placard. Given the station, I'd say we're looking at nitrogen and oxygen. It's not far enough down to need heliox (helium/oxygen) atmosphere, and all of the tanks seem to feed i nto blenders. The problem is capacity - there's not enough in those tanks to pressurize a station that size. Then again, those tanks may just be responsible for the Moon Pool room. They could well be part of an ESP - Emergency Stablizing Pressure - system, designed to pump up pressure in the Moon Pool room to counteract a pressure leak, but that's conjecture. Even so, I think we're looking at nitrogen and oxygen. (Good catch all the same!) --ConspiracyofDetails 07:36, 18 May 2007 (PDT)
That would definitely make sense, hopefully they don't become a dangerous explosion in the near future. The writers sure like destroying evidence in a large fireball. --SpaceRibs 09:31, 18 May 2007 (PDT)
I uploaded a better screencap of the tanks (see above). The yellow symbol is definitely one for oxygen, but I don't know what the black one is for. Also notice the oxygen warning sign above. Here's a good site for an explanation of the placards.    Jabberwock    talk    contribs    email   - 09:40, 18 May 2007 (PDT)
Thanks Jabber, Studying the wiki entry of Nitrox, could it be safe to assume that since they are rather close to land and not terribly deep under water, that this could be a scuba refilling station? --SpaceRibs 10:12, 18 May 2007 (PDT)
With then link that Jabberwocky has given us. I can say that the other two tanks are Non-Flammable Gas and they are Green not black. Project X 15:29, 18 May 2007 (PDT)
Thats probably true, I'm placing my bet that these are for scuba suits and an alternate means of getting into the looking glass. I'd like to hear alternative ideas about their use though, but they are too small to be for the station. --SpaceRibs 14:19, 20 May 2007 (PDT)


How deep is The Looking Glass underwater? The schematics say 70 meters, but for Charlie to dive over 210 feet, wouldn't that be a bit ridiculous, even with a weight belt? I would guess that either

  • the schematics were plans and did not end up being the actual depth of the Looking Glass.
  • the Looking Glass moves (hence, the anchor)
  • the tides were low
  • the island ocean floor has risen over the years
  • Charlie really did dive that deep.

--Squashua 07:34, 18 May 2007 (PDT)

The current record for dynamic apnea freediving for men is 223 meters. The record for a constant weight freedive is 111 meters. So Charlie could have gotten down to 70 meters. The problem is that these recordholders trained endlessly to be able to survive the dive. Charlie could have made it down, but probably not back up (but he knew that). --ConspiracyofDetails 07:40, 18 May 2007 (PDT)
It doesn't look that deep in the videos. Nothing in Charlie's dive made much sense. In particular jumping in fully clothed given what he was trying to do was really lame. Dharmatel4 09:25, 18 May 2007 (PDT)
It does get cold down there, plus his clothes would have given him extra drag/weight. In addition, at the time he believed it to be a suicide mission. Clothes are, at best, a hinderance when you're trying to get up and out of the water. --Squashua 10:47, 18 May 2007 (PDT)
The fact that Desmond and Charlie can see it from the surface means that it almost certainly can't be 70 m down. Here are some [secchi depths] for comparison: Crater Lake, 44 m; open ocean (record clearest), 62 m; previous record observation (Eastern Mediterranean), 53 m. Since this station is coastal, where there is suspended sediment from wave action and organic matter from the land, we'd expect a visual depth of something like 40 m or less. --XR15 12:53, 18 May 2007 (PDT)
Yeah, Dharma Schematics always seem to be wrong. The Barracks were too small in theirs, the Looking Glass looks completely different, etc.... I'd say we go by what we see or hear from characters rather than what we see in Sayid's binder, for all we know it was a "Conceptual Plans" binder or whatever. --Sauron18 13:47, 18 May 2007 (PDT)
why would you think the blueprint is not correct??? the depth is correct and i have no reason to doubt that... the ring around the station must be embedded in the seabed... since the schematic is not 3D there's no way for us to tell on which level the ring might be, but since we don't see it it must be under the seabed! for my part i'd remove the trivia depth question and move the 70m station, 80m seabed to the facts section!!! thnx --Smokeonit 02:32, 23 May 2007 (CET)
"why would you think the blueprint is not correct???" - because of the factors stated by others who have answered this question. The depth is currently unknown unless it was answered in the podcast. --Squashua 11:40, 23 May 2007 (PDT)

Paper reference code

As you can see from the image above, you can see the code: GVS-199288472982
I, using PHP converted this using the time function, to generate a date.

echo date('F, dS Y H:i', "199288472982");

  • This creates the following date:
    • July, 03rd 2024 04:29

echo date('F, dS Y H:i', "88472982");

  • This creates the following date:
    • October, 21st 1972 00:49

This is very interesting because the dates show important dates of Dharma?

Also I did a google definition search for GVS:

  • It found one result, it was in Dutch.
    • "Geneesmiddelen VergoedingsSysteem. Zie: vergoeding."

I translated the result:

  • "Medicines compensation system. See: compensation."


Adougie 10:28, 18 May 2007 (PDT)

No. Not really. It looks like 1992 is a year, but that's about it. ∇ϕ 17:56, 18 May 2007 (PDT)
  • I'm with Grad Phi above. My guess is that GVS is the company/group that drafted the plans, the first four numbers are the year of the project (1992, and the remaining numbers (88472982) are the project number. (Incidentally, if right, the projects can't be numbered sequentially. No company has 88 million projects in a year!). If 1992 is the year of the project, that's really interesting in terms of the Dharma timeline. No evidence, just speculation.--XR15 17:59, 18 May 2007 (PDT)
  • I worked as a draftsperson for a few years up until January this year, and all our project names are really long, the first 4 numbers generally stand for the dept.(civil,structural, arch, mech,transportation etc) and then normally 5 or 6 numbers stand for the clients project(which a re sequential) and sometimes have an extra set of numbers if there are extra tasks for that project ie 114299000 (1142=Dept 99000=specific project, optional tasks may be like ".200" or ".120.200"). So in my professional opinion the date isnt in there, the date would be either seperate on the sheet, or in the "plot stamp", which also would say the initials of the designer. I think "1992" is just a coincidence, afterall Dharma stopped being funded in 1987--mac_ad 21:04, 18 May 2007 (PDT)
The thing about DHARMA's funding being stopped in 1987 has never been confirmed and may have been a deception on the part of the Hanso foundation. There are big problems with it being true. The biggest is that Kelvin Inman was recruited by DHARMA after the first gulf war in the early 1990s and sent to the Island.
Further, I agree that 1992 should be treated as coincidence. Its also possible that these plans represent an expansion of the station that never happened. Dharmatel4 12:12, 21 May 2007 (PDT)

Underwater beacon

In "Enter 77" Mikhail mentions an "underwater beacon". I think it's the Looking Glass station, so its purpose is to emit signals for the submarine and allow it to reach the island. Kemot from Poland 08:47, 19 May 2007 (PDT)

its probably worth mentioning i nthe article if hasn't been already--Lucky Day 15:50, 2 June 2007 (PDT)

Question : it is said in the article that The Looking Glass (which contains, among other things, the beacon) is immune against the discharge. However, I remember hearing Ben say that since the discharge, the submarine could get off the island, but could not return to it because the discharge disabled the beacon. So, is the station really immune of not ?

Schematic Graph

Schematic Graph1

Here's a look at one of the graphs on the schematic with the contrast up a bit. It looks like a tide chart to me, showing the progression of the tides. Interestingly, it is for the month of June (lower-left corner). I can't make out the year, but given which dates match up with which days of the week, we can guess. Here are the options since 1960: 1961, 1967, 1972, 1978, 1989, 1995, 2000, and 2006. I can hallucinate that it is either 2000 or 2006. Other notations on the graph:

  • Time running from midnight to midnight on each side of graph
  • Midnight, Noon, Sunrise, and Sunset are all noted
  • June 20th is circled. Probably the solstice, which is another clue as to the year. In 2000, the solstice occurred on Jun 21 at 1:48 am Universal Time. Just about anywhere West of there (including Hawaii), it would have occurred on June 20th. The two other candidate years that I have data for are 1995 and 2006, when the solstice occurred on Jun 21 at 20:34 and 12:26 Universal time.

All of this gives strength to the argument the the equation above it is for calculating the tides. --XR15 13:47, 21 May 2007 (PDT)

Satellite signal jamming

There's been back-and-forth editing of this article that boils down to whether radio signals can jam a satellite phone.

First off, I think this is somewhat of a moot point because Sayid only hypothesized that Danielle's radio signal was blocking the satellite phone. Juliet suggested instead that the satellite communication was not being accidentally blocked, but rather being actively jammed. Who knows the real reason the satellite phone isn't working? Given her bad information about the Looking Glass's flooding status, she might not know what she is talking about with regards to the jamming.

Anyway, I digress. Let's take as given for a moment that Ben and company are, in fact, trying to jam communications--including satellite communications--with a radio frequency (RF) signal of some type. While some have posted that it is not possible, I believe it is possible based on my limited Googling. For example, (links to a commercial product that blocks satellite phone and other signals).

I'd like an expert, if there is one out there to chime in on this, so that we can either remove or keep the notes on signal jamming. --XR15 18:35, 21 May 2007 (PDT)

Different signals use different frequencies. To block or jam a specific frequency, a device of some sort has to be generating interference on that specific frequency. Broadcasts on different frequencies require different transmission equipment. We don't know what frequency (or frequencies) the tower is broadcasting its signal on. We know that Sayid picked up the signal with radio equipment from the plane. We know that signals were picked up from the tower by two men who were supposedly monitoring longwave transmissions.
While you can find or construct a device to block any specific frequency or send messages on a particular frequency, its very difficult to build a single device that blocks *all* frequencies. The Distress signal cannot possibly be broadcast on every single shortwave frequency, the entire S-Band and who knows what else. There could be something else blocking those signals, but its not the distress signal itself.
Juliet claimed that something at the Looking Glass keeps all but selected signals from being sent or received from the Island. Presumably this is what keeps Rousseau's distress signal from being heard. But there is a big problem with that. If you Jam a radio signal, you jam it in a circular area around the jamming device. Its not possible to jam signals going *off* the Island while they still can be heard *on* the Island. In other words, if something is jamming Rousseau's message being heard off the Island, Sayid should not be able to hear it on the Island at all. The only way to jam signals going off/on the island and still hear them on the Island would be to have many small jamming stations out at sea in a circle around the Island.
The other way to jam a signal is through interference. A piece of failed equipment could unintentionally generate a large amount of interference that could possibly block any particular frequency such as the S-Band. Dharmatel4 19:19, 21 May 2007 (PDT)

I do have experience with jamming, both LOS (Line of Sight) and SATCOM (Satellite Communications), most of it classified. To understand how jamming works, more often, a recieve signal is what is jammed because recievers are easier to jam. Even Satellite dishes which are somewhat directional, can be jammed by an outside (LOS) RF signal. For example, I once had an entire Command and Control Satellite circuit that was shut down (jammed) by a pirate radio station. The radio station's unregulated output had a side lobe frequency that was the same as the download frequency of this particualr CC circuit. This side lobe (not the main transmitted frequency) was of sufficient amplitude to overpower (jam) the microvolt signal coming from the satellite. Now because satellite comms has a uplink and a downlink frequency, the CC station was able to transmit, but not recieve. Jamming an uplink to a satellite is simple and will effect the entire footprint of the satellite, not just a local area. All it takes is a transmitter tuned to the uplink frequency and a directional antenna pointed at the satellite. Anybody who has experience in military satellite communications has experienced this type of jamming. Also known as a "Hot Key", this is an unintentional jamming by a transmitting staion's transmitter constantly transmitting. This can happen with both LOS and SATCOM radios.

The satellite phone is just as easily jammed, especially since it's antenna isn't so directional. The phone requres a fully functional link (both uplink and downlink) to work. The phone has to "handshake" with a "Ground based terminal" before any calls can be made. If the handset cannot establish a link with a GBT, the phone is essentially dead.--Vanished 19:27, 21 May 2007 (PDT)

Unfortunately, this would mean that (1) they had to continuously jam all communications satellites visible from the island, and (2) while doing so they would render such satellites unusable not just for the island, but for everybody else ("will affect the entire footprint of the satellite"). Jamming all visible satellites for all users everywhere all the time is going to attract some very large attention from commercial and military interests pronto - and the satellite phone, like all others, would have been rendered inoperative long before it came to the island, with no reason for Naomi to expect it to work when it was failing everywhere else. Jamming of some sorts is indeed not hard, jamming in the manner of the Island is quite another matter. And yes, intentional jamming of everything from the Looking Glass needs to be separated from possible one time accidental interference with one satellite phone by the radio tower. --[User:Zephyr|Zephyr]

Thanks. That's good info. It sounds like it is not impossible to jam a satellite signal, nor even that difficult. It does sound like it is improbable that it could be done in such a way that Rousseau's message could still be heard. (But improbable is The Island's middle name, right?). The two bits of trivia that are currently listed that I'd like to delete are

  • It is impossible to Jam a satellite signal without an array of Dishes forming a grid to lock out the signal over a large area.
    • However, a small jammer can disable satellite reception to a localized area.

I propose to delete them for the following reasons. First, these two bits of trivia semi-contradict one another and are not that interesting (to me). Second, there is no direct mention in the article of blocking a satellite signal. Third, the first bit of trivia doesn't seem to be correct and the second bit isn't needed if the first bit is gone. Fourth, and most importantly, we have no idea how the Looking Glass blocks signals--maybe it does it by dilating space-time--so it is silly to have this in the trivia.

I propose further that we add an Unanswered Question: How does the Looking Glass only block transmission of signals to the outside world and not signals on The Island, such as Rousseau's signal?--XR15 20:42, 21 May 2007 (PDT)

Vanished's message indicates that a radio signal could have a high power side lobe frequency that would unintentionally block a signal coming from the satellite. He presented a plausable way (with real-world example) for the radio tower signal to block the phone signal. Dharmatel4 20:51, 21 May 2007 (PDT)
Aw, even better. Still, this info should perhaps go in the Radio Tower article and not in the Looking Glass article.--XR15 20:56, 21 May 2007 (PDT)

Podcast 5/21

They confirmed in the 5/21 podcast that the use of "hatch" on the DHARMA Schematic was intentional. They also indicated that there were references to the station on the Blast Door Map but didn't say what they were. They also strongly suggested that cutting the cable would not have ended the jamming effect. They said if it were providing power, it would not be the only source of power to the station and they said it might be a communications cable. There were also some cryptic comments about allusions vs. illusions with regard to the Looking Glass and its name. Dharmatel4 19:23, 21 May 2007 (PDT)

Greg Nations later said that it was a prop mistake. Dharmatel4 22:14, 31 May 2007 (PDT)

  • Based on the idea that TPTB called the cable "possibly" a communication cable, I figure these 3 notations which are offshore refer to the hatch possibly
1)Why a Dharmatel Intranet presence past this border 2)Possible offshore data dump 3)Intranet support for Carcharodon carcharias selective breeding facility(and this one is in the same region even though the sharks seem to have more reference at the hydra)--mac_ad 21:28, 22 May 2007 (PDT)

Whilst watching the episode again again again. I noticed when charlie was swimming down that there can be a 'Yellow looking' Looking glass logo and is not the same as the inverted one. Not the one on top. Project X 23:50, 21 May 2007 (PDT)

  • Nice find! I'd love to get a better look. --XR15 09:00, 22 May 2007 (PDT)

8:15 or 20:15 or 3:40 or 15:40 or 2:40 or 14:40

Can we really be sure about the time on the logo? Diamon 10:59, 23 May 2007 (PDT)

In the closeup on the logo on the station in the season 3 finale, the is clerly no black dot or clock, just a bunny head--Connor401 08:28, 24 May 2007 (PDT)

Daft unanswered question

  • "Why does the station have watertight doors that can only be sealed from inside a flooding room?"
Really? It's pretty obvious that without a grenade the area most likely to flood is the main chamber, and the control room is clearly more important. Of course the door would lock on the side of the control room. Also, we don't know 100% that it isn't lockable on both sides, though it seems unlikely.--Chocky 15:04, 24 May 2007 (PDT)
  • This is a question my husband and I asked ourselves as we watched the episode. We both served in the Navy and noticed that Desmond could have gotten in, there are "dogs" on the outside of the door that Charlie fastened, the wheel you turn slides out bars that catch the hatch combing to hold the door closed and then dogs are turned to seal it. If you watch you can see the dogs turn from Desmonds perspective. The purpose must have been to slow Desmond down and getting him to think, he must have heard Penny's voice and Charlie wanted to be a hero. This water tight hatch is openable from both sides. --Corineand20 17:48, 29 May 2007 (PDT)

Danielle's transmission

This may be a really dumb, easily answerable question, but why did the looking glass block Danielle's transmission? The previous transmission of the numbers from the same radio tower was heard by that guy in the mental institute, but when Danielle changed the transmission, it was suddenly blocked. Why?

The Sri Lanka Video says that the radio tower was supposed to be broadcasting encrypted information (the numbers). We know that for some reason in 1988, both Danielle and the listening station started picking up the numbers in the clear for a brief period. Then presumably the broadcasts stopped. Something unknown seems to have happened on the Island in 1988. Dharmatel4 22:13, 31 May 2007 (PDT)
I don't recall if there was a date mentioned, but perhaps Ben and The Other's killing of DHARMA residents happened in 1988. This would go along logicly with the technology of that time (the old VW buses and etc.). A conflict could be if DHARMA's funding was indeed stopped in 1987, would they pull people off the island? Or perhaps the ending of funding coincided somehow with the transmission switching and/or The Other's mass murdering. Or the ending of funding (if it did indeed end) in 1987 could have come from the outbreak of the hostiles, which after their take-over of the island, a year later they (The Others/Hostiles) broke the transmission codes and then blocked the signal all together (in 1988). Just an idea. :) Ozlin 15:55, 2 June 2007 (PDT)

As you can see, there is no hole in the bunny on this logo. Thoughts? Diamon 17:15, 26 May 2007 (PDT)


That's already mentioned in the article, although a pic might be useful. I suspect it's either A) the hole was in the original design schematics, but when they painted the station they decided to simplify the style or B) it's just an alternate version of the logo, like the other logos are slightly different when inverted or stenciled or in relief on plaques. --Jackdavinci 20:09, 26 May 2007 (PDT)

  • I would have to surmise that the "clock" is simply a hole punched into the paper since it appears nowhere else. I vote to remove the clock hole from the logo. --Squashua 10:16, 29 May 2007 (PDT)

Not meaning to pick hairs but this also has no hole. DrGiggles 12:41, 27 May 2007 (PDT)


Version 1: this logo appears only in the schematic (there is no "clock", the white lines are very hard to notice)


And version 2: seen on the wall inside the station and twice outside the station.

<----- There are two versions of the logo: ----->

In my opinion the official logo is the one by the right. --Kemot from Poland 04:58, 1 June 2007 (PDT)

Unanswered questions complaint!

To whom it may concern. I had posted under the unanswered questions section: "Why is the clock face on the rabbit at 8:15?" Which, in keeping with unanswered questions, that well, need answers--I felt was perfectly valid thing to ask. But a user named Frink decided to not only delete my unanswered question but add the further insult of stating: "Seriously, who put why is the clock at 8:15? That's just stupid, whoever put that question on here doesn't deserve to write here.)" So none of the channels of discussion were observed and it was just completely deleted and then I have to read that a total stranger feels that I am stupid and don't deserved to be contributing to this forum. The Lostpedia is something about which I am very enthusiastic about and am very proud to be able to contribute--but events like this make me really discouraged. And okay, this is probably more of a style question and a lot of bitching on my part, but I must once again assert that I feel that a valid unanswered question has been posted and deserves to stay posted. --Frenk Melk! 23:46, 28 May 2007 (PDT)

  • I agree that he was over the top about it, but given that we haven't established if the logo really does have a black spot (only one that one sheet of paper) and definitely haven't confirmed that it is a clockface at 8:15, it's just going to be confusing to anyone who hasn't read the discussion page.
Besides, if it IS a clockface at 8:15 then it's very likely that it's an Alice in Wonderland connection, so the question answers itself.--Chocky 17:13, 29 May 2007 (PDT)

Unanswered Questions

I removed

  • How do they get food and water?


  • How deep is the Station?

1) They have plenty of storage as Desmond found out. 2) We saw how deep it was from the canoe, albeit refracted.--Lucky Day 15:50, 2 June 2007 (PDT)

I may remove "How did Bonnie and Greta enter the Looking Glass if the Submarine was Destroyed?" It's pretty obvious...they have been down there for a while! Before the crash.--Baker1000 15:56, 10 August 2007 (PDT)

What is the Heavy Water for?

Ok this will be very scientific but I think this is important.

I am implying 2 things.

  • The looking glass functions as an electrolizer.
  • There is a heavy water moderated reactor or fusion reactor on the island.

I'd like to thank SEAQUELOST for finding this for me on the blast door map.

Alleged location of aborted #7 large number of underground springs heavy water table.

There are underground springs(a water table) that have an abundence of heavy water. Heavy water contains Deuterium. 1 part in 5000 of the hydrogen in seawater is deuterium. The place deuteruim is most abundent is on the ocean floor. I am suggesting that one of the looking glasses purposes, is to act as an electrolizer seperating the oxygen from the hydrogen and deuterium(the hydrogen and deuterium extraction processes do however vary slightly). This could also expain how there is oxygen in the looking glass.

The 2 tanks on the side of the looking glass are for part of the process. A popular method of seperating the elements is by creating a vacuum, boiling the water, turning it into steam and then cyphering it out. Chemicals are also use for some processes. It would then be stored in 2 propane tanks. One for hydrogen/deuterium and one for oxygen. The sub would then come and collect it. I just need to find out which chemicals are used, and I should be able to answer the question of what's inside the tanks in the looking glass.

Here are 2 possible explainations for the usage of heavy water, for more see my user page. --Murasaki 22:36, 19 June 2007 (PDT)

Proposed move of the "What would actually Happen" section

I'm suggesting that we move the "What would actually happen" section to the theories page. Although it seems accurate and I'm not questioning it's veracity, the show is canon and in the show this didn't happen. Someone's put a lot of work into this: it's useful and interesting information that would be better suited to the theories page as, technically, it is a theory even though it may be mathematical fact. Perhaps some reference to the implausibility of the flooding sequence can be included in the trivia section referring people to the theories page. Sadiemonster 02:16, 15 July 2008 (PDT)

I completely agree - it's very out of place in the main article. As no-one has countered the suggestion in the last 9(!) months, I'll move it to theories. paulbrock 00:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC BY-NC-ND unless otherwise noted.