Talk: The Orchid

Canonicity?

Is this supposed to be canon, or is it a parody of DHARMA? --Jackdavinci 21:35, 26 July 2007 (PDT)

The way that they were teasing it before they showed it, it kinda seems like the meant for it to be cannon.Jimbo the tubby 23:40, 26 July 2007 (PDT)

I'm pretty sure that it wasn't meant to be canon, rather a parody. That and the fact that "Hourwax" stated "What the fuck...?" pretty much seals it, as that would never be allowed to be on the show, due to the FCC, plus the fact that the atmosphere in the room sounded like it was meant to be a parody. --Marik7772003 10:29, 27 July 2007 (PDT)

There could be grains of truth but clearly there's a big parody basis to it. It should be presumed parody until proven otherwise IMO. What was interesting though to me was the brief glimmer of a shot, what was that helicopter thing which looked like it was spraying crops - and I heard Candle very faintly say about harvesting - that seems more interesting --Nickb123 (Talk) 10:55, 27 July 2007 (PDT)

As I recall, the Lost Experience contained multiple "fucks", but has been stated to be cannon several times by the producers. What would be allowed on the show is clearly not the basis for continuity. Damon and Carlton teased the footage as "information that you will be getting about the DHARMA initiative" which tells me that the video is meant to be in canon. Rather than saying that it's parody, is there a banner saying that the canonocity of the article is in dispute?Jimbo the tubby 11:21, 27 July 2007 (PDT)

Yes there is a case to apply Template:Deuterocanon if consensus rules for it --Nickb123 (Talk) 11:56, 27 July 2007 (PDT)

It's not deuterocanon, according to that banner's message, because we don't know whether it's meant to be canon or not. It's ambiguous. -Silence 12:02, 27 July 2007 (PDT)

Agreed, nothing has suggested that the material has been rejected from the Lost mythos, quite the opposite in fact. Unless someone can come forward and explain why this film is parody, the Parody Banner should be removed. Jimbo the tubby 12:04, 27 July 2007 (PDT)

• I think Jimbo's idea for a banner telling readers that the canonocity of the article is unknown would be a pretty good idea. BETTYFIZZW (Talk) 12:08, 27 July 2007 (PDT)

Either that, or we can just explain that in the article itself. I don't see any official evidence that this is a parody (just various fans' suspicions), so, from an official status, there isn't really any issue of whether this is or isn't canon. If it's later revealed not to be canon, we can easily change the page then, but until then it seems pretty clearly to have some importance to the story of Lost. But yes, if we do feel the need to use a banner, it should definitely be an "ambiguity" one, not one that authoritatively states that this is or isn't canon. -Silence 12:29, 27 July 2007 (PDT)

Could it be related to the mobisodes at all?--Theslate 12:44, 27 July 2007 (PDT)

I don't think it is canon, but we'll have to wait for an official confirmation as to whether is was a joke or not.--Baker1000 10:04, 29 July 2007 (PDT)

• I find it REALLY hard to believe that dedicated, reasonably intelligent fans of LOST (at least those savvy enough to post/make edits here) are considering this video to be "cannon" or an actual "sneak peek" of what's to come in Season 4.

It should be obvious not only from the reactions evoked from the crowd at ComicCon 07 (laughter), but the intro and outro of the video (Dr. Candle AKA Hourwax intro out-take, as well as the film "running off screen" at the end.) as well as the several spliced in frames (The Hanso Foundation building, the "God Loves You as he Loved Jacob" slide from Room 23, and (upside down) video footage from what looks to be the fake Mittelos Bioscience slides) containing "secret" imagery that's already been discovered and discussed ad nauseum between LOST fans.

This is an excellent "spoof" video from the ACTUAL producers of the show, not only lampooning the existing Dharma videos, but the lengths that we fans go to to dissect them and look for deeper meanings. I'm all but certain that it's made in good fun, and shouldn't be considered "cannon", regardless of an official statement otherwise. Frankie Viturello 09:37, 30 July 2007 (PDT)

That's an interesting theory. But it's still a theory, and belongs on The Orchid/Theories, not on the article page. You state that your own opinion is the truth, "regardless of an official statement otherwise"; but that's not how Lostpedia works. We don't treat any fan's opinions as being a higher authority than official sources, even if we find fan-speculation to be more plausible than official statements in some cases. It's not our job to judge such things: it's our job to report on the facts. And the facts are that ABC.com, Damon Lindelof, and Carlton Cuse, three of the highest authorities on Lost canon, have specifically stated that this video is a teaser for season 4, have implied that it is canonical and contains hints at various Lost mysteries, and have made absolutely no indication whatsoever that this might be a parody. Accordingly, until the facts change, we should treat the video the way it has been presented by all official sources: as apparent canon.

The mistake you and many other fans are making is the one I addressed below: you think that if something contains tongue-in-cheek humor, it can't possibly be canon. But you, as a Lost fan, should know better: this show's creators have a very well-developed sense of humor, and they frequently interject injokes, easter eggs, and comedy in general into the show's canon, without asking us to throw the baby out with the bathwater and reject whole videos just because there are some funny points in them.

The fact that fans laughed at the video in no way implies that it is nothing but a joke; I don't think there's a Lost fan alive who can say that he's never laughed at a Lost episode, and some episodes may even elicit near-constant laughter from fans (for example, I found parts of "Tricia Tanaka is Dead" to be completely hilarious), yet that doesn't mean that all such laugh-eliciting segments are automatically noncanonical.

The entire video is intended to be hastily spliced-together DHARMA Initiative out-takes, according to the show creators, so the fact that the video frequently "jumps", distorts, and makes other video errors (which is the case in various ways for all the orientation films) is clearly not evidence that it's parody; rather, it's evidence that it's canon. Likewise, the fact that the video includes random shots of things like the Jacob frame and the Hanso building and the Barracks are strong evidence that this isn't a parody: if this was pure parody, those frames would almost certainly have been much more over-the-top and ridiculous, e.g., frames of Joop smoking a cigar, or of a mapinguari, or of a zombie invasion. Indeed, if this was a parody, the entire video would be a lot sillier and more explicitly parodic, e.g., "the Orchid" being a clown-cloning station (with its icon a flower squirting water), or both of Dr. Candle's arms falling off during the outtakes, or his name being a lot sillier (e.g., "Bob Floorwax" or "Jimmy Menorah"). As-is, this really isn't any sillier than some of the tongue-in-cheek moments within actual Lost episodes, and certainly isn't conclusive evidence that this is pure parody! -Silence 12:05, 30 July 2007 (PDT)

Wow a 3,000 character response - you probably should have brought some water lol :-) --Nickb123 (Talk) 12:10, 30 July 2007 (PDT)

Silence, I didn't put my opinion on the ARTICLE page, nor did I at any point in time attempt to modify the main article, OR SUGGEST that the article page should be modified. I'll leave that for the regulars to sort out ... and when there IS official word from the powers that be that it is in fact "a goof", then I'll be more than happy to make the changes.

I'm sincerely sorry that you fail to see the SUBTLE HUMOR (they don't need SILLY NAMES or JUVINILE GAGS to be funny) utilized throughout the video. Dr. Candle (and his aliases) has not previously been used as a "foil", he's always been a mysterious and serious character in the LOST universe. For them to suddenly utilize him in this fashion ... well, I think that if you've listened to all the LOST podcasts, read all the interviews with the writers and producers, watched all the bonus features on the DVD sets, etc. that you'd be able to "pick up on" their "sense of humor", as they've (at least Damon and Carlton anyway) shown themselves to be DYNAMICALLY FUNNY and EXCEPTIONALLY WITTY in almost every podcast and interview that they do.

The quick pan up to a Bunny on a shelf and the over-dramatic reaction that Dr. whatever-wax has should really seal the deal on the entire thing being for a gag-reaction ... the show itself, unlike this video clip handles humor in a completely non-absurdist fashion, Hurley, Charlie, Sawyer, and any other characters taken to providing comic relief ususally do so through real-life dialouge or actions. If you can follow the breif narrative of the video, that Bunny clearly did something science-fictional to "magically appear" on the shelf ...

And even if you can't see through the clever guise of what they're doing (basically watch us "chase our tails" over this video during the extended hiatus) ... do you ACTUALLY believe that in season 4 we're going to see "super agile, polarized, time-shifting and/or teleporting" BUNNIES?? Do you HONESTLY believe that's the direction that the science-fiction that they've chosen to weave over the past three years is going to go??

If you do, then, again, I'm sincerely sorry for you. And if this video is intended as, and IS actual canon material ... then I'm sorry for ALL OF US, as it looks like the next seasons are going to be decidedly ridiculous. And we can simply agree to disagree until then. Frankie Viturello 15:04, 30 July 2007 (PDT)

Yes, I make overly long posts, but you're clearly not one to talk. ;D Seriously, though, I know you didn't put anything on the article page; I was merely saying that we shouldn't do so. (And explaining why we removed such speculation when we formerly did have it on the article page.) I do see the subtle humor in the clip; indeed, I pointed out both in my last comment and lower on this page that the clip is clearly humorous, but that humor is not the same thing as parody.

Most Lost episodes, and much of the Lost Experience, have humor of various forms; that hardly makes it all parody. We have examples of actual parodies by the creators of Lost, and it did tend to be over-the-top and not all that subtle: mapinguaris, talking chimpanzees, zombie invasions and all. In contrast, most of Lost's canonical humor is relatively subtle, makes sense within the confines of the broader storyline, and is tongue-in-cheek rather than explicit. All of this suggests that the humor in this clip in no way proves that it is parody. Indeed, most of the qualities of the film show precisely the opposite: the fact that the video gives us very little information about the broader storyline of Lost, whereas most of Lindelof and Cuse's parodies go out of their way to give us lots of false information (and most actual Lost canon is similarly vague and open to interpretation; enigmatic numbered bunnies, in other words, are a lot less likely to be parodies than primordial mapinguaris :)).

Although you have a point in noting that Candle has never been a comedic "foil" before, but always a serious, enigmatic character, I don't think that alone is sufficient to show this is a parody. The reason it's not sufficient is because we don't know that Candle's status might be changing: I highly doubt they'll be able to keep Candle so mysterious forever, and as they reveal more and more sides of his character, it's very plausible that part of their effort to humanize them will involve humor. The reason all this is plausible is because it's happened before! Look at Tom: he was a completely mysterious, even threatening, character in season 2; yet at the end of season 2, and at several points in season 3, he serves as a comedic foil, even while staying centrally important to the narrative. This shows that Lost is never above shifting into occasional humor even for major and "mysterious" characters. We might suspect (or hope) that this wouldn't also be the case for Candle, but we can't simply assume that.

The reason the overly-dramatic reaction to the bunny doesn't "seal the deal" on this being a parody is because it leaves too many unanswered questions, and because it's too subtle to be a total joke; if, in the film, it turned out that the Monster was a bunny rabbit, or that the Incident was caused by a rabbit knocking over a beaker or something, then that would be a clear parody. But the mere fact that an alarm went off and a rabbit appeared leaves too many unanswered questions (and not parodically unanswered ones) to be nothing but a joke.

What's really happening is that you want, very badly, for this to be a parody, because it seems so, to be frank, stupid, that you don't want it to be real and canonical. That's what's truly driving you, and many other fans, to reject this even in the complete absence of evidence that this isn't real. And I sympathize with that impulse, but it's not supported by any of the evidence as of yet. When we get more of the facts, we can re-evaluate whether this is a parody; but right now, there just isn't any objective support for that theory, merely subjective "hunches". The fact is, you don't know why Candle and the others reacted to the rabbit as they did: you are simply assuming that it's something outlandish because it seems that way at first, but if this isn't parody (which is implied by the fact that it isn't obvious that anything particularly outlandish is going on; that's merely implied to, as you said, play with our heads :)), then it's more likely to be something unusual, but consistent and coherent with the overall Island mythology. We just don't know yet. But we do know that rabbits are very important to the DHARMA Initiative for some reason, even if we ignore the Orchid video: the Looking Glass's logo is a rabbit, Ben has rabbits both as a child and adult, etc. So if you find it absurd for rabbits to have any relevance to the mysteries of the Island, you should have stopped watching as soon as the Looking Glass station was revealed, rather than exaggerating the absurdity so much here. Far stranger things have happened. I mean, come on, polar bears in the jungle are much more absurdist than numbered rabbits in a laboratory; is every appearance of the bears in Lost nothing but a parody too? :) -Silence 15:32, 30 July 2007 (PDT)

Well, points were made all around, and like I said, we'll just agree to disagree. Proving it either way is a near impossibility at this juncture. And, that wasn't me commenting on your lengthy post, that was Nickb123, in any case, we'll see how it all turns out ... likely LATER rather than sooner. Frankie Viturello 15:42, 30 July 2007 (PDT)

Ah, sorry about that, I missed Nickb's name somehow. And I agree that we'll have to agree to disagree until we get more evidence one way or the other. And, again, I understand the impulse to just want to deny this video because it seems so silly; most of the "it's a parody" strain of thought is really based on "I don't want it to be canon", because we don't want Candle to be so undramatic, we don't want a Station to be revealed so easily, we don't want mere rabbits to play such an apparently significant storyline role, etc. But wishful thinking isn't evidence, and, again, much sillier things have happened before on the show. I would suggest, however, that if this is meant to be non-canon, most fans will nevertheless be "fooled" into thinking it was real, which the video's creators would surely have expected before unveiling it, considering its subtlety. I'd propose that this video was very clearly not meant to be an obvious, outright parody; it is, if anything, either a genuine (albeit) humorous piece of canon, or it's a hoax. One way or another, Cuse and Lindelof and ABC and the rest of the Lost team very clearly want us to believe that it's genuine: whether it is or not, then, we can't be expected to think that it's a hoax, because almost everything that's been fed to us has suggested otherwise. We can't treat suspicion as fact. -Silence 16:08, 30 July 2007 (PDT)

- The fact that they edited out the swearword for the official release leads me to think that it may be cannon, maybe they wrote it without the intention of showing it anywhere other than at comic con or through mobisodes, but then they decided to keep it.

- If i may go back to the splice of film where a man is riding on a bike upside down, Isn't this the same man who is also seen in the Orentation Film in the barracks, right before we see Dr Candle? It looks like the same piece of film but inserted upside down ?

Copyright

I've removed the copy of the video, because it is copyrighted and Comic Con attendees were instructed specifically not to record any footage on the screens. If people continue to record and distribute this footage, studios will stop showing it. Jimbo the tubby 11:25, 27 July 2007 (PDT)

I'm sure the latter comment isn't true but yes the video should be removed if they were instructed not to film there. However, I think there's no harm in a transcript as fans were allowed to see the vid. I've no doubt in the coming days or weeks the video will be made available elsewhere for fans who weren't able to attend Comic Con. --Nickb123 (Talk) 11:58, 27 July 2007 (PDT)

No, I agree that the transcript should be left up, it's just a matter of the video being copyrighted. Jimbo the tubby 12:00, 27 July 2007 (PDT)

For copyright purposes the transcript constitutes an infringement of copyright equal to the presentation of the video. There is no difference. You cannot legally make transcripts of copyrighted works without permission. There is no moral or legal difference between putting up the video or putting up the transcript. I think the video should go back up. Nobody goes to San Diego to keep things secret in the first place. Dharmatel4 21:59, 27 July 2007 (PDT)

The problem with the video is that people were specifically instructed not to record it. It is the producers' wish that the video not be made public, and as they hold the copyright it's their say. If you're going to argue that there's no copyright difference between the video and the transcript, then you should be arguing for the exclusion of the latter, not the inclusion of the former.Jimbo the tubby 22:26, 27 July 2007 (PDT)

What I have done is to tell what the law is with regard to copyrights. That is *not* an argument, it is a statement of the law. Transcripts of copyrighted works are as illegal as copies of the work itself. Your claim that "I think there's no harm in a transcript as fans were allowed to see the vid." is not a statement of law or fact. What you or anyone else decide to do with that information is your choice. You can choose to make an argument based on "producers wishes" or anything else. But don't suggest to people that this is "just a matter of the video being copyrighted" while at the same time saying that "there's no harm in a transcript". Dharmatel4 09:45, 28 July 2007 (PDT)

The proper video is now on ABC.com --Blueeagleislander 04:34, 28 July 2007 (PDT)

Just because something is funny doesn't make it a parody!

Lost contains numerous canonical jokes and brief bursts of silliness. We cannot simply assume that anything which fans find funny is automatically a non-canonical parody. No official source in any way states that this video was intended as parody, much less that it is not meant to be canon. Indeed, numerous indications within (its lack of overt satire and its hints are solutions to many island secrets, e.g., the numbered bunnies and the unnamed stations) and outside of the video (how it was presented) mark it as canon, even if some of it (mainly only the introductory "make-up" scene) seems like tongue-in-cheek humor. As a neutral encyclopedia, it is not our job to judge whether it's canon or not: we should simply report on official sources' statements on the matter, and let our readers decide what to believe.

For that reason, we should remove the "parody" banner from this page. Just because certain fans suspect that it's a parody (and the only real reason they suspect that is because the fans who watched the video laughed a few times, which hardly invalidates something as canon!) doesn't mean that we should state that suspicion as objective fact. -Silence 12:00, 27 July 2007 (PDT)

• Agreed. We don't know for sure either way. Regarding the parody tag, the uncertainty suggests we should not use it. Regarding the spoiler tag, the balance is a bit different, and I'd rather we err on the side of caution, since we have actually created the article outside of Season 4/spoilers. Therefore the spoiler tag has been restored now. -- ^Contrib¯ _Santa_ ¯  ^Talk  12:40, 27 July 2007 (PDT)

I think what D&C say right before the video is important. See Comic conventions transcript/Comic Con 2007 (not so aptly named but pfft, I transcribed it all in a major hurry to get it online). At the bottom they say about a vault in Narvik, Norway and stuff. Its interesting and makes me think its more important than first thought --Nickb123 (Talk) 13:17, 27 July 2007 (PDT)

I'll admit to being confused about the notion that this might not be canon. I listened to the podcast and then watched the verson of the film on ABC's site. Then I cam here and read the article and the talk page, and I have to say I was surprised to hear that the Con audience was laughing at points. So I hunted down a recording from the Con, and I sincerely don't understand what's leading people to laugh. It seems to me that the introduction and the film itself were fairly straight and not especially deviant from any other side-band canon we've gotten. --Bastion 08:24, 6 August 2007 (PDT)

Some things are just funnier when you're in a room of 6,000 people. Unexpected uses of the word "fuck" are funny. Seeing Marvin Candle having makeup put on, even though it's obviously something you would do if you're going to be in a film, just isn't something you think about so when you see it sort of poking fun at itself, it's funny. But to be honest, though I havn't watched the video since the convention, I remember there being many more gasps than giggles at what was happening on screen.Jimbo the tubby 20:01, 6 August 2007 (PDT)

Edward or Edgar?

Candle's first name sounds very clearly like "Edgar", not "Edward", to me (especially the first time, when it's not drowned out by laughter). Moreover, his surname doesn't sound much like "Hourwax" or "Ourwax"; for one, it sounds like it starts with a definite "h" sound (not a silent h as in "hour"), and it sounds like three distinct syllables—something like "Halowax". Edgar Halowax? -Silence 13:13, 27 July 2007 (PDT)

I think its Hourwax, but I must admit during transcription, I had to listen to it numerous times before agreeing on the eye witness accounts who said Edward. But it could be either really, its so hard to tell. --Nickb123 (Talk) 13:14, 27 July 2007 (PDT)

Listen to it again, comparing whether it sounds more like "Edward Hourwax" or "Edgar Hallowax". I become more and more convinced that it's something like the latter as I listen to it again. Eye-witness accounts can be wrong; they don't have the luxury of re-listening to it again and again. "Edward" seems like it's almost certainly a mishearing (I myself thought I heard "Edward" the first time around, but changed my mind after turning up the volume and listening more closely), and I suspect that "Hourwax" may in part be wishful thinking influenced by our knowledge that the Lost producers like making references to time. -Silence 13:20, 27 July 2007 (PDT)

By the way, here's something interesting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halowax

The eye-witness account though I think is a better source in terms of being able to hear it, its really muffled on film. But there's no definitive, it could be easier. To me its more Edward the first time, and Edgar the second. --Nickb123 (Talk) 13:25, 27 July 2007 (PDT)

I think it sounds much more like Edgar the first time; it's incredibly clear, really. If your volume's loud enough, you can hear a "G" in the middle of his name with absolute certainty; that rules out "Edward". (And the film's distortion tends to cause a warbling effect, so it seems more likely to turn a "G" into a "W" than vice versa.) That, plus the fact that "Halowax" is an actual product (as well as an actual surname), is enough to indicate to me that "Edgar Halowax" is the most plausible candidate, at least right now. I think we should list it, followed by "Edward Hourwax" and perhaps other variants; it's just as likely that someone would have a harder time hearing the name in the middle of an active audience as that they'd have an easier time, so I don't think we should rely on subjective anecdotes and memories over the recording itself. -Silence 13:33, 27 July 2007 (PDT)

• I believe the last name would be "Hourwax". I mean think about it Candle, Wickmund, and Hourwax. All semi-related. BETTYFIZZW (Talk) 14:05, 27 July 2007 (PDT)

• Why does that make you think that the name is "Hourwax" as opposed to "Halowax"? The only theme between the three names is candles, and "Hourwax" and "Halowax" are both equally candle-related: they both end in "wax". Moreover, "Halowax" has the advantage of being an actual name (albeit a company and product name), much like "Wickmund" and "Candle" are actual names. "Hourwax" is not an actual name, making it unlike the other names used by Candle; and it also has a reference to time (the "hour" part), whereas none of the other names have such a reference, explicitly. Most importantly, listen to the actual clip of the orientation film. The name sounds vastly more like "Halowax" than "Hourwax": it has a non-silent H at the start, and it's three syllables long. -Silence 14:12, 27 July 2007 (PDT)

• Whoops. I should have said then that it probably ends with "-wax". Because Halowax could work. Sorry about that. BETTYFIZZW (Talk) 14:27, 27 July 2007 (PDT)

• I agree. The first part of the name is debatable (I think, based on the above, that "Halo-" is more likely than "Hour-", but we can all agree that the second part is almost certainly "-wax". (A less likely possibility is "wicks".) -Silence 14:38, 27 July 2007 (PDT)

• I'd say Edgar Halowax or Haliwax. But definitely Edgar. --TPIMaster 16:54, 27 July 2007 (PDT)

• It's difficult to say what the second vowel would be, since it's pronounced as a schwa; it could be an a, an o, an i, etc. Likewise, it could just as easily be one or two l's. The only real reason I'm endorsing Halowax over Hallowax or Haliwax or similar is because "Halowax" is an actual word, and a potentially significant one. But in any case, we seem to agree that the clip's actual pronunciation overwhelmingly supports "Edgar Hal*wax" over "Edward Hourwax". -Silence 17:06, 27 July 2007 (PDT)

cloning?

While the article talks about clones of rabbits, there seems to be nothing in the transcript about it. What was the source for the clone related information?

On another subject, its worth noting that there is a comment on the blast door map: "Low priority zone for exploration: possible site for ground study of flora, fauna low relevance to Valenzetti-related research activity ". The Orchid's alleged purpose somewhat fits the description. Dharmatel4 15:50, 27 July 2007 (PDT)

Good point about BDM, as for the cloning thing, there was another rabbit on the shelf with a 15 on, implying a clone, but there was no mention in words of any cloning --Nickb123 (Talk) 16:28, 27 July 2007 (PDT)

For what it's worth, where you inferred "clone" I saw "time travel." Especially with an answer to "when" being "negative 20." --Bastion 08:11, 6 August 2007 (PDT)

Also it is important to notice that if the second rabbit was a clone, it would most likely not have the black fifteen on it, unless this was part of the original rabbit's genetic makeup, which is highly unlikely.--Yeti 17:32, 17 September 2007 (PDT)

If cloning isn't actually mentioned in the film, then the mere fact that they used the same number twice isn't conclusive evidence of anything; move all cloning ideas to The Orchid/Theories. Likewise, the idea that the Orchid corresponds to a certain part of the blast door map is a little too speculative to qualify as more than a theory; it should be proposed on /Theories as well. And, for that matter, I'd recommend moving all notions that this was a parody video to The Orchid/Theories too, since no official source has in any way implied such, making it a fan meta-theory if anything. Article pages should stick exclusively to the verified facts, to avoid confusion and misinformation. -Silence 17:03, 27 July 2007 (PDT)

Agree except on the bit about removing all reference to the notion of parody. The debate is canon-parody so removing all reference to one I don't agree with. There are undoubtedly parody elements, the argument against being they are video outtakes found in a Hanso building in Narvik. There's no harm in having a sentence like we have now suggesting the possibility of parody. A theory could expand on this questioning the video in its entirety. --Nickb123 (Talk) 17:17, 27 July 2007 (PDT)

That's reasonable, a brief mentioning of the parody speculation is fine. I just don't think we should have a blaring neon poster at the top of the article shouting "we don't know whether this is canon or parody", if there's absolutely no indication from any official source that this could be non-canonical. We should move the bulk of the "parody" speculation to The Orchid/Theories, and treat the video as serious until official reports indicate otherwise. A brief mentioning of the idea that it might be a joke is sufficient for the main "Orchid" page. Also, could we get an official source for specifically where the name "Edward Hourwax" came from, since it seems pretty clearly to be wildly different from the name used in the video in question. -Silence 20:02, 27 July 2007 (PDT)

Censorship?

Why is the word "fuck" being xed out in our transcript? It not only renders the transcript inaccurate, but misleads fans on the important fact that the language standards for this video are very different from those of a Lost episode: people reading the transcript will draw the conclusion from "f**k" that the word was beeped out in the video itself, when in fact it's just fans taking it upon themselves to censor out dialogue. -Silence 21:29, 27 July 2007 (PDT)

Yeah, I'll revert it but put Template:Warning on the top. --Blueeagleislander 21:34, 27 July 2007 (PDT)

The version on abc.com changes it to "what the hell?" Ehsteve23 04:19, 28 July 2007 (PDT)

But he definitely says "fuck". --Blueeagleislander 04:20, 28 July 2007 (PDT)

Casimir Effect

Interestingly enough, the Casimir effect was first mentioned on the - reportedly fake - site Mittelosbioscience.org. Maybe we should create a article on it, now? --Hunter61 23:08, 27 July 2007 (PDT)

Well, so far the two citations are a fake site and a possibly parody video, soI wouldn't do it until we get confirmation that the video was canon or it's mentioned in another canon source. --Blueeagleislander 02:44, 28 July 2007 (PDT)

There is nothing to say about the Casimir effect at the present time that warrants an article. All a new article could do is repeat the Wikipedia definition and list the two mentions of it in Lost related material. Dharmatel4 09:52, 28 July 2007 (PDT)

You make a good point: we have very little to go on regarding the Casimir effect to make an article about, other than to provide a simplified version of the Wikipedia article and to note its one or two mentionings in Lost.

However, that's hardly stopped us in any of our hundreds of other articles which basically do just that: whenever just about anything is briefly mentioned or referenced in Lost, such as a book title, we rush to create an article for it which is basically just a mini-Wikipedia page with a note to where it was referenced in Lost and perhaps a theory page. It seems unfair to ignore the Casimir effect when we have so many more trivial articles; it doesn't seem unlikely that this could become a crucially important part of the Lost universe, certainly more pressing than our dozens of articles on every nameless extra and the actors who play them and voice-act them in everylanguage! Here's something that actually has a lot of potential significance, even if there's not a lot of novel stuff to say about it yet.

On that basis, it seems like we should have some space devoted to explaining and mentioning the Casimir effect here. If we don't devote an entire article to it, how about an article on Physics discussing various Lost-related physics topic, and have one of the sections in that article be Physics#Casimir effect? -Silence 11:14, 28 July 2007 (PDT)

I actually agree with Hunter. I fell that the Casimir Effect will become something quite important in Lost and therefore should have it's own page, a page related to all the Physics involved in Lost would become far too cumbersome. If you read the wiki article on it there does, I think appear to be a link to some things Lost related already, for example in a development of the ever-smaller, miniaturised components such as those which could be used in a highly sophisticated security system and reading on, this security system could be controlled by The Casimir effect also because "the presence of conducting metals and dielectrics alter the vacuum expectation value of the energy of the second quantized electromagnetic field. Since the value of this energy depends on the shapes and positions of the conductors and dielectrics, the Casimir effect manifests itself as a force between such objects." This could be the purpose of The Swan and also other stations. Or I could be completely way off in my understanding of this whole concept too lol--Hotgirl 12:07, 28 July 2007 (PDT)

I agree too. I mean I tried to read Wikipedia's article on it, but either I'm too young or it's too scientific for my understanding so I'm hoping that who ever does make this article, makes it simple enough for others to understand. BETTYFIZZW (Talk) 12:23, 28 July 2007 (PDT)

I vote for giving the Casimir effect its own article. Especially due to the connection Wikipedia mentions between the Casimir effect and black holes, specifically Steven Hawking's work. As Steven Hawking's book has been spotted in an episode, this could be a big clue. Blakeeb 21:26, 29 July 2007 (PDT)

The things is: The Casimir effect is kind of hard to fully grasp and its purpose in Lost is even harder to understand. Personally, I am kind of excited to know how exactly the Casimir effect is supposed to be of interest for the Dharma Initiative. But for the article: I really don't think an article on the Casimir effect would help most of the people visiting Lostpedia. Stating "The Casimir effect is an effect in quantum-mechanics that results in two parallel plane metal plates being pushed towards each other in a vacuum by means of virtual particles and vacuum fluctuations" (which pretty much sums it up) will not really satisfy the reader as to how that plays out in Lost. And going on about vacuum-fluctuations etc. may sound pretty sci-fi, but won't help either. Until we know how exactly how the Lost-people fit the Casimir effect into the scenery, a separate article on it is not really necessary, IMHO. Michael 10:18, 11 August 2007 (PDT)

Just something to take note of, i was just reading over the wiki for the Casmir Effect and read this "Casimir effect and wormholes Exotic matter with negative energy density is required to stabilize a wormhole.[6] Morris, Thorne and Yurtsever[7] pointed out that the quantum mechanics of the Casimir effect can be used to produce a locally mass-negative region of space-time, and suggested that negative effect could be used to stabilize a wormhole to allow faster than light travel." Which may eventually help to explain Desmond and a lot of other island phenomena.--TheOrchid 12:40, 1 February 2008 (PST)

I took the liberty of creating the Physics page, with a Casimir effect section. I don't think it can hurt to have a page on Physics, there are a few things I put there that do not fit in the article on Science--Sentient nebula 11:39, 28 April 2008 (PDT)

The Swan Alarm

In the Comic Con version of the orientation video, when everything goes crazy, the warning alarm to enter the code is very loudly heard. The abc.com version has this omitted. There has been some very interesting speculation about the location of this set somewhere within the swan, perhaps behind the concrete wall. Note that Marvin Candle (Ed* Halowax) is wearing a swan lab coat.--Redkevin11 09:28, 28 July 2007 (PDT)

Yes, we should note the many differences between the two videos, and I think we should feature both videos on this page, so our readers can compare them. It seems to me that the ComicCon video is probably the "true" one, and the ABC one is different because they had to edit the sound in order to censor off the "fuck". It's very unlikely that the reverse would happen (the video originally having mild language, and being edited to interject the "fuck").

By the way, keep in mind that Candle almost always wears a Swan lab coat; he doesn't just wear it in the Swan's orientation video. So I don't see any basis for the speculation that the Orchid is the same station as the Swan; it's got a different number (6 vs. 3) and the fact that they have a similar alarm system could just be because they're both DHARMA Stations. -Silence 11:14, 28 July 2007 (PDT)

Actually Candle has worn different station patches on his lab coat. Example: in the Flame videos, he is wearing a "Flame" coat, but yeah he's worn the swan coat for the "Swan station" and he once wore it for the Barracks Orientation. (although he was wearing it for the Season two dvd menu orientation aswell, but i don't think that can count.)--Jabadibah 23:29, 29 July 2007 (PDT)

Crash

The object that crashes is a beaker. We see another similar beaker next to the rabbit on the shelf. - GoodRom 11:50, 28 July 2007 (PDT)

Spoilers?

Now that the video has been on ABC.com, does that still make it a spoiler? Shouldn't we treat the contents of the video in the same way we treat the official podcasts? Nick2010 14:41, 29 July 2007 (PDT)

I agree with the following, now it's basically like one of the LOST EXPERIENCE videos in a sense, they're not counted as spoilers, and neither should this, plus as Nick2010 mentioned it is on the ABC site.--Jabadibah 23:24, 29 July 2007 (PDT)

I agree. This seems very much like the Lost Experience, except even less spoilery than that. Just because these are teasers to get us excited about season 4 doesn't mean that they're truly spoilers. I just really can't imagine ABC posting anything to their official website that would spoil season 4 for Lost fans. In fact, what I'd really like to know is: is there any precedent for anything that has been posted to ABC being deemed a "spoiler"? -Silence 23:39, 29 July 2007 (PDT)

I was looking at the proposed spoiler policy page, and it says: "Plot summaries from ABC, promos for the show, and the Official Lost Podcast are not considered spoilers by Lostpedia and don't require spoiler warnings." Doesn't the Orchid video count as "promos for the show"? Nick2010 19:23, 1 August 2007 (PDT)

The fact that the producers officially showed it at SDCC and ABC put it on their website, to me, makes it official, not a spoiler.--Nevermore 05:11, 7 October 2007 (PDT)

Orchid Logo?

Can anyone get an enlargment of the logo patch on "Halowax's" assistants labcoat? It might be the orchid logo. I know that the one on Halowax/Candle's is a swan patch.

It looks like it's only really visible for a split-second. She's always holding the rabbit, or her arms are in the way, or she's simply not facing the camera. I'm no expert at picking images out of a single frame of video, but I'd imagine it would be pretty difficult to get anything more than a blurry smudge out of it. It's another "Canteen Logo" situation, I think. :) Personally, I'm just assuming she's wearing a Swan logo, or a generic DHARMA logo. --Shodan1138 13:25, 30 July 2007 (PDT)

Dharma Initiative Project Manual

Right here is a link to an article on DarkUFO's blog (under the rumors section I might also add) about pages from a supposed Dharma Initiative Project Manual on station 6 (which is The Orchid). It's written in Norwegian, but there is an attempt at translation. But there is also a logo. Now I'm no computer genius, but there are some out there on Lostpedia. But again it was under rumors so it may not be the real logo. BETTYFIZZW (Talk) 21:28, 2 August 2007 (PDT)

• After examining the translations, they seem to put a dent in my time-shifting theory (below) ... as Dr. Candle appears to be acting on the "in case of emergency" insructions of not keeping the bunnies annotated to corresponding "Valenzetti Equation Numbers" near each other. 15 shouldn't be close to another 15 (possibly a clone, possibly just being utilized as a "designated" subject for that number in the equation). Frankie Viturello 23:04, 9 August 2007 (PDT)

Voices at the start of the Broadcast

Indisctinct mutterings or more backwards talk? As far as my two cents goes, I think the video is canon - probably relating to the station where Walt was working on his astral projection/whatever which enabled him to be in two places at once... Sixtyten 03:50, 4 August 2007 (PDT)

Expanded Universe nav question

• What do you think, does this article belong in Template:Nav-Expanded? -- ^Contrib¯ _Santa_ ¯  ^Talk  21:55, 6 August 2007 (PDT)
• IMO, yep. Jimbo the tubby 22:41, 6 August 2007 (PDT)

Time Travel / Time Shifting

Taking into account that both bunnies have the same number on them, one bunny suddenly "appears" off-camera on the shelf, Dr. Candle / Halowax's reaction and concern to the spatial relationship of both bunnies, the logo on the "Looking Glass" Dharma station (A bunny with a clock - which, yes, I'm aware is a separate station altogether, as well as an allusion to Lewis Carroll's Alice in Wonderland) and the frantic question and answer dialouge about how much the "shift" was "set" (-20 ... 20 what? Minutes?) ... one could discern that the Orchid station contains some type of TIME-TRAVEL or TIME-SHIFTING experimentation equipment in addition to cloning technology.

While this is purely theoretical, it could shed some light on the startling visual similarity between Jacob and John Locke, as well as Jacob's interest and disposition towards the survivors of Flight 815 (If Jacob is future Locke, he'd obviously know a lot about the survivors personal information, pasts, etc.). Perhaps in season 4 or beyond, Locke becomes stuck in some type of paradoxical looping time-travel, which not only allows him unlimited knowledge about the survivors of 815, but also an assumed "omniscience" similar to what Bill Murray's character exhibited in the movie "Groundhog Day". And, perhaps, as referenced in other science fiction, time-traveling characters are often cautioned against direct physical contact with a past or future self (in "Back to the Future" Doc Brown comically cautions Marty McFly that if he were to see himself in the past, it COULD unravel the very fabric of time itself), hence the extreme reaction from Dr. Candle. Frankie Viturello 22:52, 9 August 2007 (PDT)

When I was reading A Brief History of Time, in the chapter Wormholes and Time Travel, it talks about how time travel might be possible by using an Einstein-Rosen bridge or wormholes. The problem is that the bridge closes to quickly to be of any use. However it has been suggested that it might be possible to keep the hole open by using negative energy density. An example of how the quantum theory can allow negative energy densities is provided by the Casimir effect. And what is The Orchid studying? The Island’s unique properties that aided a kind of Casimir effect. Ipso facto time travel. Faraday 17:34, 29 April 2008 (PDT)

He told me to keep the camera running

I was just wondering. Who could "He" be? Jacob perhaps? Just a thought.--Baker1000 16:12, 10 August 2007 (PDT)

Well, there's nothing that PROVES that it's not Jacob, but I am pretty sure that it isn't. "He" could be virtually anyone. Maybe the person in charge of the recording of the orientation films, some kind of director? Michael 09:48, 11 August 2007 (PDT)

What are the rules for spoilers in this article?

With the addition of the logo, the article now goes beyond the orientation film directly into spoiler information from season four. Was/is it intended that season 4 spoilers should be in this article? Dharmatel4 14:46, 10 December 2007 (PST)

No, what exactly do you see that you consider a spoiler. If it was revealed in the orientation video it is not a spoiler.-Mr.Leaf 17:04, 10 December 2007 (PST)

As far as I'm aware, the DHARMA logo for the orchid didn't appear in the orientation film. There are season four photos floating around now where it does however appear (exactly as in this article). I personally think the symbol should go into season four spoilers and be left of out of this article. Dharmatel4 17:31, 10 December 2007 (PST)

Didn't even notice it. It's been removed. -Mr.Leaf 19:15, 10 December 2007 (PST)

Is this a true SPOILER?

Something is to be considered spoiler if it reveals information about future episodes. Does the video reveal informations about Season 4? Was the video originally designed to appear in Season 4? I'd like to know that before watching it. So please help me.--Oliverdevor 08:43, 22 January 2008 (PST)

The video contains information relivant to season 4. It is a spoiler. The video was intended as something to increase interest in season 4 but I think its unlikely the video will directly appear in Season 4. Dharmatel4 09:22, 22 January 2008 (PST)

Ok, thanks for the quick answer. I guess I won't watch it right now.--Oliverdevor 10:26, 22 January 2008 (PST)

Not a spoiler

Due to the changes in spoiler policy. As this information was released for official consumption at Comic-Con, the ABC Website and on the Season 3 DVD, the information contained within is no longer classed as a spoiler. HOWEVER. This is only the information that has so far been released, and not future information about this station. Regards.  Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  08:41, 19 February 2008 (PST)

Are the trivia relevant?

There's a wonderfully in-depth trivia section on orchids in this article, but I fail to see how it relates to Lost. What would y'all think about that section being significantly pared down? Datameister 17:45, 16 May 2008 (PDT)

I agree. I looked through it and couldn't find anything at all relatable to Lost or the Orchid Station. Unless there's something about Orchids that is similar to an aspect of the Lost mythology, or something about them has to do with moving islands or teleportation, I don't think we need it. --Jackdavinci 22:04, 16 May 2008 (PDT)

So trivia on actual orchids is irrelevant, but trivia on an Old Navy dress called Orchid is relevant? Someone want to explain that to me? -- Michael Lucero * Talk * Contributions

The Greenhouse

Is it possible that the surface greenhouse did have some degree of botanical research (though focus of course was put on the lower levels of the station) going on in it even though it was a facade? I know Dr. Candle said the station wasn't a botanical research station, but could he have just been refering to the lower levels of the Orchid? And why go to all that trouble in building and maintaining a greenhouse and do absolutely nothing with it if it had no purpose other than to be a facade? --The Cartographer 22:44, 17 May 2008 (PDT)

You're probably right. There must have been DHARMA staff tending to the plants, although I guess we have to assume that they would know about about the subterranean area if the lift is accessed through the main greenhouse. A façade, by definition, is a deceptive front, so it's unlikely that they'd go to such efforts to build the greenhouse and then not maintain the front by doing botanical work. Question is though, who were they trying to fool? Presumably other DHARMAites (think of the deceptions between the Pearl and Swan), but it does seem odd to have a magical invisible island and then need to have secret areas painstakingly hidden on it. So was it to hide their biggest secret from the 'Hostiles', or from each other? Hopefully we'll find out soon, but I have a horrible feeling we'll be left hanging for months until out anything significant about what DHARMA were really up to.--TechNic|talk|conts 23:03, 17 May 2008 (PDT)

• If they did have some form of Botanical research then what they probably did was swear those staff to secrecy about what was going on below them. Also if it was supposed to be a secret, it was probably because it was potentially dangerous. I mean if you were to tell hundred paid scientist, workers and so forth that if something goes wrong at this station they could all die, I bet you wouldn't have very many people working there. --The Cartographer 12:00, 18 May 2008 (PDT)

Old Navy Reference

It's silly that this little bit of useless coincidental trivia is in the "Introduction and presentation" section of this page. It belongs with other trivia, if at all. It was 'completely' coincidental that the dress shown had the word "orchid" in its advertised name. Yes, I know there's no such dress listed on the site, and no, I don't understand that. But I've seen that commercial all day and night and I'd seen it at least 10 times before May 15th's episode aired. I'm removing it. -- Voo 00:41, 18 May 2008 (PDT)

Unanswered Questions

The unanswered questions in this article seem to mix both the Orchid and the Frozen wheel. Has it been agreed whether they should be clearly seperated? - as the wheel obviously has little to do with Dharma.--LOST-4 (Talk) 14:21, 3 June 2008 (PDT)

A Vault Section?

In my humble opinion, there would be the way to create an its own section for The Vault, as it seems to be a great importance in the (past)-story of The Island. What do you think about this?-- Dottorcere  talk  contributions 

The vault is just the experimental chamber that Ben blew up. It's part of the Orchid lab and doesn't need it's own article. The frozen chamber is not part of the Orchid and deserves it's own article, but it seems to be covered by the frozen wheel article which for some reason is named after the device and not the location. --Jackdavinci 22:32, 20 June 2008 (PDT)

Wrong logo

Secondary Protocol has the correct non-parka Orchid logo

The orientation film also has the correct non-parka orchid logo

Another incorrect Orchid logo in Daniel's notebook

The logo that is used in the infobox is not the same as seen on Ben's Parka:

Parka (make sure you see the right side as the top)	Logo on parka	Logo used in The Orchid and seen on the Secondary protocol

I think that we should take the logo in the middle for the infobox because it matches with the logo on the Parka. --       06:44, 15 July 2008 (PDT)

That backwards Orchid logo was obviously a production error. the logo on the right (ie the official logo) is the proper Orchid logo. --The Cartographer 10:35, 15 July 2008 (PDT)

• • I don't believe it is a simple prop error. I think the trigrams have been purposely changed.

Parka before turning TFDW [1] Parka after landing in Tunisia[2] Another shot of the parka[3]--Kansasgal71 15:58, 15 July 2008 (PDT)

Think about the amount of production time that passed between those episodes. "The Shape of Things to Come" aired over a month before "There's No Place Like Home, Part 2", but it could have been much longer in production. A simple patch on a jacket can be knocked out much easier than the entire Orchid set. The patch was a production error, not the official logo. This is not unprecedented, as we have a Swan logo w/ a backwards R, Horace's jumpsuit w/ an inverted Arrow logo, the Hydra logo in red on the ABC store, etc. And you are forgetting two other instances of the Orchid's logo that support the non-parka version; that is, the Orchid logo that appeared on the cover of the Secondary Protocol and the logo from the Orientation film. Refer the the thumbed screen shots above. If we use apply Occam's Razor and examine both theories (parka is correct, it means something new, and all other symbols are wrong vs. the parka alone is a prop error) and pick the one with the least assumptions, then you'd see that the parka is clearly an error. Again, if you want to go with the parka simply b/c it was seen first, remember it was seen out of order, as it takes place after the events at the Orchid station using the in-show timeline. Not to mention that the sketch of the logo in Daniel's notebook predates all other occurrences of it.  Kevrock   talk  contribs   16:11, 15 July 2008 (PDT)

• You are correct that the Orchid Logo is the same on Keamy's notebook, Daniel's notebook, on the video and originally on the Parka. But why use two different Parkas with two different logos? I have been wrong before, but I believe this was done on purpose. Because the parka's logo is the same prior to turning the FDW and different from all the other logos after turning the FDW and in a timeframe that is months after all the other logos are seen. --Kansasgal71

Again, lets compare both theories: Either theory one, there is a secret meaning behind the parka logo changing and they planned this months in advance and showed this mysterious logo four episodes before; or theory two, it was a simple production error from a prop made months before the actual station and orientation video was seen in the show. I think I'll go with theory two.  Kevrock   talk  contribs   21:23, 15 July 2008 (PDT)

• • I suppose we will continue to disagree with this. I happen to be one that believes that the two different photo's of Desmond and Penny (not the different photo of a different actress, but the two different photos on Orientation and Flashes Before Your Eyes) and the difference of the picture frames on the photos on Mrs. Gardner's stairs in Confirmed Dead are very deliberate moves on the part of TPTB to show how minor changes result from changing the past.--Kansasgal71 09:24, 16 July 2008 (PDT)
    • I dunno about the frames in Mrs. Gardner's house, but I'm pretty sure that TPTB acknowledged that Penny's photo was because they hadn't hired Sonya Walger yet, since it was edited for the rebroadcast and the DVD. I'm on dialup right now, so I'm not about to go digging through transcripts to find it, but I have a feeling it was in one of the season 2 commentaries.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  10:49, 16 July 2008 (PDT)
      • But Miles didn't change anything in time, Kevrock. He asked a ghost where some drugs and money were, and to stop haunting the house. And why exactly would Ben turning a wheel, and getting thrown nearly ten months into the future result in the reversal of a DHARMA logo? I'm guessing if the island got thrown back to the 70's that Locke reverses the logos which is part of a giant plot to overthrow the DI? Of course not! --The Cartographer 11:20, 16 July 2008 (PDT)
  • I should have made myself a bit more clear. I am not talking about the photo of the different actress portraying Penny. There are two different photos of Desmond and Penny. Desmond's Photo [4] And the frames going up the stairs [5] frames changed [6] Please double check you information before posting.--Kansasgal71 12:35, 16 July 2008 (PDT)
    • Sorry, my mistake. I wasn't aware of an (alleged) continuity error surrounding the photo other than the actress.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  15:55, 16 July 2008 (PDT)
      • No problem. I honestly though I was wrong and had to go back and double check. And to be honest, I could see a good argument for a prop error. But it is still being argued, as well as other so called prop error. Either way, I do think the two Orchid Logo's are not a prop error.--Kansasgal71 17:07, 16 July 2008 (PDT)
        • If they ever do acknowledge there was a difference in any of these (Orchid logo, Penny pix, or frames), then what would most likely happen would be a retcon of it into the story (i.e., they will purposefully write the story to accommodate the production error). So that's why we try to document the error first, then wait and see if it's ever addressed. Here's another one: the Swan gun vault. When we first saw it, it was basically a closet w/ a gun rack. Then when "Henry Gale" cam ealong, all of the sudden it had a bed and enough room for like 3 people to stand in it. Or how about the AV equipment in the Swan? An entirely different record player appeared between episodes.  Kevrock   talk  contribs   06:20, 17 July 2008 (PDT)******Kevrock, I agree with you. What about Charlie saying he could not swim, and in later episodes we see him swimming? There will be prop errors. The hard part is trying to figure out what is an error and what is a clue? I would simply like to see BOTH Orchid Logo's presented until we know positively it was a simple prop error.
• Here is an interesting find. If you rotate the "NEW" orchid logo 90 degrees counter-clockwise, and assume the word Dharma stands in for a broken line, then only two trigrams are different. The upper right and the middle left. Does this point out the the island is in the same place, only rotated?--Kansasgal71 15:46, 19 July 2008 (PDT)

So what exactly does a a messed up Orchid logo have to do with the island being turned around? No offense, but your theory is pure conjecture and has no evidence to back it up. Just a messed up logo. Besides we all saw the island quite literally disappear, not turn itself around. --The Cartographer 12:51, 21 July 2008 (PDT)

• • There have been many discussions about the 305 and 325 bearing. This is not a new theory, nor did I think of it myself. I am simply stating that the Orchid Logo's trigram arrangement changed after Ben turned the FDW. We do not yet know if it is a simple prop error or has purpose and meaning. Until TPTB directly debunk this, either by a statment, or showing a Dharma Logo in its original form on a timeline that is after Ben turned the FDW. There are many theories as to what meaning there is behind the changing of the trigrams. One of which is that the island is in the same place, only the bearing needed to go to or leave the island has changed. Another is that this reflects the numbers themselves changing. I cannot back up any of these theories with evidence, as to the fact that they are "Theories". Just as the theory of Exotic Matter on the island was a much laughed at theory. I myself dismissed it. So, until otherwise debunked. The two different arrangments of the trigrams should be shown in connection with the Orchid.--Kansasgal71 14:28, 21 July 2008 (PDT)

There is a new trigram arrangement for the Dharma Logo's shown at the Dharma booth at SD ComicCon. Is this proof the logo has changed? Is this new logo cannon?--Kansasgal71 10:58, 24 July 2008 (PDT)

Well, it isn't exactly a trigram, but it definitely implies one. ARG stuff is considered "Expanded Universe" material and is considered "semi-canon". Refer to the Canon article.  Kevrock   talk  contribs   12:43, 25 July 2008 (PDT)

• Thanks for the info Kevrock!!--Kansasgal71 15:42, 25 July 2008 (PDT)

With the new Trigram arrangement on the new Dharma logo. Does this seem more plausible?--Kansasgal71 16:34, 1 August 2008 (PDT)

UQ Cleanup

• Why does he have a sketch of the Orchid logo in his journal? Redundant with why/how he knows about the Orchid.
• When Ben flashed his mirror, who was flashing back? Not a question about the Orchid.
• How successful was DHARMA in using the Orchid to travel through space and time? It worked, didn't it?
• How did the wheel move the island? If you're looking for scientific answer, it's not going to happen.
• Where did the light emanating in the walls come from? Reworded into a question about the discharge.
• When Ben moved the wheel why did the sky turned a light purple with a noisy sound exactly like what happened to the Swan by turning the failure key? Reworded into a question about the discharge.
• Is there is any relationship between The Orchid And The Swan Station? Leading question.
• Is everyone/creature moves the island being transferred to Sahara Desert in Tunisia? Leading question (and poorly worded at that).
  • If so why Tunisia in specific? Sub-question of question that was removed.
• Can the mover control the transferrings time? If he could, then Ben would have known the date in "The Shape of Things to Come".
• How did Ben successfully guessed that he has been teleported to 2005? Not a major mystery.
• What is the risk in moving the Island? Redundant with earlier question.
• What are the ancient lithographs in the cave? Merged with following question.
  • Who inscribed those and why ? Merged with previous question.

 Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  15:25, 10 November 2008 (PST)

• Why is the cave below the station frozen?

I doubt we will ever get an answer other than "because of the properties of exotic matter", see [7]. --Hugo815 21:31, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Orchid well

How do we know "From at least 1988 onward, the well did not exist." Can we get a reference on that? JamesyWamesy 03:50, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

• Good question. We only know that the well doesn't exist yet in the time period Sawyer, Juliet and Miles are after the last flash. --SteUeRunG! 10:48, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Should it be mentioned that in the statue-era, thanks to Sawyer holding onto it during the timeflash that brought them there (but not holding it during the one that took them to 1974), the well rope was left behind, effectively marking the spot where the well would later be built? It appears that the whoever built the well to begin with would've used the "mysterious old rope in the ground" in choosing to build it there. LOST-Gilgamesh 13:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Station was NOT destroyed in future

I removed a line in the article stating that the greenhouse was destroyed in the future, citing This Place is Death. Remember, that time flash occurred BEFORE the station was built, not after. We know this because the a), the ancient well was present in this flash and b), no ruins of the station were seen.--Linus2342 19:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Wasn't the greenhouse destroyed as per the end of season 4? (So the sentence you removed would be partially accurate, just without the part about "in the future" and the reference to "This Place Is Death".)  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  21:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Ben last visit?

Ben visited the last time in Because You Left, not There's No Place Like Home parts 2 & 3.--Station7 23:10, October 30, 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I'm confused about the official definition of a "last visit", but I would think an episode wouldn't count if the only appearance of a character in a station is in a flashback of a scene we've already seen. Like in this case, "Because You Left" merely showed quick clips from "There's No Place Like Home" when Ben and Locke were in the Orchid. Ben didn't return to the Orchid in "Because You Left", he was merely recapping his last visit. Or has it already been established on this site that a "last visit" just means the last episode in which we saw the character in the station, regardless of when it occurred in the story? --Celebok 08:23, October 31, 2009 (UTC)

I believe it is correct to say that the last visit was "There's No Place Like Home, Part 2", the last real time visit. Even if there is a flashback to 1985 where Ben visits the Orchid, his last visit in Ben's chronological timeline would be in the Season 4 finale.--Baker1000 13:42, October 31, 2009 (UTC)

But Nikki, Locke, Paulo, Desmond and Sayids last visited from the Pearl was in Exposé, however this is from archive footage from The Cost Of Living.--Station7 14:55, November 1, 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed that on the Pearl page, and if what Baker1000 says is true, then that page is also wrong on those points. --Celebok 08:54, November 2, 2009 (UTC)