We are all guessing Sayid has been claimed by MIB yet when he died and a dead Jacob told Hurley to take him to the temple, we all asumed Jacob would take Sayid's body. The evidence why it still might be Jacob inside Sayid is that MIB can copy dead bodies(Locke) and dosnt just need to take over one dead body. --Markblur1 11:32, February 20, 2010 (UTC)markblur1

Edits to the Theory page by User:Cgmv123

I do not know this editor, but the current structure of the theory page is mainly as a result of his/her edits. several of my articles have been removed to other pages, some completely inappropriately, becuse they are not in the right place - apparently. What is left seems to me highly inappropriate, mainly becuse there is little theorising and lots of discussion and disagreement. I thinki the 'theory page' is now shorter, but a mess.

There is an issue here which I do agree with, and that is that Episode/Theories should theories about material introduced in that episode, and not general theories about people which could have been put on at any point. However, and here is the issue, when something happens, such as a new character being introduced (or an alt version of an old character), where exactly is the best place to put a theory about that character?

I would contend that the best place to put such a theory is on the theory page for that episode and not to put it on an already existing page, where it is likely to get lost.

--Sean Sheep 15:21, February 15, 2010 (UTC)

Pictogram reply Theory pages for episodes have been unreadable, discussion is happening right with theories. We want to discourage that. Look at this revision of the LA X theories page, It's unreadable. I was able to go through, move about two-thirds of the content to character and concept pages, and now the page is better and easier to understand. Looking back, I could have moved even more of it. The theory policy says that theories about Jacob should go on the Jacob theory page, not a theory page for an episode he was seen in. That's what's always been done. Theories about new characters should go on the theory page for that character. cgmv123TalkContribsE-mail 15:30, February 15, 2010 (UTC)
Pictogram replyYes, but editing is not just about removing chunkis of pages to other pages, it's about systematic examination of material, and choosing what is relevant an what isn't. If the rule is 'no discussion on theory pages', then the discussion should be REMOVED altogether, not just spirited away to another theory page, where it is still out of place. --Sean Sheep 15:53, February 15, 2010 (UTC)

see below for analsyis of page as it exists as of Feb 25th 1530.

I have annotated the material to show exactly what the sections are about

'==Everything that happens is supposed to happen/fate=='

Statement of Theory:

Everything that happens is supposed to happen/fate such as: Ethan Rom/Goodspeed being involved with the birth of Aaron, Kate being there/helping to deliver Aaron, Aaron being born to Claire, not aborted or given away, Sawyer being alone and without love, Kate becoming friends with Clair

Contra-indications, rebuttals and Contra-rebuttals:

    • Not EVERYTHING is supposed to happen. For example Hurley is now lucky.
      • Hurley just states that he's lucky, maybe he was SUPPOSED to win the lottery, but didn't use the cursed numbers this time. Maybe if the island sunk, the numbers never made it off the island.
        • Hurley himself was always lucky. It's just that now, nothing is happening to those around him, so the numbers (if they are the same numbers) are not cursed. He could have even still had the balcony accident, worked through it at Santa Rosa or elsewhere and still consider himself now the luckiest guy alive.
    • "Destiny" is a combination of chance occurances and active determination, hence the allusion to backgammon which is a game of chance and skill. The universe loosely follows a course, but every individual has the opportunity to take active or passive roles along that course.
    • Certain significant events that happened on the island will happen in the alternate timeline.
      • Locke will be able to walk again.
        • This was already foreshadowed with Jack giving Locke his business card. Jack has already healed a seemingly irreversible paralysis in the original timeline (his ex-wife Sarah), and we can (possibly) assume that he has this same power in the new timeline.
      • Boone will be reconciled with his sister
      • Charlie will die


  • Artz is going to play a bigger role. He was a red shirt many episodes ago and has been seen in the first three hours of season 6.

Contra-indications, rebuttals and Contra-rebuttals:

    • Artz has often appeared as a cross-referencing source of comic relief. Ever since his death, he has made appearances for the sake of an in-joke (most prominently in Expose). I'm not trying to discount this theory, but I think it's very possible that he's merely showing up for comic effect in the same way that the Always Sunny in Philadelphia other reappeared in this episode. If anything, my guess is that Artz will die in the new timeline just as he did in the original timeline.
      • And, he will die in a similar fashion as in the original timeline: It will be a darkly-comic death that benefits the survivors in some way. (Making him a tragic hero within his role as comic relief.)
        • Ditto for Frogurt.

As can be seen, the section actually contains two different theories, the second of which is nothing to do with fate. A proper editing of this page would remove all the comments and challenges, leaving only the statement of the theories. This I have done below, and, I believe makes the sections all the better for it.

'==Everything that happens is supposed to happen/fate=='

Everything that happens is supposed to happen. Fate dictates events such as: Ethan Rom/Goodspeed being involved with the birth of Aaron, Kate being there/helping to deliver Aaron, Aaron being born to Claire, and not aborted or given away, Kate becoming friends with Clair. The reasoning behind this theory is that "Destiny" is a combination of chance occurances and active determination, hence the allusion to backgammon which is a game of chance and skill. The universe loosely follows a course, but every individual has the opportunity to take active or passive roles along that course.

The conseqence of this theory is that certain significant events that happened on the island will happen in the alternate timeline, for example: Locke will be able to walk again. This has already been foreshadowed by Jack giving Locke his business card, Jack having already healed a seemingly irreversible paralysis in the original timeline (his ex-wife Sarah); we can (possibly) assume that he has this same power in the new timeline. Boone will be reconciled with his sister, and Charlie will die

'==Theory about Ardzt=='

Artz is going to play a bigger role. He was a red shirt many episodes ago and has been seen in the first three hours of season 6, and he will die in a similar fashion as in the original timeline: It will be a darkly-comic death that benefits the survivors in some way. (Making him a tragic hero within his role as comic relief.)

I personally do not actually think the second theory is much of a theory, and in the scheme of things, I would not want it in. However, I would not want to remove it.--Sean Sheep 15:50, February 15, 2010 (UTC)

Pictogram reply I put it in quote form to separate it from other discussion on this page. I am only moving when I edit theory pages. A lot of the "counterpoints" are borderline discussion. All of the Artz (not artdz) theories could go on the Artz theory page. Other editors take care of discussions. I am not the only one doing this. Many other editors want to keep the theory pages clean. Also, placing big quotes like this is borderline spam. cgmv123TalkContribsE-mail 16:02, February 15, 2010 (UTC)
Pictogram reply Oh come on, spam??? I was demonstrating clearly my point, and what is more in doing so, I have produced a 'clean' version of that part of the page. I have respected your edits, and diod not do it on the original page: I would expect the same from you. There is no reason for the spam comment. It was quite clear what I was trying to achieve. Your comment verges on flame.--Sean Sheep 16:09, February 15, 2010 (UTC)

My other question, is that why, specfically, is the "fate" theory a theory about What kate Does. It could well have fitted into a theory about Fate in Lost, or about the Flash-Sideways Timeline, or been split up and put into theories about Locke, Jack and/or Boone & Shannon. In other words, this isn't actually a theory about the events of a specific episode, so much as an old theory that has found resurgence in the events that have just occurred. I would therefore ask: should it be on here at all??--Sean Sheep 16:05, February 15, 2010 (UTC)

There's an article called Fate versus free will. Fate theories would fit on it's theory page nicely. cgmv123TalkContribsE-mail 16:11, February 15, 2010 (UTC)
Pictogram reply OK. Suppose that goes there. Now suppose I do the same for the other sections. My point is: "What exactly are we left with?" I don't think we have a coherent policy here, and until we have, you can't edit. This is clearly an inappropriate place to have this discussion, but where, on this Wiki is there such a discussion and such a policy?--Sean Sheep 16:28, February 15, 2010 (UTC)
We have a theory policy. All of my edits have been in the name of that policy. cgmv123TalkContribsE-mail 16:30, February 15, 2010 (UTC)
  • First, Cgmv123's move is not breaking LP's theory policy and because of LP's and WP's Be bold rule he didn't actually make anything wrong, so stop accusing him of making the article inappropriate. Also to answer your question Sean Sheep about your question, "What exactly are we left with?". Well we're left with just what the title suggests theories about that particular episode, about actions taken by the characters in that episode ex. "Why did X lie to Y?" and other questions and theories that could very easily be put on the theory pages of more than one article. I don't think something as directly names as "Fate vs. Free Will" shouldn't be moved to Fate vs Free Will's theories. Also theories about events, items and locations without articles on LP (which usually only have one appearance) and have theories about them on the theory articles of the episodes they appeared in. --Orhan94 19:06, February 15, 2010 (UTC)
Pictogram reply Completely disagree. Giving an editor 5 minutes to respond, otherwise your article will be removed altogether is not a responsible way to go about editing. If this is LP policy, then it this policy is WRONG and should be changed. Secondly, as I have argued constantly, there are NO COHERENT GUIDELINES as to what constitutes an episode theory and what constitutes a theory about an object, person or event. In the absence of such guidelines, moving material around the wiki is arbitrary at best, vandalism at worst. I contend that theories about episodes should remain more or less intact, providing that they abide by the general theory guidelines (ie they are not discussions, and they are not simply repetitions of theories elsewhere). Edit yes, remove NO. --Sean Sheep 23:01, February 15, 2010 (UTC)
  • How bout we just completely remove the entire theory page? Since most of the theories were comepletely removed and I enjoyed reading them BEFORE. Now it's all political BS. How do you decide which theories stay and which ones go? I posted a theory under a new catagory in What Kate Does/Theories and it was erased completely. I talked about how Jack and Kate recognized each other and that in future episodes Desmond, via "reality flashes" would help the survivors make right. I stated it as if it were a fact. Why was it completely removed? QClaireful 23:27, February 15, 2010 (UTC)
I moved it to here where it's more appropriate and fits better. It's a great theory. cgmv123TalkContribsE-mail 23:36, February 15, 2010 (UTC)
Essentially, I try to move whatever I can. The less is on the page, the better. Usually, I'll put a link that says "Alt Ethan" "See Ethan Goodspeed/Theories" cgmv123TalkContribsE-mail 23:40, February 15, 2010 (UTC)
This is getting ridiculous. We have one or two people gutting the entire theory page to make it 'more readable' when 90% of the users of the wiki prefer it in it's original state. Who exactly are these editors catering to? isn't the whole point of a wiki that it's a COMMUNITY PROJECT? and thus the will of the COMMUNITY should be what rules things like this? I can see some tidying up, but gutting the theory page like this is NOT what people want.... DraveShift 02:03, February 16, 2010 (UTC)
We're conforming to policy. cgmv123TalkContribsE-mail 02:12, February 16, 2010 (UTC)
If the policy of the wiki isn't what the users of that wiki want, then the policy is no good. DraveShift 02:15, February 16, 2010 (UTC)
As I keep saying time after time after time after time: If you actually read the guidelines for posting theories, they say nothing which is specific to episode theory pages. I contend that there are no clear guidelines as to what should, and should not be on an episode theory page, other than the general guidelines for posting theory . It is clear that one or two editors are arrogant enough to think they do know; however, when challenged no one has come up with a coherent statement which distinguishes between a theory which would be allowed on an episode theory page, and one which wouldn't. In fact most of the people posting original theories on the episode pages were abiding by the criteria. What has gone wrong is all the people who posted replies inappropriately on the theory page, and not on the discussion page. --Sean Sheep 11:10, February 16, 2010 (UTC)

Kate and Sawyer's Conversation at the Dock

Is it just me, or did Kate ask Sawyer if that was the house he lived in with Juliet? This struck me as odd - Kate was part of Dharma as well, and lived near Juliet and Sawyer. By their timeline, they would have only left Dharmaville a few days before this conversation took place. Is there something to this, amd I reading too much into it, or did the flash make Kate an idoit?--Mr. Squinty 14:23, February 10, 2010 (UTC)

I think it might have been hard to recognize which house Sawyer lived in, after all they were looking at the houses 30 years later and they might have been altered a bit, especially after all the fighting and explosions from the end of season 4. 14:31, February 10, 2010 (UTC)RobineagleRobineagle 14:31, February 10, 2010 (UTC)
I realized that too, but I figured Kate was just trying to comfort Sawyer.--Lostbrotha 14:48, February 10, 2010 (UTC)
I think this was one of those necessary lines of dialogue that was more for the audience than anyone else. Still, not too blatant, and one can imagine Kate actually saying that to break the silence--Ryanimel 08:08, February 11, 2010 (UTC).

Ethan and crossed Timelines

Ethan = Ethan Goodspeed. In the original version, Ethan's parents were Amy & Horace, but she only married Horace after the Hostiles had killed off Amy's husband Paul, Amy being rescued by Sawyer and Juliet. Unless we are going to get a second bout of time travel, in which Sawyer and Juliet return to 1974 and rescue Amy again (unlikely as the producers have said the time travel season is over) then

  • (a) This is probably the first indication that this timeline is the one which occurs POST 'incident', and Ethan is there as a result of being evacuated from the island, either on the sub, or in some other way. However, the Miles and Charlotte who arrived at the island on the freighter were both evacuated from the island just before the incident. We would therefore expect that the timeline that has Ethan working in the hospital (and not dead) should have a Miles and Charlotte also (even possibly a Faraday). Given that these two were recruited by Widmore to go to the island, should we not expect that to occur in this timeline also? (Would these be the same Miles, Charlotte and Faraday who arrived on the island in the original timeline?)
    • In fact we know that Ethan and Amy were evacuated to the mainland along with Mrs. Chang, Miles, Charlotte and her family and the rest. When Jughead went off, Ethan never returned and was raised there like Charlotte and Miles with little to no memory of having been there. With the island at the bottom of the ocean, there was nothing to cause Ethan to join the Others as a young man or to change his name. Because he was still the same person with the same talents, skills and interests he became an OB/GYN in both timelines.
      • We don't actually know this. See this section, which simply speculates about whether Ethan was evacuated during the incident. In fact the opposite could very well be the case. This section documents the fact that young Ethan and Ben were delegated by Widmore to kill Danielle's child. This means that in at least one of the timelines, Ethan was on the island in 1989. This means that he would have had to have left in 1977 and returned at a later date. However, this does not alter my original point, however, the point at which he he was evacuated (never to return, or at least not be killed), involves a change to the timeline, and this could occur no earlier than 1977, This has the result that the events in hospital in What Kate Does occur POST incident, and probably as a result of the losties' action in 1977.
  • (b) If this is not the case, and Ethan was born on the mainland, then this means that this alternative timeline has been in existence since at least the time of Ethan's conception and probably earlier. This means that the timeline was created prior to the incident (since Juliet helped to deliver Ethan first time around). In other words, if this is the case, the incident had nothing to do with the creation of this new timeline.
    • It is possible that Ethan was born off the island to the 'same' Amy and Horace (we did see Horace in Portland). In this case it is possible that Amy was never married to Paul, or he still died, therefore Ethan had no choice of his last name.
      • Yes, but the point remains, that if this occurs off the island, then this timeline has been in existence since before 1977, as the original Ethan was born on the island. I reiterate: if this is the case, the incident had nothing to do with the creation of this new timeline
        • This is exactly what I am imagining. There is no multiple parallel time-lines – “…but you cannot create a new string”, right? I have posted this somewhere else but here it is: try this: draw a straight line (which represents time, and therefore history) and a circle next to it that at one point touches the line. This circle is the Island’s time line, which is rather a loop. So, the loop, which repeats itself with additional events every time. Dates and times do not match on the island and in all the remaining world, we know that. Jacob seems to be concerned to sustain the loop, bringing new people (progress), but MIB is working to break it apart. Many new events make the loops seem stronger on one hand, but also more fragile on the other. If one single event does not happen as planned (rules) the whole loop ceases to exist. And it will happen, sooner or later. But the point where our circle touches the line is just a small dot, a smallest fracture of a second. That is why it actually does not exist for a viewer from the outside world (or from the string). The history was recorded as we see it in the LA X “time-line” in which the flight 815 has safely landed in LAX, AND also crashed on an island sending all our characters to a non-existent world living in a time-loop. And also it does not matter what breaks the loop – it could be as big as the a-bomb detonation, or as small as Richard forgetting to give Locke the compass. --V-vk 08:05, February 13, 2010 (UTC)
          • This is a pretty neat idea, and an interesting one at that. However, it postulates only one point of contact with the real world. In fact there have been many: Black Rock, US Military, Dharma, Hanso Group, French Team, Henry Gale, Desmond, 815, Kahuna, 316 all over the past 150 years (and probably more at that). I could still understand this as a theory, if, once people had been removed from the real world onto the island, (or at least into the alternate universe) they stayed there. However we have a lot of evidence that people went back to the real world (Richard, Ethan, Ben, Locke, Walt, Michael, the O6, Widmore, Desmond, Faraday and/or Eloise, Charlotte, Miles & his mother) at multiple times from the 1950s to the 2000's. Since we know there is interaction between the 'real world' and the island, and at various times you need a much more complex hypothesis in order to make it function. To begin with, the "overall loop" would need to start at least at the point at which the Black Rock makes its appearance, and whenever it ends, it would need to send the entire alt reality (island PLUS 'RW') hurtling back to that point for a game reset. This alt reality, is basically a copy of reality as it exists in the 1850s, complete with all the wherewithall to simulate human progress etc. etc. Within this loop, Jacob & Smokey could play around all they wanted, with the versions of people that they created, including moving people around on the space time continuum, transplanting memories from one iteration to another, to provide 'flashbacks' & 'flashforwards', and also appearing at times to alter history. This is an interesting idea, and is not too dissimilar to one proposed by the philosopher Nick Bostrom: The Simulation Hypothesis, in which he 'proves' that it is almost certain that we are currently living in a (computer) simulation (actually he calls it an 'Ancestor Simulation'). Many people have speculated, however, that time travel in such a simulation is impossible, as in order for it to occur, would fragment the simulation into different subsets, and possibly require all the conscious beings in the simulation to inhabit their own individual simulation, and effectively not interact with other conscious beings, only their avatars. For these reasons, I do not think this idea is correct.--Sean Sheep 10:58, February 13, 2010 (UTC)
            • There are different points of connection of the time loop of the island with the real time-line at different points in time – “the island is always moving” - that is the point is moving in space. There is also a possibility of two (but not more) points. People going off the island – is an example of how the universe course-corrects, to avoid paradoxes. It can be what Daniel called as an “imaginary time” and “imaginary space” - that is how these particular individuals ‘experience’ time and space. Leaving the island they do not get to a real time line but to an extension of the island’s loop, which is also a dead-end. This explains their subconscious desire to return to the island, and their limited free-will (Michael). It also explains impossibility to return to the island by leaving it through the turning of the wheel – it sends one to a random point of the real time (imagine jumping off the fast-spinning carousel – “both, dangerous and unpredictable”). It is possible that Ben and Locke did not get to a real time because of the O6’ previously created extension and their connection ('fate'). Now, it is absolutely irrelevant when, by the island’s time, the island finally disappears with the its whole world – even if this will happen in 2008, or 2009, the island will be already on the bottom in 2004 of the real history, and in 1850 as well. Because it never existed. And that is why Ethan could be born off the island too. A scientific possibility of a similar situation is discussed here. But it is still a fiction we are talking about. So, I can’t wait to hear how it will be resolved in the show.--V-vk 12:05, February 13, 2010 (UTC)
  • Separate Point: There have been two timelines created with the detonation of Jughead. One (in which all the Losties we've been watching for 5 years) inhabit where the nuke didn't affect the timeline, and one where it did. Where Jack, Kate, Sayid et al are now is the same timeline where Ethan was shot by Charlie, and Aldo was fooled by Kate and Sawyer with the Wookiee trick - just three years later. In that one Ethan was taken away and brought back, to eventually join the Others. In the Alt timeline, he was never brought back because the island sank.
    • I can see that this makes for an interesting hypothesis: if the nuke doesn't go off, when the panic is over, he returns. If it goes off, the island is destroyed, and he can't. In that case, what you are doing is agreeing with my original hypothesis (a), i.e. this timeline occurs post-incident, but you are claiming further that the nuke went off and destroyed the island. I don't know what evidence you cite for that, other than the island is under-water.


If we are to assume that the characters have a destiny, and that, for example, it was Kate's destiny to help Claire give birth to Aaron (no matter where she ends up), are we sage to assume that Artz will die soon? Will the Sherriff also die soon in the alternate timeline? in that case, why is it that the unknown people who died when flight 815 crashed on the island did not die when the plane lands in the alternate timeline???? I am very confused about this. Any thoughts?

I can imagine only one solution: what we saw happening on the island, has actually never happened for the rest of the world; but also happening at the same time (for our characters). Try this: draw a straight line (which represents the time, and history) and a circle next to it that at one point touches the line. This circle is the Island’s time line, which is rather a loop. --V-vk 18:41, February 12, 2010 (UTC)

Claire's Ultrasound


Closeup of Claire's Ultrasound

Does anyone else find it odd that Claire's ultrasound doesn't include any of The Numbers except for 4 and 42?
  • its possible in this timeline the numbers no longer hold the importance that they do in the original timeline.--DB 16:41, February 10, 2010 (UTC)

What about the date on the ultrasound? Is october 22nd Claire's due-date?--Mr. Orange 17:23, February 10, 2010 (UTC)

  • Looks like a continuity error to me. Usually, if an ultrasound makes due date estimates, they're based on measurements of the baby's head and will be listed next to those measurements.
  • An argument could also be made that if the flight landed when it was already daylight, it's unlikely all the events prior to that ultrasound being taken could have happened before 9:30am. The section of the 405 between LAX and Brentwood (where the adopting parents' house was) tends to be at an almost complete standstill that early in the morning.
    • Speaking as someone from the Southland (I lived on Montana in Brentwood), it can easily take an hour to get from LAX to Brentwood any time of day. The nearest hospital is St. John's in Santa Monica, probably 2 miles and maybe 10 minutes from the Langdon house, although Langdon is not a real street.(Jack Dutton 05:24, February 12, 2010 (UTC))

For record-keeping, having only the time of the ultrasound wouldn't be useful.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 17:50, February 10, 2010 (UTC)

According to Gregg Nations at the The Fuselage (which is semi-canon) Claire's sonogram has the incorrect month (10-22-04) and should be 9-22-04, he also confirms that 2004 is the correct year - that is subject to interpretation - hrre is the sequence of the bulletins:

The date on the top right corner is 10-22-04. Prop error or hidden clue?
Greg Nations (VIP so Semi-canon) - Ah, it's a little combination of both. Two numbers are correct, and one number is a mistake. Can you guess which is which?
No, I can't.But I'll give it a shot: If it's a mistake AND a clue then I would guess that 10 is a clue and '04 is a the mistake.
Greg Nations - Nope! Try again
Is the date supposed to be 10-22-06, a day before the Apollo Bar's expiration date? "Enjoy by 10/23/06"
Greg Nations - Ha! No.

So unfortunately because Meano Franko goes off on his own tangent right at the crucial moment, we still don't know the definitive answer. Here --Charles Kane 08:50, February 11, 2010 (UTC)

Did they really take the ultrasound image form the internet? this one looks identical:[1] - search google for "ultrasound" images, it's on the first page. --V-vk 18:23, February 12, 2010 (UTC)

Actualy, sonogramm is taken from this site. --Ireader 16:12, February 15, 2010 (UTC)

Detective Rasmussen

Character names on Lost are always packed with sort of relevant information. Rasmussen is traditionally a Danish surname; could this somehow point to the involvement of the oft forgotten Alvar Hanso?

  • Rasmussen is also the name of one of the biggest polling organizations in the US. Pollsters and detectives pretty much do the same thing, i.e. collect information. --SoNickPick 18:49, February 12, 2010 (UTC)

lost ending of MIB

Lost will end when Locke's spirit surfaces from the body being inhabitted by himself and the MIB. The MIB underestimates Locke's drive because he stated that the real Locke is weak and irretrevably broken and confused. MIB thinks he knows human nature because he told Jacob that it always ends the same and thinks it's stupid for Jacob to continue to prove him wrong. Locke will surface and fight MIB for Locke's body, thus killing the MIB once and for all. LauraLLL 19:28, February 10, 2010 (UTC)

What does this have to do with What Kate Does? Locke isn't even in it. --Golden Monkey 19:36, February 10, 2010 (UTC)
  • I'll tell you how it fits - - under "Jack's purpose": Not only do I agree that Lost will end with Locke having to fight MIB (internal struggle) it will be Jack who convinces Locke to do this. Jack will succeed despite Locke knowing that in order to rid himself of MIB he will be sacrificing his life (since he will again be dead). This is the outcome that Jacob and the MIB disagree over, whether man will make that choice for the greater good. Jack has always been the leader and yet is flawed with self-doubt. Jack is everyman.--Destinedjourney 17:16, February 11, 2010 (UTC)
    • Forgot to add that Jack is being set up for this by being shown the poison Dogen wants Jack to convince Sayid to take. Jack will see that when Sayid becomes taken over by the dark-sickness that he made the wrong choice which will give him the resolve to convince Locke to take the poison.--Destinedjourney 17:19, February 11, 2010 (UTC)
MIB is not inhabiting Locke's body. The real Locke's body was in the crate the whole time (and now lying on the beach). MIB is mimicking Locke, and has access to at least his dying memories, but is not "inhabiting" him. --Valis 81 07:14, February 15, 2010 (UTC)
  • good point, in order for Jack to convince Locke to take the pill and rid himself of MIB we'd have to believe that Locke's spirit is still out there somewhere watching over them. So much for that theory I had. The whole set up with the pill and Jack needing to convince Sayid to take it, however, still points towards Jack needing to make the right decision in order for it all to end (Jacob's version of end vs. progress).--Destinedjourney 00:25, February 16, 2010 (UTC)

dogens interpreter

' Does anyone else think that Dogen's interpreter could be the real Ben Linus and the other Ben is a fraud?

--Dawnik 00:46, February 13, 2010 (UTC)Yea, I am so happy that someone else at least made that connection. I guess the rest remains to be seen. The "Lennon" name is throwing me off because he is being identified more closely with "John Lennon" than with the possibility of being Ben Linus. Make Sense? I mean the only clues that I have picked up so far relative to Ben Linus are the glasses and the fact that little Ben went to live with the "others" and made a great sacrifice to do so. Still a mystery.
  • No, we saw (current) Ben with his father during the purge.

Did Jack take the pill?

I was a little surprised to not see this mentioned here on on the theories page. I just reviewed the episode, but I had this question at the original airing.
We see Dogen struggle with Jack, and Jack spits out the pill. Dogen picks up the pill off the ground, then tells Jack it was poison.
The next scene in this room, however, Jack doesn't look well, and Dogen is making him tea. Now it's entirely possible, likely even, that Jack's saliva disintegrated the gelcap enough to get a nasty dose of the the poison, enough to make him sick and possibly eventually kill him. If that were it, there'd be no question.
But at this point, the translator comes in and asks "Did he swallow the pill?" and Dogen replies "Yes." He specifically said "swallow," not "take" or "eat," which could describe what we saw.
If Jack swallowed the pill, he did it off-camera. It's *possibly* a poor choice of words in writing, or a slip of the tongue in shooting the scene that wasn't corrected, but I read it as Dogen for some reason wants the translator to *think* that Jack swallowed the pill even though Dogen managed to get him to spit it out. Perhaps the "test" here wasn't just for Sayid! Elije 16:21, February 12, 2010 (UTC)

    • I noticed that as well. Jack looked sick or like he was affected by the poison in the next scene with the tea. I really dont trust Dogan. Who knows what his intentions really are, or whats really in that pill.

I think maybe he feels like crap cause he just got a dose of ancient japanese martial arts to the stomach and throat.

  • True. He just received a very serious beating from Dogen. I fist to the solar plexis can leave you looking ill (Jack Dutton 18:54, February 13, 2010 (UTC))
  • Also, he recently (in LA X, Part 1) tumbled into the big Swan Station hole in the ground after being kicked into it by Sawyer. And shortly before that, in The Incident, Parts 1 & 2, he ended up all bloody in the fight where Sawyer was trying to talk him out of exploding Jughead (bomb). KateSix 05:56, February 13, 2010 (UTC)

Dogen's unnoticed? reaction

I am very surprised this has not been brought up in any discussion. Please correct me if I'm mistaken.

At the scene where Dogen and Lennon were testing Sayid, particularly at the end of the second test, Dogen is very visibly slightly smiles and then takes a deep breath of comfort. The What Kate Does transcript shows that what Dogen said in Japanese is "Think you pass the exam".

Now if Dogen's was supposed to save Sayid per Jacob's instructions why would he become visibly comfortable if Sayid is proved to be sick, i.e. not passing the test? I think that Sayid actually did pass the test, despite Lennon's mockery comment after Sayid had left.

Sayid passed the test in the sense of passing "failing". If the test was to discover whether Sayid has acquired some of the Main in Black characteristics, then they surely the positive result of the test Dogen and Lennon would hope for that he fails it, which he did by being obviously vulnerable both to electric shock despite the ash, and to pain from heated flame. — Iimitk  T  C  12:44, February 15, 2010 (UTC)

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