This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Whatever Happened, Happened article.
General discussion about the article's subject is permitted as a way to aid improvement of the article. Theories about the article subject should not be discussed here. (Instead, post your theory to this article's theory page or discuss it on this article's theory talk page.)
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~).
The discussion between Miles and Hurley seemed to shed some light on the workings of spacetime and time travel in the Lost universe. --Pags 03:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)Pags
It only confirmed what was proven in "Jughead." They're fulfilling the original timeline, not creating a new timeline. In other words, we're seeing FLASHBACKS of all of the times these characters flashed to. The proof is when Locke tells Richard to visit him in 1956, and Richard does just that. Marc604 02:08, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
I think it helped clear some things up, now we know that everything that has happened is for sure something that already/is supposed to happen. This clears up any, "They're changing the past!" theories that people have came up with. They cannot change something that has already happened, because no matter what they do, it's something they already did.--SawBucks Talk Contribs 06:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
But didn't we already know that everything in the past has already happened for sure? I mean, wasn't that point drilled into our heads a long time ago? Miles' and Hurley's discussion, I suppose, solidifies the idea, but I don't think we ever had a reason to think they were changing the past before last night. Course correction will always ensure that the *big* things that happened will always happen. Small details may change (like how Charlie would die), but he still had to die.--johnjsal@gmail.com 13:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
However, the ending of the scene (with Miles' "huh") definitely made me pause to think if there wasn't something more there, you know? Sort of like the "wine in front of me" paradox :) AlaskaDave 13:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree that it seemed to give you the option to question what you'd just heard. The question Hurley asks that stumped Miles was (parapharsed), "When they meet in 2004, how come Old Ben doesn't recognize Sayid as the man he helped free from prison & then shot him?". This is the 1 real "unknown" when it comes to confirming the 1 timeline theory. But, that question is answered end of the episode when Richard says Ben isn't going to remember what just happened.-- NEVERGIVEUP Talk Contribs 16:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I saw that as just setting up the question we'd see Richard answer later, not discrediting the time travel rules at all.--Chocky 16:41, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
The writers need to be very careful with these points, and with what Ben may or may not remember later. Besides not remembering Sayid as the man who tortured him (which Ben could have been faking), in Through the Looking Glass Ben ordered Sayid (and Jin & Bernard) killed, and seemed to believe it based on the gunshots through the radio. If he does in fact remember at any later point that Sayid is the one who shot him, then in the future he would know that it was impossible for his men to kill Sayid.Sithboy 18:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Ben ordered the Others to shoot the sand, remember? He didn't expect them to kill anyone. Perhaps he knew Sayid could not have died there so he decided to fake their executions instead of actually executing them. --Cobblepot 20:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Richard has already explained that he won't remember 'this', possibly including Sayid. I think the writers have it covered.--Chocky 19:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I think they handled it well enough, but (and maybe this belongs in the Unanswered Questions) what exactly does 'this' mean? Will Ben just forget this recent incident? A particular time-frame to be determined? His entire childhood? Will no one simply tell him that Sayid was his shooter? If Ben is one of the Hostiles now, will he have a whole new perception of reality (or at least reality as defined by the island)? Sithboy 20:05, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, we don't know. You can't really say that the writers haven't explained something when it will (presumably) be addressed in an episode or two's time.--Chocky 22:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
While the story is different from most time travel stories, meaning the past can't be changed so easily and casually, I believe the writers are setting us up with one way of looking at this subject, only to turn it on its ear. I believe something will be changed ultimately. But because they've set up these rules that are supposed to be unalterable, it will have more impact when they finally do change something. I have a sense that it will be done under extraordinary circumstances or with great effort. This whole topic makes me wonder about Desmond. Was everything that Desmond did supposed to happen? When Daniel tried to do something that he thought hadn't happened, by talking to Desmond outside the hatch door, then Desmond woke up in 2007 with a new memory, was that a NEW memory, or did that always happen? The funny thing about that is it didn't seem necessary, it doesn't seem to have changed anything, other than putting him and Penny in L.A. for Ben to kill Penny, which may ultimately bring Desmond back to the island. After Desmond turned the fail-safe key, did that always happen? The powers that Desmond got afterwards to see the future, did that always happen? If Charlie hadn't been saved a number of times, he never would have lived long enough to flip the switch, making the freighter able to reach the island. Was that all supposed to happen, did it always happen?--Jaywallin 01:22, 3 April 2009 (UTC)Jaywallin
Saying that Daniel talking to Desmond wasn't necessary, but then saying it put Desmond and Penny in LA for what will certainly be a major plot point is extremely contradictory. Having Desmond say something like, "No, it was a memory." Is pretty much the most concrete evidence they can give to show that it always happened like that. Desmond can just gain these new memories because "the rules don't apply to him." --KevinS6 15:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
The only problem I have with that, though, is if it always happened why didn't he always remember it? That seems like a big problem.--Jaywallin 04:15, 4 April 2009 (UTC)Jaywallin
If Desmond wakes up in the future with a new memory wouldn't that mean it was a new ocurence in Desmonds history? --WhyDidntUKnow 04:09, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. That's the way I took it. I'm really starting to think that time in Lost is one infinite loop, and Desmond receiving that memory is somehow breaking the circle. My only problem is that the result of his actions, don't seem to have done anything for the islanders or the O6, at least we haven't seen yet. Hopefully that pays off BIG.--Jaywallin 04:13, 4 April 2009 (UTC)Jaywallin
Everyone seems to take it for granted that this rule that "whatever happened happened" is unalterable, just because Faraday said so. Why should we believe Faraday? How do we know he's not mistaken or lying or intentionally oversimplifying the situation? Is there even a single character on Lost who hasn't lied or surprised us or had a hidden agenda? I suppose that I believed Ben when he first claimed to be Henry Gale! Didn't you? Is it any less foolish to believe Faraday's account of the rules of time travel just as unquestioningly? NYCDavid 07:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Well you may be a man of faith, but I'm a man of science. If an acclaimed 2nd generation physicist puts forth rules regarding time travel, they aren't just some lofty ideas of his. Daniel knows what he's talking about, his mother knew what she was talking about when she spoke with Desmond. Daniel sent Theresa's consciousness through time, I'm pretty sure he understands time better than you or I or anyone else in the show. HE KNOWS WHAT HE's TALKING ABOUT. THERE IS NO REASON NOT TO ACCEPT WHAT HE SAYS. THIS ALTERNATE TIMELINE RIDICULOUSNESS WAS PUT TO REST MANY EPISODES AGO.--Liammaxim 13:22, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Pierre Chang also explicates that you can't change the past in 5x01 when the foreman says something about going back in time to kill Hitler. Chang exclaims "Don't be absurd! There are rules! Rules that can't be broken!". Eloise has also made it clear that you can't change the past. Faraday has made it clear numerous times, like when Sawyer was banging on the Swan door. We are "taking it for granted" because of the numerous times we keep being told from VERY reliable sources that the past CAN'T be changed. Also, there aren't alternate timelines, but there are alternate realities. When Miles was discussing time travel with Hurley, he made it evident that those events had already happened but it hadn't happened to them, implying that there are alternate "thems" that existed in their pasts who experience what they were experiencing in their presents. --Pags 15:25, 3 April 2009 (UTC)Pags
Well, science fiction is science fiction, and any ridiculous theory can turn out to be "true". What about Desmond needing a "constant"? Really, what the hell was that, other than just a made-up story device? Maybe I should have put my point another way: I think it's possible that Faraday is wrong (possibly because he is honestly mistaken), and I think it's also possible that the Lost creators are intentionally trying to mislead and trick the audience. Yet again.NYCDavid 16:45, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I find this to be very unlikely since many other credible characters in the show have stated numerous times that the past cannot be changed. We keep seeing other characters trying to prove this wrong, such as Sayid and Jack. Sayid thought he could change the past by shooting Ben and Jack thought the same thing by refusing to save Ben; however, these actions of "free-will" were actually the actions that had already happened and that would always happen. Also, Charlotte provided more evidence for this when she revealed to Faraday that an alternate version of him had approached her as a child and told her that she would die if she ever came back to the island. Now present day Faraday is so blinded by his misery that he declares he won't tell her, thinking he can change the past. We later saw Faraday take notice of a young Charlotte running around which is definitely foreshadowing something. I'm pretty sure we're going to see a Faraday-centric episode soon, so we will definitely find out what happens with that. Most likely what happens is Faraday will end up telling young Charlotte to not come back to the island because she will die for different reasons than her dying from brain hemorrhaging. Faraday will believe that he is going to be able to save her (this is similar to how Sayid thought he could actually kill Ben or how Jack thought he could let Ben die). The past can't be changed, because if it didn't happen then it can't happen. You can't change the past. HOWEVER! The writers have made it evident that there are exceptions to the rule: Desmond and people like him! People who have temporally unstable minds (i.e. their minds can be/have been unstuck in time). The rules don't apply to Desmond because he's uniquely and miraculously special. The writers have made it evident to us that "the past can't be changed" isn't 100% true. They've told us why and how it isn't true as well.--Pags 22:02, 3 April 2009 (UTC)Pags
I think back to the end of season 3 when Ben tells Jack that he was not supposed to leave. At the time, I believed this meant that the timeline was changing at that time, and Ben knew it for some reason. Also, Why was Desmond seeing these alternate events, if him saving Charlie because he had his visions, was what always happened, what was he getting visions of, a false future? At that time, we were all led to believe that Desmond was changing the course of history, if even in a small sense. But this season we're told that what happened was what always happened. Does anyone have any thoughts on this seeming contradiction?--Jaywallin 21:52, 3 April 2009 (UTC)Jaywallin
This doesn't seem to be a contradiction since the writers have made it evident to us that there are exceptions to the rule (the rule being the past cannot be changed). The exceptions to the rule are Desmond and people like him! People who have temporally unstable minds (i.e. their minds can be/have been unstuck in time). The rules don't apply to Desmond because he's uniquely and miraculously special. The writers have made it evident to us that "the past can't be changed" isn't 100% true. They've told us why and how it isn't always true. Also, Desmond wasn't changing the past. He was changing the present. There is no rule about changing the present. Desmond's visions were visions of probable futures (or the most probably future). He was manipulating the present. For all intents and purposes, there is a definitive present that is constantly being "written" as the past. Once a present event has been written into the past, it can't be changed.--Pags 22:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)Pags
That's interesting. I have heard the hypothesis unrelated to LOST, that all times are happening at the same time, there is no past, present or future, only infinity or eternity. I take that to mean that the past, present and future as we perceive them, are actually always influencing each other. So we start to see all these seeming time paradoxes building up. For instance, Ben making the Losties see him a certain way by being the way he is, but the Losties contributed to making Ben the way he is. Ethan helped recruit Juliette onto the island, but Juliette delivered Ethan as a baby. Locke, Richard, and the compass. Locke, telling Richard to go see him in California. Faraday, in The Constant, telling Desmond what to tell himself to set his device to in 1996, so Desmond tells him the numbers, so then thats where Daniel gets those numbers from, so 8 years later, he knows what to tell Desmond to tell himself again. So where did that get started? It's an infinite loop. There's no beginning and no end. It seems like all times occur simultaneously, like the Big Bang. It just happens.--Jaywallin 22:24, 3 April 2009 (UTC)Jaywallin
Check this out, I just had a cool visualization. Picture the infinity symbol, a figure 8 turned sideways. That is the path of the number setings used by Faraday, told to him by Desmond, in The Constant. The intersection in the symbol is where the info gets passed from Desmond to Daniel or vice versa. It goes around one side of the loop with Desmond, passing it to Daniel, who later passes it to Desmond, who then passes it to Daniel...... infinitely. It's tripping me out.--Jaywallin 04:22, 4 April 2009 (UTC)Jaywallin
Hahaha, that's a pretty cool thought actually. It reminds me of the front cover of the book Endless Universe, which is a book about the theory of a cyclical universe rather than a universe based on the Big Bang theory/Inflationary model. --Pags 05:52, 4 April 2009 (UTC)Pags (refer to the image):
Endless Universe
That's an interesting hypothesis, but I don't believe it is related to how time works in LOST.
LOST timeline proposition
Please refer to the image. This image I created is a ROUGH idea of how time works in LOST. It displays 3 of an infinite number of alternate parallel timelines that are basically identical. The blue line is the timeline that we have been viewing in the show. The arrow heads indicate PRESENT time. The line does not extend infinitely to the right because the PRESENT is constantly being created from the FUTURE. Empty space to the right of the arrow heads is the future. For the sake of example (since I didn't want to draw a bunch of dotted lines everywhere), the dotted blue line indicates Kate, Jack, Sayid, and Hurley traveling to the red timeline's 1977 (this is also where Sawyer, Juliet, Miles, Daniel, and Jin traveled to). When blueSayid travels to red timeline, he interacts with redBen, NOT blueBen. redBen lives his life out in the same way the blueBen lived his life out, and likewise with blackBen. blackFaraday was the person which we heard blueCharlotte talking about before she died in blueFaraday's arms. blueFaraday had no idea what she was talking about because he is a different entity than blackFaraday. Is anyone else following what I'm thinking? This is just how I imagine it. For all I know, there is a better explanation that might deal with loops rather than lines. The reason I stand by the notion of a definitive PRESENT is because of the exception to the rule of not being able to change the past (i.e. Desmond). When blueFaraday interacted with redDesmond, redDesmond's memory was transfered to blueDesmond's memory because Desmond's mind (regardless of what timeline) is unstuck. His mind can travel and "communicate" with its alternate selves freely. Thus, blueFaraday changed blueDesmond's memory. Does anyone else follow what I'm thinking here? Haha, I'm pretty sure there will be better more detailed explanations to this idea. There might even be a truer proposition that involves loops and not lines, I don't know. There are a lot more details to this, but this was just a thought I needed to draw out.--Pags 23:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)Pags
Although I like your theory the test that Richard administerd to Locke, when he asked him which items already belonged to him seemed to indicate to me that they were the same entity not seperate.--WhyDidntUKnow 04:20, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Honestly, I think the one timeline theory is the most likely. It's all going to fit together like a jigsaw puzzle. Check my jpeg.Now the red squiggles aren't necessarily in the right order, but it's just for illustrative purposes only, so don't worry about that.
This doesn't necessarily mean that they are the same entity. First of all, this occurred early on in the series. Secondly, it is just as likely that Locke has a predisposition towards the objects that Richard presented to him. Any alternate version of Locke, whether it's black, red, or blue, would have this predisposition towards the objects that Richard presented to him. This is a result of the inner nature of the entity known as John Locke. As an aside, I think that the writers originally introduced this process of Richard putting several items before Locke as an allusion to how some religions, such as Buddhism, test young people to see if they are the "reincarnation" of a deceased monk or other notable figure/leader in the religion (e.g. The Dalai Lama, a Bodhisattva, etc.). I think it might be more appropriate to cite the example of Young Locke's drawing of the Smoke Monster. How is it possible that Young Locke knew about the Smoke Monster if he had never experienced it explicitly or implicitly? I think that this is an inconsistency between what happened earlier in the series and what happened later in the series. Try to keep in mind that the writers/producers of this show are only human. They are likely going to make some mistakes and produce some inconsistencies within the show. When writing/producing current episodes in season 5, they might not be thinking about nitty-gritty specific details from seasons 2 or 3. They might not connect Young Locke's drawing to the overwhelming details of their proposed time-travel properties. Currently, I find that there are a lot more details to support the idea I'm attempting to propose. I'll admit, it's not explained very well in the posting and drawing I've made, but it makes a lot of sense in my mind. I'll put a lot more thought into explaining it when I get the time, but I'm busy with school and whatnot :P --Pags 05:46, 4 April 2009 (UTC)Pags
WOW. That's a novel way of seeing it. I always want to tie things up in a nice neat bow, thus the "Infinite Loop of Ever-Present NOW-NESS", or something to that effect. However, with your model, can you finish out the thought? You are proposing that there are many, or countless parallel worlds, where a parallel Jack, for instance will eventually be bleeding into what we as the audience see as the original timeline, or reality? Are you saying the different entities of each character, are different entities simply because they are coming from different times, within the same reality, or they are stepping over into another parallel world, so as not to create a paradox? If that's the case, it reminds me of the John Titus stories, where he traveled back in time, but our time that he got to, was a different reality than the one he set out from.--Jaywallin 23:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)Jaywallin
I think that, in the LOST universe, when a person time travels, they step over into an alternate, but identical, flow of time so as not to create a paradox. I believe that this is why "the rule" works ("the rule" being that the past can't be changed). This is the universe's way of protecting itself --Pags 23:49, 3 April 2009 (UTC)Pags
I think you're way off. There are not mutiple parallel timelines. There are no alternate timelines for each character. There is only one timeline. The characters who have flashed into different time frames are on the same complete timeline. They are just appearing at different points on it in a manner which is linear in their experience but not linear to the timeline. The linear timeline is what exists in reality. Each second follows the next. 2003 is followed by 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008. That is the linear timeline. What is happening to the characters on Lost is that they are jumping from date to date. Hypothetically from 2004 to 2000 to 2009 to 1954 to 2004 to 1114 to 2007 for John Locke. From 2008 to 1977 for Jack, Hurley, Kate, and Sayid. From 2004 to 2000 to 2009 to 1954 to 2004 to 1114 to 1974 for Sawyer, Juliet, Miles, et. al. Theoretically, Hurley exists as both an infant in Los Angeles and an adult on the Island in 1977. Hurley on the Island in 1977 has experienced everything in his life from birth to 2008, and then jumps back to 1977 as the adult with those experiences, while his infant self is in LA beginning his experiences. He could theoretically travel to LA and see himself as a baby. In the orientation video for the Orchid, Dr. Chang warns someone not to let the two instances of the same rabbit get near each other. This is obviously considered to be dangerous. (This reminds me of another time travel story where someone travelling back in time and having physical contact with their past self would kill the future self. I think it was on the new Outer Limits in the 90's.) In the Lost episode "What Happened, Happened," Hurley thinks what he is doing can change what happened to him in the years between 1977 and 2004, but Miles assures him that those events cannot be changed. If, as an infant, Hurley's parents had taken him to the Island, they would have found adult Hurley. As Charlotte said before she died, she had a memory of meeting Daniel on the island when she was a child -- she had those memories before Daniel from 2004 went to 1974 in the last flash. (I think it will also turn out that the notebook that Daniel carries has made a complete circuit in time. It goes from Daniel in the 70's and is transfered to himself in the 90's, perhaps by Charles Widmore.)Namastizzay 07:11, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Isn't this whole thing kind of a paradox. If Ben never got shot by Sayid for his actions as leasder of the Others. We could assume that the Purge never happened. This would mean the Dharma Initiative would still be there and Desmond wouldn't be at the controls of the Swan when Flight 815 was flying over. The plane wouldn't of crashed and the survivors would never had shot Ben and then brought him to the Others which led to the events that brought them there? Tuulost 04:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
According to the Sri Lanka Video, the Valenzetti Equation "predicts the exact number of years and months until humanity extinguishes itself," and DHARMA is attempting to change key numbers in the equation in order to change its outcome, i.e. the future. It stands to reason, then, that time is fundamentally unchanging (whatever happened happened) and that DHARMA is trying to find a way to make change possible. If change does turn out to be possible by means only predicted in complex equations, the odds of a character stumbling into an action that will alter the future (such as Sayid shooting Ben) are extremely low, so we can discount individual moral decisions from altering time. However, since we have seen things deemed scientifically impossible, such as disembodied voices, smoke capable of "grabbing" people, and seeming resurrections[1][2], it follows that one of the show's many scientists may yet discover a way to make altering the outcome of events in time possible as well. Amandakay1 18:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
After the Jughead episode I had this theory of how the plot could go down: Ben, after killing Penny, goes to the island with everyone else. Desmond tracks him down for revenge, bringing his boy charlie with him. Charlie / Desmond get seperated in 1950s island (the island was still jumping at this time). Desmond can't find his boy but Richard does, and decides to raise him as one of them. Eventually this Charlie becomes Charles Whidmore as an adult- therefore impregnating his own grandmother (ellie) with his mother (penny). Take that.
I must admit that this a very interesting theory considering Charles Widmore's accent, When Ben would of killed Penny would be the day before Flight 316 left. At this point the time-shiftss have been over for 3 years (on this weird temporal timeline). And when did Charles go with his Mother's maiden name? Another question is if Ellie is Daniel's mother Eloise, and as we learned that she is on the island in 1977, then wouldn't Daniel be born and with the Others right now?
Can we put back the Douglas Adams reference? He's definitely an influence on the show, don't really know why it was removed. Specifically the reference to the "Anything that happens, happens.." quote.--Sentient nebula 14:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm gonna put it in now because no one objected.--Sentient nebula 04:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Errors[]
When Kate and Aaron are in the grocery store, and Kate talks to the man handling boxes, the boxes appear to contain Gatorade with the "G" logo, which didn't begin until 2009. Darmikau 02:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
In "He's Our You", Ben's wound was on the left side of his chest, seemingly where his heart would be located. In this episode, however, his wound is on the right side of his chest
Ben's wound seems like too much of a blooper, lately is it just me or is there some strange bloopers around like the car at Red Square in He's Our You. Anyone else think that these large bloopers are almost like easter eggs? --Cerberus1838 06:33, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
No, I think they're artifacts of a very-difficult-to-produce television show having very eagle-eyed viewers. Robert K Stell me 06:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
It's naive to think that a show clearly inspired by Philip K Dick (not just him of course), an author which states often that this reality is not exactly what we think it is, these bloopers such as a major thing like which side a bullet hits.... wouldn't they need to produce two different shirts to even make this blooper? Also with the car in he's our you, they moved the car in the same episode, to a spot 3 frames later, both in plain view. --Cerberus1838 07:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I think you underestimate the GIGANTIC amount of people, planning, time and effort that goes into making a TV show. It's hard to get across exactly but imagine every scene, even the ones that last 1 minute, take hours and hours of preparation and shooting. So you may think, How could they miss something as major as this? but given the hundreds of other things going on in the same scene it's not unheard of. Also they most likely had several different shirts as they would with any piece of clothing, in case something happened to the clothing. That's how TV works. --Integrated (User / Talk) 15:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
This is the second such post I've read arguing for a grand-unified theory of all bloopers/continuity errors. If true, it would certainly place Lost at the top of "best planned show ever" (of course I would argue that anyway). But I'm with Robert K S on this one. I've entertained a similar theory that questioned the truth-value of the flashbacks just after the first season, arguing that because we're getting the "perspectives" of the people on the Island in their flashbacks, then we have some grounds for the doubting the truth of their content. In my mind that opens up too many ridiculous possibilities for the writers and completely undermines the value the viewers have put into those episodes. The same goes for this "grand unified blooper theory". By calling everything into question you risk undermining everything (i.e. relativism. I think it's clear from the show that the writers definitely do NOT want to slip into that (see destiny/free will debate). My point is, what value is it to the story/drama/etc. to show a bullet wound in a slightly different place during a scene that's meant to be picking up right where we left off from the last episode. I could understand if it was shown from a different characters perspective (see discussion from [He's Our You] about the flash-back edit of Sayid, Ben, Jack, etc. on the dock), but the Ben wound is shown from the perspective of the viewer in many different scenes, not just the perspective of one character. My vote goes to Blooper. They film these episodes at the same time, at break-neck speed. If they can make an error as blatant as Charlotte's birthdate, I'm not going to go nuts trying to explain a bullet wound that moved 4 inches. But that doesn't mean we can't talk about it :-) Lorite 12:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Haha, I understand what your saying I used to think the same, it's fair admit that this subject is hard to discuss as it does take mystery out of lost to question everything, even though the show promotes looking into everything the problem is that maybe we will look too far. I will no longer continue my part in this conversation due it touching places that people should discuss without me, I have looked into this far too much already that my answers might ruin others views of lost. Also Lorite did the theory you hear come from Voz? cause I read that today, it was hilarious, I knew he would catch up one day. --Cerberus1838 01:05, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Lorite/Robert as well - the fact remains, Young Ben was shot, point blank. It is odd that wardrobe (or anyone else) didn't catch it, but it doesn't belie the fact that Young Ben was still shot, regardless of where. AlaskaDave 13:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Timeline/Continuity Error - Unless Cassidy and Clementine moved to LA, Kate and Aaron drove about 25 hours roundtrip from LA to New Mexico between the meeting at the dock and handing Aaron over to Claire's mom the next day (point of reference being when she said Jack was in her room "yesterday." Crabapple 13:43, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Kate left the dock at night, drove through the night to New Mexico (with a side trip to the store for Aaron's drink), arriving there when it was daylight, still wearing the same outfit. She stayed there awhile, then left and drove back to LA, where she met with Carole that second night at the hotel. Seems do-able to me. This is why she looked so exhausted when we saw her, because she'd been going straight through, for a couple days, without sleep. -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 14:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
That 25 hours represents "windshield time" (time spent physically driving) not counting potty breaks for the little guy and discussion time with Cassidy. I think there is something about this timeline that is still up in the air. We saw debate in 316 about shoehorning Jack's exploits into the timeline too. But this is all better served on the theories page I guess. Crabapple 14:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Kate has a golden ticket. for oceanic air. she can fly anywhere in the world any time for free. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Omggivemaafningusername (talk • contribs) 2009-04-02T20:39:59.
Bea Klugh?[]
THIS woman
I couldn't get a good look - was Bea among the Others that arrived when Kate and Sawyer took Ben to see Richard? It's the second shot of the Others, after the man says "Hold it right there" or whatever. The person I'm referring to is coming down the hill with a gun. I don't have HD - can someone get a better look at that? --The_Swan 03:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
It wasn't Bea. The person you are referring to was a man. cooldog 07:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I believe he was meaning this woman.Blopa 22:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Somehow the signatures got messed up. I (The_Swan) am the original poster of this question, so I fixed that. ;) And YES, that's exactly who I'm talking about! Does anyone have access to a cast list that might list the actress in this episode? --The_Swan 23:56, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
shes an extra so she wouldnt be listed and this woman is white and Bea was african american so i doubt their the same. --Czygan84 21:00, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Uh hahaha, that woman is definitely not white--Pags 01:45, 5 April 2009 (UTC)pags
Mikhail?[]
Was the guy protesting Richard from helping Ben, Mikhail? He sounded Russian and he could have been him, anyone else think so? --LOST-Frink 05:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Impossible. He arrived on the Island in the 1990s. -- Xbenlinusx 05:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
No, he told Sayid and Kate as part of a ruse that he joined the Dharma Initiative in the 90's. So the timeline of him showing up in the 90's may or may not be right.
Darlton have stated that everything was correct except the part about him being in the DI. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 14:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
His name is Erik (from the press release), and he sounded British to me. rancemohanitz 20:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
If we're just trying to match this character up with someone we already know, how about Mr Friendly then? I think the ages match up? humpton 14:41, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Then, his name would be Tom.Clamshell 20:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
The Others' Hierarchy[]
Who does Erik (The man who speaks to Richard) say "we" should ask first? Sounded like Ellie, or Eli? Also, it would seem that at this point Widmore is somewhere in the higher up of the power structure. Erik seemed worried that Charles would "find out" which would corroborate what Widmore told John in 2008 when he stated that he was the leader for a time. He may not be in charge yet, but clearly holds some rank over The Others. --Airport Whiskey 05:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Erik says to Richard, "Richard, shouldn't do this without telling Ellie, and if Charles finds out".
Richard says "Let Him find out, I don't answer to either of them." --Cerberus1838 06:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
In 1954, Widmore was 17 years old. In 1977, he's 40 years old. So he's certainly the leader of the Others. Ellie would be in the same age, and definitely has a leading role among the Others as well. — Iimitk T C 07:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I think that Ellie and Charles had already in 1954 some responsibility among the Others. It was Ellie, who was in charge at the capturing of Miles, Daniel and Charlotte. And the way Charles acted as he entered the camp also seemed that he has not to answer to everyone.--Asian_Dawn 13:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Likely, then, that "Ellie" is Eloise Hawking? Or has everybody already figured that out, and I'm just late catching up? Sithboy 20:11, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Never mind, I saw the discussion on the "Ellie" page now, I understand the general opinion on the character, IMDB spoilers and all. Sithboy 23:14, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Ben-centric?[]
This is probably splitting hairs, but it wouldn't be the first time an episode ended with a flash from a different character. Since Richard carrying Ben led into the last scene with the whoosh sound, should this also count as a Ben flashforward episode? In any case, from a less technical perspective, most of this episode was focused on Ben and the survivors deciding what to do about him. --Pyramidhead 05:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I'd say it is pretty definite that this is a Kate-centric episode. The cut to Ben at the end was just foreshadowing in my mind. --KevinS6 06:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Of course it's Kate-centric. I'm just saying it might also be Ben-centric a la "Dave". --Pyramidhead 06:11, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
It wasn't a flash, its a shift showing you whats happening in the future, shifts between past and future shouldn't matter to whose episode it is, just as Locke's statement "Well come to the land of the living" shouldn't be read as Ben was dead before and only just woke up, he will wake up in his own time his confused look was just confusion in seeing Locke, which he killed is alive again. --Cerberus1838 06:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
What the...it was just a shift in time/scene. It wasn't a flashforward. It's no different than a change of setting from the Island to the freighter in season 4. Plus, all changes in time have the woosh, even in episodes without flashes like This Place is Death. Golden Monkey 11:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
facepalm, so hard. >_< --Alexgdorman 00:57, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
"Ben turned that wheel"[]
How does Miles know that Ben turned the FDW? Is it in the Secondary Protocol, or is this an UQ? ∇ϕ
This may be a good question. Locke didn't know about the wheel before he disappeared down the well; I think a more likely solution than the Secondary Protocol was that Faraday let Miles and the rest of Sawyer's group in on it. Remember, he was present at the Orchid's excavation, and would surely have been investigating. Robert K Stell me 07:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I was thinking the same thing, I shrugged it off once it was said thinking that someone would have said something but this is a very good question and hopefully not a mistake. --Cerberus1838 07:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
It's the same question as how Miles knew about the event of Sayid torturing future Ben in the Swan when Hurley told him about it. Most probably Sawyer told him all about those events since they've been closely living together for 3 years. — Iimitk T C 07:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Not the same. Think about it. The question of how Sawyer would know about the wheel is just as mysterious as how Miles would know about the wheel. Robert K Stell me 07:59, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Most likely they learned about the Wheel from Faraday during his excavations of the Orchid. I believe we'll see this happen by the end of the season. Mauser 08:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Indeed. In "Because You Left", Faraday said: "Whatever Ben Linus did down at the Orchid station... I think... it may have... dislodged us". Since he has been to the Orchid in the 1970s, it's obvious he may have understood what Ben exactly did and told the rest of them, including Miles. — Iimitk T C 08:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Furthermore, Pierre Chang hab some sort of picture, showing the wheel. And given that Daniel seems to know quiet a lot about the Island, he might be familiar with the wheel-turning and it's consequences.--Asian_Dawn 10:25, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Daniel was already underground at the Orchid when the conversation between Chang and the foreman took place. Chang walked away, Daniel bumped into him, and saw the image of the wheel on the paper when Chang dipped it downward while repremanding him, and then the foreman reiterated the time travel part to Daniel when he arrived with the tank. Also, Miles and the rest were hired by Widmore, who knew about the wheel, and probably told them about it. And Daniel is Eloise's son, and could have learned about it that way first. So many confirmations that they knew. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 14:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
These are all good theories, but that's all they are - theories. We don't yet know enough about how much Daniel knows about the wheel to say that he understands it, and we have no idea how long Daniel stayed with the group or even if he ever saw them again once he did figure out how the wheel works. So I don't think it's "obvious" (yet) that Dan told Miles and that this explains everything. At this point it should be an Unanswered Question. Flashsideways 14:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
It is not a theory regarding Daniel; rewatch 5x01. Nor is it a theory that Miles and co. knew far more than they told the Losties, as was revealed in several episodes. And we do know that Daniel understands the wheel, because he stated as much when he talked to James, oh, in front of Miles. There you go. Question answered. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 15:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it is still a theory. In 5x01, Daniel explains (yes, in front of Miles) the workings of time travel and what is occurring to the characters on the island. He never reveals that he has any knowledge of the Donkey Wheel and how it operates. We still have no idea if Daniel knew about the wheel about that time. We also still have no idea how Daniel ends up in the Orchid in ~1974 in that opening scene of 5x01. Any current statements about these 2 occurrences will be theories until we see something in the show that explains how Faraday ends up in the Orchid and if he reacts to the Donkey Wheel as something he has "just found out about at that moment"--Pags 18:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)Pags
He's had three years to learn about the DHARMA Initiative, both from Daniel or, potentially, from others in the Initiative. We have a plausible explanation for how he would know, and it isn't presented as a major mystery (ie: it doesn't seem likely that the producers will take time out to explain "oh yeah, at some point so-and-so told Miles about the wheel". If we have a plausible explanation it shouldn't be considered a UQ. At best (and I don't agree with this) it's a blooper. Jimbo the Tubby talk contributions 19:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
If this turns into another flaming bus... this can't be dismissed as easily, also using "Daniel knew about the wheel because he found out when he was in the orchid in 5x01" its naive to think that when Daniel goes into the orchid that this is before the time we know now, sometimes i wonder if people are watching the same show, this television show uses flashbacks, flash forwards, time travel and many other techniques to keep us in the dark on such things, Occam's Razor yet again, i will admit that with lost that anything can be said its different then what it is but this is clearly not one of those moments this is either a blooper or a UQ because it wasn't answered yet. --Cerberus1838 20:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Exactly. The opening sequence to 5x01 was a HUGE FLASH FORWARD even though it was in 1974. We flashed forward to Daniel's future experience on the island which we still haven't learned about (all we have learned is that Daniel ended up in the DI with the other Losties and then at some point was not "here" with them). Daniel was never on the island during the 1970s UNTIL John Locke turned the FDW. Remember, there was a 3 year period of the Losties (including Daniel) settling into their new lives with the DI. Daniel was probably assigned the role of Construction Worker. At this moment, he had no idea about the FDW or how it worked or what Ben did in the Orchid. Then, in 1974 when he was at the excavation site for the Orchid, he found out about the secrets of the Orchid station and eventually the Frozen Donkey Wheel. Afterwards, he told all of his friends his theory about it (Sawyer, Miles, Juliet, Jin) since it is directly relevant to what Locke and Ben did and how they traveled back in time. Then, some time before Jack, Hurley, Kate, and Sayid returned to the island in 1977, Daniel was no longer "here" (according to Sawyer). This is definitely a UQ. It is similar to the UQ of how Daniel is no longer "here" as Sawyer said. There are still 6 episodes left in this season, so there is plenty of time for us to learn all about Daniel and what happened during the Losties 3-year stay with the DI. I feel the same way about people "watching the same show", Cerberus :P --Pags 23:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC)Pags
You've made no sense here whatsoever. How can something "even though it was in 1974" be a "HUGE FLASH FORWARD" to 1977 events? Miles tells them this in 1977. 1974 to 1977 is three years for Miles to learn about it, if he didn't know already. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 00:12, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Uh, I've made perfect sense here. I think you may have misinterpreted me. Relatively, it's a huge flash forward. It was at the beginning of Season 5. Before we even find out what happened to the rest of the Losties on the island after Ben turned the wheel, we see Daniel Faraday...in the Orchid...in the 1970s. Even after the 11th episode of this season, we still haven't found out what events brought Faraday there. This was both a flash forward in terms of the LOST timeline and a flash forward in terms of what the viewers have seen. In terms of the timeline, at the end of Season 4 we see Locke in a casket. At the beginning of Season 5, we see Daniel Faraday's future in 1974. When we left off with Season 4, the present time was 2008. We don't make it to the 1970s until the 6th episode, and even then we don't find out what happens after Locke turns the wheel until the 8th episode, which brings us to 1974 and the DHARMA initiative. If you don't consider this to be a flash forward, then every event that we witness up until Faraday and the other Losties are inducted into the DI would basically be just one giant flashback. In a future episode, we are going to learn about Faraday's "past" (i.e. how he ended up as a construction worker, what he was doing in the Orchid, and why he isn't with the other Losties in 1977). Relative to what we are watching now (i.e. what we consider to be "the present"), this will be a flashback. Definition of a Flash Forward: "A flash-forward [...] in a narrative occurs when the primary sequence of events in a story is interrupted by the interjection of a scene representing an event expected, projected, or imagined to occur at a later time." Faraday in 1974 was interjected at the beginning of Season 5. Faraday in 1974 doesn't occur until the 8th episode of the series. It doesn't occur until a later time in the sequence of events.--Pags 22:17, 4 April 2009 (UTC)Pags
Personally, I prefer to think that Miles was simply using the phrase as a metaphor for something that he didn't really understand or know, and just happened to be closer to the truth than he knew. He could have easily said, "pulled the lever", "pushed the button", etc... imagine what the discussion would be like on this page then. But I think the real reason he said it is that the producers must have hired some of the lostpedia users to write that dialog, it sounded so much like the discussions I've seen here. Clamshell 19:53, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
this has nothing to do with Daniel being in the orchid w/ chang does any1 remember 5x01 he was brought to the island because he has studied his entire adult life studying the D.I. he probably knows of the wheel and i would guess that Daniel was w/ these survivors for a while so wouldnt the question what did ben do @ the orchid come up. --Czygan84 20:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Your logic is confusing but I think I understand you, your saying Daniel knew about the wheel all along and told everyone in the backroom, an unanswered question is exactly an unanswered question, we wouldn't have UQ's if everyone used your logic, everything could be answered by saying someone went into the back room, your arguement is virtually non-existant. This UQ is entirely reasonable, patience and it will be answered. --Cerberus1838 22:32, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
The way I perceived the scene between Miles and Hurley is that it was highly metafictional, if you know what I mean. It's like they were not them but either the actors themselves trying to work out time travel theories (see also the latest video podcast) or they were sort of spokespersons for Damon and Carlton in an attempt to provide the fans with some explanations. Either way, that scene sounded very ironical and under this interpretation Mile's knowledge of Ben turning the wheel is totally acceptable.--LostAway 21:02, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
I suggest not watching the video podcast, the behind scenes talking between Ken and Jorge lets a major plot detail loose, I was deeply annoyed once I heard them talking about it. The video podcast also just displays the conversation between Ken and Jorge during takes to get the idea of what they are talking about, but it does look to appear to be more of a blooper now. --Cerberus1838 23:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Yeah you can take much out of those videos podcasts speaking of podcasts I agree with the above this was probably just a small error and like the hurley bird will never be adressed. --Czygan84 22:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Carole Littleton[]
Is it just me or is Carole's reaction not that believing, could she know about the island? Kate doesn't really talk about the island but its just always been strange with Claire and her father and her connection to the island. It could also be me though, Carole's accent is awful that I was dying to fast forward through the scene but knew it was gonna be important. --Cerberus1838 08:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I didn't get that feeling at all - I took her reaction to be just her swallowing quite a huge amount of quite insane (but true) information in a short amount of time. I mean, she's finding out that her daughter Claire is still alive but... missing? And Aaron is really her grandson? I mean, wouldn't you be *sort* of flabbergasted as well? :) AlaskaDave 13:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Carole has always seemed a little spacey anyway. I just took it as part of her personality. Writerstix 14:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Must have been the accent, its also prob due to the fact that i've believed that Christian knew more about the island then he lead on about when he was alive, Clare's family did seem to want to keep Christian away from Clare for some other reason, also this might be off-topic but are we assuming atm that Christian and Locke have gone through the same thing? --Cerberus1838 20:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
"His innocence will be gone"[]
I just don't hope we will get to see a Spider-man 3 Ben... Sorry, couldn't resist :p --Smullie 08:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Right after Richard said that, my wife said, "Richard? What exactly are you going to DO to little Ben?" Horrible, I know. DesmondHumeWillBeMyConstant 18:14, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
"We brought Sayid back"![]
How comes Kate would say it's hers & Jack's fault as they're the ones who brought Sayid back? Could it possible that Kate & Jack joined forces with Ben to get Ilana reach Sayid and arrest him to guarantee he's boarding Ajira Flight 316? — Iimitk T C 08:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm gonna say no, it's not possible.--johnjsal@gmail.com 13:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I commented on this also, while we were watching it. I think she meant fault as in part of 316, but if it's anyone's fault, it's Ben's fault for dragging Sayid back into the mix. It seemed like angry spouting off to me. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 14:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
General trivia[]
Regarding the bullet point for similarities to March Has 32 Days, perhaps some of these "number of themes" that the episode shares with that story should be listed. --johnjsal@gmail.com 13:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Agreed - more so than: "In the 1956 story, a time traveler successfully alters history when he relives a day in his own past." I don't see how this connects with this episode, which is explicitly titled: "whatever happened, happened" countering the idea that you can "alter history." --LOSTinDC 14:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
The story speaks to the central question of the episode- Can history be altered through time travel? Miles says that it can't, but he is stumped by Hurley's question about why the adult Ben didn't remember meeting the Oceanic Six as a child. And in March has 32 Days, the protagonist struggles with the same question, saying "Do not deceive yourself John Billings! If you had the day to live over, you would go to the airport again!" But he doesn't, he inspects the bridge, instead, preventing its collapse. And keep in mind that the title of this story "March Has 32 Days" was hidden as a clue in the meta tags of one of the Octagon Global Recruiting emails last summer by the series' creators. But the objections raised are very good ones. The issue definitely needs to be clarified. I'll directly address these issues, and put a reference to it in the "Trivia" section. NYCDavid 16:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I know why the story Marcha Has 32 Days is connected to LOST (Locke's items test and the Octagon meta tag), but I still think the link between that story and this episode is tenuous at best. Miles is stumped, but the answer to Hurley's question is not that history was altered, but rather, that Richard always took Ben into the Temple which led Ben to not remember anything. The past was not altered in this storyline with Ben. That being said, if its going to stay in, we should remove the reference to the OGR meta tag because it just doesn't matter here. --LOSTinDC 23:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I think the meta-tag reference is important because that is how we know that the Lost creators intended for fans to be thinking about the clue "March Has 32 Days." If it weren't for that detail, then, of course, it would be over-reaching to mention that story from that comic book. There are three elements that make this worth mentioning and interesting: 1) We know that the Lost creators gave "March Has 32 Days" as a clue; 2) We know that the main question of the story, "Can a time traveler change the past or is he doomed to repeat it?" is the main question of this episode; 3) The episode aired on April 1st (i.e., March 32nd). If you take away any one of these facts, then, yes, it's a tenuous stretch. But taken together, these facts add up to something that doesn't seem like a coincidence. Since you think the reference to the OGR meta tag is a distraction, I'll re-write it to make it much more brief, while emphasizing the relevant point, which is that "March Has 32 Days" was given to us as a clue by the series creators. NYCDavid 03:24, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
The episode aired on 1 April in the States. You can't measure this obscure connection to the airing date in one country, meaning it will make no sense at all when it's aired in other countries or watched on DVD. If the events took place on 1 April, you might have a better case. As it is, it's just Apophenia. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 00:18, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Of course, it's true that April 1st was the original air date in the United States (as well as Canada). But to describe the recognition of this date as having a significance that is different from the later airdate in some other country as apophenic is a misuse of the term. In the first place, April 1st wasn't just the first date that the episode was broadcast in the United States--it was the first date that the episode was broadcast on the planet Earth (or anywhere else, for that matter). I don't know any Lost fan here in the United States who isn't proud that the show is a world-wide phenomenon, and nobody appreciates the perspective gained by having the opportunity to discuss the show with people from other cultures any more than I do. However, that doesn't mean that we should just throw out the window the fact that the show is, in fact, produced, filmed, and premiered in the United States, starring mostly American actors. If a clue on the Internet referred to the special significance of the airdate of a particular episode, which airdate would that most likely be referring to? It could mean the Australian airdate or the airdate in some other country, it's possible. But the most likely, most obvious reference would be to the world-premiere airdate, which is also the airdate in the United States, where the show is made, right? In any case, if your point is supposed to be that this perceived connection between the story, "March Has 32 Days", the clue "March has 32 days", and the world-premiere airdate of "March 32" (so to speak) might actually all just be a coincidence, rather than an intended message, then I agree with you one hundred percent. Of course it might just be a coincidence that the episode was first broadcast anywhere on "March 32nd," and shares the main question of "March Has 32 Days", the title of which the show's producers gave to fans as a clue. But even if it is, that doesn't change the fact that it's a very interesting piece of trivia that obviously belongs in the general trivia section. If anything, it might even be more interesting if it all turns out just to be an amazing coincidence. I happen to think that it actually is probably not just a coincidence, to be honest. I understand perfectly why it's possible that some person might not agree with me. But I also think that someone who forms that contrary opinion--which is not shared by everyone--shouldn't make the decision for everybody else that their opinion is the only possible opinion, and delete all reference to this very interesting piece of general trivia about the episode. I think that everybody deserves the opportunity to look at this highly unlikely confluence of events and decide for himself or herself whether this is just a coincidence or not. After numerous critiques, what remains is an extremely concise summary (which might be improved yet) of a great deal of information that is both relevant and interesting, and which definitely qualifies as "general trivia" about the episode--or else nothing does. And indeed, I think it's unfortunate that item after item after item of "general trivia" submitted by various people about this episode has been deleted, until the entire category of general trivia was left completely empty. (I did not submit any of those other trivia items; this single item of trivia was my only ever contribution of any kind to this or any other episode summary on Lostpedia). Everybody understands the importance of being concise on the main article page. But when the "balance" that is struck between being too concise and not being concise enough in the "General Trivia" section is struck in such a way that the entire "General Trivia" section is left completely empty despite many, many contributions by many, many editors, then I worry about whether something is broken about the way in which that balance is being struck. NYCDavid 00:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Jacob?[]
Did anyone else think that Ben's murmur "Please .. help.." at the start of the episode sounded similar to Jacob's only line thus far: "Help me" ? I'm not crazy theorising here, I just thought the similarity was there --Integrated (User / Talk) 15:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Similarity in that they both used the word "help", albeit in different syntactic slots :p Seriously though, I didn't think it sounded similar, but it was a cool juxtaposition to Jacob in S3, you're definitely right. AlaskaDave 01:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Removed UQ[]
Any of these are up for debate but here's what I removed and why:
Why is the sonar fence off? It wasn't off, Sawyer turned it off to let Kate out
Given that Juliet was working for the Others, what does Juliet know about the Temple? Has she been down there? More of a question for the Temple page than anything posed by this episode
How did Miles know that Ben started the time travel with a wheel? As discussed above he was present when Daniel discussed the wheel
Where is Sayid? Something that will no doubt be addressed soon, you can't ask where a character is every time they aren't in an episode
How did Sawyer know that the others could help Ben? Juliet suggested it actually, and she most likely knew of the temple in some fashion --Integrated (User / Talk) 15:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
As discussed previously, Faraday didn't know about the wheel in the discussion we have seen. Robert K Stell me 20:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I also posted this in another section which talks about this issue: If this turns into another flaming bus... this can't be dismissed as easily, also using "Daniel knew about the wheel because he found out when he was in the orchid in 5x01" its naive to think that when Daniel goes into the orchid that this is before the time we know now, sometimes i wonder if people are watching the same show, this television show uses flashbacks, flash forwards, time travel and many other techniques to keep us in the dark on such things, Occam's Razor yet again, i will admit that with lost that anything can be said its different then what it is but this is clearly not one of those moments this is either a blooper or a UQ because it wasn't answered yet. --Cerberus1838 20:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Also stated in the above topic, Faraday never mentions a wheel in Because You Left. --Cerberus1838 22:43, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
What is the reason for the large hole seen when Richard is carrying Ben to the Temple? Not sure what this refers to, but it seems like theory baiting.
How will Juliet explain Ben's disappearance from the infirmary to Roger? Invalid UQ of the form "what will happen..."
Why didn't Kate tell Jack she left Aaron with Carole? Because she would have to explain to Jack why Carole took the kid. The only reason Carole would take Aaron is because she knew it was Claire's. The only reason she knew that it was Claire's was because Kate stopped telling the lie and told Carole the truth! Not to mention the fact that she was all torn up about losing her kid!! --LOSTinDC 23:47, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, but I also don't consider this an Unanswered Question. Kate was convinced Jack didn't care about Aaron one way or the other. Remember at the marina, Kate accused Jack of pretending to care about Aaron just to get them to go back to the Island. Jack tried to argue against her claim, but Kate flat out refused to hear his excuses. This resentment towards Jack, in addition to her own guilt for giving Aaron away, suggests that Kate didn't tell Jack about the deal with Carole, because A) She simply doesn't think Jack cares, and/or B) She blames herself, but wants Jack to feel somewhat responsible for her anguish. So I vote to remove this as an Unanswered Question.--Vico 00:16, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
What is the reason for the large hole seen when Richard is carrying Ben to the Temple? I actually DID notice this whole and thought this a very valid UQ. It was very very noticeable and deliberate and PROBABLY (though not definitely) a reference to the Mass Grave .. implying the Others had the pit dug some 20 years in advance for the time when they would wipe out DHARMA. I think this UQ is valid --Integrated (User / Talk) 06:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
It doesn't look special to me. It took me about 10 viewings of the scene of Richard carrying Young Ben for me to deduce what "large hole" you were talking about. When initially reading the question, I figured you were talking about the declivity in the outer Temple wall, where the Smoke Monster pulled Montand. The hole you seem to be referring to just looks like a naturally-occuring sinkhole or ditch that has become mostly overgrown. It doesn't look to me like the hole was featured in the shot.Namastizzay 08:17, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
I suppose it could be another mass grave, but I doubt it is THE mass grave, given many of the survivors have been to THE mass grave and this hole in the ground is near (if not next to) the Temple and none of the survivors have seen the Temple. --LOSTinDC 13:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Someone has removed this UQ, and pending a good reason I'm gonna re-add it. The chances of it being the mass grave are unlikely, so asking "what is it" seems a perfectly valid UQ to me. I genuinely think it was put there deliberately and will be answered. --Integrated (User / Talk) 05:50, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
I think this is no more valid than asking "What's the reason for the tree Richard passes while carrying Ben?" There are trees in a jungle and there are holes in a jungle. That's why.Namastizzay 08:17, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Richard appeared from out of nowhere; How does Richard know that Sawyer and Kate asked to be brought to him? - Seems a silly question, they asked to be taken to Richard and an indeterminate point in time later he's there. Seems like someone's looking for questions that aren't there --Integrated (User / Talk) 06:27, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
That probably stems from the "how the hell did you get here" comment from James. I don't think it's a UQ either, though. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 00:28, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
So you think the question about how Richard came out of nowhere is a stupid UQ, yet you push for the importance of a small hole in the ground as the biggest UQ to appear this season? <sarcasm>Typical! We must discuss the hole! It's of vital importance! In fact, I think Damon and Carlton may make a spin-off series especially about the hole!</sarcasm> . —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Benjamin Linus (talk • contribs) .
Geez, so many of you pick out the most obscure details of the show and get so so so worked up about it. It's very unlikely, give it up people --Pags 01:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC)Pags
Could we start with an image of the hole in question? BTW, putting whole sentences in bold is close to yelling at each other.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 01:30, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm surprised no-one else considers this a valid UQ - on first watchthrough I noticed it instantly and thought "Woah what's that??". I'm not gonna push this, but notice it's a far away wide shot, Richard isn't in centre screen, it seems they did this very deliberately to show us the hole. Let me know your thoughts. Also it may not be so evident in that one screencap, but when the camera is moving downwards you can VERY clearly see it is a wide, deep hole.
Couldn't you then say that since it's a wide shot that they deliberately showed us the trees in the background? They're in the jungle. There are probably sinkholes everywhere. This hole doesn't look similar to the mass grave at all. The mass grave was clear of plants, and this hole looks completely overgrown. It definitely seems like just a feature of the environment to me. --KevinS6 01:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
--Integrated (User / Talk) 06:24, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Am I the only one who doesn't see a hole? There's grass... and some dirt... But a hole? Not seeing it. Jimbo the Tubby talk contributions 09:05, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Who does Richard answer to?: C'mon! Do we really need an answer for this? Any good reason to believe Richard meant someone other than Jacob? — Iimitk T C 18:40, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Unless, of course, Richard doesn't answer to Jacob. In "The Man Behind the Curtain," when Ben hesitates in taking Locke to see Jacob, Locke says he'll ask Richard and Ben replies that "[Richard] doesn't talk to Jacob." Is Ben being truthful? Wait until....--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 01:30, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Well most likely Ben took over as the leader of the Others sometime after the [Purge]. My guess is that Richard was in charge of the Others and that he answers to Jacob. --LOST-Frink 06:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
I am for removal of this question because Richard is just ignoring the current leader(s) of the Others, whoever they are at that time. So I think the intention was not to point to anyone else to create a mystery. It was just ignorance of current leaders with a "I know what I am doing" attitude by Richard.--Messenger 14:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Juliet[]
I find it strance that no one in the DI is questioning why Juliet (who works in the motor pool) is somehow able to deliver babies and operate on gunshot victims. Have I missed something or are we supposed to jsut assume that the DI knows she is also a doctor?Goonbuda 18:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
She delivered Amy's baby because Amy asked her to. Remember that Juliet, Sawyer, Miles, Daniel, and Jin were all inducted into the DI because of Sawyer's favor. The DI knows why they are on the island. They are basically honorary members of the DI. Juliet's placement in the motor pool is probably insignificant. The DI probably needed more help in the motor pool. Juliet probably didn't speak up to be a doctor because she didn't want to deal with all of that stress again. Amy obviously knew she was a doctor since she requested her to deliver the baby. Juliet probably made it evident that she was a doctor but opted not to take that as her official position to avoid the stress. --Pags 19:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC)Pags
"The DI knows why they are on the island"- unless I've missed something, they really don't. I was under the impression that the DI bought the story about them being shipwrecked. It's a legitimate question as to why no-one is curious about Juliet's medical experience. Maybe this is the first time she's used it since delivering the baby, so people aren't suspicious yet. Now that Ben has disappeared they may start asking questions.--Chocky 19:27, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
No, you didn't miss anything. Yes, the DI did buy that story. That's how the DI knows why they are on the island. They had no reason to not buy the story. 3 years passed between Sawyer talking to Richard about him being a time traveler and him being head of security. 3 years of character development and social status was developed. We saw NO details from this 3 year period. This is most likely what happened: after doing the DI a favor, Sawyer was granted honorary membership to the DI. His friends were granted membership as well. Horace put them in positions which needed the most support, specifically security and the motorpool. Perhaps they all took aptitude tests and were placed accordingly, but Juliet requested to not be a doctor for the DI so she could avoid the stress related with it or so she could try something new or whatever. In "LaFleur", Juliet tells Sawyer that they had a "deal" about her dealing with a situation such as Amy's. The "deal" was probably that she didn't want to EVER deliver children while on that island or, less likely, that she didn't want to practice any form of medicine or surgery. The reasons for this are seemingly insignificant and, thus, not relevant. Amy knew she was a doctor and if Amy knew then Horace probably knew as well. They probably found out when they were inducting the Losties into the DI. Whether or not Horace asked them what skills they had or they simply took aptitude tests, Juliet would have revealed she had experience as a doctor.--Pags 22:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)Pags
UQ: Why did Kate return to the island?[]
Shouldn't this question be removed? I thought this episode cleared it up pretty thoroughly. After losing Aaron in the store, she had a sense of relief and had the revelation that he belonged with his real mother. Because of this, she takes him to Carole Littleton, explaining that "I'm going back to find your daughter".
Keep. Just because her actions were based on instinctive impulses rather than concrete motives doesn't mean there is an ulterior reasoning behind it.--Lostcrazy815 19:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)Lostcrazy815 4/2/09
Keep. Kate returned for Sawyer or for Claire; we do not yet know which.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 20:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Keep. I don't think it is answered at all. Kate is not always honest, and for the life of my I still can't understand why she wants to help Roger and Ben. Jack Dutton 23:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Remove. Kate is not Ben. Carole is not the enemy. We have no reason to believe Kate lied. Perhaps she's not going back ONLY for Claire, but still, it IS part of the reason, and suggestion there might be more to it is theory baiting. --LeoChris 00:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Right, and once we are given a plausible reason, the theory that there might be another, hidden reason is just that--a theory. No longer eligible as a UQ. Robert K Stell me 03:41, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Remove I kinda took it to mean that without Aaron she has nothing stopping her returning. --Integrated (User / Talk) 06:07, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Remove here we go again i find it funny that its always the same people arguing to keep these UQs up; she said she was going to get Claire what more do you want. --Czygan84 20:54, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Remove per Robert and Jimbo. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 00:35, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Remove for the same reasons others have said. -- [Talk] 11:28, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Kate wouldn't know Cassidy was Sawyer's girlfriend?[]
I was reading some comments on the episode elsewhere, and someone brought up a good point. This should maybe go into continuity/bloopers or something: While Kate knew Cassidy, there was no way for her to know that she was Sawyer's girlfriend. When she first sees her in this episode, she should have at least seemed shocked or surprised or something, but instead acted like she knew all along. This probably isn't worded neatly, but you guys probably see what I mean. Leavingentropia 02:18, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I assumed Kate knew about Cassidy. While Sawyer didn't tell her, in order to find Clementine she presumely had to do some research, and Cassidy would me listed as the mother. ... Did Kate ever learn Cassidy's last name pre-island ? --LeoChris 02:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I guess if they had both characters dwelling on what an unlikely coincidence it was that they both know Sawyer it would just waste screentime, so assume that they both already dwelt on that coincidence offscreen. --Integrated (User / Talk) 06:12, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Kate already answered this question:
Cassidy: Sawyer! So that son of a bitch is still alive?
Kate: He was when I left.
Cassidy: And he asked you to come here and give me an envelope full of money?
Kate: Well, he told me where to find you, and.. said to take care of Clementine, his daughter? — Iimitk T C 06:48, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
To me, the question is more how Sawyer was able to convey Clementine's whereabouts to Kate in the short time he had to whisper to her, and how Kate could have remembered all of that information throughout the helicopter flight and raft ride ("Let's see, Clementine Philips, 42 Wallaby Way, Albuquerque..."). Clamshell 20:24, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Huh? It doesn't take long to say "Take care of my daughter, Clementine; she lives with her mother, Cassidy Philips in _____." James' kid living with her mother logically implies they had sex to create the kid. It's not a big mystery and even Kate could add 2+2 using the White Pages. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 01:03, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
The inaudible whisper that Sawyer tells Kate appears to be "I have a daughter in Alabama, you need to find her. Tell her I'm sorry". This video enhances the dialogue. This supports the idea that Kate had to do research to find Cassidy/Clementine, so Kate isn't suprised in the scene we see.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]) .
Another question in this sawyer/cassidy/kate relationship is the way kate reports it to sawyer she doesn't say "you won't believe this but I kinda knew her" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]) .
On the Island[]
Ben, Sun and Frank are on the island in 2007 (30 years after where Sawyer, Jack, etc. are). Not 2008 as it's been entered multiple times, despite my changing it repeatedly. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sommery (talk • contribs) .
Locke's passport.
Actually it's 2008. Here's a breakdown:
Oceanic Flight 815 crashed on the Island on 22nd September 2004. The Oceanic Six returned to civilization after 108 days. With a simple math calculation this means they returned exactly on the first or second week of January 2005 (7th or 8th of the month). So three years from either dates definitely lies in 2008, not 2007. Another evidence was shown in "The Life and Death of Jeremy Bentham", when Widmore gave Locke a Canadian passport with a date of issue on 12th December 2007. Later at the funeral parlor, Jack told Ben that Locke visited him about a month ago. This again puts the date clearly in 2008 (12th of January). A third evidence, however debatable, is that the Ajira Airways website featured a flight from Los Angeles to Guam to be scheduled on 21st January 2009. It's the same exact details of Ajira Flight 316, except the year being 2009 instead of 2008. Since the website is supposed to feature a real-life airliner, there is no point in scheduling flights that are a year earlier, however, on the show, the events take place a year earlier, so a date of 21st January 2008 is pretty much a solid candidate to be the real date of Ajira Flight 316. — Iimitk T C 15:58, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, Ajira 316 took off in 2008, BUT the plane experienced a time shift - the night became a day - so actually we don't know if it's 2007, 2008 or even later. --KemotfromPoland 17:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
True, because of the visible time shift, we don't know for sure what time period Ajira 316 crash-landed on the island, but I would still call it 2008 until we find out otherwise. --Celebok 18:18, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree. It may be 2007 or 2008 in the outside world (or whenever 316 took off), but Sun & gang could be in ANY year, even the far future. Nothing has demonstrated yet what year it is for THEM. Sithboy 19:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I think you are confusing time displacement with time shift. They didn't time travel in a long jump; they just went through that time distortion thing around the Island like Daniel's experiment. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 00:50, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
That's not true. The slide "Thirty Years Earlier" that appeared right after the scene when Ben told Sun & Frank he doesn't know where the rest of Oceanic Six are gone clearly puts the choices between 2007 & 2008. No fancy theories about the far future or ancient times, IMHO. — Iimitk T C 19:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
OK. If Sun, Ben and Frank are in "the present" (2007/2008ish) then explain this. When Sun and Frank get to the Barracks, there is a Dharma sign hanging from its post and a Dharma logo on the door that opens to reveal Christian. This Dharma jive would have all been there at least up until the purge, but you don't see anything like that in scenes of the Barracks when the Others live there. I had always assumed that the Others moved directly into the Barracks after the purge, but perhaps they didn't move in immediately. If that's the case, that it would make sense that Sun/Jin/Frank are in a time between the Purge and when the Others move in. If the Others moved in straight away, then what can we assume? Are they in some "alternate dimension/universe/reality" ? That seems kinda far-fetched, but hey, it is Lost :) The whole "selective flashing" thing seems far-fetched too. Why didn't Sun/Ben/Frank/Lock/anyone-else-from-316 flash into the past? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Superwesman (talk • contribs) 2009-04-03T14:58:46.
There is a lengthy discussion about this on the Processing_Center page, but briefly, the processing center was a separate location from the Barracks. Sun and Frank show up at the processing center, not the Barracks. --LOSTinDC 21:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
We should not get hung up on the idea that "thirty years" means 10957.5 days.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 20:15, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I was just going by the "30 Years Earlier" in Namaste. Sawyer told them it was 1977, not 1978. If the "present" is 2008, it should have said "31 Years Earlier". But I guess it should have. Sawyer, Juliet, etc. started in 1974 and 3 years later it is 1977. Jack, Kate, etc. went home in Jan. 2005 so 3 years later would be 2008. Maybe they were approximating 30 years. I stand corrected. --Sommery 20:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
We see a three years earlier tag on the beginning of Because You Left, and then the island moving, what happened on December 30th, 2004. 2004+3=2007. The price of US$3,22 seen on the gas station on the episode "The Lie" is a price from May 2007. And there are so others "clues". I'm thinking that this discussion will never end without a solid clue on the show (as they saying the year they are) or a producer's confirmation. For that reason I think we shouldn't put the exactly years on the pages, and yes should change them for "Three/Thirty Years Earlier/Later". -- Lucas Benicá | Talk | Email | 06:22, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
You make the point for it being January 2008, whether you realise it or not. You say the three years earlier tag on Because you left makes it Dec 2007, right? Then Jack tells Ben over the coffin that Locke came to see him a month ago. Add approximately another week for the events after Locke died, and 316 crashes in 2008. /confusion over dates. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 17:28, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
I just don't know the reason for we say that it's 2008. If the SERIES is saying "30 Years Later" after has 1977 shown, then they are on 2007, not 2008. We don't know the dates for sure. We can't afirm that Ajira 316 happened on 2008. All we know is that the events happens with a difference of 30 years. Even if it's being an approximate number, thats all we know. I think that is incorrect we afirm that they are on 2008. And IF we have proofs that the flight got out of LA on 2008, we saw a flash and the numbers' transmission happening, they could have travelled in time to 2007, what the SERIES says. Until we have something concret about the year they are, we don't have to assume anything. -- Lucas Benicá | Talk | Email | 20:38, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
There is no assumption. We have dates given to us left and right with all the aforementioned evidence. As I said, even your own statement contradicts your thought that we don't know it's 2008. The 30 years is the approximate to avoid a card that states 30 years, 2 months, 6 days, 3 hours, 23 minutes, 17 seconds. This is no different than if I say something happened a two days ago, when I actually mean it was 37.5 hours, not 48 hours exactly. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 16:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Okay, let's put somethings together. I said, "We see a three years earlier tag on the beginning of Because You Left, and then the island moving, what happened on December 30th, 2004. 2004+3=2007." And then you answered saying, "You make the point for it being January 2008, whether you realise it or not. You say the three years earlier tag on Because you left makes it Dec 2007, right? Then Jack tells Ben over the coffin that Locke came to see him a month ago. Add approximately another week for the events after Locke died, and 316 crashes in 2008. [...] The 30 years is the approximate to avoid a card that states 30 years, 2 months, 6 days, 3 hours, 23 minutes, 17 seconds." So Jack couldn't approximate the " a month ago" but the card could approximate the "30 years ago"? -- Lucas Benicá | Talk | Email | 23:15, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Confusing UQ?[]
What did the woman in the store mouth to Kate? Anyone know what this refers to? Is this nitpicking? --Integrated (User / Talk) 16:17, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I rewatched the episode and when Kate gets Aaron back off the woman she says "Thank you, thank you" and the woman smiles and says something quietly like "That's ok". I really think this is a poor UQ. Removed. --Integrated (User / Talk) 16:27, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
The Closed Captioning says "(mouths word)". That's probably what the question was referring to, but it wasn't clear to me whether it was the woman or Kate who was doing it. I don't think it's important enough to be a UQ, though. Clamshell 20:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree. It was just small talk that will never be resolved or reshown, so not a UQ. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 00:51, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Unintentionally Deleting Posts on Theories Page[]
If there are any ADMIN's on this page now..... please help. There is a glitch on Whatever Happened, Happened/Theories where when a user posts a comment, the wiki software automatically deletes the previous users comments. I have asked a few users & they have all said they didn't try to delete anyone's comments when they posted theirs. I have left a message for Robert K S but if anyone else can fix the problem please do. -- NEVERGIVEUP Contribs Talk 17:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Shouldn't this be on the theory talk page? --Cerberus1838 17:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
The glitch appears to have been fixed. You can tell when it's happening because if you compare the last two edits on the history page, using the compare button, the one on the right won't say "current revision" as it should. You'll see one more revision after it. Click next revision, and you'll see the date is out of order, coming before the revision before it. When you see the Current revision in place when you compare the last two, as it is now, then you know the glich isn't happening or it's been fixed. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 00:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
There are right places and wrong places to put stuff, but when we're having the kind of problems represented by the recurring deletes, any place one thinks an admin might be is the right place to yell, "HELP!"--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 01:31, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
The Woman[]
I thought it was reasonable to wonder if the woman that was walking away with Aaron may actually have been trying to kidnap him, possibly under orders from Ben or Charles Widmore. They disappeared from the back of the supermarket remarkably fast, and were nearly to the exit, despite her claim that she was about to have an announcement made. I almost felt there was a creepy look exchanged between her and Kate. Sithboy 19:17, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I thought the same thing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Superwesman (talk • contribs) 2009-04-03T14:59:36.
I hadn't thought of this, but it's actually a very reasonable theory! Perhaps Ben had hired her to do exactly what she did, with the end goal being exactly what happened: not to actually kidnap Aaron from the supermarket, but to make Kate panic for a minute before finding Aaron with the woman, and then question her own worthiness to raise Aaron, eventually causing her to return to the island. --Celebok 20:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
This is what I assumed. Lost has made us paranoid, but you describe my thoughts exactly. She was almost out of the door. She was creepy. They disappeared very fast. Aaron was RIGHT next to Kate when he disappeared after she turned around for ONE second. How can anyone assume the child was missing? It seemed to me that she was attempting, for whatever reason, to abduct him and played it smart when she was caught. --Cobblepot 20:14, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Kids walk off very quickly, which is why Kate should have had Aaron in a trolley, or not used both hands to worry over her mobile. The woman said she found Aaron in the fruit section and was taking him to the counter. I personally wouldn't have taken the hand of unattended kid, especially with the paranoia of some parents, but perhaps this was a small town and she was a busybody. I wouldn't read too much into it because it wasn't too unusual as to scream theory baiting. The creepy part was intentional, complete with blonde wavy hair, to bring Claire to mind like in Kate's dream, and to further the plot to why Kate left him with Carole. Kate, who was hypersensitive at that point, having just left the dock, let it go. I think we should too, as it doesn't seem like something that will be brought up in the future to "answer". ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 01:02, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
I also thought of this. The really strange part is, is that when Kate stopped to woman, the woman was calm about it. Usually on T.V when someone is caught by a kids parent while trying to kidnap the kid, the kidnapper usually runs away quickly with the child. But this lady just acted like she was going to make an announcment, even though she was CLEARLY heading for the exit. Also, she was walking, quite fast with Aaron. Faster than anybody usually walks. Poor Aaron kinda looked like he was tugging behind her, and having to catch up with her.
Because Kate confessed to Cassidy that she was always waiting for the day when Aaron would be taken from her, and because this woman happened to resemble Claire, the paranoia involved here is meant to be that of Kate, not the viewers. This was the last straw in the guilt she harbors over taking Aaron from his mother, and what set her into motion to go back to find Claire, not a kidnapping attempt. Amandakay1 21:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Kate's Hair[]
Did anyone else think that Kate's hair looked rather... red... in this episode? It was a dark red, but both me and my family was thinking she had dyed it in the early flashback with Cassidy, but then it was like that on the Island as well. Jimbo the Tubby talk contributions 19:18, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Miles referring to turning the wheel[]
When I first read this under the bloopers, I thought that there was no way that Miles couldn't know about the wheel. The more I think about it, the less certain I am. This is a pretty big error for D & C to make. There has to be an explanation lurking in what we've seen. Where?--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 20:22, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
This is being discussed higher up in the page, under "Ben turned that wheel." --Cobblepot 20:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
What kind of blooper is this?[]
"There are no circumstances under which a security office will give a key to an active cell to a janitor."
This is not a blooper. Sorry but DHARMA is unique. It is not like any law enforcement or security agency we know. They have their own laws and protocol and if the writers want the janitor to have the key then he can. I keep removing it but someone adds it again --Anfield Fox|talk|contributions 21:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I keep putting it back because some people take it off without explanation and others take it off with explanations that do not satisfy me. How does "DHARMA is unique" mean it doesn't have some core administrative and law enforcement processes or that you would give a key to a jail cell to the janitor who happens to be the town drunk? Why have a cell if the janitor can open it? The camera doesn't help, BTW; by the time the prisoner is out, the janitor is a potential hostage. Giving the key to Roger was a plot enhancer that the producers didn't think out very well. It's a blooper!--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 21:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
All very good points but that doesn't make it a blooper if it's written that way. Bad writing? Yes. Blooper? No. --Anfield Fox|talk|contributions 22:16, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I disagree that it is a blooper. Horace suggests that all the janitors have keys that would open the cell door. If Horace says that the janitors in the DI have keys to the jail cells, that's not a blooper. It's a decision that sounds ridiculous from a security stand-point, but it's definitely not a blooper. It would be a blooper or continuity error if previously Roger didn't have a key to the cell and now suddenly he did. Namastizzay 22:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Namastizzay. Even though it may not make logical sense to give jail cell keys to a janitor, the DI is not under any established government protocols, so if the writers decide for plot purposes that the DI gives jail cell keys to their janitors, then that's their intentional decision, not a blooper, nor a continuity error. --Celebok 22:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Sawyer is the current Chief of Security which shows you about the requirements to become trusted in DHARMA, Sawyer appeared out of nowhere on the island not even applying to DHARMA, 3 years later he's incharge of security, its clear DHARMA isn't run like a normal company. --Cerberus1838 23:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree. It's not a blooper if that is the way the organisation is run. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 00:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Besides, what kind of criminals do the DI need to lock up on a regular basis, anyway? The cell is probably FOR the town drunk! I get the impression that incarceration is not the typical protocol for handling wayward Hostiles. Sithboy 00:47, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
I completely agree. A blooper and/or continuity error is something that is inconsistent with the canon or facts of the series. Ben uses Roger's keys to free Sayid, and Sawyer knows that Roger has said keys, therefore making it a FACT, regardless of whether it makes logical sense for a janitor to have those keys. Therefore, it's not a blooper. It would only be a blooper if at some point someone had said, "Dharma janitors are NEVER issued keys to the prison cells," and then Roger inexplicably had them. Again, this isn't a blooper... it's not even close to being a blooper. It's just a fact of the story. DesmondHumeWillBeMyConstant 08:26, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Anfield that it is not a blooper, nor should it be placed on the wiki as such. AlaskaDave 12:37, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Blooper: Horace's words at DHARMA security center[]
There's a very similar "blooper" up about the poor quality of the DHARMA security.
"Ben is shot by Sayid and is brought by Jin to the Barracks all at night, however, when Kate went down the security center to talk with Sawyer, it's broad daylight and Horace described Jack as "that new guy I just met him", although that actually happened the day before. Under such chaotic conditions, it's unreasonable for security personnel to wait until next day to check up scene of the crime or start gathering evidence."
Again, not a blooper, just poor organization. Genosoa 01:57, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Horace saying about Jack "that new guy I just met him" is definitely a blooper. I actually think this whole situation is a really messed up blooper. How could it be that Sawyer is looking up Sayid on the monitors at morning when the Ben's shooting and his escape took place at night? — Iimitk T C 02:06, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
But Horace did "just meet him" the night before. I meet people a week ago and still refer to them as people I just met. And Sawyer is most likely just reviewing security footage to see what happened. Or are you saying the video feed is of the morning? That might be a blooper, I'd have to rewatch the episode. Genosoa 02:21, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Horace didn't say "that new guy I just met him the night before"; you did. Also, your far-fetched interpretation of the usage of a so commonly used adverb does not count unless you backed it up with a solid evidence from proper grammatical usage in ordinary English. The adverb "just" means moments ago, or recently, and in no way its proper meaning could be extended to be "a week ago" as you've suggested. Your claim that Sawyer is reviewing footage is just that; a claim. And yes, if Horace's words are to be taken as they're—and I see no reason to the contrary, then the footage is of the morning; hence the blooper! — Iimitk T C 04:52, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Also commonly, night turns to day, this could have taken place during the gap between scenes, it has been known that days can go by between scenes, its clear this is not the case in this scene but it should be accepted that night has turned to day. Horace's words "I Just Met Him" arn't required to be fact, He is merely stating that He met the man recently, also this occurance inwhich night is turned to day is also commonly named a sunrise, if you wish to get a better look at this sunrise phenomenon I suggest Here. Thanks. --Cerberus1838 03:28, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
You said: "Horace's words "I Just Met Him" arn't required to be fact, He is merely stating that He met the man recently". Now what is that supposed to mean? And are you seriously giving me a lecture about earth phenomena just to prove it's not a blooper? Is this episode supposed to be somehow sacred and cannot have sinful bloopers?!
Actually that statement by Horace is "the hook" that proves the blooper. It could be seen from either directions:
1) It all happened at night and Horace's statement about Jack is in the correct syntax. In this case, the blooper is Kate walking in at broad daylight to the security center. Sawyer's checking of the monitors doesn't imply day or night; actually Sayid's cell lights were lit when the security gang went to it. This is, IMHO, the most reasonable choice, since all these security check ups should be happening at night right after the discovery of Ben's shooting and Sayid's escape.
2)It all happened next day at daylight and Horace's statement is in the incorrect syntax; therefore it is the blooper. We can live by this, however, it contradicts what would happen naturally in addition to the previously advertised DHARMA obsession about security and the Hostiles. — Iimitk T C 04:52, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm kind of confused - the "blooper" in question here is that Horace used the word "just" in his sentence, referring to when he met Jack? I took the scene to imply that the DI folks had been up all night fighting fires, treating wounded, and figuring out why they had been "attacked", or at least why the flaming van incident occurred. So, after many hours of the above, it is very early morning and the sun has risen, and LaFleur is reviewing security footage when he is approached by Kate and, shortly thereafter, Horace and friends. Horace, being the current on-site DI leader, is likely to be very familiar with all his personnel, presumably having known everyone (except those who arrived in the most recent sub) for at least a few months, based on Juliet's comment that the next sub would not be arriving for months. He is thus surprised to see one of the DI newbies in a pretty restricted area talking to his head of security, especially after the nights events and recently being accosted by another newbie (Jack) that he, yes, just met for the first time a few hours earlier. Considering the amount of time he has known his people, including LaFleur, is there really a blooper in him referring to a person he was introduced to mere hours earlier as someone he "just met", especially considering the circumstances (i.e. the fact that he suspected someone on the inside helped Sayid escape)? Even if a few hours is too much of a leap to qualify for the use of "just" for some, apparently (which I humbly disagree with, I've been in Dublin for the last two weeks, and I "just" got back last night, is this unreasonable to say?), it can still be taken that Horace was emphasizing the fact that he met Jack so recently in light of the crazy events occurring. Sorry for the long-winded justification, but I was thoroughly surprised by the degree of arguing and back-and-forth over something that seemed both completely justified and relatively trivial (though, of course, I acknowledge that much of the point of this forum is to discuss possibly trivial things, which I of course do, frequently). fantasyunderfire 12:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
1) You're over exaggerating the situation at the Barracks to prove your argument. It was one DHRAMA van that crashed into one DHARMA house. Kate who was actively among the first respondents to the place is seen then sitting still, doing nothing until Roger called for her help, which means that the staggering chaos at the Barracks was over.
2) You, and almost everyone else who debated the grammatical use of the adverb "just", used every restrictive clause you'd imagine that was never used by Horace. Horace didn't say "I just met him few hours ago", or "I just met him last night", or "I just met him last week". He only said "... that new guy I just met him". When used in such a way, could you tell me how it might imply he meant a week earlier? Try this lively with a friend of yours. Tell him or her you "just met" someone, and asks him when exactly he or she thinks that happened. If you then told him you meant you met him a week earlier, well, you'll see the response for yourself, I guess.
I'm not of the type who argue a point here, just because I want it to be included. I'm totally fine if it's not included, however, what we all do here, as you've correctly pointed out, is nitpicking the details of a TV show, in a way that is supposed to be both informative and entertaining. That being said, I was trying to prove that if the show should resemble reality as best as possible, then the situation at the security center should have happened at night, not more than an hour after the van crashed into DHARMAville. I said that Horace's statement was the hook that something is either wrong, or at least worth noting or mentioning, and it doesn't have to be in the bloopers or continuity errors section. — Iimitk T C 09:04, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. There is no set time period for the word "just" -- it's relative and subjective:
"I just started working here a month ago"
"We just went out last weekend"
"He just started taking classes last fall"
"I just met him yesterday"
This will never come up again. -Amandakay1 21:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
"just" isn't relative and subjective. It means "very recently", "to an exact degree or in an exact manner" or "by a small amount"[3][4]. Relativity & subjectivity would then lies withing the scope of the adverb, which clearly regards smallness and small measurements. I even doubt if saying something like "We just went out last week" is grammatically correct, unless you're not using the word "just" as an adverb. — Iimitk T C 09:04, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
First off, "We just met last week" is gramatically correct. Secondly, even if it weren't, since when is a character having poor grammar considered a blooper? Let's say, hypothetically, that you're right and everyone who thinks that this is not blooper simply has a poor understanding of English. Well, then I would argue that Roger just happens to be in the group of people who have a poor understanding of English (considering his position in DHARMA, I'd guess he's probably not that well-educated). Thus, him speaking poorly is just a character trait, rather than a blooper. jimbo_the_tubby 18:33, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
First off, did you actually take the time to read the whole discussion? We were talking about Horace, not Roger. "...that new guy I just met him" were Horace's words. Secondly, I didn't suggest in anyway that anyone has a poor understanding of English. I "just" questioned the use of "just" as an adverb in a specific context. Anyway, since you seem to be the linguist here, are you basically saying that "...that new guy I just met him" could mean anything but "very recently", or "moments ago", and yet have the bravery to even put it as a character's speaking poorly, only to disprove my point? Well, you already got it wrong in the first place, so I don't blame you. — Iimitk T C 07:22, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Oops, sorry... Egg on my face, huh? I had been following the conversation as it was happening, but hadn't posted until now so I forgot who it was about. My bad on that one. Also, I didn't mean to say you were suggesting we had a poor understanding of English, I was using that as a hypothetical example. Regardless of who is right gramatically, there obviously exist people who believe that "just" can mean "a week ago" in certain contexts (ie: certain people in this discussion). So if we just assume that Horace feels the same way, then there's no problem. The point is that I don't think a character's choice of words can possibly be considered a blooper. Jimbo the Tubby talk contributions 08:08, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
First visit to Cassidy[]
I know this is probably the wrong place to put this but on the Aaron page the scene where Kate first went to cassidy is left out. I assume it's before her trial since he is a baby. Brotha305 23:26, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Another Day[]
There should be another day between the dock scene and the day of the 316 crash, given that Sayid would need to be processed in He's Our You. Kate's flashbacks show another day between these events confirms this, therefore it shouldn't be regarded as a blooper unless stated by a canon source. --Cerberus1838 03:45, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
There were at least 34 hours between the visit to the Lamppost to talk to Eloise before they went to 316, then another 9 or 10 hours in the air. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 08:18, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Bring Back Days[]
Now that LOST has returned to its old format I think we should bring back the day(s) to the Episode infobox. Now obviously we would have to go back through 316 but we could seperate them for the 2008 and 1977 timelines. It would look something like this.
Day(s) 1977:2-3 ; 2008:2
Now if nothing in a certain time period takes place like in He's Our You then we would leave out the 2008 part. --Czygan84 00:59, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Agree let's put the days back in. And I also agree a differentiation of the years if present in the episode. —Jack in the box 05:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Comment Well we aren't even sure how many days it has been since Illana and Caesar crashed with 316. Plus if we're flashing around from 1974 to 1977 to 2008 it's gonna be a bit redundant .. ? --Integrated (User / Talk) 06:02, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Used for certain areas with a stable timeline this is possible, but with lack of any idea what day it is, you are unable to provide days. If you have information which shows which day is which then its easily done. --Cerberus1838 15:18, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Disagree The timeline is still has problems, so we can't be accurate with the days. I'd prefer just leaving it as it is. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 17:30, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Comment It's now been -11304 days since the Losties crashed on the Island? ∇ϕ 22:10, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Disagree. We have yet to learn a date in 1977 or 2007/2008. We have insufficient data to make this work.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 22:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
What does a date have to do with anything all we need to know is time thats elapsed since the crash of flight 316. --Czygan84 23:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't know if we do know the days that elapsed since Flight 316 (I thought we did), but we can do days that elapsed since, say, the return of Jack etc. in 1977. Maybe it can be days that elapsed since Locke "woke up" in '08.--Tim Thomason 00:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Richard in old fashioned "pirate" outfit[]
Ben met richard when he was still a boy after arriving on the island with his father. Richard was wearing an old-fashioned doublet and hose style outfit. Kind of like a Black Rock sailor would wear. Since that episode, we've seen richard wearing a navy blue shirt and chinos in the 1950s (before the fancy dress) and in the 1970s (after the fancy dress) Can anyone explain why he'd dress like a pirate? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Carlito123 (talk • contribs) 2009-04-06T06:49:15.
No one can explain it because the the premise is loaded with terms like "dress like a pirate." How does a pirate dress? Do they have a uniform? How did "Black Rock sailor" become "pirate?"--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 12:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
I only meant to ask why he dressed in clothes from a different era when he met Ben in 1973. For example, he wore a suit and tie when he visited young John Locke (appropriate to the circumstances) and hard-wearing workwear when living in a camp in the 50s (also approriate). I only used the term "pirate" and "black rock" sailor to explain the outfit he wore when he appeared in "The man behind the curtain". Replace my "loaded" terms with "clothing from a different era" and see can we surmise. I suppose the correct question is: Why does Richard usually dress appropriate to his location, era and circumstances except when he met Young Ben in 1973 when he dressed in clothes from a different, earlier era?" --Carlito123 14:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
The Others were having their final dress rehersal for Island PAC, when they were rudely interrupted by Ben setting off the Smokey-detector. This is why Richard, annoyed, told Ben to be patient and he too would see the play... eventually. ;) ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 16:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
I think they were doing Pirates of Penzance over at the Hanso Memorial Auditorium. Richard was the Pirate King, Charles Widmore was Major-General Stanley, Erik was Frederic and Ellie showed up as Queen Victoria at the end. Clamshell 03:11, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm more interested in Richard's hair. It's short in the '90s, short in the '50s, short in the 2000s, short in the mid-'70s, short in the late '70s, but for one brief amount of time in the early '70s he's got long hair. He's also confident and in command in all the other time periods, but when he meets Ben just outside the sonar fence perimeter in 1973, he acts like a strung-out junkie or an animal on the run. What's the deal? As for it being a "pirate" outfit, I don't see it. It's a fairly worn shirt with some wonky stitching, and an old vest with hook-and-loop fasteners, and plain old 20th century slacks. There's no doublet or hose. Robert K Stell me 22:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Richard has only worn three outfits, the three that the OP listed. I think this is very significant. Part of me wonders if the long haired Richard is AFTER all of the craziness we've seen. Like, maybe he's been through all of the events with the 815ers, all of the events with the O6/Dharma Initiative, etc. --Crazy Bearded Jack 23:37, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
I am of the school that believes "The Great Pirate Dick" was just a costume like the ones Mr. Friendly and pals wore when they first met the Losties. Jack Dutton 16:13, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Did Sayid want to kill Ben?[]
Not sure if this is relevant, but, we have learned that Sayid is a ruthless killer, and excellent marksmen. His actions upon meeting Jin were pre-meditated, and he had planned on getting the gun, and hence "killing" Ben. Surely then, with all his skill, he would have shot Ben fatally - i.e in the heart, or a headshot. Does this not then lead to the question - did Sayid actually want to kill Ben?, or why did Sayid not kill Ben?--Adklerk 21:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
The Clash?[]
In this episode Aaron gets "Lost in the Supermarket"; the title of a song by The Clash.
It seems to me that there were other things in LOST that related to The Clash, I just can't think of any others right now.
Previously on Lost[]
This section is missing from the episode. Can someone please add it to the page?
Jackaz15 (talk) 01:42, June 3, 2015 (UTC)
