Current Status[]
Currently the theories page is bugged, the posts overwrite others as seen in other theory pages, currently the page is in a poor state due to no editing being able to take place, almost everything on the page should be removed though to once the problem is solved, in the mean time I suggest those who want to edit the theories talk here. --Cerberus1838 17:54, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- Page deleted and re-created. Robert K S tell me 18:54, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks gonna get editing, try and remove everything which goes against the spoiler policy. --Cerberus1838 19:22, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
All Sections[]
Some of the theories were just replying to other theories, had no reasoning or were off-topic these were deleted, please discuss theories here, people need to use the theories talk pages for once. --Cerberus1838 06:45, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- Due to some backlash about this, it was all deleted for a reason, most of the posts that were replyed to this page should also but under constant watch after and episode comes out, there are always many spoilers, disproven and sometimes entirely pointless theories when these episodes come out. I suggest discussing the theories here not on the theories page, this is what the page was intended for and these pages are never used.
--Cerberus1838 08:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- If you completely remove someone's post of a theory the and they list their name. The least you can do is let them know why. It is ridiculous some of the posts that are left standing when other legitimate posts are taken down by overzealous individuals.--Liammaxim 10:41, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- If posts are taken down, they should be put here with an explanation at least. I completely agree that a lot of these theories are off the deep end and are completely irrelevant and stupid sometimes, but they should at least be placed here with why it was removed. If some evidence for some of these ludicrous theories crops up in a later episode, we will be able to transfer the removed theories from this page to the legit theory page--Pags 15:48, 3 April 2009 (UTC)Pags
- Also I can't monitor this page everyday and I create a large amount of editing, these are constantly being undone, but in addition people do continue to post their theories without any idea if there are other theories like it, they are also posted without reasoning, factual evidence or even understand what they themselves are on about, these theories should be deleted instantly. As I have stated many times if you have a problem then, yes state it here, but DO NOT undo changes which are justified, in additon please read The Theory Policy. --Cerberus1838 20:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- Re:Pags--from a protocol standpoint, the burden is on the theorizer to make sure posted theories conform to policy, and any theories that don't may be removed without explanation. Leaving a brief explanation in the edit summary is the courteous thing to do, and for debatable theories, that debate preferably takes place on this page. But from a policy enforcement standpoint we can't have a reversal of burden to those who are just trying to keep things clean. I believe this is pretty clearly laid out on the policy page. Robert K S tell me 20:41, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed, I think the problem doesn't come from Robert K S or Cerberus1838 editing for the right reasons. I think the real problem comes from those that remove legitimate theory's (however good or stupid) seemingly because that person disagreed with them. I understand that no reason MUST be given, but without a reason, how do you know what is wrong with your post so you can re-word it or fix it to be a correct theory? NEVERGIVEUP Contribs Talk 21:56, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- I must admit, I've only been posting for about 2 weeks now but I am getting to the point where I no longer want to bother with it as most of them are either removed by a glitch or someone deleting them. There are guidlines to stick to but I just don't think people should have to feel this way. -- NEVERGIVEUP Contribs Talk 21:59, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- So yeah, there's a post that basically reads: "This episode confirms the theory of a single timeline." so I post a reply pointing a big hole on this theory that still needs to be fixed and explain lenghtly the implications. The post saying "yay the theory is right" stays and my post, actually contributing something is erased over and over. I really don't get this "philosophy".
- If you completely remove someone's post of a theory the and they list their name. The least you can do is let them know why. It is ridiculous some of the posts that are left standing when other legitimate posts are taken down by overzealous individuals.--Liammaxim 10:41, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Roger Linus Theory[]
The current Roger Linus theory isn't actually a theory, its a summary of an episode, then it follows to break rule 1 of the basic theory policy rules, suggesting deletion. --Cerberus1838 16:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Widmore[]
Most of the Widmore theories are off-topic they are more about Richard, suggesting some be moved to a richard related theory. --Cerberus1838 16:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- Also, many Widmore theories are pure speculation, such as the Smoke Monster kidnapping him. There isn't even any implicit evidence for this happening. When speaking with Locke, Widmore says "I was afraid Benjamin might fool you into to leaving the island, as he did with me". He then says he was the leader and he and the Others protected the island peacefully for 3 decades until he was exiled. He makes no mention of kidnapping or mysterious happenings. Smoke monster kidnapping is complete speculation with nothing to back it up. --Pags 15:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)Pags
Jack's decision[]
I couldn't edit the theory page, but I guess this is a comment on a theory which probably belongs here anyway. Regarding Jack's surgery on Ben in 2004 being a mistake: But Jack's decision in 2004 was as set in stone as his decision in 1977. That's the meaning of destiny. If he doesn't save Ben in 2004, the events couldn't happen to bring the Losties to 1977 where Jack chooses not to save young Ben. In the "whatever happened, happened" worldview, all events are already predetermined, so talking about choice at all is moot.--Znils 17:56, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- Maybe Ben and the others are so ruthless in their measures because Jack does have a choice in his present time, but that choice will have bad effects. They are always working towards a goal by any means necessary.Annarboral 19:34, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- Jack has a choice in every time period he is in. But when it comes to changing the future (while in 19777), he can't. His choice to save young Ben from the gun shot has already happened, but he is choosing it for the 1st time.-- NEVERGIVEUP Contribs Talk 18:06, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Two Types of Rebirth/Reincarnation[]
"The way Ben's life is restored isn't the same way John Locke's or Christian Shepard's was restored. One difference is that Ben wasn't actually dead yet, but that may or may no be signifigant. The noticeable difference though is that John Locke clearly remembers his life in the past, including his 100 days on the island and even remembers dying. Christian also, seems to at least remember that Jack is his son. Ben, according to Richard, won't remember anything (or at least won't remember dying).
- Christian seems to also be the opposite of Ben in rebirth. Christian lead a less than innocent life of alcohol abuse, adultery, and lies, but on the island seems to be a good guy now. Ben was innocent as a child, but turns into a bad guy.
- This is neither rebirth nor reincarnation. It's the same thing that happened to Russeau's (sp) shipmates. They are somehow 'converted' to the island's way of thinking. Though it's worth noting that the guy who got dragged into the Temple didn't (as far as we know) re-emerge with a healed arm.
- Toe-may-toe, tah-mah-toe. The literal definition of the words here I don't think is the point. The point is that what happened to Ben, and what happened to Locke and Christian Shepard aren't the same thing...no matter what you call it."
This was on the Theory page, a perfect example of whats wrong with alot of theories around, it is a great theory, but it lacks any evidence and later posts are just discussing the actual name of the theory, if anyone wrote this or contributed to this I am in no way insulting you just please think of the Theory policy and by all means feel free to rewrite it to the policy guidelines. --Cerberus1838 21:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- Furthermore, this theory is fallacious because of the terminology used. Reincarnation involves coming into existence again in a different physical form. Neither Christian nor Locke were reincarnated or reborn: they were merely REVIVED from death. They died and then their bodies were brought back to life. They are still Christian and Locke. Young Ben has not died. Presumably, he won't die and will be HEALED in the Temple through some unknown process which will be revealed in a future episode. This process is different from the process that revived Locke and Christian. They merely landed on the island and were suddenly alive again. Moreover, Christians REVIVAL is different from Locke's. Christian seems to have been brainwashed in some fashion, but he is still Christian for the most part. Christian has randomly appeared in many locations (reception office, frozen wheel cave in ancient times, jacob's cabin). In his current state, Locke seems to be less "strange" than Christian. He does not seem to have the same relationship with the island that Christian has. --Pags 22:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)Pags
- While I understand that the theory pages require a lot of cleaning up, I also feel that if you're in the habit of using particular theories as examples of what you think deserves deletion, you are indeed insulting them. It's really not necessary, and anyway, I don't think the theory you have here as an example is all that bad or lacking in evidence. It's also frustrating that all the posts made by Cerberus are full of run-on sentences, fragments, comma splices and misspellings. 4s8a15m16a23n42tha 21:00, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- I'm the guy who posted the "This is neither rebirth nor reincarnation" bit... personally I don't see the theory discussion as any worse than 90% of the discussion out there, but whatever makes you happy. That said, the next post starting with "this theory is fallacious because of the terminology used" is a little ironic, given criticism of me "discussing the actual name of the theory"...--Chocky 15:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- Furthermore, this theory is fallacious because of the terminology used. Reincarnation involves coming into existence again in a different physical form. Neither Christian nor Locke were reincarnated or reborn: they were merely REVIVED from death. They died and then their bodies were brought back to life. They are still Christian and Locke. Young Ben has not died. Presumably, he won't die and will be HEALED in the Temple through some unknown process which will be revealed in a future episode. This process is different from the process that revived Locke and Christian. They merely landed on the island and were suddenly alive again. Moreover, Christians REVIVAL is different from Locke's. Christian seems to have been brainwashed in some fashion, but he is still Christian for the most part. Christian has randomly appeared in many locations (reception office, frozen wheel cave in ancient times, jacob's cabin). In his current state, Locke seems to be less "strange" than Christian. He does not seem to have the same relationship with the island that Christian has. --Pags 22:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)Pags
What Ben will and won't remember[]
Although it was clearly explained in the episode why Ben won't remember being shot, are they also going to use the temple to say that it's the reason Ben doesn't remember living with Sawyer Juliette and Jin for 3 years? What is Ben going to forget his whole life?--WhyDidntUKnow 12:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Ben is going to remember the whole thing. That is why he calls for Hurley, Kate, Jack and Sawyer in Michael's list, and that is why he knows he can use Syiad. It is also why he calls Syiad a killer with such confidence in "He's Our You."
- I'm probably going to move this to the Theory page later on today if no one objects. I can't see that it violates the theory rules right now.
- --Lepton78 15:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- I disagree because it has been stated (by Ben I think) that the reasoning for Ben's list is as follows....... Jack; to perform surgery on Ben....... Sawyer & Kate; used by Ben to manipulate Jack into doing the surgery....... Hurley; not a threat to them & used only to take the message back to the Losties camp. The question I have is how did they know so much about the Losties at that time to know that that Sawyer & Kate were the ones they could use to best manipulate Jack? -- NEVERGIVEUP Contribs Talk 15:15, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- In The Other Woman Harper says that Ben has a crush on Julliette because she "looks just like her." It could be that she looks just like herself. This would mean that Ben indeed doesn't remember everything clearly. It could also mean that at some point Harper has some interaction with Julliette in the past and she doesn't realize they are the same person. The her could simply be someone else, as well.
- If Ben remember everithing, we can explain many thing we have seen in the past seasons. If not, is possible that he dont ask himself about your personal past? Ben know many things on the time travels and know the mechanism to travel in the time: he move the island through the time (and space). Ben is shrewd and sharp; is possibile he dont imagine that in the past are occurred things that involv time traveller? I suggest to open a section for answare to this question: "what have we seen in the past seasons which can think which Ben remember losties when the plane crash in the first season?" (PRO e CONTRO)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mauro.doria (talk • contribs) .
- I'm quite confident that Ben does remember much about the Losties in 1977. Firstly, in Through the Looking Glass, Alex asks Ben why can't the Losties just leave the island. He replies, 'Because I can't!' Perhaps he doesn't want them to leave because he realises that they must go travel back in time eventually and the only way to do that is via the Island. In addition, it would also explain why Juliet was kept on the island for so long when she was only planned to stay on for 6 months. Ben knew that it was impossible to survive pregnancy on the island, however he told Juliet that she would have to stay there until the research was complete, in One of Us. Phobia27 21:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- Just remembered another thing, in Through the Looking Glass he told the Others at the Beach camp to shoot the sand but not Sayid, Bernard and Jin, to make it sound like they shot them. Perhaps the real reason he didn't want them shot was because he knew Sayid and Jin will need to travel back in time to 1977? Phobia27 21:46, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- Are you assuming Ben, at 2006, have not open a paper archive? No watch a photo? Not examine a document? I dont think so! I think, however, that Ben has a larger plan than the from the first season. All that we saw on Ben is part of this great plan. Ben cannot ignore the past traveller!
- I'm quite confident that Ben does remember much about the Losties in 1977. Firstly, in Through the Looking Glass, Alex asks Ben why can't the Losties just leave the island. He replies, 'Because I can't!' Perhaps he doesn't want them to leave because he realises that they must go travel back in time eventually and the only way to do that is via the Island. In addition, it would also explain why Juliet was kept on the island for so long when she was only planned to stay on for 6 months. Ben knew that it was impossible to survive pregnancy on the island, however he told Juliet that she would have to stay there until the research was complete, in One of Us. Phobia27 21:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Richard[]
Did Richard take a deep breath just as he pushed the door of the Temple open (along the lines of "Here goes nothin'!")?--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 15:57, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
- Yes. I, too, thought he was showing an uncharacteristical concern and hesitation. Maokun 04:20, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- I second that, too. Writerstix 03:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- Maybe going into the temple will affect Richard in some way as well. Or perhaps he understands (possibly more than anyone else because of his special properties) that his actions will have serious repurcussions (they being the future as we know it).--Pdtmathieson 14:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Time Paradox[]
If Ben had died, it would result in a time paradox along the lines of the one Hurley metioned when making a reference to Back to The Future. I goes as follows: If child Ben never becomes big Ben, He never would have murdered Locke, meaning locke would be alive. Also, because it was Ben who moved the wheel, then everyone who dided of a Time-Induced nosebleed would be alive (For example, Charlotte). But, if there were no time shifts, then Sawyer, Hurley, Miles, Jin, Sayed and everyone who is stuck in the 1970's cannot possibly exist in that point in time, so time would correct itself by removing them from existence.--The A-Kong Ride on! 07:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- Ben can not die! This is the case of course correction. We have see that with Michael.When Michael attempts suicide, he can not die.
- Ben can die, but he can only die in the 21st century; this is a direct consequence of what Miles said. ∇ϕ 11:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree! A young Ben in 1977 can NOT die! But a adult Ben can die!
- This is a very good explanation; this isn't Back to the Future time travel (I would like to say it's more serious but it's still just a TV show!). Everyone is experiencing everything as it happened in 1977 according to what was the past in 2008... nothing is happening differently because of the time travel, as the Losties appeared then as well. Nothing that we have seen in 1977 now is inconsistant with what we have seen previous to this season.
- Ben can die, but he can only die in the 21st century; this is a direct consequence of what Miles said. ∇ϕ 11:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Juliet[]
- How did Juliet know about a 'way' to help save Ben?? Do all of the Others have some experience at the Temple which affects them forever in such a way that they will always be 'one of them'? Does this mean that Juliet will always be one of the others?
Holstar 10:42, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- It doesn't appear that Juliet would have experienced this though; she doesn't appear as the Others do, totally comitted to the Island. This may have been because of Ben's affection, but she just seems in it because it will make her sister better then she went for the ride. She never seems interested in the Island herself like Ben or some of the Others did (such as Tom, who was always unquestioning regarding Ben's orders to protect the Island).--Pdtmathieson 14:48, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- Don't forget that Juliet was sentenced to death by her peers, ending up 'marked' because of Ben's intervention. She was 'exiled' from the Others. Jocapaletos 23:23, 2 August 2009 (UTC)