Black Rock ledgerTheories


The Hanso family are selling this ledger because they are trying to raise money to gain funding for the Hanso Foundation which they lost in 1980.
* The diary charts down the course the Black Rock sailed on, and thus explains how to get to the Island. 
** The Hanso family, which is said to have owned the diary, used this information to start the DHARMA Initiative. 
** Widmore wanted the diary because he knew both that the Hanso family was involved in some project on the Island (and he wanted to find it) and that the Black Rock wreckage had never been found. As the journal contains coordinates logged by the Black Rock crew, he believed that the journal could lead him to the Black Rock, and thus to the Island. 
*** He spent his fortune looking for the secret cargo of the Black Rock. Years later he sent the freighters. 
** Other groups wanted the diary because they also wanted to know how to get to the Island. 
*** The boat was sent by one of the other groups. 
** Widmore used the diary to plan his race around the world. 
*** Widmore's annual yacht race would be a great cover to try an explore and search for the Island.  I mean, that's how Desmond got there. 
* There is an unidentified, anonymous bidder ("the caller") at the action who seemingly bids against the rest, Mr Widmore included. 
* The diary came into the possession of Alvar Hanso some time in the 1950's after he purchased the New World Sea Traders company from the East Ocean Trade Group, renaming it to the Allied Copenhagen Marine Merchants.  The New World Sea Traders was the company owned by Alvar's great-grandfather, Magnus Hanso. This diary was in the records of the New World Sea Traders and described the Island and its powers. The dairy was evidently written by a crew member of the Black Rock, and he managed to leave the Island, possibly dying later from the effects of "time shifting". Alvar Hanso located the Island and set up the DHARMA project in order to use the Islands unique properties to aid him in research that was designed to save the world. In 1985, something happened to the project (see the blast door map) and later there was some sort of corporate "shake up" and Thomas Mittelwerk took over the project (see The Lost Experience). His intentions were not so altruistic, and his interest in the Island was for power, money and possible world domination. Mittelwerk involved Widmore Industries and a number of other companies (e.g Paik Heavy Industries) to put his plan in effect. Ben, having knowledge of the direction the DHARMA project had taken, instigated The Purge to shut down what remained of the DHARMA Project, which prevented Mittelwerk and his cronies from returning to the Island. The diary was purchased by Widmore in an effort to regain infomation needed to find the Island once more. Widmore may even be trying to divest his relationship with Mittelwerk, since In Chapter 39 of the book Bad Twin, board members of the Widmore Corporation describe fellow board-member Mittelwerk  as "dangerous...ambitious and brilliantly two-faced, a man acting out an agenda all his own." Ben and the The Others know this history of the DHARMA project and these subsequent events, and they are the good guys, trying to prevent anyone from using the Island for evil purposes.
* Widmore's animosity toward Desmond is about more than just "protecting" his daughter; he is related in some way to DHARMA and knew what role Desmond has to play in the grand scheme of things.
* Miles is trying to extort $3.2M from Ben in order to go back in time and outbid Widmore for the Ledger.

*The ledger contains information relating to the location and properties of the Island. It is the only description of the Island and how to get there that ever made it back to the outside world. This information was used by Alvar Hanso to locate the Island and to place DHARMA Initiative personnel there, and now Charles Widmore, who covets the Island for himself, intends to buy the ledger to use it for the same purpose.

*The Ledger was found in Madagascar because the Black Rock was in port in nearby Mozambique at some stage, probably to pick up the slaves it had onboard. 
**In the Season 1 episode {{ep}} Locke said that the ship "must have been en route to a mining colony--(it) probably set off from the eastern coast of Africa--Mozambique". Madagascar and Mozambique are virtual neighbours.
***That would also explain the dynamite in the ship's hull.
***Not really - dynamite wasn't invented until 1866.http// - the ship sailed in 1845.
**This suggests the Black Rock was grounded and they were stranded on the island for 7 years and then finally escaped the Island somehow and then made it to Madagascar.
**Or the Ledger may have been lost or stolen when the Black Rock was in the Madagascar region before the ship disappeared.
* The writers probably just picked Ile Sainte Marie because it was a notorious pirate haven back during that period of time.  It likely indicates nothing about the ''Black Rock'', its courses, or the location of the Island--it's just where the book happened to end up after five years of trading hands.
*If the ledger was lost before the Black Rock ended up on the island, then it could still give clues as to the direction the ship was heading next.  If the ledger was still with the Black Rock when the ship ended up on the island, then how did the ledger get off the island?  Is it possible that the Black Rock found the island more than once, and that the ledger was lost before the ship ended up there for good?
*Is it possible the pirates found the island and the ledger, then managed to leave?
* The ship sailed for the last time in 1881, not 1845.


* While purportedly lost at sea following its 1845 voyage to Siam, it's possible the master of the Black Rock decided to convert it to a mining/slave ship at this time and "vanished" from official trading records. The ledger could have been lost by legitimate means, or left behind to facilitate this deception.  Either way, the public and other official sources now assumed the ship had sunk.

* Subsequently, it engaged in (possibly illegal) mining practices in the New World using slave labor purchased from European jails. Its actual final voyage was in or after 1867 with Richard Alpert as one such slave.


Here are the links you asked for

Episode Rating http//

LOST Season 4 Ratings http//

-- {{usernusentinsaino/sig}} 1835, 3 March 2008 (PST)

Thank you! D --UserCharlieReborn 0751, 21 July 2008 (PDT)

==Welcome to Lostpedia!==
Hey, there, {{BASEPAGENAME}}.  When you post messages to talk pages, please remember to sign your remarks by typing four tildes (~~~~).  Thanks and happy editing! UserRobert K S K S (User talkRobert K S) 0238, 8 March 2008 (PST)

==Ji Yeon==
The year of dragon, I didn't "redo" my revision, but sorry buddy--we are meant to think that it '''is''' the year of the dragon. Check the trivia section. Peace. --{{UserBlacxthorne/sig}} 1240, 16 March 2008 (PDT)
On first viewing, when you see he says "In the year of the dragon", you think Jin just thinks that guy is an idiot... not that it's the year of the dragon. of course it was put there to imply the date. but only imply, not confirm. --UserCharlieReborn 2234, 16 March 2008 (PDT)

== Question about UQ removal ==

Hi CharlieReborn. You removed my unanswered question from "Meet Kevin Johnson" without an explanation

''How was the Island "not allowing" Michael to commit suicide?''

I was wondering how this doesn't apply as an unanswered question. I'm relatively new to Lostpedia, so I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt... I was just hoping you could explain what was invalid about it. Thanks! Only 31 more days! ) --UserMichaelisinthecoffin 0757, 24 March 2008 (PDT)

Yeah sorry for not explaining, it's just that this question TalkMeet_Kevin_Johnson. we had a very detailed scene this ep - a close up of the gun when michael pulls the trigger, the firing pin is working. then a close up of the bullets, not one missing and there is no dent in any of them. and TalkMeet_Kevin_Johnson.27t_jam. what is left to explain? we saw what happened, it's magical - it's not like we're gonna get a sceintific explianation. Cheers --UserCharlieReborn 0812, 24 March 2008 (PDT)

In the words of Desmond, "No worries". ) That makes sense. I'm willing to accept that and leave the UQ out, but purely conversationally between you and me On your note of it being "magical", do you think that we won't get ''any'' explanation? Perhaps something about the "Course_Correcting_%28theory%29" that Ms. Hawking referred to... maybe Michael couldn't kill himself because he needed to do something in the future? What do you think? --UserMichaelisinthecoffin 0949, 24 March 2008 (PDT)

I think this is a valid UQ.  It's a major mystery of the show, and there is reason to expect a more thorough explanation about this mystery. UserRobert K S K S (User talkRobert K S) 1252, 24 March 2008 (PDT)

I thought it seemed valid, at least according to the LostpediaEpisode_Manual_of_Style. However, I'm not claiming ownership of it or anything, and I'm open to discussion. CharlieReborn, what do you think? Obviously I won't include my possible answer if I were to put the question back up, but does that seem plausible as an answer the show could give? If you agree with that, does it seem reasonable to allow it to be classified as a UQ? --UserMichaelisinthecoffin 1334, 24 March 2008 (PDT)

Ok you're right. they might go into detail about what kind of "magic" that is. so it is a UQ --UserCharlieReborn 0757, 25 March 2008 (PDT)

Cool, thanks CharlieReborn! 30 more days!!! --UserMichaelisinthecoffin 0941, 25 March 2008 (PDT)

== IRC award ==

Congratulations! You've got a big shiny reward for the wonderful cookiemonster bot.
{{medal IRC}} 
Stick it on your userpage! --{{UserBlue eagle islander/sig}} 2212, 8 October 2008 (PDT)

==Wikia design==
Hey, I saw you're pretty knowledgeable when it comes to designing a wikia, so I was wondering if you could do a small design for a wikia I started working on? Thanks in advance, UserLOST-ObiDanKenobi 0305, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

== Theories Pages ==

Hi!  I appreciate any user who makes pages cleaner and consise, but it seems you really took a knife to the Theories Page for Jughead.  Some theories were repeated, but it seems that you removed others completly, which had not been answered in the course of the show.  The theories page usually has broader latitude for posting and opining, than the episode pages.

--UserLanpesci 1016, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

*I went ahead and combined some theories and made some spelling corrections along the lines I think you were going for.  Cheers!

--UserLanpesci 1020, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Which theories are you referring to that I removed completely? I think I only kept the actual theory out of each one and removed the repeats. --UserCharlieReborn 1034, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Also, concerning your following edits, all you seem to have done is first undo mine, and then in this http// edit, capitalize "Dharma" and move a theory as it was to a different place in the same section. Please do not revert me before discussing it. Thanks --UserCharlieReborn 1039, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

== Enhanced caption slashes ==

Please don't forget to sign your talk page messages.  That edit summary was not meant to be hostile to you as an editor, but yes, in general I am (and all wiki editors should be!) very wary of changes that affect large amounts of content, bucking and/or blithely ignoring long-established conventions, unsensible as they may seem at first glance, without prior discussion. I remember the first time I got my knuckles rapped for doing this on Wikipedia. I began an ill-conceived recapitalization campaign not realizing that conventions for such had already been long established in the MoS.  My edits were unceremoniously reversed and I got a very polite talk page message.  In the case of the captions, many of them no longer read grammatically without the slashes, because the captioners never bothered to include commas at the end of lines.  Cheers, UserRobert K S K S (User talkRobert K S) 0804, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

== Line breaks in talk messages ==

I understand your desire to have line breaks in talk messages.  It's less of an issue on other wikis as it is here, where we get a lot of first time users signing up to post an unsigned talk message.  I spend about half of my sysop time just doing cleanup on talk pages--signing them with the {{unsigned}} template and posting what I hope are friendly reminders to the talk pages of those users who need a little reminding.  As to your argument on the point of law, the spirit of the law is to not modify others' remarks so as to put words in their mouths or make presumptive corrections they did not intend.  Here, I am trying to clarify that ''all'' the remarks are yours, and not that you have posted a remark that follows several unsigned comments.  I know it's an inconvenience to be limited to one paragraph per message.  Perhaps you can adopt using some other symbol to indicate a paragraph break? UserRobert K S K S (User talkRobert K S) 1754, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
If you want, we can take this up on one of the policy talk pages.  I'd be fine with a new rule that states that if a user's talk page message includes multiple paragraphs, the user must make it clear that each paragraph is that user's, either by signing each paragraph or by some other means. UserRobert K S K S (User talkRobert K S) 1759, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
I understand the need for clarity. But I don't see how it might cause confusion; when someone posts a message on a talk page he is likely to notice an unsigned message above his, that makes it look like they wre both written by him. I suggest the policy be updated to point out the option of using {{unsigned}}.
Worst case, a reply is made mistakenly to the wrong person, and the replier gets corrected. --UserCharlieReborn 0137, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
BTW, I'd love to have your input about my suggestions at LostpediaIdeas. As a fellow Wikipedian and as a sysop, you can help get things moving. --UserCharlieReborn 0150, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
(moved) I'm replying to your immediate above point, and because I'm a new user who doesn't understand wikis, I'm posting my response in between yours. {{unsigned}}
You said you're already adding {{unsigned}} and editing the page for stuff like grouping messages, can't we just do this? It's only reasonable, considering a whole wiki is limited to one paragraph per message because of this minor problem. --UserCharlieReborn 0210, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
(moved) It was a hassle to move that remark and add the {{unsigned}} template, wasn't it?  I do it numerous times a day, just to keep things tidy.  Now, I don't have to do this.  I could just let the talk pages become incomprehensible piles of unsigned interstitial messages.  But I try to do my part.  When I get reverted and scolded, I admit I'm a bit dissuaded.  If you promise to patrol the talk pages and do the hunting down of misplaced messages, and the unsign'ing, and the friendly pleasesign'ing, then as far as I'm concerned, you can have special dispensation and use all the paragraph breaks you want. {{unsigned}}
First off, can you stop using this discussion as an example? I got your point, and that's not helping. Now look, it's not that I don't appricate your work on these matters, I get it, its annoying, its work, etc. But I'm suprised I need to tell you that these are the things admins are for. As a sysop you were assigned to help orginize the wiki, you said that yourself, but as long as you're enforcing this rule, you're doing just the opposite. Besides, its nearly the same amount of work. Also, I haven't seen any community discussion about this rule. Hell, maybe if you explain the situation, everyone will agree that instead of finding where the message is suppose to be, you should just delete it and inform the poster. I know I'll agree to that.
On a side note, if these things bother you so much, you can turn to Wikia and ask them to assign a bot for Lostpedia to deal with these problems. That's what they're here for, provide hosting and extensibility. --UserCharlieReborn 0251, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
AFAIK, getting a signbot isn't a matter of flipping a switch.  I asked the developer of Wikipedia's SineBot if he's ever seen one on another wiki, and he said no.  Creating and running such a thing would take resources this wiki doesn't have.  What we have now instead is you, since you so kindly volunteered to be our signage patrol. -) UserRobert K S K S (User talkRobert K S) 0708, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
LOL... I didn't volunteer, you just suggested it --UserCharlieReborn 1806, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

== Tone ==

Your tone in the LostpediaIdeas discussion is becoming less idea-oriented and more personal. Please keep the discussions civil and not personal. Thank you. --{{UserSam McPherson/sig}} 1908, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
What are you referring to specifically? I'm criticing Lostpedia, how is that not civil? In case you forgot, its the page that was made to do that. LostpediaIdeas is bound to be a bit more stormy than regular talk pages, ideas are getting proposed, disputed, rejected. It's only natural my tone would be more aggressive, and I stand by what I wrote. --UserCharlieReborn 1919, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

== unblock ==

I misinterpreted your intent on the Chat article due to the swearing in the edit comments.  {{UserJabrwocky7/sig}} - 0605, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Uhh what now? I was blocked? You're a loose cannon, you know that? --UserCharlieReborn 1925, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
How about undoing your revert while you're at it?! or are you too busy banning other ''contributers'' and stalking conversations on ? --UserCharlieReborn 1931, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
==Theory page==
Thank you for your contribution to The Constant/Theories.  According to theory policy, found LPTP, debate is not allowed in the article itself, but is to be limited to the discussion page of the appropriate theory article.  I've removed it for this reason, but encourage you to submit your text again into the discussion page, and remove that theory if it is implausible for a good reason.  Thanks {{UserLOSTonthisdarnisland/sig}} 0958, 29 February 2008 (PST)
==Theory page==

Thank you for your contribution to The Constant/Theories. According to theory policy, found LPTP, debate is not allowed in the article itself, but is to be limited to the discussion page of the appropriate theory article. I've removed it for this reason, but encourage you to submit your text again into the discussion page, and remove that theory if it is implausible for a good reason. Thanks {{UserLOSTonthisdarnisland/sig}} 1001, 29 February 2008 (PST)