Meltdown

Conventions
== A little Help ==
Say sorry to bug ya about something so petty but I'm trying to update my sig and was wondering if you could tell me if you see a fancy cursive like signature or just a plain text font one. You just seem to be the only person online and it would help. Thanks.--{{UserJamesTFord1987/sig}} 0254, 16 December 2008 (PST)

== The Hostile Theories ==
Just wondering why you deleted all of those theories from the article, did you move them?--{{UserJamesTFord1987/sig}} 0310, 16 December 2008 (PST)

*I removed some theories which were fairly silly and ridiculous, lacking support and evidence. The theories involved time travel and in my opinion were extremely far out and without any basis in the show.

== Thanks Bud ==

Hey thanks for updating my theories page the other day (no sarcasm intended at all). I have been meaning to do that for like 2 months but I've been very busy with the Via Domus Walkthrough and am just now getting around to updating my user page, talks and sig for the forth time. I was wondering two things however, how did you find out the Lockedown was to hide the pallet drop? and do you know where I can see (if anywhere) some kind of transcripts about what Walt says when speaking backwards. It hasn't been uploaded to LP yet and it was something I was talking to a couple users about adding to the transcripts. Just some info I would like to look in to. Thanks a bunch once again, you saved me a bunch of time of reading threw those theories for outdated one's.--{{UserJamesTFord1987/sig}} 0224, 17 December 2008 (PST)

== REThe Number 9 ==

Yea that's the aricle page, the theory page for the number 9 is on the discussion page of that sandbox, but the number 9 may seem kind of broad at some points and the one's on that page may be as well, but I got those by going threw each of the transcripts and searching for ''9''. Some are too broad and will be deleted, but if you read the others it raises a few questions. At this point nothing is really on accindent on this show and there are quite a few on that page that really seem like something that the writers would put in the show on purpose. Plus there is more pop ups of the number 9 then 4, 16 and 42.--{{UserJamesTFord1987/sig}} 1019, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Alright here you go, I believe in some way that the number 9 is one of the varibles needed to change some of the numbers in the valenzetti equation. The page is in standby status right now because I can't tell you how to change the equation until I find out how they got the original numbers in it in the first place. You tell me how the number 16 got in the equation in the first place and I'll tell you how to change it. But here is a ''short'' list of the number 9 referances I believe to be intentional;
''I deleted the list to save space on your page now that you have seen it.''
Yep, and that's just a short list of some of the ones from season 1 and 2. I still haven't listed 3-4 yet or the one's that arn't verbal (''I got them from transcripts''), I just came up with that list to try to convince you. We'll just have to wait and see, but I'm almost 75% sure that it has something to do with changing the Valenzetti Equation.--{{UserJamesTFord1987/sig}} 0938, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
I'd think so, I was looking into it a bit before but can't remember exactly what was said, but as far as I know they all died before anything to big could be discovered. I'm looking into the subject more here and there and if I come across anything I'll let you know.--{{UserJamesTFord1987/sig}} 0958, 29 December 2008 (UTC)(''Oh yeah, and just to let you knowm, your user page still says you were banned from the other day'')
Yeah, I looked into the first paragraph or two in the Valenzetti Equation it said that the DHARMA failed in their attemps and that was why the numbers were broadcasting over the radio tower to the mainland, if the DHARMA were to change one of the numbers using the enviorment they would rightfully change the message in the tower. I also have been comming across more pop ups of 9 with more of the original numbers. Time will tell.--{{UserJamesTFord1987/sig}} 1122, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

== Thanks ==
(67 × 90 pixel, file size 16 KB, MIME type image/jpeg) This is just the settings for your average mini pic like ImageSawyer-mini.jpg. Thanks again, image uploading and editing images is not one of my strong suits.--{{UserJamesTFord1987/sig}} 1303, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
*ImageVlcsnap-41248.pngThis one's PERFECT, the other one's good to it just reminds me of "Ghost Rider". Thanks though, I really should read up on the images help page. I just decided the other day that I should get rid of Kate and replace her with Dead Roger. Thanks again I hope you didn't go to far out of your way, but they both were good shots.--{{UserJamesTFord1987/sig}} 1955, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
sorry about the delay I was working on moving a couple pages, One way or the other, your 10 min of work turned out to be very worth it to me and it seems to you as well. Now I got to go look up some images for the main page and might be stuck on this for the next couple days so I'll be here. Thanks--{{UserJamesTFord1987/sig}} 0441, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

== Removing Submarine Theory ==

Thank you ) --{{Usergaarmyvet/sig}} 0119, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Did I screw up?  I thought you were the one who removed the "Danielle moved the submarine" thing, which needed removing.--{{Usergaarmyvet/sig}} 0129, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

==Spelling==
* I believe both "blond" and "blonde" are used interchangeably in most situation in standard American English, and the "e" is not necessarily a gender-specific marker. --{{UserSanta/sig}} 0419, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
* I believe that is incorrect (the American part about not giving a cr@p is probably correct). 
> Masculine blond, brunet, fiance > Feminine blonde, brunette, fiancee {{UserDocH/sig}} * I am truly upset about the above comment, we care about almost anything we can have an opinon on, LOL. As for if your talking about hair color its "blonde" to us no matter if your talking about a male or female. But I would like to know if Bloody is a swear or not, or what it means?--{{UserJamesTFord1987/sig}} 1920, 10 January 2009 (UTC) Yeah, I always kinda just saw it as a word that ment a lot of different things, even in place of swears in some cases from what I've noticed as a "for lack of a better word" type thing (''It's not just Lost that has overused "Bloody" it seems to be every American Tv/Film writer out there, we get it A LOT over here when writing for Brits''). I'd love to take a trip over there some day, but I'm telling everyone I'm from Canada.--{{UserJamesTFord1987/sig}} 0553, 11 January 2009 (UTC) I know, it's just our movies all make it seem like you guys love to kidnap us and pay $50,000 to murder us in wierd ways. I'd be happy as long as I could find a place that sells ''COLD'' beer! ("Green Street Holligans" was the best and I got someone bringing over "Revolver" in the next week.'')--{{UserJamesTFord1987/sig}} 0615, 11 January 2009 (UTC) == The second faction == You've removed the proposed second faction of the Others twice. That's fine if you have a reason other than "Give me a break!" But, if they were not a second faction, then who were they?--{{Usergaarmyvet/sig}} 1400, 11 January 2009 (UTC) No problem, but please go to The Others/Theories.--{{Usergaarmyvet/sig}} 1338, 12 January 2009 (UTC) I copied and pasted the two items above into my talk page and added some additional comments. Please take a look when you have time.--{{Usergaarmyvet/sig}} 1836, 13 January 2009 (UTC) == The Hostiles == I didn't know you were talking about 92'-04' but I read the hostiles page and the others page and it seems the same. The only difference is that the hostiles page is based on them before the purge and that the name is what DHARMA refered to them as. Am I missing something between the others and the hostiles?--{{UserJamesTFord1987/sig}} 1232, 14 January 2009 (UTC) Nevermind, i read on and saw that the hostiles were the originals and the others are mostly recruited. So yeah your more than right, something happened that got rid of the hostiles, mabey a civil war or they just got off the island (this could be why ben had the Radio Jammer was on). I'll bet money that this is how/when/why Charlotte got off the island (Mabey Abbadon too) Thanks for the update, that raises questions I never even thought off before. --{{UserJamesTFord1987/sig}} 1242, 14 January 2009 (UTC) We got to move this conversation over to the others or the hostiles theories page, this one could be some fun to work out and discuss.--{{UserJamesTFord1987/sig}} 1244, 14 January 2009 (UTC) == Season 5! == You have no idea man, The episodes got great names and we get two right off the bat, I just hope they make up for only giving us 14 episodes last year. One good thing is I just got on LP this year so it'll be the first time I can hop on add theories that day and have them be at the top of the list and read first. I really can't wait to see "The Lie", I almost bet that it'll be the episode that we figure out what happened on the island after they left. It's going to be great.--{{UserJamesTFord1987/sig}} 0139, 17 January 2009 (UTC) It's next Wednesday here in the US, I don't know if it works the same with another country but it more than likely does. Yeah, I can't remember if it was in the commentary or the bonus features, but either damon or carlton said that one thing people should be thinking about is not only where the island is but "when". That should be wierd, but I pray that it doesn't get cheesy. What do you think, will it be the future or the past?--{{UserJamesTFord1987/sig}} 0148, 17 January 2009 (UTC) It's going one of two ways, the future or the past. If they go to the future, it's going to be after humanity starts to faid and the work in the Valenzetti Equation will be more important then ever. If they go to the past it will be ALL about the DHARMA and their crazy and wild stories. But one thing is for sure, the Temple will for sure be in this season. They made it to mysterious to not show it. I think they'll go into the past just because it would be a little less cheesy than flying cars and such. But if they do go into the past AND move the island, how does DHARMA, black rock and the french science team still find the island?--{{UserJamesTFord1987/sig}} 0239, 17 January 2009 (UTC) I can't wait to see the opener, I hope they go back to a music one. Also I do think that Charlie will be back quite a bit, he's going to be the next Christian only shown more than Christian was in season 1 and 2. We all know that when you die on Lost your never gone and Charlie is going to be one of the best examples next to C.S., The monster is going to impersonate Charlie also just like he did Yemi and such to take advantage of people and come to people who didn't even know he was dead. (That's like 6-7 different minor theories they just keep comming)--{{UserJamesTFord1987/sig}} 0244, 17 January 2009 (UTC) Going to have to take that last part back, I was looking at the main page and it doesn't have a listing for the Austrailian air date. There might be a delay, i'm not to sure. If you could look it up on a Tv guide or something like that and inform the sys ops within the next couple days that could help a little.--{{UserJamesTFord1987/sig}} 0406, 17 January 2009 (UTC) == Season 5 Cont. == You bring up a good point, if they went back in time that would screw a lot of info, but if they went into the future everything would have worked out, with that being said they couldn't have gone to far into the future or John Locke wouldn't have been able to go back to the mainland and talk to Jack and the rest of the O6.--{{UserJamesTFord1987/sig}} 0432, 17 January 2009 (UTC) Nice, so what are you an Austrialian in America or an American in Austrialia? Like Robert Downing Jr.--{{UserJamesTFord1987/sig}} 0757, 17 January 2009 (UTC) I didn't know that you could do that, what is it some kind of cable/satellite thing or something? Before season 5 kicks off I decided to read "Lord of the Flies", I'm about half way through and I never realized how many things match up. I always new they were somewhat close but not this much. It's a good E-Book though.--{{UserJamesTFord1987/sig}} 0908, 17 January 2009 (UTC) Oh, Ok. So you watch it online or something, like abc.com.--{{UserJamesTFord1987/sig}} 0933, 17 January 2009 (UTC) ==REEpisode summaries== Hey Integrated. Usually, the page is unprotected, so anyone can edit the page. This usually get's confusing at first, but things sort themselves out after a while. --{{UserCTS/sig}} 0501, 17 January 2009 (UTC) == Re The Monster/Theories hypersensitivity == Hypersensitivity to electromagnetic fields is currently under a lot of studies by doctors and study groups. Cases of people who suffer from hypersensitivity are reported to have many different symptoms ranging from skin irritation to hallucinations to nausea to headaches and even paranoia i.e. "fear cages" where one feels as though they are being watched from an unseen force. This is a relatively new phenomenon since humanity has only have been dealing with electronics for a limited amount of time and usually people who suffer from this condition are unaware of what is causing it and some state that they are being haunted by ghosts. I know it is used to debunk ghost hauntings in peoples homes because some electrical output is not properly installed and that is what causes it. Also in some cases it is caused by cell phones, microwaves, radio towers and power lines. Also one thing to note is that again with the ghost theories is that it is believed that ghost can manipulate EMFs to gain power to manifest themselves. I believe that the writers are using these theories of EMFs and ghost to explain why the island and the Monster can manifest itself in the form of individuals who are known to be dead or undead. You probably wont find any articles on this subject of hypersensitivity of EMFs in any medical references because like I said it is a fairly new phenomenon.--UserDeucedub17 0125, 18 January 2009 (UTC) I wonder if this has anything to do with Day-ja-vu (spelling?)?--{{UserJamesTFord1987/sig}} 2102, 19 January 2009 (UTC) ==RETheories== Yes, you may delete theories ''only'' if they have been debunked/disproven. --{{UserCTS/sig}} 0128, 18 January 2009 (UTC) == sorry... == Sorry about the cleanup you did after I tried to clean up The Man Behind the Curtain/Theories. I tried to do a good job with it but it seems that I just made a mess for you to clean up--UserDeucedub17 0845, 18 January 2009 (UTC) I was merging some of the theories from The Man Behind the Curtain/Theories to The Purge/Theories and Ben Linus/Theories and I noticed you cleaned up those theories after I made the changes. That was what I was talking about. But Yeah I'll definitely work on that.--UserDeucedub17 0915, 18 January 2009 (UTC) Just one thing, were you talking about the actual article or the theory page?--UserDeucedub17 0919, 18 January 2009 (UTC) == Past or Future? == Hey, I'm head to sleep but the other day we were talking about time location of the island and we were focusing on the past, but in the video that Locke watches about "Time traveling bunnies" says that the DHARMA tests were to make the bunny jump into the future, that's something to think about. I also heard a good one that the "Donkey Wheel" can spin both ways, one way for past and one way future (I like this one).--{{UserJamesTFord1987/sig}} 1235, 19 January 2009 (UTC) That was just a theory from UserCrazyBeardedJack that I thought was intresting. But the DHARMA bunnies going into the future is one hint I think that will have an effect on the show, one way or the other, past or future, I don't think it will be large jump, mabey a couple months at the very most.--{{UserJamesTFord1987/sig}} 2053, 19 January 2009 (UTC) A "''Primitive''" time machine? LOL--{{UserJamesTFord1987/sig}} 0011, 20 January 2009 (UTC) Guess CrazyBeardedJack was wrong about that one. --{{UserJamesTFord1987/sig}} 1114, 28 February 2009 (UTC) == Re Rewrite of the Purge == I can fix that small mistake right now. And yes I am looking forward to Season 5.--UserDeucedub17 0341, 20 January 2009 (UTC) That looks a lot better and you simplified the two accounts of the purge and still kept the key factors of the accounts. Good job.--UserDeucedub17 1925, 20 January 2009 (UTC) == Monster Theories changes == The bullet points made no sense to me. Please compare the two versions, with bullet points and without and tell me which you prefer. If there's an argument for keeping the old version, then I'd like to hear it. Thank you for bringing it up.--UserAshrawi 1550, 20 January 2009 (UTC) Thanks! That was much appreciated. If there is any other theories article you would like me to clean up, I'd be happy to be on the job. )--UserAshrawi 1309, 21 January 2009 (UTC) == Influences behind Lost == How come there's no article about the books (The Stand etc.), graphic novels (Watchmen etc.) and movies (Star Wars etc.) that are the main influences for the writers of the show? It's only right to pay tribute to that which inspired greatness, isn't it?--UserAshrawi 0633, 22 January 2009 (UTC) ==RESeason 5 (Day 100)== Hey Integrated. You can nominate the change at LostpediaIdeas. There, people can vote "Agree" or "Disagree" on the change. --{{UserCTS/sig}} 0338, 24 January 2009 (UTC) *Hey I added my comment. I'm still kind of unsure about it; I'll add a more decisive comment later. --{{UserCTS/sig}} 0406, 24 January 2009 (UTC) *Yeah, except the time that the survivors have been on the Island (100+ Days) won't ever diminish or grow due to time travel. I understand that the whole concept of time is becoming more complex, but the survivors days on the Island won't really change as far as time goes, although it will become increasingly more difficult to measure the time they've been on the Island (because of the time-traveling, like you said). --{{UserCTS/sig}} 0445, 24 January 2009 (UTC) == Both of Us == We were both "kinda" right and that's about as close to a theory as you can with this show. I was sure it was going either to the future or the past but didn't think that it would be ''both''. And it sure did start with the DHARMA so we did pretty good. My new theory on the opening scene is that is this... when we saw faraday that was something that will happen in the next episode or so, one of the time jumps will be back to when the DHARMA was "running" things and Faraday goes and researches the soon to be built Orchid Station. This is to try to find a way to end the "time jumps". It's unlike anything we've seen so far that's for sure.--{{UserJamesTFord1987/sig}} 0654, 24 January 2009 (UTC) Yeah, as for the 70 hours, that was mentioned a little in one of the commentaries from season 4. Someone said that they knew if they spent even ''close'' to half the season getting the O6 back to the island that the viewer would HATE them or some such so that's not something we have to worry about at all. I really do like the time jumps but hope that this isn't something that will be happening threw the entire season, but on the other hand we are going to get to figure out the three toed statue, the black rock and more! "This season will answer more question's than it asks" Also I'll be sure to head over to the ideas section soon.--{{UserJamesTFord1987/sig}} 0727, 24 January 2009 (UTC) == 100- == I checked some of the main characters that are on the island still (Sawyer and Rose) and couldn't see a spot that say's how many days they've been on the island. Am I just not looking in the right spot?--{{UserJamesTFord1987/sig}} 0752, 24 January 2009 (UTC) This could be a really tough one that would bring up a large discussion. If you consider the time that it takes in between each jump they've been on the island for 100's of years, if it's considered just them, then they were on the island for 100 + 1-2 days, while the O6 has been off the island for 3 years. If you look at it as when the remaining characters "land" in a certain time they could very well have "lost" time on the island (if they stopped time in season 2). I don't think I have enough brain cells to make sence of this at this point. Give me a day or two to think about it, that's about how long it's going to take for me to understand what is going on around here.--{{UserJamesTFord1987/sig}} 0813, 24 January 2009 (UTC) What are you trying to have it changed to? 100+ could work and it would be simple.--{{UserJamesTFord1987/sig}} Wow, as simple as this is it brings up A LOT of questions. It's 3am here so nothing in my brain makes too much sence right but then again there's also the possibilty that they never even left time, only their sub something or anothers did just like in the constant. When we see the people on the island is this a flashback?--{{UserJamesTFord1987/sig}} 0838, 24 January 2009 (UTC) ==Season 5 Sections== Thanks for the compliments! And sure, I'll check it out. --{{UserSam McPherson/sig}} 1623, 24 January 2009 (UTC) == LP Ideas == Speaking of Idea's, I have a ''very'' broad one right above yours, feel free to vote!--{{UserJamesTFord1987/sig}} 2206, 24 January 2009 (UTC) == Past Tense == Yes, typically, the episode pages are in present tense and other pages are in past tense. I had trouble getting used to that at first.--{{Usergaarmyvet/sig}} 0137, 25 January 2009 (UTC) I may have misled you. You'll find on the character pages there is often an introductory paragraph followed by a discription of events. For example, on the John Locke page Locke ''is'' a middle section survivor.
He ''did''...
He ''was''...
He ''went''...
It drives me crazy, too. --{{Usergaarmyvet/sig}} 1856, 25 January 2009 (UTC) ==RE Tenses== I'm not quite sure myself, though I would think that uniformity would be the best thing (i.e. all in past tense). I just checked policy, and I can find nothing about it anywhere. I would suggest contacting a SysOp or bringing it up on LostpediaIdeas. --{{UserSam McPherson/sig}} 0638, 25 January 2009 (UTC) I think it would probably be best to just do the whole thing in past tense. It's possible that writing in present tense could become problematic when characters are dead, alive, half dead, Locke. It seems a little neater in light of relative time to just put it all as past. --{{UserNickb123/sig}} 1131, 25 January 2009 (UTC) Well it's just my opinion - but yes I do think it is best. We already have a special rule for episode guides, so it's easier I think not to complicate matters further with rules or other strings of articles. --{{UserNickb123/sig}} 1140, 25 January 2009 (UTC) Haha, no worries! Keep up the good work yourself. --{{UserSam McPherson/sig}} 1726, 25 January 2009 (UTC) ==re temple theory== Thanks; it seemed to make sense to me. We'll have to see. Doesn't explain Alpert's aging though, which I'm sure is linked to this new time screwiness. UserDgtljunglist 1149, 25 January 2009 (UTC) == Time looping Locke == Thanks for checking out the theories. Well, I'm going off the fact that, throughout the show, Locke has been told that he is "special." I'm thinking that he is going to be able to skirt some of the rules of "time travel" as well. Plus, I think that Daniel is going to find out that his theory has a few more exceptions than he once though, at least when our Losties are plugged into the equation. -- UserCrazyBeardedJack 1556, 26 January 2009 (UTC) == Faraday == sounds like you made my theory even better, sucks though, my computers down and the only internet I got right now is on my phone (works just fine as you can see) so I won't be able to post my theories anymore (some pages are way to big to load on a phone) so come next episode my theories that arnt posted on ''your'' talk page will have to be very short and straight to the point. You brought up a good point, how is Desmond going to get back to the island, and is he stupid enough to bring penny with? Also they ''better'' bring back Lapidus, he's one of my "new character" favorites.--{{UserJamesTFord1987/sig}} 2141, 27 January 2009 (UTC) == Claire == "''Why are you so convinced Claire is dead? She was touchable and everything after the house blew up, she was lucky to survive but she did.. the reason she left Aaron was to do with her being reunited with her father, who must've also told her following him was the right thing to do.. leaving aaron behind is sign of madness, not of death! Integrated (User / Talk) 0841, 28 January 2009 (UTC)''" I believe Claire was alive immediately following the explosion, but that she died during the night. There are several things that support that theory beyond what I mentioned, but that talk page wasn't the place to expound. Claire was brought back by Sawyer and when she came around, she had an obvious concussion, with headache, memory loss (she didn't remember Charlie was dead), confused mental state (http//lostpedia.wikia.com/wiki/Season_4_Deleted_Scenes_transcript.E2.80.99s_Vision she saw her dad behind Hurley in the room, and later I think she commented on not hearing voices anymore as they were walking), etc. When someone has suffered a concussion, they should be woken periodically to make sure that they can wake up (not letting them sleep at all is a myth). Instead of this, they all went to sleep for the night, and that is when I think Claire died from her injuries, or as Lost goes, became "undead". Then to the other points I made on the other talk page, she was a pretty decent mother watching after her baby, and suddenly she leaves him in the woods, goes to Jacob's cabin and sits there calmly saying she is "fine" and "with him" Christian, a father we know she wanted nothing to do with, not even knowing his name. It's completely out of character, and not like her at all. It is more reasonable to think she died than to think she suddenly developed a mental condition, as the first would obviously be brought by the house exploding, and the second would be pulled out of thin air with no supporting evidence. Hope that answers my line of thought on the matter. --{{UserLOSTonthisdarnisland/sig}} 1631, 28 January 2009 (UTC) He makes a good point.--{{UserJamesTFord1987/sig}} 1110, 4 February 2009 (UTC) == Past Tense == Thanks for the tip. I was in a hurry and had a bit of time to write it but didn't look it over. That's partially why I put in the edit comment that it probably needed more work. Anyway, I appreciate it. --UserHickorysmoke21 0830, 30 January 2009 (UTC) == Banned Again? == So you got yourself banned again...I agree with your post though, don't forget to remove your banned sign when you get back this time.--{{UserJamesTFord1987/sig}} 1105, 4 February 2009 (UTC) When you get banned, can you still view Lp or can't you even get to the site?--{{UserJamesTFord1987/sig}} 2253, 6 February 2009 (UTC) == Sun-Hwa Kwon == Hi, I noticed that you recently reverted an edit to the Sun-Hwa Kwon page, because it was present tensed. For the record, you can easily reword it to past tense instead of reverting it altogether, like I did. Thanks. -- UserMatthew R Dunn, 7 February 2009 (UTC) ==Did Ben succeed in killing Penny UQ== (1) We may assume, but we cannot know and cannot prove (because we did not see) that Ben attempted to kill Penny. Perhaps there is an entirely other explanation for him being bloodied and at the marina. It would be just like the show to pull a twist like that on us. It would certainly be just like Ben to be ready to supply a plausible alternate explanation. Whatever the case, that Ben made an attempt on Penny's life is a theory. Theories cannot be the basis of UQs (just as theories cannot be the basis for removal of UQs). (2) With rare exception, any question that starts with "Did" instead of "Who/What/When/Where/Why/How" is an instant candidate for removal. "Did" questions are closed-ended; even when their premise is not a presupposition, their selection of possible answers is. This is not a valid UQ. UserRobert K S K S (User talkRobert K S) 0700, 20 February 2009 (UTC) "We know as fact that when Ben left the church he was on his way to kill Penny." LOL. No. UserRobert K S K S (User talkRobert K S) 0721, 20 February 2009 (UTC) You seem to be resisting the acknowledgement of the difference between show fact (what we are shown on screen) and fan theory (no matter how well evidenced). You seem to want to enter the debate as to whether the theory is correct. I'm not interested in that debate, not least because the theory hardly requires the astuteness you imply. ''Every regular viewer'' gasped "Penny!" when Ben spoke of repaying a favor to an "old friend" and tying up a "loose end". So what? If you and I have been watching the same show for the last 4 and a half years, you know full well the show relishes in setting up expectations and then gloriously reversing them--that's part of the show's M.O. Of course I think Ben went to kill Penny. Can I prove it? No, and neither can anyone--a fact you indirectly acknowledge by telling me to stay tuned for the next few episodes. UserRobert K S K S (User talkRobert K S) 1611, 20 February 2009 (UTC) == Ben and Penny == You wrote "... it's very very clear he's referring to killing Penny right? I mean this isn't a theory - it's fact, right?" Well, yes and no. Yes, it's very clear and obvious to any viewer who can put the pieces together. However, as far as adding that onto Lostpedia, it would by the rules be considered "theory" as it hasn't been specified in the show. I think some things are very intuitive and we shouldn't have to look for more information from the show (like the end of 316 was obviously set in the '70s). This one, however, I think will be fought by others as still needing confirmation. But, yeah, it's Penny-related. Des probably gave him a beatdown, LOL. --{{UserLOSTonthisdarnisland/sig}} 1308, 20 February 2009 (UTC) No, I said "Des probably gave him a beatdown, LOL", meaning that Penny is not hurt, and that Des instead beat the crap out of Ben. I too will be upset if they go that way. See my User page ) --{{UserLOSTonthisdarnisland/sig}} 1433, 20 February 2009 (UTC) This went one of two ways, one is listed above, Ben went to kill Penny and Desmond kicked his a** (Which I don't think because it seemed to me he had someone else's blood on him). The second (Which time will prove to be true) is that Ben killed Penny because she is not a predominant character on the show that only high school girls care about and some unwed mothers. This action from Ben will cause Desmond to come back to the island to kill Ben. And that's that (But like everyone is making such a big deal out of, it is just a theory. Until it is shown on screen it's just that). --{{UserJamesTFord1987/sig}} 1124, 28 February 2009 (UTC) == Unanswered Questions == Please stop continuing to remove questions without any explanation. As for the U.S. Army photo in {{ep}}, it's obvious that we need an answer regarding how a 1954 US Army photograph ended up in L.A., inside a DHARMA station hiden as a church (among other things). - UserTheAma1|TheAma1 2022, 21 February 2009 (UTC) == I'm still here == Hey man, I'm still around just not as much. I've got the commentary transcripts idea finished, voted on and up already so I've kinda been doing that, it's going to take a lot longer than I had thought, but in the end I'll be the only person on the internet that has done the entire transcript for each different ep. There's a couple out there that have bits and piece's but that's all I could find. I've also been working on a wiki of mine and that's taking a lot of work to get going but it has the potential to be a great one. Season 5's been going great, looks like my "Faraday's action is a future one" is going to turn out. It's been kinda hard to come up with theories worth posting because one week later we find out like ''Fringe''. --{{UserJamesTFord1987/sig}} 1112, 28 February 2009 (UTC) Not sure if it's been posted or not, but I think that the chick Faraday was talking to in Jughead (The one who had him at gunpoint) is in fact his mother. Just one I got a strong felling about. --{{UserJamesTFord1987/sig}} == Comment on Robert KS Talk Page == Hey, I'm sorry and I didn't really realize that I may have spolied some people. I was spoiled about this a few times upon seeing his picture on the guy's page and in the upload log and was annoyed that yet another person re-uploaded the picture. I prob should have just reworded it or put in the link but change the text. Sorry about that dude, no harm intended.--UserMistertrouble189 1935, 6 March 2009 (UTC) == Dharma Booth Video Changing the Past == Wondering why you deleted my entire theory? I strongly consider that vandalism, and I reported you. Just because you don't agree with a theory, don't delete the entire thing. -- UserCrazyBeardedJack 1935, 10 March 2009 (UTC) * The show has never made it clear that changing the past is impossible. Daniel said it is impossible, but just because he said it, it doesn't mean it's correct. We've seen several instances of characters saying something that isn't true. -- UserCrazyBeardedJack 1352, 11 March 2009 (UTC) **If I might chime in, Daniel said it was impossible, right before he went back to talk to Desmond to attempt to get his mother to help them. If Daniel felt that strongly about his theory that you can't change the past, why did he agree to tape or transmit Chang on that video in the first place? There has to be some doubt in Daniel's mind. --{{UserLOSTonthisdarnisland/sig}} 1356, 11 March 2009 (UTC) ***You may chime in, of course! I think the difference there is that Daniel was actually trying to change the 'present' - not the past, with the video. He was creating a video that people would hear in his present (2004-2008ish) and he probably had a good reason for it. It would also fit that this video always would have existed too. Even in that video, Chang resigns to the fact that he knows him and his colleagues are all going to die in The Purge. So in essence Daniel knows he can't change what he knows has already happened.. but he can still influence events that he doesn't know have already happened (the future) '''Integrated''' (UserIntegrated / User talkIntegrated) 1417, 11 March 2009 (UTC) ****Perhaps. You make a valid point. But wouldn't you agree that your point, while based in some good canon, is also just a theory as well? Until we know more, leaving the past-changing theories (not discussions! Those get on my nerves--read the rules, people!) on the theory pages is a good idea, IMO. (and with your theory, what would the point of continuing time travel research set to achieve, and why would Chang be so eager to get the information to the future, if not to change the past and help Chang and his family? LOL. Yeah, I could go on, but I'll restrain myself ). --{{UserLOSTonthisdarnisland/sig}} 1442, 11 March 2009 (UTC) *****I thought they made the rules of time travel quite set in stone.. I think the reason for making the video could be anything at the moment, but changing the past I doubt.. more likely warning them about something? '''Integrated''' (UserIntegrated / User talkIntegrated) 1511, 11 March 2009 (UTC) ******We can't know the specifics until they tell us, but we do know they were making that transmission (I think it's a transmission given the pinhole comment) to be seen 30 years into the future, and the research to which they were refering is time travel. I think that much is obvious, do you agree? Therefore, if the past cannot be changed beyond any doubt, i.e. if Daniel is correct in that point, then why the fruitless entreaty to continue '''''time travel''''' research? Time travel research would only be effective if they were going to use it to travel to the past. And the only reason to travel to the past would be to make some sort of change. The entreaty cannot be to continue the time travel research so you too can come to the past and be Purged! It has to be to affect some sort of change. Daniel is somehow talked into helping with the trasmission, perhaps against his better judgment, but he does help. We just can't say completely 100% that no, there can't be a change in the past. --{{UserLOSTonthisdarnisland/sig}} 1529, 11 March 2009 (UTC) *******Ok I see what you're getting at now, they send a message into the future and ask them kindly to time travel back and change the past to prevent them all from dying. I can kinda see the logic there, that that is the purpose of the video. If it is the purpose however, I am going to agree with Faraday and say that it is "pointless", and the past cannot be changed. I mean Daniel, went as far as specifically telling Charlotte never ever to come back to the Island and she didn't heed his warning, I just think altering the past is something that the show won't go into. Wouldn't they end up erasing the whole 815 crash and everything? That'd be like anti climax of the century. '''Integrated''' (UserIntegrated / User talkIntegrated) 1540, 11 March 2009 (UTC) ********I think changes will be ''attempted'' from the looks of where this is headed. Stepping out of canon, and into theory, I actually think changes in the past will succeed. I venture to guess they will figure out that Dharma are not the bad guys (canon Daniel helping Chang, apparently of his own free will, else he wouldn't be able to turn off the device or camera or whatever on his own, opposed to, say, if he were at gunpoint), and they send the message (to Daniel, I'm betting) to make changes to save them from the Purge, the Incident, and the loss of Chang's hand. I don't know where they are going to go with the crash and if they'd dare erase it from history; because that would be very strange, and would create a paradox with the survivors (what were they surviving???). There has to be a reason that Daniel started his experiments. My theory is that it is because the transmission reaches him in the future, where he writes the answers in his journal, but his memory loss prevents him from connecting the dots yet. So many questions, so few episodes left. --{{UserLOSTonthisdarnisland/sig}} 1606, 11 March 2009 (UTC) *********I like the idea of Daniel's message being the reason he starts researching time travel, and personally I never thought DHARMA were the bad guys.. I like their brownie eating hippy ideals. But I don't think this is related to changing the past. Darlton said no paradoxes, and changing the past instantly creates a paradox, this is why they made the past unchangeable.'''Integrated''' (UserIntegrated / User talkIntegrated) 0327, 12 March 2009 (UTC) **********Ah, but you know how Darlton are with their clues and statements; they remind me of Ben sometimes. Remember when Jack calls Ben out and says something to the effect that Ben said Locke never came to see him, and Ben retorts that he went to see Locke? That's the sort of thing I mean. Being in the past changes the past, but if somehow they were to fulfill roles they were always meant to fill or had already filled but somehow forgotten, then there wouldn't be a paradox, but "fate". Anyway, I guess we'll find out soon enough. Thanks for a nice conversation. I like talking about Lost, and especially with people can disagree, yet remain nice and civil. It was enjoyable talking with you. --{{UserLOSTonthisdarnisland/sig}} 0338, 12 March 2009 (UTC) ***********Civil is my middle name. I am all for people fulfilling roles and fate, but I just think they have made it clear there is and only will be a single timeline, with no changing of the timeline.. I think Darlton have always said this regarding time travel in the show. It's true they might change their minds, but so far they have stuck with it. One thing that has just occured to me, and I'll just add this as an unrelated final word - when Sawyer said to Juliet last episode that whatever she left out there in the real world wasn't there anymore because it's 30 years too early - well in fact I reckon Juliet would only really care about seeing her sister and she could've gone and done that, just like her sister would be a little girl .. '''Integrated''' (UserIntegrated / User talkIntegrated) 0401, 12 March 2009 (UTC) ******** The way I see it, the whole point of Dan saying that the past can't be changed is to make us say, "Dan's the expert, I'll believe what he says." I think that his actions in LaFleur basically show us that Dan is aware that the past can be changed. Shortly after the time jump, he was repeating "I won't tell her." Dan was trying to change the past; To not tell Charlotte to leave the Island and never come back. I also think it's pretty obvious that the past, at least on the Island, has already been changed. In the 1970s, Sawyer was not a member of the Dharma Iniative. Now he is. Chang also recorded the video to try to prevent The Purge. If the past couldn't be changed, why would an expert in time travel like Pierre Chang record a video to try to do just that? Again, it all comes back to the question, "Do you trust what a character says?" Last season we saw both Ben and Widmore blame the other for the faked 815 crash. Another thing to take into account - Maybe Dan told Sawyer and the crew that the past couldn't be changed because of his own personal agenda, much as Ben has done repeatedly. As LOSTonthisdarnisland stated above, there's no way to know until we see it in action. -- UserCrazyBeardedJack 1803, 11 March 2009 (UTC) ********* Daniel's statement that he won't tell Charlotte is him trying to convince himself that he won't, but he knows the past can't be altered and he knows he will eventually do so. The video Chang is making was not an attempt to change the past, he says in the video he knows he will die in the purge and is powerless to prevent it. He KNOWS he can't change it. In the 1970s Sawyer WAS a member of DHARMA, and had always been so. I don't know why people find this so hard to get their head around, but a lot of people are very confused by it. So far, Daniel the expert, as well as EVERYTHING that has happened on their time travelling adventures points that the past cannot be changed. '''Integrated''' (UserIntegrated / User talkIntegrated) 0327, 12 March 2009 (UTC) **********Chang doesn't say he is "is powerless to ''prevent'' it"; he says "One that we are, apparently, powerless to ''escape''". The inability to escape the Purge in his timeline is not an indictor of the ability or inability to change the past from the future. He also says "Perhaps you'll be able to find a way to save us, to change the past and to..." --{{UserLOSTonthisdarnisland/sig}} 0715, 12 March 2009 (UTC) ***********You're absolutely right. So it seems Chang and Faraday are arguing about whether the past can be changed just like we are. Perhaps with the right research conducted it could be possible. '''Integrated''' (UserIntegrated / User talkIntegrated) 1741, 12 March 2009 (UTC) ************Perhaps. Whether is can be changed or not, the show has left it open so far as canon is concerned because we have two opposing viewpoints now, can vs. can't change. Interesting to see where they go with it. I really, really wish people would stop tying eveything back to time travel, though. It's really unnerving to see theories that this or that is possible, when it's not, simply by the magical application of time travel, sigh. --{{UserLOSTonthisdarnisland/sig}} 1803, 12 March 2009 (UTC) ************You know when Locke died? UNIVERSE COURSE CORRECTION. Then when he came back to life? He's ALTERED REALITY. And Walt is a time traveller. '''Integrated''' (UserIntegrated / User talkIntegrated) 1808, 12 March 2009 (UTC) *************Those wouldn't be so bad. I was thinking more along the lines of Jacob is Amy and Horace's baby (or worse, Amy and Paul's baby, the world's longest pregnancy, or she is a TIME TRAVELLER who went three years into the future while she was preggo) who goes back in time to lead the Others, so he is recognised in 1954 by Richard. eek --{{UserLOSTonthisdarnisland/sig}} 1813, 12 March 2009 (UTC) **************It's a good thing for if you come up with a theory then realise the timing doesn't fit at all, you can just say "oh and time travel!". I stopped coming up with theories when I realised all the theory pages were spammed by theories that were all wrong. The only small theories I've thought of are stuff hinted at on the show, like Widmore being on the island before, Desmond seeing into the future .. etc. '''Integrated''' (UserIntegrated / User talkIntegrated) 1818, 12 March 2009 (UTC) Just a pisser week. Sorry if you thought I was directing it at you in particular. --{{UserLOSTonthisdarnisland/sig}} 1716, 27 March 2009 (UTC) * Aye, mate, and not a moment too soon. Cheers for being understanding. --{{UserLOSTonthisdarnisland/sig}} 1734, 27 March 2009 (UTC) == UQ removed on 'He's Our You' == Yeah, so why did you remove the UQ about the origin of the flaming bus? Unless of course you have answered the question, in which case, please share! Oh wait, you haven't, so it's technically still an UQ... --UserBenjamin Linus 0834, 28 March 2009 (UTC) == re hey == LMAO. Well, put on your boots 'n' give it back, I say. ;) Seriously, talk about condescending. --{{UserLOSTonthisdarnisland/sig}} 0916, 28 March 2009 (UTC) == UQ essay == Thanks for the compliment. I don't think the policy needs formal changing, though. The spirit of the essay is already ''de facto'' policy inasmuch as all of the serious editors enforce good UQ writing and discuss the bad UQs on the talk pages. I think the essay has done its job.  UserRobert K S|Robert K S   User talkRobert K S|tell me  1611, 31 March 2009 (UTC) == "The Pilot" Theory == Hey. The reason I removed my last comment from your page is because I found the hi-res screen cap I was looking for and it proved my theory wrong (for now at least--but more on that later). The theory was this... And I call this theory the '''"I'm staring at the television right now, you're broadcasting footage of the wreckage and saying that that's the pilot Seth Norris. Well that's not him" theory''' At the very end of "The Pilot" (Part 1), Seth Norris is killed by the Monster, and Kate later finds a set of airline wings lying on the ground underneath a bloody body in a tree. The problem here is that the wings that she finds are bronze/golden, and Seth wings are clearly ''silver'' every time we see him. So I got to thinking What if the body in the tree isn't Seth?! Well, first off, his face is way too bloody to recognize. BUT he is wearing a pilot uniform, is clean-shaven, and has long hair. And guess who is now on the Island who matches that description. This season (S5), we were introduced to a now noticeably clean-shaven Frank Lapidus whose uniform is ''identical'' to Seth's except for one small difference his wings are golden! So why would Frank be the one in the tree? Well, we have heard several times that he was the one who was ''supposed to be'' flying O815. And we also know that he was sent to the Island by Abaddon whose job is to "get people where they're ''supposed to be''." It is also important to note that the Monster's role as a judge of people on the Island is not it's sole purpose. It's other role is as "course-corrector." That is, if someone tries to change their destiny because they have knowledge of future events, the Monster will step in and course-correct things so that whatever is ''supposed to'' happen ''will'' happen. The Monster was not needed in this role very often until Faraday came along and tried to change everyone's destiny. That is why we see so much of the Monster after 1977, but never in flashbacks before then. So through a series of complex course-correction (running from 1977-2007) involving time-travel and intervention of the Monster, everything will eventually be put back to the way it was "supposed to be" had the Losties (or really just Faraday) not intervened and screwed things up for the Island in the first place. One of the places where the Monster must intervene is in getting Frank to have always been the one who flew O815. So the Monster literally takes Seth out of the cockpit and drops a mutilated Frank in a nearby tree, right were he was supposed to be the whole time. *The theory was "disproved" by a hi-res screen cap of Lapidus' wings, which are gold, but look completely different from the ones found by Kate in "The Pilot." The diffence in color was most likely the result of color-correction that was done in post-production. ''However'' if this theory were brought up in S4, it would have been "disproved" by the fact that the body in the tree is wearing a pilot's uniform and is clean-shaven (neither descriptions matching Frank in S4). But in S5 Frank is clean-shaven and in full uniform. So maybe before the end of the series, Frank will stumble upon Seth's wings and wear them to remember and honor his long-time friend. --UserMrmagic522 2026, 10 May 2009 (UTC) *To be honest, I just jotted all that down as it came to my head. So I may not have expressed it as clearly as I could have. I did not mean to write that Lapidus always flew the plane. That didn't make any sense. I meant that Lapidus was always ''supposed to'' fly O815. The past is never altered. For instance, if Jack and friends blow up the H-bomb, they may create what has been referred to as the incident. This would be the same incident that was being refered to in S2. Because Jack always detonated the bomb in 1977. There are a lot of pieces missing from my theory but I believe that the series will end with several people and things being "placed" back where they were always supposed to be... including Jack bring placed in the jungle (for reasons we don't know yet) and Lapidus being placed in the tree top. Opinion only of course but only time will tell. --UserMrmagic522 0041, 11 May 2009 (UTC) == Please don't forget to sign == I know it gets hard to remember, but please don't forget to sign talk page messages. You sign most of them, but I'm spending a lot of time cleaning up unsigned messages. Most are from new members registering after the finale, but at least two have been yours. -) Thanks, {{UserRobert K S/sig}} 0714, 15 May 2009 (UTC) *Uhuh my bad entirely >.< --'''Integrated''' (UserIntegrated / User talkIntegrated) 0929, 15 May 2009 (UTC) **Yeah dude, you should always sign you messages. == Smoke Monster Theory == I like that, haven't heard that one before, it never even passed my mind that the smoke monster could be a person (you know what I mean). So is Christian Jacob/Jacob's enemy or just the undead guy we've always known you think?--{{UserJamesTFord1987/sig}} 0818, 18 May 2009 (UTC) It does make sense though, we always see like two sides of the smoke monster's reincarnations. Walt's helped people (Jacob), Yemi hurt people (Enemy), Spiders killed people (Enemy), Ben's mother helped him (Jacob) and Christian helped people (Jacob or just undead still). It does fit the storyline really well.--{{UserJamesTFord1987/sig}} 0821, 18 May 2009 (UTC) That makes even more sense, I got a feeling that Jacob was never in the cabin any time that we saw it, it could have always been the enemy, and either Christian is working with him or is him. It would make even more sense, have you looked at that pic of the Ghost jacob in the cabin or whatever, at this point in time it does look a lot like the enemy (even though they didn't know who would play him back then). But your saying saying there's two smoke monsters, SmokeyJacob choose to live in the statue and SmokeEnemy choose to live in the temple. Hmmm.--{{UserJamesTFord1987/sig}} 0837, 18 May 2009 (UTC) I agree with you, that we have never seen Jacob in the cabin. And yes my theory is there are two smoke monsters, black and white, and the only time anyone has seen the white one is Locke in season 1, when he called it "a bright white light" --'''Integrated''' (UserIntegrated / User talkIntegrated) 0849, 18 May 2009 (UTC) I could totally see them doing something like this. As of late I've been coming across people who are "hatin'" on season 5, at the rate people are loosing faith in the show I see a large amount of this "hatin'" to come back around even more for season 6. Where do you stand, do you like the route the show is taking? Or are you more of a season 1 "Why does sun not want people to know she doesn't speak english" mystery kind of guy?--{{UserJamesTFord1987/sig}} 0908, 19 May 2009 (UTC) == ReFourToedPicture == Thanks! I did a similar one over on the shadow of the statue page, but obviously less intense(only two or three frames). I'm excited to be here on LP and glad you folks are so welcoming!UserLordmaliss 1243, 18 May 2009 (UTC) == Re I'm interested == Thanks for asking. Yes, I could concede that it very well could be a continutiy error if Darlton say's so, but here are the reason's I don't think it is. First of all, I should be clear that I'm not trying to say it traveled back a full year, but just enough time to to be in the year 2007 (between 1-12 months). This is all based on the argument that it departed LAX in Jan. of 2008. If that turns out to not be the case, then this is useless. '''1)''' For me, the most convincing evidence the the continued "30 years earlier(later)" screenshots we are getting. We not only got it for the 1st time in Namaste, but we've also seen it multiple times since then. I don't think anyone would argue that as far as DHARMA time, we are seeing the year 1977. Therefore, 30 years earlier/later would be 2007. There is an argument that the "30 years earlier" is just an estimate. I just don't think so because they've used it many times (giving them multiple times to change it) & it doesn't say "about" or "almost" or anything like that. '''2)''' One of the Lost The Story of the Oceanic 6. The only problem with that, is that the most recent Lost A Journey in Time, Frank, Bram, etc are in the island's present. I'm not sure which side of the argument that supports. '''3)''' The day-to-night flash they experienced seems to only support this. I know that before then, the time discrepancies while going to & from the island on the wrong bearing, were only a couple days max. But that doesn't mean there could be more. Only 1 month would have been needed to make it 2007. Also, it could have been some kind of flash like Jack, Kate, etc experienced moving them to some time in 2007 for some reason yet unknown. Tell me what you think. {{UserNEVERGIVEUP/sig}} 1302, 18 May 2009 (UTC) As far as 2008 I was going by the discussion TalkNamaste?Timeline2005 and beyond LP page. It is going off of Locke's passport and Jack stating that Locke visited him "1 month ago". And, yes, those could also be continuity errors but don't we have to assume they aren't until we hear something different? {{UserNEVERGIVEUP/sig}} 1218, 19 May 2009 (UTC) Here is what I just posted on the TalkJacob page.......... ''I am one of the users who stood very strongly that Ajira 316 arrived on the island in 2007 due to all the reasons above. The article stated 2008 and I fought to get that changed and it was confirmed by the Lost The Story of the Oceanic 6. Also, in the newest Lost A Journey in Time, D&C stated that the island is now in it's present. LP has all the info it needs to use both dates of 2008 and 2007. However, the more I read the continued arguments and as the show progresses, the more I think it was a continuity error, mainly due to Jacob's meeting Hurley off-island. ''Thefreebird'' makes a great argument above for how the island is in 2007 & the world is in 2008 at the same time. Unfortunately, I think that is the best answer we are going to get. They spent a lot of time in Season 4 explaining the time discrepancy and I don't think they're gonna go back to it to explain this new question. I just don't think they completely thought it through when tagging the present "30 years earlier/later", and with the other info showing the departure of Ajira 316 in 2008. The problem is now it raises the above questions, that will probably not be answered.'' {{UserNEVERGIVEUP/sig}} 1312, 21 May 2009 (UTC) == Your Theory == I hope you don't mind me commenting, but I had to say that I loved your theory, the fact that The Monster as Alex forced Ben to follow Locke and the way the finale represented stuff I thought of a very similar theory though not so wide and now I think that this theory, if not completely, at least partially is right. Just one thing, in stead of the nemesis being the Monster I think that it would work better vice-versa and that the character portrayed by Titus Welliver is actually someone that died on the Island, and whose form was taken over by the Monster. --{{UserOrhan94/sig}} 1651, 19 May 2009 (UTC) {{Idea}}!!!!!!!!!!!!THAT...IS...IT...!!!!!!!!!!! THE SMOKE MONSTER ''IS'' Jacob's enemy!! I also agree with a lot of what your saying too Integrated...but you've got to be 100% in this Orhan! You put that theory and mix it in with your's Inty, and we just found out the ending to L O S T!! omg, omg Oh my god. I'm not joking either, he has to be.--{{UserJamesTFord1987/sig}} 0521, 20 May 2009 (UTC) I don't think I've even been this excited about a theory before...ever. You two, are genius's. If you were making a show, and your main character needed an enemy, who better then the one thing that's been in the show the entire time right under our noses, this would also explain why the smoke monster let Ben live and what he could have been doing while "searching for rope" to pull Ben out. I don't usually agree with many theories, but I tip my hat to you both.--{{UserJamesTFord1987/sig}} 0528, 20 May 2009 (UTC) I also consider this part of my theory, good apparitions are Jacob's (Kate's horse is her savior/moral compass, Ana Lucia helped Hurley save Sayid and Charlie helped Hurley and Jack's choice on whether to trust Locke or not) and the bad ones are the Monster's/the nemesis' (Yemi and Daniel lead Eko to his death, Walt lead Shannon to her death and Alex ''obviously'' convinced Ben to follow Locke and kill Jacob). --{{UserOrhan94/sig}} 0815, 20 May 2009 (UTC) I watched the finale again last night and there is an something that throws it off. Locke/Enemy/Bad Smokey seemed to be actually shocked that Ben had to do whatever he said because Alex told him he had too. This could either be a mindgame that he pulled off very well, or it could go back to Integrated's theory of two smokey's and the monster in the temple is the Jacob one. The being said if so there must be a "tunnel" of sorts leading from the the Temple to the Statue. If there was two Smokey's it would make sense that Jacob is the one in the Temple instead of the Enemy.--{{UserJamesTFord1987/sig}} 1912, 20 May 2009 (UTC) == New Theory == Just another little theory I've been looking over some episodes here and there and I'm starting to think that Richard was a member of the crew on the Black Rock. If you think about it, they both have remained unseen for the most part...and I think the part of the s5 episode where Richard is building a ship in a bottle was a clear sign. Just had to get that off my chest in case it's true. See ya--{{UserJamesTFord1987/sig}} 0425, 30 May 2009 (UTC) Nice, didn't think about the journal at all. Yeah I've been slacking on the theory articles.--{{UserJamesTFord1987/sig}} 0640, 30 May 2009 (UTC) == REReview == Hey, thanks for the compliment ). I know it seems like Jacob is dead for sure, but I'm sure he'll be back somehow or someway (this is LOST after all). Jacob was featured very prominently in the finale, so I don't know why the writers would introduce such a prominent character (who has been shrouded in complete mystery since Season 2) and then kill him off in the same episode! I hope he's still alive somehow, but maybe he is dead. I guess we'll have to wait and see ... {{smile}} --{{UserCTS/sig}} 1509, 31 May 2009 (UTC) *Perhaps. But I hope that the "war" Widmore was referring to somehow includes Jacob. He was a very interesting character. If someone has the ability to be ageless, and possibly draw people to the island by touching them, then ''not dying'' could be in their arsenal as well. --{{UserCTS/sig}} 1516, 31 May 2009 (UTC) *Yeah, there are so many possibilities for Season 6. I don't want to have to wait through this long hiatus {{sad face}} --{{UserCTS/sig}} 1524, 31 May 2009 (UTC) == Marvel nicknames for Jacob's nemesis == Please stop adding random lists of Marvel characters to the nicknames section on Jacob's nemesis. If these names are seriously being used, please provide a reference for it. {{UserJimbo the tubby/sig}} 0231, 2 June 2009 (UTC) *I also removed all the other uncited nicknames leaving only "Esau" (referenced), "Un-Locke" (referenced), "Samuel" (from the casting call) and "Flocke" (has a precedent with "Fenry"). "Man " might also be a legitimate addition, due to the press release, but other than that there should be no unsourced nicknames. However, I find it unlikely that there are this many nicknames based on Marvel characters who have nothing in common with the character. What is the context they are being used in? Can you provide a link, even if it's just fan discussion? {{UserJimbo the tubby/sig}} 0239, 2 June 2009 (UTC) *Is http//lostpedia.wikia.com/index.php?title=Jacob's_nemesis&diff=635699&oldid=635563 this the edit you're talking about? Because it's the only thing in the history where I can see an edit of yours to the nicknames was made by a SysOp. In this case, if you look carefully, it wasn't just a straight up revert, but rather he added a legitimate source for "Esau" (which you had removed) and didn't readd "Mr. X" at all. If it's a different edit, please let me know, but if not then this section still meets your criteria of legitimate referenced nicknames. {{UserJimbo the tubby/sig}} 0246, 2 June 2009 (UTC) == REJacob's Nemesis == I understand that you may think some nicknames for Jacob's nemesis are silly (I personally think all of the current nicknames for him are silly). But until he is named onscreen, it doesn't do any harm to list the most ''recognizable'' and ''popular'' fan nicknames for him. That doesn't mean we should just add a plethora of unknown and obscure nicknames from a hundred different fans. Esau, Flocke, Unlocke -- these are common nicknames used for a very prominent character in Lost that has not been given a name. Whether these nicknames have authentic merit to Lost's mythology doesn't really matter -- what matters is how we are going to temporarily reference a prominent character with no name. If this were some minor redshirt or a character who appeared in a few episodes, we wouldn't need to create a separate section that lists common nicknames coined by fans. But since this a unique circumstance (and one that will probably be completely resolved come Season 6) it is better to have a section that lists names that this unnamed character is commonly referred to as. --{{UserCTS/sig}} 0411, 9 June 2009 (UTC) I know me saying it doesn't make it true (or maybe it does) {{tongue}}. All I'm saying is that Esau, Flocke, and Un-Locke are the most common nicknames I've seen around fan sites (if you have seen other nicknames, feel free to give sources and add it to the page). Also, I don't think Esau was a nickname created because it "sounds clever". There have been a lot of Biblical references, allusions, and correlations between Jacob from the Bible and Jacob from Lost. --{{UserCTS/sig}} 2126, 9 June 2009 (UTC) ==ReSecond opinion== *I have added my opinion to the discussion. --{{UserSam McPherson/sig}} 1723, 17 June 2009 (UTC) == Pregnancy UQ == Since you're a person who believes that the question has been answered, please use whatever influence you may have with people who keep removing the question in a direct confrontation with the community to get them to play by the rules. Thanks.--{{Usergaarmyvet/sig}} 0017, 18 June 2009 (UTC) You know, I agree with you on this. I think its a ridiculous question and someone would have to be blind to see that it is obviously Daniel, whom she is pregnant with. Some of these people are very picky with how they get an answer. --'''BadBot23''' 0926, 18 June 2009
==Theory Edits== Please use the Theory Talk page to respond to theories. See LPTP for guidelines on editing Theory pages.-{{UserRoobydo/sig}} 0404, 24 June 2009 (UTC) == Vandal == I took care of banning the vandal. Just a suggestion, though -- don't try to talk to "Bob." He's an age-old problem of the wiki, and keeps popping back up. It's just a waste of time to tell him to "grow up." If you see any more vandal accounts, let me know. --{{UserSam McPherson/sig}} 1727, 28 June 2009 (UTC) == You Still Around? == Hey, started to miss the old editing days and hoped on here to see if anyone was still around. Then I went to my talk page and started to remember all those crazy theories we posted that didn't really turn out to be true at all (I'm still convinced the number 9 is important). Haha-{{UserSawBucks/sig}} 0752, September 5, 2012 (UTC)