Information Removed From Main Article
In 1867, the Black Rock was seen approaching the Island. Jacob and The Man in Black watched the approach of the vessel from the beach, discussing their views on outsiders coming to the Island. The Man in Black stated with assurance that he knew how the ship had found its way here: it was Jacob who had brought them. ("The Incident, Part 1")
- The ship seen in 5x16 has not been confirmed as the Black Rock. The Black Rock crashed during a violent storm, but Jacob and MIB are talking on a calm, sunny day. As stated in a later section on this page, the ship shown in the scene does not match the Black Rock and a ship of that type was not used in the 19th century.--Rbd318 03:41, March 24, 2010 (UTC)
- It seems this section is still in the article. Arrival should be edited to reflect the events seen in Ab Aeterno, as the ship seen in The Incident has never been confirmed as the black rock and time of day/weather would indicate it's a completely different ship at another time, possibly another year.--Beema|talk|contributions 03:57, March 26, 2010 (UTC)
- Maybe the ship in The Incident is another ship, but I don't think it CAN'T be the Black Rock. In The Incident the ship was farther from the island than that seemed the Black Rock to be in Ab Aeterno. And in a tropical climate a storm can be developed in a few hours... I'm not saying that the ship in The Incident was the Black Rock, just saying that we can't categorically state it wasn't. Maybe the right way should be leave it as undetermined. --KaiShi 04:41, March 26, 2010 (UTC)
- The ship in The Incident has now been confirmed as being the Black Rock. D&C confirmed it in their Podcast on Wednesday. --— lion of dharma email 06:37, March 26, 2010 (UTC)
Ship crashed or not crashed
Upon arrival on the tidal wave... does the ship crash against Tawaret or not? I don't think the ship could have 'survived' such a crash, and no way could the ship have destroyed the statue. The statue was destroyed by the tidal waves, wasn't it? T6435bm 15:16, March 25, 2010 (UTC)
The ship appeared to crash right into the statue. I don't think 815 could have survived the type of crash it experienced, yet it did. (Mirth23 15:28, March 25, 2010 (UTC))
The Black Rock did indeed crash through the statue and end up in the middle of the jungle. And MIB is entirely to blame. Remember Jacob and MIB's conversation on the beach? Jacob tells MIB "I guess you're here for the ship", and MIB acquiesces. MIB actually drew the ship in, making sure it would go straight through the statue of Taweret, in the hopes it would crush Jacob underneath the rubble (MIB uttered the famous line "do you know how badly I want to kill you?" during the same conversation). Remember that the area in which the Black Rock landed is referred to as the "Primary nexus of cerberus (black smoke) activity" on the blast door map. The Smoke Monster literally "sucked in" the Black Rock from this particular spot because that's where he is the strongest. By trying to kill Jacob in this indirect way (it's the Black Rock, not MIB that would have killed Jacob), MIB thinks he can get around the rules. --SoNickPick 13:50, March 30, 2010 (UTC)
A ship on the way from England (Portsmouth is a large port in England) to Australia would not have ended up in the South Pacific (where Lost is supposedly set). They would have come round the bottom of Africa. Also slaves weren't trafficked from England to Aus, but from Africa to England/US, i.e. across the Atlantic. Either way, if it is a slaver's ship (and it looks that way) then it was very, very lost. - DF
Where did the info about Portsmouth come from?--Tricksterson
It's written Portsmouth on the ship's aft, indicating that it was built there. --220.127.116.11 06:54, 15 February 2006 (PST)
On the Prometheus thing...Prometheus was chained to the side of a mountain by the Black Sea and every day birds would come and eat his liver and at night it would grow back. Wikipedia has a great article on him and info about the mountain - nothing about a Black Rock reference though. However, Prometheus was there for going against the gods and giving fire to the mortals...perhaps this boat gave something....
I guess the reference is mountain (rock) by the Black sea. But yeah, nothing too direct has been mentioned. The reason for Prometheus' captivity was because he gave fire (dynamite?) to mankind. On greek myths, Hades and his queen lived in a castle made of Black Rock, but again, this is something too indefinite for even an adding a theory for. Maybe a common theme, since everything is one nowadays anyway. --skks 01:02, 19 March 2006 (PST)
Wild theory here.
Could the ship have brought disease to the island. It would explain why slaves and/or the infected were left to die chained in the hold.
Since its age.. could it be that it sailed into its new location on a since dried up river.
Just ideas I had and probably don't mean anything but you get the impression that little in Lost is 'by accident'.
Sailing up the river is rather unlikely. Ship like this would need a really large river to do it. Island is just too small for that.
The disease IMHO is something Danielle made up to justify killing her friends. She lost her mind because she couldn't belive in all the supernatural things the expedition has discovered (like the Monster etc.).
--Pirate87 10:24, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Other Black rocks
Did anyone else note the black rocks in the background of the location that Jack recognises as the location of the meeting with the others?
It looks rather prominent and this was in the episode where Bernard was collecting black rocks (revealing that there is a lavafield on the island, and therefore a volcanic island) to make the beach sign. Which btw would be vulnerable to the tide sweeping it away, just like the fuselage.
The name of Captain Hook's ship in Peter Pan is also the Black Rock. Could this be a refence to Never Never Land or the Lost Boys?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Waterboy04 (talk • contribs) .
Just looked it up... Captain Hook's ship (at least in the Disney cartoon) was the "Jolly Roger"--BigSteve777 11:27, 13 April 2006 (PDT)
- Richard may have arrived on The Black Rock and he doesn't age. Hmmm...--Pittsburghmuggle 22:37, March 11, 2010 (UTC)
I feel this article needs more structure. In the "Facts" section, it would help comprehension if the items about the ship the Black Rock were separated from the other references to "the Black Rock". It may also help to acknowledge that there may be another Black Rock on the island -- namely, a landmark -- which has nothing to do with the ship.
And yes, I'm not convinced that the Black Rock was a slave ship -- would it be distracting to explain in the article some reasons why it might not be? (If it's just going to lead to a edit war, I won't push the matter.) -- Llywrch 16:03, 14 April 2006 (PDT)
- I agree. It would make sense to have a "black rock" section that included non-specific rock references, then a "black rock ship" section that was specific to the ship, and thirdly a "other black rock" section specific to the attributes of the rock at The Line.
- I agree too. So let's make it :) --Perpetka 12:38, 8 July 2006 (PDT)
Slaves and dynamite
There are two strange things about the ship.
Number one: ships with slaves would hardly be in the Pacific Ocean, since most of the slave trade was done in the Atlantic, and some less in the Indic. This fact can be explained by the hypothesis that the island is actually somewhere in Africa's east coast, and not in the Pacific. I wrote about this in Talk:The Island.
Number two: there is another less provocative fact that I never saw anybody discuss... Dynamite was invented only in 1866. That article also mentions that South Africa became a large dynamite producer, but looks like this happened only in the beginning of the 20th century.
The strange thing is that by the ending of the 19th century, slave trade was already declining, as slavery itself. The British Navy started suppressing slave trade alrady in 1807, and it seems it was very successful in the Indic Ocean.
Brazil was one of the last countries to abolish slavery. The international slave trade was forbidden here in 1850 with the Eusébio de Queirós Law. In 1871, sons of slaves were already declared free by the Lei do Ventre Livre, and in 1888 the full abolishment came.
One of the primary reasons for the ending of slavery was the industrial revolution, and dynamite is already a symbol the "second industrial revolution"! A dynamite box in a slave-trading ship is almost an ANACHRONISM!
So, it's very unlikely that a ship trading slaves would carry dynamite... Is this another strange fact to look for in the series, making everything more mysterious, or an (very unlikely) error from the writers?... What do you think? -- NIC1138 18:22, 27 May 2006 (PDT)
If they were slaves pertaining to the mining industry, as many have suggested, then the dynamite would make sense, but, there is the fact of the chronology of the history of slavery and how it does not match up correctly here. Is it possible its just a transport boat for criminals? It is said that Australia was originally inhabited by the criminals that Britain sent there in exile...
The dynamite could have been put there in the 20th century or... the owners could have had access to advanced technology in 1867 ... more so if they wanted to make some mining (see next section) . It's possible that they would illegally take some (death-sentenced) prisoners (paying for them) to make them work to death. It's a dharma-like recruitment... in the 19th century. :) T6435bm 15:12, March 25, 2010 (UTC)
The lasu UQ is pointless IMHO. The dynamite the Losties found exploded so easily because it was exposed to heat for a long time. When the ship was sailing, the temprature in the bottom compartments wouldn't be so high because of the water cooling the hull. So even in tropical weather it wouldn't be so hot in there for the dynamite to explode on impact. Which wasn't very hard when you take into account that the ship was still more or less intact after. --Pirate87 10:31, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
That last question has since been since deleted and re-added, I've deleted it again. New dynamite is perfectly stable, it only becomes unstable over time. The dynamite was new in 1867... Beelzebubbles101 07:53, March 30, 2010 (UTC)
Just the dynamite
I've begun wondering why we treat the dynamite as having arrived with the ship. It could have arrived later, possibly with the U. S. Army or even with the French Science Team, although I think the case for the French would be weak. One issue is the manner in which the individual sticks are rolled and wrapped. Does anyone have a handle on that process?--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 19:51, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
I was thinking that the ship's owners could have had access to advanced technology of the time, in 1867: dynamite -- and more so if they were called to the island and wanted to do some mining (?)... (like dharma had access to advanced technology in the 20th century). But it's more likely that (for example) the U.S. Army could have used the black rock to store some dynamite. T6435bm 15:07, March 25, 2010 (UTC)
I think this is a good topic for a UAQ? Dynamite was not patented in England until May of 1867, so it seems very unlikely that the Black Rock would be carrying mass quantities of it that same year. Plus, when we first see the crates containing the dynamite, the word "EXPLOSIVES" is stenciled on in a modern manner. Then again, if the dynamite didn't arrive with the Black Rock, and Richard had not been back to the ship since his first arrival, how did he know there was dynamite there?? --Beema|talk|contributions 06:04, March 28, 2010 (UTC)
- That's a good catch on the stencilling of "EXPLOSIVES." Because of his position as advisor/intermediary, I think it's possible for Richard to have known about the dynamite without having seen it.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 14:41, March 28, 2010 (UTC)
This is pathetic...
Why would Black Rock be referring to a literal black rock? We all know it is just the old ship. --SilvaStorm
Cancel this revert and simply redirect it to the ship. I'm sure people are more likely to want to read about the ship than a few apophenious black rocks. --Princess Dharma (banned) 12:18, 18 February 2007 (PST)
- I am sure you are right, more people likely search for the ship then the actual rocks themselves, however none the less this should remain a disambig, not a redirect. The whole purpose of a disambig page is to include all articles with similar titles to clear confusion and simplify lostpedia. If someone were indeed searching for Black rocks and typed in Black Rock and were redirected to the ship page it would not help them. However with this page all they have to do, whether they are searching for each the ship or the actual rocks is click one link, which is not hard. And in essence if this were to become a redirect, it should redirect to the Black rocks no the Black Rock. But we could argue over that all day. That is why this is a disambig, so there is no need to argue over which it redirects to. -Mr.Leaf 12:23, 18 February 2007 (PST)
Then why should Tom automatically redirect to Mr. Friendly? Princess Dharma (banned) 12:25, 18 February 2007 (PST)
- Black Rock being title case will go directly to the article on the ship. Black rock will go to the disambig page since it not necessarily for the ship. - 12:27, 18 February 2007 (PST)
Tom could easily refer to Tom Brennan. Princess Dharma (banned) 12:28, 18 February 2007 (PST)
Although i really don't want to continue this argument as Jaber has fixed it in a way i agree with I will answer your question. Tom redirects to Tom (nicknamed Mr. Friendly however that is not his name) because his name is indeed Tom. All the others Tom's we have have last or different names (see Tom (disambiguation)). It links to him because that is his exact name as we know it, where as this page is not exact name as either the Black Rock or Black rocks. There is no need to continue this argument as Jaber has fixed it and locked the pages, so if you still have concern about his please talk to him. Thanks -Mr.Leaf 12:32, 18 February 2007 (PST)
- Just to note, I fixed this in what I think is a logical sense and to prevent edit wars. If people disagree with the decision then have the discussion and then ask a sysop to make changes. - 12:36, 18 February 2007 (PST)
Delete and redirect to the ship page
I understand above comments about "Black Rock" automatically going to the ship while "Black rock" should be disambig, but honestly I think its a bit of an unnecessary stretch. There is already a note at the top of the ship page, giving a link to the Black rocks, as per Orientation, Lockdown, Dave. This seems perfectly acceptable, so why in this instance where its so one or the other (one being MUCH more prominent), do we need to bother with a disambiguation when a note at the top of the ship article (which 99% would be looking for anyway), does the same job with less directing --Nickb123 (Talk) 09:27, 31 July 2007 (PDT)
I can't figure out how to fix this. ESachs 01:26, 18 February 2008 (PST)
1845 vs. 1881
I know that Cuse and Lindelof have said that The Lost Experience and Find 815 cannot be confirmed as canon indicating that we should go with the date of 1845. However, dynamite was not invented until 1866 and not patented until 1867. That would seem to indicate that Black Rock must have been in a port somewhere in Europe no earlier than the mid 1870's (assuming that it would have taken several years for a 19th century invention like dynamite to have been mass produced enough that it would have been carried in large quantities on a slave ship). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JDMCMAMC (talk • contribs) .
The date discrepency issue of 1845 for when the Black Rock left Portsmouth and the invention of Dynamite in 1866 can perhaps be resolved by the fact that we allow for the fact that there may have been many visitors to the island after 1866 and its not unlikely that they may have bought Dynamite with them to the island. Storing Dynamite in an old shipwreck would make sense if the Dynamite arrived on the island long after the Black Block did (i.e after it was washed up on the land).
Cuse and Lindelof have both indicted in Podcasts and thelike that the current visitors (The Losties/The Others, Dharma)on the island are merely the latest in a long list of previous visitors/visitations - so this can be taken as canon.
The Black Rock diary that Widmore purchased as shown in "The Constant", was found, according the Auctioneer several years after 1845, on an island near Madagascar. Both of these dates would indicate that the mates diary (and presumably some of the Black Rock's visit(s) to the island - there may have been more than visit by the ship) predated the invention of Dynamite.
So how come Dynamite ended up there can't be explained by the date of the last known voyage of the Black Rock.
However, in the Lost postcast of 28 Feb 08, Cuse indicated in response to a listener question, that that there are several places around the world which have "a connection" with the island (he named Ayers Rock in Australia and Tunisia as examples of this). In the previous podcast on 25 Feb 08 Cuse also indicated in response to another question about how come the Polar Bar with a Dharma collar on was found in the desert of Tunisia, that the island has special "properties" which that allow it to have connections to the outside world. These two answers could be taken as indicating that these special locations are able to provide "portals" to and from the island (and also how come, I presume, how the light plane which left Nigeria ended up on the island). So that fact that the Mates diary ended up "off island" and the Dynamite ended up "on island" - in the Black Rock - sometime post 1866 when Dynamite was invented do not conflict with the date of the last known voyage of the Black Rock in 1845 - if concept of many visitors to and from the island in the years between 1845 and 2004 is accepted. --Number 6 16:04, 1 March 2008 (PST)
- It should be noted in the article this clear discrepancy. Another point is the Suez Canal. If the final voyage was in 1845, it would have sailed around the continent of Africa. If it was the 1880s, it would have sailed through the Canal. --Xbenlinusx 19:12, 1 March 2008 (PST)
Painting from the auction
Obviously the ledger is Black Rock related, but that painting could be of any ship. Its possible the auction was of naval antiquities or whatever, not necessarily a Black Rock fanclub collection. I think the image should be removed from the main article under "After the Island" --Nickb123 (Talk) 10:50, 1 March 2008 (PST)
- I agree. If you listen to the auctioneer, the painting may be the next lot up for bid. It is said to have been in the possession of Charles Dickens at the time of his death. It may not be related to the Black Rock. Robert K S 13:45, 1 March 2008 (PST)
Do you think we can expect the Black Rock and/or the trading companies associated with it to be connected to the recent developments in the story (i.e. Widmore's interest in the Island, and Ben's interest in protecting it)? I suppose if most of the backstory of the ship was given in the Lost Experience, then by the producers admition it can't be accepted as canon and probably won't have any relation to the show... But I can't help but feel like it must be more integrally connected to Widmore et al. Obviously we now know from The Constant that Widmore has some interest in the ship, or at least in the records of its journey. Was this simply a means to locate the Island itself, or does the ship serve some further purpose? --Jacob's Lather 06:14, 20 March 2008 (PDT)
Island moved in the past?
Could the island have moved in the past and appeared at the location that the black rock was at that time. We saw the island appear to sink in to the sea so I would imagine that where it reappears it appears out of the sea.. Any thoughts?? Also this could explain the location questions if the island has moved since the blackrock landed there... --Kryton 05:14, 10 June 2008 (PDT)
- unless Richard volunteers more information post Dr. Linus, I'm thinking John witnessing the crash of the smuggler's plane while the Island was skipping may confirm just that. Unfortunately given the episodes remaining this connect-the-dots-yourself 'explanation' will be the only one we're given. Duncan905 02:52, March 11, 2010 (UTC)
Voyages of the Black Rock
I wonder if the answer to the date question might not be as simple as the vessel having made more voyages than we're aware of.
- First voyage
- 1845: Black Rock leaves Portsmouth; it had to have some type of cargo; no captain wants to sail with an empty bottom.
- 1845 - 1846?: Black Rock sails around Africa past the Cape of Good Hope
- 1847?: Black Rock departs Papua New Guinea for England.
- 1848?: Black Rock returns to England
- Second voyage
- 1848?: Black Rock departs England
- 1848 - 1849?: Black Rock sails around Africa past the Cape of Good Hope
- 1850?: Journal stolen
- 1852: Journal found.
- Other voyages?
- X voyage
- 1867?: Black Rock departs England
- 1868?: Black Rock is stranded on the Island
- A vessel departing Papua New Guinea for England would benefit by sailing east. The prevailing winds would make it faster to sail past Cape Horn to get to England.
- 1866: Dynamite invented.
- 1967: Last shipment of convicts for Western Australia departs Portsmouth, England
- 1868: Last shipment of convicts arrives in Western Australia
Is the external link http://www.freewebs.com/shipwreckmate/index.htm appropriate? The title of the linked page is "Top 8 Shipwrecks and Ships Lost at Sea" and it includes the missing Black Rock. It looks like an attempt to make our vessel real. I doubt that the Black Rock is that high in any real list of lost/missing ships. To quote one of the sysops, "We're writing an encyclopedia."--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 17:40, 4 July 2008 (PDT)
- It was part of The Lost Experience, or at least that's what I've always thought... I wasn't around at the time of TLE so I can't guarentee it 100%. --Bohrok Awakener 11:08, 7 November 2008 (PST)
I think it would be good if Miles visits the Black Rock so we can finaly find out what happend with it--Woodsy123 20:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
The Incident Parts 1 & 2
Have we confirmed that this is the Black Rock now. I believe it is, but we haven't got any confirmation that its the case. --14:06, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
- I did not hear the words "Black" and "Rock" uttered together. In a recent podcast, D & C said that, for them, only the show is canon.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by gaarmyvet (talk • contribs) .
- Unless it can be proven that it is in fact the Black Rock, I take issue with it being stated definitively that the ship we saw was in fact the Black Rock.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brodeh (talk • contribs) .
- Somebody give me one good reason to doubt that that's the Black Rock. The opening scene was obviously meant to tie into iconic Lost mythology by using Jacob, the Statue and a mysterious ship. How many mythologically iconic ships have appeared in Lost? Only one which matches the appearance of this ship: The Black Rock. We're obviously meant to take from the scene that this is the Black Rock, and we are not given any reason to doubt this. The argument "we don't have 100% confirmation" is a bogus argument, because otherwise we'd never be able to say anything concrete on the the wiki. If it turns out we were wrong, then we can just change it. We should strive to present the information as it has been presented, rather than second guess everything. Same reason Naomi was listed as "deceased" between seasons 3 and 4. 04:45, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
- I have to agree. It's like all the people saying the statue in LaFleur wasn't THE statue. Seriously guys, sometimes you just have to read between the lines when it's 99% obvious yet unconfirmed. Of course if it doesn't turn out to be the Black Rock it can always be corrected and the article should say "possibly" or "probably" but for all intents and purposes, that was the Black Rock.--Anfield Fox|talk|contributions 06:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
- This is ridiculous, why would they show a ship that seems so much like the Black Rock for it to not be the Black Rock, I know it hasn't been confirmed yet but I'm going to add it to the article, at least say that it is possible that it was seen in that scene.
- Also we've almost confirmed on the wiki that that scene took place in the 1800s only because of the voyage of the Black Rock, but that ship could be from the 1400s as well. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Loganmac (talk • contribs) .
- I'm afraid I have to concur wholeheartedly. The bark in the beginning of the episode has a noticable, elevated aft platform that is exclusively characteristic of either a medieval cog ship or a renaissance galleon but definitely not ANY fully rigged barque ever built in the late 18th or early 19th century (i.e. stranded Black Rock). When I read the picture description of the Hanso fleet I shook my head in disbelief: Taking a picture of HMS Victory, a 100-gun first rate ship of the line, and pretending it's a meesly frigate. Some people tinkering with ancient sailing vessels need to get their bearings straight.--SokratesOne 00:56, February 21, 2010 (UTC)
- does anyone else think that the incident is the reason why the black rock is in the midle of the jungle? the electromagnetism could have easly drawn the metal inside the ship into the island —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bernard1002 (talk • contribs) .
Once again, the aft section of that vessel we see in the beginning is characteristic of a galleon but not neither that of a sailing vessel from the 18th or 19th Century like the Black Rock. Already the shipwreck on the island (too bad we only seen the stern with the rudder) has no elevated, upper deck in the aft section (and none has been torn off). The Spanish Manila Galleons cruised the Pacific Ocean in the 16th Century, so unless an earlier galleon had mysteriously teleported to the presumed location of the island the scene might have taken place somewhere in the 16th Century.
I'm aware that pinpointing the scene in time is somewhat difficult. How long has Jacob been weaving and working on his tapestry? How did the dynamite get on the Black Rock considering dynamite was not invented before the second half of the 19th Century. The clue may be - again - Richard. Ilana addreses him as "Ricardus". This name has been in use from the medieval ages to the renaissance (16th Century) but I'm not aware it was in popular use in the 19th Century. Had Richard been on a 16th Century vessel his ancient name would make sense, but not if he had been on a 19th Century sailing vessel. Some contributor had claimed that Richard had already lived for "centuries". If Ricard arrived with the Black Rock somewhere in the late 19th Century and become immortal I wouldn't call this "centuries".
And last but not least, at some point during production, the company responsible for the CGI effect of the sailing vessel, must have been given a specific task by the LOST producers. If the task had - indeed - been to create a sailing vessel of the early 1800's the result would have been inevitably a ship resembling one of the Horatio Nelson / Horatio Hornblower / Jack Aubrey (MASTER AND COMMANDER) period and thus would not have the added on, noticable afterdeck we have seen in that scene --SokratesOne 07:57, March 12, 2010 (UTC)
Surely the weather at the time of the Black Rock crashing in Ab Aeterno makes this question hugely relevant again. Jacob told Richard that there were people on the Island before the Black Rock, and that they are all dead. The ship at the start of The Incident may well have been a different ship - how else would people get to the Island before planes and submarines?ElessarTom 18:29, March 25, 2010 (UTC)
TPTB have spoken (podcast, Mar 24). The vessel offshore in the sunlight is the Black Rock. I don't like it, either, and everyone who writes that the vessels look different is correct.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 19:55, March 25, 2010 (UTC)
Can somebody please get the quote from that podcast transcript? I can't help the feeling that Carlton and Damon are reading way too much what fans expect and feel somehow pressured to deliver accordingly. Let me get this straight:
- So the ship out on the sea in "The Incident", is anchoring or hoovering there all day but the slaves don't see the statue?!
- Now, several hours later a storm and a Tsunami comes up and the slaves see it for the first time?!
P.S. Though some great thinker here on Lostpedia just removed my section "18th or 19th Century ship?" for the Black Rock main page, I'd like to point out that just because the ship crash landed on the land in 1867 (as we had ALWAYS assumed) doesn't change the fact that it has characteristics of both centuries. Whoever removed it, please have the decency to put it back (as these are facts!). --SokratesOne 21:20, March 25, 2010 (UTC)
- We don't have a transcript yet. TPTB have been misquoted before, so I listened before I wrote what's above. Sadly, they said it.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 21:38, March 25, 2010 (UTC)
- Do Carldamon know what they are doing? The scene in "The Incident" seemed to have take a long time ago ("Ab Aeterno"). "One day I'm going to find a loophole" says the Man in Black and just conveniently happens to find it the very next day.
Sorry, that's not epic, it's trivial! Please Carldamon, belay this statement--SokratesOne 21:49, March 25, 2010 (UTC)
- Clearly if TPTB have said the ship at the beginning of the incident parts 1 and 2 was the black rock then that is what we must go with but that ship arrived at the island in the day under calm seas. The Black rock that richard arrived to the island on arrived at night in a storm with huge waves. Jdray 21:57, March 25, 2010 (UTC)
Ultimately, perhaps it doesn't matter. Jacob and MIB have clearly been having this struggle for many, many years, and the conversation they had at the start of The Incident is probably one that they've had more than once. There definitely were other ships that were brought to the Island before the Black Rock, because there was no other way to cross seas before aeroplanes and submarines. So even though Damon and Carlton have said that the ship in The Incident was the Black Rock, given all the reasons why it can't have been, I think it's fine to just carry on believing it was in fact an earlier ship.ElessarTom 22:25, March 25, 2010 (UTC)
- A Lostpedia contributor (didn't sign his entry on the "Ab Aeterno" discussion page) has pointed out, that there are many ships in the world carrying the same name, thus the name "Black Rock" may well apply to different ships of different origin and in different times.
- Or it IS the Black Rock, and arrived safely, dropped off a few people, and came back 22 years later. That could help to explain how Magnus Hanso's logbook found it's way off the island.ElessarTom 16:21, March 26, 2010 (UTC)
Unless it is explicitedly and canonically stated that the ship we see in broad daylight in the beginning of "The Incident" is the ship with Richard Alpert on board we are free to assume that actually it is another ship from a previous era which just equally had the name "Black Rock" (Maybe the ship had that name even in another language...) --SokratesOne 08:02, March 26, 2010 (UTC)
Via Domus mention?
The Black Rock was featured in the Via Domus video game. I believe the ship's rendition in it and events that took place there should be mentioned in the article under the "Apocrypha" section. --TheBearPaw 21:50, April 16, 2010 (UTC)
- Funny you should mention it because I was thinking the same thing. The inside is actually canon so it should be described in detail. --LOST-The Cartographer 21:52, May 2, 2010 (UTC)
One of many references to Close Encounters of a Third Kind
Don't really know where to put this, but does anyone out there agree that the beached ship, along with a lot of other parts of LOST, are references to Close Encounters of a Third Kind, the Spielberg movie? Just watched the movie and thought of the following:
1) The character Lacombe, of the French Expedition, and the character of the same name, a French scientist in the movie.
2) The Black Rock ship found beached inland in the movie and the SS Cotopaxi found hundreds, if not thousands of miles from water in the Gobi Desert.
3) In CE3K, Lacombe (Ben) is jealous (resentful?) that Roy Neary (Locke) is chosen by the ETs (by Jacob).
4) The NUMBERS in LOST are a very close parallel to the coordinate readout in CE3K, and the corresponding sounds, just like when Charlie discovers the musical combination in Through the Looking glass.
5) A number of candidates (those that saw the UFO, ETs) being narrowed down to a select few who make a journey to Devil's Tower (the island), then a smaller number who are true believers and get to witness the 3rd kind of encounter.
6) Near mid-air collision in the beginning of the movie parallels O815.
... there are more ... --Airjesse123 05:43, May 2, 2010 (UTC)