Contents 1 Misc 2 Cleanup 3 Just One Question 4 Ben knows 5 Amy's baby 6 Those who can't be 7 Those who can be 8 Four Toed Statue 9 Rose and Bernard 10 Charlotte's Body & the Last Flash

MiscEdit

• Can anyone explain how we know for certain that the events of this episode take place in 74/77? I watch the show pretty closely, but would like some clarification. Thanks!Mairoco 15:18, 8 March 2009 (UTC)Robert
• THE THEORY PAGE NEEDS TO BE CLEANED UP. TOO MANY ASSUMPTIONS. such as the baby belonging to paul?? then born three years later! come on
• I guess I don't understand how the Lostpedia works. I added a comment last week with a lot more insight and logical backing than "The baby was born through caeserian section, which is why the baby was names Caesar. CAESAR IS THE BABY!" . It was erased within seconds, yet this nonsense is allowed . I imagine my comments here will be deleted too , but I'd sure like to know why . Please see my blog for details
• Now the baby is Keamy ! Where are all you quick erasers? --Macsrods 05:19, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
• I also feel there are some overzealous arbiters, but there have also been technical issues lately, especially immediately after episode airings, resulting in things getting accidentally erased. Don't feel discouraged.--Znils 04:43, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
• agreed Harcourt 11:12, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

• I would like to throw in request for someone to speculate why did Richard need the bodies for? this has not been addressed enough in this page in my opinion
  • I was just about to do exactly that ;) - My theory: Richard said his people will want justice. His people don't know what actually happened (that the hostiles killed Paul unprovoked, and were killed themselves in self-defense by Sawyer and Juliet). So Richard, in order to maintain the truce (because he doesn't want war between his people and Dharma) brings the body back, saying that Paul was responsible for the death of the two hostiles and was tried and executed for killing them. That way the hostiles believe that justice has been done and the truce is maintained.

Interesting. Richard the diplomat! Nothing we've seen so far proves you wrong.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 03:09, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

• What Happened Happened: I would like to differ with this. I don't care how many characters claim this, or how many times, we have seen the past change directly when Faraday contacted Desmond. Desmond is special, fine, but history can change, and Desmond is not the only one. Further, Eloise Hawking didn't really say you can't change the future, just that it won't stay changed. We see with Charlie and what she says that a death will come back on a 24 hour repeat, evidently. There may be ways for history to converge without that person dying, however, for all we know. And there is no limit to how long you can put off the inevitable. So technically in spite of the tendency for history to reconverge on destiny, we cannot really accept that there can't be alternate time lines for some period of time. Yes, no? This idea is deleted from theory pages afaict.Harcourt 11:12, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
• I completely agree that there can be differences in the time line and so far it's the end result that will be the same. I have posted a similar theory to yours on the thoeries page, only to be deleted by people who think they have the only right answer (even though we're on a theories page).

CleanupEdit

• Theory page has been cleaned up. If you have questions, please read Lostpedia:Theory policy. In general:
  1. The theory page is for statements of theory
  2. The theory page is not a discussion forum. No debates, etc. If your contribution begins with: "I disagree" or "I agree", or "What about....", or if it's not a statement of theory, then it doesn't belong here. If you want a discussion please go to Lostpedia forums, and you'll likely get a lot of debate and discussion. You can also post to your personal Lostpedia blog.
  3. Reasoning for theories is allowed.

It is possible that some reasoning bullets were deleted mistakenly; such supporting reasoning may be restored to the theory page on an individual basis, although it's easier to user a prose format than bullets. Your account may be blocked temporarily if you make wholesale reversion that violates the theory policy.

- ^Contrib¯ _Santa_ ¯  ^Talk  09:51, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Just One QuestionEdit

• If the majority of members prefer to discuss the theories on the same page that they're stated, rather than flipping back and forth between theory and talk pages, I can only surmise that that's actually a better way to do it. Though I can't speak for everyone, it certainly seems that this is the case, since it happens constantly. If we have to keep beating it into people's heads that they're doing it 'wrong', then maybe the policy is actually the wrong way to do it. I don't mean this as an attack on the cleaner-uppers, but it might make their job easier and make everyone else happier to allow discussion/theories in one place. Just a thought... (as for me I hate going back and forth between theory and discussion pages - it's not a user-friendly design, and being a PhD candidate in Design, I've come to appreciate that good design responds according to users' needs, not according to managers' rulebooks) --Template:Unsigne2
  • p.s. There can be ways to help organize Theory-Discussion-together formats so they're less messy. Maybe having different bullet formats for theories vs discussions, or having sub-headings specifically created for discussion, etc. --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by NotAnOther (talk • contribs) 03:19, 8 March 2009.
    • Does "Just One Question" have a question?

• • That's a valid observation, and it is in consideration (allowing discussion, and therefore tagging with signatures). However this season is the first time it has become an issue, since theory policy has been evolving with each iteration of the wiki. However, we do have a "good" way to discuss theories, the Lostpedia discussion forums. That's why that's a discussion forum, and whereas this is an encyclopedia. The other possible change is to recognize that the primary purpose of this site is as an encyclopedia: hence another alternative action could be to remove all theory from the wiki entirely, forcing all discussion to the forum-- and that too, has been considered; its current form remains only as a historical artifact of theories which were once placed in the main article space, in a time before the creation of the forums. Thus as you're certainly well aware as someone who purports to be an expert, design does not exist in a vacuum as a class exercise, i.e. in this case we didn't design it this way, it's the result of past iterations of how the site worked, layered upon periods of busy broadcast seasons for Lost, and hiatuses where policies are then tweaked in preparation for the next season, layered upon the growth of the Lostpedia community and the adjustment of its goals. A real life 'rabbit warren' model so to speak, built successively upon previous structures, often with different priorities other than the facilitation of theories itself. On top of all of this, I'll labor to point out that we're not managers in the corporate sense, we're merely volunteer fans, of which you are part. This discussion, unfortunately, will take some time to complete, if we choose to do so. The two places this may be discussed are in the Ideas/Suggestions area within 1) this wiki, and 2) the associated discussion forums. Feel free to begin the discussion in either area, or ask me for more details. However, once any "design" decision is made, note that it is subject to change in the future, such as the hiatus, Season 6, or indeed after the end of Lost. -- ^Contrib¯ _Santa_ ¯  ^Talk  03:28, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I've only been doing this for about a year, but I've found that you usually can get away with some back-and-forth on the theory page. The whole thing breaks down with:
    • "I think..."
    • "Didn't you watch the episode..."
    • "It's obvious to me that..."
    • "Your (note the spelling!) an idiot if you think..."

Short, on-subject comments can help another editor clarify his or her point. I think it's courteous. The past several weeks have been arduous.

--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 03:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

• • • What I have a problem with, is the control-freak moderators who like to delete blocks of theories, clearly without reading through them to separate them. I mean, is this some kind of power play?! I can delete your work, and there's nothing you can do about it! I appreciate the need for cleanup, but so many times I have gone through the edit history and some person has decided that they dont like that theory, and deleted everything to do with it.

I think having the discussion on the theory page is a wonderful idea, as that's clearly how 99% of the users here want it to be!

What if there is a, say, 48hr. time limit starting immediately after episode airing for discussion to be allowed on the Theory page. I feel it helps theories take shape and helps show what is nonsense and should go. After 48 hrs. discussion is wiped or moved. Annarboral 06:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Ben knows Edit

Ben isn't on the island yet. Sawyer and co. have been there for 3 years now and if Ben was there, it would have been shown in this episode itself just like how we see Charlotte and Daniel recognizing her. The submarine is on the island and Charlotte will be leaving on it and we'll see Daniel asking her not to return. She will be leaving because while Charlotte was on the island in the present, she did not know Ben and vice versa. This is because they had never met when they were little. After the submarine leaves, it will return back with Ben. And when the losties had crashed, Ben already knew Jack, Kate, Hurley, Sawyer and that's because he had met them when he had arrived on the island. --Naifamoodi 07:44, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

• Well Horace did say there would be a sub in 2 weeks. The next episode dosnt air for 2 weeks, and is called Namaste. This is probably when Ben does arrive. This also gives a reason why Ben is stuck in Locke's island time as opposed to the Saywer island time (2 bens at the same time is sketchy).
  • The two Bens at the same time point sounds very interesting to me but don't you think it's possible they did arrive on the Island in 1977 along with Jack, Kate and Hurley? If you noticed, they crashed on the Hydra Island and not on the main island. --Naifamoodi 17:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

We've already seen the losties jump into a time where if they travled to the beach they would have encountered themselves, there does not seem to be anything that prevents 2 people from being in the same time frame at the same time--WhyDidntUKnow 01:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Amy's baby Edit

The baby is definitively Ethan

• I read rumors pointing that Amy is Amelia and her son is Ethan. She joined the Others with her son and survived the purge. This make me thinks that Amy and Horace start a relationship after Paul and/or Olivia were killed by the Hostiles, from that relationship came Ethan (To support this just remember that in season 3 we can see Amelia being very sweet with Juliet, like someone who owe one) Olivia may have been killed/captured in a Hostile's raid, perhaps the one (and only) we saw in season 3 when she was teaching in Ben's classroom and suddendly grab a gun. Obviously Juliet had no memories of this because what's in Amelia past is actually in Juliet present. After "Namaste" the pieces match. that's all. (and now i hope that no more "Mr. I-know-all-you-don't" will remove my theory like last time).--Christo 11:02, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

The baby is no-one important

• It is highly unlikely that the baby is Ethan or any of the 'Others' as it is born in the DI and all of them are killed by Ben later on. If Karl and Alex were roughly the same age that would put him at 16, not in his late 20's and again, he as an 'Other'. Ben's father wasn't Horace and neither Locke or Sawyer were born on the island. Seems unlikely that Dan was born on the island too and Eloise has been identified as his mother. The theory of Jacob being the baby seems unlikely as well since Jacob does not seem to be a physical being, but some sort of spiritual identity of the island itself. Perhaps the significance of the baby was just so Juliet could deliver a healthy baby and that was it. This seems to make the most sense, given that the name of the baby wasn't revealed in this episode. women haven't always been unable to give birth on the island, and that whatever happened to prevent them from delivering, happened after 1977, possibly the incident.

• All of the DI were not necessarily killed in the Purge. We have only seen the Barracks people killed so far.
• If Ethan were the baby, he would be 27 at the time of the O815 crash, not the same age as Alex, who was born in 1988, so Ethan could possibly be the baby.

• It is unlikely that this baby would not be important. The doctor said the DI usually ships pregnant mothers somewhere else to give birth.

• Mothers leave the island to give birth (because there is no obstetrician there), but that doesn't mean they don't return with their babies (we saw Dr. Chang with a baby on the island)

• The baby is a prop. Actually, it is not even that, because we never see it. The whole point of the exercise is restoring Juliet's confidence as a doctor.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by gaarmyvet (talk • contribs) .
• The baby is 15 during The Purge. Jack Dutton 19:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The baby is important, but someone we haven't yet met

• The baby is important since it is one of few we (audience) know of that was born on the island. The intern states that women give birth on the mainland.
• The baby was born premature like Locke and Ben, implying it TOO may be a future leader.
• Baby was born by C-section, implying it could be a future leader -caesarean-section is named after Julius Caesar, first emperor of Rome who was cut from his mother's womb.
  • Others speak Latin, language of Ancient Rome furthering the circumstantial connection.
• There are characters in the story we haven't met yet. They may be very important to the story's climax and resolution. Take Daniel Faraday, for example. He wasn't introduced until the 4th season, and yet seems to be integral to the outcome. If Amy's baby is important, we may not know his full identity until much later.

The baby is Desmond

• Desmond is the only main character on the show - along with Juliet - whose parents we know nothing about (we know that Sayid's father was a "war hero," and we've met Michael's mother).
• The age fits, Charles Widmore is likely still the leader of the Others in 1974, since The Purge hasn't happened yet. If Horace Goodspeed is the leader of DHARMA, then it makes sense that Widmore would not want his daughter ending up with the son of his nemesis. Besides, there never has been any mention of Desmond's parents.
• Counter-evidence: The baby is born in 1977. Desmond almost marries Ruth in 1995 after 6 years of dating. Unlikely, Desmond started dating Ruth at 12. Further, Desmond appears to be in his 30s in 2004.

• Also, when he's in the British Army in 1996, he's clearly not 19 Yo.

The baby is Miles

• Amy had an affair with Pierre Chang. When Horace finds out, Amy and the baby leave the island.Jack Dutton 19:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

• This seems very unlikely as weve seen Chang's baby (who we are assuming is Miles at this point) and the child looks very asian. It would have been brought to Horace's atention if he's got an asian baby and niether him nor amy are asian.
• If Amy left the island with Miles and raised him on her own off-island, MIles would likely remember her and recognize her to be his mother.

The baby is Jacob

• Horace built the cabin for him and his wife. Therefore, if their son is Jacob, it would make sense that he resides in the cabin for which his father constructed.
• Their son being born is a product of time-travel. Had Sawyer not traveled back in time, Amy would have been captured or killed. If Juliet hadn't been in the past, then the baby would not have been delivered. Because the baby was born due to a time paradox, he has special abilities. This could lead to DHARMA experimenting with him and this could lead to the "Incident", which causes Jacob to become omnipresent.

• Additional: And distrustful of technology.
• There is no paradox in Lost. Sawyer has always been part of DHARMA and all of these events happened. Amy's son was always delivered by Juliet and Jim LaFleur was always the chief of security. Faraday said: "Whatever happened, happened".

• That's assuming that Farraday has been right this whole time. He is still learning about the Island and its properties. He also told Desmond that he could change things. If "Whatever happened, happened" is completely true, then how is Desmond getting new memories? I think there is more to it than even Farraday understands. And even if you don't want to call it a paradox, the baby is still the result of time travelers intervening.
• Faraday also tells desmond he is special , meaning he might be the only one the rules of time do not apply too.
• Right. They only delayed the time when Amy would be captured. She may be important to Jacob and the Others, which is why they killed Paul, not her. Either before the Purge or after, she and her baby join the Hostiles.
• No delays were necessary. They simply were there when it happened. Jack Dutton 19:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
• How do you figure there is no paradox? Sawyer was 5 years old in 1974. How can Sawyer be existing on the island as an adult in 1974 and simultaneously as a 5 year old off the island? Simple. He can't. That's why it is called a "paradox". The only way to account for this is the multiple time line theory. I have yet to see someone support the theory for one single time line while accounting for the paradox of the Losties existing off the island as children and simultaneously on the island as adults in 1974. Also, Faraday's statement that "whatever happened, happened" could simply be referring the "flashes" coming to an end - they can't do anything about them, and can't go forward or back in time anymore. So whatever happened, happened. I really think people are reading way too far into what Faraday said.

• Sawyer's simple existence at two different places at the same time does not cause a paradox. From Wikipedia: "A temporal paradox is a paradoxical situation in which a time traveler causes, through actions in the past, the exclusion of the possibility of the time travel that allowed those actions to be taken."
• Its a logical paradox. Sawyer can't exist as a 34 year old in 1974 if he was 5 years old in 1974. Unless he is in a different time line.
• As has been said elsewhere, we've already seen that Locke and Sawyer have existed on the Island at the same time as their past selves (when Sawyer witnessed Aaron's birth and Locke saw the light in the Hatch). According to the logic above, any time that the Losties traveled back in time to a point after they born, it creates a paradox. This is untrue. These weren't different timelines. These weren't paradoxes, logical, temporal, or otherwise.
• Wow, I did not even take those scenes into consideration. I will consider myself proved wrong!

• In 1954, Locke said to Richard, "Jacob sent me." This statement made Richard believe Locke; therefore, Jacob had to be around 20 years before the baby.

• I agree with this, beside, the image they show of Jacob for a few seconds is of an old man, not someone in their 30's. Also I don't think they would make the great immortal Ghost-like spiritual leader of an ancient civilization, a young man
• Something could happen to the baby that causes him to get sent way into the past. We don't know yet. So I believe it's impossible to rule out the baby being Jacob as of what we know right now. Goldenx 21:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
  • True, but how would Jacob still be Richard's leader during the time when he is born, in the 70's? Unless he did the same thing as Locke, told Richard he would be born in 1974, but that would'nt jive with how old he looked in the cabin. And he couldn't be sent to the past and then continue to age in the past right through his "Re"-birth again in the 70's.

• If you are familiar with a webcomic called "It's Walky", this rings a bell. In it, one of the characters is accidentally thrown millions of years in the past and devoid of his physical being. During millenia of observation his consciousness expands and he becomes a God-like being, primarly obsessed with maintaining balance and making sure that nothing disturbs the timeline that created him. However, once he reaches the point in time where his old self is thrown to the past, he's left in the dark as he has not an idea how he should influence a time he has never existed in (i.e. the future) so he becomes despotic but at the same time vulnerable. This could be the case with Jacob: he was born in the present times, but by unknown incidents went back in time and became a major power in the mystery that is the Island. Maokun 02:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The baby is one of the 2004 era Others

• The baby is Ethan, who would then have to be age 27 at the time of the crash of Flight 815. Being born on the Island (perhaps the first to be?) gave him the near-superhuman strength and resilience he displayed in season one (lifted Charlie off the ground by the throat with one hand, beat the tar out of Jack, rose up while Jack had him pinned to the ground by the throat, took a dozen or so punches to the face from Jack and then stood back up). Sawyer says something along the lines of "whoever or whatever you are" when the Losties capture him, before Charlie kills him. As far as the purge, it's been hinted that Ben was not the only DI member to join the hostiles. If Ethan truly is this special, Ben would certainly want him on his side rather than dead. Ethan became a doctor because he was confused and fascinated by his own unique physiology, and wanted Claire and Aaron so badly because he thought, if Aaron could be born on the Island, there'd be someone else like him.
• Both Ethan and Goodwin are of roughly the correct age.

• No. Goodwin is considerably older than 27. Ethan is a stretch. Jack Dutton 19:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

• Danny Pickett Jack Dutton 19:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

• Danny looked much older than 27. I'd put him in his early 40's, roughly the same age as Ben.

• Any of several minor others like Aldo, Matthew, Luke, or Jason. Jack Dutton 19:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
• Mikhail is too old. Jack Dutton 19:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

• Evidence: Mikhail fought in the Afghan war in the 80's; unlikely he did so as a 10 year old

• Karl. He looked to be in his 20's.
  • Karl and Alex were of the same age, give or take. Alex was 16 in 2004. --Naifamoodi 15:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
• Counter evidence: All these characters are pretty minor, spending several episodes telling the story of their birth would not add much to the overall story and mythology.

The baby is Thomas, Aaron's father

• Little is known about Thomas but he's definitely in his 20's when Aaron was conceived in 2004 so a 1977 birth date seems reasonable. In 1995/1996, one of Thomas' paintings can be seen in Charles Widmore's office ("Flashes Before Your Eyes") and then the same painting is back in Thomas apartment in 2004 ("Raised by Another"). Widmore may have some connection with Thomas. Maybe Thomas and Claire meeting was orchestrated so they could make Aaron who is somehow special to the Island. Thomas, the son of a Dharma person, and Claire, the daughter of a "Hostile/Other" (if we consider Christian as a Hostile/Other) may be significant.

• Interesting. I always thought that Thomas leaving Claire was both sudden and uncalled for, as he changed from loving tender and excited parent-to-be to cold-hearted, self-centered jerk with fear of commitment in a matter of weeks. Probably he was ordered by someone behind the curtains (Widmore? Christian?) to do so as the trigger that would take Claire to the Island.Maokun 02:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
• Interesting. "Don't let him be raised by an Other." Jack Dutton 19:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
• This theory could also account for the similarities between Thomas' art atyle and that found on the mural in the Swan station.

The baby is Hurley

• Hurley's wiki page says that he was allegedly born in 1977 in which Amy's baby was born as well. Also, add to this that there is still no explanation why his father left him for 17 years (maybe working for someone on the island-others/hostiles, Dharma). It would also explain why he has this massive connection with the island as he was born there. Also, Amy's and Hurley's curly hair match very well.

How the baby is born

• Juliette traveled back to the statue time. Statue was tawaret's, the one proctecting babies. So equipped with divine powers, she could deliver the baby.

• Time is flowing normally in 1974 on the Island, as we know the Dharma can leave the island periodically via sub without fear of "Sickness": The Incident (AH/MDG Incident of 1985) had not yet occurred, which led to the establishment of the Swan station protocol, keeping the Island stuck in the same 108 minute window. A child cannot be born if time is not flowing forward and the child didn't already exist in that 108 minutes. Perhaps the Tawaret statue will be symbolically rather than directly related: The Incident involves some kind of large explosion (Jughead?), which destroys most of the statue, and ironically is no longer there to "protect" fertility, while the Incident has caused it to become physically/scientifically impossible. --Petezilla 23:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)petezilla
  • Good points. Premies and newborns may lack a Constant on an Island moving in SpaceTime. When the pre-term babies are around 30 weeks or so, they are able to live outside of their mother's womb. It's in these final stages of pregnancy - when the fetus is essentially a living, breath, thinking human - when miscarriages occur on the Island. Jack Dutton 19:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

• Sorry, but I have to call Occam's Razor on you people. I think the real reason is the simplest one, as stated by Juliet: whatever makes pregnant women in the Island die, happened after 1977. The "incident"? The purge itself? Widmore being exiled? make your pick. I know it's kind of fashionable in these discussions not to believe exposition made by the characters when they are only guess working, but note that if we doubt every single statment spoke by the characters, the series will last forever as it shows all the truth of every little factoid. The fact is that, sad as it is the series is nearing completion so at this point we can no longer expect to be misled, but to get exposition. The only character I do advice to mistrust even if he's praying and crying would be Ben. Maokun 02:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Agreed. Having women leave the Island in their last trimester is probably a safety and liability issue rather than an Island-caused phenomenon. Complications, incubation, pre-term labor, etc. make having a baby a better off-island experience. Jack Dutton 19:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

• • But the questions is, what is it that happens after 1977? We could sit back and wait for the show to reveal, but what's the fun in that?

Those who can't be Edit

Ethan

I have read theories that Amy's baby is Ethan and I have also read a post that says it has been confirmed. I would like to know how it has been confirmed? I find it hard to believe the baby can be Ethan. The reasons are as follows:

The baby was born in 1977 and in 2004 he would be around 27 years old. Ethan didn't look 27! He looked in his mid or late 30's. And also Ethan was a doctor. He couldn't have attended medical school on the Island unless he was sent away. At the moment there is no reason to believe the baby will be sent off the island. Another reason is that this baby is born to a member of the Dharma Initiative and not to the others. Ethan was a member of the others.

• Ethan could have learned to be a doctor from Juliet. This is crude way for a doctor to be educated, but it is possible. Iyubyost 23:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
  • When discussin the inadequacies of Juliet as the one making the intervention in Ben, Ben clearly stated that "Ethan was our surgeon". Seeing how Juliet only had been 3 years in the Island, there's just not room to believe Ethan learned from her how to become something that she herself wasn't. Just notice how Ethan was shown with Mittelos when Juliet was recruited. Maokun 02:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

You might argue Ethan could have changed sides like Ben had. Like I said earlier, Ethan was a doctor. To become a doctor it would take around 22 years. Even if you assume Ethan had left the island at an early age as a member of the Dharma Initiative. To change sides, he should have been present before the Purge. The Purge itself took place in around 1992 and Ethan probably graduated in 1999 and must have returned or had been brought back to the Island in 2000 or 2001, give or take. So again this goes to show it's very unlikely Ethan is the baby.

Ethan is not even that important to expect that the story of his birth will be explained in details. It would be like spending several episodes to tell how Luke got to the Island.

• The purpose of the episode was not to explain the possible birth of Ethan but to place Sawyer, et al, with Dharma. The story of baby's birth is just a story to share to show their placement with Dharma in the 70s. Iyubyost 00:05, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

• There are any number of possible ways to explain how the baby could be Ethan. To start at the top:

1) Ethan didn't look 27 to whom? You? Age is a very difficult thing to estimate based solely on looks. I'm 30 and I still get carded for cigarettes. This is not counter-evidence. 2) Ethan was a surgeon on the Island. First of all, there's no reason to believe that this means he has a degree from an accredited institution. Secondly, it's been shown that Ethan was unusual physically (see examples above); there's no reason to disclude his being unusual mentally as well. On or off the Island, he could well be a prodigy of sorts, learning and excelling at an accelerated pace. While we have no reason to believe that he was sent off the Island at some point, we also have no reason to believe that he wasn't. We have seen him off the Island (recruiting Juliet). Alternatively, he taught himself to be a surgeon on the Island. 3) DHARMA/Others - Ben was a DHARMA member and became leader of the others. Ethan could just as well have switched sides with him. 4) Importance - This theory, obviously, rests upon the fact that Ethan is more important to the show than we've been lead to believe previously.

Jacob

I have also read theories that the baby is Jacob. I again don't see how? Jacob clearly has a special status in the show and seems to be the ultimate thing. The island has been inhabited from a very long time (we know people were there in the 50's). Also not just status but his form seems to be unnatural too. So let's assume the island was inhabited in the 1950's and has been inhabited for over 50 years now. So it's unlikely Jacob would be born in the middle of this time period. That would make him a lot like Ben. And what we have learn't about Jacob so far tells us that Ben isn't even close to who or what Jacob is. So it's not possible it's Jacob either. --Naifamoodi 07:52, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

• • Furthermore, Jacob was Richard's leader circa the 1950's, if he hadnt been born yet, Locke would never have been able to get Richard's attention. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Petezilla (talk • contribs) 2009-03-08T15:51:01.

• Did you guys forget about the time traveling on the show?

Those who can be Edit

Boone

I think it's Boone based on how old he looked and the kind of friendship he had with John. Also it is not known who his biological father was. His mother too could have been his adopted mother. --Naifamoodi 07:51, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Radzinsky

How did he get to the Swan? How did he create the blast door map? He was Amy's baby. He freakishly survived the Purge thanks to his special born-on-Island powers. He retreated to the Swan. He is the reason Kelvin and Desmond think the Island is quarantined. The last thing he saw (he was 15) was everyone dying from some poisoning. Jack Dutton 19:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Four Toed Statue Edit

In response to the theory that the statue is Anubis, I point out one glaring difference. Anubis has a tail and the statue does not. This, to me, seems like a big enough feature that the creators would not accidentally leave this out.

---

Is it possible if a hydrogen bomb exploded it could partially destroy a statue? In this episode when Miles says 'it was more like an earthquake', people speculated there was an earthquake which had destroyed the statue. Couldn't it be possible that was actually the bomb Jughead detonating? --Naifamoodi 17:57, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The bomb would cause much more damage then just knocking over a statue. Any way, I don't think that the yellow statue is the four toed statue at all! it's the wrong colour for a start!

Rose and Bernard Edit

The exchange

Carlton Cuse: Damon, did Rose and Bernard die in the flaming arrow attack?

Damon Lindelof: Wow! That’s an excellent question because a lot of people seemingly did.

Carlton Cuse: Pretty much! Most of the socks!

Damon Lindelof: I think that’s a good question to be asking and one that we shouldn’t definitively answer here, Carlton. All I would say is “if they died as a result of the flaming arrow attack I think we would probably show that moment”. So, I think of all the questions that we’re going to be asked over the course of Season 5 the one that we’re gonna be asked most often is “where and when are Rose & Bernard?”

Carlton Cuse: I don’t actually think that’s the question we’re gonna be asked most often…

Damon Lindelof: I’m trying to divert away from the other questions…

Carlton Cuse: There would be about ten thousand time travel questions for every question about Rose & Bernard.

Damon Lindelof: All right, well, we answered that one “they did not die in the flaming arrow attack”

Carlton Cuse: Good! I think that’s good for everyone to know.

end of exchange

I can't find the words "Rose and Bernard are alive" anywhere in that exchange.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 00:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• Not those exact words, but, this podcast had: "CARLTON: I think sadly a lot died. It was a very effective flaming arrow attack and I think a lot of them went down however Rose and Bernard I think are probably safe and if the rules are constant then they would have traveled wherever Sawyer and Juliet, but obviously they’re just not in the same geographic space, but I would venture to say they’re probably in the same time". I think it's safe to say they mean they are alive, for now anyway, since travel seems to equal being alive (unlike Charlotte). ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 15:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

- Adam and Eve in the caves, died 40-50 years ago. Rose & Bernie, ran-off to hide, 50 years ago. Maybe they didn't die by arrow. Maybe they starved in the caves. (I know - that could take awhile) Maybe they crawled into the caves after Jughead was hidden there - dead by radiation sickness. –DocH– my edits

• There shouldn't be theories on this because NO ONE has any evidence at all as to where Rose & Bernard are AT ALL. You are all shooting fish in a barrel.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Endzoneted (talk • contribs) .

Charlotte's Body & the Last FlashEdit

Ok I'm really confused about this... We know they've been traveling through time with the flashes. And apparently dead bodies don't come along for the ride (Frogurt & Co.). But when Dan is explaining to Juliet what happened to Charlotte he very clearly and intentionally says "There was another flash. She moved on and we stayed." This apparently is how he determined that the flashes had stopped, rather than observing that he didn't have a headache or nosebleeds as the Orchid crew had done.

However, this makes no sense to me. I don't think it's an error, because the writers wouldn't make this kind of mistake (one would hope). The last flas we saw, they clearly moved on (from the time of the statue to the Dharma time). So could Dan actually be referring to another flash, after Locke set the wheel back on track and after they moved to the Dharma time? Maybe a 'normal' island flash, referred to by Eloise Hawking in the lamp post, when she says that the island is always moving? That would seem to be the only explanation consistent with what we've seen so far on Lost. BUT, this theory doesn't really work either, when you consider that dead bodies don't move with flashes, but stay behind... an someone make better sense of this than me?--NotAnOther 11:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• One possibility is that Daniel, who normally speaks clearly ( if hesitatingly), just described what happened incorrectly. He is not exactly mentally stable right now.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 12:55, 18 March 2009 (UTC)