I WANT TO READ THEORIES, NOT ARGUMENTS. I BEG THE ADMINS TO PLEASE RETURN THIS WIKI BACK TO HOW IT WAS AND LET US POST ON THE THEORY PAGE.

• er, sorry? Why is this writer screaming at us and then hiding (ie not signing) their identity.
• The claim is utterly false, I just posted theories on the theory page.
• I also removed some arguments (ie discussion) which I'm about to move here, so the writer can do just what they are yelling about. --Charles Kane 06:06, March 19, 2010 (UTC)

Contents 1 What is recon 2 MiB's Identity 2.1 Who is the MIB's Mother? 3 More on a Possible Timeline Split 3.1 Issues from Recon 3.1.1 Miles, Miles' Father & Charlotte 3.1.1.1 Taking as an assumption that there has been a time fracture: 3.1.2 Sawyer 3.1.2.1 Possible Consequences of Sawyers' birthdate being different in the OT & FST 3.2 Discussion points removed from the main page 3.3 A possible working out of Option (2) above 3.4 Discussion related to the Posted Summary on the Timeline split Theory 4 Miles and Charlotte in FS - Moved 5 The Locked Compartment 5.1 Inside the locked door on the sub 6 James' Memories and Parental Issues 7 Wow, it's 3/17/10, the day after this episode aired, just past 6PM...and there's next to nothing on the 'Theory' page 7.1 A comment by Sean Sheep on the necessity of editing, and the realities of doing it 8 Who killed the Ajira folks? 9 MiB and Widmore on the same team? 10 Man in Black's "Growing Pains" 11 Removed: What was this episode trying to show about Sawyer? 12 What is Charles Widmore's mission on Hydra Island? 13 Is the OT influencing the FST?

What is reconEdit

• What does the word 'recon' actually mean, anyone know?
  • Recon is typically short for reconnaissance. This episode could have to do with some kind of reconnaissance mission.
    • I removed this section because it is not a theory but a question. This should be in discussion.--Dmac1249 20:28, March 11, 2010 (UTC)
  • It could also mean to ReCon, or to con again. Could be a double meaning. Maybe Sawyer isn't really with MiB, but instead pulling a con. Or he might be sent by MiB to con someone else. --Sabones 21:57, March 15, 2010 (UTC)
  • It was suggested by Darlton in the last podcast that the title has dual-meaning, as is often the case with Lost. Recon meaning short for reconnaissance, and recon, as in to con again (as Sawyer is once again conning - both Widmore and MIB)
    • Agreed, Darlton goes for double entendre.--Timich 12:22, March 22, 2010 (UTC)

MiB's IdentityEdit

hopefully there will be no theories about MiB being Aaron and Claire being his mother. --V-vk 03:05, March 17, 2010 (UTC)

You have got to be kidding me. Really, gosh I never for one moment thought that might be the case.--Sean Sheep 09:00, March 17, 2010 (UTC)

John Locke's mother was also crazy.

• MIB to win the game needs to get all of the people in the island out , either by convincing or killing

Who is the MIB's Mother?Edit

• MIB could be lying he seems to tell people what they they want to hear or what he believes will help him manipulate them. Saying he has a mother could just be another one of those cases. I don't believe MIB is a reliable source of information.

• Tawaret is the mother of MIB and Jacob

according to the Wikipedia entry on Tawaret, ".. the Egyptians essentially treated Taweret as a benevolent figure". This does not sound like the person that Locke described, who was crazy.--Sean Sheep 14:09, March 17, 2010 (UTC)

• Rebecca is the mother of MIB (Esau) and Jacob. Esau considers her crazy because according to the Bible, Rebecca tricked the boys' father into blessing Jacob and not the eldest, Esau.

“

Rebecca prophetically perceived his murderous intentions and ordered Jacob to travel to her brother Laban's house in Haran, until Esau's anger subsided. She then convinced Isaac to send Jacob away by telling him that she despaired of him marrying a local girl from the idol-worshipping families of Canaan (as Esau had done). After Isaac sent Jacob away to find a wife, Esau realized that his own Canaanite wives were evil in his father's eyes, and he took a daughter of Isaac's half-brother Ishmael as another wife. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebecca

”

This does not sound like a crazy woman. Esau may have had ill-feelings towards his mother, and htought she was duplicitous, but not crazy.--Sean Sheep 14:24, March 17, 2010 (UTC)

• • Plus, Lost is NOT a biblical allegory. It may utilize allusions to religious scripture but in no way is it a retelling. The bible will not give answers to lost theories.

• Lamia/Lilith/Karina is the mother of MIB
  • These three demons are somewaht interchangeable and share several characteristics.
  • According to [1], Lamia was a Greek demon of Egyptian birth. Lamia had an affair with Zeus so Hera killed her (Lamia's)children. This drove Lamia to insanity and she then became a child-devouring demon. Her name translates to large shark and is associated with vampires and succubi. Also associated with flying things.
  • According to [2], Lilith is an ancient mythological creature who appears in many forms across many cultures. However, in most of her incarnations she is a child killing demon. She is also associated with succubi. Interestingly, this article also points out that in some Hebrew traditions Lilith gave birth to demon and spirit children by both Adam and Cain. Also associated with flying things.
  • According to [3],Karina is an Arabic demon who disrupts marriages and causes miscarriages. This section on Karina seems to suggest some type of shapeshifting and/or possession abilities.

--Onewoodenleg2 14:30, March 17, 2010 (UTC)

• Are you saying that one of these are actually the mother of MiB? If so, can you tie it in to the lost canon?

• Nut, the Egyptian Goddess is the mother of MiB (Set) and Jacob (Osiris/Horus). This is assuming that MiB is Set and Jacob is Osiris / Horus. The comment by MiB stating that his mother was crazy is a nod to the fact that his mom was Nut, or a nut. According to Wikipedia, "Nut was the goddess of the sky and all heavenly bodies, a symbol of protecting the dead when they enter the after life". To further the association with MiB-Set and Jacob-Osiris/Horus, Set (MiB) was the God associated with dark/desert (Tunisia anyone?)/storm/violence and became infertile when he battled he reborn brother Horus. Osiris (Jacob) was the God of the afterlife and the merciful judge of the dead who granted all life. People who came in contact with Osiris would be granted inherent eternal life by his touch. He was also known as the "Shepard God." Osiris dies and becomes re-birthed as Horus, the God of light/fertility/oasis (moving tropical islands perhaps?) and was also called the sun of truth. Another interesting note is that the character Horus has the last name of Goodspeed (of God), and appears to Locke building Jacob's cabin and was seen multiple times wearing an ahnk around his neck.

--Spf22 17:17, March 17, 2010 (UTC)

• Adam and Eve are MIB and Jacob's parents. MIB feels his mother betrayed him in some way, and he killed her (and his father). Jacob buried them in the cave.

--jeffcutt72

• • Unfortunately, the "buried" bit does not seem to have been very effective, does it?--Sean Sheep 23:50, March 17, 2010 (UTC)

The MIB's mother is Kate. Kate is crazy in the FST, and is therfore running from the police. this is why MIB said that aaron's mother is crazy: he meant Kate, who raised him, and not claire. this theroy fits a previous theory which said the MIB might be David, Jack's son. MIB could be Jack & Kate's son, who had problems growing up (his parents are not together). this does not contradict the theory that MIB is Jacob. MIB could be still David & Jacob at the same time (split personality), however this seems maybe too complicated to be the case.

• The Man in Black is old -- possibly very old. No one has suggested that he time travels. Kate is not very old.
• This would require a whole new set of Flash-back stories to explain. With only 9 episodes left, it is highly doubtful.
• There is NO WAY that Kate and Jack are the parents of David as they did not recognize each other when on flight 815. Even so, there is also no way that Kate is MIB's mom, as Kate has never been pregnant...
• The MIB's mother is Libby. She was in the same mental institution as Hurley. However, this would only be plausable if the MIB can time travel.
• Then it's either Emily Locke (which means: Flocke is Locke, and Locke indirectly killed Locke. dude.) or Claire. or someone unknown (but then why still keeping the name a secret?). (moved from theory by)--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 01:45, March 18, 2010 (UTC)

More on a Possible Timeline Split Edit

If there has been a timeline split(more on which see below in (3), then this episode would seem to be a re-confimation that the timelines are identical up to Sawyer's parents' deaths 1976 and then diverged afterwards. The theory I have been putting forwards currenlty dates that split around 1977-8, on the basis of events on the island. However, as I have always maintained; this presupposes that island events and mainland events are synchronous, (which they may not be). Sawyer states that he had a choice to become a con man, or to become a lawman. That choice clearly occurred after his parents' deaths in 1976. This means there are three possibilities:

1. Scenario 1: The split occurred as stated earlier in 1977/8 and Sawyer in one timeline became a conman (OT) and in the other became a lawman(FST)
2. Scenario 2: The split occurred in 1976 at the funeral, when Jacob did not 'touch' Sawyer. This would require the 1977 Jughead split to cause Jacob not to exist, and not to travel to the island. Many people have hypothesised that the 1977 Jughead event acted in some retrospective manner on the timelines, and this would appear to confirm that; however, in this case, it only seems to have affected timelines back to 1976, and in the very narrow manner of Jacob's touches. An alternative reading would be that time off the island is not synvhronised (maybe up to 3 years' difference), and the 1977 Jughead explosion actually occurred in 1974 (say) off island time. We do have evidence that on/off island times are not synchronised, (Faraday), and this 'explanation' now means that the FST is a timeline in which none of Jacob's touches occurred.
3. Scenario 3: There is no timeline split at all and the FST is something entirely different, and we are barking up the wrong tree here. I am beginning to be persuaded of this argument, byt the fact that James invents the name 'LaFleur' for himself, that he has Miles as a sidekick, and that he 'just happened' to be on the plane to Australia. Once again in thei episode (as in the last), we see the same personality in the FST as in the OT. I keep saying this week after week, but very few people seem to take this on board. The people are not different, they are the same. It's just that their life choices and circumstances have been different. James is still tortured. He sill lies & cheats, but is on the side of the law, rather than the opposite side. This means that what we are seeing could be a kind of "fantasy" scenario played out, or a new version of the game in which the players are allowed to make different choices. The 'reality' the show is based on could be something completely bizarre. I am thinking of a scenario, such as exiosts in "Time Bandits", where they are on a beach and come up against a wall (as in Truman Show), but then one of the bandits throws a rock, and the wall shattes, and there is a different reality beyond it. It's not so much paralle universes, that the univers of the OT is a complete fiction, and there is some sort of transcending higher reality, that neither the losties, nor us as viewers have been aware of. In other words, there is no timeline split, becuse there is no history, either to the FST or the OT, and voth of these are similar to the Oomphalos hypothesis] or Bertrand Russell's notion of 'Last Thursdayism', which posits that the world was created, intact, with everything on it, with everyone's memories, planets, stars, the earth, you, me, ants, atoms, things in the air. things on the ground, fossils, books, ruins, everything, Last Thursday. Time was then started, and we got on with it. The nearest thing I can relate this to is when you save versions of a computer game, and restart them.

I have not posted any of this on the main page, becuse it always generates lots of heated discussions. I thought this week, I would post here, invite the discussion, then post a revised summary in a few days' time.

Note to other editors. I have put a message on the main page, redirecting people to this discussion, in the hope that any debates can take place here, rather than cluttering up the page. I would ask that you do not remove it for the time being.

--Sean Sheep 10:47, March 17, 2010 (UTC)

• Although I agree with you that we may be barking up the wrong tree and expecting the two timelines to merge together by the end, I don't think you can claim that everyones personalities are the same in both the OT and FST, look at Ben last week, he made a very selfless decision to benefit Alex which mean't he could not 'take power' in the school, which is in opposition to the Ben we saw allowing Alex to be shot in an attempt to maintain control and power. Sayid as well seems so reluctant in the FST intervene with the men who are threatening his brother, even when his brother asks him to do it for Nadia. In the original time-line we have seen Sayid willingly kill a number of people to avenge Nadia's death, but in the FS timeline he only eventually kills them when he is kidnapped and in danger himself.

--Lizziejj 16:35, March 17, 2010 (UTC)

• • This is where we part company! I see the same Ben, the same Jack, the same Arzt, the same Sawyer. They have got to different places in their lives but their personalities are essentially the same. Last week Ben explained why he made the decision he did - for the island, not for Ben; he used the same Machievellian streak in both timelines, but just chose to sacrifice his own career for that of Alex. In fact, he did exactly the same in the OT; he was told by Widmore to kill her, but refused. This week, Sawyer explained his motivation - Get Cooper. There may be different methods used, but the people are the same underneath. I am not sure how the Last Thursday stuff fits here, but I could imagine a kind of Dr. Who-type room in the temple (larger on the inside than outside) where you come out in different worlds, one of which is the FST; C.S.Lewis uses a similar device at the end of his Narnia books when all the kids die in a train wreck, and find that the alternate universes are actually linked. --Sean Sheep 16:43, March 17, 2010 (UTC)
    • Michael Emersons description of alternate Bens character is rather interesting, and insightful. He says that he played Ben as being ultimately made up of the same characteristics, but in the reset reality those characteristics are of very different proportions to the Ben we know. For example, the Ben we know is for the most part a shrewd schemer, but in his other life this trait is rather minor and only becomes apparant when, inspired by Locke, he suddenly sees a window of opportunity. I like this idea, and believe that these are essentially the same people. I don't think these two realities both spring from a 'fork in the road', and that it is becoming clearer that these characters are very special, because given the same initial conditions but varying degrees of differences to the timeline that we know, there are some connections that are constants, and experiences and choices that 'fate' steers them towards regardless of most outside influences. There is a very good reason why the show is about them, and not anyone else who might have been on 815.

--FlashMedallion 06:41, March 18, 2010 (UTC)

• • • • This is really interesting. Where is this from?--Sean Sheep 12:57, March 18, 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the timeline split occurs concurrently with the beginning of the Others' inability to carry children to term. 1976/77? --Radiohaiku 01:46, March 19, 2010 (UTC)

Flash sideways/Reset people are the same people we know and love/hate. They have developed a little differently because of something. That something is our mystery, but if its not Jacobs intervention/experiment then I don't know what it could be. It is the only clue we have.

1. Kate: No discernible difference. Tough and physical (she has been very confident and very physical both on and off the Island this season)(oh and at least she can hold a rifle properly unlike Ilana) but capable of strong feminine traits (helping Claire).
2. Sayid. He's the same highly moral person, caught up in circumstance which leads to his "necessary" violence. Then he carries that guilt with him as it slowly destroys his life.
3. Jack. Emotional, damaged, he tries so hard to do things right.
4. Hurley. Optimist, nice guy, refuses to judge others
5. Sawyer. The little boy who refuses to grow up. He reads kids stories, believes in hokey philosophizing, he's a loner, he's reactive. He has control issues.
6. Ben. Always Lost's most complex character and utterly the odd man out - not touched by Jacob (does this destroy the Jacob touched them/didn't touch them theory?). Cerebral, needy of recognition (Jacob didn't care, Headmaster didn't call me Dr.)

Issues from ReconEdit

Miles, Miles' Father & CharlotteEdit

We must presume that Miles' Father = Pierre Chang, and is working at the museum with Charlotte. There was no mention of the island in Recon, so any conclusions arising from this episode are purely speculative, and therefore can only be used as corroborative evidence only.

Taking as an assumption that there has been a time fracture:Edit

• Both Miles & Charlotte are alive and off the island in the OT 2004 and FST 2004.
• In the OT, both Miles * Charlotte are known to have been evacuated from the Island in July 1977, whereas Chang stayed on the Island.
• in the OT, Pierre Chang was on the island in 1977, at the time of the Jughead Incident and subsequently recorded Dharma Videos which have 1980 OT production dates. Miles and his mother were evacuated in the 1977 Jughead incident; further, Chang was never reunited with his family in the OT. As far as Chang is concerned, there are two distinct histories. The Dharma orientation videos are all dated 1980, despite the fact that we know some of them were shot prior to this, even as early as 1977. In some of these films (Swan & Possibly Pearl) he does not appear to have the use of his left arm. We know from the evidence of the Jughead incident, that Chang's arm was crushed in July 1977. The most likely explanation is that the videos were all shot in the period 1977-1979, and the dates refer to the 'final editing' process date. However, it should be moted that the Swan video was subsequently re-edited by Radzinsky.

Consistency of Miles in Recon with existing OT storyline:

• After 1977 in the OT, Chang stayed to shoot the videos, and apparently was never reunited with his wife & Miles. However, this represents a real discrepancy in the OT storyline. Miles' mother said:

“

MILES: I need you to tell me why I'm this way... how... how I do the things I do. And I need to know why you won't talk to me about my father. LARA: Because he never cared about us... never cared about you. ... MILES: I have a right to know! LARA: He's dead. Your father... kicked us out when you were just a baby. He didn't want anything to do with us. So the less you knew about him, the better. MILES: Why didn't you just tell me? LARA: Because it was over. Your dad has been dead a long time. MILES: Where's his body? LARA: Somewhere you can never go. Some Like It Hoth

”

• This does not really accord with the picture of the evacuation we saw in The Incident, Part 2; it was clear that Chang organised that, in order to protect all women & children. It is extremely unlikely that Lara Chang would have interpreted this as being "kicked out", especially if others (such as Ethan and Charlotte) were evacuated at the same time. It must be the case that Ethan returned to the island, as he plays an important part in the hsitory of the OT. We therefore have to speculate as to possible events.
  • Scenario 1: Lara was not contacted again by Chang, and she interpreted this as being "kicked out" (Possibly Chang died in or shortly after the incident in the OT, and the videos were simply re-edits of what had been completed. However, why Lara Chang would have referred to being "kicked out" ais still anomalous. This implies that no-one from Dharma ever contacted her, and somehow she found out about his death at a later date.
  • Scenario 2: Lara did return with Miles, but something happened, and as a result of this, the "kicking out" occurred. It is clear that Miles has some gift connected to the island (understanding the last thoughts of dead people), and there is nothing in the S5 eps which seems to account for this. To further support this "return" hypothesis, it is clear that Ethan, who was similarly evacuated, must have been invited back, as he plays an important part of the history of the OT. Finally, it seems unlikley that ALL of the videos could have been completed prior to July 1977, especially as the Arrow orientation film was interrupted, and there was no time to return to this before the Jughead incident. If this is correct, Chang would have continued working "normally", and there would have been no reason for Lara not to have been invited back

Conclusion: Scenario 2 seems rather more likley, even though it involves the hypothesis of Lara & Miles' return to the island, which is unsubstantiated. However, it is clear that Ethan returned, and so the hypothesis does have some tangential support.

There are three possible hypotheses as to when the timeline split:

1. Prior to the 1977 Jughead event
2. At the 1977 Jughead event
3. Post the 1977 Jughead event.

Clearly, the 1977 Jughead event has been singled out as it has been an "accepted" possible cause for the event in some shape or form

• Taking (2), what is now, absolutely clear from the evidence is that it is impossible that the 1977 Jughead detonation was responsible for the creation of an FS in which the island was destroyed during a Jughead blast. This is because Chang was at the Swan site, prior to the detonation, at which point he would have split into FS Chang and OT Chang. If the island had sunk immediately , FS Chang would have been killed in the explosion and/or drowned. As he is alive, these events could not have happened. The only way now to rescue the 1977 'Jughead explosion theory' is to hypothesise that the effect of Jughead was to split timelines, but the island's demise was not immediate: the island sank slowly, allowing people time to get off the island. However, this version of events seems to be somewhat difficult to sustain in terms of OT Lara Chang's testimony (Some Like it Hoth), and FS Roger Linus' testimony (Dr.Linus). In the first case,Lara chang seems to suggest that she had bee forced off the island, whereas FS Roger seems to think thy had a choice. If the split only occurred at the Jughead explosion, both of these testimonies appear to refer to the same evacuation, and are clearly inconsistent. For these reasons, the 1977 split theory is looking increasingly untenable. A possible variant of this theory, however, cannot be ruled out. If the result of the losties attempting to explode Jughead was that this event fractured the timelines,but the event that sank the island happened sometime later (at another incident around 1978/9, paralleled in both timelines), then in one timeline (OT) the island survives, in the other (FS) it sinks. We know from the Swan Orientation film that an incident occurred post the construction of the Swan in the OT. If the split had occurred, presumably the FS Dharma team would have pursued the same objectives. However, the reason for one island to survive and the other to sink would need some explanation.
• Taking (3), This could be consistent with a storyline in which nothing happened during the Jughead Incident (JI) explosion, but a later Swan Incident (SI) occurred which was responsible both for fracturing the timeline and the demise of the island. Again, evidence from the Swan Video suggests that in the OT at least, such an event occurred. However, in order to sustain this argument, the following movements of people would be needed:
  • Ethan, who was evacuated prior to JI, would need to stay away from the island, until after SI. In the OT, he is brought back, but in the FST the island is destroyed and he remains on the mainland.
  • Ben & Roger, would need to have been evacuated prior to JI, would need to stay away, returning in the OT but not the FST. There are two main issues with this. Firstly, Roger's testimony seems to suggest he had a choice. However, in this version of events, Ben would have been 'forcibly' evacuated just prior to JI. Perhaps Roger made the decision to leave with him, and the fact that in the FS he was not asked to return, he 'reads' this as having made a "choice". Secondly, the timescale for the evacuation is quite difficult; Ben was in the Others' camp on the morning of JI. While it is not impossible for him to have been returned, it is clear that 2 hours prior to JI, when Roger shot Sayid, Ben had still not returned. This was during the evacuation process.
  • Miles and Lara would both need to have been evacuated prior to JI, in OT, they never returned (or if they did, they were "kicked off" by Chang), in the FS the family are all together, so Chang must have had time to leave the island before its demise. However, in the OT, it is likley that Miles & Lara returned, but something happened (see above), and as a result they were "kicked off".
• Taking (1), It is entirely possible that none of the FS characters was on the island in an "FS Dharma times" scenario, however, as none of the characters actually refer to their experiences on the island or otherwise, the appearance of FS Miles, FS Miles' father & FS Charlotte in Recon neither lends further support to, nor offers a refutation of, the theory that a timeline fracture occurred prior to 1977

--Sean Sheep 15:20, March 20, 2010 (UTC)

SawyerEdit

It appears that there is a discrepancy in the age of Sawyer at the time of his parents' funeral. In Recon it is clearly stated in the newspaper article that he was 9 (FST), and Sawyer later repeats this to Miles. However, earlier in the series ^{[source needed]} , it suggests that Sawyer was 8 (OT). There are three possible explanations:

1. It is a production error
2. The funeral took place in 1976 (both OT & FST), and Sawyer was born in 1967(FST), one year earlier than in the OT (1968)
3. The funeral took place in 1977 (FST), and Sawyer was still born in 1968 (both OT & FST)

• It is almost inconceivable that (2) is intended by the writers. A birth date one year earlier has all sorts of implications, not the least of which is how in god's name would the same egg (possible, but unlikley) and the same sperm meet one year earlier (The probablility of this would be vanishingly small: "Inside the body sperms can survive for 72 hours or more. Each ejaculate contains approx 60 million sperms." -in order to keep sperms for 12 months & have a successful pregnancy, you would need IVF; however, "The first successful birth of a "test tube baby", Louise Brown, occurred in 1978.", after Sawyer was born. This has got to be a non-no.
• On the face of it, it seems possible that (3) Sawyer's parents were conned by Cooper in 1977 (FST), rather than 1976 (OT). If this is the case, then the difference seems rather obscure and meaningless. If it is not meaningless, the main question to be answered is "For what narrative purpose have the writers moved the funeral back to 1977 in the FST?" There seem to be two explanations (1) Simply to signal that it is different, and for no other reason, and (2) The 1977 date is significant in itself. If it were simply to signal a significance, then changing the year hardly seems an appropriate way to do it. In the OT, Sawyer relates in 1977 that his parents had died one year earlier in 1976. Introducing a 1977 date, signals that in 1976 two distinct timelines were in existence, as in the FST in 1976, Cooper's con had not yet taken place. Hardly any casual viewer could be expected to pick up this difference, and it seems unlikely that this could be the reason. If it is to shift the date to 1977, then the event in 1977 which is of significance is the detonation of Jughead, and the possible demise of the island, and with it, Jacob. If the funeral had happened after July 1977, and the timelines split, then FS Jacob (if there ever was such a being) may possibly have died in the explosion, and therefore would not have visited Sawyer to 'touch him'. However, this is complete nonsense; if the timelines did not split until 1977, then Sawyer had already been touched by Jacob in 1976, and this event is in the history of both the OT & FST timelines. The conclusion here has got to be that it is extremely unlikely that the funeral date of 1977 is intended to be a meaningful change.
• Given the above arguments, we seem to have to reluctantly accept that, in all probability the difference in Sawyers' ages is a production error

“

Back in the police station, Detective James Ford is calling a list of men named Anthony Cooper. As he rings one, pretending to be handling missing property case and asking whether the man was in Alabama in 1976 Recon

”

This quote puts the date at 1976, and therefore rules out a 1977 funeral date. It is almost inconceivable that the writers intended to invoke a totally improbable scenario as having Sawyer conceived 12 months earlier. --Sean Sheep 23:42, March 17, 2010 (UTC)

In addition, we do not know Sawyer's birthday. It is conceivable, that his birthday is in July. when he said that he was 8 when his parents actually died, this was in July. He was, in fact 8; however, presumably in the case of such a death there would have been an inquest etc., and so the funeral would have taken palce later in the year, possibly in Augiust or even September, in which case Sawyer would have ben 9. These fact would then not be incompatible with previous versions of events.--Sean Sheep 22:42, March 18, 2010 (UTC)

Possible Consequences of Sawyers' birthdate being different in the OT & FSTEdit

In all probability, the confusion between Sawyer being 8 years old (OT) and 9 years old (FST) is a blooper or a misunderstanding based on the datings of the funeral and the con being perpetrated, which could have occurred as much as 12 months apart. If it is not a blooper or a fudge, Sawyer was born in 1967 (FST), and 1968 (OT). This clearly signals a split in timelines prior to Dharma times. The consequences of this would be that any theory positing that the split occurred at the 1977 Jughead incident, or after it, is effectively debunked.

In this case, we would if necessity have two completely separate histories for Dharma, in both FST & OT, and FS Ben and FS Roger would not have met the TT Losties, Amy would have needed a different way of losing her husband (or never marrying him), meeting Horace, and bearing Ethan. Peiere & Lara Change (inc Miles) may or may not have been on the island, but there would need to be an entirely different reason why the Island met its demise. In addtion, one of the major consequnces of this, would be that Jughead in 1977 OT is now a completely separate event, which has no effect on the FS timeline, and has no apparent effect in the OT either.

However, accepting the discreapnacy in ages is not without consequence. This wuld have us believe that Sawyer could have been the same, unique individual as if he had been born 12 months earlier. Without going into the ins & outs of reproduction, fertility, sperm counts, DNA sequences, suffice to say that such an event would be a virtual impossibility. If the writers really have used this device, then they are more likley to be siganalling to the audience that something other than a 'time-fracture' is the rationale behind the FST, rather than the split occurred in Pre-Dharma times.

Conclusion: If the discrepancy in Sawyers' age is not a blooper, then any Fracture in timelines had already occurred prior to Dharma coming to the island. On the other hand, if the discrepancy is intended, it would be more likely to indicate that the entire fracture theory is an incorrect hypothesis.--Sean Sheep 15:40, March 20, 2010 (UTC)

Discussion points removed from the main pageEdit

• Jacob must have intervened. As I stated before, the Dharma Initiative has been on the island in both timelines. Also, someone named Goodspeed is a candidate. Thus Jacob brought the DI to the island. Thus he has intervened in both timelines.

I removed this because it was posed under a theory about dating a split in timelines. It does not appear to add to it as a theory per se, merely states some speculations about other issues which would be better discussed here --Sean Sheep 13:54, March 17, 2010 (UTC)

Comments: The problem with your posting is that it invites disagreements from various factions along the following lines:

• If the timelines split at 1977, there is no need to postulate two separate Dharma timelines.
• I do not see how Godspeed being/not being a candidate is relevant to a possible timeline split. We only know about candidates in OT; your theory claims there are two separate Dharmas, one in each timeline. How do you know who the "candidates" were in the other timeline?
• "Thus Jacob brought the DI" does not follow; they may well have found the island by themselves. Their history claims they did, in the 1960s. Even if Jacob brought them in the OT, your claim presupposes that he existed in the FS timeline to bring them. The 1950s theorists would disagree with you.
• "Thus he has intervened in both timelines". Even if Jacob was in both timelines and living, AND brought Dharma to the island, this still does not mean he intervened in off-island events.

Postings like this just invites other to post counter-arguments --Sean Sheep 14:04, March 17, 2010 (UTC)

• After this episode and what with the MiB's comments about if things were different, it seems to me that the Flash Sideways is nothing to do with Jugheads detonation at all, but it will be the end and what the MiB gives to the Losties. I think that Jughead was only used to propel them back to the time that they should be in now.

• See the above, in particular Scenario 3. If you had actually done what was suggested on the theory page, you would ahve realised that this was seriously being considered as an option. Please contribute to the discussion, rather than posting in the wrong section.--Sean Sheep 18:32, March 17, 2010 (UTC)

A possible working out of Option (2) aboveEdit

Suppose that there is 'originally a three year time differential between island time and mainland time, with Island Time (IT) three years ahead of Mainland Time (MT). i.e. when it is 1980 on the mainland, it is 1983 on the island.

However, travelling to the island from the mainland in MT 1974 takes you to the island time IT 1974 (but this is 3 years in the island's past); If you now spend 3 years on the island, and travel from the Island (Island time 1977), to the mainland, you end up in mainland time 1974. (i.e. the equivalent time IT/OT). The important thing to note here (and it's bloody difficult to get your head around it, is that messages from Mainland to Island are actually from the future, as far as the island is concerned). Any messages from the island to the mainland arrive three years in their past. This is why it's so difficult to find. As far as the Mainland is concerned, in order to get to the island you don't need to know where it is, you need to know where it will be. In addition, you can use this to time travel. I start out IT=1990, and travel to the mainland MT=1987; I then travel back to the island to IT 1987. I am now three years in the island's past.

• In Dharma times, it is 1973 Mainland, anyone coming goes to 1973 IT (actually 3 years in the past). Note that if you now travel back to the mainland you would end up in 1970 MT. This means that you can't let people do this.
• When the losties travelled to 1974 (Island time), if they had gone to the mainland, it would have been 1971 MT, but they did not know this.
• When Sawyer says in 1977 IT that he could have saved his parents last year, there is an irony. It is actually 1974 MT, and his parents' death is two years in the future.
• When the Losties exploded the bomb in 1977, it was 1974 MT. Therefore any effects caused by the bomb would be felt in 1974 MT, not 1977MT.
• When the bomb went off, it created two separate timelines; one where the bomb did not explode, but IT now coincided with MT, and one where Island time did explode, but (IT) was still three years behind MT. In this version, everyone on the island was killed, and the island slowly began to sink. In that timeline, Jacob does not exist, and does not visit ANY of the losties.
• For the three year 1977 and 1980, Dharma worked to revert the situation, and came up with the button-pressing. This managed to reverse the split, by manipulating the pocket of EM underneath the swan. The effect was to preserve the disjuction in times artifically. One unfortunate side-effect of this was that women could not bring their pregnancy to term, as the constant resets in time upset the gestation process.
• Dharma now sent a message in IT 1980 to say "come back". Because of the time differential, the message arrives in 1977 MT. They arrive back on the island in what appears to be IT = 1977 (but this is actually now 3 years in the island's past, and at the same time that the work on the Swan is taking place... weird.
• During the period of button-pressing, it was (e.g) 1996 on the Mainland, and 1999 in the Island; travelling Mainland to Island "loses" you 3 years, you would end up in IT 1996. Travelling from Island to Mainland does not lose you anything, you end up in MT 1996.
• This state of affairs went on until Desmond failed to press the button. This temporarily exposed the island, and temporarily synchronised time. When Oceanic 815 crashed on the island MT=2004, they ended up in IT 2004. For all the time that they were on the island (up to the hatch detonation), if they had returned to the outside world, it would have been 2001.
• When the hatch blew, the button-pressing was stopped, and IT slid backwards three years. It was then 2004 in both IT & MT; This is why Widmore could now find the island.
• When Ben turned the wheel, IT & MT again went out of synch; and 'random' timeshifts followed, becuse the wheel was off its axis. Those Losties off the island were in 2004IT, therefore 2004MT. The Losties on the island were detached from island time, and therefore ended up appearing to jump, however it ewas both thyem and the island that was actually jumping.
• When Locke turned the wheel, the Losties who had been time travelling "fell" into 1974. However, this was 1974 IT, and equivalent time on the mainland was now 1971. This was the event which caused the timeshift. Faraday left the island in IT 1974, arriving in MT 1971. He spent 6 years there MT 1971-1977, and returned in IT 1977.
• Ajira Airways returned to the island in 2007. However, the island is currently out of synch, and while the passengers of Ajira Airways ened up on the island in 2007, if they were to return to the mainland, it would be 2004. The passengers who got time-shifted to 1977, "should" have been there when Ben (and subsequently Locke) tuned the wheel, to get time-shifted 30 years from 2004 to 1974; however, as it is now three years later, they get time-shifted from 2007 to 1977.

• This is a work in progress, and it is very difficult to make work, believe me.--Sean Sheep 10:43, March 17, 2010 (UTC)

I've got to give you credit Sean, your theories always sound so well thought out, but at this point I think the main difference between the 2 timelines is simply Jacob's interventions. I think that Jacob still existed in the FS timeline but for whatever reason he doesn't have the same foresight as he did in the OT. Which means that he doesn't know who the candidates are or how to influence them to get them to the Island this time. His master plan doesn't work in the FS and we end up with an Island at the bottom of the ocean --WhyDidntUKnow 12:26, March 17, 2010 (UTC)

• If you think this is constructive solution to fit the facts, you are right. This started out by me wondering about why is there a 3 year time differential all over the place? Juliet had 3 years on the island; 2004-2007, 1974-1977, and whether this maight account for the anomaly of Sawyer getting a visit from Jacob, but none of the others did. In some ways it's just a playing out to see whether the theory works. In fact it does, but there are still one or two things I am not happy with. However, the notion of an asynchronous island seems to work beutifully and is a single overasrching theory which seems to explain a lot. It's just the details of this that are fiddly to deal with.--Sean Sheep 12:40, March 17, 2010 (UTC)

• I've thought about this a little more and was wondering one thing about your theory, assuming Piere Chang made it to the Island and assuming he still had Miles on the Island and just since I'm on an assumption role here lets assume Horace made it to the Island too (I know, a LOT of assuming here). If the bomb impacts the FS timeline in 1974 instead of 1977 how would the DHARMA folks have gotten off the Island in time? I mean from their perspective they would just be sitting around one day and a hydrogen bomb goes off right neer where they've been planing to build the swan site. So how would Horace and Miles have gotten off the Island if the bomb had just exploded 3 years early? I like your theory I just don't think it accounts for how unexpected that would be to the people in the FS timeline. (And I realize this entire question goes out the window if Miles and Horace never made it to the Island but given the similarities we've seen already I tend to belive they've been there).--WhyDidntUKnow 13:00, March 17, 2010 (UTC)

• In 1977 in the OT, the bomb goes off and seals the timerift before the sub is out of the area. this means that time is synchronised. All the evaccuees from the sub leave the island to get back in 1977. Chang & Horace stay on the island, but all the others get off safely. I think I made a mistake above. What I meant to say was before they exploded the bomb it was 1974(MT). after the bomb exploded it was 1977(MT), so I am not sure this causes a problem. There are actually two niggles: one is the return to the island. They returnees arrive to the island before the message to return is sent and that is a bit of a paradox. The second issue is this. in one timeline (FS) the bomb goes off, and everyone is kiolled. In the other it doesn't, it is lying around. Now the two "explosions" - 1977 (Jughead) and 2004 (Hatch) appear to have the same effect: causing the disjuction to heal. The consequence of this theory would be that another timeline FST2 would have been created in 2004 when Desmond detonated the hatch. I know people keep saying Desmond flashed between timelines, but in Jughead, it caused the island to sink. Here, has the island sunk? did it kill everyone? I think this is the one part that leads me to think the theory may not be valid (or at least needs majhor modifications)--Sean Sheep 13:08, March 17, 2010 (UTC)

• I think looking for a single point in the timeline where the two split is a red herring. If detonating the bomb in 1977 caused the split, then there would not have been those time-travel episodes which shaped the original timeline. For example, no visit by Locke, Sawyer, Miles & others to the Other's camp in 1955 -- where Locke told Richard that he would become their leader. Remove all of the points where the time-travel affected events in the timeline, & we arrive at this alternative timeline -- although I find it intriguing that most of the characters live happier lives. This has led me to a theory about the alt.timeline, which if correct, that it is the creation of the MiB; however, since to keep the alt.timeline going requires ever more energy -- possibly an infinite amount -- & the MiB has only a limited amount of energy to keep it working (whether drawing on himself or the exploding bomb), eventually the alt.timeline will collapse. (And how does he do it? I think it involves some feature of the island, which is why the island needs to be protected -- to prevent this misuse.) However most of my theories about this series have proven wrong, so i wouldn't be surprised if this one is also wrong. -- Llywrch 16:25, March 17, 2010 (UTC)

• While you may well be right about the search being a red herring (see the discussion on scenario 3 above), Your argument that the bomb in 1977 of necessity changes the past all the way back to forever, or negates the time travelling of the losties is actually incorrect. I have had arguments about this with diehards, who have now conceded this point. This argument is based on a misunderstanding of how split timelines would work. I concede that the scenario that you propose is possible; however, I continue to argue that it is not as likely as the scenario which has timelines in common to 1977, then splits afterwards. The reason I say this, is that as the weeks go on, all the events in the FST appear to confim "common" events in both timelines up to 1977, then split afterwards. For example, this week, we have Sawyer's parents' funeral (1976) common to both timelines. However, after this he seems to have become a lawman, not a conman. This is just one example, and you need to read the complete arguments in my blogs.

However, having said all that, last week I assessed the likelihood of the 1977 split timeline at around 25% probability of being true. I think with this week's episode it has risen to around 30-35% likelihood. In contrast, I think the 1950s split theory likleihood has reduced from my estimate of 5% last week, down to around 3% this week. In other words, the events of Recon have made the 1977 more likely, and the 1950s less likely, though neither of them are anywhere near an evens money bet.--Sean Sheep 18:47, March 17, 2010 (UTC)

Claire is MIB's mother, MIB is Aaron

Discussion related to the Posted Summary on the Timeline split TheoryEdit

Sawyers Age'

• Is this necessarily a blooper? Before my birthday, I'm 8 years old. After my birthday, I'm 9 years old. Assuming I am not born on January 1st, I can be both 8 and 9 in the same calendar year.
  • Sawyer is the person who makes these statements, so we have to conclude that he is consistent. He gives this age at a specific event, when his mother & father were killed. --Sean Sheep 16:53, March 21, 2010 (UTC)

Material posted under the Miles & Charlotte Heading

• The producers have gone to great lengths to explain that "wgatever happened happened" and the best evidence of this is Chang damaging his arm at the Swan site before Jughead was detonated. We later (or earlier depending on how you look at it) have seen him in the Dharma video's, sometimes with both hands, but others with a prosthetic arm. This i believe is proof positive that not only did Jack cause the incident, but that the subsequent events happened exactly how they always had, regardless of Jacks interventions. This means the Jughead detination could not have caused the time fracture because if it had, then it always did, and the split always occoured, it is not a new phonominen caused by the time travelling Losties and the past/future was never altered by them in any way.

• I think the author of this, has not quite understood what the 'statement of the theory' was trying to do. The timesplit therory has several variants, one of which is the variant described above. The stateemnt also makes it clear (and a reading of the copious arguments on this page attests) that there is no such thing as a "proof positive" for any one of them. The fact that OT Chang appears in the video is also discussed in the summary, as is the possibility that the videos were made prior to 1980. If you look at the videos, he appears not to move his left arm, and this is good circumstantial evidence that something happened. However, it is still possible (though unlikely that the videos were all made prior to July 1977, and re-edited), Chang actually having been killed in the blast. The problem is, that we do not have definite evidence one way or the other. The second part of this argument, that events unfolded "how they always had, regardless of Jacks interventions", make no sense whatsoever, when, in the timeline we know about, the influence of the Losties was to (a) shoot Ben, (b) cause the Island to be evacuated, and (c) move the bomb from underneath the barracks to the Swan, and (d)cause a shootout at Dhaamaville AND at the Swan. Whether or not anythung happened to the bomb is irrelevant by this stage, because the events (a)-(d) could not have happened without the losties.--Sean Sheep 10:32, March 22, 2010 (UTC)

Miles and Charlotte in FS - Moved Edit

No theory, no evidence, followed by a lot of talk, argumentation, I doubt it is possible to make a theory based on this skeleton idea as the whole "special abilities" idea has no tie in in the show at all. If the author can design a "Theory" and back it up with verifiable evidence from the ep which isn't just as liable to the alternate reading I encourage them to do so. --Charles Kane 13:26, March 17, 2010 (UTC)

In the FS Miles works as a policeman. This implies that he has no special abilities, which point to the fact that either he was born off the island, or the island's properties in FS are very much different.

• There wasn't enough of Miles' story to make a statement that he has no special abilities. What if he uses his powers to solve homicides? Also, we know Miles was born just prior to the incident and was evacuated off the island in the original timeline, so what makes us think that this didn't also happen in the flash sideways timeline? And why does Miles need to be born on the island to have special powers? Examples: Hurley and Walt.
• Miles does not have any special abilities in FS. This seems to be consistent with other folks in FS. Hurley does not see dead people. And everyone is doing something meaningful with their lives. Everyone is just plain good.
• Everyone on Jacob's team in the island timeline is plain good in the FS, and we see their stories reach something like conclusions. Those on Flocke's team (Jin, Sayid, Kate, Sawyer, Claire)... no resolution, and bad things seeming possible.
  • Not everyone is having a great time in the FS. Sayid and Kate, for instance. But, besides that, Miles and Hurley may both have special powers, but may be well adjusted to them. Assuming Hurley still has the powers to talk to the dead, but also says he's the luckiest person in the world, that mirrors what Jacob said in the taxi about Hurley's abilities. Maybe, without Jacob, Hurley came to this realization. Also, Miles, instead of having daddy issues and being generally out for himself (as in the original timeline) he may be using his powers to help people in this timeline.
• It seems he does have special abilities. It appears that he can read minds of the living and the dead in both the OT and the FS timelines if you pay attention to the questions he asks. He know James is lying in the FS and gives him a chance to tell him first to build trust. In the OT he knows Michael was using a fake name when getting on the Freighter and mentions that everyone is lying about something, he knows Charlotte wants to stay on the Island to find what she is looking for even though she never told him that. There are numerous examples, he seems to read the minds of the living and dead and we clearly see glimpses of this ability in the FS with him asking James if there is something he wants to tell him even though he already knows.
  • being perceptive was never considered a "special" ability, and is indeed a valuable asset to a policeman job.
• His ability is not from the island; it is from Jacob. In the flash sideways, Jacob had never touched his life, so he never gained the ability.
  • We never saw that Jacob ever touched his life in either timeline. There's no reason to believe that Jacob's touch is needed to have special abilities (besides immortality). Examples: Walt's weird things he does, Desmond's time travel/precognition, Rose's healing, Hurley (who was touched AFTER he discovered his powers).

• There's no real evidence one way or the other regarding Miles' ability. But what seems equally interesting is his choice of being a Cop, rather than working on the other side of the law. The influence of his father being around as he grew up, perhaps?

The Locked Compartment Edit

If the theory is "To get to the Island the Island has to "need" you" there is no evidence given for that theory at all. If the Theory is that it is Desmond behind the door then it is illogical to use a theory which doesn't yet exist to prove the new theory. If there is a theory about "there has to be a locked room on any vessel coming to the island, then perhaps the author should re-submit.

Meanwhile all removed here. --Charles Kane 13:33, March 17, 2010 (UTC)

It strikes me as heavy-handed and inaccurate to claim that there's no proof that you can only find the Island if the Island needs you. We have seen almost every group that arrived on the island having at least one name listed in Jacob's lighthouse or Smokey's wall (names from the Dharma Initiative, flight 815 (and thus 316), the French expedition, Desmond's boat). You may not like the theory that the island needs to want you if you want to find the island, but there certainly is plenty of support for it in Lost cannon. Mslade 13:37, March 17, 2010 (UTC)

I also don't appreciate that in removing the theory, you conveniently left in the final counter-argument ("..circular logic..") and left out the counter-counter-argument for that. Please do not undermine the integrity of the wiki by altering the theory while you move it to the attic. Mslade 13:41, March 17, 2010 (UTC)

@ Mslade: I moved everything that then existed here, thus I did not "undermine the integrity of the wiki" - straight cut and paste, if I missed something it was unintentional. Having said that it is the whole issue of arguments and counter arguments on the theory article which creates the problem - if such argumentation took place here - as is intended - there would be less reason to move anything. As to your first complaint it is spoilt by your own argument - "almost every group". Either it does or it doesn't. Further altho the Island doesn't need Widmore it appears he is able to find the island and arrive there. As it is (and despite your baseless claim to the contrary) I am actually attracted to the idea that in some way the Island must want you but you do not provide any evidence of it and there is ample evidence to the contrary. I take it your theory and evidence is the first dot point - where exactly in that dot point is the evidence you refer to as opposed to a series of speculations? --Charles Kane 15:11, March 17, 2010 (UTC)

@ Charles Kane: My argument does not discredit my claim. I said "almost every group" because we haven't seen every group that arrived on the island. To rephrase it, every group we have seen arrive on the island has had somebody on it who was in Jacob's Lighthouse or MiB's cave:

• 815: The Losties
• 316: The Losties
• Dharma: Goodspeed, Rom, Linus, ...
• French Expedition: Rousseau
• Kahana: Michael
• Desmond's sailboat: Desmond

This leaves some question marks:

• Henry Gale
• Black Rock
• Kalvin Inman

However, since we haven't seen any of these people arrive, or have definitive information about who they came with, these offer evidence neither for nor against this theory, and thus you can't use them to discredit it.

This brings me to my next point. I didn't provide evidence that the Island "wants" certain people because this has been an on-going theme of the show, stated and implied many times by characters and events. While I acknowledge that this is still debatable, it certainly has enough likelihood to base a theory on. Finally, no, the first dot was not my theory or evidence. While it's possible that Desmond is locked up in the cabin, there really isn't anything to suggest it's specifically him. I did not defend the theory you removed, but rather was responding to your claim that there is no evidence to support the theory that the island has to "need" you for you to find it. I stand by this dispute. My second post was in regards to the bullet that disappeared in the migration from the theories page to here, although I understand now that it was an unintentional omission.Mslade 15:33, March 17, 2010 (UTC)

• To get to the Island the Island has to "need" you. The Island did not "need" Charles Widmore, but it DID need Desmond. Since Desmond would not come willingly, Charles locked him up on the sub and was able to find the Island due to Desmond's presence.
  • True, it wouldn't be the first time we found a main character being locked up (Jin in Sundown)
    • There is a rule that whenever a vessel travels to the island, at least one person is imprisoned on it. Kate, Richard, Sayid, Juliet and now whoever is behind that door. It is Desmond, as Eloise warned him that the island was "not done" with him yet.
      • Who was imprisoned on the french science team?
      • Or on Henry Gale's air balloon?
  • The last time Widmore sent something to the island the only room they didn't want anyone to see was full of c-4
    • It may have been full of c-4 but it also had Michael on it.
      • The freighter was also boarded by Miles, Charlotte and Daniel, who were/are candidates.
  • The Island does need Charles now. There's certainly no proof it doesn't and asserting that it doesn't so it must still need Desmond and therefore Desmond must be locked in the compartment is circular reasoning. The compartment is an unknown that could contain anthing/anyone - another nuke, more guns, Eloise.

Inside the locked door on the subEdit

• Desmond is locked in the compartment. It is an allusion to the hatch, Desmond was always locked up behind something on the island. Similar to [Live Together, Die Alone] when they swim out to the boat and find him drunk in the lower part of the boat, he is always "behind/under a door."

• • This is highly unlikely, as the last time we saw Desmond and Widmore have a conversation about anything in Jughead I think, Widmore told Desmond to keep out of things, and make sure he kept Penny safe. If Widmore really wanted to kidnap Desmond for some reason, it is unlikley that he would have let him go at that point.
  • The reasons given for Desmond being in there are not convincing. Charlie Pace has also been behind locked doors; So has Ben, so has Jack. I don't think that Desmond was actully 'locked up' on his boat anyway; he was just drunk and didn't repond.--Sean Sheep 14:16, March 17, 2010 (UTC)

• The compartment contains a person (living or dead) that the island wants for some purpose. Widmore knows that the island wants, and gets, certain people, and exploited that in order to find the island
  • Sean Sheep, you have explained why you removed "Desmond" from this theory but this is the second time somebody has removed the above bullet. This is supported by Lost canon, and there is no evidence to argue against it.

• I was coming back to it. The problem was that I had removed the other part, and this was left hanging. The Desmond bit is explained above. The other bit is vague in the extreme, and seems to make assumptions about the island "wanting" certain people. If you are claiming that this 'certain person' is Desmond, then can you tie this in a bit better, rather than tleaving it vague like this? It seems tyo me that there is quite a bit of evidence on this discussion page, which, when put together might might quite a strong theory.--Sean Sheep 14:33, March 17, 2010 (UTC)

• • I thought and still think that the theory was vague enough to not be overly presumptuous, but precise enough to add value to the theories page. I don't think claiming that the island "wants" certain people is presumptuous -- it has been a consistent and over-arching pattern throughout most of the show that certain people are meant to be on the island and, one way or another, they end up there. I don't have any reasonable theory as to who might be in the compartment, and personally would not be surprised if "who" was relatively unimportant, only that it were the mystical mechanism (loophole, if you want to call it that) by which Widmore was able to return to the island after being exiled. Having said all of that, I'm not going to modify the theory or add it back to the page. If anybody else wants to, they're welcome to. Mslade 14:55, March 17, 2010 (UTC)

• I am agreeing with Charles that this was not sufficiently coherent when first posted. It then attrtacted detractors who simply ruined what had been written. Can I suggest that you copy all the stuff into a sandbox, and rewrite the theory, using all of the material that's relevant, and then go for a reposting. Neither Charles not I are trying to keep stuff off the theories page, but the problem with unclear theories is thay just attract a load of comments and argument, and then you can't read anything. Also, see Charles's comments further up the page--Sean Sheep 15:16, March 17, 2010 (UTC)

• • I'm going to take my hands out of it for now, I seem to just be stepping on toes :) In a few days when the dust settles I will revisit and see if there's anything salvageable that hasn't already been re-posted. Mslade 15:39, March 17, 2010 (UTC)

• Walt is locked in the compartment. When Sawyer is climbing down into the submarine, there is a bunker room behind him and on the top bunk there is a stuffed polar bear lying on the bed, the bed is unmade implying that a child/children are on board. In the season 2 episode "Adrift", during a flashback, Michael gives Walt a stuffed polar bear as a present before his ex-girlfriend takes Walt away from him. The unmade bed could be because Walt was quickly ushered off to the locked room so to avoid Sawyer seeing him, and reporting back to MIB/Locke that Walt was back. Walt also does not know that Michael is dead, and Widmore could have somehow used previous information obtained from Michael when he worked for Widmore on the freighter to use the stuffed polar bear to lure Walt back to the island, as this gift has a certain significance between Michael and Walt.--Pastorpeace 08:34, March 18, 2010 (UTC)

• It's 3 years after Walt left the island, and some time after we last saw Walt. He didn't strike me then as the kind of young male adult who would neaad to bring a stuffed polar bear to the island. However, Widmore had business dealings with Paik, and he would also have known about Ben's dodgy lawyer friend, and all that stuff about Aaron, so there is the distinct possibility that if it is anyone who needs a stuffed polar bear, it is either Je Yeon OR Aaron OR both of them, kidnapped by Widmore, to be used as bargaining chips.--Sean Sheep 08:42, March 18, 2010 (UTC)

• • No doubt that Walt would not need a stuffed anything to woo him to go anywhere like a little child. However, if one wanted to prove that Michael was still alive, and needed to use some kind of symbol to prove such a proposition, it would seem that a gift given during a fairly traumatic time might be enough to convince someone who has no idea what happened to his father to come along peacefully. Remember, Walt did not want to leave the island in the first place. --Pastorpeace 09:00, March 18, 2010 (UTC)

• • However much I agree with you that it makes good, logical sense in terms of the story, for good logistical reasons, the Walt returning storyline is highly unlikley. Walt was just 10 years old in 2004. He should in theory be 13 now. However the actor is 16. I know they can do stuff with prosthetics etc, and alter voices but the reality is there is a huge difference between a 13 and 16 year old. Bringing back Walt for a major storyline is just providing unnecessary effort for the production team. In addition, it has been flagged in The Life and Death of Jeremy Bentham that Walt will be left alone. Unless there is an unassailable argument for having Walt come back to the island, my guess is that the writers will find another way of telling the story.--Sean Sheep 09:20, March 18, 2010 (UTC)

• A Package or Item, whats in the locker is not a person but rather a package. What's this package? I don't know. But a reference to package delivery appears often: Guitar Case, Pills, Guns, Locke's Body. So my guess is that it is something and not someone. I must add that the "cell" seems more like a cargo holding rather than a prison.

• • I removed this as I found the title suggestion rather odd. When I did a bit of digging, I discovered that this was probably an attempt at a thinly-disguised spoiler, so I removed it.--Sean Sheep 14:15, March 22, 2010 (UTC)

James' Memories and Parental Issues Edit

When James hears the line in "The Little House on The Prarie" where Pa tells child Laura that "you know that people aren't really gone when they die, they have all the good memories that sustain us until we see them again" James is affected. I believe he senses the love he and Juliet shared in the OT. He seems aware on some level that he has the memory of a love, even if just subconsciously, but of course doesn't have any conscious awareness of his love with Juliet. This moves him to try and get a second chance with Charlotte.

• It is also moving to him because of his own parent's death. His reaction, in finding solace from these words, demonstrates a growth in the FST James to come to terms with their deaths vs. the OT James who was beyond finding comfort in regards to their deaths,
  • This potential for growth in the FST/James may result in him abandoning his pursuit of Anthony Cooper and not killing him, unlike the OT/James who did eventually kill the person he held responsible for his parent's death.--Destinedjourney 21:25, March 17, 2010 (UTC)

I still maintain, as I have done in all the other FS characters, that it is the same person, with the same sentiments. Sawyer told Kate he used to watch LHOTP, and he is reading the same books, bizarrely in this timeline as in the original. He might be a lawman, but he is still using deceit, and he is still driven by revenge. Sawyer has had quite a few moments in the OT where he has showed his true character, don't forget. It's not been all quips and cons. When you are in a life of crime, and your colleagues are all doing the same thing, it's all too weasy to continue in the same mould.(pun) --Sean Sheep 21:30, March 17, 2010 (UTC)

• I too think they are the same and if their timelines could play out indefinitely we would eventually see them become more and more alike, as we saw with Ben. There are different "bumps" in the road if you will that cause them to detour on occasion but they are who they are. Just because I think James may not end up killing Cooper in the FST doesn't mean I think he is at his essence a different person. Instead, it is their 'chancesfor change that have changed. Like I've said elsewhere, chance is a variable that even Faraday didn't consider. It is in line with the idea of whether the characters, the SAME characters, given a different set of circumstances wouldn't end up doing things differently, not because THEY are different but because of their changed circumstances. Sometimes in the FST the circumstances are similar i.e. Ben having an opportunity to make a power play but sacrificing it for Alex/Ben having an opportunity from MIB to reclaim his leadership of the island but choosing to stay with Ilana. In those situations, because we do have the same character who is at the same stage in their personal growth, ending up with the same resolution. With Sawyer, in the OT he was given the opportunity to kill Anthony Cooper at a stage in his life when he couldn't not do it; FST Sawyer may not get the opportunity to kill Cooper until a later point in his life when he can perhaps make a different choice. Same person, different outcome. That's the twists I see with FST.--Destinedjourney 22:46, March 17, 2010 (UTC)

• • You make absolutely valid points. The point about Sawyer choosing not to kill Cooper, will, I think, play out that way. Then a lot of people will shout "Oh look, it's because he didn't receive Jacob's touches". This is one of the major issues I think for this season. Is your life governed by gifts from some supernatural being, or do you make your own destiny? It's ironinc isn't it that the being whose watchwords seem to be "you can choose", endows people with gifts, and tells them to do stuff. From what we have seen in the OT, that's not worked out too well for them has it? When they are left to their own devices, most of the characters seem to get on OK.--Sean Sheep 22:54, March 17, 2010 (UTC)

• • • Tho I think in James' case it seems to be a lack of a pen, that changed his outcome. He couldn't write down his feelings that day, so never carried them around with him in a permanent form. I know he would have carried them around with him internally, but they would have changed as he got old, OT James always had that letter to remind himself how he felt then, where as FST James didn't. FST James allowed himself to be more patient in his pursuit of 'Sawyer'. Hawkdeath 23:21, March 17, 2010 (UTC)

Wow, it's 3/17/10, the day after this episode aired, just past 6PM...and there's next to nothing on the 'Theory' pageEdit

Ladies and gentlemen, I understand the desire to keep the theories page clean, to move back and forth discussions to this page, to follow the guidelines set up by LostPedia...etc. But we're here, one day after the show, and there is not ONE theory left on the 'theory' page (just a description of a past theory). I've been coming here for about 2 years now, and I've never seen anything like this. This is, in my opinion, unacceptable. We have grown FAR too narrow with what we allow on the theory page. The knee-jerk editing needs to slow down a bit please. Just my opinion, but really...--BrouhaJoe 18:26, March 17, 2010

The theory chat is on this page, where it should be. If you have got a half-decent theory, then post it!--Sean Sheep 22:49, March 17, 2010 (UTC)

• I know theory "chat" should be here, as I said above, but the theories themselves should remain on the theory page. Moving entire theories and counter theories here along WITH the discussions that pile up beneath them seems excessive to me, especially when the result is a completely blank theory page. For example, above there are a few theories under the "Who is the MIB's Mother" heading. You have posted counter arguments...i.e. why you personally disagree with the stated theories...underneath them, but I see no reason why both these theories and your counters shouldn't remain on the theory page, to be further discussed and hashed out here on this page. Bottom line, knowing the enthusiasm of this community, if there is an entirely blank theory page, then that is a sign of excessive editing and removal of posts.--BrouhaJoe 19:18, March 17, 2010

• • Actually all of these piled up AFTER the section had been moved to here. If you look at the history, you will see that at the time the theories were moved that were one line speculations with no evidence. Tell me what you would do with "Tawaret is the mother of MIB and Jacob" a statement on its own with no justification at all. Tawaret is a goddess, a statue, and has not appeared in the story other than as a lump of rock and a four-toed remnant. As far as we know Jacob and MiB are men, not Egyptian Gods and have five toes; at least that's what MiB keeps saying, which is all we have to go on.--Sean Sheep 23:45, March 17, 2010 (UTC)
    • But you see Sean, this is kind of my point...here, let me explain using the example you just gave. The Tawaret statement has implied justification, even if it's not explicitly stated initially by the person positing the theory...and whether or not one editor (in this case, you) sees it right away. 1st, You're "lump of rock" dismissal is rash. It's obvious that the statue being on the island has SOME significance not yet revealed...seems extremely arbitrary as a story device otherwise. 2nd, the statue's connection to Jacob at least, if not he and MIB, is also strongly implied by the fact that he chooses, of all places on the island, to live inside it. Leaving aside allusions to a mother's womb, and the fact that it's a firtility goddess, this at least shows that Jacob may have some kind of affection for the statue which MIB does not...further fitting into MIB's description of circumstances surrounding him mother in the episode. 3rd, How do you know Jacob and MIB are "men, not Egyptian Gods?" They both seem to posses powers far beyond those of mere men. -Those are a few examples of why this theory, which wasn't even mine to begin with, seems at least possible within the canon revealed thus far.

What we've just done here is 'discuss' a theory on the theory discussion page. The theory itself belongs on the theory page in my opinion. As it is examined and fleshed out here, or as new evidence for or against comes to light in future episodes, it can be adjusted accordingly on the theory page. You don't have to like a theory, agree with it, or understand it...but none of that means it should be automatically removed. A theory should not be removed based one opinion that it's not sound alone. Discuss it here, allow for the poster and others to vet it, flesh it out, or prove it inaccurate, THEN decide how or if to present it on the main theory page. Because I'll say it again; an empty theory page should be a sign to everyone that something is wrong with our editing process this season, and we should take note and adjust accordingly.--BrouhaJoe 21:13, March 17, 2010

Sean Sheep, I'm sorry, but I don't know why you think it's your right to judge theories. Do YOU know what the ending is going to be? Of course NOT or there wouldn't be a theory page! Sure, some are silly and other users have the ability to weed them out too. I think the admins need to chill out a little with the craziness of maintaining this site. It's not like you are making money off it and you are taking it way too seriously this late in the game.. It's a FAN SITE written by FANS. --endzoneted 01:17, March 18, 2010 (UTC)

• • I agree with "Ladies and Gentleman". We are all mature and have learned "how to post a theory". People would not comment over and over and then argue on the "theory page". You would only post a theory that abides by "the rules" which we've well learned from having our posts deleted and getting scolded for it. To have an empty theory page and then come to this page only to see what reminds me of the "war-room" from BBS days is obscene. I am less than enjoying ANYTHING on this page and I feel that the idea to change a way of doing things, half-way through the final season, is wrong. No one says you have to delete, delete, delete as an Admin. Let the users do it. It's been well done now for quite a few years and worked just fine. I think there is no need for change, as the site was branded quite well and needed no changes this late in the game. I'm pretty sure we are all thinking the same things as fans of the site in wishing the admins would just toss the script, open the theory page back up and let it roll. This is very disappointing.

I agree with every one else, just because its illogical to you or some one doesn't mean it isn't a theory to someone. and its kinda an a** thing to do to take some ones theory and tell them that its wrong. because a theory cant be wrong. until its proven true or false.Omggivemaafningusername 01:23, March 18, 2010 (UTC)

• I also agree. The cleanup of the theories page is ridiculous, not constructive, and makes the site a lot more confusing and unusable. It was fine the way it was before (in terms of how people posted). It should not be some self-righteous person's responsiblity as to what theories can and can't go on the main theory page. That is not how a wiki works. Luminifer 06:13, March 18, 2010 (UTC)

• OK, I issued a challenge above. No one has taken it up. What exactly should we do with a "theory" which is a statement like: ""Tawaret is the mother of MIB and Jacob" , and has no justification? Statements without justification are against Lostpedia Policy, and anyone is entitled to remove them. If you state such a theory, then it has to make sense and be justified in terms of the loast canon. Taweret might well be a mythological goddess in the real world, but in Lost, it is a lump of rock. In the real world, no one would claim that a person is a son of a mythological goddess. If the author is trying to mae a theory, he or she should clarify exactly what the theory is, and how it is supposed to work.Is he saying that in Lost, the goddess Tawaret at one time existed? If so, what was the context of this? Is Tawaret a Goddess? If so, what should we make of the claims of MiB that he is just a man?

• Once you start putting up statements like this, and claim that it is a theory, then it just invites a lot of people to object to it on the kind of basis that I have indicated above, simplyu because the author has not clarified what he means. If you allow theories like this, then what is to stop the entire page becoming full of things like:
• Aphrodite is the mother of MIB and Jacob
• Claire is the mother of MIB and Jacob
• Rose Nadler is the Mother of MiB and Jacob
• Charlotte Lewis is the Mother of MiB and Jacob
• Hilary Clinton is the Mother of MiB and Jacob
• My great aunt Mary us the mother of MiB and Jacob
• Minnie Mouse is the mother of MiB and Jacob

If "Tawaret" is a theory, then they all are. I am not commenting on whether the claim is true or false. The bare statement on its own, without any expanation does NOT belong on a Theory page.--Sean Sheep 07:59, March 18, 2010 (UTC)

• "That is not how a wiki works:" That's how this wiki works. To quote from the admonition that appears under each edit box, "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then don't submit it here." Theories must really be theories. They may not be assertions, rants, personal wishes or questions. A theory, btw, requires at least one premise and a conclusion. Theories are different than talk. One might note that most wikis do not have separate theory pages.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 13:22, March 18, 2010 (UTC)

• Really this is a bit silly. BrouhaJoe noted that a day or so after airing there was only one theory on the Theories page. I did that, not SeanSheep not anyone else. If I remember there were three theories when I went to the page. Only three. I read them carefully. I then compared them against the box on the right of the page. My memory is that they failed because they were couched as possibilities, and were clearly speculative and lacked ANY evidence to support them. Also they had already attracted a bunch of interesting responses. But only responses. "6. Responding to another theory (use discussion page instead)." One of them was painfully thin but had some sort of proof so I left it. The others I moved here and added notes as to why and encouraged discussion so a theory could go back to the Theory page. I keep abreast of the arguments going on here and I respect peoples theories even if they are undeveloped - as it's a wiki I edit them until they actually satisfy the theory requirements, I try to be a believer in the theory, I try to come up with evidence. I never remove anyhing because I don't agree with it. That, I believe is how it is meant to work. Sean Sheeps's discussion about why bland statements of belief do not make a theory for the purposes of a theory page here is right. Just read the pleas from the mods at the top of the page and the removal box. --Charles Kane 06:25, March 19, 2010 (UTC)

A comment by Sean Sheep on the necessity of editing, and the realities of doing itEdit

“

'==Who killed the Ajira folks?==' Widmore, or the Man in Black Widmore: He wanted Sawyer, to see the corpses,and meet Zoe,or Widmore done something an The Ajira Folks was the witnesses, and Widmore wanted to keep that stuff in SECRET. Or he wanted to scare the Man in Black's Group. MIB: He wanted the campsite,and don't wanted "mates".

”

The above "theory" was posted after I had removed the original section (see below) to this discussion page, together with my added comments. This new material was posted with a request not to remove it. I wrote to the author, (who has made very few edits), asking him to write it in proper English, but he chose not to respond, either to me, or to rewrite it. If Lostpedia is going to be of any value at all, it needs to be written in good, recognisable English. Forgive me if I am being blunt, but this offering does not come up to any standard of written English of which I am aware. We just cannot leave such stuff here. It has to be edited.

First of all, i'm NOT English OR AMERCIAN, I live in HUNGARY,EUROPE,and ilearned in this kind, so if you dont kow something, dont delete what i wrote, just ask me! Rzolee8 15:23, March 18, 2010 (UTC)rzolee8Rzolee8 15:23, March 18, 2010 (UTC)

The edited version reads:

“

'==Who killed the Ajira passengers and crew?==' Widmore: Widmore landed on what he thought was an unnoccupied island, and started to unload the sub, setting up secret equipment. The Ajira passengers inadvertently witnessed this, so Widmore ordered their deaths. There is evidence that Widmore has been capable of ordering such killings (The Purge, Alex) when necessary. Widmore arranged (via Zoe) for Sawyer to see the corpses, as a "message" to be given to MiB about Widmore's determination & ruthlessness. MIB: MiB now has all the people he needs to leave the island. The remaining Ajira passengers & crew were expendable.

”

Please note that I have tried to keep the sense of what the author originally wrote (it was very difficult), while at the same time providing some justification. It is clear that the author has not been reading any of the blogs which have discussed whether or not Widmore or MiB actually killed the passengers. If he/she had, then the theory would have addressed issues such as the time for corpses to rot being inconsistent with the storyline which has Widmore arriving within the past 24 hours, that the manner of their deaths seeming more consistent with MiB, rather than shootings by Team Widmore. In addition, I seriously doubt from what we have seen that killing 20 or 30 people would send any message whatsoever to MiB; he does not seem to me the kind of person who would likely take any notice of such a message, and Widmore aas a former Leader of the others would know that. The reason I gave to justify MiB killing was my own version of what I thought the author probably intended. Why on earth anyone would think that MiB would want their "campsite" is beyond me, and I interpreted the "mates" to be a possible reference to the Ajira pasengers.

My guess is, that, as this now stands, we will have a load of people just making the objections to this theory that I have stated above, and probably assuming that I am the perpetrator of it. For waht it's worth, I don't think there is a theory to be had here at all. We are led to believe that MiB killed them all, and I see no reason whatsoever to question that. If Widmore's equipment is so sectret that he has to kill all the passengers, why does he then let Sawyer see it and blab to MiB. The theory makes no sense. I know people are shouting that you shouldn't be judgemental, but when you have to try to make sense of a theory that is not properly written, and as a result end up writing an edited version which is illogical, and goes against both common sense and the facts as they occur in the show, then surely some discretion on the part of the editor, should not only be allowed, but actually required.

My personal view is, that this section should be removed altogether, and the discussion on it should take place on this page.--Sean Sheep 10:38, March 18, 2010 (UTC)

Who killed the Ajira folks? Edit

Widmore's people killed them.

• I removed this mainly because it's just an unsupported statement and not a fully worked out theory. In addition, all the evidence points to the MiB having killed them (Widmore not having time, no apparent reason to, dead bodies being there for a long time, Sawyer not caring who killed them anyway, it looking like a MiB kill, no bullet wounds etc, etc.) If you are going to make this statement you are going to have to deal with all the obvious stuff like that, and provide an explanation of why Widmore wants them dead, then leaves their bodies lying around for Sawyer to find, rather than burying or burning them.--Sean Sheep 09:07, March 18, 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry but I have to totally disagree, especially since there is no evidence it was MIB's doing but - indeed - rather Charles Widmore.

We don't know yet if the Man in Black as Flocke or Smokey can even cross water without a boat, mind considering an extended period of absence killing the Ajira passengers (his presence was required on the main island at almost all times). We clearly saw the Widmore people are setting up a sonar fence, which is obviously an attempt to keep out MiB / Flocke. If MiB had gone to the island, he would not have necessarily killed the Ajira passengers - he would have killed Widmore's people setting up the sonar fence before it is going to be activated!!! --SokratesOne 11:34, March 18, 2010 (UTC)

• Please note, I made the statements in order to offer the original author an opportunity to counter these points. I removed the unsupported statement "Widmore killed them", and was explaining why, pointing out there is a lot of evidence that points to him not having done it. Also note that on one of my blogs I ask precisely this question: can MiB cross water with or without a boat?
  • To which the answer is: prior to taking the identity of FLocke on Hydra, he was the smoke monster on the main island, so , yes, he can cross water.

--Sean Sheep 11:48, March 18, 2010 (UTC)

• • In support of the theory that MiB was the person/thing that killed the Ajira 316 crew and passengers: "considering an extended period of absence killing the Ajira passengers (his presence was required on the main island at almost all times)"- the opportunity/period of time that could have allowed MiB to be away from the main island occurred after he kidnapped Richard and hung him up in a tree. During this time we already know that MiB transformed him/herself into the smoke monster while he found Sawyer in New Otherton. Considering the fact that the smoke monster moves and kills fairly quickly, there was certainly enough time for him to swoop over to Hydra Island. At this point in time the Widmore crew had not yet arrived "If MiB had gone to the island, he would not have necessarily killed the Ajira passengers - he would have killed Widmore's people setting up the sonar fence before it is going to be activated" --Jreo4815162342 15:29, March 19, 2010 (UTC)

• Whoever suggested that as the pylons couldn't fit on a submarine, the Ajira people messed with them and killed themselves: brilliant. I don't think it's going to be the in-story reason, but it's a great line of thought. -PolarBearSkull 19:45, March 22, 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanx. If it had been an American Ohio Class or Russian Typhoon Class submarine (instead of ICBM's carrying sonic fence pylons) I wouldn't doubt the origin of the fence pylons. But on that tiny I-wanna-be-a-Yushio-Class-sub: Not a chance!--SokratesOne 20:26, March 23, 2010 (UTC)

• I have just completed a major edit of this on the theory page. It is mainly a consolidation, removing the chaos and extracting 4 theories and a fifth with a hodge podge of unsupported ideas. I have found every piece of evidence relating to each theory and placed the evidence under the respective theory. Some were arguments against a different theory (especially in the MiB/Widmore groups). Some of that evidence I rewrote. I simply removed discussion and argumentation. Some material got cut. One was Neither or third, unknown party which was mainly argument against the killer being either MiB or Widmore. As it is more appropriate here I am posting it after my explanation. The other was Walt (in the padlocked room). Not only did this ingenious idea have no evidence to back it up, it is also based on yet another completely unsupported idea. Finally there were some sort of sarcastic and somewhat humorous entries. The writer(s)should have known that none of us here have a sense of humor when it comes to Lost theories. ^{[source needed]} Deleted.

--Charles Kane 07:04, March 21, 2010 (UTC)

Neither or third, unknown party:

Killing the remaining Ajira passengers is counter-constructive to the plans either Widmore or the Man in Black might have.

• The Ajira plane - at this point - is indicated to be possibly the escape vehicle of the Man in Black. Whereever that plane might finally land back in the real world will give rise to uncomfortable questions. The large number of missing passengers would most assuredly initiate an international search and rescue mission which is not in Widmore's interest (it also limits his bargaining options with the Man in Black, as he now is only in posession of the plane itself).
• On the other hand, the Ajira passengers have witnessed (fake) Locke at the beach, they had been partially his assurance to escape from the Island and return to the real world widely unnoticed.

While Widmore rejects responsibility for their deaths, the Man in Black is most likely to accuse Widmore of the Ajira massacre which would / should give him second thoughts if Widmore will seriously allow him to leave the island with the plane, once it has been fixed, and honor his side of the bargain the two might have.

With a possible third party remaining unknown, Richard Alpert may remain a suspect.--SokratesOne 20:28, March 23, 2010 (UTC)

Walt (in the padlocked room

Walt had a knack for accidentally murdering things when he was last on Hydra Island (Remember the birds?). He has been brought to the island by Widmore and, upon arriving, was unable to control his powers since he had been away from the island for so long, or perhaps from a previous 'balance' being provided by both Jacob and smokey that is no longer there. He accidentally killed the Ajira survivors and is now being held in the room, perhaps by choice, in order to minimize the chance of future incidents.

• Wouldn't this equally affect Widmore's Team?

I just noticed a commendable approach categorizing the topic, however felt the necessity to replace "evidence" with "possibilities". If there were "evidence", than all the theories would be right and wrong at the same time. Some previous theories were (intendedly) ridiculous and deserved to be removed. However, that doesn't justify (ab)using such an occasion to remove theories you may not like. We have seen that Ben used a portable lethal gas canister to kill his father and there has yet not been any kind of evidence or suggestions that there couldn't be some on Hydra Island, too. Thus lethal gas remains a "candidate" for the death of the poor Ajira passengers, unless the LOST creators say otherwise. Thanx --SokratesOne 14:26, March 21, 2010 (UTC)

• re gas - then put it back, I did the edit best I could, it is better than before but as ever it isn't closed. I'm going to say this again - I DO NOT remove theories I do not like. I don't like most of these theories but they are still there.
• re possibilities - sorry I'm going to change that back - all theories need supporting evidence. That evidence may not ultimately be proof of correctness. Evidence is just that, evidence - just because evidence is given in a murder case doesn't mean the accused is convicted. Same here. That is also the treminology we have been using over and over and its in the guidelines too.--Charles Kane 14:37, March 21, 2010 (UTC)
• the other thing SokratesOne that the theory page is not intended for discussion or some sort of opposing argument within the theory. That is meant to happen on this Talk page.--Charles Kane 14:41, March 21, 2010 (UTC)
• From the Theory policy page "A theory is an attempt to explain a certain mystery using logic backed up with logically consistent observations and facts. Without supporting evidence, statements are merely speculation. Speculation is similar to theories except there are no facts or logic to back the theory up." my emphasis --Charles Kane 14:45, March 21, 2010 (UTC)

MiB and Widmore on the same team? Edit

I think its worth discussing that the Man in Black and Widmore might be working together. Neither has said specifically that they are against one another. First of, when Locke leaves the island and talk to Widmore he is told that if he doesn't return the wrong side will win the upcoming war. This could be Widmore trying to make sure Locke gets back to the island for MiB to use in his plans. Widmore also tells Locke that he won't have to die to return, but this could just be a lie. Widmore also claims that he didn't kill the remaining passengers from the Ajira flight. If Widmore's team didn't kill them, then the only thing on the island that really could have killed that many people at once is the smoke monster. Considering that all the bodies seem to have no blood on them this seems to be a reasonable idea (MiB also said that they had to take care of all the Ajira passengers to Richard). If this is true then the killings of the Ajira passengers could have been MiB preparing Hydra Island for the arrival of Widmore. This seems to be logical considering MiB seemed to know that Sawyer wasn't going to find the passengers alive on Hydra Island. The main arguement against this is that Widmore brought the sonic fence with him to the island , which is assumingly to keep the MiB out. Widmore seems to be a smart man when it comes to the island (tells Sawyer its funny how little he knows), and the sonar fence could just be a precaution to keep MiB in Locke form and out of smoke monster form. If widmore is on the side of MiB and knows his deceptive ways, it would be smart of him to make sure he is getting what he wants out of his deal. MiB and Widmore also seem to find it funny how Sawyer assumes they are against each other and tries to play both sides. this could be because they are actually on the same side and Sawyer is just acting exactly how Sawyer would be expected to act. We know Widmore wants the island in his possession more than anything, and it seems entirely plausible that he made a deal with the MiB to get it. MiB is going to use Widmore to get off the island while Widmore thinks he will get the island in return.--Seenworth457 19:59, March 18, 2010 (UTC)

Man in Black's "Growing Pains" Edit

See also The Man in Black's mother/Theories. -PolarBearSkull 19:52, March 20, 2010 (UTC)

Below is the entire content from the theories page of this item. I have heavily edited the item on the theories page so that there are now 4 theories. I found them in the text below. Two of them are lacking any evidence and should be removed. A quote from the Bible or Torah is not evidence because there is no way to link it to Lost. As you will see much of this item was discussion, stuff about ComicCon, disputation etc. Some of it was signed which is inappropriate to a theory page. Go for it! --Charles Kane 06:38, March 19, 2010 (UTC)

The Man In Black's name will have some instant significance when it is revealed. Theories in previous episodes have suggested that MiB's name will turn out to be Jacob. If this theory holds up to be true then the "growing pains" MiB is refering to is his soul/personailty being split into two. A purely good Jacob and a purely evil one. Kind of like in the movie Raising Cain where the Father made his son schizophrenic with experiments, Jacob's Mother did the same.

• MIB split into two halves: Desmond and Daniel.--InTheLoop 20:46, March 18, 2010 (UTC)
• Real Locke's mother was also crazy.
  • Considering this comment and screaming "Don't tell me what I can't do." The real Locke's memories and/or soul could be affecting MiB.
• MiB's name will be revealed to be Esau. His parents (also Jacob's parents) will be Rebekah and Isaac. In the Torah/Old Testament, Jacob and Esau were twins who feuded throughout their lives, with Rebekah taking Jacob's side and helping him to cheat Esau out of his birthright and blessing. This passage from Wikipedia's article on Esau is particularly interesting:

"In the Book of Jubilees (which is neither part of the Jewish nor most Christian canons), Esau's father, Isaac, compels Esau to swear not to attack or kill Jacob after Isaac has died. However, after the death of Isaac, the sons of Esau convince their father to lead them, and hired mercenaries, against Jacob in order to kill Jacob and his family and seize their wealth (especially the portion of Isaac's wealth that Isaac had left to Jacob upon his death). In the ensuing battle, Jacob kills Esau with an arrow. The sons of Jacob then defeat the rest of the attackers despite overwhelming odds."

As the above quote implies, Book of Jubilees is non-canonical and tells a very different tale to the accepted story in the Bible.

The links between Lost and the Torah/Old Testament stories about Jacob and Esau seem far too strong to be coincidental. For example, Jacob is described as the clever brother who prefers to be inside the tent, while Esau is the aggressive brother who hunts and prefers the outdoors. --Rhydem 05:37, March 18, 2010 (UTC)

• This was debunked by the producers at Comic Con 2009. They said: "We like to make these kinds of references from time to time. That's too direct, however."
  • I'm having trouble finding that quote. What I've got is Michael Emerson saying (in response to a question about the name Esau), "We sometimes deal in Biblical imagery, but we tend to dance in and back away from it. That might be too much, but I like the way your mind is working." Then, Damon congratulates Emerson on giving a vague, non-committal response. Maybe they won't use the name Esau, but I don't see any evidence that the above parallels have been "debunked." --Rhydem 21:21, March 18, 2010 (UTC)

• • • C'mon man how does time traveling, hydrogen bombs, and crashing planes fit into Torah/Old Testament? I mean alluding to and re-telling are different things, and while I agree there are parallels, I doubt that Lost creators simply re-tell the story of Jacob and Esau, and hence I doubt that they have to use the same names. As of the father/mother names that just waay to far.
• Flocke compares himself to Aaron as if he's trying to give Kate a hint as to who he really is. Either he is related to Aaron or it's he himself. Maybe, Claire must not let anybody else take care of Aaron because that was key to what and who Flocke has become.
  • However, the MIB implies that he was in fact raised by his "crazy" mother, and that this is why he went through growing pains. Aaron, on the other hand, wasn't raised by his mother - he was raised by Kate.
    • The kidnapping of Claire (by Christian or FLocke) is possibly Flocke's way of changing his past. This prevents his mother from raising him.

Removed: What was this episode trying to show about Sawyer? Edit

Explanation for moving here at the end. --Charles Kane 13:30, March 22, 2010 (UTC)

Being a Sawyer-centric episode, what theories do we now have about Sawyer?

• in OT: conman - in FST: lawman
• in OT: very good liar - in FST: terrible liar
• in OT: a conman acting as a lawman (when with the DI) - in FST, a lawman undercover as a conman.

Items that are still the same;

• parents killed due to conman Anthony Cooper, when James was 9 (FST) (Or 8 (OT) see below)
• went to Sydney to chase down a lead
• was on flight 815 to LA

Theory 1: that some change in his past made him decide to be a cop, but that this was a small event or encounter, considering the great similarities.

In both timelines, Sawyer uses the name "LaFleur" - in the OT as an alias when living in New Otherton with the DI in the '70's, and as a special signal code word when he is undercover as a conman in the FS timeline.

Theory 2: The name LaFleur is related to an (unseen) event in his past. This is the turning point at which he decides to be a cop or criminal.

James must have had two major influential men in his life, the first being Tom Sawyer/Anthony Cooper, the Con man who took what he wanted. The second being a man named LeFleur, who must have been an honest, hardworking, law man. Could have even by a fictional character. At the turning point in James's life when he had to chose between crime and order, in the OT, Crime won him over and he modeled his life and name after Sawyer, and in the FS, order won and he started living his life as LeFleur would. This explains why he called himself LeFleur in both timelines, because he associates that name/character to a trustworthy man.

-Sawyer likes pop culture, and LaFleur is a joke referring to the infamous lawman in "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid" who hunted them down and caught them.

• • Sawyer is clearly the same person in both timelines. His ultimate goal is still to kill Anthony Cooper, but in the FST he has decided to do so by being a cop and using those resources to hunt him down. He even said that he reached a point where he could be a criminal or be a cop. He chose cop. As a person though he is still the same person. Miles is just a perceptive person, and having worked with Sawyer in the FST, got close enough personally (unlike most people to that point in Sawyer's life) that he was able to sense that there was not 100% truth coming from him.
    • It is extremely significant that Sawyer tells Miles about his plan to kill Anthony Cooper. He was not forced to admit the truth, or the whole truth. It demonstrates his willingness (however reluctant) to be dissuaded.

• • James (Jim) LaFleur is either Sawyer's *clean* real name or his father's real name. He has used the name Sawyer since he started his cons. When he joined the DI in the 70s, he chose to start with a clean slate. In the Flash sideways - that is his name, the only part of his life that he has to hide is his pursuit of the man who killed his parents.

• • • No, his real name in both timelines is James Ford.

Theory 4: Miles and Charlotte are working for Widmore or the island. Proof - Password "Lafleur" who else would know that name but Miles.

• • It was the pre-set 'safety' word. They're partners... and would obviously discuss the safety word.

- Charlotte is looking for something when she is snooping. - Sawyer still looking for Anthony Cooper. Which means his parents still died and Jacob could very well of touched him after their death. Which leads to the bigger idea that the same six people are still candidateas and the island is still doing its work. More too come.....

Theory 5: the moment in life when he "chose" (unknowingly) between becoming eventually criminal or cop was when he was/wasn't touched by Jacob at his parents' funeral.

• This has to be true, sawyers relative asked Sawyer not to complete the letter he had began writing. Had he not maybe he's hate would not have consumed him and he would have become the cop we saw in this episode. However when jacob shows up he gives him a pen and tells him to finish it, which we know he does and keeps hold of it all the time, hunting down anthony cooper and staying on the wrong side of the law over the years.

For the life of me - I read and reread this text and I really can't discover any theories at all. Furthermore there is simply no evidence to support what is claimed as the theories. At best this material is a review of Recon with some suppositions about what is going on. That does not make it a theory or theories May I just refer to the theory policy which states:

"A theory is an attempt to explain a certain mystery using logic backed up with logically consistent observations and facts. Without supporting evidence, statements are merely speculation. Speculation is similar to theories except there are no facts or logic to back the theory up."

Briefly: T1. Something made him decide to be a cop but this was a small thing !! (that's not a theory, that's not anything) T2. Something that is unknown about LaFleur and that someone (who we know nothing as there has been no suggestion that such a person ever existed) had an influence in James' life !! Hell I don't know could be, just as likely if not more so that it isn't. Pure supposition. T3. Left it in T4. The argument is destroyed by the dot point. Its just an illogical claim. Maybe the password was Jame's idea, we don't know, but obviously Miles was in on it. As to the Charlotte material. The drawer stuff appears completely innocent. Re-watch it. She went to the wrong chest (ie not the one on the left) and searched on the LHS. Everything about the incident appears innocent. Why would she do it in this way anyway, or if wwoking for Widmore whuy the interest in Sawyer etc anyway, and why search in THAT drawer. Its just illogical. T5. there may be a theory here but if there is it is completely unclear and garbled. We can do better than this guys! --Charles Kane 13:30, March 22, 2010 (UTC)

What is Charles Widmore's mission on Hydra Island? Edit

I have pasted the original here, becuse it is, quite honestly, a mess. If, after the radical removal of material, the original authors do not like it, they can opt to put some of it back.--Oolon Caluphid 21:25, March 22, 2010 (UTC)

Widmore's people are erecting a new sonar fence around the dock of Hydra Island, obviously in an attempt to block out MiB as either in his Flocke or smoke monster apparition (amazing what you can transport in such a tiny, cheesy looking sub...). This action clearly suggests that Widmore expects a possible confrontation with Flocke and/or the smoke monster. As for the general intentions of the three "teams" we can assume

• "Team Widmore" intends to use or manipulate the Man in Black for some yet unknown purpose or make some kind of deal with him (with the Ajira plane being some kind of bargaining chip, otherwise Team Widmore would have already destroyed it).
  • Not necessarily using the plane for that purpose. Team Widmore may simply be sufficiently confident in their plan against the Man in Black to not see the plane as being significant. Considering time may be a factor, Widmore may not be willing to use men, time and resources to destroy the plane if they do not see it as being a possibility for the Man in Black to use.
• "Team Flocke" intends to enable the Man in Black's escape from the Island.
• "Team Jacob / Ilana" intends to find the candidate replacing Jacob and/or the Man in Black. Considering Bram claimed "Team Ilana" was the good team in the "coming war" (thus claiming "Team Widmore" being the bad guys), their objectives seem to be incompatible.

Widmore's sonic fence is intended to trap the MiB inside. They're planning to lure him inside its perimeter and turn it on. Either they'll kill him while he's trapped, or they'll forcefully use his powers to their own evil end (depending on whether Widmore is good or bad), like a genie trapped in a lamp.

• The idea that Widmore's submarine might actually be a (genie) trap for the smoke monster is intriguing.--SokratesOne 20:34, March 23, 2010 (UTC)
  • Agreed, I keep thinking about the island being underwater in the sideways timeline and picture Smokey trapped in the sunken sub...like a genie in a bottle.
• Widmore is competing with Ben to be MiB's replacement. He wants to force MiB's hand by capturing him.Unlike Sawyer, Sayid or Ben, Widmore desperately wants to be on the island & in power.
  • Widmore was ousted by Ben, but Ben may never have been legitimately the Leader - so Widmore may have more right to the Leadership, and be the friend that Jacob was looking to bring to the Island.
    • When Jacob was killed, he whispered "They're coming". Could he have been referring to Widmore and his team?
      • Most likely! Widmore's true intentions are neither in Jacob's interest nor are they in the interests of MiB.
• The fact that Widmore is still in the Submarine when Sawyer is taken to see him, could mean that Widmore is still not allowed on the island(or the hydra island) after he was banished.
  • Or it may indicate that Widmore prefers to be chilling in his captain room rather than sweating at the beach.
    • Given that he was banished, and was desperate to go back, it would seem a little strange that he wasn't interested in actually spending time on the island again for the first time in decades. Of course, it's probably all done for dramatic effect (so that we could see the locked box?)
    • writing his memoirs...
    • Widmore wasn't banished from the Hydra Island, but the main Island. He's in his cabin because it adds to the air of mystery

• Widmore convinced the real Locke to gather the O6 and go back to the island, it seems he was supporting the MiB plan to snatch Locke's appearance. He's faking his willingness to kill Flocke and used Sawyer just as a messenger to let Flocke know he's arrived.
  • Sawyer is just assuming Widmore wants to kill MiB. Notice Widmore's grin after he heard Sawyer's assumption (probably thinking: "You really don't know ANY thing!")
  • Also, MiB told Ben to meet them at Hydra Island when his group was really camping on the main island. Having MiB hand Ben over to Widmore could be part of the agreement that they have together.

Comparing Sawyer & Miles' relationship in the FST & OT:

• Sawyer and Miles have been shown working closely together during the DI, and now again in the Flash sideways.
• In the OT, both Sawyer and Miles were Grifters/ conmen. Sawyer: an outright conman for money and Miles is a man not adverse to telling people he has spoken to their dead relatives(see "confirmed dead" S 4, Ep 2).
• However in the flash sideways, they are both cops and therefore on the "goodies" side.
• Sawyer was never "touched" by Jacob (if the bomb exploxed in the 50's as previous theorists have suggested) and Miles also wouldn't have grown up feeling abandoned by his father, as Dr Chang would never have been posted to the island and subsequently forced his wife and child to leave without him (see "Follow the leader", S5, Ep 15).
• The characters seem to be able to read each other very well ( Miles asks Sawyer several times if/ why he's lying to him... Is this latent psychic ability that hasn't been enhanced by being on the island (He appears to be able to communicate with the dead after living on the Island in infancy). Both characters have daddy issues.. a recurring theme in Lost.

(This reads like a set of observations and not a theory: candidate for removal?)

Is the OT influencing the FST? Edit

• The original timeline appears to be influencing this flash-sideways storyline in subtle ways. Jack appeared to recognize Desmond, for example, and several of the 815 passengers, including Sawyer and Kate, exchanged meaningful looks on the plane and immediately after landing. They don't quite remember, but they almost remember something. It was a stretch for Claire to accept Kate's help after Kate had hijacked her car; it was similarly a stretch for Sawyer to aid and abet Kate in the elevator. Both Claire and Sawyer were to a small extent influenced by the alternate timeline in ways that neither is fully conscious of. It was as if both new that Kate was ultimately harmless, and as if both recognized her as a potential friend.

I removed this from a section about Sawyer & Kate. It apapears to be an entirely different theory, out of place. I am not sure what elemnts of Recon it addresses, so I have removed it to here.--Oolon Caluphid 21:48, March 22, 2010 (UTC)

v • d • e Theories for Season 6 Episodes Theories in general "LA X, Parts 1 & 2" • "What Kate Does" • "The Substitute" • "Lighthouse" • "Sundown" • "Dr. Linus" • "Recon" • "Ab Aeterno" • "The Package" • "Happily Ever After" • "Everybody Loves Hugo" • "The Last Recruit" • "The Candidate" • "Across the Sea" • "What They Died For" • "The End" Season 1 • Season 2 • Season 3 • Season 4 • Season 5