This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Life and Death of Jeremy Bentham article.
General discussion about the article's subject is permitted as a way to aid improvement of the article.
Theories about the article subject should not be discussed here.
(Instead, post your theory to this article's theory page
or discuss it on this article's theory talk page.)

  • Be polite, don't bite, have fun!
  • Admins are here to help
  • More discussion at the Forum
Article policies


Please? It appears to be working now. Thank you Sysops.--Tricksterson 18:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Aaron ?

  • Was he cut from the episode ? I don't remember seeing him. --LeoChris 03:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Was he listed as being on the cast list? I was trying not to read it. .Jamie 03:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
      • He was on the press release, but I don't think he was, or has ever been, listed with the guest stars ... I think he's a co-star. --LeoChris 04:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
  • He wasn't in this episode. Olson82 04:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)olson82
  • Yeah and he wasn't credited in the episode either, he's not in the credits at the beginning, should mention of him be removed from the production notes and the side template?Mattfarley1008 01:28, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Why Locke didn't ask Walt to go UQ

I tried to remove this UQ because Locke answered it in the episode (Walt had been through enough), but I keep getting the "outdated revision" notice at the top of the page and when I saved, the system deleted more than just my changes, so I put it back. When this has been fixed, can someone please remove that UQ as invalid. Thanks. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 03:55, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

  • I tried removing it as well earlier, and it stayed gone for a while. It keeps coming back though.--HaloOfTheSun 03:58, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Someone else will have to get it. Even though I'm only editing that one section, the system has my edit deleting more than what I removed and I get no edit conflict message. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 04:00, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Somebody wrote "Why didn't Walt ask more questions to Locke?". Remember UQ are for major mysteries presented. You can easily draw your own conclusions to that question, it is a minor curiosity not a major mystery. Integrated (User / Talk) 03:15, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Mod alert

If a Sysop is watching, this episode is doing what last weeks was where subsequent edits are removing previous ones. A recent edit removed big blocks of text, which I'm sure the editor did not intend, any more than my single section edit was intended to undo the edit before mine and I didn't touch their text. It also appears to be happening on the talk page. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 04:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

  • I was hoping that last week would be the end of that. :( It's so annoying. Bloodbath 87 04:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
    • It's damned annoying. Not only does this bad UQ keep getting replaced, but the synopsis that people are adding are being deleted. Yet any time I try to fix it, I'm getting outdated revision messages. I guess everyone and their uncle is pounding the article. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 04:26, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Agreed. You need to sort this out. If this is what moving to wikia gets you then I judge it a bad move so far.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pennyj (talkcontribs) .
  • Wow..hopefully this gets fixed. All my edits to the Recurring Themes section appear to have been wiped out. Will it be restored? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Billobo (talkcontribs) .
  • Yup, lost big chunks of text as well --LOST-Hunter61 05:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Ditto. Grr.--Tricksterson 05:37, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I just added something and it's been deleted, and it wasn't even edited afterwards. Dman176 05:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
  • For anyone making revisions to Recurring Themes, Literary techniques or Episode References, could you please see my most recent revision first? I spent quite a bit of time on it and am getting frustrated by this page constantly reverting. Billobo 06:17, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Yeah, either something is wrong tonight or someone is purposely reversing all the edits. Stuff I added over an hour ago, which was there a half hour ago, is now gone (3 unanswered ?s, 1 blooper/continuity). I may just try again in the morning because It's getting lae here on the East Coast, but if it gets fixed tonight, can someone look at the history and maybe re-add what I tried to add earlier? Thanks/sorry. Hope you West Coasters have better luck than I'm having tonight.--Jeff 06:23, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
    • No one is purposely removing the edits. I reported a problem, but the issue was closed for reasons of many edits on the new episode. I, however, think it is much more than that because blocks of text are disappearing when they aren't even on the edit screen. I tried twice to remove an invalid UQ by clicking the UQ edit section only, but other blocks of text in other areas of the article disappeared, so I had to revert my changes. Also, whenever I click edit article, "WARNING: You are editing an out-of-date revision of this page. If you save it, any changes made since this revision will be lost." is at the top of the page, regardless of the minutes when no one is changing the article, as can be seen in the history when there are gaps in time where no one edited. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 07:12, 26 February 2009 (UTC) I got some basic synopsis up while it seems to be working, so hopefully it will stay there on the next edit. Update: and no, it didn't stay. The system deleted it with the very next edit. And someone thinks we don't have a problem with the system??? 07:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
  • When is someone going to fix this thing? --Makiwolf 08:06, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I was just about to come on here and ask why someone removed my edit. This move to wikia has been nothing but a mess. I still have to refresh the page 6 or 7 times for it to load. The site is still slow. Pictures hardly load and now this. Im so close to giving up--Anfield Fox|talk|contributions 10:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Same here. I really hate that we're on wikia. But, without enough money to support the site as standalone, what can we do? We'll just have to deal with the horribleness, I guess.--HaloOfTheSun 23:07, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Wow, I wondered why the page was so empty! I can't edit without getting the outdated edit message either. Lostpedia went down last night right before the episode started (2am GMT). It just had a white page. Could it be something to do with that?--Baker1000 10:23, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I cannot find any edit history to restore. Bizarre. -- Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  11:46, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
So is there any update about this? Any idea how long it will be before we can edit it again?--Baker1000 16:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Car accident

Did anyone notice whether or not the gold car involved in Locke's car accident was the famous one from Season 1? I couldn't tell. I know that the producers have said once or twice that there is no conspircy theory with that car, that it was just a reused prop ... but I'm still curious. --Jeff 06:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not that old Pontiac Bonneville. It looks like a prior-generation Chevy Malibu. --Sfoskett 14:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Island Time

There is no confirmation of what year it is for the Ajira airlines survivors, so it should not be listed in the synopsis. Aranworld 06:21, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

If you are adding a year to the synopsis, please explain below how you know what year it is for the Ajira Airlines survivors? Aranworld 06:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

  • I could very well be wrong, but I "think" Ajira 316 crashed (or landed) in the "present" (which would be 2008) based on two factors: 1) Caesar told Locke that Hurley literally vanished from the plane before they arrived on the island, which means that at the very least, Jack, Kate and Hurley teleported off the plane, likely to the 1970s. Ilana and a few other passengers were also using the outrigger boats. 2) During one of the time flashes in "The Little Prince," Sawyer and the others saw the outrigger boats at their own camp which had apparently been recently ransacked by an unknown party. That would make the island time for Locke, Ben, Caesar, Ilana, Lapidus and the others at least around 2005 or later. Dman176 08:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
  • The "present" is definitely mid-2007. We know this because Locke dies shortly after talking to Jack, who is about to make a trip to Sydney and back. In Through the Looking Glass, Jack finds an obituary for Jeremy Bentham in the April 5, 2007 newspaper during his return flight. (The writers also poke fun at us with this, by having Locke look at a KRZR phone and throw it away.) He can't be dead for longer than a week or so. --Parnell409 14:07, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Faraday said it's "either the island is moving through time or we are". It makes more sense that the survivors are moving through time while the island is moving through space. Since the camps and hatches etc all change with each flash, if the whole island was moving through time wouldn't those objects move with it? For example if the island moved from 2004 with the camp built and hatch exploded, to 1954, wouldn't the camp and hatch remain there? If that was the case the island would never change. If its just the survivors moving through time, with each flash they move to a different point in the islands history, which is why sometimes camps are there, sometimes they're not. It also explains why only the survivors see the bright flash. I conclude that the island remains fixed in time but not in space, while the survivors are dislodged in time. seemoe 10:44, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I think the survivors are moving through time. I think it's safe to say the Ajira survivors are in the present, or at the very least a different time period to Jack, Kate and Hurley. The Hydra is abandoned in this episode, which places them some time after we see Jin working for Dharma.--Baker1000 10:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
  • The Orchid's flashes only apply to people that arrived to the Island prior the turn of the wheel but it does not apply to people that moved the wheel (Ben and Locke). So Ilana, Ceasar and the new survivors are probably not going to be affected by the flashes, if they actually continue that is... --Orhan94 16:11, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
    • But then where does that leave Frank? Ilana said the pilot took one of the boats. He's been on the Island before, so by that theory he would have vanished because he never turned the wheel. Unless she meant the co-pilot, if there was one.--Baker1000 21:02, 26 February 2009 (UTC
    • Frank wasn't on the island when the flashes started anymore than Kate,Jack or the rest were. They shouldn't be having any flashes. Locke has experienced flashes because he was on the island when Ben moved the wheel. How Locke's flashes would be different from the others since he left after he turned the wheel...who knows?JEMJEM 22:04, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

But isn't this just our theory? We don't actually know what year or time the Ajira survivors are in. But I guess that until we find evidence to the contrary we might as well say it is 2008? Aranworld 18:46, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Abaddon character connection

Abaddon mentions that he was an orderly when Locke was in the hospital before. -- This seems more like an episode reference rather than a recurring theme. --Makiwolf 06:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

  • The mention as a theme should be totally cut for the theme is character connections, which is all coincidental. This is not a coincidence, Abaddon was purposefully Locke's wheelchair guy. Felix.beaudry 07:27, 26 February 2009 (UTC)felix.beaudry

License Plate of the Tunisian Car that picked Locke up?

Anyone have a screengrab of it? I know it started with a 4. Kajillion 07:02, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

  • The numbers on the license plate read 342 - 6346 seemoe 07:54, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


In Locke's hotel scene, a view of the hotel's outside is seen first. Some of the letters from the hotel's name are burnt out: does anyone have a screen shot to check if an anagram can be made of the remaining letter, or of only the burnt out ones?Felix.beaudry 07:28, 26 February 2009 (UTC)felix.beaudry

  • The sign reads WEST*RFIEL* HOT*L (Westerfield Hotel) and the H is flickering seemoe 07:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Best I can come up with: Westerfield Hotel = "O, The wrestled life" ESachs 07:58, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
      • Or maybe fitting in with him being special: "Worth deletes life" ESachs 08:07, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
        • Worthiest Fell ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 12:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
          • Lost Wheel Rift Crabapple 15:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
            • We First To Hell--Be ess 18:07, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
              • "Oh, Free Will Tested" (all letters), "Free Wil./Dest." (minus h-o-t-e-l) --Travis Seitler 04:00, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Walt's school... "Fieldcroft School"

  • "Child of LOST Force" Tymes 23:12, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The Leader

This is sort of a theory but I don't have enough evidence to put it on the theory page so I'll put it here. Richard Alpert was leader of the others from 1954 or earlier, until he left the island in 1956 to visit Locke and begin the long process of recruiting him. Assuming Widmore is telling the truth, he led the island for 30 years from 1956 to 1986. Richard had already returned sometime in the 70's. and was now second in command. In 1992 after the [Purge], Ben assumed the position of leader. Widmore could not talk to Jacob whereas Ben could. Ben gave Widmore false instructions to move the island thus exiling him. This occurred some time during the 90's (Widmore mentions he protected the island peacefully for more than three decades). Ben suffers the consequences for his actions when he is forced to turn the wheel himself, muttering "I hope you're happy now Jacob". seemoe 07:11, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Maybe, but like you said, it's a very loose theory and it doesn't really lead anywhere.Felix.beaudry 07:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)felix.beaudry
  • I don't believe Richard was ever the leader of the others. Perhaps only a default in between times of not having one. In the episode "Jughead" when Lock meets Richard in 1954, Richard tells Lock "their leaders are chosen by a very specific process and that it starts at a very young age". This implies that Richard is never a leader. Also, if Richard is in fact a normal human, if he were off the island for that long, he would have aged.--Ron ron 21:44, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Alpert is not a normal human Integrated (User / Talk) 07:05, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Flash Back or Off Island

In this Episode Locke is seen on and off the island. Should his life as Jeremy Bentham be considered flashback or off island.

  • Bentham should be a flashback for Locke is seen in the present on the island at the beginning and end of the episode.Felix.beaudry 07:41, 26 February 2009 (UTC)felix.beaudry
  • Also, I think this flashback would have occurred in 2008, not 2007, as Widmore told Locke that the Oceanic 6 had been home for 3 years. (They were rescued on January 7, 2005.) Dman176 07:50, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
    • And the weather was awfully nice in New York, so I'm having a hard time judging the timeline from when we started seeing flashforwards and when Locke landed in Tunisia, because they always say 3 years. Do we know how long Locke was off the island? --Makiwolf 08:05, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I noticed Jeremy Bentham's passport was issued in December 2007. So this must take place either in or after December 2007.--Baker1000 13:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Dates of the Life magazine and Helen's death

The Life magazine is dated April 19, 1954, Helen's death was April 4, 2006. Oh, and the cross streets of Walt's school - 8th ave and west 67th. I was going to post these for their numbers reference (although I'm not sure about Walt's school), but what do you guys think? Losthound 08:21, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I believe the date on the tombstone was April 8, 2006. I've added it numerous times tonight but it keeps getting reverted due to the problems the site it having. With two of the numbers, it's an obvious reference to the numbers. I wouldn't say the Life magazine is a reference to the numbers, because it's an actual issue of the magazine, and I think the importance is the cover story and not April being the 4th month in this case. --Makiwolf 08:47, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, going on that same logic, If you break the months in numbers, which you did with Helen's death date (which technically said April 8, 2006), why wouldn't that same logic apply to the date of the Life mag cover date? Losthound 09:33, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Two numbers 4 and 8 for a made-up date for a fictional character (this was a purposeful concoction by the writers) vs. a real magazine cover dated April 19 about a hydrogen bomb (this more has to do with what was going on in 1954 and has become part of the storyline; if the magazine was dated May 12, they still would have used this issue). --Makiwolf 11:02, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
So it's just coincidence that the issue is dated 4/19/54? That's mighty convenient don't you think? That particular issue happens to be the only month that year that shows pics of an H bomb detonation. By then the US had been testing H bombs for almost 2 years. If you are saying they used it because it shows an H bomb being detonated, then it shouldn't be overlooked that the month it's featured also coincides with one of the numbers. If they had used a cover dated May 12th, then there is no point in bringing it up in the first place. I'm sorry but as crafty as Damon and Carlton are, I find it hard to believe that this was not intentional. Losthound 12:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
It is not a coincidence that it's from 1954 (the time flash back to 1954, the picture in the Lamppost dated 9/22/1954). It is a coincidence that it is dated April. They didn't pick any issue of Life magazine, it was specifically about the Hydrogen bomb, a storyline incorporated into the show that we first saw with Jughead. --Makiwolf 17:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Of course it's just a coincidence. There are 6 'numbers' and the first two 'coincide' with months - April (4) and August (8). A lot of important things in the real world happen during Aprils and Augusts of various years. The fact that a Life mag would have the H-bomb cover story in April is not improbable. There are only 12 months. Odds are 1 in 6 that it would be in either April or August. Those odds aren't that slim.
Yeah, you think this is destiny? This isn't destiny; it's probability. Flashsideways 16:13, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
This is classic Apophenia Crabapple 17:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
  • In regards to the Life magazine, should it be mentioned somewhere that this was what the actual cover was on April 19, 1954? Taking a real world event (like the Red Sox winning the world series) and placing it into the show. --Makiwolf 18:17, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Not sure if this is massive stupidity on my part, but Losthound said "So it's just coincidence that the issue is dated 4/19/54? That's mighty convenient don't you think?"...what do the number 19 and 54 have to do with the "numbers"...i know the year 1954 has been mentioned several times...but it seems like 4/19/54 has absolutely no significance? Thelordnyax 00:04, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

"log in to edit"

I wanted to edit the episode page but it says "log in to edit" on the edit button thing. Why is this? Thanks. --TheEyeland 12:10, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The page has been locked by a SysOp. There are some problems with the page which means it keeps telling you that you are editing an outdated version. This meant previous edits were being reverted accidently. See the section above. It's locked until the problem is fixed.--Baker1000 12:27, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Opening scene of this episode = original season 5 opening scene

According to DarkUFO:[ 12:28, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad they changed it. They kept us guessing if Locke was really dead for 6 episodes. Seems a little silly to show him dead at the end of Season 4, then alive in the very next episode. So the Daniel and Pierre scene is taken from another episode? Maybe was intended as the opening to this one?--Baker1000 13:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
No, I guess they shot this scene for the season premiere, then realized it didn't flow well, wrote the Pierre Chang scene and shot it as an alternative opening scene. They had plenty of time before the season launched, remember.--Nevermore 17:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I believe this episode was initially also meant to be screened before 316 (last weeks episode)

UQ about Widmore's time on-island

"If Widmore was on the island for 30 years, where was Penny? "

  • Widmore only states that his "people" controlled the island peacefully for 30 years. There is no specific reference to the amount of time he spent on island. Correct?Crabapple 15:48, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Widmore says "They're MY people. WE protected the Island peacefully for more than three decades". That implies he was at least 30 years protecting the Island with his people. --Samus88 04:53, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Ben returned to the island

  • Ben recently said that the one who moves the island can never come back to the island again in "There's No Place Like Home Parts 2&3". However he returned to the island. Did he lie about that, or is this a different kind of returning under special circumstances? --Paintbox
    • I think Ben is trying to manipulate his way back on the island by circumventing the rules and tagging along with the O6. It is his presence and the omission of both Walt and Aaron that are responsible for the unpredictable results (Ajira timeflash). I also think this is a forum question more than a discussion point. Crabapple 16:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
      • Maybe that's why Ben had all of his folks building that landing strip on Hydra Island - so Lapidus would be able to land the plane safely! --Sfoskett 20:21, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

We know Lapidus was a good pilot, otherwise his helicopter landing would have been a problem. But I don't think we can assume anything about what Ben says. He may or may not be lying about anything. What we have now is a situation with a lot more 'survivors' of another crash. Who are talking to Locke. What that tells us about the original crash and survivors and their experiences...leaves a lot open. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JEMJEM (talkcontribs) 2009-02-26T17:58:58.

    • When Ben said that he wouldn't be able to return to the Island, either he believed it himself, or he was just trying to subtly make John not want to turn the wheel.Thelordnyax 07:08, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Jack's Beard Growth ... Timeline of His Downfall?

In the season 3 finale, it appeared that Jack had been down and out for quite a lot of time, and he had a well grown beard. In this episode, Jack's beard is not nearly so grown out when he speaks to Locke. Life and "Death of JB" makes it look like not very much time passed between Jack's meeting with Locke and Locke's suicide. However, the Season 3 finale and Jack's beard growth would suggest that months went by between Locke and Jack's meeting and Locke's suicide. Any ideas on the timeline? Aranworld 18:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

At the end of "Through the Looking Glass, Part 2", Jack tells Kate that he has been flying "every Friday", wich suggests he's been doing that for quite some time. Yet when Locke tries to hang himself, Ben tells him that Jack just "bought a ticket", thus implying that it's the first time. (Also, is "bought" the right term if he had that Oceanic Golden Pass?)--Nevermore 19:27, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
I thought he said "booked" not "bought"-- Crabapple 19:50, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Dude, it's Ben, he was lying. Kajillion 00:31, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Ben says "booked" Iburnedthemuffins 03:46, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
It's also unclear how much time elapsed between Locke's admission to Saint Sebastian and his discharge. No? Robert K S (talk) 20:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Or how long Locke was in the hotel, after the hospital, feeling sorry for himself before he decided to end it all. A month fits if you allow for both those things. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 17:36, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Additionally, Locke's scars from the car accident still look fairly fresh when he is about to kill himself. And one could assume that he wrote the note Jack and not to any of the others because the meeting with Jack was recent and still heavy on his mind. The other thing that doesn't add up for me is that when Jack and Kate discuss speaking to Locke/Bentham in "There's No Place Like Home", doesn't Kate tell Jack that it has been about a month since he came to see her? In this episode it appears that Locke's visits to each of the O6 are closer together.Iburnedthemuffins 21:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
In the same episode, Jack tells Ben that Bentham/Locke visited him "about a month ago" but that discussion is over Locke's body. It doesn't seem to make sense in terms of the timeline if Locke was killed by Ben right after Jack and Bentham's encounter and at the same time Jack is just starting to take flights. --LOSTinDC 01:04, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
But it makes perfect sense if we remember that Ben lies, and "about a month ago" fits the timeline better for Jack to grow his beard out, downward spiral even more on drugs and alcohol, while having visions of his father, and fly back and forth hoping to crash. Too much is being put on liar Ben's words, with the assumption that it's the first flight Jack booked, rather than a lie or lie by ommission that it was not the first. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 17:33, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

"Every Friday" probably requires at least three Fridays before it feels natural. So the minimum time between when Jack and Locke met in the hospital and when Jack talked to Kate about the obituary is about a month. I think it fits with Locke's time in the hospital and probably a week or two of despair. Maybe we'll see this all later.--Sfoskett 20:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

  • I am very curious to know the timeline from the date Locke showed up in Tunisia to the date Flight 316 left for Guam. It seems probable that it was late December 2007 until...when?, March 2008? Does/Did the Ajira website give any clues of when 316 departed? --Makiwolf 00:04, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
All the evidence stacks up to about a month passing between Locke waking up in the hospital with Jack and Locke attempting suicide. This accounts for Jack's beard, Jack's (at least) three weeks of Friday flights, and Jack's month ago comment. Ben didn't even have to be lying to make this work. He simply says Jack booked a ticket tonight. And he probably did. Doesn't mean it was the first.--DesmondExMachina 18:23, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Nothing has suggested that the funeral for Bentham took place soon after Locke's death. He was a 'lonely old man', living alone, it is entirely possible he was not discovered for days or even weeks. This would let Jack grow his beard, take more drugs and fly around the world more. Pike123 19:10, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Weeks? Ew. Ever left a piece of meat out for a couple of weeks? At that point, I don't the funeral director would have offered to open the casket. The mortician probably would have opted for cremation. So much for getting back to the Island! Robert K S (talk) 22:17, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
LOL, Ew Robert! :) Pike123, any unattended death has to be examined for possiblity of foul play, and evidently the CSI weren't very good (where's Grissom when you need him?) or Ben was very good at covering his tracks. They would have recorded the date and estimated time of death, which would have been reported in the paper. Even if the laws of decaying flesh were suspended, the newspaper would have reported it as a death that happened weeks ago, instead. Several characters state the day of death in past reference (e.g., Sayid to Hurley stating it was two days ago that he died), therefore the relative date is canon rather than speculation. So the only other option available to us from canon is the one listed above, that there was a passing of about a month between when Locke came to see Jack (which cannot have been when Jack visited Locke in the hospital room!), and Locke being killed by Ben. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 02:34, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Canadian Passport

Is it worth mentioning the fact that Jeremy Bentham's passport was a Canadian one? It seems Lost is still sticking with it theme of "whenever someone talks about Canada it's usually a lie". Just wondering if anyone else thinks that's significant enough to put in the article or anything.--Steelekid 20:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, not sure. I think it is worth noting that Ilana says Locke wasn't on the plane, just like Ethan wasn't on the plane and Ana Lucia said Nathan wasn't on the plane. Both of them said they came from Canada.--Baker1000 20:49, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
    • it's a parallel, just as a lot of things on the flight were supposed to parallel the prior crash, but the survivors discover at some point that these people weren't on the manifest...which they weren' Locke's case because he was a corpse and the others because they were 'others'. However, the fact that Locke is now 'talking' to these people and alive is something that is very interesting. We don't know if he is 'alive'/reincarnated or if he is like Jack's father and some sort of apparition. Of course, there've been a lot of references to reincarnation already, but...that doesn't mean we 'know' what the truth is supposed to be. What any of this has to do with Canada?I don't knowJEMJEM 22:17, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
      • I think they showed him eating a mango to prove that he's really alive. An apparition couldn't eat a mango. Jack's father couldn't help Locke up to get to the wheel because he's an aparition. Locke could eat a mango because he's now really alive again. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by NotAnOther (talkcontribs) 2009-03-04T02:11:21.
      • ok, I didn't see that part yet...I'm seeing the whole thing this week:>) Interesting ...JEMJEM
    • It's a parallel, except Ilana doesn't have a passenger list and was sitting in the first class cabin. How does she know everyone who was coach? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hannaharendt (talkcontribs) 2009-02-28T18:55:46.
      • Do we know Ilana doesn't have a passenger list? In any case, like many things on Lost, she has apparently found out some way, whether we know how or not.JEMJEM 22:18, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
        • Caesar explined that Frank had taken the passenger list when he took off in the canoe with the unnamed woman.--Baker1000 00:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
      • Guess I'll see that tidbit tonight also:>)JEMJEM 16:53, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I believe Nathan said he was from Minnesota. I think it's interesting that it lists Benthem/Locke's birthplace as New York, NY (not sure if it said USA or if country is necessary yet - probably is) so that means either Benthem is meant to have immigrated to Canada or at least one of his parents were. Makes you wonder why Widmore felt the need to make his history complicated - possibly to cover Locke's Americanisms if he met a Canadian or travelled there. Does anyone have a screenshot of the Jeremy Benthem passport? It was dated Dec 2007 if I recall and I thought it looked different from my April 2008 Passport but similar to my 1999 one.--Lucky Day 17:20, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
No, he said Canada. Check out his page. I know for a fact it's Canada because they wanted us to think he wasn't on the plane, hence the name Nathan because it's similar to Ethan. That's 3 out of 3 people who have been accused of not being on one of the planes who apparently come from Canada.--Baker1000 17:37, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget Kate saying she's from Canada way back in "Tabula Rasa", plus Bonnie and Greta's "assignment" in Canada.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  20:11, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Crossrefs and episode links

I don't know if this problem has been noted yet, but for some reason all of crossrefs and episode page links have a line next to the name. It's even like it in the season nav at the top. So now everything reads "episode name|". Any idea what's causing this?--Baker1000 20:46, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

List of Cities

Someone commented that Locke and Abbadon visit cities named for saints or angles. But what about New York City? Mrudegeair 21:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

What was the name of Walt's school? Robert K S (talk) 21:23, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
I didn't note it, but someone above said "Fieldcroft School", which isn't angel or saint related AFAIK. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 17:30, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Should this be under continuity errors?

"In "There's No Place Like Home, Parts 2 & 3" Walt tells Hurley that he was visited by Jeremy Bentham. However, when Locke meets Walt in New York City, he never mentions that he is travelling under the name Jeremy Bentham. Unless there was another off-Island meeting between Walt and Locke, this is a continuity error."

It's very possible that either Ben filled him in or he used his "Walt Powers." He also told Hurley that Locke told him that they were all lying (something Ben might have put him up to to play on Hurley's sympathies) which he also never mentions. I don't think that this is for sure a continuity error. Maybe rephrase it as an unanswered question? ESachs 21:26, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

"He used his Walt Powers" is a theory. Just like all those other "maybe a wizard did it" explanations for discrepancies. Hey, maybe the apple with a 2005 date in a 2001 flashback was a hint! By this logic, there are no continuity errors, since there's always a way to "explain" them. How about this: Jack, with a beard stubble, meets Locke in the hospital. Locke leaves the hospital and tries to kill h imself. He still has the facial wounds from his car accident. Ben tells him that Jack "just "bought a ticket", which implies it's the first time for him. The Ben kills Locke. In "Through the Looking Glass, Part 1", however, bearded Jack tells Kate he has been flying "every Friday", which suggests he's been doing this for quite some time. And then Sayid tells Hurley that "Bentham" just died two days ago. Something there doesn't add up. Do you also have a convoluted explanation for that?--Nevermore 12:20, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
I believe you answered your own question. Locke meets with Jack when Jack has short beard. Locke recovers in the hospital from the car accident while Jack continues his downward spiral of drugs and booze and begins flying back and forth, spurred by what Locke said and the visions of his father. Locke recovers either in or out of the hospital, while for a month ("There's No Place Like Home, Part 2": BEN: When did you speak to him? JACK: (Inhales deeply) About a month ago.) Jack continues flying back and forth, and then Locke attempts suicide/Ben kills him. Ben tells Locke that Jack booked a flight, but at no time did he say or indicate that this was the first flight Jack booked, and even if he had, we all know Ben lies outright or by omission, or stretches the truth, all the time. ("maybe the apple with a 2005 date in a 2001 flashback was a hint!" Or maybe it was a product of time travel flashes, eh?) Not every unexplained thing is a continutity error. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 16:26, 27 February 2009 (UTC) Also, on Ben, notice that he tells Jack in the funeral parlor that the last time he saw Locke was at the greenhouse, then later says he spoke with Locke off the Island, an inconsistency that Jack calls him on, so not one to list on the article). Ben lies, so why is it a shock, or an inconsistency as far as the episode is concerned, that he lied, or stretched the truth, to Locke? All that should be noted in the article is that Ben lied, not listing it as an inconsistency as if it was a mistake in writing. 17:20, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Current blooper/continuity error

"* In "There's No Place Like Home, Part 2", Jack stated that Locke had a) told him Ben was off the island, b) that "some very bad things happened" after Jack left the island, and c) that those bad things were Jack's fault because he left. Locke said none of those things. Unless there was another off-Island meeting between Jack and Locke, this is a continuity error."

This raises a really interesting point, but I'm not sure that it's a blooper/continuity error. It certainly seems that it is more appropriate as an Unanswered Question? Or something else. --LOSTinDC 01:00, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

ALSO: "*In Through the Looking Glass Jack tells Kate that he is flying every Friday across the Pacific and hopes to crash. Ben seems not to know about this when he is visiting Locke. In fact he mentions that Jack bought a ticket, where all the Oceanic Six got a Golden Ticket from the airline."

Is this really a continuity error? Ben says Jack booked a ticket, by which he means booked a flight, golden ticket or no. If anything's a continuity error it's simply that this appears to be the start of Jack's flights on the same night Locke dies, yet Jack finds Locke's obituary what sounds like at least a couple weeks after he began flying.--DesmondExMachina 17:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


How do we know for a fact that it was Tunisia in which Locke landed??? I saw no proof of that in the episode.. meggie ~ Talk & contribs 23:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

  • The screen said "Tunisia" in the lower left hand corner. --LOSTinDC 23:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Right after Locke threw up, I think. --Makiwolf 23:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Oh really? Don't know how I missed that... lol :) Thanks for the clarification. :) meggie ~ Talk & contribs 00:08, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
The car license plate also says Tunisia. --Xbenlinusx 08:44, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


I suggest the text: After turning the frozen wheel, Locke is transported to Tunisia in 2007.

Should be: After turning the frozen wheel, Locke is teletransported to Tunisia in 2007.

--erikire 00:11, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Not a dictionary word. Robert K S (talk) 00:25, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
"Locke beams up to Tunisia."? --Emissary23 06:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
  • How about "...Locke is teleported to..." or "Locke travels to..."? -- Hamdo    [Talk] 17:02, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Teleported would be fine, but not travels. Travel implies convential means. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 17:27, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

"After turning the frozen wheel, Locke wakes up/finds himself in Tunisia in 2007." Also, is it the "frozen wheel" or "donkey wheel" or "Orchid wheel"? It's not freezing there when Locke turns it. --Cobblepot 04:19, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

  • The last issue is being discussed on the Wheel's page. I've come to favor "Wheel," capitalized. It's like "Island;" no one has any doubts about which island.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 03:08, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Timeline of Outrigger canoes

Just an interesting question - is there much to clarify whether the point when 316 crashed (assumption: present day 2008) is before or after the timeflash where Sawyer et al. found the Ajira bottle in one of the outriggers? Integrated (User / Talk) 07:14, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

  • There's a reason for the specific things added on the side on each outrigger. (Well, I don't know how to name them in my native languaje either!) In Prince we saw two canoes, one with a "addon" in just one side and the other one with two. These are the same ones that we saw in The life and death..., so it's safe to assume they're the same.

It means that after the pilot and the unnamed woman took one canoe to the main island, Caesar and the other survivors took these both and followed them. And for the question of why they're shooting at the Islanders6, well, it's sorta like a constant in Lost that frightened people shoot at anything that moves. --Comfortably.Floyd 07:35, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Jsut to make it clear, the new survivors crashed on the Hydra Island and the Losties are Big Island. So, someone took the canoes and travelled there. At this point I'm hesitant to say the new survivors were shooting at Sawyer, Juliet, et al, because the only gun we've seen so far is a sawed off shotgun that Caesar took and not a rifle. We can suspect they are bad people from Walt's dreams though.--Lucky Day 17:19, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

The 316ers will likely find more weapons, the US Army, Dharma and the Others probably brought loads of guns to the island, and thus far we've only seen them visit 1 station, and we're not even sure they've found the main Hydra building. Also, they probably thought the others had stolen teh other outrigger. --Hexhunter -- Deus X Machina 20:16, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Unnecessary Headings

Right now there are two At the Hydra Station headings and two Flashback headings. The first flashback heading, Beneath the Orchid Station should just be made a subheading of the second larger Flashback heading. The first At the Hydra Station island heading should be merged with the one on the bottom and kept at the bottom like the 316 episode page. 316 starts by showing on island, goes to flashback and then goes back to show the rest of the on island stuff just like this episode but its page is simply off island and on island. -- Hamdo    [Talk] 16:54, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

That's because someone arranged it as the episode flowed, rather than the way we write the articles. I have moved the first bit to follow the rest of the section after the flashback, which should resolve the problem. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 17:25, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
This was changed back to having the Hydra segment at the beginning, but I reverted it as that change doesn't follow Lostpedia:Episode_Manual_of_Style where flashbacks should be first. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 09:35, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, it's good the way it is now. -- Hamdo    [Talk] 12:58, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, I've had to correct it yet again, and I've asked the editor not to move it as he has been doing. The EMoS is very clear that the FB should be first. Someone please back me up if he moves it again, because I'm not up for an edit war. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 14:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
And he has disregarded this and moved it once again to the incorrect place. Someone else will need to fix this, please. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 15:11, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


I saw some graffiti on the table where Hurley was drawing his Sphinx and he was talking to Locke. It was in red and said [something] rocks. Has this been seen before? Can someone get a cao? I'm wondering if Dead Charlie put it there. --Lucky Day 17:22, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I have looked and it does say "something rocks" but I really can't make out the first word. I doubt it's important but someone with a High definition version might wanna look? Integrated (User / Talk) 15:47, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


Photographer NYC
Extra blooper

Blooper with extras


After Locke meets with Walt and decides not to invite him back to the Island, as Abaddon is turning Locke's wheelchair back toward the car, a woman with long blonde curly hair, light pants, and an orange-striped top can be seen taking pictures of Walt's school. Clue? Or tourist caught in the shot? ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 19:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Yes, but it won't be very clear. She's in the light pants, over Locke's right shoulder. I would have dismissed her, except the camera seems to stay on her for too long, and Walt just walked in that direction IIRC. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 22:04, 27 February 2009 (UTC).
  • Could just be a random tourist caught in the shot unless the camera zoomed in on her.--Mistertrouble189 22:29, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
That begs the question, then, what she is photographing. Is the building famous? Can anyone place where this was filmed? ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 01:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Maybe she likes architecture =) --Mistertrouble189 20:38, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
  • She's just an extra. You can see her passing by Abaddon when he's helping Locke to get in the car, a few seconds later (shot from the other side of the street - if anyone can post a screen cap, please...). BTW, she's going in the direction of the corner she was taking the picture previously, a continuity error.--Rogerfjmk 21:41, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Ha! I didn't notice that, but looking back over the scene, I also noticed that there are four extras who either ran around the block very quickly (LOL) or it's another blooper, because they walk behind Locke twice with a span of time between the passes, going the same directions both times (see SCs on right). ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 02:10, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes she is an extra, #1 her camera is angled above what would be the AIR above Walt's school, which in New York has lots of tall buildings but in Hawaii there is nothing above that corner for a tourist to photograph other than blue sky. #2 Walt's school is an actual preschool in Hawaii and shouldn't be famous. #3. Yes we see her as an extra in other shots of the street. -- She is just pretending to photograph New York's tall buildings. Tymes 23:40, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
When I assumed it had been filmed in Hawaii, I was just wondering if she was a tourist caught by the camera, or an extra. Thanks for the clarification that she's taking a picture of nothing. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 02:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, she is definitely an extra; an extra extra if you asked me. :) Take a look at the screenshots of all her appearances. The funny thing is that in the first one, the scene begins with her checking her watch and when the boys started to get out of school she is seen turning back to them which means she's been waiting for someone. And suddenly in the next scene she is a tourist taking photographs. —Iimitk 06:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

LOL, well that's the recession for you. They are reusing extras to save money, evidently. If it makes for money spent elsewhere in a better way, I'll ignore it and be happy to do so. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 06:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Unnecessary UQs?

Some of the unanswered questions seem unnecessary. "What is the relationship between Cesar and Ilana?" Seems like the same relationship between Ana Lucia and Eko, or Jack and Kate just after the crash. They are the two people who have taken charge of the survivors. We have no reason to believe their relationship is anything else. "Why didn't Locke attempt to bring Desmond back to the Island?" Well, because he wasn't on the plane. "What was Cesar looking for in the Hydra office?" Maybe he was just snooping. --Emissary23 23:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Concur to some extent. Perhaps if they were better phrased? More leading? "Was there a pre-existing relationship between Caesar and Ilana before Flight 316?", or "Did Caesar have a mission to explore the Hydra island before boarding Flight 316?" –DocH my edits
DocH, leading UQ are to be completely avoided. I agree with Emissary. This question didn't actually pose that many questions, just answered a lot. Integrated (User / Talk) 03:47, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
-We have different uses of leading here. I was being polite, and did not want to say "more intelligent question" or "better constructed question" leading to a potential answer. I do get that "leading" can be suggestive or provocative (potential theorem). –DocH my edits

I concur. "Why were there security cameras in the desert when Locke 'landed' there, but none for Ben who arrived just days earlier?" Isn't this incorrect? When Locke turned the wheel, he ended up 3 years forward in time from when he pushed the wheel. Although in John's frame of reference, Ben had just pushed the wheel a few days ago, Ben ended up in a time 10 months ahead from when he pushed. So in reality, it was two years from the time Ben landed in Tunisia to when Locke shows up. I'm going to go ahead and delete. Zoochdog 18:20, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

This question just failed to take into account that Widmore placed the camera there because Ben came back. Widmore expressed his intention to find the Island (and has been doing so, evidently, all along). Knowing where Ben exited prompts Widmore to place the camera, so the next through (Locke) would be able to provide Widmore with more information when Widmore caught up to whomever came through. And yes, it wasn't just days earlier! ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 02:00, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Another unnecessary UQ: "Why were Aaron and Ji Yeon not included in those that needed to get back to the island?" Ji Yeon was never on the island to begin with. Ji Yeon wasn't on the Oceanic flight, either. And Aaron wasn't on the Oceanic flight. So, no need to bring them as that would not assist the goal of recreating the original Oceanic flight as much as possible. I'm going to delete that, too.Zoochdog 18:20, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, only if you fail to count unborn children as being somewhere. Perhaps that was the poster's point, but I agree it's an unnecesary UQ. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 01:57, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Aaron was called as one of the Oceanic 6, which has always bugged me, as I also did not consider him to be 'on' the flight. But since he was counted as one of the 6, seems he would have been needed to go back.JEMJEM

The point wasn't that the O6 needed to go back, it was that they needed to recreate Flight 815 as closely as possible to get back, maybe Kate is pregnant, and that took the place of Claire being pregnant with Aaron, also Ji Yeon wasn't even conceived at the time of Flight 815. Thelordnyax 06:58, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
      • Well,ok, it wasn't the '6' which was a media creation, it was getting those people back who the island apparently wanted anyway, for some reason yet to be fully determined (if ever). But it's still not clear why it wouldn't want Aaron. JEMJEM 17:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Who says that they weren't on 316? We haven't seen everything on the plane. --SDSpivey 07:52, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The New York Times--can anyone date by this cover?

5x07 New York Times

This New York Times was for sale outside Walt's school. Can anyone date it by the cover? It would be interesting to know if it was supposed to be from the period date, or if it was just from the shooting date. Robert K S (talk) 23:40, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

That looks like Obama and Biden. If it is that means this can't be a period article because it's supposed to be late 2007-Early 2008 in-show. --Hugo815 00:54, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
It is Ted Stevens, not Biden. It is the front page of the October 28, 2008 late edition of the NYT. --Valis2009 04:33, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
I've been doing a little research and this particular scene was filmed on the 29th October 2008. So no hidden clues I'm afraid, it just looks like it was left there for the scene. I suppose it could count for a blooper. Phobia27 00:57, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
"Left there"? You mean put there. :-) This was Hawaii, not NYC. :-) Robert K S (talk) 04:58, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Just wanted to chime in and say that the October 29, 2008 shoot date for this scene, above, jibes with the metadata from this image.  Robert K S   tell me  02:38, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Widmore, exile

Please check the episode again, Widmore says "until I was exiled by HIM". He never confirms that it was Ben who put him in exile, he said ben fooled him into leaving the island. Generally doesn't exile happen from the top down, as in we all have to report to someone. Df1984 01:00, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Widmore says "I was afraid Benjamin might fool you into leaving the Island, like he did with me. I was their leader ... They're not the "Others" to me. They're my people. We protected the island peacefully for more than three decades. But then I was exiled by him... just as you were." If he doesn't mean Benjamin throughout the conversation, the context, and the rest of the sentence "just as you were", doesn't seem to fit. Exile can simple mean to be forced from somewhere without the ability to return or the threat of death if you do return. If Ben forced Widmore, either at gunpoint or by other means, then moved the Island, that would mean Widmore was exiled. It doesn't have to be an order from the top. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 01:42, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Watch it again, Widmore assumes that 'HIM" (Jacob) exiled John, and when John replies that he wasn't exiled. That he chose to leave the island Widmore doesn't understand, implying that he didn't really know what was going on and why John had left the island. He then deduces that John has come to bring the O-6 back. So why did Jacob exile Widmore?

Widemore - "I was afraid Benjamin might fool you into leaving the island, as he did with me. I was their leader." John - "The others?" Widmore - "They're not the other to me, they're my people. We protected the island, peacefully, for more than three decades, but then I was exiled by him, just as you were. John - "No Ben wasn't even there when I left, he was already gone. I wasn't exiled, I chose to leave." Widmore - "Why would you do that John?"

Df1984 02:29, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Definitely he meant Ben. Integrated (User / Talk) 03:19, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Widmore doesn't have a clue until John says something how he ended up there, other than turning the wheel he doesn't know what led up to John doing that. I won't back down on this until an episode says different. Df1984 03:32, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

You are positing that it was actually Jacob who exiled Widmore and not Ben, despite Widmore repeatedly mentioning Ben over and over and never mentioning Jacob, so against all evidence? Integrated (User / Talk) 03:51, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Being exiled and fooled into leaving the island are two different things, and really.. Jacob is still a taboo subject when it comes to the characters. It's not a name they toss around, 'him' has always been a talk around. I'm saying this, perhaps Widmore was exiled by Jacob and he didn't know why (I mean really, to-date when have directions from Jacob ever been made clear to the characters or us the viewers) so Ben being a manipulative S.O.B. saw it as a chance to get of Widmore by tricking him into turning the wheel. It would have been alot easier to Widmore to directly name ben as having exiled him instead of saying 'him'. The sentence structure is just all wrong for it to have been implied being Ben. Df1984 03:59, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

"Definitely he meant Ben" +1. If Jacob exiled Widmore from the Island, Ben getting Widmore to leave wouldn't be much of a trick because he would have had to leave as a result of the exile. Ben tricked Widmore, and as a result, CW found himself exiled. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 06:12, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
The sentence structure was all absolutely 100% clear and intentionally implying Ben. You say "Jacob" isn't a word they toss around, well I can kinda understand that, but the only FEW times Jacob has been referred to as "him" it has been EXPLICIT they were talking about the leader of the Others: Ben in the hatch talking about the leader saying he isn't forgiving, Mikhail saying the man who brought them to the island is a great man - it has never just popped in a sentence without describing who they were talking about. If you want to pick apart every use of the word "him" on the show then feel free (there are a lot of uses of that word) but the rest of us are very clear about what Widmore meant. Integrated (User / Talk) 10:40, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
You have to read this paragraph in conjunction with "The Shape of Things to Come," where Widmore tells Ben that everything Ben has he took from him. The reference is to Ben; however there really isn't any reference to being tricked.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 02:46, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree, and I think this is the reason why I think it's so clearly Ben being referenced. I see Widmore telling Locke (us) he was tricked as a clarification of the point, omitted in what he said to Ben because Ben would be aware of how he got the Island away from Widmore. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 01:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Rousseau's map?

So Caesar finds a photocopy of Daniel's map and a page from Daniel's journal. But do you think we can confirm that the first smaller (folded) map that he sets aside is one of Rousseau's maps? Here's Rousseau's map. Here's the folded map. -- Graft   talk   contributions  01:31, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

It's definitely Rousseau's map. 100% sure. --Hugo815 04:08, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Creature From The Black Lagoon

is it just me or is the creature from the black lagoon reference way too obscure to have been written by someone not involved in the production?? lol we're being watched! --TeejK 02:52, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Star Wars Nod

I'm new here, so not sure where to put this, but there's a nod to Star Wars at the very start when Locke pulls back the blanket he's wearing like a hood, revealing himself. It's how we first meet Obi-Wan, there in that canyon (filmed in Tunisia), and it's also how we later see young Vader and the Emperor.--Mainer122 03:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed that too, and it immediately reminded me of Star Wars. However, in this case it's just speculation unless TPTB confirm it as a SW reference. -- CTS  Talk   Contribs 03:12, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
There was also a Watchmen reference, in that immediately after teleporting, characters throw up. -- Sam McPherson  T  C  E  03:20, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
What are you talking about? Characters teleport frequently and don't throw up in Watchmen?? I think the only time someone throws up is when they go to Mars and can't breath. So out of maybe 100 people who teleport one throws up. That was not a Watchmen nod. Integrated (User / Talk) 10:02, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
I really don't think the hood reveal was original to Star Wars. Robert K S (talk) 06:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Neither do I. Because, contrary to popular belief, Star Wars isn't the only story to have mystical figures wearing hoods, and occasionally taking them off. Michael Lucero * Talk * Contributions
blasphemy! kasajian 19:36, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
In Watchmen, Laurie Juspesczyk (Silk Spectre II) throws up every time she is teleported by Dr. Manhattan, not only when she goes to Mars. --Jaschenb74 18:28, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
I get seasick every time I'm on a boat, but I don't think it's a nod to me either. :P Seriously, I think both are a stretch in thin air. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 23:14, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


Hi, It's the first time I write here, but I come since I was watching 2nd season... Just that I've seen you use to translate the lines in other languages when you can... Well, here Sayid and an unknown worker speak a bit. You can imagine the conversation, but it goes like this:

- Sayid [with a tough accent, but easily understandable]:
Espera, necesito terminar este techo (Wait, I need to finish this roof),
pásame otra viga (give me another beam).
- Someone [calling]:
Oye, Sayid (Listen Sayid),
mira, tienes un visitante (look, you've got a visitor).

And that's all, every other thing you listen there to extras are usual working phrases.

It doesn't add anything, but I hope it helps curious ;) --Metalpotato 19:22, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

  • The main thing I was curious about was when Sayid learned to speak Spanish. He's an Iraqi. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hannaharendt (talkcontribs) 2009-02-28T19:07:17.
    • You're right. It's a commonly-known fact that Iraqis are physically unable to learn Spanish. And apparently French. English and German are another story. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cobblepot (talkcontribs) 2009-02-28T23:13:02.
  • Thanks Metalpotato! I think living in South America surrounded by Spanish speaking people you are bound to pick up some of the language Integrated (User / Talk) 03:58, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
    • I teach spanish to foreigners (in Spain). You are talking about what we call "language bath". You can learn with a metod and just by your ear, like happens like, for example, with music. You act and look really different when you know what you want to say and you just try to "find the way" to say it in a language (translating in your head and taking care of grammar, pronunciation and stuff like that), than someone who already knows how to say something by hearing it to others, but has no real knowledge of the language. To me, Sayid here looks like someone who has been taught, not someone that catches things by ear and repeats them trying to imitate them as close as posible... It could also be simply that Naveen was just acting his way, with no intention, but I think we have seen many examples of both actings, the "taught" and the "catcher", in many movies and series as something easily so I prefer to think that this idea is intentional. I mean that it looks to me that he has been taught some spanish, and it could be anytime in the past;, but it's logic to think that when you are going to a foreign country with people like that, they teach you some things to communicate... It could be that he had been taught earlier too, and that would be the interesting point, because IF Sayid has been really taught, and IF it happened in the past, this is an important fact, that I don't find too strange... --Metalpotato 04:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Locke's Death

  • If Locke came back from the dead by being transported to the island, is it because he's special, or can anyone come back to life that way? Does someone need to be killed off the island in order for the island to bring them back to life? What about close to the island, such as freighter people. If Michael's dead boy washes up ashore, will he just walk away alive? And because of this, can we conclude that Christian Sheppard is alive, and not a ghost? If so, why has he been lurking around through 4 seasons, instead of directly interacting with everyone else.kasajian 19:47, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
    • In The Shape of Things to Come, Ray's body is washed up from the freighter to the beach, however he is certainly dead. It is odd for Locke and Christian, because they both act like humans (e.g. Locke talking to survivors of 316, Christian holding Claire's baby in Season 4) yet we have seen Christian in this supernatural state where it appears he knows everything about the island, and shows no emotion. If he was alive, wouldn't he run up to Jack in White Rabbit when he witnessed his father in the distance? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Phobia27 (talkcontribs) 2009-02-28T20:05:15.
    • Christian's mysterious actions tend to suggest he's a ghost, spirit, or vision but with Locke, he is himself and though we haven't see him touch anyone yet, Ilana does give him the mango which he eats and enjoys so I think he is fully resurrected but I get the feeling that he will only stay that way while on island. -- Hamdo    [Talk] 20:08, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
    • In the Lost: Missing Pieces called 'So It Begins', Christian calls to Vincent. The dog comes up to him and Christian bends down, holds Vincent around the neck and pets him. So it appears he can physically touch things. Annarboral 04:28, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
      • I dissagree that he'll only be alive while on-Island as he still had the use of his legs once he left the Island after being healed originaly
  • I'm not sure if this goes here so feel free to move it. On other pages there have been discussions about whether Locke should have killed himself or whether Ben had to kill him, and comparisons made to Locke as Jesus and Ben as a possible Judas (the one who enables Jesus' sacrifice). The scene reminded me of a book by the spy novelist Robert Ludlum (the Bourne books) called The Gemini Contenders. The plot involves a secret document which claims that Jesus' followers rescued him and another prisoner was crucified in his place. Jesus, in prison, then took his own life. The book leaves open the question of whether Jesus was a man who took his own life in despair at his failure, or the Son of God who knows that He must be the sacrifice. It also makes you wonder whether the sacrifice will accomplish anything if it does not occur on the cross as it should have. Hence it came to my mind during the Locke / Ben scene: Christian told Locke not to trust Ben, that Locke should have moved the Island himself. Should Locke also have taken his own life? Or, suicide being a sin, was Ben supposed to kill Locke, enable the sacrifice? Obviously we don't know yet, but I thought the book was an interesting cultural reference, especially in relation to Locke's own doubts about being "special" and having failed in his mission. But the fact that Locke made it back to the Island (alive again) seems to indicate that his death was as it should have been? Beachnow 00:42, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Pertaining to the following question....which made me ask a question...what was the first time we actually saw Locke back on the Island? It was after Ceaser was retrieved, by Llana, from Ben's old office, stealing the shotgun that ultimately led to his demise. What exactly were Locke's actions before this? When we first see him, he has a blanket over his head on the beach. As we get to know this "Locke" on the Island again, we start to see that certain things are different to say the my question is...what did Locke do that alerted Llana to get Ceasar? And also, if Llana and Bram have prior knowledge of the Island(due to Bram going after Miles, and also the question they ask everyone, which only Richard answered), then why didn't the whole situation with Llana, Bram, and all the other 316'ers go a little differently? Especially, if L & B had a mission, and then found the dead body of a man who they witnessed walk around on the Island. Something smells a little fishy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aerieformyhead (talkcontribs) 2009-05-28T15:50:14.


With the sphinx, it is only mentioned that the word comes from the Greek term "to strangle." Shouldn't the Riddle of the Sphinx also be talked about? Since the answer to the riddle is (basically) life and death, and the title of the episode is "the life and death of Jermeny Bentham", there is a connection there. it's nit-picky, i know. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ashleysue (talkcontribs) 2009-02-28T23:35:42.

Jack and Bentham's conversation didn't match up with what Jack told Ben and Kate

I added a paragraph to "Bloopers and Continuity Errors" explaining the things Jack told Kate and Ben that Bentham said to him, which Bentham didn't actually say to him during his visit with Jack in this episode

EDIT: I think the edit someone made saying that this is only a blooper if Locke and Jack have no more conversations before Locke's death is a good idea. For most anyone watching the episodes in sequence, the missing parts of the conversation will seem like a major oversight, especially since it is implied that Locke dies soon after (as evidenced by the scars on his face still looking fairly fresh). Until we know otherwise, this seems like a big continuity error. DetectiveFork 16:02, 1 March 2009 (UTC)DetectiveFork

I hope that extra bit remains because I think it's important to not second guess that this is an absolute blooper, because we might not have the whole story. As for the rest, we know a month passed, despite the freshness of the cuts on Locke's face. See above conversations for reasoning.
Also, can we please stop having the supposed Locke was breathing after he died "blooper"? Locke is portrayed by a living, breathing actor, and as such, unless they kill Terry, we are going to see some minor breathing, because that's what people do. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 15:40, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Legit blooper. Locke's dead on screen, and dead men don't breathe. By your reasoning we would excuse every blooper. "TV productions are made by real people, and real people make mistakes--not a blooper!" Right... Robert K S (talk) 18:52, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
You've argued a bit of a strawman of my point here about involuntary bodily functions (heartbeat, breathing), widening the scope to all mistakes because they are human, which was not my argument. I merely think we should allow some minor leeway for the living, breathing actors when we see minor breathing and heartbeating through chest, because they are not going to kill the actor to satisfy the pedantic fans who examine closeups as if it should be a real body lying there. If they'd used a dummy chest instead, then people would call it a blooper that it wasn't really Terry's chest. It becomes a lose-lose situation, and diminishes the hard work those people do. I vote for only real mistakes. And, besides, he wasn't visibly breathing anyway. Read on... ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 01:07, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Anybody who uses the word "strawman" automatically loses the debate. Look it up, it's in the rules. :-) Robert K S (talk) 01:54, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Unless it really was a strawman you burned ;) :) ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 01:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I went back and added the quote from the Season 5 premiere where Jack told Ben that Locke said everyone on the island was in danger if they didn't go back. As for Locke being seen obviously breathing after dying, I think this should remain as a blooper. Of course they shouldn't kill the actor, but it is a blooper of editing. Shots of "dead" characters seen breathing are generally considered bloopers, so I think that should be added back to the page. DetectiveFork 16:02, 1 March 2009 (UTC)DetectiveFork

Except in this episode, we only see dead Locke very briefly three times (less than a second each). One was during previously on, the second time right after Ben strangled him. The only movement I saw, and I just rewatched that scene, is where Ben pushes Locke off his leg while they were both on the floor, causing movement in Locke, but not breathing, and the third was the parting shot of Locke hanging after Ben said he'd miss him. The rest of the shots are shadows of Locke hanging. At no time did I see any breathing, but even if I missed it, I'd suggest that Locke wasn't quite dead yet, but rather unconscious from the strangling, and that the hanging finished the job, which covers any odd breathing from the actor, k? ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 16:48, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
It was the scene right after Ben strangled Locke. You saw Locke's eyes roll and then stop, suggesting he was dead. Ben let go, and then the camera shot moved to showing them from above, at which point you could see Locke's stomach moving as Terry O'Quinn breathed. It was noticeable enough to me that I easily saw it and recognized it as a blooper. It's not a big deal, but a blooper nonetheless. I think it's a stretch and a rationalization to say the character was still alive at that point. DetectiveFork 17:07, 1 March 2009 (UTC)DetectiveFork
I'd suggest you watch that scene again. I watched it several times regular speed, and once in slow-mo and he's not visibly breathing there. Locke's eyes do not roll; they go wide, then almost close completely, and he does not breathe, but rather his arm goes down (moving his chest) as Ben moves his knee from beneath Locke's shoulders. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 17:31, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Gaarmyvet, you have no good reason to have just deleted this whole section from Continuity Errors. Your given reason was that it was a different encounter, but there is no evidence in the episode whatsoever that Jack and Locke met again. I believe this section needs to remain, since until we know better, it's a glaring continuity error. Many people who have seen the episode will surely be wondering about it, and you do them a disservice to not address it on this page. And we've covered ourselves by saying that there could have been another encounter that we're just not aware of yet. I'm adding this section back, and please don't start an edit war by deleting it again. DetectiveFork 16:25, 1 March 2009 (UTC)DetectiveFork

I'm in agreement. Discontinuities and plot holes should be noted in the article space, somewhere, at least until they are filled in. Sometimes the right place to note these things is in Unanswered questions, sometimes bloopers, sometimes elsewhere. But to omit the information entirely until the picture becomes more clear, for the sole reason that logic hasn't precluded every possible alternate explanation, isn't doing the article a favor. Robert K S (talk) 19:13, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree this should be addressed but I'm not sure about this being a continuity error (that would be a very big one). What if that was all the talk they had and Jack was lying to the others? Jack was really shaked by hearing about his father and we must remember that before meeting Locke he had already seen Christian in the hospital (Episode 4x10 - Something Special Back Home). What if the "daddy issue" is motivating Jack, it is his secret agenda (maybe not the only reason for wanting to go back but at least a good one)? We know this is something Jack wouldn't admit (since it wouldn't be logical) and maybe he is not telling the whole truth to the others.
Like Robert, I'm not sure where to insert it but for now I think we must keep open the idea of this being a kind of Ywist in the story...--Rogerfjmk 22:44, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm in partial agreement. I do think we should list them somewhere, under trivia perhaps, but to call them out as a continuity error, when there is a possibility they can be resolved in a future episode, isn't right. True continuity errors are when the issue cannot be resolved in the scope of the show, like after the last episode airs and the issue hasn't been properly fixed. As it stands, the conversation where Locke tells Jack those things could yet be shown, so I think the caveat must remain if it is to be listed. I do think moving it to Trivia is the way to go, though. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 01:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Two point here that are being bypassed:
  • Jack told the others that his information came from a conversation when Locke visited him; Locke did not visit Jack in this episode, although Jack visited Locke.
  • Anyone who expects issues to be resolved in one episode is not fully appreciating this series.
--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 02:09, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Amen ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 02:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

(random break)

Okay, further proof that this is not a bloooper, and should actually be removed, is when Kate and Jack argue outside the airport, Kate states she knew Locke was crazy, "but you, you believed him", and Jack answers that he did believe him and talks about how Locke told him that it was the only way to keep Kate and Aaron safe (after which Kate smacks him in the face for saying Aaron's name). Therefore, there has to be at least one more conversation we haven't been shown yet, where (1) Locke visits Jack, (2) Locke tells Jack what Jack repeats to Ben, and (3) Locke tells Jack what Jack repeats to Kate, and most importantly, (4) Locke succeeds in making Jack believe him, even if Jack doesn't let Locke know this fact. This has to happen after the conversation we see in this episode, as it's obviously the first time they've seen each other off the Island, but it has to happen to cover those points. That it hasn't happened yet is not a blooper or CE, so that bit has to be removed from article, or we are setting a precedence where every conversation that is referred to, but not yet shown, can be listed as a "blooper" in the article where it's not show (yet). ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 15:37, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

This isn't just any conversation. This was a crucial conversation that was referenced numerous times by Jack as a major motivation to go back to the island. The way this episode was presented, it looked like Locke met Jack, said none of those things, was completely rebuffed by Jack, and then was killed soon afterwards (see facial scars, cast). You can read between the lines and assume they met again, but it's not obvious that they did. Therefore, I think this point needs to remain, but as an unanswered question. See my post below. DetectiveFork 19:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)DetectiveFork
I see your points in that perhaps we shouldn't call this out as a continuity error just yet. But I also think that to not mention it at all in this article is a huge oversight. It currently is a question a lot of people have, and to leave it out entirely conflicts with the purpose of this wiki to examine these episodes. And to say that it will be addressed in a future episode is an assumption with only circumstantial basis involving a lot "what ifs." This isn't the usual type of question the show raises that is obviously going to be addressed later. I'm therefore going to add this point back, but to the Unanswered Questions section. I think that is a fair compromise. DetectiveFork 18:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)DetectiveFork
UQ is better, because we can't call a conversation that didn't happen yet an error. Also, you are assuming he was killed shortly afterward, when in canon, Jack said Locke came to visit him (not the conversation when Jack went to Locke's hospital bed) a month ago, said when he was standing over Locke's coffin. So there had to be a month between when Locke visited Jack, and when Locke was killed. If you want a blooper, then it's the freshness of the cuts, not the conversation timeline you are inferring from those cuts despite evidence in past canon to the contrary. We don't have to "what if" it will be addressed or not. It either will or it won't be. However, we can know that this conversation was not the one that Jack referenced to Ben and Kate, so it's not a blooper that the things he referenced weren't said in the conversation. Guessing that it was the sole conversation is also a "what if", if you know what I mean. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 01:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
And now JZBux89 deleted the change without explanation. Seriously, what is the resistance here? Do some people want to delete anything that could possibly reference a potentially serious error in the episode? Are we trying to analyze the episode and present valid points, or be apologists for the show's writers? I changed it back, and expect this to go around again...DetectiveFork 19:59, 2 March 2009 (UTC)DetectiveFork

I'm removing it again. It's against policy to ask questions of the form "what will happen next". It could possibly be rephrased better, but the way it's written now it's not a question it's just a huge diatribe delving into way too many specifics.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  20:09, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'll reword it and make it simpler. But honestly, I think this point was just fine under Continuity Errors with the caveat that it could be resolved later. Step back and look at this from the perspective of the viewer. The way it is now, it comes across like an oversight and not an obvious mystery. Go to any Lost forum and look at all the threads about this very topics. That's why I believe strongly that this should be addressed somewhere on the page. To just delete it and ignore it is leaving a big question out of this article and not being truthful.DetectiveFork 20:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)DetectiveFork
Agreed, for all the reasons you just state. I mean, I'm fine with a better worded UQ, but really I think it's a blooper until shown to be otherwise.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  20:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
I've added a shorter description to UQ; feel free to reword it if you have a better way to say it. It seems that this point being in either place rubs some people the wrong way, but the discussion above suggests that more object to it being listed as a continuity error. I'm trying to think about the possibility that we'll see a flashback to Locke and Jack having a second discussion in a later episode. In that case, I think this point would be good under UQ; viewers watching the series in the future might ponder the seeming discrepancy in this episode, but can see in UQ that other viewers noticed the same thing, but that it wasn't necessarily a continuity error.DetectiveFork 20:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)DetectiveFork
My only issue is that it's not a blooper or CE. Look at it this way. Conversation (B) is referenced and repeated (or paraphrased) multiple times to others. Conversation (A) on a similar topic is shown in the course of the show, but (A) doesn't cover everything that was told to those other people about the topic. It is not a blooper when (B) is not shown (yet!) in the show. It only means we need to be patient and wait and see what happens. In no other instance on LP can I think of where an event that has not yet happened is written as a blooper because it didn't happen yet. As an UQ, it's fine, because it's obviously a UQ ("When did Locke visit Jack? When did he tell Jack the things repeated later to Kate, and then Ben?") Everything I mentioned above, from Locke visiting Jack (instead of Jack visiting Locke's hospital bed) to the topics fully covered and convincing Jack (although obviously not told to Locke that he believed him, which is a good reason for Jack's guilt and wanting to kill himself because now he thought his chances to go back were ruined with Locke's death), point to a different conversation than we were shown. Put it under UQ by all means, but let's leave it out of the blooper section please. Bloopers and CE are obvious errors which cannot be corrected or amended. Things that haven't happened yet don't fall into either category. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 01:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I see the logic in that. It should only go in Continuity Errors/Bloopers if we get to the end of the series and it is never addressed. I think the wording now in UQ works well.DetectiveFork 02:35, 3 March 2009 (UTC)DetectiveFork
"if we get to the end of the series and it is never addressed" -- Yes, exactly! Cool. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 02:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Agree. Putting in UQ for now is the best options. And the wording is fine. --Rogerfjmk 02:58, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Any idea why this who question was deleted again without reason? I'm adding it back. AGAIN.DetectiveFork 16:14, 4 March 2009 (UTC)DetectiveFork
I don't know. There was no edit summary to explain the deletion of all three UQs. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 16:20, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Integrated made the change, so perhaps he can explain it before deleting them again. I like that we've had fruitful, friendly discussions about these points, so it's frustrating when someone just wipes out those parts of the article on a whim. :-/ DetectiveFork 16:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC)DetectiveFork
  • For the same reasons, I put Locke and Walt's possible CE under UQ until it can be shown that Walt could not have found out the alias by any other means. I think this is even more tenuous as a CE because Walt might have seen the obit, or one of several other ways he could have found out. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 06:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
    • I don't know that saying Walt could not find out about Locke being JB by any other means is accurate, I was just watching the episode where Locke introduces everyone to the hatch and just as Locke touches Walt in this episode, Walt starts saying "Don't open it" Locke asks "Don't open what?" to which Walt repsponds "Just don't open it" semmingly indicating he knew about the Hatch even though no one told him. Walt seems to have the ability to gather information without acctually being told —The preceding unsigned comment was added by WhyDidntUKnow (talkcontribs) .
      • We didn't say he couldn't; we said until such time as it's proven that he couldn't, it needs to be stated in the article as a UQ rather than an error. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 16:25, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Three Decades

  • How do we interprete Widmore's reference to "...more than three decades?" Four decades? Thirty-one years? The answer will give us some idea of when Widmore was in control. If Ben became the leader soon after the purge, that pushes Widmore's inauguration back to 1952 (four decades) or 1961 (thirty-one years). Widmore did not appear to be in control in 1954. He was also only seventeen. The fact that Richard tells Locke that the leadership selection starts early does not necessarily mean that the leader is installed at a young age. Does Widmore think the period of protection ended when DHARMA arrived in the 1970s? It's messy.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 03:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
  • If Widmore were in control, I doubt Richard would have spoken to him so forcefully in front of everyone (note how he corrects Ben in private). We also can't know that Widmore left at the purge. He said he was tricked into leaving, which could have been any time. I don't think we can interpret the date yet, and should, therefore, just report it as it was stated.---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 03:46, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Latest podcast says we'll get a lot more Widmore elaboration this season, so no need to theorise :) Integrated (User / Talk) 14:01, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
  • "More than three decades," in every instance I can think of, should mean between 31 and 39 years. It doesn't mean more decades than three, but more years than three decades. If it were 40+ years, he would have said "...more than four decades." Richard could have been prepping Widmore for leadership when we saw him in the fifties, but he wasn't in total control. They have said they choose leaders at a very young age. If Widmore was not chosen by that point, I'm sure his prickish attitude would have gotten him more than just a stern tone. He seemed like he at least believed he made the decisions around there. --Cobblepot 14:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Or everyone just knew his nature and Richard was more interested in what Locke had to say than to continue scolding Widmore. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 15:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Anybody know Arabic?

If anybody has some Arabic under their belt, please help out with some of the Bedouin and hospital chatter in The_Life_and_Death_of_Jeremy_Bentham_transcript#Act_2. Thanks! Robert K S (talk) 16:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I posted a translation of the car scene in the transcript talk page. --Hugo815 16:46, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Near the beginning of the episode, Caeser takes out some sort of map from the Hydra similar to the Blast door map. Does anyone have an image for that?Ldude893 14:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Hydra Island Clues

Island wire

Caesar's Find

Dan journal 6

Dan's Journal

  • Appears near the beginning of the episode. Found by Caeser from the Hydra. It's identical to the Blast Door map from season 2. Ldude893 15:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Wait a sec, it's not the map of the island. It's some sort of diagram dealing with time. Ldude893 15:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- It's a photocopy of a page from Daniel's journal. There is a picture on the page, the original had blue ink.--Baker1000 00:11, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Is the really big clue from the journal under Daniel's left hand? The ink from the previous page is prominent in the image on the right. Take the HD image, flip it horizontally, and adjust the contrast to read it. –DocH my edits
What does it say? --Hugo815 05:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Following that, and even using edge enhance and high pass, all I could make out was one word, "speed". The rest seems illegible. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 06:43, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Locke Walks

Locke is able to walk again after he returns to the Island, similarly to what happened after the 815 crash. ("Walkabout")

The island just brought Locke back from the dead! The fact that his leg is no longer broken seems kind of a minor point. Isaac32767 02:14, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Lapidus is the pilot

We are shown Lapidus on Flight 316 as the pilot of the aeroplane. Later, on Hydra Island, Locke is told the pilot took the passenger list and left with a woman. While the woman is not identified, the pilot can only be Frank, as Locke was told THE pilot, not one of the pilots, or the co-pilot, etc. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 08:30, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

How would anyone know one pilot from the other? A commercial plane of that size would have a co-pilot for sure. To the passengers who don't know them personally, I doubt they would distinguih between THE pilot and A co-pilot. Either one would be The Pilot. Lanpesci 09:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
They wouldn't know him personally. However, Locke would have been told A pilot, if more than one were considered the main pilot, rather than THE pilot, meaning Frank. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 09:10, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Telling Locke "a pilot" would be grammatically incorrect. "The Pilot" is identifying the person as the pilot who flew the plane they all were just on. Again, unless he identified himself to the passengers following the crash (which we haven't seen either), pilot, co-pilot, and navigator (if there was one too) would likely all be referred to as "The Pilot" by the other passengers. Saying Frank is "The Pilot", assumes: a)there was no one else in the flight crew, or b)they rest of the flight crew is accounted for. Don't worry, I'm not changing your edit, we'll know soon enough. Its just that I've been chided in the past for "assuming" things that were shown on screen. The rule seemed to be you didn't assume something until it was crystal clear. That still seems to be going on in some edits, while in others (like this one) we are inferring facts based on few statements. We state as fact Lapidus was the pilot, but if I stated Sun was "the woman" I'm sure it would be tossed as assuming too much. And why? Sun isn't with the survivors or with the Jack, Kate, Hurley trio. She is the obvious choice, but if I posted that, it would be taken down until we saw for sure "the woman" was Sun. Same basic assumption for both, but inconsistent in the treatment. I guess I'm too tired to see how the logic here is working..... Lanpesci 09:31, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't feel, however, that it is making an assumption in this instance. I don't disagree with you when we have not been introduced to the character, or the statements made or visuals shown are ify. I just think in this case it's clear cut. The 316 on Hydra group was completely together from the time that the plane crashed until that night when the pilot (singular) and a woman (whomever she is) ran off with an outrigger and the passenger list. Claiming the woman is Sun would be speculation; saying the pilot, a singular pilot that the group met when they were together before he left, isn't speculation. If more than one had been shown and/or mentioned, and Locke was told one of the pilots ran off in the night, it would be guessing to say it was Frank. One pilot, however, can only be the one we were shown, Frank. And just as an aside, he actually did identify himself to the passengers; that's how Jack knew he was flying the plane. I hope my explanation isn't hard to understand. I'm not being critical. I just see it as a clear identification. If it is agreed to be changed here, it needs to be changed elsewhere on LP. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 09:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

You are still assuming there was "one pilot," no co-pilot, or navigator. You also assume the 316ers were together the entire time, yet the episode opens with Caesar alone in the Hydra station and Ilana finding him there by herself. Later injured people are shown to have been moved to the Hydra infirmary. Both these events indicate the 316ers were not together the entire time! When you say claiming Sun as the woman is speculation, you are making my point. We can clearly see Sun isn't with the 316ers at the beach, she isn't in the infirmary, or thrown into the Lagoon. The likely deduction is that she left with the pilot. The writers obviously wanted us to think the two that left were Sun and Frank. Both are the likely candidates, but both require us to assume a few things we don't know for sure (namely there wasn't a co-pilot). It is the same basic leap in both cases, so I'm sorry if I don't see that one is speculation and one is a clear cut fact. I will certainly be chuckling when we see the co-pilot with the 316ers. Lanpesci 10:06, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

These will be my last thoughts on the matter; other opinions will be needed to reach a consensus away from where Frank was placed in the article originally, a decision determined by more than just two people who disagree. My final points are these:
  1. "ILANA: Caesar." "CAESAR: Ilana. What's up?" "ILANA: Roxanne was scouting..." The survivors introduced themselves to each other, as they know each other's names (first names at least). We have to assume this happened after Frank and the woman ran off.
  2. "CAESAR: Nobody recognizes him? ILANA: No. Whoever he is, he didn't come with us. CAESAR: Then how do we know he isn't one of the ones who disappeared? ILANA: He's not. CAESAR: And how do you know? ILANA: Because he wasn't on the plane." Ilana, at least, has been able to determine who was or wasn't in the plane cabin. We find she did this by polling everyone else. No one left on Hydra recognised Locke (which makes a very good case for the woman being Sun, BTW.)
  3. "ILANA: No. They [the outriggers] were already here. There used to be three, but the pilot and some woman took one. Didn't tell anyone, just ran off in the middle of the night. LOCKE: The pilot of the plane that brought you here? ILANA: Yes. That's right." Again, THE pilot of the plane that brought them there, not one of the pilots (said by Ilana, repeat-questioned by Locke, and confirmed by Ilana).
  4. "ILANA: [Turning serious] Nobody remembers you being on the plane." For Ilana to say "nobody", again, she would have had to poll everyone who was available (everyone but Frank and the woman, and obviously Ben, who was in the infirmary or because he lied).
Therefore, in summary, the pilot has to be THE pilot, the one who flew them there, as is in canon. We should not yet state who the woman is, because there is only that one piece of flimsy evidence; however, we have only been shown THE pilot as Frank, there are three ways THE pilot was told to us via the conversation with Ilana and Locke, and so therefore, unless shown or told differently, we have to go with what we were shown and attribute THE pilot = Frank. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 12:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
I appreciate your parsing of the facts - however I've seen the episode plenty to know what the conversations were. I find it interesting that you won't address YOUR assumption there wasn't a co-pilot. Again if and when a co-pilot is shown I wonder if there will be a mea culpa? Since there are theories floating around as to just who the co-pilot might, and since we have yet to confirm "The Pilot" is Frank, just thought this should be reflected for the time being. Yes, I am assuming there was a co-pilot (and I could be wrong) but given the size of the plane and that it is a commercial flight (which would require them by US law to have had a co-pilot), I think that is a safer assumption than the one being made that there was no co-pilot! As was pointed out, Lapidus introduced himself over the intercom to the passengers. Ilana could have easily given his name, especially if they had all the meetings you assume they did before talking to Locke (interesting that your claim the 316ers were all together all the time has been backtracked on......) I suppose my issue is less with this particular point (I've stated all along I believe "The Pilot" is Frank) and more with the issue that a few "ify" statements justify something as canon in one part of an article but not in others and the issue that to suggest a one word change (which was never even made) would encounter such hostility from a few (one) members. I guess "certain" members of this Wiki just have far better insights into assuming what is canon and what isn't. I suppose we really don't need Wiki guidelines after all if certain people have THE GIFT........ Lanpesci 02:34, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Why aren't you giving my words the credit to mean what they were intended to mean? You said "(interesting that your claim the 316ers were all together all the time has been backtracked on......)", but obviously when I said "The 316 on Hydra group was completely together from the time that the plane crashed until that night when the pilot (singular) and a woman (whomever she is) ran off with an outrigger and the passenger list", I was referring to them being together on Hydra Island, as in no one had yet left to go to the main Island. If you choose to read into it that I couldn't tell that some had gone into the station, that is not my problem. I watched the show just like you did, and obviously I too could see where Caesar and Ben (and the other injured extras) were located. What I clearly meant was that no one had left that little island, so Ilana questioning them all about knowing who Locke was wouldn't be difficult as Frank and the woman were the only ones to leave. I gave evidence on why I think what I think. Your rudeness aside, I also said that it would take more than the two of us to settle this matter; that is why I said I wasn't supplying any more evidence. I don't have to address any assumption about a co-pilot, because no assumption comes into play there when no co-pilot was mentioned If there is one, or if you chose to invent him based on real-life knowledge, time will tell. I have no need to go into it, because only the pilot was mentioned. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 04:02, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I'd just add that Sun being 'the woman' seems unlikely to me (though we can't know yet) because both she and Sayid as part of the escaped lost 'should' have been teleported the same as Kate, Jack and Hurley. But not necessarily to the same place. I don't know what their positions in the plane may have to do with 'where' they ended up, but likely that it has some bearing. IMO.That no one left recognized Locke does not mean that the woman would have either, if she had been polled. We don't know who she is, and can't know yet. But I agree that it seems pretty clear that 'the pilot' is Lapidus. We can't be 'sure' of anything but I think the one (that Lapidus is 'the pilot')is very likely, the other (that Sun is 'the woman') is unlikely.-JEMJEM 23:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I disagree, but not enough to include it without more conclusive evidence. A woman could be any woman, because there were obviously more than one, but I strongly feel it is Sun for the reason listed above. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 05:02, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
    • I didn't think 'you' were saying 'the woman' was Sun. ???I'm looking it in another section? In any case, it seems very unlikely it is Sun. She should have been whisked off with the others who were on 815.JEMJEM 19:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Note where I pointed out that the other 316'ers who crashed were polled in some way by Ilana, and therefore, it seems to be evidence (sole piece I could find, so not conclusive) that Sun was not present for this polling because she would certainly know who Locke was, and lying would be unnecessary. Therefore, it stands to reason on this one piece of evidence that it's probably Sun with Frank. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 03:50, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
    • I should add...Sayid is (*SPOILER REMOVED*) unaccounted for also, at this time...not because we know he is missing, he would have been on the manifest, but we haven't seen him...and at this point we hadn't seen him with Jack, Hurley or Kate either. But we aren't assuming he is somehow with the 316 people. Or, no one is bringing it up. The speculation about Sun is only because of dialogue about a woman who left with the pilot. Otherwise, the case of Sun and the case of Sayid are no different.JEMJEM 19:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC) '
  • How can a preview that has been shown on national TV, right after airing this weeks episode, be a spoiler?JEMJEM 21:01, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Out of courtesy to our editors who don't want to know. I'm not one of them by the way; I do watch the previews. It's an issue that was settled long ago.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 21:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Ok, I wasn't looking at this long ago:>)It surprised me that something aired would be a spoiler.JEMJEM 22:24, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

random break

  • If there was a Pilot AND a Co-Pilot, and the Pilot aka Lapidus disappeared in a flash then articles like A and THE could easily be used the describe the remaining person left alone in the cockpit -- the passengers finding only one person in the cock pit would be oblivious to a second pilot and not make a distinction or pluralize pilots and have the same problems people here seem to have -- they are obviously going to assume the ONE person in the cockpit was THE pilot and not think he was a co-pilot as if the pilot would just up and disappear in mid-flight?! Frank is likely to have flashed like Charlotte/Daniel/Miles and Sun/Sayid -- probably after having a long discussion with his co-pilot who after being left alone wasn't difficult to be mistaken for THE PILOT as the only person who walked off the plane in a pilot's uniform. Tymes 20:15, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Only the alive survivors of 815 are flashing. Lapidus wasn't one of them.JEMJEM 21:01, 6 March 2009 (UTC)I should correct this...only people who were on the island when Ben turned the wheel , which doesn't include Lapidus )or Locke, who was 'dead' when 316 went down. But...somehow now I'm wondering...who else on the island was flashing...everyone? we haven't seen if hostiles are, but we definitely know non815, such as Miles and Charlotte and Daniel are? Am I losing my mind, or ...JEMJEM 22:24, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm not saying there isn't a co-pilot. I'm saying that Frank introduced himself as the pilot, and as such, saying "the" pilot is referring to Frank. Saying the co-pilot would be referring to the co-pilot, saying the navigator... well you get the idea. Ilana said the pilot went with a woman, and as such, it has to be Frank. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 03:50, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Enhanced captions: "Frank Lapidus was the pilot of the Ajira flight". ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 15:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Wrong, but all the other members of the "Science Expedition" like Charlotte/Daniel/Miles were flashing, not just the 815 passengers... and so Frank is more than likely to have flashed... And again, if Frank vanished out the cockpit, anybody would assume the other remaining person in the cockpit aka the guy in the pilot uniform with the wings on the hat and the stripes on the shoulder aka the co-pilot was in fact THE pilot even if he was only the co-pilot and even if that person aka passenger aka Ilana was wrong. Just because we know better or because the enhanced captions know better, doesn't correct a passenger's honest and understandable mistaken reference. Tymes 03:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
  • The re-airing with the enhanced captions indicate Frank was the pilot to whom Ilana was referring. Your "more than likely to have flashed" theory does not trump the enhanced captions enforcing the facts we were shown in 316. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 09:13, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Who found Locke's suicide note? - Should this be an unanswered question?

Should this been an unanswered question? Jack was told at the airport that due to security the coffin would be checked. When this note was handed to him on the plane he was told that it was found during the search. It is likely that it was given to Jack incase he did not know it was there. --Vanessa Longman 12:55, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it should. If they're referring to what you're referring to, then it's not an unanswered question. The flight attendant answered it, and the specific "who" isn't important. However, the question was purposely put with the "Who found Locke's body?" question, so I think they were actually wondering who found the suicide note in the first place. As to who found Locke's body, it's unimportant. Ben left it for anyone to find, and it was most likely a neighbor or landlord. As to who found the suicide note first, it's most likely the first person to find his body or the police who investigated his death. That question should really be reworded as "How did Ms. Hawking get Locke's suicide note?" --Cobblepot 13:12, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
I think that is similar to what it originally said, but someone changed it. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 15:57, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Santa Rosa

santa rosa sits in sonoma county, and has a lot of countryside around it. it's wine country. and it's not that big of a city, either, apart from the JC and downtown. the part in the article doesn't make sense, as there are a lot of resorts, spas, and institutions located in the countryside.Bun bun 14:17, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

So a city of 300,000 people covering some 50 square miles isn't that big? Yes there is plenty of countryside in Sonoma County, but not in the city of Santa Rosa itself, which is where the placard placed the institution. There is also countryside in Los Angeles County and in New York County, but not in the actual cities. Once it was put on screen (intentionally by the writers) it became canon that the institute is in the CITY of Santa Rosa, Ca. In doing so, they have created a problem with the location shown (isolated countryside), travel time for Jack, Sayid, and others, and the previously hinted at location of the institute in relation to LA. Lanpesci 02:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
I think the whole idea that it is Santa Rosa, Ca. should be considered a blooper by the post-production staff. In "Because You Left", the news anchor clearly says: "The victim was found shot in his car on the grounds of the Santa Rosa hospital, a private mental health care facility outside Los Angeles." --Makiwolf 00:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
I think you are going to be correct about this. It's the only thing that makes sense in connection with everything else we've been shown thus far (i.e., Jack going by there after work, Sayid and Hurley in the same petrol station as Kate and Aaron, etc.). ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 05:58, 5 March 2009 (UTC) P.S. I corrected your episode reference; it was because you left, not before you left. I hope you don't mind the correction. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 03:55, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
I think the episode means "Santa Rosa, in California." Yes, Santa Rosa is in Los Angeles, but Los Angeles is part of California. --Dr. James (4 8 15 16 23 42) 02:50, March 1, 2010 (UTC)

UQ: Abaddon Dead?

  • He was shot 3 times, once in the each shoulder -- two wounds that probably weren't life threatening and then once in the middle of the chest perhaps below the sternum. This does not show that he was mortally wounded and died. Tymes 19:22, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Transcript: "LOCKE: Protect me? You shot him. You killed Abaddon. BEN: Yes. Yes, I did. But it was only a matter of time before he tried to kill you. I was just trying to get to you, but you drove off and crashed." There's no reason right now to question that statement. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 03:57, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Please don't take offense, but this statement made me chuckle. Don't we now have sufficient evidence to question ANYTHING Ben says? Does LostPedia have the bandwidth for a page devoted to listing out Ben's lies? --Eyeful Tower 21:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Locke, not Ben, said Ben killed Abaddon. If Ben lied, then it could only be about who did the killing, not that Abaddon was dead. Abaddon is dead. RIP. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 09:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I think Abaddon is likely dead. But Locke and Ben's statements are not the strongest pieces of evidence. Locke was not in a position to know if he was dead (only that he was shot), and Ben lies so much that his confirmatory statement can't be given any weight. The secondary shot of Abbadon lying in the street bleeding out was the best evidence, not any quote from the transcript. And I still think it's funny that "Henry! From Minnesota!" gets quoted as evidence.--Eyeful Tower 16:47, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

He's Evil

Is the song "He's Evil" by The Kinks really a reference? I think it's a bit farfetched and think it should be removed from the articles section Cultural references. If what a character says should be a reference then "anything" they say could be a reference to anything... /   Dreamingtree72    talk    contribs   23:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

UQ About Eloise Hawkings

Ben is surprised that Jin is alive. Locke states that he knows what he must do next - he must contact a woman who lives in Los Angeles named Eloise Hawking. At the mention of her name, Ben is visibly startled. Locke asks if Ben knows the woman, and Ben quietly confirms their acquaintance.

  • Ben is extracting information from Locke. He learns that he now has a way to get Sun to come back. The only new info he got about E.H. was that Locke knew who she was and this surprised him. But it is not the reason he killed him. This UQ makes it seem like a cause and effect. Annarboral 03:48, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Second or third episode switch?

I just made an edit to say that this is the second time that they have switched episode order, not the third. I had seen a little argument about this before, so wanted to make sure I cited my source. In the April 6 '09 podcast the producers clarify an earlier point, reassuring us that this is only the second time they have switched the order of the episodes, despited numerous people thinking they had wrongly stated so in a podcast a couple weeks before. They explain that the supposed Glass Ballerina "switch" was not a switch. <hiero>O34:O4-G17-D58-A1</hiero> zholmboe 01:29, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Centricity (in light of The Incident)

Since we found out in The Incident, Parts 1 & 2 that post-Ajira Locke is not actually Locke at all, should we change the centricity of this one to being both about Locke and Jacob's Enemy? Yes, the flashbacks are still Locke's, but all the real-time events are actually of Jacob's Enemy. And, with the way the whole concept of centricity has sort of gone through a transformation this season, both seem about as equally important in determining this. This might just be splitting hairs and not worth sweating over, but it's just a thought.Gefred7112 21:24, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Agreed. I'm changing it now, if anyone disagrees we can talk about it here. Pkpkpk 19:40, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  • No. First, the episode is presented as Locke-centric because if you're watching the episode you have no idea that that isn't Locke. There's no such thing as retroactive centricity. Secondly, Fake-Locke only appears in the episode for a couple minutes. Even if it were a good idea to change the centricity, that wouldn't be enough to justify it.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  19:48, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I believe it's at least worth noting that this is the first episode to devote a centric entirely to someone who is already dead. People note Locke's appearance in flashbacks in The Incident... but that was from Jacob's perspective... this episode on the other hand is all about Locke and takes place after his death. Malion 21:18, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I would argue that this episode is Man-in-Black centric, because his comment about Locke's last thought implies he has all of Locke's memories; he is essentially both Locke and the Man in Black. Therefore the Man in Black is remembering what happened to Locke. Rtozier (talk) 09:29, October 6, 2014 (UTC)

Lock's shoes

When Lock is introduced alive on the island, is he wearing hte same shoes that he was given by Jack?--Joetownroaster 02:07, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


I think I have found an interesting blooper.

When Locke is from The Island, Abbadon or Widmore says: Your friends are 3 years from The Island.

But how could that?

Locke was 6 or 7 days at least on The Island. So if they say it it's in LOST: 2008, but exactly it has to be 2005.

If I could give my meaning this is defintly a blooper!--Station7 19:01, December 21, 2009 (UTC)

Widmore is saying that the Oceanic Six have been off the Island for three years at that point. When Locke turned the wheel, he got transported off the Island to late 2007; the O6 returned in early January 2005. He's just rounding off. -- Graft   talk   contributions  19:21, December 21, 2009 (UTC)

I think I know why the O6 know Bentham's name

  • John told Sayid that his name was Jeremy Bentham. But this is the only time on-screen he gives this name.
  • John never gives this name to Kate, but since we never "see" John and Kate's conversation, it may be implied that John said his fake name to her.
  • John never gives this name to Jack either, but since he's in the hospital, he may have been checked in as "Jeremy Bentham", and Jack could have known about this.

Now, this is listed as blooper:

  • When Locke visits Walt and Hurley, he does not refer to himself as Jeremy Bentham, yet in "There's No Place Like Home, Part 2," BOTH Walt and Hurley seem to know about this alias.

However, checking the episode again, I noticed that when John visits Hurley, he has a name tag (he even removes it when he talks with Mathew). In this name tag it could have been written "Jeremy Bentham", and Hurley could have easily seen this. Now, about Walt. He himself said that in his dreams he saw John. Now, about this "super ability" that the Others claimed that Walt had. Maybe he saw his fake name in dreams also? Or maybe his ability is to read people's minds and he saw Locke's new name in his mind.

What do you say? At least, the Hurley part seems to have sense for me. --Dr. James (4 8 15 16 23 42) 02:34, March 1, 2010 (UTC)

Image change

Main Image needs to be changed. New pic would better symbolize main episode plot which is Lockes Death.

5x07 TheEndOfBentham

Pictogram voting support -- B1G CZYGS  Talk  Contribs  22:52, March 21, 2010 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting oppose (Kdc2 00:32, March 22, 2010 (UTC))

Pictogram reply I thought it was too much of a "spoiler" for you. -- B1G CZYGS  Talk  Contribs  00:50, March 22, 2010 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting oppose Not a great image. Plus the hanging shot is kind of nasty. Spiral77 17:07, March 25, 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting oppose Current image looks better. Though, ideally a picture of Flocke on the beach of Hydra Island would be my first choice. --Celebok 17:29, March 25, 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting oppose --Dretzle 17:35, March 25, 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting oppose --Joshm1995 06:28, March 29, 2010 (UTC)
Pictogram voting oppose I don't think it is a great image. Mhtmghnd 02:38, April 11, 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting oppose I'm removing the dispute template as there seems to be a consensus on this. Menot 02:52, April 15, 2010 (UTC)

Removed John Locke

"This episdoe marks the last time Terry O'Quinn has played the original living John Locke. He has portrayed The Man in Black and John Locke X since." He also played the living John Locke in "The Incident", in a flashback (just like original Locke's appearance in this episode). --Golden Monkey 22:06, May 2, 2010 (UTC)

Archive Footage

John Yerry was noted as appearing uncredited, but I changed it to archive footage. Uncredited is for when a actor actually guest starred without screen credit-such as Fionnula Flanagan in The Lie. Archive is for when someone appears, but only in footage for a previous episode. And his only appearance was in footage taken from "This Place is Death". --Golden Monkey 16:19, June 16, 2010 (UTC)

Previously on Lost

This section is missing from the episode. Can someone please add it to the page? Jackaz15 (talk) 01:43, June 3, 2015 (UTC)

Ad blocker interference detected!

Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers

Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.